Interesting points made, you guys!

A few posts back, it was brought up about Crosby and Nash being egotistical. I never knew about Crosby having this reputation, and never would have guessed. He seems to really be into the music going on, and pays it a lot of respect and attention as he stands there....especially when he's just standing there, not singing. Nash, on the other hand......good grief! This guy is soooooo annoying....as cevor says, with those ridiculous hand gestures....he's clearly of the "high maintenence hippie-turned-yuppie" variety. A definite talent, but very irritating at the same time.

As to Rick.....there's no middle ground really. You either like his voice, or not. On 'Broken China', he surprised me with some of those accentual songs like "Hidden Fear", where the deep end of his voice really came out. I thought it was neat, and added a lot to the atmosphere of that record.

mabewa Wrote:Well, like most of the people on this thread, I think that Rick's vocals add a great deal to David's "solo" shows. And, with the reaction that Rick is getting from the audiences, I think that we're going to hear a lot of him on David's next tour, like it or not. So, as far as I'm concerned you might as well look on the bright side.

And, with that in mind, the fact is that Rick's voice actually HAS held up fairly well for a man in his 60's--far better than many of his contemporaries. Seen CSN or CSN(&Y) lately? How about the Rolling Stones? If you have, you know exactly what I mean.

cevor Wrote:I'm sorry for not following along with "most" of the other people in this thread and if David decides to take Rick with him on tour again it's his deal...this is about Rick, right? I wouldn't pay to see those other acts you mention and i don't see how they're relevant

They are relevant simply because they are bands that are still touring in their 60's and making thousands of people happy, despite having suffered the inevitable loss of vocal range that happens to people over time. Kinda like Dave and Rick.

BTW, I feel that CSN(&Y) are particularly relevant just because they are one of the most famous vocal-harmony oriented groups in pop music history, and I couldn't help notice some irony: we're discussing Rick's singing on RTN, where Rick is singing with Crosby and Nash, and doing a considerably better job of staying in key with them than poor old Steve Stills is--and Steve Stills was a great singer back in the day, technically a much better singer than anyone in PF.

mabewa Wrote:Face it: people's voices change and deteriorate as they get older. You basically get a choice between having other people sing their parts, having them do it alone, having the parts doubled by other singers, or using tapes. For me, the last option is unacceptable--if they are going to play backing tapes that are as loud or louder than the live singing, I can get the same effect by sitting home and listening to a CD. That's not rock n' roll. Leave that to the Britney Spears' of the world. I'd much rather hear someone honestly doing their best, even if they're missing a note here and there, than a backing tape.

cevor Wrote:of course mabewa, but who is really out there doing that? anyone?

Just for some random names... Neil Young? Bob Dylan? Iggy Pop? Led Zeppelin the other night? (and by the way, OK, I understand, maybe you don't like some of those musicians, but you asked "anyone," not "artists I personally like." I don't like, for example, Elton John, but since the guy has recently gone on a mini-crusade against artists using vocal tracks live, I think it's fairly safe to say that he doesn't).

I mean, if you are talking about the odd sound-effect or sample, yeah, the majority of acts do it, but using piped in lead vocal tracks, many don't. Some of this I know from fairly direct experience, but a lot of it is just fairly obvious to me as a musician. If you have, for example, seen Bob Dylan on more than one consecutive night, you might notice that he NEVER sings or plays the same song the same way twice--unless he makes completely different backing tapes (complete with plenty of missed notes and forgotten lyrics!) every time he plays live, then no, he doesn't.

mabewa Wrote:As it is, in terms of holding his own vocally during a rather lengthly and technically demanding show, Rick is walking all over Roger Waters, Stephen Stills, or Keith Richards... the latter two who both were born with considerably better voices. And, I could go on QUITE a bit with similar comparisons.

cevor Wrote:comparisons only appear to be trying to prop Rick up..I don't disagree with you here...wait, Keith born with a better voice? yeesh

Keith Richards was born with a better voice than anyone in Floyd, no question about it. Keith Richards was a freakin' choirboy. He was a soprano and sang in Westminister Abbey in front of the queen. I know, that sounds weird, but it's true!

mabewa Wrote:Also, Live at Pompeii is actually not a very relevant comparison, anyway, because it wasn't really "live" in terms of being in front of an audience in a noisy theater. Plenty of bands in the late 60's and early 70's often sang horribly live, simply because they were stoned or drunk, the sound systems were much worse in those days, and the audiences were sometimes very loud. Rock and roll has always been this way. To go back to the CSY&Y comparisons, give "4-Way Street" a good listen for me, and reflect on the fact that Rick is now singing live with more accuracy in his 60's than technically great singers like Crosby and Nash were singing in their 20's.

cevor Wrote:gee, I understand what was recorded how mabewa...I listened to 4 Way Street when it came out..I was trying to throw Rick a bone here...

mabewa Wrote:Sure, a lot of this is just due to much better sound systems and much fewer bad drugs, but as far as I'm concerned, technically imperfect singing is part and parcel of rock n' roll--if I really minded hearing a few missed notes, I'd listen to opera instead. Rick freely admits to having lost some of his range (not being able to sing his old harmony part on Arnold Layne; and Jon Carin sings his old part on Echoes--Rick is now doubling Dave's part instead), but to me it's FAR more interesting to hear him still singing, god forbid, listening to a backing tape. Dave, for his part, sounds like he has a small army of frogs in his throat on "On the Turning Away" and "A Great Day for Freedom," but I just love that they are still out there, having the guts to sing completely live in today's fake music world.

cevor Wrote:stunning...Rick freely admits to the only simple point I've been trying to make...I'll stop beating this dead horse now since it's so far off the original thread thought....if speaking at a audible level is equal to "still having it" he's got it all right!
I agree with everything you say about backing tapes and such, but if you think you've seen a show live or on dvd in the last decade that isn't using them or overdubs, you've been had....I too love the idea that there still out there doing it live mab...and I don't even mind if the sound is a bit thicker than reality, let's not kid ourselves over it, that's all..

I think this all actually fits in with the topic fairly well. If the topic was "Rick's voice has 100% of its original range," then you would indeed be right that he doesn't. But, "Rick's voice still has it" doesn't mean "Rick has retained the full vocal range that he had in his 20's." Show me a singer who still has his full vocal range in his 60's, and I'll show you a (lucky) opera singer. It's more like simply "Rick is still doing a good job of singing."

As for "you think you've seen a show live that doesn't use backing tapes... you've been had," you're quite simply wrong here. DVDs and (especially) live albums are one thing, but as for live shows... lemme see, for example, I've seen Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Patti Smith, Pearl Jam and Sonic Youth, just to name a few acts that it's fairly easy to tell use no vocal backing tapes during live shows whatseover.

whongolian Wrote:As to Rick.....there's no middle ground really. You either like his voice, or not. On 'Broken China', he surprised me with some of those accentual songs like "Hidden Fear", where the deep end of his voice really came out. I thought it was neat, and added a lot to the atmosphere of that record.

I think that this is the real issue here--just "I like Rick's voice," or "I don't like Rick's voice." I happen to like it... but I also happen to think that he's actually singing a lot better now than he was, say, in 1987.

By the way, I've read reviews of Broken China that noted that Rick was singing better than he ever had on that record... certainly he's lost some of his high end, as he jokes about on the RTN DVD, but he's also gained quite a bit on the low end!

great points again mabewa..it's always good fun to discuss things with you
I would add one thought...any of the people you mentioned who are out there performing without assistance should probably reconsider... and besides Iggy Pop, I like all of them...

As strange as it sounds... its quite entertaining going on this forum solely to see mabewa in some sort of word war

LOL!

Seriously, there are quite a number of artists who perform without any vocal assistance whatsoever. Last time I saw Sonic Youth, for example, Thurston suddenly swings his guitar, knocks over own microphone, singing stops immediately. Wife Kim steps up to her mic, and sings hubby's parts, with garbled lyrics and her obviously female voice. Roadie runs on stage and puts Thurston's mic back up. Thurston resumes singing. Kim, singing with eyes closed, hasn't noticed so she sings with him for a few second, then notices that his voice is back, opens her eyes, smiles, stops singing, and then we hear Thurston singing alone again. Now, THAT'S rock n' roll!

(and, considering Sonic Youth's music and how they play it, it would be a technical nightmare to use vocal tapes, anyway)

It's actually pretty obvious who is using piped-in vocals and who is not. I mean, last time I lived in the US, I remember hearing the atrocious Britney Spears singing "live" on TV, and it's friggin comical--she'll be doing these dance moves in which she's clearly either not singing or her mouth is nowhere near her clip-on mic, but the lead vocal remains at exactly the same volume. It would really seem that she's not singing AT ALL. I also saw a pretty amusing trainwreck involving Motley Crue on a certain TV show--they got off-sync with their backing tape, LOL.

The advent of Youtube has actually really helped in figuring out who still sings live: watch 3 clips of Bob Dylan singing "Tangled Up in Blue" on the latest leg of his endless tour, for example, and you'll not only get the song at a different tempo, different arrangement, but with a drastically different vocal delivery, all 3 times. When Dylan plays live, he's got a songbook as thick as two phonebooks in front of him, filled with hundreds of songs, and there is no telling what he will play, and how he will play it, making piped-in anything pretty much impossible. THAT'S rock n' roll! (and, if you compare various Youtube segments of Rick singing CN, you'll notice that there is pretty noticeable various on how he sings it from night to night, tho not nearly so much as you'd get from Dylan!).

As for Neil Young... here is a guy who not only insists on singing all of his parts live in concert, he also insists on singing all his parts live even in the studio. I mean, a lot of artists have returned to the practice of cutting basic tracks (drums, bass, rhythm guitar, maybe keyboards) live in the studio these days, with vocals, guitar solos, and other stuff overdubbed later--a big contrast from the 70's when bands often recorded every instrument completely separately. Young, however, for the better part of 40 years has insisted on actually singing the lead vocal, along with the band, as they are actually recording--a practice that pretty much went out with the advent of multitrack recording. So, you get a great take with a few bum vocal notes, and it stays right in. Of course, with modern technology, you can cut a track live in the studio with enough separation that you can still edit out bum notes, but Young just likes to leave everything in. That's rock n' roll!

Dave is not nearly that spontaneous, but I do love the fact that he suddenly threw in some songs into certain shows (On the Turning Away, Great Day for Freedom, Dark Globe) without any rehearsal. So, he does sound rather hoarse on the former two, but he and the band are actually doing great considering that they didn't even get a chance to play the songs beforehand.

Yeah, maybe some of these guys actually should use a bit of help... but I'll happily endure the bad notes in exchange of hearing a unique rendition of a song!

I thought Rick's voice on RTN and then the Gdansk concert were very good. He was in his mid-60s by then so he obviously wasn't going to sound as good as he did in the late 60s or early 70s, and he didn't possess David's voice, which IMO sounds damn near as it did when these songs were first recorded. So while for some there was a roughness to his vocals that made them unpleasing to their ear, to me it had a charm about it that didn't detract at all from the overall performance. I actually think he did very well on Comfortably Numb as it's impossible to really re-create Roger's vocals. The whole point I believe, is to do your own thing, which he did.

Am I the only one who noticed when Dave introduced Rick, a lot of women were standing up and applauding Rick? It made me wonder how much of a ladies man Rick is.