Something to think about....

A singers voice is just one ingredient in a song.
It's no different than a guitar, drum or any other instrument.
Technically...it doesn't matter if the guitar or drum playing is
perfect...or technically correct.....same with vocals....
it's all about the final sound...the song.

I don't think anyone (not even Mick) will claim that he's
a top-notch singer (technically) but he has a unique voice
which is great for rock & roll (& reggae IMO). His voice (obviously)
adds a GREAT DEAL to Stones' music and vice versa. It's a magical
combination.

If you are strictly comparing studio recordings of Mick's singing to
his live performances...........why bother? I don't want live shows
to sound just like the record anyway.

If you went to see a great painter recreate a masterpiece....and
his brush-stroke wasn't exactly like the original...would you get
upset?


IORR............but I like it!

I just saw the Stones in Paris, had a great seat but made a point of walking to several different parts of the Stade de France and Mick's voice sounded great in some areas of the 80,000 seat stadium and less great in others...
Think any problem is more about mixing sound for those giant speakers than it is to do with quality of Jagger's voice

I made a point of taking the metro back to Paris after the gig to hear the comments from the audience. EVERYONE was ecstatic about the Stones including Mick's voice and performance.