I've seen them 29 times. Best shows were Vegas '97 and Stlouis '97.

slybri74 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh boy he sang "schooooled". Big whoop.
> Listen to this. Absolutely horrid.
>


> "Hootbreaker"
>

"Hope
> you Gepped my name"

yeh it's a big whoop...it's a whoop and a half baby; it's a double whoop...haaa mick goes al green at the drop of a hat...
(especially unexpectedly and extemporaneously on a song he's sung a zillion times, gettin' into THIS one, leaning in on it and re-creatin' it for REAL in the holy present...)
not a whoop fer u? ok by me...
i'll read your other posts in hopes of some interesting criticism, but posting these retaliatory short clips prove nothing to me...esepecially with the mocking phrasing comment...some of his best singing in different eras as him comin' up to the mike half exhausted and sweat drenched to pound out...'jumpn jaa flaaa' haaa it's classic...then back again for...'jumn jaa flaaa'...
jmpn jaa flaa izza gehgehgeh alright whoooo
lol, and it's totally perfect...

Mick is 63...he's gotta preserve his voice. He can't let loose like it's 1972 without risking blowing out his voice, which could incapacitate him for several shows.

I'd love to hear him howl and growl and screech in that high-pitched voice that cracks with emotion, but he's gotta play it safe.

Unfortunately he does sound a bit flat and one-dimensional at times, but by NO MEANS does he suck. He's the @#$%& man as far as I'm concerned, and this is coming from a Keith fan. Mick is a superhuman who is carrying the band right now.

i can hear turd on the run and many other other reasoned criticisms here by folks on this thread, but even slybri's thread title, nothing personal sly, but to me it seems you come out guns blazing angry...because whatever criticisms of whatever performances...(a zillion recorded performances from each era night after night after decade after quarter century etc...) to lead a thread stating he's flat out "terrible" is so over the top it's hard for me to take your criticism too seriously...it's almost like a personal agenda, like you've been insulted and are angered...like you're insulted personally or something...you've seen em 30 times but in the last ten years mick now sucks...has somehow turned certifiably "terrible"...
licks tour was magnificent...vocals blew minds...there's easy proof of entire unedited shows...

hey if it's ticket prices or venues or 8 of the 9 bozos on the bus other than the stones i'll be happy to throw some shit down, and purty quick...but yeh mick can sing...jeezum crow he can sing. scrumptious in the studio hot as a pistol live...
kinda funny, i saw 'em in '72 twice which was purty eye opening...and in '75 a bit less so, and '89, where i actually walked out on them...so i'm not afraid of criticism nor do i jump on people who make 'em...but you're raving about bridges to babylon, a relative snoozefest compared to both '72, lots of '78 and '81, certainly most of 2002 and 2003...(imo) and now he's just so "terrible' that you seem on a pissed off campaign...
i have seen really great engaging stuff from 95 so i'd be in agreement with slybri's assessement on a lot of those shows...which makes it even more confusing for me...
they used to be more consistent? yes, for a lot of reasons, many of them NOTHING at all to do with age...they were ALWAYS capable of being uneven on a show to show basis...yes i've heard sucky vocals on this song or that over the years, absolutely...they piss where they want...they do the best they can, and when they don't we nail 'em...(and too bad on those 'ol girls if they don't like it...imo)
but to lead with mick's live singing is "terrible"?? hmmmm....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 05:02 by Beelyboy.

I think it has a lot to do with age.

Mick hasn't lost his growl because he's chosen to lose it - he's lost it because he can no longer sing like that. Admittedly he sounds better in the studio (less flat) but when i listen to an album like Tattoo You (when his voice was thicker) i think his voice now (even in the studio) has declined considerably. His voice tends to irritate as he tends to sing a lot lower and overaccentuate the words. This isn't always obvious on a first listen but after a while it gets on my nerves.

Live he is predominantly flat and lacking vitality although the tempos on the slower songs partly disguise this fact. You have to ask yourself if you were introduced to these songs for the very first time would you be very impressed and could you weed out the classic numbers. The resounding answer in my opinion is no.

I will take Mick's cheerleading, out of tune, hollaring over some staid Pavoratti crap ANYDAY!!! And if you're reading this, I'll bet you would too.
As a long time pro musician myself, I'll tell you he's a very in-tune singer.
He has his slack thing, no doubt. Not digging inside those melodies, not delivering the smoldering soul he puts into the recording sessions. But live he has to pump up these enormous crowds, it takes cheerleading, at least that's how he does it. Really he has since 75, where have you been? Were you talking during class?

you said...

> Whats's
> the point of even playing them if he can't sing
> them anymore??

Please get a life. Did somebody miss their breakfast?
At 70 the voice has a different quality. Appreciate it for what it is,
don't expect it to be what it was. Wait 'til they are 80+.

Realize you are witnessing a mythical drama of the aging performer, and lets enjoy this time with them on the stage for what it is.

Not too many tours left now. And they still outperform bands 40years their junior!

Did you get your ya yas out?

Ringo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Lynn wrote:
>
> "Jagger is fantastic all the time except for some
> 75 & more 76 stuff."
>
> Some of my all time favourites are from 75 and 76,
> and that's partly because Mick is so good:
>
> Heartbreaker - LA, July 10, 1975
> IYCRM-GOOMC - LA, July 13, 1975
> Hand Of Fate - Knebworth, 1976
>
> E.g. Hand Of Fate is Stones' dirty & decadent
> style at its best. What a band!


Yes, thank you Ringo.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMO 1975/76 were the worst Mick's years ever. Just
> listen to LYL album. Today, if Keith does play out
> of tune during one song, many "nostalgic" fans who
> idolize the past are saying "what a shame". The
> same guys, talking about 1975/76 out of tune
> Mick's singing (not always, of course but very
> often) are sayning "even so, he was rocking"... So
> what? The Stones always are rocking...


No no no. I dont care if he plays out of tune, besides he didnt play out of tune in the 70s. Mick's singing in 1976 isnt his best but that was one year and it was part oif his style that year. It suited some of their then new material like Hot Stuff and Hey Negrita. He was hot on stage. Keith was hot. The band was hot. Some numbers were bad but most great and some are so good it's impossible to top. Listen to Hot Stuff from Knebworth, Keith is totally i the fog and Mick looks like his one step from OD on coke (he had an OD that year). Still they make a hell of a gig. I like that danger and I lke the fact you dont know what will happen. The shows this year werent hot in the same way, Mick did hjis routine, not bad but nothing new either, Ronnie didnt add much and Keith seemed insecure.

totally bullshit - Jagger is god

But if the Stones partook in the same routine ie: drugs, as you suggest in the fabled 70's they'd all be dead by now?
It was a long long time ago.
Compare Jagger with say Macca or Daltry and you've got a performer who's adapted to his age and is still regarded as one of the all time greats, even after 40 odd years....

You're sooo right Ablett

'Doo doo doo Heartbreaker'

OK! Mick certainly does not sing as great live these days as he used to. His voice is thinner, he very seldom growls, and he sings quite flat. He obviously would not mind a growl in his live singing, since he overdubs the official live releases, adding a rougher more screamy kind of vocal. With that in mind, he himself cannot be pleased with his live singing these days!? Still, to call it terrible, is of course a provoking exaggeration, which might have been the thread starter's intention. It certainly resulted in quite a few stupid, funny responses.

Mick has never been a brilliant vocalist. But he's a so called "stage-sod". He really is able to work the crowd.

As far as I remember they've never claimed to be execellent musicians but TOGETHER they ARE the Stones.

At least Mick together with Charlie is the stable factor who keep it going. Though to my taste too much business. But that's a different story.

Just listen to STREETS OF LOVE live. MICK IS GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This has got to be the all time most redeculous post!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-20 17:04 by My Stones.

rknuth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mick has never been a brilliant vocalist.

Actually I think he is and was. It's the phrasings, the sounds, moaning, growling, shouting, falsetto, bluesy notes, the way he ad libbed in songs like IYCRM in 1975 etc. His laughter just before the mid section on Midnight rambler. The way he sang the refrain before the sax solo on Brown Sugar TOTP 1971. When I moan about him today, that's what I lack and would love to hear. OK, he has to tour, he's old and he cant use his voice like that but maybe now and then on some club gigs, that would be great.

I found the title of this thread very insulting...was that meant to be??

ablett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But if the Stones partook in the same routine ie:
> drugs, as you suggest in the fabled 70's they'd
> all be dead by now?
> It was a long long time ago.
> Compare Jagger with say Macca or Daltry and you've
> got a performer who's adapted to his age and is
> still regarded as one of the all time greats, even
> after 40 odd years....

I'd actually go the complete opposite and say McCartney and Daltrey can still sing with a great deal of vitality. McCartney can still do his Little Richard type scream as well as his more traditional ballad type vocals. Daltrey's voice is a little heavier with age yet he's still sounding lively with an edge to his vocals. Neither sing as flat and on autopilot as much as Jagger.

I did not mean to say Mick is a bad performer. I was stating that I was disappointed in his vocal efforts lately. As far as macca and Daltrey, Daltrey's voice is shot, but he still tries to sing the vocals the same way he originally recorded them I commend him for that. Macca's voice is still prerry good, but his songs are much different than the Who or Stones. He too also tries to sing the songs as origianlly intended. Mick is a BIG fan of the autopilot.

how many of you crackpots saying micks voice isn't what it used to be have actually been to a stones show in the last 5 years.i would say probably none of you.a friggin ridiculous thread,iv'e seen every tour since 78 and micks voice today is by far better then ever.

john scialfa

backstreetboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen every
> tour since 78 and micks voice today is by far
> better then ever.


Um...I dunno about that. The quailty and personality of his voice has greatly changed...more noticeably since Licks. Even the middle of B2B to No Security...things were already changing.

Mick these days has something like a nasally sound to his voice that at times, to be frank...sounds like a duck quacking. During the Austin DVD...when Under My Thumb begins and Mick enters. He starts grooving and says "U huh "U huh!" a very awkward and embarissing sound.

I can't even listen to "Honky Tonk Woman" recently because that is where Mick totally goes off the board with his voice. He exaggerates every vowel and says certain words completely ridiculously.

slybri74 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True. Then let Bernard do lead, and Mick can do
> backing vocals and dance all he wants.

Get a life!

Mick might not be a technically brilliant singer, but he's a vocal chameleon whose voice simply oozes charisma.

Think of how many different styles he's made his own over the years:

Blues, soul, R&B, punk, disco, hard rock, reggae, country, bluegrass, folk, and onn and on...not always successfully, but still and all, very impressive.

Justin hits the nail on the head on Mick's voice change. It started happening after the US leg of B2B. By the time NS tour started his voice was EXTREMELY THIN! Moonlight Mile was awful, and songs loke OOC and SOM which were growled out in '97 were spoken during the NS tour. He did recover for Licks, but he sounds very thin vocally during the Bang tour.

I've heard Mick go into the high ranges of his voice once or twice this tour.

slybri74 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've seen them 29 times. Best shows were Vegas
> '97 and Stlouis '97.


what, behind your computer you friggin' moron!

Grow up!

Cum on
The stones are the best you can get.
Even Mick is the best.
We dont need sopranos or that stupid stuff.
WE WANNA ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!

wipeacdc@hotmail.com
never too old or young to rocknroll!!!!!!

Bridges To Babylon was the first time i noticed a significant change in Mick's voice. A song like Flip The Switch he would have tore into years earlier with real raw energy yet here he sounds rather flat and a little heavy.

There's no way anyone can say he sings better than ever - even on the much criticised 1975-6 tour it's more a case of Mick being a little sloppy and not always committed to his craft not a case of Mick is no longer capable of delivering any more. Anyway in those days whatever the faults his performance still exemplified rock 'n' roll's raw energy. There's precious little to be found now.
This live version of It's Only Rock 'n' roll from 1975 beats any of his performances from today for sheer raw vitality irrespective of technical excellence.

Agreed Ed 100%

Mick's live singing is terrible now??????
WTF??? He sounds GREAT!!!!!!
I can't stand it when Stones fans bitch. If you don't like the singing, don't listen to 'em. Simple.