Listening to '94 shows, and Ed gives it all on Ten songs like it was 1991.

On the Vitalogy tour, he doesnt' back away either.

Not that he phones in performances, but from No Code on, maybe by nature of some softer songs, he doesn't sing early songs with the same passion and intensity as he did prior to No Code concerts.

(I don't think 'his voice couldn't muster it'.)

i do. he's changed his vocal style quite a bit since 94. there's things he can do better now, like hold a note and hit high notes, and there's things he could do better than, like scream like a mad man

A fierce vocal performance could be an indication of authenticity, but it might just as well be an indication of sheer talent. I don't personally put down either one of these things.

i do. he's changed his vocal style quite a bit since 94. there's things he can do better now, like hold a note and hit high notes, and there's things he could do better than, like scream like a mad man[/quote]

for me, it wasn't that he couldn't do it, just that he ceased doing it. almost like ambivalence towards doing it.

i disagree completely. he still sings aggressively, he just cant sing like he used to

I think he can sing just as good today as he could 15 years ago. His style changed, he takes better care of his voice and his vocal range and abilities have improved.

Warehouse hits the nail on the head.

and we'll agree to disagree.

in the future of this thread, will you please just remain out of the discussion though









(just reading a case and the foreman in a deliberation asks a juror with a minority opinion to just sit to the side and not participate since there is enough of a consensus for a verdict)

I tend to want to think he grew up (post-30 years) and thought the earlier stuff was a bit immature. Or that he trying to shrug his image in the sabotage-success-years.

But maybe playing those songs 200+ times could have that effect.

Also, listening to these new boots, I feel like he does perform a lot of them now (though not night in/night out), and he even commented in the Rolling Stone article that some of those songs CAN'T be sung without passion, but I've got a stack of boots from '96 forward which disagree which lead me to think some of it now could be contrived--though that's just an idea I haven't fully committed to--and possibly it's better said he's been revived with new wind in his sails

I prefer his latter day voice to the earlier days. And I think part of the reason he changed his style of was in the name of preservation; the band doesn't tour every year, but when they do, they're putting on 3 hours shows 50 times a year. No way he could do that forever if he kept his original style.

yeah, that's very true. if it is self-preservation, way to go Ed for looking out for your fans and for yourself.

sorry isaac, you're kidding yourself if you think self-preservation is the only reason he doesnt sing like he used to.

Off topic I know, but I'd love to hear his voice now if the fucker hadn't smoked all these years...

Listen to a song like oceans, issac. The ooohs between verses are one of the best examples of notes he can't hit any more.

It is possible that eddie is a better singer now than he used to be (I'd say he probably is) but it is also hard to argue that his voice has the same physical power that it used to, at least consistently. He cracks more, and his screams get really scratchy towards the end.

I guess what I've meaning to say is, post-95, Eddie didn't sing songs as aggresively. up to '95, more or less, every song was sung with this aggresive i've-got-something-to-prove attitude. something happened to that, and I don't think it was his voice's inability to accomplish the effect. albeit, his voice suffered, and the '95 tour itself probably had something to do with it, but something went missing and I'm curious what exactly that was because when i listen to atlanta '94, that guy is balls out, leaving it on the floor of the stage.

shorter sets, less to prove. Part of pulling back.

just listen to the end of jeremy from 2003 and 2005-2006. 2003 is much better. he can't do the end anymore. Damn cigs!

i prefer ed's harsh and roar vocals from like 1994/1995, i like the anger and agression it brought across. pitty matt cameron wasnt around then..its the only thing that prevents me from listening to shows back in those days more (im not a big fan of dave. a.)

He's over 40, he smokes and he's been singing his heart out for over 20 years now, of course he's not going to be able to scream like "Blood" on Vs. anymore. Still, like some have said, he can hit some higher notes now while still singing (and not screaming), such as in Release and some others. I know that's too easy of a compromise for some, but that's pretty much it.

Oh, and I don't like being an ass and I don't want to be, but could we have any more threads about Ed's voice? If you seriously doubt his passion b/c Blood doesn't sound quite as good as it used to, so be it, but that focus for this thread will be totally lost amongst "he can still sing like that he just doesnt want to" and "god his voice sounds like shit."

And he smokes for self=preservation too?