| 20th February 2006 05:56 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
I don't know. At the Superbowl and now from the clips in RIO. Mick seems to be loosing his breath now,....where as he hasn't before.
It also appears that because of this happening, He doesn't have the power in finishing the lines at times as he used to. He can finish the lines but not as powerful and a little strained because of him loosing his breath.
I know the dude is 62. Hell it is practically a miracle they are doing what they do at their age for long periods of time. But Is it me or has father time finally started to make himself more evident this tour on Mick because it seems he is loosing his breath on stage and seems to be straining a bit with moving all around and still trying to sing strong. He never really did before. Is it me?
Ian |
| 20th February 2006 06:15 PM |
|
|
| Flairville |
In my humble opinion, it's you. |
| 20th February 2006 06:24 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
You cant have listened to many shows then from 1976 to about 1982, when he sounded breathless all the time because he was spending most of the time running about and winding himself
His voice can be a fragile instrument at times (as can anyone's), but IMO he's never been better vocally than he has been on the last two or three tours. |
| 20th February 2006 06:51 PM |
|
|
| PeerQueer |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
You cant have listened to many shows then from 1976 to about 1982, when he sounded breathless all the time because he was spending most of the time running about and winding himself
His voice can be a fragile instrument at times (as can anyone's), but IMO he's never been better vocally than he has been on the last two or three tours.
____
Agreed - in fact, he appears to have added just a bit of bulk to his upper body this tour. His conditioning is a freak of nature - amazing.
Hell, Keith for that matter is remarkable considering...
And Charlie cracks the snare better now than he did 20 years ago. They are all amazing!
Even though I'm a big U2 fan, if Bono doesn't get a handle on his own physical conditioning, he's not gonna be able to pull this touring stuff off in another 10 years. The guy needs to shed about 20 pounds... |
| 20th February 2006 07:02 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
I agree with you Ian, but it only happens at certain moments it seems like. I noticed it during Jumping Jack Flash of the Rio show. And on YCAGWYW of the same show, you can hear a major voice crack at the very last line. |
| 20th February 2006 07:25 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
Is it me?
Ian
It is just YOU !!!!!!
BEST MICK YET !
BEST KEITH YET !!!
BEST CHARLIE YET !!!!!
**** BEST STONES YET !!! **** |
| 20th February 2006 08:50 PM |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
>I noticed it during Jumping Jack Flash of the Rio show. And on YCAGWYW of the same show, you can hear a major voice crack at the very last line.<
You ever sing anything with a live band? I'm not trying to be a smartass...I'm just curious.
Not every note comes out like you plan it...especially when you are working the crowd. Believe it or not, Mick Jagger is human. Sometimes his voice doesn't do what it's told. No one's does. It is physically impossible to sing every line perfect every time. It just won't happen.
Having listened to over 400 shows from the mid-sixties up to 2/18/2006, I can tell you that this is NOT a new phenomenon for Sir Michael. If anything the technical aspects of his singing have gotten much better since 1989.
|
| 20th February 2006 09:18 PM |
|
|
| the good |
Its just amazing how two people can listen to the same thing and come away with totally different opinions. I thought Micky sounded great at the superbowl and in Rio. In fact, I thought both performances were classic. |
| 20th February 2006 11:10 PM |
|
|
| Maxmeister |
[quote]Sir Stonesalot wrote:
If anything the technical aspects of his singing have gotten much better since 1989.
You are absolutely correct. His preparation since '89 rather than being able to rely on youth has made him a better vocalist than the 60s and 70s.
Rick
|
| 21st February 2006 02:27 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
Hmmmmm. I gotta stay by my original observation. I realize he was out of breath. Especially in 75-76 and 78. But then he was much more active and it was kinda "in" at the time to be that way being as punk was in and the singing was not supposed to be polished and perfect.
However he is no more active than he was the last tour, or the 99 tour yet it seems he is struggling to finish his lines alot now. In 2002 he was still strong till the end. Even a few of my friends who know the Stones pretty darn good and had seen them live and seen them perform several times made remarks that Mick is loosing his breath now.
At first I noticed it some. Then when I watched the Superbowl again and again it was more evident. Even before I had spoke with them.
Any way you look at it The guys certainly deserve all the credit in the world and nobody in well possibly....history will have this much sucess over five decades of strong touring.
Ian |
| 21st February 2006 06:07 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
I think he is doing an excellent job flying the envelop as the test pilots say. He gives a great performance, but knows his limits and tries not to exceed them. From the front rows it is clear just how hard he is working. There are many times during a show where he is sucking wind and catching his breath between songs. It is not as easy as he makes it look.
One of the keys to his consistently great performances is the pacing, which is a function of the setlists. Clearly, it is one of the reason the second half of the show when he is tired doesn't change much. The structure of the first half also doesn't change much, although different rockers and ballads are substituted.
Sure, for one show he could do more. In Vegas he did 8 songs at the sound check and then put on a great performance. Over the long term though it takes its toll. That is why they went from 21 to 20 songs. It is also why the 21 song setlist rarely had MR.
It is also apparent that as the tour progresses the band shows its age a bit more, particularly when it gets to be a grind. I think Keef and Ronnie show it most of all at times. They simply don't have Mick's aerobic conditioning and stamina. Even in their prime in the 70s they were not doing tours with this many performances.
I think Atlanta get an exceptional show because they basically had a week off to rest, and the monotony was broken up a bit by the uniqueness of the Superbowl.
My 2 cents for what it is worth. There are always a lot of comments about setlists, but their ages and physical conditioning are real limitations and they are doing an exceptional job all things considered and we are fortunate they are still at it. The only real comparison is Macca the coach potato. Mick burns more energy by the end of JJF than Paul does throughout the show. The Stones are without equal. |
| 21st February 2006 07:20 AM |
|
|
| gotdablouse |
Yes Mick is on hist last legs obviously...too bad the same can't be said about Ian "blah blah blah..............from Ian" Billen! |
| 21st February 2006 07:28 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
My 2 cents for what it is worth. There are always a lot of comments about setlists, but their ages and physical conditioning are real limitations and they are doing an exceptional job all things considered and we are fortunate they are still at it. The only real comparison is Macca the coach potato. Mick burns more energy by the end of JJF than Paul does throughout the show. The Stones are without equal.
Good point |
| 21st February 2006 08:02 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
Mick was technically at his best during Licks tour.
But I still prefer his 70's or early 80's way to sing,raw and strong,those days where he was shouting like on Neighbors from 81.. |
| 21st February 2006 08:20 AM |
|
|
| Rambler |
"His conditioning is a freak of nature - amazing."
I've often wondered about this myself.How can he,at 62,still run the stage like he does?What does this guy eat for crying out loud....
And then there's keith,with all that drug abuse and so forth,and he's got better flexibility than my wife at 23.
Somehow something tells me medical science has tons of things to discover about health in general....
[Edited by Rambler] |
| 21st February 2006 08:36 AM |
|
|
| egon |
I guess he was out of breath because it's always very cold in brazil. |
| 21st February 2006 08:43 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
What does he eat?
From the Atlanta newspaper:
According to the Peach Buzz (gossip page) of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Overscene
Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and family dining at Brasserie Le Coze in Buckhead. “The Rolling Stones always stop in at least once when they are in town,” Brasserie owner Fabrice Vergez e-mailed us. Jagger enjoyed the truffle cream of mushroom soup and a filet mignon, while Richards dined on mussels and fresh buttered poached shrimp with lemon whipped potatoes. So who paid? Mick who also left “a generous tip.”
OVERSCENE
Rolling stones frontman Mick Jagger chowing down on buckhead dinner grub twice this week. On Thursday, Jagger and guests shared sweet and spicy chili calamari, tuna tartare and mini crab cakes. While the singer obviously created a ripple in the restaurant, his fans remained well-behaved during his visit. On Wednesday prior to their gig at Phillips Arena, the English rockers ordered takeout from diner chef Joey Riley, who, we're told was "thrilled and flattered" to provide the fuel for the acts tour stop here.
[Edited by Jumping Jack] |
| 21st February 2006 11:09 AM |
|
|
| throbby |
I think Mick is in fantastic shape for any age.
Get on an elliptical trainer, set it for two 55 minute sessions with a ten minute breather, play your favorite music, and try to sing along at proper volume, in tune, while working the crowd with your arms.
I bet you can't. |
| 21st February 2006 11:17 AM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
throbby wrote:
I think Mick is in fantastic shape for any age.
Get on an elliptical trainer, set it for two 55 minute sessions with a ten minute breather, play your favorite music, and try to sing along at proper volume, in tune, while working the crowd with your arms.
I bet you can't.
i worked about 10% as hard as Mick during my bands shows, and I played guitar/bass on about 70% of our setlist and I wasy typically completely spent at the end of our show and worthless for a couple of days, granted, I was in horrible shape then, but it is not easy to do 10% of what Mick does. |
| 21st February 2006 11:28 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
throbby wrote:
I think Mick is in fantastic shape for any age.
Get on an elliptical trainer, set it for two 55 minute sessions with a ten minute breather, play your favorite music, and try to sing along at proper volume, in tune, while working the crowd with your arms.
I bet you can't.
good point throbby. we can be proud of our Mick!! |
| 21st February 2006 11:41 AM |
|
|
| Ihavelotsajam |
quote:
Rambler wrote:
I've often wondered about this myself.How can he,at 62,still run the stage like he does?What does this guy eat for crying out loud....
And then there's keith,with all that drug abuse and so forth,and he's got better flexibility than my wife at 23.
Somehow something tells me medical science has tons of things to discover about health in general....
The Stones have always had a physical job, though. After a certain point, you become used to it, it just gets easier, maybe even routine. That is probably at least part of the reason why many people who sit at their desk all day are not as physical as them.
But also, a lot of older people are starting to take care of themselves, and because of that, are in better shape than what the stereotypical 'image' of a 60 year old is.
That, and the fact that I think most of the general population hasn't got a CLUE about how to take care of themselves, while the Stones employ a lot of people to do so.
Re. Ian's post, Mick did run more back in the 70s-early 80s, but even so, you can tell that over the last couple of decades, he's actually worked at improving his vocal control, which he just didn't have back then. |
| 21st February 2006 11:48 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Mick was just coked out through 82. Whether that made him better, or just more energetic is certainly open for debate. |
| 21st February 2006 12:32 PM |
|
|
| Honky Tonk Man |
quote:
Jumacfly wrote:
Mick was technically at his best during Licks tour.
But I still prefer his 70's or early 80's way to sing,raw and strong,those days where he was shouting like on Neighbors from 81..
I don't entirely agree. While his energy levels were phenomenal back then in my opinion, his shouting and slurring of the lyrics is what ruins those otherwise wonderful Stones performances. Listen to Love You Live. I find his vocals intolerable at times.
No, I agree with Gazza. Mick has been at his very best during the past few tours.
|
| 21st February 2006 12:53 PM |
|
|
| deuce |
Both Mick and Charlie have only gotten better with age. |
| 21st February 2006 01:22 PM |
|
|
| Nellcote |
From Nellcote:
Ian, could you send along some of what you smoke?
Thanks! |
| 21st February 2006 01:29 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
Keith said he had a new appriciation for what Mick does after doing his own solo tours. |
| 21st February 2006 03:36 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
>I noticed it during Jumping Jack Flash of the Rio show. And on YCAGWYW of the same show, you can hear a major voice crack at the very last line.<
You ever sing anything with a live band? I'm not trying to be a smartass...I'm just curious.
Not every note comes out like you plan it...especially when you are working the crowd. Believe it or not, Mick Jagger is human. Sometimes his voice doesn't do what it's told. No one's does. It is physically impossible to sing every line perfect every time. It just won't happen.
Having listened to over 400 shows from the mid-sixties up to 2/18/2006, I can tell you that this is NOT a new phenomenon for Sir Michael. If anything the technical aspects of his singing have gotten much better since 1989.
gotcha, I guess my opinion was not really valid because I have only seen the Stones live once, and I compared the Rio show to the DVD's which have most likely been edited and overdubbed. And yes, I have sung for a band once actually. Not sure if you can really call it singing though haha. |
| 21st February 2006 03:59 PM |
|
|
| CraigP |
Yo, Ian I agree with your statements. It's not you.
I think Charlie's pounding on the bass-drum kicker is a compensation or the opposite... Charlie is actually adding something to his beats! Greatest rock drummer ever. My sleep doctor heartily agrees also. |
| 21st February 2006 04:16 PM |
|
|
| Break The Spell |
quote:
CraigP wrote:
Yo, Ian I agree with your statements. It's not you.
I think Charlie's pounding on the bass-drum kicker is a compensation or the opposite... Charlie is actually adding something to his beats! Greatest rock drummer ever. My sleep doctor heartily agrees also.
Indeed, this tour = BEST CHARLIE YET |
| 21st February 2006 06:37 PM |
|
|
| Rambler |
quote:
Charlie is actually adding something to his beats! Greatest rock drummer ever. My sleep doctor heartily agrees also.
I've been a musician forever,and I most wholeheartedly agree!;-)
And regarding mick,to get to his age and have more energy than most 10 year olds is simply outstanding.;-) |
