PDA

View Full Version : Has there ever been a worse very successful singer than Mick Jagger?


gonzomax
11-29-2009, 10:51 PM
He has a range of maybe 2 notes. He varies loudness . Yet, I have liked a lot of the Stones songs. Every now and then the mono would kick on and all I could hear was his voice. I would be shocked how bad he was. Yet he has been a huge success for 50 years. How?

newcrasher
11-29-2009, 10:54 PM
You must be watching the Hall of Fame show. I just made that exact comment to my wife.

Mick, I'd like you to meet harmony...harmony, this is Mick Jagger.

Freudian Slit
11-29-2009, 10:57 PM
I was watching that PBS show about the highlights of Ed Sullivan, and thinking of how really bad Mick was. When I was younger, I used to buy their albums (younger as in the late 90s) and would think he was so hot and...yeah. Now that I'm older it's just so horrid. Well, the songs are well written, but you'd think he'd have picked up a LITTLE bit of the vocal nuances in all his years of singing.

Superhal
11-29-2009, 10:58 PM
It seems like every song Frank Sinatra sings has the same music.

crypto
11-29-2009, 11:00 PM
Bob Dylan

blondebear
11-29-2009, 11:14 PM
Mick = bad singer? Maybe, but The Stones wouldn't have been The Stones with a different front man. Easy enough to dis him now--but if he sucked so bad, who would have ever called them the Greatest Rock And Roll Band in the World?

The Cleveland Steamer
11-29-2009, 11:19 PM
Not really a bad singer, but Fred Astaire's place in the Great American Songbook vastly outstrips his talent.

Look at these songs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_introduced_by_Fred_Astaire

Argent Towers
11-29-2009, 11:19 PM
Bad singer is completely a matter of taste. Some genres of music really benefit from a smooth, melodic voice; others are better suited to a harsh or gravelly one. Most people wouldn't consider any punk rock singer to have a conventionally "good" voice but millions of people love punk rock. And Mick Jagger would sound awful with a swingin' big band behind him, playing jazz standards, as I'm sure Frank Sinatra would with Black Flag backing him up. Certain voices fit with certain instrumental styles and they just "work." It can't really be explained any better than that.

gonzomax
11-29-2009, 11:40 PM
His sound is not a specialty sound. he has been recording for a century. He has a huge body of work, mostly bad. Yet many of his songs are well written and interesting. Hell .I like Cocker, Dylan. Leon Russel, and other not so melodic singers. But if you ever isolate his voice in a recording, it will shock you. I have felt this way for many years. Today just brought it back.

Horatio Hellpop
11-29-2009, 11:51 PM
Fabian.

gaffa
11-30-2009, 12:51 AM
Bad singer is completely a matter of taste. Some genres of music really benefit from a smooth, melodic voice; others are better suited to a harsh or gravelly one. Most people wouldn't consider any punk rock singer to have a conventionally "good" voice but millions of people love punk rock. And Mick Jagger would sound awful with a swingin' big band behind him, playing jazz standards, as I'm sure Frank Sinatra would with Black Flag backing him up. Certain voices fit with certain instrumental styles and they just "work." It can't really be explained any better than that.
On Saturday Night Live, long ago, Tim Curry did a wonderful imagination of Jagger's first "network special", with various "special guest stars", including Joe Piscopo's wonderful Frank Sinatra. They traded lines from each other's song, Jagger singing "Strangers In The Night", Sinatra singing "Get Off My Cloud".

I wish I could find it, but Saturday Night Live has been diabolically efficient at removing clips from YouTube, and equally inefficient at putting clips back up on Hulu.

Jagger is a brilliant singer compared to Lou Reed.

lissener
11-30-2009, 12:52 AM
Mick Jagger is not a singer, he's a rock star. Period.

Freudian Slit
11-30-2009, 12:53 AM
I wish I could find it, but Saturday Night Live has been diabolically efficient at removing clips from YouTube, and equally inefficient at putting clips back up on Hulu.

Ugh, ain't that the truth. There are so many awesome SNL skits I just want to see, without the entire episode, but they're never on youtube. And I was just about to try to find this one on youtube because it sounds funny, when I read your warning.

Jagger is a brilliant singer compared to Lou Reed.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Lou Reed's all that great but really? I'd rate him higher than Jagger.

Argent Towers
11-30-2009, 12:54 AM
I really like Mick Jagger's voice. I guess I'm in a minority here. (I also like The Postman.)

gaffa
11-30-2009, 01:55 AM
Mick Jagger is not a singer, he's a rock star. Period.
Not unlike Peter O'Toole's line from My Favorite Year (a mediocre film with some great lines):

Alan Swann: Damn you! I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!

NDP
11-30-2009, 02:18 AM
Jagger began by vocally imitating Howlin' Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howling_Wolf) as did Van Morrison. However, Morrison has departed stylistically farther than Jagger has. Still, it doesn't really matter that much (see Lissener's post).

Lou Reed has been mentioned as someone whose voice is worse than Jagger's. Reed's tolerable but his voice is weak.

YMMV but Tom Waits is someone whose voice many people may find more cacophonous than Jagger's.

GuanoLad
11-30-2009, 02:28 AM
Joe Cocker.

Sage Rat
11-30-2009, 02:36 AM
Jagger began by vocally imitating Howlin' Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howling_Wolf) as did Van Morrison. However, Morrison has departed stylistically farther than Jagger has. Still, it doesn't really matter that much (see Lissener's post).
I think it's fairly inarguable that the Wolf could sing well. That may have been Jagger's target, but I wouldn't say he ever hit it, let alone being able to diverge stylistically.

Imasquare
11-30-2009, 03:57 AM
He has a range of maybe 2 notes. He varies loudness . Yet, I have liked a lot of the Stones songs. Every now and then the mono would kick on and all I could hear was his voice. I would be shocked how bad he was. Yet he has been a huge success for 50 years. How?

Have you ever seen any footage of a Beach Boys concert? Mike Love sounds nothing like he does in the studio.

Ellis Aponte Jr.
11-30-2009, 04:09 AM
Can you imagine any other singer doing "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction," "Jumpin' Jack Flash," "Sympathy for the Devil," or "Gimme Shelter" better than Mick Jagger? I don't think you can. And no one has since Mick sang those songs.

Dorothea Book
11-30-2009, 07:07 AM
I don't actually like Mick Jagger or much like the Rolling Stones; but I wouldn't deny that his voice is (at least in recordings) distinctive and, well, classic. I don't mean that it's an original rock and rock voice (like say Lou Reed's) or that it stands out quite as much as other blues-influenced vocals (like Joe Cocker's, or Robert Plant's, or Rod Stewart's or Janis Joplin's or even Kurt Cobain's). But I think it does the job pretty well and he is known for his charismatic performance.

As to Frank Sinatra, I'm surprised to see his name come up in this thread. He has a style, to be sure, but I suspect he'd have done just fine with Black Flag as his back-up.

don't ask
11-30-2009, 07:27 AM
Technically he can't sing for shit but he isn't a singer, he's the vocal part of a rock band. And as that he is fantastic - distinctive, effective and uniquely inventive within his limitations.

It's nice to see threads like this though. I am an old fart but not so old that I can't understand that rock music isn't about technical perfection, it's about attitude. It takes me back to my youth, I can remember my mother complaining about Mick Jagger and comparing him to those "nice Beatles".

Markxxx
11-30-2009, 07:50 AM
Rod Stewart doesn't have much of a voice, also I think Prince is a very weak singer. I think the best example of this is his song "Kiss," which was actually MUCH better when done by Tom Jones. I do like when other people sing Prince's songs. I think he's got much more talent as a writer than a singer.

Janet Jackson is also a very weak singer. She's not bad but she's at best average. The best example of this is when she was on "Diff'rent Strokes" as Willis's girlfriend. And Willis wants to form a band and the lead singer is between her and Willis' sister Kimberly (Dana Plato). Dana Plato blew Janet Jackson out of the water with her voice. Plato was a much better singer and it was painfuly obvious in that episode.

I read in Billboard how the carefully crafted Jackson's career around dance movements and videos 'cause Janet was coming out the same time as Whitney Houston and there was no way she'd ever compete with Whitney.

Paul McCartney has an OK voice provided the key is simple and he stays in it. But he has far too many songs where he strays from the key and the limits of his voice are apparent.

Freudian Slit
11-30-2009, 07:59 AM
Janet Jackson is also a very weak singer. She's not bad but she's at best average. The best example of this is when she was on "Diff'rent Strokes" as Willis's girlfriend. And Willis wants to form a band and the lead singer is between her and Willis' sister Kimberly (Dana Plato). Dana Plato blew Janet Jackson out of the water with her voice. Plato was a much better singer and it was painfuly obvious in that episode.

Just saw the clips of Janet singing. Ouch. I like her music and I knew she was never considered all that strong a singer, but I didn't realize the extent.

Sigmagirl
11-30-2009, 08:09 AM
Eddie Fisher.

WordMan
11-30-2009, 09:11 AM
I agree with lissener - Jaggers not a singer, he's a rock star. Or, to put it another way, he may not sing great but he sells the song really well. His weird inflections, accents, improv's, grunts, etc. - we all know dozens of them; there's a reason for that. And the fact that he was delivering interesting lyrics and great songs - that's never a bad thing.

Same with Dylan.

I would go with Lou Reed simply because his death croak is less interesting to me vs. Dylan's nasal rasp or Jagger's prancing bray. Neil Young can sound like a helium balloon deflating, too, but again, he used it in a way to reinforce his credibility about being about the music...

Hal Briston
11-30-2009, 09:32 AM
...as I'm sure Frank Sinatra would with Black Flag backing him up.Thanks. Now I'm going to be spending the rest of the day walking around snapping my fingers and crooning My War, Frankie-style.

Thudlow Boink
11-30-2009, 09:36 AM
Have you ever seen any footage of a Beach Boys concert? Mike Love sounds nothing like he does in the studio.From when? From what I've heard, Mike Love's voice has really gone downhill.Can you imagine any other singer doing "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction," "Jumpin' Jack Flash," "Sympathy for the Devil," or "Gimme Shelter" better than Mick Jagger? I don't think you can. These sorts of statements are dangerous to make. (Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74qWOdNYjLc) my favorite "Gimme Shelter.") Technically he can't sing for shit but he isn't a singer, he's the vocal part of a rock band. Okay, but I much prefer bands whose singers can sing for shit.

Part of the reason I've never gotten into the Rolling Stones (possibly the most egregious gap in my music collection is no Stones) is that I've never liked Mick's singing. But I don't know how much of that is just personal taste.

Imasquare
11-30-2009, 09:38 AM
From when? From what I've heard, Mike Love's voice has really gone downhill.

Exactly. Even looking at old footage from the early 70s, he couldn't sing in tune. I don't know what they did in the studio to get him singing straight.

RealityChuck
11-30-2009, 09:48 AM
(Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74qWOdNYjLc) my favorite "Gimme Shelter.")And you actually think this is appreciably better? She's OK, but, at best, equal to Jagger. Not better.

Jagger has a great voice -- distinctive, powerful, and dramatic. The Stones would be nowhere without him (even assuming he still wrote the music). He just doesn't match current vocal styles -- he creates his own. That's greatness.

If you want to pick on weak singers, consider Britney Spears. (And the sad thing is that that type of singing is what's considered good these days.)

Little Nemo
11-30-2009, 10:00 AM
Not unlike Peter O'Toole's line from My Favorite Year (a mediocre film with some great lines):

Alan Swann: Damn you! I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!My favorite version of this was John Kruk's response to someone telling him he looked pretty out of shape for an athlete: "Lady, I'm not an athlete. I'm a baseball player."

Karen_X2
11-30-2009, 10:00 AM
David Lee Roth.
He's not singing. He's yelling at the microphone.

gaffa
11-30-2009, 10:14 AM
David Lee Roth.
He's not singing. He's yelling at the microphone.
For all the stink about "Van Hagar", Sammy Hagar is a far better singer than Dave.

Novelty Bobble
11-30-2009, 11:19 AM
(Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74qWOdNYjLc) my favorite "Gimme Shelter.")

Have to chime in on this one.
Gimme Shelter is one of my all time favourites and that version is a classic example of how not to cover a song. "It's neither nowt nor summat" as my old gran would say.
I confess I don't know who that singer is but, though she might be technically better than Mick, you can tell she couldn't care less about the song. I find it cold and meaningless. But the original? Mick and Merry Clayton's vocals make my hair stand up. I'll take feeling over technique any day of the week.
So she's OK. I can't really judge her until she sings something she really cares about though. It's the sort of thing that would do well on the x-factor, Mick would bomb of course and that says all you need to know about that type of show.

gonzomax
11-30-2009, 12:15 PM
Have you ever seen any footage of a Beach Boys concert? Mike Love sounds nothing like he does in the studio.

I never liked the Beach Boys. kid,bubblegum music

Duke
11-30-2009, 12:22 PM
I'm not sure how "successful" you need to be to count in this discussion, but Ian Brown of The Stone Roses was really, really bad. "Drunken oldster in the karaoke bar" bad. His voice must have been extremely tweaked up in the studio because he was legendarily awful in concert.

Marley23
11-30-2009, 12:25 PM
Jagger began by vocally imitating Howlin' Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howling_Wolf) as did Van Morrison. However, Morrison has departed stylistically farther than Jagger has.
Since the Stones are named after a Muddy Waters song, I thought the story was that Mick was imitating Muddy, not the Wolf. He doesn't sound much like either one but I guess he's closer to Muddy.

I'm not a big fan of Jagger or the Stones - there are some great songs in there, though - but there are definitely far worse singers. He doesn't have a lot of range, but range is not the be all and end all of singing talent. Johnny Cash didn't have much either, but he still put his stamp on a lot of songs. Jagger's the same as far as that goes. And a lot of modern singers can't really sing either, and also don't have the same personality.

elfkin477
11-30-2009, 12:32 PM
David Lee Roth.
He's not singing. He's yelling at the microphone. Apparently I agree with you, because I spent half the thread convinced people were talking about Van Halen, not the Rolling Stones! Seriously, he's so bad that I naturally assumed... :) I'm not a huge fan of the stones (and find "under my thumb" flatout offensive) but Mick is a better singer than DLR.

If Dave Matthews is still making music in 20 years, he should be nominated too.

Soul Brother Number Two
11-30-2009, 12:38 PM
Just my opinion, of course, but lord did that Ashley Cleveland cover suck. Just really bad.

Again my opinion, but the Stones are and always will be the best rock band of all time. They are the epitome of rock, the kind of rock that made mamas lock up their daughters and outraged citizens write letters to the editor.

That said, Merry Clayton, the female vocalist on Gimme Shelter, did a very credible cover. The arrangement had a lot to do with it, as it totally kicks ass, but she rips it right up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCyTqnizcvI

John DiFool
11-30-2009, 12:44 PM
Can you imagine any other singer doing "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" better than Mick Jagger? I don't think you can. And no one has since Mick sang those songs.

Mark Mothersbaugh? [Sorry for the snippage]

SenorBeef
11-30-2009, 12:55 PM
The guy from AC/DC is definitely worse. He also doesn't sing, has a really annoying voice, and has almost no range whatsoever. This is in part covered up by the entire band not having any musical talent, so it doesn't stand out quite as much as he could.

I read that AC/DC was like the 6th best selling artist of all time on some list and several of my blood vessels spontaneously exploded.

Amber in Treasury
11-30-2009, 12:59 PM
Bon Scott or Brian Johnson, SenorBeef?

ETA: I agree about Britney Spears and Janet Jackson, they are pretty weak singers IMO, and seem to often focus more on dancing than singing.

Hal Briston
11-30-2009, 01:03 PM
For all the stink about "Van Hagar", Sammy Hagar is a far better singer than Dave.We're back to the singer vs. rock star debate there.

Marley23
11-30-2009, 01:05 PM
ETA: I agree about Britney Spears and Janet Jackson, they are pretty weak singers IMO, and seem to often focus more on dancing than singing.
I figured Mick has probably never had his voice auto-tuned. That pretty much puts him ahead of every singer who has.

kenobi 65
11-30-2009, 01:08 PM
Geddy Lee. I figure I'd be a huge Rush fan, if not for the fact that I just can't listen to him.

Pray for peace
11-30-2009, 01:15 PM
I really like Mick Jagger's voice, too. I like his singing better on the harder rocking songs, but I even like his singing on "Ruby Tuesday," which is less forgiving of the limitations of his voice.

I would vote for Bob Dylan as a truly bad singer who is a good artist, primarily because of his abilities as a songwriter and lyricist.

kaylasdad99
11-30-2009, 01:19 PM
Al Hibbler.

Never could stand his voice.

Amber in Treasury
11-30-2009, 01:30 PM
I figured Mick has probably never had his voice auto-tuned. That pretty much puts him ahead of every singer who has.

I agree. And the inventor of Autotune deserves a good fish-slapping. I hate Autotune...sorry for the (slight) hijack.

Alessan
11-30-2009, 01:33 PM
I'd say that objectively speaking, Tom Petty probably has the worse voice in rock n'roll - but I'd still rather have him sing his songs than anyone else.

Mister Rik
11-30-2009, 02:13 PM
Mick Jagger is not a singer, he's a rock star. Period.

Ozzy once said, "I'm not a singer, I'm an entertainer."

Marley23
11-30-2009, 02:16 PM
I'd say that objectively speaking, Tom Petty probably has the worse voice in rock n'roll - but I'd still rather have him sing his songs than anyone else.
Petty's really just doing an impression of Dylan, and he doesn't sound any worse than Dylan does. Especially these days.

koufax
11-30-2009, 04:28 PM
I never liked the Beach Boys. kid,bubblegum music

From wikipedia:

"Pet Sounds is the eleventh studio album by the American rock band The Beach Boys, released May 16, 1966, on Capitol Records. It has been widely ranked as one of the most influential records ever released in western pop music and has been ranked at number #1 in several music magazines' lists of greatest albums of all time, including New Musical Express, The Times and Mojo Magazine.[1][2][3] In 2003, it was ranked #2 in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list.[4]"

Freudian Slit
11-30-2009, 04:30 PM
From wikipedia:

"Pet Sounds is the eleventh studio album by the American rock band The Beach Boys, released May 16, 1966, on Capitol Records. It has been widely ranked as one of the most influential records ever released in western pop music and has been ranked at number #1 in several music magazines' lists of greatest albums of all time, including New Musical Express, The Times and Mojo Magazine.[1][2][3] In 2003, it was ranked #2 in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list.[4]"

Thanks for posting this--I read it the first time around and forgot to respond. I think the Beach Boys get a lot of flack for being a cutesy, fun, surf band. But to look at them this way is to just see the Beatles as a band who made some movies/cute songs and to forget the stuff like Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road.

ETA: About all the people saying that rock n roll isn't about good singing and that they wouldn't want to hear anyone but Mick singing these songs...is that because we're just so used to it or because rock and roll genuinely isn't about talent? I mean, in the rock genre, I think you can get away with a lot of bad singing. But I do think there are a lot of singers who really could sing well, and had attitude/stage presence on top of that. This isn't strictly rock, but if you look at any Motown singers, pretty much any of them can outsing Mick (or Paul or John) and have voices infused with sexuality, emotion, energy, and on top of that, have an (IMHO) even stronger stage presence than Mick Jagger.

Marley23
11-30-2009, 04:47 PM
Thanks for posting this--I read it the first time around and forgot to respond. I think the Beach Boys get a lot of flack for being a cutesy, fun, surf band. But to look at them this way is to just see the Beatles as a band who made some movies/cute songs and to forget the stuff like Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road.
I've never liked the Beach Boys at all, partly because of the voices, but they could sing. And for that matter Brian Wilson definitely knew how to write an interesting melody. I don't know how they came up in this thread.

Dorothea Book
11-30-2009, 04:52 PM
ETA: About all the people saying that rock n roll isn't about good singing and that they wouldn't want to hear anyone but Mick singing these songs...is that because we're just so used to it or because rock and roll genuinely isn't about talent? I mean, in the rock genre, I think you can get away with a lot of bad singing. But I do think there are a lot of singers who really could sing well, and had attitude/stage presence on top of that. This isn't strictly rock, but if you look at any Motown singers, pretty much any of them can outsing Mick (or Paul or John) and have voices infused with sexuality, emotion, energy, and on top of that, have an (IMHO) even stronger stage presence than Mick Jagger.

I am confused by the definition of singing that is at play in this thread. Once again, let me make clear that I entirely lack whatever bone it is in so many bodies that makes Mick and the Stones seem so incredibly fab. The Stones have never really rung my bells. So I think I'm speaking somewhat objectively when I say that Mick carries off the task of lead vocals/frontman for this major rock band with great, er, aplomb.

Does he sing as well as Pavarotti, Barbara Streisand, or Paul Robeson? I think not. He lacks their vocal range, their technique, their flexibility, their uniqueness.

But to say that Mick is not a remarkable singer in a technical sense is not say that being a great rock singer doesn't require any talent.

In my mind, being a great rock singer has to do with a combination of a) sounding like no one else and b) pulling off a certain attitude, vocally as well as performatively, that works with the music and makes people want to really move/feel/sing or dance along/shout--respond.

Now Mick probably doesn't have as distinctive a voice as many others (and that may be part of why he doesn't really move me the way that other rockers do).

One of my favorite rock vocalists is Neil Young: I love his falsetto, I love his deadpan, I love his anger. I probably can't distinguish the part of me that loves his voice from the fact that he's a great guitar player, and that I often like what he's singing about.

I'm convinced that in a technical sense he's so-so or maybe even worse. But he's like no one else. He pulls it off. When I hear him sing I want to stop what I'm thinking about and focus on the music. I want to move with it and be moved by it.

Isn't this the bar for rock music singing rather than the more technical features appropriate to musical genres, like opera or show tunes, which focus more fully on vocals?

Thudlow Boink
11-30-2009, 05:27 PM
I am confused by the definition of singing that is at play in this thread. I don't think there is one single definition.

A lot of it's subjective: do you happen to like the sound of the singer's voice and the way he uses it? Neither Mick nor Neil is at all to my taste, but I can still respect them and have some idea of what their fans see in them. And I do like the voices of some other singers whom other people don't like.

And even when it comes to things that are more objective, there are different ingredients that different people value differently. Who's "better": someone who can do justice to many different kinds of songs, or someone who's only good at one or two sorts but can knock them out of the park? Someone with a strong but relatively generic voice, or someone with a quirky voice? Someone who hits all the notes accurately and enunciates clearly, or someone who sings sloppily but with feeling? Do things like appearance, dancing ability, showmanship, and personality count, or is it all about the singing? Different people are going to answer these questions different ways, and I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer to them.

Freudian Slit
11-30-2009, 05:34 PM
In my mind, being a great rock singer has to do with a combination of a) sounding like no one else and b) pulling off a certain attitude, vocally as well as performatively, that works with the music and makes people want to really move/feel/sing or dance along/shout--respond.

I think the attitude is a big part of it. There are a lot of great singers who don't make it because they don't have that...je ne sais quoi. But I guess for me personally it's a combination of singing and attitude and presence. And though I like the Stones, and used to love them, now I don't really feel anything when I see them. It's a bit meh for me.

I guess personally I now try to seek out people who are very talented in the technical sense and who have that other quality, the presence. Tina Turner is someone who is irreplaceable and really oozes sex and is incredibly talented.

Lethal Babydoll
11-30-2009, 06:42 PM
Mick is the greatest of rock singers (from someone who once spent a year - 1983 - listening to nothing but the Stones).

My Exhibit A is Beggar's Banquet, 10 songs each sung in a very different style perfectly suited to 10 remarkable songs.

Dorothea Book
11-30-2009, 06:50 PM
Mick is the greatest of rock singers (from someone who once spent a year - 1983 - listening to nothing but the Stones).



I challenge you to prove that you didn't listen to "Every Breath You Take" at least once that year... ;)

Baal Houtham
11-30-2009, 07:09 PM
Just my opinion, of course, but lord did that Ashley Cleveland cover suck. Just really bad.
(...)
That said, Merry Clayton, the female vocalist on Gimme Shelter, did a very credible cover. The arrangement had a lot to do with it, as it totally kicks ass, but she rips it right up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCyTqnizcvI

I really like that arrangement (horns and stuff), but prefer Jagger's vocals. Clayton's vocal tricks (unexpected pauses and inflections) seemed out of place in such a desperation driven song.

The earlier cover in this thread didn't have any of the Stones' spookiness, and the singer seemed to care about nothing except sounding like a classic black soul singer.

woodstockbirdybird
11-30-2009, 07:13 PM
Rod Stewart doesn't have much of a voice, also I think Prince is a very weak singer. I think the best example of this is his song "Kiss," which was actually MUCH better when done by Tom Jones. I do like when other people sing Prince's songs. I think he's got much more talent as a writer than a singer.


Prince is a weak singer? I can understand not being a fan of someone, but Prince has got more range and vocal chops than anybody else named in this thread. Hell, he'd give Stevie Wonder a run for his money (though Stevie's voice is - or was - more pleasant-sounding).

Ají de Gallina
11-30-2009, 07:24 PM
Madonna. She has a horrible low range.

In Spanish, Alejandro Sanz, it's like an auto-tune work the other way.

Mister Rik
11-30-2009, 07:36 PM
One of my favorite rock vocalists is Neil Young: I love his falsetto, I love his deadpan, I love his anger. I probably can't distinguish the part of me that loves his voice from the fact that he's a great guitar player, and that I often like what he's singing about.

I'm convinced that in a technical sense he's so-so or maybe even worse. But he's like no one else. He pulls it off. When I hear him sing I want to stop what I'm thinking about and focus on the music. I want to move with it and be moved by it.
I can say almost exactly the same things about Geddy Lee of Rush. I've met plenty of people who simply can't get past his quirky voice (and thus always want to reference his "screechy falsetto" despite the fact he stopped singing like that more than 20 years ago), but no serious Rush fan can imagine anybody replacing him.

And even when it comes to things that are more objective, there are different ingredients that different people value differently. Who's "better": someone who can do justice to many different kinds of songs, or someone who's only good at one or two sorts but can knock them out of the park? Someone with a strong but relatively generic voice, or someone with a quirky voice? Someone who hits all the notes accurately and enunciates clearly, or someone who sings sloppily but with feeling? Do things like appearance, dancing ability, showmanship, and personality count, or is it all about the singing? Different people are going to answer these questions different ways, and I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer to them.
(bolding mine)
And all that is what draws me to a Japanese pop/rock singer named aiko. She does all-original material that hits many different styles, and often, in concert, she performs entirely different arrangements of her songs in different styles. Her voice is quirky. She's 34 years old but sounds like a little girl. She goes a bit off-key on her studio recordings (no Autotune going on there), but it's forgivable because she sings with such convincing emotion that I can feel the intent of the song without being able to understand a word of it. Appearance? There are thousands of prettier/sexier Japanese singers. She's built like a 12-year-old boy and dresses modestly when she performs, usually in a baggy T-shirt and jeans. Dancing ability? Apparently none whatsoever. Showmanship? After watching many videos of her live performances and seeing the way she works the audience and her band, I think she's the second coming of James Brown. Personality... I can't watch her without ending up with a big smile.

Freudian Slit
11-30-2009, 07:58 PM
Prince is a weak singer? I can understand not being a fan of someone, but Prince has got more range and vocal chops than anybody else named in this thread. Hell, he'd give Stevie Wonder a run for his money (though Stevie's voice is - or was - more pleasant-sounding).

Dude! I named Tina Turner in post fifty seven.

Lethal Babydoll
11-30-2009, 08:18 PM
I challenge you to prove that you didn't listen to "Every Breath You Take" at least once that year... ;)

:smack:
on tapes and records, i should have said. my brother still makes fun of me about it

LC Strawhouse
11-30-2009, 10:52 PM
SADE -- hands down. I swear she exhibited less vocal range than Arnold Schwarzenegger. But it sort of fit with the music and didn't really matter.

TreacherousCretin
11-30-2009, 11:09 PM
I really like Mick Jagger's voice. I guess I'm in a minority here.

A minority of at least two. I'm with you. He doesn't have a naturally beautiful voice with a lot of range, but I like what he does with it nonetheless.

.

TreacherousCretin
11-30-2009, 11:13 PM
Technically he can't sing for shit but he isn't a singer, he's the vocal part of a rock band. And as that he is fantastic - distinctive, effective and uniquely inventive within his limitations.

Correct.


.

Askance
11-30-2009, 11:42 PM
Terrible singers who are great vocalists:

Neil Young
Leonard Cohen
Bob Dylan
Patty Smith
Joe Cocker
Lou Reed
Janis Joplin

Interestingly they all originated in a 10 year period - which may be more of a comment on me than on them. I have no opinion on Jagger - I just never got the Stones.

Great singers who are terrible vocalists:

Barbra Streisand
Frank Sinatra

I'm sure there are a lot more I can't bring to mind just now.

choie
11-30-2009, 11:51 PM
I cannot believe Paul McCartney was mentioned in this thread. I mean ... Do you know how many crap singers would have to die in order for his name to be justified on such a list? Dang. "Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey Hey"? "Long Tall Sally"? "Hey Jude"? "Let It Be"? From rough 'n' sexy to sweet and tender, McCartney has a terrific range. Sure, sometimes his performance isn't as strong, but you could say the same about Lennon.

And put me down for Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Lou Reed, Van Morrison and Bono for some really (technically) horrific voices. Bono sounds like a cat in heat to me and can rarely hold a note on a single pitch.

Doesn't mean they're not good rock singers or that they can't sell a song. Hell, my favorite rock/pop singer (Beatles aside) is Sting, and he's not exactly a Beautiful Voice. (I love him as a singer because despite his lack of classic vocal prowess, he has a remarkable gift for shaping his voice like an instrument, winding its way around a melody in service of the lyrics / music.)

Isn't it interesting, though, that women are far less likely to be mentioned? Even though there's a common impression that many female pop stars are only famous for being cute/sexy, the female mediocrities are still decent enough not to be mentioned in this thread. (Either that or all the guys posting here are too blinded by Teh Cute to think of 'em. :D)

Barbra Streisand
Frank Sinatra

WHAT? In what world are Streisand and Sinatra considered bad vocalists, assuming you mean able to use their voice to impart emotion and musicality?? The hell? Sinatra wasn't just a phenomenally beautiful singer, he also told a story with each lyric. Streisand isn't on his level but she's still highly emotive.

I ... I can't even comprehend this.

Evil Captor
11-30-2009, 11:58 PM
SADE -- hands down. I swear she exhibited less vocal range than Arnold Schwarzenegger. But it sort of fit with the music and didn't really matter.

The Sade of "Smooth Operator"? Now you're just being silly.

Dorothea Book
12-01-2009, 12:08 AM
I can say almost exactly the same things about Geddy Lee of Rush. I've met plenty of people who simply can't get past his quirky voice (and thus always want to reference his "screechy falsetto" despite the fact he stopped singing like that more than 20 years ago), but no serious Rush fan can imagine anybody replacing him.

I know what you mean about Rush vocals. I never really loved Rush's style of music but Mr. Book is a longstanding fan so I've heard more than my share...

Another quirky singing, er, vocal genius I love is Robert Smith (of the Cure).

And all that is what draws me to a Japanese pop/rock singer named aiko. ...After watching many videos of her live performances and seeing the way she works the audience and her band, I think she's the second coming of James Brown.

A most memorable plug!

choie, I too am flummoxed by these Sinatra disses...:confused:

Askance
12-01-2009, 12:17 AM
Barbra Streisand
Frank Sinatra
WHAT? In what world are Streisand and Sinatra considered bad vocalists, assuming you mean able to use their voice to impart emotion and musicality?? The hell? Sinatra wasn't just a phenomenally beautiful singer, he also told a story with each lyric. Streisand isn't on his level but she's still highly emotive.

I ... I can't even comprehend this.
In my world, I guess. Neither of them could sell an emotion on eBay. They couldn't give one away on Craigslist.

Sinatra just talks his way through a song like he's reading it to his 3rd-favourite nephew and can't wait to get back to the living room where the adults and martinis are.

Streisand was aptly satirised by Mad magazine as Bubby Strident, someone needs to stuff a mute in her mouth and one up each nostril to bring her voice from "screech-city" to the same universe as "pleasant", but there's no Melodyne for feeling - you got it or you ain't, and she is so far from got it she'd pave over it for her 19th driveway and not notice it.

Evil Captor
12-01-2009, 12:18 AM
I was going to win the thread hands down by naming Leonard Cohen, but somebody already cited him ... as a great vocalist. Good lord. The guy can barely croak the words out. "Avalanche" anyone, when he tries to go down to a deep bass note in that gravelly croak of his? Makes me crack a smile every time I think about it, it's so bad it's funny.

And let's not neglect David Byrne of "Talking Heads."

"And you may find yourself in front of a microphone
And you may say, how did I get here?
I cannot sing! I can barely speak!"

Novelty Bobble
12-01-2009, 08:49 AM
Prince is a weak singer? I can understand not being a fan of someone, but Prince has got more range and vocal chops than anybody else named in this thread. Hell, he'd give Stevie Wonder a run for his money (though Stevie's voice is - or was - more pleasant-sounding).

hear! hear! Prince is one of the few true musical geniuses still this side of the topsoil.
That little purple wizard has it all. (and the source of the largest number of GOOD cover versions possibly?)

and let me just say....Karen Carpenter.
I'm sure her voice is not technically as accomplished as some of some of the vocal gymnasts out there but......wow, you believe her.
She's probably the standard for the maxim "less is more". Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, Maria Carey and Christina Aguilera should be trapped in a cabinet and played "Superstar" until they either
a) Get it, or
B) jelly wrestle to my satisfaction.

Welcome to my world

Thudlow Boink
12-01-2009, 10:34 AM
Great singers who are terrible vocalists:

Barbra Streisand
Frank SinatraI have no dog in either of these fights, but I find it suspicious that your examples of "terrible vocalists" are highly regarded singers in a completely different style than those on your other list. It's easier to tell who does something well and who does it poorly if you can be more sure that they're trying to do the same thing.

It would be more enlightening if you could find examples of great and terrible vocalists in the same style (or even some individual artists who went from terrible to great, or vice versa, over the course of their careers).

Dorothea Book
12-01-2009, 11:28 AM
In my world, I guess. Neither of them could sell an emotion on eBay. They couldn't give one away on Craigslist.

Sinatra just talks his way through a song like he's reading it to his 3rd-favourite nephew and can't wait to get back to the living room where the adults and martinis are.



I think you are right that Sinatra is emotionally reserved but that is part of his style. It couldn't be more different than the let-er-rip, in yer face, emo of most rock singers, male or female. It's an entirely different 'tude that, like you say, is all about the adults and the martinis.

But to criticize it for lack of emotion--as though it's a flaw of his rather a pitch-perfect performance--is kind of to miss the point.

Which isn't of course to say that you need to like it, which is a whole different story. (I'm not typically listening to Sinatra myself for that matter--but I think I can catch the vibe.)

As to Streisand I think that's a very different case because she certainly doesn't mean to unemotional.

Marley23
12-01-2009, 11:32 AM
And let's not neglect David Byrne of "Talking Heads."

"And you may find yourself in front of a microphone
And you may say, how did I get here?
I cannot sing! I can barely speak!"
It's easy to get that impression from some of his Talking Heads stuff - especially the early songs where, when he does try to sing, he strains his voice by going much too high. But when he feels like singing, he has a very good voice. He shows it off a little on this cover of "You Can Call Me Al (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0SShK0lods&NR=1)."

WordMan
12-01-2009, 11:39 AM
In my world, I guess. Neither of them could sell an emotion on eBay. They couldn't give one away on Craigslist.

Sinatra just talks his way through a song like he's reading it to his 3rd-favourite nephew and can't wait to get back to the living room where the adults and martinis are.

Streisand was aptly satirised by Mad magazine as Bubby Strident, someone needs to stuff a mute in her mouth and one up each nostril to bring her voice from "screech-city" to the same universe as "pleasant", but there's no Melodyne for feeling - you got it or you ain't, and she is so far from got it she'd pave over it for her 19th driveway and not notice it.

You should start another thread on this. I choose not to try to explain Sinatra or Streisand in a thread about Mick Jagger / rock vocalists.

I will say this: learning how emotions are delivered in different genres requires listening with an open mind.

Dorothea Book
12-01-2009, 12:32 PM
You should start another thread on this. I choose not to try to explain Sinatra or Streisand in a thread about Mick Jagger / rock vocalists.

I will say this: learning how emotions are delivered in different genres requires listening with an open mind.

That would be an interesting thread WordMan. I don't mean a "defend Sinatra/Streisand" thread but a thread on how emotional delivery varies across musical genres thread.

Perhaps you can start one?

Eonwe
12-01-2009, 12:38 PM
Well I, for one, think that Bruce Springsteen is a much better vocalist than Pavarotti. I mean, really, all Pavarotti does is stand there and sing!

;)

WordMan
12-01-2009, 01:07 PM
That would be an interesting thread WordMan. I don't mean a "defend Sinatra/Streisand" thread but a thread on how emotional delivery varies across musical genres thread.

Perhaps you can start one?

Hmmm - unfortunately, it could be tough. We have some experts on a variety of genres, but I don't know how easy it would be to articulate the "inside baseball" of how emotional communication works. I mean, Streisand comes from the Broadway / Theater tradition - it's just so different than rock. Reading Askance's terse dismissal suggests that he/she has made up their minds. That's fine - YMMV and all, but it shows no clue whatsoever about how to approach music of that genre nor a willingness to learn.

choie
12-01-2009, 01:48 PM
Maybe you could compare it to acting styles? Like ... perhaps Sinatra, Streisand and Bruce = Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland and (young) Robert DeNiro. Tracy was controlled and 'internal', and Garland was theatrical and vulnerable, and DeNiro is gritty/passionate. Someone who's really into Brando/DeNiro/Pacino may not dig Tracy but every nuanced muscle on Tracy's face tells a story. And fans of Tracy and Brando might look down on Garland but there's a lot of honesty and power in her best acting work.

Now to me, Dean Martin or Bobby Darrin fits Askance's description; though even with them, I suspect I just may not have heard enough of their repertoire.

blondebear
12-01-2009, 01:53 PM
All this talk about Mick being a bad singer...no one ever mentions his trousers almost falling down! Seriously, though, Jagger isn't just the front man and co-songwriter, he's the Stones' prime mover. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to call him a control freak. The band's success has a lot to do with his drive and business acumen.

lieu
12-01-2009, 02:35 PM
Joe Cocker.I'm picturing Jagger doing the Joe Cocker thing with the spastic T-Rex arm movements. A can't look away from the trainwreck moment to be sure.

I like Jagger's voice though, or at least I can't imagine anyone else having done the songs any better. Yeah, I like Lou Reed and Neil Young as well. I guess my ears are just music whores.

Corner Case
12-01-2009, 02:50 PM
Herbert Khaury (http://www.tinytim.org/biography.html)? :D

gallows fodder
12-01-2009, 03:03 PM
YMMV but Tom Waits is someone whose voice many people may find more cacophonous than Jagger's.
That's very very true -- he is certainly not to everyone's taste -- but in Tom Waits' defense, he can carry a tune and sing in several different styles, unlike Mick Jagger/Lou Reed/etc.

EinsteinsHund
12-01-2009, 03:04 PM
I'm stunned by this thread. Up to now, among others, Van Morrison, Neil Young, Bob Dylan (yes, him too), Janis Joplin, Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger in the OP were taken as examples of bad singers. People, it's about rock'n roll! These are some of the finest rock' roll singers ever. And some of you don't tell the difference between the voice and the actual singing. Of course, Bob Dylan hasn't a beautiful voice, a small range, but man he can work with this voice (same applies to Jagger). For a different approach, take Joan Baez. A voice that my mother would love and describe as a beautiful, clear voice. But her singing... booooring. (I know that she doesn't fit exactly in the rock'n roll context, but you get the picture).

You just can't compare rock'n roll vocals to opera, jazz or swing, or whatever other genre you chose.

Next time, someone brings in Aretha Franklin, Dusty Springfield, Little Richard, Ray Charles or Elvis as bad singers...

John DiFool
12-01-2009, 08:27 PM
The guy from AC/DC is definitely worse. He also doesn't sing, has a really annoying voice, and has almost no range whatsoever. This is in part covered up by the entire band not having any musical talent, so it doesn't stand out quite as much as he could.

I read that AC/DC was like the 6th best selling artist of all time on some list and several of my blood vessels spontaneously exploded.

It gets worse. At Rate Your Music, many of their albums rate just a hair or two below 4.0 (out of 5), better than other Aussie bands like Midnight Oil, The Church, or even INXS.

Freudian Slit
12-01-2009, 08:30 PM
I'm stunned by this thread. Up to now, among others, Van Morrison, Neil Young, Bob Dylan (yes, him too), Janis Joplin, Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger in the OP were taken as examples of bad singers. People, it's about rock'n roll! These are some of the finest rock' roll singers ever.

I just feel like it's oversimplifying to say that it's rock and roll so technique doesn't matter. They may be popular and well liked, but I think it's fair to say that Mick Jagger is a bad singer. Paul McCartney may not be bad, but he's not exactly phenomenal. I don't think standards go out the window just because it's rock.

Those others that you mentioned--Dusty Springfield, Aretha, Elvis--are, IMO, examples of rock (well, not exactly rock but close) singers who do have beautiful voices. It can be done. I'm not saying Mick should never have sung, just that he's definitely not as good as others.

RickJay
12-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Just my opinion, of course, but lord did that Ashley Cleveland cover suck. Just really bad.[/url]
It didn't suck. It wasn't bad. It was a perfectly serviceable, professional performance by a talented singer with a good band.

But, see, that's all it was. It was a pro delivering the goods on a cover. It was the sort of competent performance you would expect from a Tuesday night act in Vegas.

When Mick did "Gimme Shelter," he (and Merry Clayton) SING it. You hear anger and fear and desperation. Love, it's just a kiss away. Rock and roll isn't about sounding like Celine Dion, it's about sounding like you mean it.

Technique does matter to some extent, but, c'mon - Mick can carry a tune and he can project and he sounds authentic. If you want to hear rock that really could have used a better singer, listen to Rage Against the Machine.

Mister Rik
12-01-2009, 09:29 PM
The guy from AC/DC is definitely worse.

I'll see your Brian Johnson and raise you Udo Dirkschneider (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwKQi7HB_Gw) :D

I did read a great interview with Brian Johnson back in the '80s. He related an anecdote where AC/DC was on tour, and he'd been walking around the city they were in. On his way back to the hotel he spotted a rock magazine on a newstand with a cover story claiming something like "Brian Johnson Quitting AC/DC!"

He got back to the hotel where he was confronted by his bandmates, who'd seen the same magazine. He said, "They must have thought I'd lost my mind! I mean, with my voice, who else would have me?"

VarlosZ
12-01-2009, 10:25 PM
Al Jolson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5yYPLTyXgI&feature=related).

Yes, yes, I know, I'm sure that was the style at the time, and I also imagine that the recording equipment used fails to render the most authentic reproduction of his singing. Nonetheless, I just can't relate to that style at all -- to my ears it's nothing but a grating, nasal catastrophe.

ekweizn
12-02-2009, 02:15 AM
Yo Mick, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Kanye West is one of the best worst singers of all time. One of the best worst singers of all time!

Nametag
12-02-2009, 05:59 AM
Yes, Mick Jagger is, justifiably, a rock legend -- but that doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible singer. It's always struck me as unjust that Keith Richards has gotten such grief for his solo efforts when Mick doesn't sing any better. It's all personality.

Exhibit #1 for the prosecution: Mick Jagger singing the blues. He's awful. I remember once hearing a late night show -- I'm thinking it was Ray Manzarek -- devoted to exploring the Rolling Stones' work. They played a track of one of the great Negro bluesmen singing one of the Stones' blues songs. It was beautiful, and it it became clearer than ever before that Mick can't sing.

Spice Weasel
12-02-2009, 06:08 AM
Madonna. She has a horrible low range.

In Spanish, Alejandro Sanz, it's like an auto-tune work the other way.

As one of the biggest Madonna fans on the planet, I will concede that she is not the strongest singer out there. Weirdly enough, though, I think her upper range is the problem. Seriously, have you heard, ''Live to Tell'' and ''In This Life'' and pretty much any of her ballads which features a strong alto? Gorgeous.

Her vocal immaturity is pretty evident in early upper range songs like ''Holiday'' and ''Lucky Star,'' but she eventually got some vocal training (when she filmed Evita in 1996) and improved tremendously.

Still, I've always believed that Madonna is not a singer. She is a performer. Her first love, and greatest talent, is dance.

I came in here to say that Bob Dylan is the single worst singer I think I've ever heard in my life. He sounds like he's stoned in every single one of his songs.

AC/DC (both leads) is a close runner up. My husband has joked that rock and roll singers are deliberately bad so as not to humiliate the average guys singing along.

handsomeharry
12-02-2009, 10:03 AM
For all the stink about "Van Hagar", Sammy Hagar is a far better singer than Dave.

I have to say that it is only madness to consider Dave any kind of a singer. He makes Barney Fife, Sgt. Carter, and Eddie Mecca sound like the Three Tenors. To compare Dave to Sammy Hagar is a terrible, terrible joke. Dave cannot sing, and Mick, who is horrible, is thirty levels above him, which tells you where Dave sings.

hh

WordMan
12-02-2009, 10:08 AM
I have to say that it is only madness to consider Dave any kind of a singer. He makes Barney Fife, Sgt. Carter, and Eddie Mecca sound like the Three Tenors. To compare Dave to Sammy Hagar is a terrible, terrible joke. Dave cannot sing, and Mick, who is horrible, is thirty levels above him, which tells you where Dave sings.

hh

But Diamond Dave is a wonderful, entertaining front man. His lack of vocal ability seems to support his schmaltzy approach.

cmkeller
12-02-2009, 10:11 AM
olivesmarch4th:

As one of the biggest Madonna fans on the planet, I will concede that she is not the strongest singer out there. Weirdly enough, though, I think her upper range is the problem. Seriously, have you heard, ''Live to Tell'' and ''In This Life'' and pretty much any of her ballads which features a strong alto? Gorgeous.

Preach it!! Madonna may not be Whitney or Celine, but she can certainly carry a tune, and occasionally (I love "Live to Tell") hit one out of the ballpark.

BwanaBob
12-02-2009, 11:33 AM
Randy Newman has been quite successful with a horrid voice.

choie
12-02-2009, 12:27 PM
olivesmarch4th:
Preach it!! Madonna may not be Whitney or Celine, but she can certainly carry a tune, and occasionally (I love "Live to Tell") hit one out of the ballpark.

I think she has a perfectly serviceable voice these days. She's actually improved immensely thanks to her training in Evita. It's a testament to both whoever her voice teacher was during that time and to Madonna herself, for obviously caring enough to work on her voice despite already being at the top of her profession. Few stars would bother. Obviously she wanted the role of a lifetime and her hard work shows. Not that she turned into Patti LuPone or anything, but the difference prior to Evita and after is incredible.

Of course now she's overboard with the ProTools / Auto-tune crap, but to quote Abe Simpson, 'that was the style at the time'.

BTW EinsteinsHund, I think many people in this thread have acknowledged that having a technically bad voice doesn't necessarily negate the pop/rock star's greatness. Assuming that s/he is great. A lot of us have said quite the contrary -- that even without pure vocal loveliness, people like Mick Jagger, Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison are powerful performers.

(Sorry, I refuse to put people like Prince* and McCartney on this list. This is a thread about who has the worst voice, not who has a not-perfectly-stellar voice. Respect the game, people!)

* And I don't even hear anything wrong with Prince's voice; maybe Tom Jones sang "Kiss" more powerfully, but just listen to "When Dove's Cry" for a better example of Prince's vocal prowess.

Mister Rik
12-02-2009, 01:08 PM
I thought Madonna sounded great on her album "I'm Breathless", which was songs from the Dick Tracy movie and other songs in the same "big band/swing" style.

Boulter's Canary
12-02-2009, 01:24 PM
Roger Daltrey

TreacherousCretin
12-02-2009, 02:26 PM
Roger Daltrey

Amen to that. IMO, THE most overrated voice in rock history.


.

Novelty Bobble
12-02-2009, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by Boulter's Canary
Roger Daltrey
Amen to that. IMO, THE most overrated voice in rock history.


Well that seems nonsensical, by what standard are you judging him?
He was the perfect fit for the rest of the band. The songs and the music demanded that voice and that performance. I don't need to go through a list but "5:15" and "The Real Me" should be enough to convince anyone.

I don't recall anyone rating his voice, I do recall pretty much everyone saying he was a great front man for The Who.

Freudian Slit
12-02-2009, 03:07 PM
Well that seems nonsensical, by what standard are you judging him?
He was the perfect fit for the rest of the band. The songs and the music demanded that voice and that performance. I don't need to go through a list but "5:15" and "The Real Me" should be enough to convince anyone.

I don't recall anyone rating his voice, I do recall pretty much everyone saying he was a great front man for The Who.

Does that really mean anything? I mean, he's the only front man we've known for that band. How would we know if any other singer could do it better?

WordMan
12-02-2009, 03:13 PM
Does that really mean anything? I mean, he's the only front man we've known for that band. How would we know if any other singer could do it better?

Well, Pete Townshend has commented numerous times about how blessed he was to have Roger as the interpreter of his songs...

Again, I appreciate that everyone has YMMV opinions about different singers, but many of these postings are just...well, I'm just gonna stay out of it.

Chicken Fingers
12-02-2009, 03:31 PM
How about Ian Dury? I love love love his stuff, though. RIP.

racer72
12-02-2009, 03:48 PM
Roger Daltrey

Best scream in rock history in Won't Get Fooled Again. That's enough to not be mentioned in this thread.

blondebear
12-02-2009, 03:59 PM
Believe me, Who fans the world over are crossing our fingers that he can nail that scream during the Super Bowl halftime show.

Stan Shmenge
12-02-2009, 06:03 PM
Jerry Garcia

Novelty Bobble
12-02-2009, 06:10 PM
Does that really mean anything? I mean, he's the only front man we've known for that band. How would we know if any other singer could do it better?

In a parallel universe there is group of middle aged men playing pub back-rooms who nearly made it. If only they'd found the right front man.

And you should see the state of Keith!

Lamia
12-02-2009, 06:12 PM
Does that really mean anything? I mean, he's the only front man we've known for that band. How would we know if any other singer could do it better?Well, every other member of The Who took lead vocals on occasion, and as a solo artist Pete Townshend has performed songs originally recorded with Daltrey on lead vocals, so that's three other people right there. Guest vocalists have joined the Who in concert and Who songs have also been covered by various other artists, so it's easy enough to find examples of Who songs sung by someone other than Roger Daltrey.

As for Daltrey's voice, I can understand that some people might dislike his style, but in terms of his technical abilities like range, pitch, control, etc., there are far worse rock and roll singers.

kevlaw
12-02-2009, 06:55 PM
As for Daltrey's voice, I can understand that some people might dislike his style, but in terms of his technical abilities like range, pitch, control, etc., there are far worse rock and roll singers.

I came in to say much the same thing about Van Morrison and Joe Cocker. Echoing an earlier sentiment, I can't even believe that these names are being mentioned.

I'd feel the same in a parallel thread where people criticize guitars because they don't sound like violins.

Marley23
12-02-2009, 07:04 PM
Jerry Garcia
Not the worst singer in his band. In fact he probably wasn't even the second worst. But maybe my perception is skewed because I've heard Weir recently, when he's absolutely horrible - sub-Dylan, sub-William Shatner.

Dorothea Book
12-02-2009, 07:08 PM
Well, Pete Townshend has commented numerous times about how blessed he was to have Roger as the interpreter of his songs...

Again, I appreciate that everyone has YMMV opinions about different singers, but many of these postings are just...well, I'm just gonna stay out of it.

I'd like to put in a plug for the quality of Pete T's little back-up vocals:

"You better, you better, you bet... ooo, ooo, ooo"

Dorothea Book
12-02-2009, 07:09 PM
I'd feel the same in a parallel thread where people criticize guitars because they don't sound like violins.

Nicely put kevlaw except that some of the violins are coming in for a whacking too ;)

Mister Rik
12-02-2009, 07:24 PM
Well, every other member of The Who took lead vocals on occasion, and as a solo artist Pete Townshend has performed songs originally recorded with Daltrey on lead vocals, so that's three other people right there. Guest vocalists have joined the Who in concert and Who songs have also been covered by various other artists, so it's easy enough to find examples of Who songs sung by someone other than Roger Daltrey.
Geddy Lee! (Rush recorded a cover of The Seeker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QUWkFeGQ0A) on their "Feedback" EP, a collection of 8 covers of songs that influenced them when they were kids just starting to learn to play their instruments.

LC Strawhouse
12-02-2009, 08:03 PM
The Sade of "Smooth Operator"? Now you're just being silly.

I don't think I'm being silly. Her vocals were very very flat.

Dallas Jones
12-02-2009, 09:13 PM
Bad singer is completely a matter of taste. Some genres of music really benefit from a smooth, melodic voice; others are better suited to a harsh or gravelly one. Most people wouldn't consider any punk rock singer to have a conventionally "good" voice but millions of people love punk rock. And Mick Jagger would sound awful with a swingin' big band behind him, playing jazz standards, as I'm sure Frank Sinatra would with Black Flag backing him up. Certain voices fit with certain instrumental styles and they just "work." It can't really be explained any better than that.

Jagger and Evans should never have broken up. :D

Stan Shmenge
12-02-2009, 10:15 PM
Not the worst singer in his band. In fact he probably wasn't even the second worst. But maybe my perception is skewed because I've heard Weir recently, when he's absolutely horrible - sub-Dylan, sub-William Shatner.A lot of it had to do with the particular day. On a good day, Jerry can make you weep. The album version of "Standing on the Moon" being a good example. But a lot of days he was pretty much done. :D

/deadhead

Stan Shmenge
12-02-2009, 10:17 PM
And as far as Geddy Lee is concerned, he sings on key, he just as a freakish voice that turns some people off. Once you get beyond that, he is a fantastic singer, for a band called Rush. It wouldn't really be Rush without him.

/rush nerd

gonzomax
12-02-2009, 10:54 PM
From wikipedia:

"Pet Sounds is the eleventh studio album by the American rock band The Beach Boys, released May 16, 1966, on Capitol Records. It has been widely ranked as one of the most influential records ever released in western pop music and has been ranked at number #1 in several music magazines' lists of greatest albums of all time, including New Musical Express, The Times and Mojo Magazine.[1][2][3] In 2003, it was ranked #2 in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list.[4]"

And they call Wilson a musical genius. I don't get it one bit. When they were on top i refused to see them for free.

oliversarmy
12-02-2009, 11:37 PM
Stevie Nicks.

Spice Weasel
12-03-2009, 12:11 AM
I thought Madonna sounded great on her album "I'm Breathless", which was songs from the Dick Tracy movie and other songs in the same "big band/swing" style.
I recommend that album to anyone who thinks Madonna doesn't have a sense of humor. Totally off the wall silliness.

For the best of her singing, I'd recommend Something To Remember. It includes the absolutely wonderful ''Love Don't Live Here Anymore.'' She nailed that one. Oh, and Bedtime Stories. There's a vulnerability to her voice, I think it works for her even though she's not a perfect singer.

Stan, as a fellow Rush nerd, I will defend Geddy Lee. Hot shit.

Dorothea Book
12-03-2009, 12:13 AM
Stevie Nicks.

And I was going to say Elvis Costello ;)

pulykamell
12-03-2009, 12:42 AM
Best scream in rock history in Won't Get Fooled Again. That's enough to not be mentioned in this thread.

Amen. I'm not a big fan of the Who, but Daltrey was the perfect fit for their music, and that scream is the quintessential rock scream. I'm not sure what more praise you can give a rock vocalist. Perfect. Just like Keith Moon, who is not my favorite drummer by any stretch (although my appreciation is growing) but absolutely perfect for the Who. Whenever I hear post-Moon who, it just doesn't sound right to me.

needscoffee
12-03-2009, 02:39 AM
Yes, Mick Jagger is, justifiably, a rock legend -- but that doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible singer. It's always struck me as unjust that Keith Richards has gotten such grief for his solo efforts when Mick doesn't sing any better. It's all personality.

Exhibit #1 for the prosecution: Mick Jagger singing the blues. He's awful. I remember once hearing a late night show -- I'm thinking it was Ray Manzarek -- devoted to exploring the Rolling Stones' work. They played a track of one of the great Negro bluesmen singing one of the Stones' blues songs. It was beautiful, and it it became clearer than ever before that Mick can't sing.Probably Robert Johnson performing his song "Love In Vain" in 1937. I love the Stones' version of it.

As one of the biggest Madonna fans on the planet, I will concede that she is not the strongest singer out there. Weirdly enough, though, I think her upper range is the problem. Seriously, have you heard, ''Live to Tell'' and ''In This Life'' and pretty much any of her ballads which features a strong alto? Gorgeous.

Her vocal immaturity is pretty evident in early upper range songs like ''Holiday'' and ''Lucky Star,'' but she eventually got some vocal training (when she filmed Evita in 1996) and improved tremendously.

Still, I've always believed that Madonna is not a singer. She is a performer. Her first love, and greatest talent, is dance.I though it was hilarious that despite desperately trying to be taken seriously as a singer in Dick Tracy, Madonna was outsung seemingly effortlessly by Mandy Patinkin (her piano player) in the one line he was given to sing. I think her vocals are completely ordinary. It's her performance that puts her on top.

I can't say I think Mick Jagger is a good singer or bad singer, but I do think he is the biggest reason the Stones are what they are. I don't think a better singer would have made them any bigger. He's exactly the right man for the job. Sometimes yelling with good timing is exactly what's needed.

lieu
12-03-2009, 08:26 AM
And as far as Geddy Lee is concerned, he sings on key, he just as a freakish voice that turns some people off. Once you get beyond that, he is a fantastic singer, for a band called Rush. It wouldn't really be Rush without him.Substitute John Fogerty and Creedence into this sentence and it works equally well. I wouldn't know how to begin to describe Fogerty's voice, Southern Enthusiastic?, but again it's a perfect marriage with the music.

Mister Rik
12-03-2009, 12:18 PM
I though it was hilarious that despite desperately trying to be taken seriously as a singer in Dick Tracy, Madonna was outsung seemingly effortlessly by Mandy Patinkin (her piano player) in the one line he was given to sing. I think her vocals are completely ordinary. It's her performance that puts her on top.

But that one song (did they not finish the song in the movie? I can't remember... weren't they interrupted by Madonna's characater's jealous "boyfriend"?) is freakin' gorgeous. And you've got to admit, Mandy Patinkin could sing circles around just about anybody. Guy's got to be one of the most versatile performers on the planet. All-around, old-school, Vaudeville-type "Entertainer". But I kind of think the point of the Breathless Mahoney character was that she was not supposed to be a good singer (and that's hinted at by her very name), she was supposed to be nightclub eye-candy.

Also, and this is OT, the song "More" from the movie has one of the most brilliant, IMHO, lines ever:

"More is better than nothing, yes, but nothing's better than more."


Geddy Lee: I recently saw, on YouTube, a documentary about Rush tribute bands. It included some comments from Geddy himself, and at one point he admits, "When I was younger I wrote some completely ridiculous [vocal] parts", and went on to say that he was impressed that other people were even attempting to sing them, especially since even Geddy himself can't sing those parts any more. Although that's one area where, in my view, Geddy earns points over Daltrey. These days when Rush performs their older material live, Geddy has rearranged the melodies and even changed the keys of some songs to eliminate those notes he can't consistently hit any more (they're his melodies - he's allowed). I heard a recording of a live The Who performance from some time in the '90s where Roger was attempting to hit some really high notes from an older song, and he sounded like complete shit because he simply couldn't do it. To be fair, though, I don't know the circumstances. Maybe it was near the end of a tour and his voice was simply thrashed. Or maybe he'd been ill.

Lamia
12-03-2009, 06:48 PM
Although that's one area where, in my view, Geddy earns points over Daltrey. These days when Rush performs their older material live, Geddy has rearranged the melodies and even changed the keys of some songs to eliminate those notes he can't consistently hit any more (they're his melodies - he's allowed). I heard a recording of a live The Who performance from some time in the '90s where Roger was attempting to hit some really high notes from an older song, and he sounded like complete shit because he simply couldn't do it. To be fair, though, I don't know the circumstances. Maybe it was near the end of a tour and his voice was simply thrashed. Or maybe he'd been ill.I've seen The Who at least half a dozen times in the past decade, and Daltrey definitely has adjusted the vocal arrangements to fit his current range. You may have heard him on a bad night.

Mister Rik
12-03-2009, 07:47 PM
I've seen The Who at least half a dozen times in the past decade, and Daltrey definitely has adjusted the vocal arrangements to fit his current range. You may have heard him on a bad night.

Maybe he learned his lesson after that performance I heard :D

blondebear
12-03-2009, 08:28 PM
Sadly, Roger's voice is the weakest link in a modern Who gig. If you read fan reviews, the caliber of the show almost always hinges on his performance. Considering the demands of Pete's songs, it's a wonder he can speak at all. There is only so much damage human vocal chords can take.

However, his just completed "Use It Or Lose It" tour was well received by fans and media reviewers alike. Maybe he has one go-round left...at least we hope so.

BigShooter
12-06-2009, 09:07 AM
The guy from AC/DC is definitely worse. He also doesn't sing, has a really annoying voice, and has almost no range whatsoever. This is in part covered up by the entire band not having any musical talent, so it doesn't stand out quite as much as he could.

I read that AC/DC was like the 6th best selling artist of all time on some list and several of my blood vessels spontaneously exploded.

I don't know even where to start with this... :smack:

My guess if you have no idea what rock and roll is all about so you have no business posting in a thread about rock and roll singers.

AC/DC is one of the most pure rock acts out there. No frills, balls out rock. It's not about having the golden voice - it's about having the attitude and energy. No one who's ever seen AC/DC play can deny that they are one of the tightest, most "jump around silly" inducing bands out there. One of the best lead guitar players ever plus the best rhythm section in rock history, period. Brian Johnson has a voice that fits the genre and the band perfectly...

But that's just my opinion.:D

It's almost like saying that Zach De La Rocha from Rage Against The Machine has a crappy voice. He does - but not for that band. For that band, he was absolutely perfect...

WordMan
12-06-2009, 11:54 AM
I don't know even where to start with this... :smack:

My guess if you have no idea what rock and roll is all about so you have no business posting in a thread about rock and roll singers.

AC/DC is one of the most pure rock acts out there. No frills, balls out rock. It's not about having the golden voice - it's about having the attitude and energy. No one who's ever seen AC/DC play can deny that they are one of the tightest, most "jump around silly" inducing bands out there. One of the best lead guitar players ever plus the best rhythm section in rock history, period. Brian Johnson has a voice that fits the genre and the band perfectly...

But that's just my opinion.:D

It's almost like saying that Zach De La Rocha from Rage Against The Machine has a crappy voice. He does - but not for that band. For that band, he was absolutely perfect...


Hey dude - where ya been? Nice to see you on the 'Dope...

Yeah, you have to be careful with this thread. People throwin' tomatoes at Sinatra in a thread about Jagger - kinda not worth it. Your bone to pick is another example.

Folks are welcome to not like a particular vocalist, but the undeniable success of some of the frontmen (and women), and the respect that they get from fellow practitioners within their genre, suggests that there is something they are doing well. You can choose to be open to that or not, but that's about your choice, not what they are bringing to the table...

Shirley Ujest
12-06-2009, 01:11 PM
On Saturday Night Live, long ago, Tim Curry did a wonderful imagination of Jagger's first "network special", with various "special guest stars", including Joe Piscopo's wonderful Frank Sinatra. They traded lines from each other's song, Jagger singing "Strangers In The Night", Sinatra singing "Get Off My Cloud".

I wish I could find it, but Saturday Night Live has been diabolically efficient at removing clips from YouTube, and equally inefficient at putting clips back up on Hulu.

Jagger is a brilliant singer compared to Lou Reed.

Sorta. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31BCvjJRSBQ)

Purd Werfect
12-06-2009, 01:19 PM
I'm not going to speculate on bad singers, but one thing stands out to me in this thread: Just about everyone mentioned has a sound which is uniquely identifiable. They may not be great singers or vocalists or whatever, but no one else really sounds like them. To me, that's more special than being technically proficient.

BigShooter
12-06-2009, 04:40 PM
Hey dude - where ya been? Nice to see you on the 'Dope...

Yeah, you have to be careful with this thread. People throwin' tomatoes at Sinatra in a thread about Jagger - kinda not worth it. Your bone to pick is another example.

Folks are welcome to not like a particular vocalist, but the undeniable success of some of the frontmen (and women), and the respect that they get from fellow practitioners within their genre, suggests that there is something they are doing well. You can choose to be open to that or not, but that's about your choice, not what they are bringing to the table...

Just trying to get Ghost Town Guitars off the ground... slowly...:D

You always have a better way of putting things that I do...

unwashed brain
12-07-2009, 02:07 PM
More votes for the usual suspects: AC/DC (both), Geddy Lee, Dylan, Petty, Reed, Forgety, and Costello.

One singer whose work I really enjoy but who probably fits in this thread is Greg Dulli, primarily of The Afghan Whigs. The album Black Love in particular has a large percentage of off-key vocals, yet it all just works somehow. Add him to the list of frontmen who really sell what they're singing.

gonzomax
12-07-2009, 02:15 PM
What no Rod Stewart fans?
Jagger wins. Just think .I can't get no satisfaction. I can't get no satisfaction ,and think of the range it required. Yes he was the front singer of a very successful band. They wrote songs to fit both of the notes he could sing. It was a perfect marriage of stage show and rock. It was just not very good singing.

NetTrekker
06-27-2010, 10:36 PM
Annoying voices:

Cher.

Tracey Chapman.

John Fogerty used to bug me a lot.

Willy Nelson I can handle but I can see how he grates on some people's ears.

BaneSidhe
06-28-2010, 12:56 AM
On Saturday Night Live, long ago, Tim Curry did a wonderful imagination of Jagger's first "network special", with various "special guest stars", including Joe Piscopo's wonderful Frank Sinatra. They traded lines from each other's song, Jagger singing "Strangers In The Night", Sinatra singing "Get Off My Cloud".

I wish I could find it, but Saturday Night Live has been diabolically efficient at removing clips from YouTube, and equally inefficient at putting clips back up on Hulu.

Jagger is a brilliant singer compared to Lou Reed.

I remember that episode very well! And didn't Keith Richards show up at some point during the show?

Ranchoth
06-28-2010, 04:28 AM
Florence Foster Jenkins?

vivalostwages
06-28-2010, 12:34 PM
If we want to go into how many singers really didn't have great voices but had something else that people went for, the list could get lengthier.
Sinatra--not great, but he had the Rat Pack swagger/cool thing.
Jagger--not great, but he's got animal magnetism and a good stage presence.
Bono--not great, but lots of charisma and passion.

And so on.

cactus waltz
06-29-2010, 04:22 AM
I came in here to say that Bob Dylan is the single worst singer I think I've ever heard in my life. He sounds like he's stoned in every single one of his songs.

Well, everybody must get stoned.

CaptMurdock
06-29-2010, 10:18 AM
Well I, for one, think that Bruce Springsteen is a much better vocalist than Pavarotti. I mean, really, all Pavarotti does is stand there and sing!

;)

Oh, Lordy, don't get me started on Springsteen. The man hits two notes: "nasal" and "whiny." Is it any wonder half his songs are covered by other people and those are bigger hits?

Mister Rik
06-29-2010, 11:31 AM
Oh, Lordy, don't get me started on Springsteen. The man hits two notes: "nasal" and "whiny." Is it any wonder half his songs are covered by other people and those are bigger hits?

As a comedian I once went to see put it, "Bruce yells everything, and what he doesn't yell he mumbles."

cochrane
07-01-2010, 01:55 PM
Rob Zombie?

A Dodgy Dude
07-30-2010, 12:58 AM
Watching Gene Simmons' Family Jewels has convinced me none of the four guys in KISS can sing a single note on key.

devilsknew
07-30-2010, 01:08 AM
Oh, Lordy, don't get me started on Springsteen. The man hits two notes: "nasal" and "whiny." Is it any wonder half his songs are covered by other people and those are bigger hits?

As a comedian I once went to see put it, "Bruce yells everything, and what he doesn't yell he mumbles."

What about "Woooaoooh, I'm on Fire..." in dulcet, crooning, 80's tones. He doesn't get too intense in the face of tha song... something else like Romeo and Juliet, Samson and Delilah.

Guinastasia
07-30-2010, 01:21 AM
Courtney Love.

devilsknew
07-30-2010, 02:19 AM
'Steen.

I'm on Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJQgwqojirs&feature=related)

Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5PoIrcyd34)

BigT
07-30-2010, 02:29 AM
I really do think there are objective standards for singing. It is possible to determine whether someone can hit and hold a pitch, whether they can sing in time, how long they can go without a breath, whether they can change their voice for different styles, how broad their range is, how in tune they are with their harmonies, how they handle different styles, how well they can be understood.

Okay, so that last one varies by genre. Of course, in any genre, you get even more objective criteria.

You're not going to convince me that William Hung is a good singer just becuase someone likes to listen to him.

Student Driver
07-30-2010, 02:45 AM
I think the whole "they're not singers, they're entertainers/part of a band/a star" thing has been beaten to death already, but I do think it's kind of interesting that I like quite a few bad singers in their element.

I won't argue that Britney Spears is a good singer, but as a vocal instrument in a producer's dance pop song, she's good. I hate the aforementioned Courtney Love as a person and think she can't sing well, but she has an earnest voice filled with pain that works for quite a few Hole songs. Ke$ha's really bad, but damn if her producers didn't manage to use her as an interesting component of some fun, immature, dirty pop. And Uffie and Miss Kittin and Peaches and Amanda Blank and Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore and Henry Rollins and Kathleen Hannah and Genesis P-Orridge and... you get the point. If I'm in the mood for electroclash, punk, no wave, bubblegum, industrial or whatever genre, they're integral parts of the songs I happen to want to hear.

devilsknew
07-30-2010, 02:54 AM
Robin Williams - Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irC9WUp94EM)

kidchameleon
07-30-2010, 04:21 AM
Sadly Lemmy Kilmister can't sing because he lacks vocal cords. Instead he has a sack of gravel he can rub together and project to accompany Motorhead.

devilsknew
07-30-2010, 04:53 AM
Man, after seeing those Springsteen Videos... I believe that Ben Affleck should do an early Bruce Springsteen biopic in the same footsteps as Lou diamond Philips as Ritchie Valens, Gary Busey as Buddy Holly, Joachim Phoenix as Johny Cash, and as Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles... with ahint of story/bravada ala Eddie and the Cruisers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmf8rZfGTKQ). Sort of a tell all.

Chicagojeff
07-30-2010, 06:17 AM
I really like Mick Jagger's voice. I guess I'm in a minority here.

A minority of at least two. I'm with you. He doesn't have a naturally beautiful voice with a lot of range, but I like what he does with it nonetheless.

.

Count me in.. he couldn't make the Boys Choir of Harlem or anything.. but shit.. Tumbling Dice??

Juntas Doorman
07-30-2010, 12:02 PM
I think Student Driver (#154 above) has hit the nail on the head. Anyone expressing enthusiasm for Jagger's vocals here is doing so by reference to studio recordings in which the best of his limited vocal ability was arrived at by attrition and under carefully controlled conditions. The Stones and their producers triumphed in making these recordings sound like performances, and they have a string of great records - a handful of early singles and the albums Aftermath, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street, even parts of Some Girls - to illustrate the point. But Jagger could never reproduce these vocal performances live. In his twenties he was at his best on stage, with reasonable projection and his head-voice still intact. As he aged and his register dropped (smoking, drinking, and his insistence on running around the stage didn't help), his live vocal degenerated into a series of rhythmic grunts. One of my great disappointments came aged fifteen at Slane Castle when I had to sit through one of these horrible grunt-fests. It's far from ideal, but that's the way it is, and I still enjoy the recordings. To boot, Jagger was intelligent, articulate, egotistical and provocative, perfectly suiting the era he flourished in.

On the broader point, I don't think that any performer has ever suffered artistically due to a surfeit of technical ability. Certainly it's not everything in rock'n'roll, but I doubt Keith Richards ever sits around wishing he weren't so good on the guitar. The aptly named punk "movement" (forgive the ordurous imagery) liked to equate ability with an absence of sincerity or "soul" (credibility and relevance were the mots justes at the time) but if you buy a compilation of punk singles you won't hear much in the way of flamming, or flubbed or bum notes, so clearly their producers didn't agree. They knew that no matter how simple the composition or arrangement it sounds better when the band do it well and together.

As to whether there's ever been a worse very successful singer than Jagger, one name always pops to mind for me. He very obviously styled himself on Jagger, his band had a handful of good singles and one very good album, and like his hero he was provocative and articulate: Bob Geldof.

aceplace57
07-30-2010, 12:37 PM
Anybody that eats Mars Bars with Marianne Faithfull is ok in my book.

Guinastasia
07-30-2010, 03:12 PM
Anybody that eats Mars Bars with Marianne Faithfull is ok in my book.

Shouldn't that be "out of" Marianne Faithfull?

aceplace57
07-30-2010, 03:21 PM
:D good point. out of is more accurate. I think he got Satisfaction that day. :cool:

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.