First, I love the Rolling Stones and Mick’s singing style. I am just saying, objectively, Mick Jagger’s vocals are interesting but not great by vocal standards. Heard “Beast of Burden” today and his vocal style was everything except musical. Poetic and emotive but not well tuned or toned.
shareI know what you mean, but just like Anthony Keidis in RHCP can't sing either, they're the best person for the job.
They have personality which transcends, unlike what's popular today in pop where they use computers to fix vocals, ending up sounding robotic.
The Rolling Stones to me were like a good pub band, not much more than that. Loud and jumpy. I have a theory that a lot of their success was down to being the alternative to the Beatles for people who wanted to be "cooler" and "edgier" than Beatles fans.
Exactly.
shareYeah, 60 years of sustained success because some people in the 60’s wanted to be “edgy”. Do some of you even read the things you write?
The Stones are brilliant. The Stones are legendary. Sorry you’re not a fan, but they are infinitely more than just a “good pub band.”
Exile on Main St. is an album for the ages!
Exile on Main St. is an album for the ages!
Yeah, 60 years of sustained success because some people in the 60’s wanted to be “edgy”. Do some of you even read the things you write?
sut6432 were you one of those people from the sixties ?
Nope. I’m 38 years old. But I know a legendary Rock N’ Roll band when I see one.
shareIn other words you don't know what you're talking about.
So only someone from the 60’s can determine whether The Rolling Stones is a great band or not?
You are clearly full of shit and have no clue what you’re talking about…in other words.
You say you think the Rolling Stones were a great band where I say they were just a good band. One person's opinion against another. But when I said this:
I have a theory that a lot of their success was down to being the alternative to the Beatles for people who wanted to be "cooler" and "edgier" than Beatles fans.
The only way a person could comment about the above statement is if they were there in the sixties and saw for themselves. I was and you weren't. So I know what I'm talking about and you don't.
" Never argue with an idiot. "
I know what you mean, but for me he's a great vocalist. He doesn't have the smooth voice that a classically-trained opera singer has, but he's a blues guy. He does pop and rock and folk music, it's not necessary he have a crystal "head voice" to hit high notes with.
There are a lot of singers who don't sound "good" in the academic sense. According to vocal instructors, they aren't what singers should aspire to. Mick Jagger, Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin - they don't have "perfect" voices.
But I think there's a problem that a lot of people have (myself included, sometimes) with imposing these very small boundaries around singing and saying, "Hey: everything in the box is good singing, and if it's outside the box, it's subpar, bad, or garbage." But good singing isn't that. There are a lot of ways it's good.
Technique is one version, yes. But there's another version, and that's the version that electrifies an audience, makes them feel something, and Mick's got that.
Mick Jagger's capacity to electrify is more down to his theatrical physical performance on stage than his vocal ability though.
I can't speak for everyone, but I find his recorded vocals good stuff. His sliding smarmy take on Sympathy for the Devil is brilliant, for instance, and he's got the blues-rock thing for sure.
share