Umm, he is not only better than ever. he is the best of all time. no one close!

Quote
Anderson

Quote
mickschix
Anderson, " FLATTER!"??? You've obviously not heard " As Tears Go By" live lately! BETTER! YES, A LOT BETTER, the lyrics are sung with passion and clarity,not spoken or shouted as in the earlier tours of the late 70's and '81 Tour. Ok once in ahile he may shout but when appropriate. He kicks ass on the ballads, and of course I know some here are not fans of " Streets Of Love" or " Worried About You" but Mick's voice, including falsetto ate dead on during these songs! Very good, for a lead singer of any age!

Yes, flatter! Listen to She Was Hot from SAL; he doesn't even try to reach the high notes. ATGB on SAL does not sound convincing to be; it doesn't flow, mind; I did like his singing on Streets Of Love live. Still his screamy rocking giving it all voice is not there anymore, and his voice is definately not as powerful as say, between 1972 and 1990. That's aging, but no excuse for what my ears perceive.

very flat, hes lost a lot of the range he once had. theyve got so many songs though, he shouldnt try to sing the ones that sound the flattest like rocks off, neighbors, she was hot, etc. stick to the safer selections. lack of attitude due to age is a bigger problem though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-15 22:04 by Slick.

I was always a fan of the Rolling Stones because of Keith Richards but these days Mick carries the band live. He is certainly not what he used to be but he is still the best front man in rock and roll and the best ever IMHO. I have nothing but respect for him. Hats off!

JJ Flash, I think you're right. There are c ertain postrs who are here simply to stir things up and I should just not rise to the bait! Dumb blokes! I will try to refrain from responding. It's just a habit by now to defend MY SINGER but it just adds fuel to their stupidity. I can tell you're right because what they whine about seems so insincere. I know we all realize that if Mick sings a phrase a certain way, it's because he wants to not because he CAN'T sing it any other way.

I think we're on to something Debra!

Mick's voice on the ABB CD and in numerous songs in SAL film sounds strong and robust to me.

His voice is often better than some of the songs he keeps on singing when there are others most of us would like to hear more.

Could YOU hold your own on Champagne and Reefer with Buddy Guy?

Quote
stonesrule

Could YOU hold your own on Champagne and Reefer with Buddy Guy?

Buudy Guy could have blown Pavarotti off the stage with his performance in SAL. Woof!

At least Mick is not 'beakless' like those chickens we eat.

then he shouldnt do that rooster dance, lol

Jagger's voice is certainly very flat these days, and he's certainly lost the raw energy and range he once had. Another problem is as his voice has got lower and flatter so his vocal mannerisms have become more prominant and his exaggerated, overaccentuated voice can get truly irritating at times - to a point of being embarrassing in my opinion. The first time i started to notice this tendancy slightly was on the Voodoo Lounge album, especially on the track New Faces, however, since then this tendancy has increased 100 fold. I think it's most definitely age because his speaking voice has also become a lot lower in more recent years. Listening to him speak in his youth (and even up to the mid eighties) and now there's a huge change - that has to reflect in his singing also. I don't think he's really sung at his best since the 78 tour, where he still retained that wonderful raw vitality that was so easily identifiable to those less acquainted as Mick Jaggers 'trademark' vocals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-16 19:36 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining
I don't think he's really sung at his best since the 78 tour, where he still retained that wonderful raw vitality that was so easily identifiable to those less acquainted as Mick Jaggers 'trademark' vocals.

I agree 100% percent. Edward, you 'hear it'. You 'get it'. It's not whether he 'can sing' or not; it's that fact that he doesnt' apply that awesome, classic Jagger 'sound'. He did it in Webster Hall in 1993 - listen to that concert versus the Voodoo Lounge Tour (where I've not heard a single song from a single show where he does it).

He used it during Steel Wheels here and there, used it during B2Bs Out Of Control (which really sold that performance for me) and in the Olympia Show in 2003 - he rolled it out for many songs - which again - truly sells the songs for me.

2005-2007, that awesome Jagger voice is MIA.
Will we ever hear it again???

I still think he's the King of Frontmen, btw. There's a lot more to him than the growl, he still does blues and ballads with grace and taste.

[thepowergoats.com]

When thet were at MSG for ABB doing SFTD he intro'd his vocal with yowls that startled me because he had captured what he did on BB. However at Giants Stadium Atlantic City and the Beacon he was anemic in comparison. So he can docertain things but chooses not to presumably to save his vocal cords that just don't have the elasticity that they used to have. But in SAl he often chooses to cut the ends of vocal lines short. This tends to make some of the vocals sound clipped and a little odd (ATG. I'm not sure but I thought they played some of the songs relatively fast and I think this can hurt his vocals too.But Champagne and Reefer and LC sounded pretty fine to me.

jamesfdouglas, Mick also sang well at Live Aid - his voice brimming with vitality.

sorry, but i don´t understand some of you here. Everybody is entitled to have an opinion, and if someone does not like Mick´s voice anymore, fine.
but some of you are somehow angry at him, that he does not sound anymore like he used to.
But i think it is just a natural thing, every voice changes. And many reviews of the last tour said something like: Mick was good, as usual.
though he had some voice-problems during the tour, and he had to be careful about it, or save it, i think you call it. he does not save his voice to annoy us, he does it, because otherwise he would probably ruin his voice. unfortunately he had problems also at the Beacon-show, and this is now captured on film.

as someone said it somewhere here about Keith, i think it also works for Mick: he has written so many great songs in the last 40 years, that every nasal singing is forgiven.

and i prefer a Mick singing like he does it now (live, because in the studio he still sounds good for me, different, but good), than no Mick at all.

Quote
Edward Twining
jamesfdouglas, Mick also sang well at Live Aid - his voice brimming with vitality.

Agreed.

Jagger did sing superbly at Live Aid.

Edward Twining wrote: "Jagger's voice is certainly very flat these days"

Not Jagger i heard on ABB tour.

oh yeah! live aid was a wonderful performance from mick, it really looked as though he can cut it without the stones at that show, then thank goodness he came back to earth

Yes...it was a great performance. The songs...State of Shock and the She's The Boss version of Lonely At The Top are horrible, and so was the band. Miss You sounded awful as well - despite of it not being an awful song to begin with.
But Jagger was great



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-17 00:14 by Erik_Snow.

yes thats what i meant, jagger was great, not the band or the songs, god no

Guess he wasn't at the 25 ABB shows that I was at. I can just picture it - instead of enjoying the sho, tilting one's head to one side to attempt to decipher specifc notes and tones(get a life)

I ABSOLUTELY agree on the Live Aid thing.
And that is EXACTLY the voice I'm talking about. The fantastic only-Mick-can-do-although-many-try-but-just-don't-reach-it-admittedly-including-me voice.

I didn't include it in the list because that show pre-dates him regularily cheaping out on his voice.

(He used this awesome voice in that 1992 gig w/ Gary Moore too)

[thepowergoats.com]

ilikemick, it's just noticing the difference between coasting through the songs on auto pilot and singing with genuine passion, that's all, which appears something Mick's rarely done (at least from what i've heard) for quite a while. Listen to his Live Aid performance and then the Shine A Light CD and spot the difference.

Quote
Edward Twining
Jagger's voice is certainly very flat these days, and he's certainly lost the raw energy and range he once had. Another problem is as his voice has got lower and flatter so his vocal mannerisms have become more prominant and his exaggerated, overaccentuated voice can get truly irritating at times - to a point of being embarrassing in my opinion. The first time i started to notice this tendancy slightly was on the Voodoo Lounge album, especially on the track New Faces, however, since then this tendancy has increased 100 fold. I think it's most definitely age because his speaking voice has also become a lot lower in more recent years. Listening to him speak in his youth (and even up to the mid eighties) and now there's a huge change - that has to reflect in his singing also. I don't think he's really sung at his best since the 78 tour, where he still retained that wonderful raw vitality that was so easily identifiable to those less acquainted as Mick Jaggers 'trademark' vocals.

Well put! Couldn't agree more!

hell yeah , hes the best of all time.
1st reach 65 years old
2nd rock for 45 years with a band
3rd make more than 140 shows in 2 years at that age
4th sing like him and dance , run , have the passion , move millions.
5th dont die before completing the 4 points.

then anyone could make it better than jagger and call him he wasnt the one he used to be , hes the greatest ever , dont you see what he does ??
maybe he doesnt look as 30 years ago , but hey , hes 65 , who would do it like him up there on stage?

NO ONE

remember most performers barely walk around onstage at 65 and forget lots of words too!

His voice IS lower - and more flat. But that's no excuse IMO. He should use it to his advantage by singing numbers that'll fit his voice. More raw, bluesy songs will do him good. Sympathy sounds dreadful these days, but I'd like to hear Child Of The Moon, for instance.

He's still a great singer.

Quote
mexicostone
hell yeah , hes the best of all time.
1st reach 65 years old
2nd rock for 45 years with a band
3rd make more than 140 shows in 2 years at that age
4th sing like him and dance , run , have the passion , move millions.
5th dont die before completing the 4 points.

then anyone could make it better than jagger and call him he wasnt the one he used to be , hes the greatest ever , dont you see what he does ??
maybe he doesnt look as 30 years ago , but hey , hes 65 , who would do it like him up there on stage?

NO ONE

OK, so he's fit and healthy (and still on the planet), but can the bugger still actually SING?

Me says he lost it during the last two years.

It's totally inexcusable that Mick, Keith , Ronnie and Charlie have allowed themselves to get older.
What on earth were they thinking about ! Disgraceful behaviour.

Of course Jagger is not what he used to be, he is 65. He´s still very good of course. It´s just he refuses to show his age. Look at the lyrics on ABB, ridiculous.

"he has that peter pan syndrome. I don´t see the point in trying to be 25 when you´re not. all he needs to do is to get to that f-ng mike and sing"
-Keith Richards, many years ago

Can't say that I disagree with Keith's typically mischevious comments myself...but then again Mick is widely admired for that very facet of his persona and performance. Rock and a hard place ?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-18 09:59 by Spud.