Is Mick Jagger a great vocalist or a great frontman?

Steve Winwood is a great vocalist... But I still think Jagger is right for The Stones.

[Phantastico]

Originally Posted by Runtfan

To those that say Mick is perfect for the Stones, I wonder if you'd feel that way if the Stones lead singer had been somebody like Steve Winwood or Rod Stewart or Paul Rodgers or whoever...would Mick still be perfect for those songs?

Absolutely. First of all, Mick wrote the songs, so if Winwood, Stewart, or Rodgers were in the band, they wouldn't be the same songs and it wouldn't be the Rolling Stones. Sorry, but Steve Winwood singing "Honky Tonk Women," as nice as it might be, wouldn't hold a candle to Jagger.

To me great singing has nothing to do with how technically precise the singer is. Leave that to the American Idols and boy bands. What good is a five octave range without style? My favorite singers have always had a certain swagger, charisma and personality in their voices -- Jagger, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, many of the old blues greats. These guys reach deep down and sing from the heart, warts and all. I would much rather hear them than some classically trained robot without any soul.

[Deja Vu]

A 'nicer' singer would have been crap for The Stones. The Stones without Mick Jagger's vocals is like rock and roll with guitars, it could be good but it'll never be as good, no matter who or what else they put into it. Those nice singers never have impressed me an inch... I mean for the power of anyone's voice to so much as register with me, they have to be rough and unique. That's one of the reasons I like raw recordings 'cause then I can actually occasionally appreciate the traditional vocal talents.

But I'll always hold Mick Jagger and Bob Dylan as contendors for greatest vocalist ever.

[Phantastico]

Originally Posted by Deja Vu

The Stones without Mick Jagger's vocals is like rock and roll with guitars, it could be good but it'll never be as good, no matter who or what else they put into it.

Don't you mean rock and roll without guitars? I hope so because rock and roll typically has guitars.

This is pitiful! He had a great GREAT rock n' roll voice. Without Mick's voice the stones wouldn't be anything close to what it is today. He doesn't have an "Boy band' voice, but he does have a rock and roll voice, just like dylan, or even neil young.

[Blue]

I'm in the great singer great front man camp. I do agree that Mick is not technically the best singer in the world but somebody singing Wild Horses who was great technically great just would not work. Mick and Keef write songs to suite Mick, now Keef as a great singer is another matter

[Tkitna]

Originally Posted by Mister Jones

This is pitiful! He had a great GREAT rock n' roll voice. Without Mick's voice the stones wouldn't be anything close to what it is today. He doesn't have an "Boy band' voice, but he does have a rock and roll voice, just like dylan, or even neil young.

I'm with Mister Jones. Mick is a great Rock-N-Roll singer and the Rolling Stones are a great Rock-N-Roll band so I would say that makes him a great singer. As for a front man, Mick is one of the best if not the best.

[Old Hippie]

Originally Posted by kath

great frontman, and *unique* vocalist. i think he's perfect for what he does. his voice may not be great according to any standard gauges for vocal skill... but it's great to me. goes straight to the ole ovaries.

just speaking for my own innards, of course.

I agree with you (except I have no ovaries) .... adding Mick is the Stones.... and is great doing what he does....And I think Angie is one of his best vocal performances .... But at 60 something he sounded crappy at the SB halftime show ............

My definition of a "great" frontman may differ from others and it also varies from band to band.

With Mick, the Stones never would have been the same without him. He may not be "great" as a frontman, but he's perfect for what they did. As for a great vocalist, he's not even in the top 50 of well known vocalists. Pretty shoddy as far as I'm concerned, but again, it works for the band's style. In concert I dare say he's a shitty singer though.

[BrazilianBabe]

Originally Posted by Wayne

I don't think he's a great vocalist at all in the Stones even though he has lots of attitude along with being a great performer similiar to David Lee Roth which is why he's more of a great frontman.

I think he is both. Hey, he is not a Jazz singer, coem on!

Originally Posted by Runtfan

Jagger's a great frontman - pretty lousy singer.

Depends on what you mean by "great vocalist", really. He's charismatic so that makes him a great frontman. As far as the vocals are concerned, he's a terrific blues singer. It's easier to tell on the slower material, though. Just listen to the anguish in his voice during Sister Morphine.

[ReTro_Girl]

Well, he's no Johnny Mathis, but his voice suits the style of music he sang/sings.

[Astrid Kirchherr]

He's Mick..a Icon of Brit rock and 70's culture ! I'd say a bit of both..

Comparing Jagger with Johnny Mathis is a stretch ReTro_Girl, but he's more of a great frontman & not a great vocalist in that sense.

Jagger + Ballads =

[Rollingstone]

Originally Posted by That 70s Guy

Average vocalist,any Stones song is pretty easy to sing.

Awesome frontman,it's a tie between him and Steven Tyler for greatest frontman ever!

yes---awesome front man, only with the stones though. The whole group has a hidden charisma, even if the drummer is boring to watch.

not a great vocalist. recently his live vocals are bad.

In my mind, being a "great" anything boils down to 1) is the performer unique? There are many hundreds of thousands of technically gifted musicians... but if they all sound the same, they're not great... Jagger sounds like no one else and used to really write some great lyrics. He's a great singer in my book.

Great Frontman, OK Vocaist. He wasn't near to great though. He had trouble with controlling his voice and staying on pitch. Alot of the time his singing seemed forced.