Paul Still Sounds F------g Good
-
Bruce M. wrote:
toris wrote:
The Melbourne concert was awesome!
But it was beautifully camouflaged by noise and sentiment. I had no issue with Paul's voice that wonderful night, covered well by harmonies from his trusted band, and it worked well. Still wiping the tears from my eyes.
But I don't think Bruce deserves shite for saying Paul's voice is far less off what it once was..... and by some way....because he, and others who say that, are correct. And I agree.
But just because they, and me, say his voice is a shadow of the BRILLIANCE doesn't mean they/we don't love Paul.
It is just stating a fact....It is a fact.
How I'd love to hear Beware My Love and Call Me Back Again, in their full glory. Never going to happen again.
It should not be disrepectful for one to say that. It is not meant as a dagger in the heart. It is just a fact. And anyone saying that should be still respected as a massive McCartney fan.
That being said, we all love Paul.
A live show in a massive arena or stadium is the worst possible circumstance to evaluate a singer's voice. There's so much ambient noise and echo that you can't discern subleties at all. You actually get a much better sense from online videos if they're professionally recorded, e.g. the recent Grand Central webcast -- or , of course, on released recordings. I can love Paul and mourn the decline of his voice, just as I admired Muhammad Ali and mourned the decline of his boxing abilities in the last years of his career.
Aging sucks. But, all things considered, it's better than the alternative.
Whether you enjoy a performance or recording is absolutely a matter of opinion, and everyone's entitled to his own. Whether a given singer's voice has deteriorated or not is a matter of readily discernible fact, not opinion. As for folks demanding respect -- well, respect is earned. People who throw around aspersions shouldn't be surprised when they get the same in return.
Not once have I called you insane , or asked you get your hearing checked , but whatever . I don’t demand anything . It would be nice just to get some . Crack on though - I’ll do my best to just dismiss the bible according to Bruce .
An artist if he’s lucky enough to have a long career , will go through many stages of performance . Some ( in fact many ) still seem to enjoy Paul performing as he is now . With others it appears to make him unlistenable - which baffles me .
I applaud the instigator of this thread , because i really felt some balance was needed .
The week he went no.1 ( yes actual no 1) , some folks seemed more obsessed with the fact that as a 76 year old performer , his voice no longer sounded like it did when he recorded say “ Here There And Everywhere “ . Who knew ?!
You don’t have to be a sycophant to cut the main reason for this forum some slack . I like some stuff better than others , but as someone on here so eloquently put - why harp on about something Paul has no control over to the detriment of his current incredible achievement ?!
-
I sort of wish I hadn't placed this in here as it's sparked some dischord and more criticism. Beatlesfan Randy thought it's okay that I did. To hear "Confidante," Paul's recording on ES, disparaged annoys me, though people have a right to their opinions which differ from mine. "Confidante" reminds me of how he sounds on "Early Days." Which is very good, and appealing. Stuartshire is a music teacher and musician and he finds "Confidante" on ES a great listen. Paul sounds great overall on "Egypt Station," to me.
And he's got a world, a whole universe, of great times awaiting listeners on his entire body of work. It's thrilling he's still doing his thing unlike Billy Joel, who hasn't come out with anything new in donkey's years, and it's strange that he criticised Paul for writing new songs. I always thought Macca is a huge influence on Joel's writing style, and how he sings.
-
I honestly see that disagreeing about the qaulity of Paul's voice really isn't getting any where. I have no desire to agree or disagree with anyone on this matter anymore.I am as Paul puts it in his song Who Cares "I am a ghost in the dark . "
Paul is the only musician on this planet that I truly love I have no reason to criticize him in any way. He is my one and only true love for music. When he adds L.A or San Diego to his tour I will go and see him , I will have the best night of my life, I will enjoy every song he plays, and when I hear his voice I will find my inner peace.
So I will conclude that I will simply sit back, put my headphones on, put on one of Paul's albums on right now, and turn the volume up and simply enjoy hearing his music and his voice. The End.
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
I sort of wish I hadn't placed this in here as it's sparked some dischord and more criticism. Beatlesfan Randy thought it's okay that I did. To hear "Confidante," Paul's recording on ES, disparaged annoys me, though people have a right to their opinions which differ from mine. "Confidante" reminds me of how he sounds on "Early Days." Which is very good, and appealing. Stuartshire is a music teacher and musician and he finds "Confidante" on ES a great listen. Paul sounds great overall on "Egypt Station," to me.
And he's got a world, a whole universe, of great times awaiting listeners on his entire body of work. It's thrilling he's still doing his thing unlike Billy Joel, who hasn't come out with anything new in donkey's years, and it's strange that he criticised Paul for writing new songs. I always thought Macca is a huge influence on Joel's writing style, and how he sings.
I normally like Billy Joel and if he really did say that then his he being a jerk. Just because he is creatively "dead" and lives totally off songs written many decades ago (think his last last new alubm was in the 1990's) does not mean other older artists should do the same.
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
Paul stills sounds damn good ! Perhaps I'll be allowed to take up for him here, on his official site? Every now and then he might sound too tired and wavering, but certainly not on all, or most. I noticed his "Blackbird" was kind of weak at his Grand Central Station mini concert showcase. He'd been overdoing it while not resting his voice adequately before that pop up surprise show. This is still Paul freaking McCartney, a former BEATLE ! and his solo stuff is also fantastic. I got pissed at Entertainment Weekly for giving Egypt Station only a B plus...they'd raved about ES on that review before suddenly stating they don't know if any ES songs will enter the pantheon of his Beatles classics. And they gave Roger More or whatever his name is, Roger Miller of "Dang Me" and "Ahab the A Rab" and "King of the Road" hick novelty tunes fame an A minus, on the same page ! (Sullen, resentful pout) In his "early days" or earlier days, McCartney boasted one of the top five or so male songbird voices in popular music. Or top three ! For many years. And he still sounds good enough to record and go out on his massive tours, or he wouldn't do it. I noticed those songs I heard even on videos at his recent Montreal massive gig, were all a right treat. Ear candy. And the gigantic ginourmous crowd went wild ! This is a fervent plea for the Mackster to issue a new album soon, another one, of his "left over" Egypt Station session songs...to strike while the iron is hot (cliche, sorry), as so many are dying to hear still more from those fantastic ES sessions~an embarrassment of riches. To capitalize on the ES album's fantastic number one success. Several "new young" fans at the Take It Away facebook page were just now raving over Macca, and two of them stated his "Coming Home" song from the Robert de Niro movie soundtrack were what got them in to Macca music. That's great. He seems to especially prize his very youngest fans. And I must say, this site, Paul's very own personal place on the Web can use more of that feel good appreciative fan spirit that's exhibited at Rob and Chris's Net "room."
Based on what they "praised" Novelty tunes???? pretty much tells us all we need to know. They can be dismissed. Paul's ES contains an embarrassment of riches. While it's true that I am quite unhappy with how he (and Kurstin) recorded "Confidante" ...and must have been pleased enough to let it just slip on by and out the door, seeminlgy uncaring about Paul's frail vocal and just how it sounded.....the album has some of his best material in years. "Despite Repeated Warnings" and the ending medly are superb. The delicacy of "Happy With You" could only be done by Paul. He combines great melody with bold musical arrangements that compare favorably with anything else currently being recorded these days....by any artist....or with what he did a half century ago. He can still do it all. ES has some of everything to show his great versatilty....the upcoming White Album will demonstrate that too....and he's still doing it 50 years later. Musical genius!!!
-
Thanks for that, Beatles4ever, you showed loads of Macca lovin' spirit ! I just read first hand experiences of Paul's Austin festival gig in which they raved that he sounds so much better 'live' than in online videos ! Yes ! Absolutely ! Online vids don't do his vocals justice at all. Or not nearly to the extent Paul on records and in concerts does.
I'd worried some that if he reads this thread (and I feel he reads in here sometimes, on this forum), he didn't like some of what I wrote about him. It just poured from my brain unfiltered. Tony Bramwell made him sound so "touchy" but that was many years back. He does have the artistic temperament, though, you know (Macca). When I see him at sporting events, I'm a bit taken aback, but that's "sporty Paul"--he's well rounded with various interests. I think he's still into art and music above all. The Arts, including fine literature. He loves to read and is a curious Gemini, and I think that's why he puts his big peepers in here, on the Maccaboard, when he feels like it. Even though there are tons of things about him, and the Fabs, online. All over. This is is his very own special official place on the Net. Seems like more of those almost 7 million (!) fans on his facebook would write stuff here, too. And buy hard copies of ES in its various formats, vinyl and cds, even on cassettes, not just stream it. He'd stay at number one longer then, for sure.
-
Here's a question - who sounds as good as they used to 30 or 40 years ago? Most artists' voices change and most of them lose some of their range.
There might be some exceptions - I saw Steve Winwood supporting Steely Dan a few years back and he hadn't lost any range in his voice. Mick Jagger, surprisingly enough, seems to have maintained his range. Even more surprising, so has David Crosby (how is that possible, given his previous lifestyle?).
Elton John's voice has changed, it's certainly deeper. Both Leonard Cohen and Lou Reed spoke songs more than sang in their later years (neither ever had a great range, but fantastic voices nonetheless). Bob Dylan, of course, is pretty raspy these days, but can still deliver a song. Before her recent health problems, life-long smoker Joni Mitchell's voice had gotten much deeper (still sounded great). Joe Cocker always struggled for those high notes in later years, but that was part of his appeal.
Many singers, including Rod Stewart and John Mayer, have completely lost their voices for a while and had to work to get them back. No doubt they had many trips to throat specialists.
Paul's voice has certainly changed, probably a result of smoking for much of his life rather than too many gigs or recording sessions. But the point is, he can still deliver a song. I've just watched the Austin City Limits show and really enjoyed it. Paul still gives it everything, he's still playing great, and the band is sounding brilliant. Sure, Maybe I'm Amazed is never going to sound quite as amazing as it once did, but he still does the difficult songs (actually, most of them are difficult) and has plenty of positive energy on stage. To me, he's remains an inspiration.
-
Jeffrey C wrote:
Here's a question - who sounds as good as they used to 30 or 40 years ago? Most artists' voices change and most of them lose some of their range.
There might be some exceptions - I saw Steve Winwood supporting Steely Dan a few years back and he hadn't lost any range in his voice. Mick Jagger, surprisingly enough, seems to have maintained his range. Even more surprising, so has David Crosby (how is that possible, given his previous lifestyle?).
Elton John's voice has changed, it's certainly deeper. Both Leonard Cohen and Lou Reed spoke songs more than sang in their later years (neither ever had a great range, but fantastic voices nonetheless). Bob Dylan, of course, is pretty raspy these days, but can still deliver a song. Before her recent health problems, life-long smoker Joni Mitchell's voice had gotten much deeper (still sounded great). Joe Cocker always struggled for those high notes in later years, but that was part of his appeal.
Many singers, including Rod Stewart and John Mayer, have completely lost their voices for a while and had to work to get them back. No doubt they had many trips to throat specialists.
Paul's voice has certainly changed, probably a result of smoking for much of his life rather than too many gigs or recording sessions. But the point is, he can still deliver a song. I've just watched the Austin City Limits show and really enjoyed it. Paul still gives it everything, he's still playing great, and the band is sounding brilliant. Sure, Maybe I'm Amazed is never going to sound quite as amazing as it once did, but he still does the difficult songs (actually, most of them are difficult) and has plenty of positive energy on stage. To me, he's remains an inspiration.
Good post ! Smoking won’t help . Singing over beatlemania without monitors wouldn’t have helped either .
-
Jeffrey C wrote:
Here's a question - who sounds as good as they used to 30 or 40 years ago?
David Gilmour for one. Kate Bush is another vocalist who I think is singing better than she did 40 years ago.
As for Paul, I still like his vocals but lets face it, if he was a new artist auditioning for a tv talent show, he'd never pass round one.
-
A little late on this thread, but lets be honest...he doesn's sing consistently well anymore. Confidante IS my fave tune on ES, but it is sung out of tune on the record. It doesn't take the ears of Dumbo to hear this on Confidante, or his failing voice at many live shows. He has his good nights and bad nights, but most nights are a struggle. It has nothing to do with youtube clips or anyhting else. He gives it his all every show. No doubt! The 15 song soundchecks doesnt help. Most performers do 2-3 songs and thats it. No water, no vocal coach(i assume), and shredding his voice for years live leads to his current vocal. It reminds me of ROger Daltrey pre surgery. Roger sounded pretty rough, had surgery on his vocal chords, and sounds strong now.
For what its worth, i highly dount he hangs out on Facebook like some teenage girl waiting for a "thumbs up" from people. I don't think he cares about some anonymous persons critique.
I was just watching the Ed Sullivan gig from 92-93 with his old (and better) band. He is nearly flawless on that gig. Does anybody think he can still sing "Fixing a Hole" like that at that gig?!?! No chance.
-
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
HaileyMcComet wrote:
He sounded good in Tokyo last year. He's no Tony Bennet, but who is?
Is that the first time you saw him perform in person, Hailey?
Sorry for taking 4 months to answer this question. When people dive into all the "I like this, so you're crazy", "No, I hate that, so you're crazy", I skip past it all. Your post got lost in the mix.
The first time I saw Paul live was in high school in St Paul. I didn't go to high school in St Paul. That's where he played. I've also seen him in Des Moines and Kansas City.
-
maccasfangirl30 wrote:
I totally agree! Im listening to Paul now and he sounds wonderful! I love the sound of his voice. Some people say his voice has gone downhill but in my opinion it has not! I can't wait till Paul adds L A to the tour so I can hear his beautiful voice. I feel inner peace in myself when I hear Paul sing. I just ignore the negative comments about his and I put on Paul's song Who Cares. I just LOVE that song. And I love Come On To Me and Fuh You. Great songs. Paul is a legend in music! I will always hold great respect for Paul!
What are your thoughts on "Confidante?" He starts out well.....dissolves into hoarsness and notes that can't be reached....but then pulls it out at the end sounding good again. Maybe re-record the lead on a day his voice was in better shape?? I believe the whole album would have been better served had he released "Who Cares/Be With You;" a very topical, catchy song backed with a beautiful, well-sung ballad.
-
Yankeefan2 wrote:
SusyLuvsPaul wrote:
I sort of wish I hadn't placed this in here as it's sparked some dischord and more criticism. Beatlesfan Randy thought it's okay that I did. To hear "Confidante," Paul's recording on ES, disparaged annoys me, though people have a right to their opinions which differ from mine. "Confidante" reminds me of how he sounds on "Early Days." Which is very good, and appealing. Stuartshire is a music teacher and musician and he finds "Confidante" on ES a great listen. Paul sounds great overall on "Egypt Station," to me.
And he's got a world, a whole universe, of great times awaiting listeners on his entire body of work. It's thrilling he's still doing his thing unlike Billy Joel, who hasn't come out with anything new in donkey's years, and it's strange that he criticised Paul for writing new songs. I always thought Macca is a huge influence on Joel's writing style, and how he sings.
I normally like Billy Joel and if he really did say that then his he being a jerk. Just because he is creatively "dead" and lives totally off songs written many decades ago (think his last last new alubm was in the 1990's) does not mean other older artists should do the same.
Yes, Billy Joel actually said Paul is "harming his legacy" by coming out with new original songs ! And he claimed Elton John is, too ! I don't get that at all. It's fantastic he continues to produce new works for us. (And that Elton does.) Joel must be jelly (as my nieces say, to mean the word "jealous"). As for Macca's vocals, have you ever heard English singer Marianne Faithfull's early, very pretty, high soprano and sometimes mezzo soprano vocals? From the early to the mid 1960's ? Then she drastically changed her singing style and voice (at a relatively early age, too, about the time she sang "Sister Morphine" and "Something Better") to a much lower Marlene Dietrich (in a way) harsh rasp, resulting (I suppose) from too many years of smoking drinking and drugging-- and yet many listeners still declared her stuff fantastic and she's continued to be allowed to record and tour for donkey's years, with her "new" low, croaky harsh rasp of a voice. Paul's vocals haven't descended to that literally and figuratively low level at every part of his songs in these very recent years. Have not declined as much as Faithfull's. It would probably be better if he did lower the key on some songs. He still puts on an exciting live show (and has cute hairstyles and cool clothes) that really rev up the massive audiences who flock to hear and see him.
-
stuartshire wrote:
Bruce M. wrote:
This is a deeply delusional thread.
Only in your mind Bruce .
It's kinda in my mind too. I wish it weren't so, but it is. He sometimes can pull it off, and "Confidante" sounds infinitely better live than the studio version because Abe is harmonizing with him in such a way that Paul's strained vocal is covered. He really can't pull off "Maybe I'm Amazed," and should stop trying. Please remove it from your playlist, Paul! It's just painful to listen to live. On much of "Egypt Station" he sounds good.....he recorded most of his vocals after he had rested his voice. "Happy With You" sounds superb. The rockers that end the album are terrific, but we are kidding ourselves if we still think he sounds great. I'm pleased for him that he can still draw huge crowds and that they love him. He is the most famous musician on earth....and the greatest, and has boundlesss energy, but.......
