Wish You Were Here
Joined: Jul 2005
RE: Ricks voice still has it
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!