He is an amazing front man, but how do you rate him purely as a singer?

Depends what do you mean purely as a singer.

Nobody can replace him in the Rolling Stones as a singer.

So he is the best singer for his band,but he ain't Freddie Mercury in the vocal department

He don't have the greatest range but he knows how uses his voice .

Mick based his vocal style on blues singers who generally aren't technically trained, so based on that he's pretty good. The Rolling Stones got their name from Muddy Waters.

He is a great singer for the types of songs he sings. Basically, he was meant to head up Rolling Stones and nothing else.

HotGritz said:

He is a great singer for the types of songs he sings. Basically, he was meant to head up Rolling Stones and nothing else.

yes, like a lot of rock singers, it's about his style more than his technique. He is perfect for what he does.

But I have not thought he sounded very good live for many years.

'bout as good as Bob Dylan.

NDRU said:

HotGritz said:

He is a great singer for the types of songs he sings. Basically, he was meant to head up Rolling Stones and nothing else.

yes, like a lot of rock singers, it's about his style more than his technique. He is perfect for what he does.

But I have not thought he sounded very good live for many years.

Yeah, I agree on both points. His voice seems to have changed, and he sometimes adopts a sort of 'hillbilly twang' that makes him sound like a bad impersonator of himself at a karaoke night (e.g. the remake of Wild Horses on Stripped), but in his heyday he was a cracking singer, live and on record.

I'd also argue that he's a criminally-underrated lyricist.

Dylan is one of the worst singers I have ever heard. Mick is much better

He's a great performer. And rightfully so.

He's a good singer.

No........but what he does works perfectly 4 him.

no. but the beginning of the 'start me up' video is one of the greatest 27 seconds i have ever seen in my life.

He's good enough. He doesn't disappoint/scuk. He has toyed with different styles (blues, pop, rcok&roll, hard-rock, ballads, country) only struggling with disco and his hilarous/forced falsetto.

He's also VERY, and I mean VERY loud so his voice is perfect for arena rock.

On top of that, he's insanely charismatic and his voice is perfect for the Stones. Do you imagine David Coverdale singing Street Fighting Man? or Jim Morrison singing Miss You?? or Elton John singing Start Me Up? Impossible...

in my humble opinion

"GREAT" singer? Probably not. But he is THE singer on a lot of great songs that I love.

.

(...hate when I have to edit, lol)

[Edited 2/15/11 22:18pm]

Of course he is.

In a band setting, yes, he is a good singer. By himself....not so much.

Sorry Mick.

RnBAmbassador said:

He is good at what he does. He is more of a stylist. He sang the hell;o out of "Time Is On My Side" and "Angie". I like Mick. He is amusing, he certainly had that crowd into him last night in LA, much better than the Super Bowl performance of The Rolling Stones a few years back. His solo album SHE'S THE BOSS was good.

I read somewhere that "Angie" was dedicated to the first wife of David Bowie. In fact, as I think about it, she was on some talk show back in the day, talking about the song. I think he had a thing for her.

novabrkr said:

Of course he is.

And there it is. This is not subjective. Mick Jagger is a great singer. There is no deabte. He may not be to your taste, but he is a great vocalist. Over 80 million albums in homes all around the world contest to this fact. You want him to sing like Whitney Houston? Is jumping scales perfectly in tune your barometer of vocal greatness? Then you're a fucking moron. Or Patrick Bateman, who was completely insane. So many dummys on this site these days. So many fucking clueless doss cunts. The children of music televiiosn and cultural imperialism. How these kids get into Prince is beyond me. Get back to your Mariah and Janet Jackson records, you laughable fuckwits. Rot your brains away with Coca Cola and the top ten.

And Bob Dylan is a better singer than Jagger. He's up there with Sinatra when it comes to phrasing, tone and reinvention of lyric. I'm pretty sure Mick would agree. You just don't get it, do you, Mr Jones?

Number23 said:

novabrkr said:

Of course he is.

And there it is. This is not subjective. Mick Jagger is a great singer. There is no deabte. He may not be to your taste, but he is a great vocalist. Over 80 million albums in homes all around the world contest to this fact. You want him to sing like Whitney Houston? Is jumping scales perfectly in tune your barometer of vocal greatness? Then you're a fucking moron. Or Patrick Bateman, who was completely insane. So many dummys on this site these days. So many fucking clueless doss cunts. The children of music televiiosn and cultural imperialism. How these kids get into Prince is beyond me. Get back to your Mariah and Janet Jackson records, you laughable fuckwits. Rot your brains away with Coca Cola and the top ten.

man, relax, chill, get a grip ...

Number23 said:

And Bob Dylan is a better singer than Jagger. He's up there with Sinatra when it comes to phrasing, tone and reinvention of lyric. I'm pretty sure Mick would agree. You just don't get it, do you, Mr Jones?

I've made that exact same comparison to Sinatra with reference to Dylan's phrasing many times myself, including a few postings on this site that I just wasted about twenty minutes trying to find. Examples: the way he says 'tax deductible charity organization' in Ballad of a Thin Man and makes it sound like the most relaxed, musical line you could imagine. The casual way he delivers the punch-lines in Leopard-Skin Pill-box Hat - any comedian would be happy to have that sense of time. Dylan at his peak was the greatest rock vocalist we've had, and an incredibly versatile one too.

I used to say that Jagger was the greatest white r&b vocalist, but theAudience told me I was wrong & I bow to his authority, so I guess I would now say that he's not quite as great as, say, Steve Winwood but he's absolutely a member of the elite.

[Edited 2/16/11 14:44pm]

He was a wonderful singer in the early 60s, but years of booze, drugs, lifestyle crazyness has made his voice shit. The guy is the most overrated singer in rock history. The other night at the Grammies was awful. Grampa gets down, bores America.

Number 23, your crudeness and harshness was uncalled for.

Lord have mercy and Debbie Downer comes in here trying to infiltrate the thread (not you script just in case you get confused lol). Like to see the ones who criticize Jagger to try to run like Jagger still can at 67. TRY IT! You got a 40-year head start.

Dick Jagoff.

damosuzuki said:

Number23 said:

And Bob Dylan is a better singer than Jagger. He's up there with Sinatra when it comes to phrasing, tone and reinvention of lyric. I'm pretty sure Mick would agree. You just don't get it, do you, Mr Jones?

I've made that exact same comparison to Sinatra with reference to Dylan's phrasing many times myself, including a few postings on this site that I just wasted about twenty minutes trying to find. Examples: the way he says 'tax deductible charity organization' in Ballad of a Thin Man and makes it sound like the most relaxed, musical line you could imagine. The casual way he delivers the punch-lines in Leopard-Skin Pill-box Hat - any comedian would be happy to have that sense of time. Dylan at his peak was the greatest rock vocalist we've had, and an incredibly versatile one too.

I used to say that Jagger was the greatest white r&b vocalist, but theAudience told me I was wrong & I bow to his authority, so I guess I would now say that he's not quite as great as, say, Steve Winwood but he's absolutely a member of the elite.

[Edited 2/16/11 14:44pm]

Dylan, Jagger and Winwood were unique in their vocals back then. They all had something special and the music they had fit the music they sang.

Prince outsings everybody, get that!

2freaky4church1 said:

Prince outsings everybody, get that!

Sure does.

MickyDolenz said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Prince outsings everybody, get that!

Sure does.