The Album Review Club - End of Round #9 Break (page 1904)

threespires said:
I'd say Jagger's voice is a legitimate topic of discussion.

He has a very distinctive voice that is very well matched to the Stones sound in that it both helps define that sound but also the type of music they play and the way they play helps mitigate any deficiencies he might have as a singer.

I think this album choice by Benny is a well considered one, rather than just chucking a more obvious album at us. It showcases them trying a few different things and as part of that, imo, it highlights how Jagger's voice can be both a blessing and a curse in a way that listening to some of their earlier albums might not show. I think some of their attempts to do different things work well and others less so and I think Jagger's voice plays a part in that.

There are a some straight up and down rock n' roll songs such as When The Whip Comes Down where you'd struggle to imagine anyone but Jagger making a better job (though to Bimbo's point that song does include smart use of harmonies). But when it comes to the slightly off-piste choices it become less clear. Specifically:

Just My Imagination - I quite like their musical arrangement of this soul classic it has a really nice vibe and infuses a tiny bit of soul into the rawer rock sound very well; however for me it is an example of where Jagger can’t quite adapt his distinctive vocals sufficiently to properly get it over the line as a great remake.

More interesting still is Respectable. I don’t think I even realised at the time of release that Respectable was supposed to be a bit punky. You see loads of excitable 70 year olds online :-) explaining how this is the Stones handing punk bands of the time their arses and I think this is errant nonsense. To me it sounds like comfy rock royalty having a go at being a bit punky and failing miserably and part of this is Jagger's vocals. In theory Jagger has got a sufficiently raw and energetic voice to be decent at singing a punk song; however by this stage of their career his voice had become so iconic and well defined that it's almost impossible for him to step out of that cage it has created. It isn't clear to me why, if you wanted to sound a bit punk, you wouldn't put Keith Richards on vocals for those songs.

In fact the choice of vocalists is a bit odd/intriguing on a couple of songs. I understand that Before They Make Run is Richard's song but I'd be quite interested to hear a performance with his and Jagger's vocal roles reversed. The weird choice to try and become Dartford's answer to smokey robinson at the vocal bridge about 2 minutes into Beast of Burden doesn't really work for me either on what is otherwise an enjoyable track.

But then finally, or firstly, you have Miss You which is a diversion into some disco/funk influences where actually I think his voice works really well. At various point he dials it in and still manages to sound ok and the slight juxtaposition of Jagger singing something that doesn't sound like an archetypal Stones song works in it's favour rather than against. Similarly on Shattered a song that succeeds in sounding 'new wavey' in a way that Respectable fails to sound punky, I think Jagger does a good job too.

So a mixed bag for me vocally. But ultimately it's all down to personal preference and context too. Few people would suggest Ian Curtis's was technically as proficient a singer as Renata Tebaldi but that doesn't mean you'd want to hear her sing the line.. here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders

In summary I don't think Jagger is a particularly strong singer in the technical senses of the word and that shows in some limitations in his versatility but what this album does show is that his uniqueness for both better and occasionally worse is entirely integral to the Stones sound.
Click to expand...
Cracking post,interesting how folk view Mick's vocals.
Something I had never really noticed until Emotional Rescue which I liked.Still for my opinion that Mick is the best frontman ever,he must be good vocally for me to have this opinion.
You are correct about my pick.It was down to Some Girls or the last lp that Mick Taylor featured It's Only Rock n Roll for my pick.
Despite Taylor being in my favourite Stones era I went for Some Girls as it followed the disappointing Black and Blue.
 
threespires said:
I'd say Jagger's voice is a legitimate topic of discussion.

He has a very distinctive voice that is very well matched to the Stones sound in that it both helps define that sound but also the type of music they play and the way they play helps mitigate any deficiencies he might have as a singer.

I think this album choice by Benny is a well considered one, rather than just chucking a more obvious album at us. It showcases them trying a few different things and as part of that, imo, it highlights how Jagger's voice can be both a blessing and a curse in a way that listening to some of their earlier albums might not show. I think some of their attempts to do different things work well and others less so and I think Jagger's voice plays a part in that.

There are a some straight up and down rock n' roll songs such as When The Whip Comes Down where you'd struggle to imagine anyone but Jagger making a better job (though to Bimbo's point that song does include smart use of harmonies). But when it comes to the slightly off-piste choices it become less clear. Specifically:

Just My Imagination - I quite like their musical arrangement of this soul classic it has a really nice vibe and infuses a tiny bit of soul into the rawer rock sound very well; however for me it is an example of where Jagger can’t quite adapt his distinctive vocals sufficiently to properly get it over the line as a great remake.

More interesting still is Respectable. I don’t think I even realised at the time of release that Respectable was supposed to be a bit punky. You see loads of excitable 70 year olds online :-) explaining how this is the Stones handing punk bands of the time their arses and I think this is errant nonsense. To me it sounds like comfy rock royalty having a go at being a bit punky and failing miserably and part of this is Jagger's vocals. In theory Jagger has got a sufficiently raw and energetic voice to be decent at singing a punk song; however by this stage of their career his voice had become so iconic and well defined that it's almost impossible for him to step out of that cage it has created. It isn't clear to me why, if you wanted to sound a bit punk, you wouldn't put Keith Richards on vocals for those songs.

In fact the choice of vocalists is a bit odd/intriguing on a couple of songs. I understand that Before They Make Run is Richard's song but I'd be quite interested to hear a performance with his and Jagger's vocal roles reversed. The weird choice to try and become Dartford's answer to smokey robinson at the vocal bridge about 2 minutes into Beast of Burden doesn't really work for me either on what is otherwise an enjoyable track.

But then finally, or firstly, you have Miss You which is a diversion into some disco/funk influences where actually I think his voice works really well. At various point he dials it in and still manages to sound ok and the slight juxtaposition of Jagger singing something that doesn't sound like an archetypal Stones song works in it's favour rather than against. Similarly on Shattered a song that succeeds in sounding 'new wavey' in a way that Respectable fails to sound punky, I think Jagger does a good job too.

So a mixed bag for me vocally. But ultimately it's all down to personal preference and context too. Few people would suggest Ian Curtis's was technically as proficient a singer as Renata Tebaldi but that doesn't mean you'd want to hear her sing the line.. here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders

In summary I don't think Jagger is a particularly strong singer in the technical senses of the word and that shows in some limitations in his versatility but what this album does show is that his uniqueness for both better and occasionally worse is entirely integral to the Stones sound.
Click to expand...
Jagger is a great vocalist.
 
Coatigan said:
I'm still not fully decided on how much I think that is real though, vs how much you just kinda like to revel in the role. Which is of course all good either way, and part of the fun of all this.
Click to expand...
I think I gave J J Cale a 9. Something I'd not heard before but loved. There are odd exceptions but on the whole I've given every album a chance. With different media. And headphones. No preconceptions, just me in my music room. I wouldn't even give Wish You Were Here, Violator or Lexicon Of Love a 10/10 and I love all three of those albums.
 
GornikDaze said:
After your last offering, are you in a position to judge? ;)
Click to expand...
I'd also add that in most of the criticisms where the positives to the album was acknowledged, the vocals themselves wasn't the negative factor most were pointing to.

Maybe too much synths, sax, not enough guitars, rock, the overall genre, etc., but not the vocals.

Track 4 Jason with Nikki Flores as exhibit A, and I thought Tyler Lyle did a fine job on the other songs where there weren't computer-alterated vocals being judged.

(and yes, still listening to it ;-) )
 
OB1 said:
Jagger is a great vocalist.
Click to expand...

Despite me not liking all the vocals on this album, I wouldn't disagree with that assertion. I don't think he's a great singer in the way that say Aretha Franklin is but that's a different thing entirely.

One of the things I like to think about in terms of what makes someone a truly great singer is which ones could transcend their own genre and be as legendary in other types of music. There's very very few and in practice we rarely get to hear an artist do that anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.