Film study.

Excuse me if this thread has been talked over ad nauseam.

I was driving back from a meeting the other day when “Sympathy for the Devil” came on the radio. Now, I dig this song for a number of reasons, mostly the guitar solo (number 2 in my book) and the general direction of the “evil Stones” lyrics.

But what struck me on this listen was how hard Mick was working that song vocally. Here’s the band just churning away, nothing too special, but Mick is literally putting the whole band on his back to bring out all that song has to offer.

Which got me thinking…is Mick the best lead singer in rock? He certainly doesn’t have the best voice. Here’s my hypothesis. Since the Stones play a lot of blues-saturated music, they often don’t stand out too musically and melodically as say…Zeppelin. So Mick has to work twice as hard. And he does on almost every Stones song I can think of.

Ok, now stay with me. I’m no means a Stones fanatic, and I’m sure the Hall will school me here. But the Stones play great stripped down, sloppy rock. Same drum beats, same bass lines, and we’ve already talked about whether they even need a second guitar. (Yes, I’m generalizing.)

So what makes most Stones songs what they are owes 90% to Mick, no? Which got me thinking of other lead singers. Surely the Who and Zepp had more in their arsenal than just their lead singers. And even lead singers I love — Costello — had back-up musicians which more than filled the holes and brought on smiles in their own right.

So, who worked harder than Mick? Discuss.