McCartney Concert Voice
-
femaleanimal:
RMartinez:
People who pay $300 for a ticket HAVE to believe his voice is better than ever!
I`m not sure anyone is saying that, but it does annoy me that the problems he had throughout the `89/`90 tour seem to be largely unacknowledged now. It`s ironic that it seems to be looked upon as a golden age, when it was actually when he had the most problems.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as a golden age, just that his age was different from today. I clearly remember him having vocal problems in 1990. In 1993, there were a lot more days off between shows. Paul sounds great for a 71 year old performer. My only point is that his voice sounding "better than ever" or such is really a personal opinion, and in singing terms, it is unlikely a 71 year old sings better than his or her 50 year old self.
-
RMartinez:
femaleanimal:
RMartinez:
People who pay $300 for a ticket HAVE to believe his voice is better than ever!
I`m not sure anyone is saying that, but it does annoy me that the problems he had throughout the `89/`90 tour seem to be largely unacknowledged now. It`s ironic that it seems to be looked upon as a golden age, when it was actually when he had the most problems.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as a golden age, just that his age was different from today. I clearly remember him having vocal problems in 1990. In 1993, there were a lot more days off between shows. Paul sounds great for a 71 year old performer. My only point is that his voice sounding "better than ever" or such is really a personal opinion, and in singing terms, it is unlikely a 71 year old sings better than his or her 50 year old self.
I think Paul's voice was at it's best since '79 during the 2002/ 03 tour and the 2004 Summer tour, after that it really started to go downhill rapidly. I think Paul's soundchecking hasn't helped either, most trained singers rest their voice during performance day, no talking and no singing.
-
BOYCIE:
RMartinez:
femaleanimal:
RMartinez:
People who pay $300 for a ticket HAVE to believe his voice is better than ever!
I`m not sure anyone is saying that, but it does annoy me that the problems he had throughout the `89/`90 tour seem to be largely unacknowledged now. It`s ironic that it seems to be looked upon as a golden age, when it was actually when he had the most problems.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as a golden age, just that his age was different from today. I clearly remember him having vocal problems in 1990. In 1993, there were a lot more days off between shows. Paul sounds great for a 71 year old performer. My only point is that his voice sounding "better than ever" or such is really a personal opinion, and in singing terms, it is unlikely a 71 year old sings better than his or her 50 year old self.
I think Paul's voice was at it's best since '79 during the 2002/ 03 tour and the 2004 Summer tour, after that it really started to go downhill rapidly. I think Paul's soundchecking hasn't helped either, most trained singers rest their voice during performance day, no talking and no singing.
Singers must "warm up" before performing. Soundchecks are crucial -- but you are correct that Paul should use his voice as little as possible prior to performing.
-
hey, I wanted to put this in a thread we used to have. Something about cover versions...here's a bluegrass version og Helter Skelter which I figured would be easier on Paul's voice. It is the way Paul played it...what was it...on the anthology?
-
DrivinFan:
Here is a video from the '79 tour of Yesterday...
I don't think it's as good as the '76 version.Wow, yeah! And he didn't use his Epiphone Texan!!
-
This is a bit OT but I was wondering why Paul sings "whoa oh oh" instead of "doo doo doo" in Listen To What The Man Says? I hate it when he changes stuff like that!
-
Nancy R:
This is a bit OT but I was wondering why Paul sings "whoa oh oh" instead of "doo doo doo" in Listen To What The Man Says? I hate it when he changes stuff like that!
He's always done that live. You're thinking of the record.
-
oobu24:
hey, I wanted to put this in a thread we used to have. Something about cover versions...here's a bluegrass version og Helter Skelter which I figured would be easier on Paul's voice. It is the way Paul played it...what was it...on the anthology?
I think a better compromise for Paul would be to move "Helter" to an earlier slot in the show and perform it like the version on Beatles Anthology 3.
-
BOYCIE:
RMartinez:
femaleanimal:
RMartinez:
People who pay $300 for a ticket HAVE to believe his voice is better than ever!
I`m not sure anyone is saying that, but it does annoy me that the problems he had throughout the `89/`90 tour seem to be largely unacknowledged now. It`s ironic that it seems to be looked upon as a golden age, when it was actually when he had the most problems.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as a golden age, just that his age was different from today. I clearly remember him having vocal problems in 1990. In 1993, there were a lot more days off between shows. Paul sounds great for a 71 year old performer. My only point is that his voice sounding "better than ever" or such is really a personal opinion, and in singing terms, it is unlikely a 71 year old sings better than his or her 50 year old self.
I think Paul's voice was at it's best since '79 during the 2002/ 03 tour and the 2004 Summer tour, after that it really started to go downhill rapidly. I think Paul's soundchecking hasn't helped either, most trained singers rest their voice during performance day, no talking and no singing.
I disagree. I have compared and contrasted recordings and he was clearer and had better range in 89 and 93 than in 2002. Now, one can argue MAYBE that in 2002 he sounded comparable to 93 but no way he sounded better. I mean, if you can provide some examples, please do.
-
RMartinez:
BOYCIE:
RMartinez:
femaleanimal:
RMartinez:
People who pay $300 for a ticket HAVE to believe his voice is better than ever!
I`m not sure anyone is saying that, but it does annoy me that the problems he had throughout the `89/`90 tour seem to be largely unacknowledged now. It`s ironic that it seems to be looked upon as a golden age, when it was actually when he had the most problems.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as a golden age, just that his age was different from today. I clearly remember him having vocal problems in 1990. In 1993, there were a lot more days off between shows. Paul sounds great for a 71 year old performer. My only point is that his voice sounding "better than ever" or such is really a personal opinion, and in singing terms, it is unlikely a 71 year old sings better than his or her 50 year old self.
I think Paul's voice was at it's best since '79 during the 2002/ 03 tour and the 2004 Summer tour, after that it really started to go downhill rapidly. I think Paul's soundchecking hasn't helped either, most trained singers rest their voice during performance day, no talking and no singing.
I disagree. I have compared and contrasted recordings and he was clearer and had better range in 89 and 93 than in 2002. Now, one can argue MAYBE that in 2002 he sounded comparable to 93 but no way he sounded better. I mean, if you can provide some examples, please do.
Judging only on recordings I've heard, he sounded better in 2002 than he did in 1989. That said, he sounded better in '93 than he did in '02. Again, this is based only on his live albums and bootlegs that I've heard... wasn't there in person... but if recordings tell the whole story, his voice was definitely "off" in '89/'90. That doesn't mean the shows weren't terrific, cause I have no doubt that they were. And softer songs, like "Put it There" sounded fantastic. But overall, his voice was very strained on that tour. His '93 voice was probably the best he's sounded since the '70s, however, though I think his 2002 voice was very close to that. And as for all of this talk about him straining on "Maybe I'm Amazed", he hasn't nailed that song since 1976... sorry, but he hasn't. It still sounds good and I'm happy he plays it, since it's one of my favorite songs, but it didn't sound that great in 1989 either. The 1979 version was still very strong, but even that wasn't as good as his 1976 voice... just sayin'
-
joemcook:
RMartinez:
BOYCIE:
RMartinez:
femaleanimal:
RMartinez:
People who pay $300 for a ticket HAVE to believe his voice is better than ever!
I`m not sure anyone is saying that, but it does annoy me that the problems he had throughout the `89/`90 tour seem to be largely unacknowledged now. It`s ironic that it seems to be looked upon as a golden age, when it was actually when he had the most problems.
I don't think anyone thinks of it as a golden age, just that his age was different from today. I clearly remember him having vocal problems in 1990. In 1993, there were a lot more days off between shows. Paul sounds great for a 71 year old performer. My only point is that his voice sounding "better than ever" or such is really a personal opinion, and in singing terms, it is unlikely a 71 year old sings better than his or her 50 year old self.
I think Paul's voice was at it's best since '79 during the 2002/ 03 tour and the 2004 Summer tour, after that it really started to go downhill rapidly. I think Paul's soundchecking hasn't helped either, most trained singers rest their voice during performance day, no talking and no singing.
I disagree. I have compared and contrasted recordings and he was clearer and had better range in 89 and 93 than in 2002. Now, one can argue MAYBE that in 2002 he sounded comparable to 93 but no way he sounded better. I mean, if you can provide some examples, please do.
Judging only on recordings I've heard, he sounded better in 2002 than he did in 1989. That said, he sounded better in '93 than he did in '02. Again, this is based only on his live albums and bootlegs that I've heard... wasn't there in person... but if recordings tell the whole story, his voice was definitely "off" in '89/'90. That doesn't mean the shows weren't terrific, cause I have no doubt that they were. And softer songs, like "Put it There" sounded fantastic. But overall, his voice was very strained on that tour. His '93 voice was probably the best he's sounded since the '70s, however, though I think his 2002 voice was very close to that. And as for all of this talk about him straining on "Maybe I'm Amazed", he hasn't nailed that song since 1976... sorry, but he hasn't. It still sounds good and I'm happy he plays it, since it's one of my favorite songs, but it didn't sound that great in 1989 either. The 1979 version was still very strong, but even that wasn't as good as his 1976 voice... just sayin'
Fair enough. I suppose we could all find examples where he sounds great and not so great from 1989 to the present. MAYBE I'M AMAZED is a difficult song to sing at any age. I think he keeps doing it because it is his song, and he can if he wants to! I can dig it!
-
The Honey Don't footage in the CBC TV interview demonstrates how good he can sound when singing within his much more limited modern day range.
-
cfergoid:
The Honey Don't footage in the CBC TV interview demonstrates how good he can sound when singing within his much more limited modern day range.
I'm surprised Paul doesn't sneak some of those rehearsal songs into the concert set. I think it would be cool. LONG TALL SALLY proves that!
-
Does he even have a concert voice after Seattle?
-
RMartinez:
I disagree. I have compared and contrasted recordings and he was clearer and had better range in 89 and 93 than in 2002. Now, one can argue MAYBE that in 2002 he sounded comparable to 93 but no way he sounded better. I mean, if you can provide some examples, please do.
In my humble opinion in 2002 to 2004 it was better overall, not as sweet on some songs as the '90's, but stronger across most of the different material he has to sing than the '90's, more consistent. As for examples i can only go by the fact that i've seen every UK tour since '79, bar his London O2 Arena show in '09, plus some European dates in 2004 and 2013 to go on. Joking aside , one thing we can agree on is it's really struggling now.
-
BOYCIE:
RMartinez:
I disagree. I have compared and contrasted recordings and he was clearer and had better range in 89 and 93 than in 2002. Now, one can argue MAYBE that in 2002 he sounded comparable to 93 but no way he sounded better. I mean, if you can provide some examples, please do.
In my humble opinion in 2002 to 2004 it was better overall, not as sweet on some songs as the '90's, but stronger across most of the different material he has to sing than the '90's, more consistent. As for examples i can only go by the fact that i've seen every UK tour since '79, bar his London O2 Arena show in '09, plus some European dates in 2004 and 2013 to go on. Joking aside , one thing we can agree on is it's really struggling now.
I am glad he did LONG TALL SALLY, but he really strained on it the other night. Get past the excitement factor and he really should not be doing that to his voice. Or, lower the key, he is still singing it in G when he could drop it to E and rock it.
-
RMartinez:
cfergoid:
The Honey Don't footage in the CBC TV interview demonstrates how good he can sound when singing within his much more limited modern day range.
I'm surprised Paul doesn't sneak some of those rehearsal songs into the concert set. I think it would be cool. LONG TALL SALLY proves that!
YES and YES
-
One thing is for sure, Paul sounds better now than he will in ten years time!
-
Long Tall Sally sounded horrendous the other night! I would have wet myself with excitement if I had been there but it doesn't change the fact he simply can't sing it in the original key. On a positive note, the woooo oooh oooh sounded fantastic!
-
cfergoid:
Long Tall Sally sounded horrendous the other night! I would have wet myself with excitement if I had been there but it doesn't change the fact he simply can't sing it in the original key. On a positive note, the woooo oooh oooh sounded fantastic!
Yes and yes. It even sounded bad back in 86. I think the actual excitement around it is that he did it at all. That's what made people go "wow!" It doesnt' compare to his "I'm Down" at Citifield back in 09...this sounded awesome!