After listening to the San Diego boot from 2009, I have to say that Ed's voice is in it's best shape since, well since ever. IMO Ed has never, NEVER had good technique as a singer.
I don't know much or anything about singing in a technical fashion but even an untrained ear (me) can hear that throughout his whole career Ed has used his growl, shredded his vocals, instead of hitting notes. Up until 1995 he could do this without really having too many problems. And it sounded great, 1994 was the best year for a combination of consistent notes and growl. His voice was young, he had the power to scream and howl and do so very convincingly. Whether 1995 was a tipping point or whether it had something to do with smoking it doesn't matter. I think most people would agree that ever since that year it has become increasingly hard for Ed to scream and growl as well as hit notes in a consistent fashion, live at least. Evolution sounds great on record.
2000 was a great year for his voice, it seemed he had given away some of the power of his scream and given himself a chance to hit the high notes. IMO Riot Act and the subsequent tours were the low point for his voice. It had lost power, the growl, couldnt hit the notes, he seeemd out of breath, really struggling (some will disagree). During S/T he managed to give his vocals one last album and tour of shredding, not to great effect. On S/T he was just shreiking every song.
But Backspacer has seen him giving away the growl for the most part in favour of hitting notes and being consistent live. I finally see, or hear, what Ed meant when he talked about using his voice as an instrument. Even though on the album Ed sounds like he had a cold during recording, his voice is better than ever, certainly more 'golden'. He may have lost his growling substantially and has a little problem with some of the lower register notes, but I'll take that and the longevity that comes with it over more songs like Blood or Lukin anyday.
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:19 am Posts: 728 Location: Island Continent Gender: Male
stranger34 wrote:
vedderforpresident wrote:
After listening to the San Diego boot from 2009, I have to say that Ed's voice is in it's best shape since, well since ever. IMO Ed has never, NEVER had good technique as a singer.
I don't know much or anything about singing in a technical fashion but even an untrained ear (me) can hear that throughout his whole career Ed has used his growl, shredded his vocals, instead of hitting notes. Up until 1995 he could do this without really having too many problems. And it sounded great, 1994 was the best year for a combination of consistent notes and growl. His voice was young, he had the power to scream and howl and do so very convincingly. Whether 1995 was a tipping point or whether it had something to do with smoking it doesn't matter. I think most people would agree that ever since that year it has become increasingly hard for Ed to scream and growl as well as hit notes in a consistent fashion, live at least. Evolution sounds great on record.
2000 was a great year for his voice, it seemed he had given away some of the power of his scream and given himself a chance to hit the high notes. IMO Riot Act and the subsequent tours were the low point for his voice. It had lost power, the growl, couldnt hit the notes, he seeemd out of breath, really struggling (some will disagree). During S/T he managed to give his vocals one last album and tour of shredding, not to great effect. On S/T he was just shreiking every song.
But Backspacer has seen him giving away the growl for the most part in favour of hitting notes and being consistent live. I finally see, or hear, what Ed meant when he talked about using his voice as an instrument. Even though on the album Ed sounds like he had a cold during recording, his voice is better than ever, certainly more 'golden'. He may have lost his growling substantially and has a little problem with some of the lower register notes, but I'll take that and the longevity that comes with it over more songs like Blood or Lukin anyday.
You like Squeeky Vedder?
I'd take his voice today over what it was in 02, 03, 04 anyday.
_________________ Vedder’s sticking with the underdog, McCready’s classicist rock solo, Gossard, Ament, and Abbruzzese’s solid yet organic and rootsy rhythm section. It’s earnest, it’s got tension, and that nod to classic rock. It’s Pearl Jam.
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:19 am Posts: 728 Location: Island Continent Gender: Male
bmacsmith wrote:
i think he sounds good. his voice is maybe a tiny bit ragged sometimes, but he is a much better singer than he used to be.
Exactly, and especially technically. He reaches for notes instead of getting lazy and screaming the words. Everyone gets a bit ragged after this long singing. He's no Whitney Houston just yet
_________________ Vedder’s sticking with the underdog, McCready’s classicist rock solo, Gossard, Ament, and Abbruzzese’s solid yet organic and rootsy rhythm section. It’s earnest, it’s got tension, and that nod to classic rock. It’s Pearl Jam.
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:19 am Posts: 728 Location: Island Continent Gender: Male
mastaflatch wrote:
what if - exceptionally - an untrained voice sounds better than a trained one?
Well I suppose that's just a matter of taste, I don't think I was debating whether an untrained voice is better than a trained one, in a lot of cases it is. I obviously don't know but I wouldnt think Ed would have had much training or anything, and I love his voice regardless (why would I be on here otherwise). Personally I just prefer his voice now then in 1995 when it was all about a lot of screaming. Really this all came about because I was listening to 2009 boots and then watched the tour movie from 95.
_________________ Vedder’s sticking with the underdog, McCready’s classicist rock solo, Gossard, Ament, and Abbruzzese’s solid yet organic and rootsy rhythm section. It’s earnest, it’s got tension, and that nod to classic rock. It’s Pearl Jam.
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 44183 Location: New York Gender: Male
those 1995 shows are unlistenable for me, which is a shame cuz that's the Vitalogy tour.
If I was going to rank Eddie's voice I think it'd look like this for me
Ten Vs Vitalogy Backspacer S/T
then there's a big drop off
Binaural--Yield--No Code (not really sure how I feel about these. There's a nasly quality I hear on these records I don't care for) Riot act
_________________ "Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:33 am Posts: 8422 Location: Berthier-sur-Mer Gender: Male
vedderforpresident wrote:
mastaflatch wrote:
what if - exceptionally - an untrained voice sounds better than a trained one?
Well I suppose that's just a matter of taste, I don't think I was debating whether an untrained voice is better than a trained one, in a lot of cases it is. I obviously don't know but I wouldnt think Ed would have had much training or anything, and I love his voice regardless (why would I be on here otherwise). Personally I just prefer his voice now then in 1995 when it was all about a lot of screaming. Really this all came about because I was listening to 2009 boots and then watched the tour movie from 95.
i was playing the devil's advocate here - i think that his voice now is pretty good for some material (songs like Blood, Lukin and Habit should be put to rest) and i can tell that ITW was a turning point in his approach for the better. as Stip said, the Binaural/Riot Act stretch was his low point vocally IMO. it sounds like he didn't know what to do with his "damaged voice" in the studio. S/T was eventually a step in the right direction.
considering how much he kills those vocal chords i'm surprised he can sing at all anymore.
that he still sounds as great as he does, be it a hair worse (or better depending on who you ask) this far into the game is something of a miracle, really.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:36 pm Posts: 578 Location: Canada
Monkey_Driven wrote:
I thought he sounded fantastic on his solo tours. The last full band tour, not so much.
He definitely sounded amazing at the solo shows i attended in 08.
I find his voice alot more hit and miss now that it was in the early days. I suppose i can buy into the fact that his technique is better now that it was in the 90s, but to me there was never anything back then that was unlistenable.
Amongst the Waves on Austin City Limits was pretty damn unlistenable to me.
And i'll always have a soft spot for that screaming style of 1995...i love listening to the Vitalogy stuff from the Monkeywrench broadcast.
_________________ Montreal - 98,00,03,05 Barrie - 98 Ottawa - 05, 11 Toronto - 06, 09 New York - 08 (x2) EV Solo - Vancouver (08) x2, Montreal (08), Toronto (08), Hartford (11)
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:42 am Posts: 11014 Location: Mizzou Gender: Male
Vitalogy1994 wrote:
Monkey_Driven wrote:
I thought he sounded fantastic on his solo tours. The last full band tour, not so much.
He definitely sounded amazing at the solo shows i attended in 08.
I find his voice alot more hit and miss now that it was in the early days. I suppose i can buy into the fact that his technique is better now that it was in the 90s, but to me there was never anything back then that was unlistenable.
Amongst the Waves on Austin City Limits was pretty damn unlistenable to me.
And i'll always have a soft spot for that screaming style of 1995...i love listening to the Vitalogy stuff from the Monkeywrench broadcast.
Yeah, AtW made me embarrassed to be a PJ fan on ACL.
_________________ "Red rover, red rover, let Mike McCready take over."
I thought he sounded fantastic on his solo tours. The last full band tour, not so much.
He definitely sounded amazing at the solo shows i attended in 08.
I find his voice alot more hit and miss now that it was in the early days. I suppose i can buy into the fact that his technique is better now that it was in the 90s, but to me there was never anything back then that was unlistenable.
Amongst the Waves on Austin City Limits was pretty damn unlistenable to me.
And i'll always have a soft spot for that screaming style of 1995...i love listening to the Vitalogy stuff from the Monkeywrench broadcast.
Yeah, AtW made me embarrassed to be a PJ fan on ACL.
true he sucked on a couple of songs on that show, but i dont think that is representative of his voice now. maybe he was sick or didnt warm his voice up. he sounded fine at the fest and at other times.
but i dont think he could have pulled off Just Breathe a few years ago as well as he does now. he is perfect on that one.
maybe he just has to prepare better now, but when he is on he is as good as he ever was, maybe better. he's still more than capable of being the best singer out there.
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm Posts: 13226 Location: Adelaide, AUS
McParadigm wrote:
Whether or not the band detunes a little bit live is not an indicator as to the quality of the voice. The first place strength or range is lost in male singers is in their highest range.
I couldn't find a thread specifically about the band detuning certain songs since 2007, so this'll do.
Just was loading the 2009 Oz/NZ leg into iTunes tonight and listening to a few random tracks and discovered, quite to my surprise, that certain songs changed from night to night:
Save You: a half-step down in Perth at the start of the tour, back up to regular pitch in Brisbane.
Do the Evolution: normal pitch everywhere but Sydney, where it was a half-step down.
I guess DTE makes sense, Ed was really struggling in Sydney vocally (he was sick) so I can understand them dropping it back. I found the fact that they'd shifted Save You back up to its regular tuning later in the leg interesting, however (I think it was detuned in Philly too, from memory). I'm not sure as I don't have it handy, but I have the feeling Marker In The Sand might've been played in its regular tuning in Columbus this year (but was detuned in 2009).
EDIT: Just found one more...
Blood: Regular key in Adelaide, but tuned down a half-step in Brisbane.
This is really interesting to me; most of us knew they'd been tuning certain songs down the last three years, but I never realised they'd been shifting them up and down from show to show.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:08 pm Posts: 1467 Location: Sarasota, Florida Gender: Male
Maybe I'm an apologist, but I feel that Eddie is choosing his battles wisely. Honestly, I think I can be very happy with the Eddie Vedder I've heard in person. "Release" in Toronto 2005 was amazing. The solo show in Atlanta in 2009 I caught was amazing. "Arc" in person was excellent.
I think he can be phenomenal today and he's got a few new tricks up his sleeve too.
_________________ So it's Barack Obama now? Good luck.
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm Posts: 13226 Location: Adelaide, AUS
After hearing a few of the audience recordings from 2009 and 2010, I feel much more reassured about Ed's voice. I think it's the lower frequencies of Ed's vocal tone that seem to be missing the most on the boots the last few years which make him sound much weaker than he is - without that low rumble, Ed's voice loses a lot of its character. The audience boots show that it's clearly still there, it's just that the guy mixing the boots doesn't really do anything to show it in its best light.
The detuning doesn't bother me all that much, I guess I'd rather Ed have a voice at all ten years from now than none at all - and besides, like I just found out, it doesn't look like it's an every-night thing anyway, only on nights when he feels like he needs a bit of extra help.
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am Posts: 91597 Location: Sector 7-G
spenno wrote:
After hearing a few of the audience recordings from 2009 and 2010, I feel much more reassured about Ed's voice. I think it's the lower frequencies of Ed's vocal tone that seem to be missing the most on the boots the last few years which make him sound much weaker than he is - without that low rumble, Ed's voice loses a lot of its character. The audience boots show that it's clearly still there, it's just that the guy mixing the boots doesn't really do anything to show it in its best light.
The detuning doesn't bother me all that much, I guess I'd rather Ed have a voice at all ten years from now than none at all - and besides, like I just found out, it doesn't look like it's an every-night thing anyway, only on nights when he feels like he needs a bit of extra help.
Yep
_________________ It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:51 am Posts: 477 Location: Edmonton, AB/Wien, Österreich
Ed should call it a day and let Jeff and Stone take over vocal duties. Vedder was amazing from 2000-2005, but he really let himself go over the last five years. 2003 had balls, man.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
- an untrained voice sounds better than a trained one?
