Did Paul's Voice Really Change?
-
DreamingofYesterday:
Being an avid Paul listener, I have noticed the change in his vocals, but I don't think it is necessarily bad. He doesn't have the vocal range of his Beatles and Wings days, but I'm starting to grow accustomed to his more bass sound. I still think he is a brilliant singer and that won't change.
If we compare him with others musicians of his age, Paul is really lucky to be a good singer yet. Maybe he can't reach the higher notes of Band On The Run or Maybe I'm Amazed, but how many tones did he lose? He sings since he was 17... is a miracle.
-
Actually, when I compare Paul to his contemporaries, that's when the changes in his voice become the most apparent. Mick Jagger still sounds like younger Mick Jagger. Tina Turner still sounds like younger Tina Turner. Bonnie Raitt still sounds like younger Bonnie Raitt. Daryl Hall (although his falsetto has diminished) still sounds like younger Daryl Hall. Paul Simon still sounds like younger Paul Simon. Although Paul McCartney still has a palatable singing voice, his vocals today are starkly different from his younger self. And I blame it on the years of incessant smoking.
-
audi:
Actually, when I compare Paul to his contemporaries, that's when the changes in his voice become the most apparent. Mick Jagger still sounds like younger Mick Jagger. Tina Turner still sounds like younger Tina Turner. Bonnie Raitt still sounds like younger Bonnie Raitt. Daryl Hall (although his falsetto has diminished) still sounds like younger Daryl Hall. Paul Simon still sounds like younger Paul Simon. Although Paul McCartney still has a palatable singing voice, his vocals today are starkly different from his younger self. And I blame it on the years of incessant smoking.
Huh? Mick Jagger hasn't sounded like his younger self since about 1973.
-
I disagree. But I'll do a compare/contrast to be sure.
-
I don't hear a significant difference in Jagger's voice at all: Ain't Too Proud To Beg [1974]
Everybody Needs Somebody To Love [live @ Grammys 2011] -
RMartinez:
dcshark:
RMartinez:
He is not singing better now than 5 or 10 years ago, certainly not better than 20 years ago.
I think he sounds better now than he did 4 or 5 years ago. When I saw him in 2010 and 2011 his voice sounded rougher than last year. It has improved over the last year or so, but no where near what he was capable of in his prime.
Fair enough. But is he not a better singer at 72 than he was at 52. That's all I'm saying. Given his age, he sounds pretty good!
He didn't miss a note in Missoula. I'm so glad we flew out to that venue. I compare that show to his voice, say, 5 years ago, and it was much better in August. Peace.
-
maccasfangirl30:
I remember Paul saying a few years back that he'd probably will be touring up even when he is 93 years old. I can certainly see that happening. If he does get to that age we'll still probably go see him in concert right?
I think that may have been a lit ul joke, tongue in cheek, that sort of thing
-
Fan4-45years:
maccasfangirl30:
I remember Paul saying a few years back that he'd probably will be touring up even when he is 93 years old. I can certainly see that happening. If he does get to that age we'll still probably go see him in concert right?
I think that may have been a lit ul joke, tongue in cheek, that sort of thing
If Paul wants to sing when he's 93, I still definitely would go to see him play! Hope he would be singing more Wings songs by then
-
love2travel:
Fan4-45years:
maccasfangirl30:
I remember Paul saying a few years back that he'd probably will be touring up even when he is 93 years old. I can certainly see that happening. If he does get to that age we'll still probably go see him in concert right?
I think that may have been a lit ul joke, tongue in cheek, that sort of thing
If Paul wants to sing when he's 93, I still definitely would go to see him play! Hope he would be singing more Wings songs by then
You know, Love2, I agree. I would go just to hear him TALK. I LOVE his voice, expressions, humor, all of him.
-
audi:
I don't hear a significant difference in Jagger's voice at all: Ain't Too Proud To Beg [1974]
Everybody Needs Somebody To Love [live @ Grammys 2011]Ah, but by the time of your 1974 clip, he'd already started to get that unpleasant growly quality in his voice -- which you can hear even though this is a lip-synched promo. Here's live clip of Jagger in his true vocal prime:
-
All those kids jumping on the stage -- reminds me of when I saw Morrissey back in '92. They acted like he was Elvis! Anyway, Mick is really off-pitch, and the band is fludbing notes left n' right, but I guess I kinda' hear a clearer tone to Mick's voice.
-
Well, I have a theory. I have two mates. One was God's gift to women growing up. Top of his game, they all loved him. Typical hot guy who always got the best chick in the crowd. Women loved him. His friends loved him. Hitting 40+ he started to degenerate. On the aesthetic front. Wrinkled early. Developed a belly on those once-magnificent abs. Perhaps too much time in the Sun. Too much bleach in the hair. As he got older, everyone compared his ageing form to his absolute peak years. I have another mate, who never really sparkled with the ladies. Was far from a lady killer. Not a good looking man in his youth. Time for him, however, has been rather kind. Age has actually helped him morph into his face. With little as a base of comparison, no one actually bemoans the fact he has degenerated. He has pretty much stayed the same. There is little point of reference. Little margin for disappointment. So, when I think of McCartney, with one of the best killer voices going around for all those years, it does become noticeable when he slips off. A victim of his earlier brilliance and domination. The bar was raised so high, there is greater room for marginal disappointment. Other singers, such as Dylan and Nelson for example, and others with "even" offerings, who never had great vocal range, just keep on keeping on. They sound similar to their peak years, by virtue of never really having all that much to work with from Day 1. They escape the scrutiny of any comparatives. That being said, my first-mentioned mate is still five times better looking than my next-mentioned mate. He just had a bigger base to fall from. Anyway, that's just my theory. ps. I do wish Elvis and Freddie Mercury were still with us. The two best voices in music. Would love to think they were still belting it out as good as ever, but we will never know.
-
Cool anecdote to illustrate a great point.
-
To my ears, McCartney's voice is not better now than five years ago. It may not be worse, but it is not better. It's about the same. Just listen to Maybe I'm Amazed. Again, not to criticize. Hats off to him for still having a go at singing that one. And some of the others too. Whatever the current condition of his voice, people are obviously willing to shell out big bucks to hear him. Which is apparently what matters most.
-
His voice fluctuates. Right now, McCartney's voice is significantly better than it was this time in 2013. Those BBC gigs, as well as the Jimmy Kimmel thing, were rough. His voice was a gazillion times better in November 2012 than it was the previous months that year (I wondered if he had vocal-cord surgery).
-
toris:
Well, I have a theory. I have two mates. One was God's gift to women growing up. Top of his game, they all loved him. Typical hot guy who always got the best chick in the crowd. Women loved him. His friends loved him. Hitting 40+ he started to degenerate. On the aesthetic front. Wrinkled early. Developed a belly on those once-magnificent abs. Perhaps too much time in the Sun. Too much bleach in the hair. As he got older, everyone compared his ageing form to his absolute peak years. I have another mate, who never really sparkled with the ladies. Was far from a lady killer. Not a good looking man in his youth. Time for him, however, has been rather kind. Age has actually helped him morph into his face. With little as a base of comparison, no one actually bemoans the fact he has degenerated. He has pretty much stayed the same. There is little point of reference. Little margin for disappointment. So, when I think of McCartney, with one of the best killer voices going around for all those years, it does become noticeable when he slips off. A victim of his earlier brilliance and domination. The bar was raised so high, there is greater room for marginal disappointment. Other singers, such as Dylan and Nelson for example, and others with "even" offerings, who never had great vocal range, just keep on keeping on. They sound similar to their peak years, by virtue of never really having all that much to work with from Day 1. They escape the scrutiny of any comparatives. That being said, my first-mentioned mate is still five times better looking than my next-mentioned mate. He just had a bigger base to fall from. Anyway, that's just my theory. ps. I do wish Elvis and Freddie Mercury were still with us. The two best voices in music. Would love to think they were still belting it out as good as ever, but we will never know.
And I would add that Paul was so good-looking in the 1960's and even up until the early 1990"s when he was in his 50's fer cryin' out loud, that he had a bigger base to fall from there as well. Granted, he is still one of the best looking 72 year old men on the planet! (imho of course!)
-
audi:
His voice fluctuates. Right now, McCartney's voice is significantly better than it was this time in 2013. Those BBC gigs, as well as the Jimmy Kimmel thing, were rough. His voice was a gazillion times better in November 2012 than it was the previous months that year (I wondered if he had vocal-cord surgery).
Agreed. And I wonder too. He sounded significantly better on songs like The Long & Winding Road this Oct. than he did in May 2013.
-
audi:
Cool anecdote to illustrate a great point.
Thanks, audi!
-
Nancy R:
toris:
Well, I have a theory. I have two mates. One was God's gift to women growing up. Top of his game, they all loved him. Typical hot guy who always got the best chick in the crowd. Women loved him. His friends loved him. Hitting 40+ he started to degenerate. On the aesthetic front. Wrinkled early. Developed a belly on those once-magnificent abs. Perhaps too much time in the Sun. Too much bleach in the hair. As he got older, everyone compared his ageing form to his absolute peak years. I have another mate, who never really sparkled with the ladies. Was far from a lady killer. Not a good looking man in his youth. Time for him, however, has been rather kind. Age has actually helped him morph into his face. With little as a base of comparison, no one actually bemoans the fact he has degenerated. He has pretty much stayed the same. There is little point of reference. Little margin for disappointment. So, when I think of McCartney, with one of the best killer voices going around for all those years, it does become noticeable when he slips off. A victim of his earlier brilliance and domination. The bar was raised so high, there is greater room for marginal disappointment. Other singers, such as Dylan and Nelson for example, and others with "even" offerings, who never had great vocal range, just keep on keeping on. They sound similar to their peak years, by virtue of never really having all that much to work with from Day 1. They escape the scrutiny of any comparatives. That being said, my first-mentioned mate is still five times better looking than my next-mentioned mate. He just had a bigger base to fall from. Anyway, that's just my theory. ps. I do wish Elvis and Freddie Mercury were still with us. The two best voices in music. Would love to think they were still belting it out as good as ever, but we will never know.
And I would add that Paul was so good-looking in the 1960's and even up until the early 1990"s when he was in his 50's fer cryin' out loud, that he had a bigger base to fall from there as well. Granted, he is still one of the best looking 72 year old men on the planet! (imho of course!)
You thinking Paul was hot?.... No, never saw that coming!
-
toris:
Nancy R:
And I would add that Paul was so good-looking in the 1960's and even up until the early 1990"s when he was in his 50's fer cryin' out loud, that he had a bigger base to fall from there as well. Granted, he is still one of the best looking 72 year old men on the planet! (imho of course!)
You thinking Paul was hot?.... No, never saw that coming!
Add me to that list!