I remember something from a large, paperback type book from 1972 that pretty much had the back story of the Stones to that point. In it there was a claim that Mick's distinctive voice came from an accident on a jungle gym when he was a kid. He supposedly bit the tip of his tongue off and that contributed to his unique sound. An old story from a long time ago.

Mick Jagger was No.1. Rock-voice 1964, No 2 1965 (after Dylan) and then No 1 again till you heard the sweet voice of Neil Young...I guess his sinking on the list after 1973....<<<

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
Mick Jagger was No.1. Rock-voice 1964, No 2 1965 (after Dylan) and then No 1 again till you heard the sweet voice of Neil Young...I guess his sinking on the list after 1973....<<<

Really? All downhill since 1973? So who's been the number one rock voice all these years?

Really? All downhill since 1973? So who's been the number one rock voice all these years?

You decide...if it's Jagger it's pretty OK for me...

2 1 2 0

Neil Young? He's good, but in a different league, imo. The competition came essentially from the vocalists in the hard rock/classic rock bands.

Names please. I say Julian Casablancas (The Strokes) and Billy Lunn (The Subways)
as 2 candidates 2011...

2 1 2 0

Today?

Jack White, Brendan Benson, Gary Louris, Mark Olson.

yes ERIC BURDON is still top notch

...I don't know but I remember this very well..that's top notch in my world...





2 1 2 0

Good ol' Ian Astbury is still on top of his game:

I like Kelly Joe Phelps's vocal chops today, but if we are talking of that particular aged set of singers, I'd say Paul Rogers of Bad Co. et al has my vote for still putting out a consistent soulful and satisfying live song. You can't deny Steven Tyler his place either, he's still got it going on, still some great performances left in his worked and wrecked body and soul. peace.

Dan Auerbach from The Black Keys has an incredible voice. Simply stunning how much soul and grit comes from that boy from Ohio.

Chris Robinson still has his chops. Saw two shows at the Fillmore last December and he was fantastic. Has a lot of power and range.

Bowie....while we have not heard from him in quite a while, I am sure he is still sounding great. The Reality tour was phenomenal and he had lost none of his range.

Jagger to me still sounds fantastic. I know a lot of folks here deride his recent singing, but the man sounds fantastic for a almost 70 year old. He seems to be using more diaphragm in his vocals, but still sounds good to me.

McCartney- he is the Dorian Grey of rock. A monster vocalist, still can knock your head in a loop with his whooping and hollering.

I frankly think he's underrated, because he's a great singer with an actor's brain, which enables him to bring certain subtleties to his vocals that other singers don't/can't bring to theirs. Just one quick example: I love Paul McCartney and I love the Beatles and I love ROCKY RACCOON, but Mick "plays an American" better in FARAWAY EYES than Paul plays an American in ROCKY RACCOON.

I think McCartney shows his age a little when singing some of his slower songs, because he has lost a little of the lightness of touch within his voice, but in terms of the more rock 'n' roll type songs, i think he's pretty much still a match for when he was younger. 'Can't Buy Me Love', 'Coming Up', 'Maybe I'm Amazed' etc. still sound great. However, 'Here, There And Everywhere', 'Eleanor Rigby', 'Yesterday' etc. lack the boyish charm from his youth. He's still good, mind, and never embarrassing like Jagger. The Little Richard type scream is still working brilliantly.

Paul Rodgers seems to have been least affected by the ravages of time, as he still seems to have all his vocal faculties intact.

Neil Sedaka is another singer who seems pretty much unravaged by age. He's still higly recognisable from his early sixties recordings.

Bob Dylan's voice, of course, has changed quite considerably over the years, although perhaps he has always been more an interpreter of lyrics, than a singer in a more melodic or conventional sense. He is still a fine interpreter, even though his voice appears to be on its last legs. That's pretty much the difference between Dylan and Jagger, who are both declining in terms of their vocal abilities. One is still a very fine interpreter, while the other appears to have lost the plot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-12 09:51 by Edward Twining.

I have to add Jagger as 2005 years best singer world-wide for his appearance on 'Alfie'....Great singing from Mick there...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Edward Twining

Dylan and Jagger, who are both declining in terms of their vocal abilities. One is still a very fine interpreter, while the other appears to have lost the plot.

.

Well said Edward, I feel similarly here. peace.

Lennon had the best voice during the Beatles and 1970 and 1974.

I've a funny feeling those hardest on Mick here are largely those who are not vocalists themselves (even though that's to whom this thread is directed). Like Eddie Van Halen said, "I can always tell when a musician is praising me, because musicians praise my rhythm playing." Singers are gonna know why Mick's great in subtle ways non-singers don't.

Quote
Loudei
The problem with Mick is not the quality of his voice or notes, its what's underneath it. He can't connect anymore - well at least with myself. For example: Celine Dion has a great voice and what have you, but the energy or feeling she transmits is something dull and without substance - like a hollow ostrich egg. Mick's lost the blues, the soul and his own self for wanting to be up there with the commercial and artificial orbit.

Good post.
Jagger seems to have the physical power still. I was listening to "Following the River" and he reaches higher than maybe ever in a head voice during one of the choruses. But that song is a good example in much other that is not good: for starters the lyrics are so trifling that you can't sing them any other way than generic AOR style. "My cards are on the table, but the drinks are, bla bla.." How many times has he used this kind of generic line lately?
So it is impossible to deliver this with the kind of sleaze, humor, over-the-top accents that he used to. Because he is either singing about nothing, or about something that is just not genuine. (See Super Heavy) For Jagger to try to pawn off Sanskrit as real to his soul is ludicrous.
It comes out in too many facets of his performing that he is trying to please the young generation, that, let's face it: he is out of touch with; he doesn't understand. One could say he under estimates them, AND his real fan base.
It used to be that anyone working with Jagger had to conform to him. Nowadays a Cristina Aguilera e.g will guest on stage; and Jagger gets all jumbled up trying to " get down and sexy" with her, tripping. Instead of doing the Blues, and letting her figure it out.
I have a strong notion, that once Jagger slows down, and accepts his age; doesn't try to act as something he is not anymore - then he will sing way better.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-12 21:26 by Palace Revolution 2000.

To me, Jagger was always and is a much better singer than either Neil Young or Bob Dylan, not to take away from their brilliance as songwriters
and all around performers with their bands.

Quote
Title5Take1
I've a funny feeling those hardest on Mick here are largely those who are not vocalists themselves (even though that's to whom this thread is directed). Like Eddie Van Halen said, "I can always tell when a musician is praising me, because musicians praise my rhythm playing." Singers are gonna know why Mick's great in subtle ways non-singers don't.

You don't need to be a singer yourself to know when someone is or isn't a great vocalist, or delivering the goods, i think your ears alone should suffice. Jagger, for whatever reason, is not the singer he was years ago. He has declined rather considerably in more recent years. Whether that's to do with the natural aging of his voice, or simply a decline in his interpretational skills is open to debate. I believe it's perhaps a little of both. Mick certainly doesn't seem to really compliment the songs anymore, or genuinely attempts to inhabit them, it is almost like he uses different vocal technicalities to get through, but the emotion behind the singing, is sadly long gone.

Guilty

Quote
24FPS
I love Mick's mannerisms, now and then. The nasal quality to his voice gets better with time.

Mick's voice has never had the vulnerability/emotional power of a John Lennon. I think there's always been a slightly distant/pop singer quality to Mick's voice. Mick has always sounded in control. Mick never seems personally involved in a musical performance, or overwhelmed emotionally. I don't think the real Mick has a fragile emotional base to begin with, having grown up in a relatively middle class household with a good, secure family life. I think the appeal of his voice is confidence, with some humor. The darkness in the Stones' music has come from the instrumentation, starting with Brian's rhythm guitar playing and evolving to Bill's emotional bass playing and Keith's later playing. Mick does have emotional songs, but they always seem to have boundaries. Of course no one does lascivious like Mick.

Mick was a brilliant singer in his time, especially when he veered a little more towards a more rock sound, as his voice began to mature in the latter half of the sixties. Personally, i think it's hard to find a really bad vocal performance from Mick at least in a studio setting, throughout the sixties and seventies, and perhaps up to and including 'Tattoo You'. I have always loved the way his voice evolved from the sort of boyish naivety in 64, through the softer psychedelic, hippyish voice of 67, and onto a more typical rock voice in the seventies. The rock voice is perhaps what he's most associated with, but no question, Mick displayed great versitility throughout those early years. The thing which i think strongly refects within the Stones music is they were rarely ever autobiographical within the way they expressed themselves. For me they always epitomized perhaps more a reflection of what was happening socially in a more general sense, than what was happening to themselves on a more personal level. Jagger never had a shortcoming in my opinion vocally within the context of what the Stones were playing, in fact i think he was what made their music so instantly recognisable. However, i take your point on John Lennon. I think John had something few singers have, whatever their genre. You can have technically great soul singers who can really sing their heart out, wonderfully versitile jazz singers, who can dazzle you with their improvisation etc. but John was neither of those things. He hadn't the technical components of those, and yet there was always a purity, a vunerability, and an eloquence within his phrasing which was always truly unique. It's pretty much impossible to ever separate John from his art, because he really did appear to live through his songs. Even those later songs shortly before his death found all those elements still intact. I may find a few of those songs a little too conventially snug for my taste, perhaps, but his vocal application to those songs was as effective as ever. I still think 'Watching The Wheels' alone takes John somewhere few of his contempories are rarely capable of going (including Jagger and McCartney), and to be fair to Jagger the autobiographical nature of the song was never his scene (or the Stones scene) anyway. However, i think John was truly unique, even in the light of Jagger and McCartney, and his songs will be remembered, perhaps, in a more meaningful/purposeful way too.

The Stones.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-11-14 19:07 by Edward Twining.

gregg allman (his voice is magnificent on his new album) and joe cocker are other examples of old guys who still have "it"

You have to dismiss a lot of the critics' opinions about Mick's voice because they probably think Chris Martin is a great vocalist...UGH! Mick is in a category all by himself and you don't need to say " for someone 68 years old". He can deliver a song like few front men in the history of rock. If you're measuring him against a classically trained vocalist, which would be stupid anyway because rock is not opera!! COME ON, you're right in citing ALFIE...a great example of some of Mick's best vocals. " Old Habits Die Hard" is one of my favorites. I think that when Mick gets bored, on a rare occasion, he can put on accents and slur the words or hurry the lyrics as if he just wants to finish....which I'm sure is true! I recall live versions of " Respectable"...but when he wants to deliver a song, like " As Tears Go By", he delivers the goods! I like to compare the early version of that song to the version I heard in 2006. I prefer the 2006 version because he has an understanding of the lyrics that a 22 year old obviously could not have.
I don't understand how someone can claim to love the Stones and hate Mick's voice...
McCartney and Steven Tyler also still have IT for sure. Rod Stewart is a REAL example of a singer who has seen his finest hour and it has passed, I'm sorry to say. I used to love his voice when he was with the Faces!

I agree about Lennon. Up to the end. Some of his most beautiful singing is on "Double Fantasy". In "Beautiful Boy" the way he sings the word 'boy' is incredible.

Double Fantasy... the birth of safe, yuppie lite-rock.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
mickschix
You have to dismiss a lot of the critics' opinions about Mick's voice because they probably think Chris Martin is a great vocalist...UGH! Mick is in a category all by himself and you don't need to say " for someone 68 years old". He can deliver a song like few front men in the history of rock. If you're measuring him against a classically trained vocalist, which would be stupid anyway because rock is not opera!! COME ON, you're right in citing ALFIE...a great example of some of Mick's best vocals. " Old Habits Die Hard" is one of my favorites. I think that when Mick gets bored, on a rare occasion, he can put on accents and slur the words or hurry the lyrics as if he just wants to finish....which I'm sure is true! I recall live versions of " Respectable"...but when he wants to deliver a song, like " As Tears Go By", he delivers the goods! I like to compare the early version of that song to the version I heard in 2006. I prefer the 2006 version because he has an understanding of the lyrics that a 22 year old obviously could not have.
I don't understand how someone can claim to love the Stones and hate Mick's voice...
McCartney and Steven Tyler also still have IT for sure. Rod Stewart is a REAL example of a singer who has seen his finest hour and it has passed, I'm sorry to say. I used to love his voice when he was with the Faces!

you want to kiss mick

Well, are you offering to arrange that, STONES TOD?