For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
MrThompsonWooft
Saw him at O2 in May. His voice was great.
Dare anyone mention that Mick's voice is not what it was?
Quote
steffialicia
Does anyone know if he has taken lessons?
Quote
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
I saw Macca in 2010, and it was a blast! A few years later, he closed out the Olympics, and he was awful. I exchanged looks to the others in the living room as we listened to his struggle through 'Hey Jude', then speculated on if he had a cold or what the issue was...during the song.
Mick is a different kind of singer. Always has been. Paul does the tenderness of Yesterday and the scream of Long Tall Sally or Oh Darling. Mick, to me, is one of those ageless voices. Its so natural as opposed to Paul that does many different things. I think of Mick sort of like John Fogerty. If you put their performances of 40 years ago up with today, sure you'll see some minor differences, but overall that IS the voice. They really haven't changed a wink. Paul's is more noticeable because of all the different types of singing IMO.Quote
steffialiciaQuote
MrThompsonWooft
Saw him at O2 in May. His voice was great.
Dare anyone mention that Mick's voice is not what it was?
Personally, I think Mick's voice sounds fabulous. I wouldn't be surprised if he's taken voice lessons. His singing sounds much more efficient to me. Does anyone know if he has taken lessons?
Quote
RollingFreakMick is a different kind of singer. Always has been. Paul does the tenderness of Yesterday and the scream of Long Tall Sally or Oh Darling. Mick, to me, is one of those ageless voices. Its so natural as opposed to Paul that does many different things. I think of Mick sort of like John Fogerty. If you put their performances of 40 years ago up with today, sure you'll see some minor differences, but overall that IS the voice. They really haven't changed a wink. Paul's is more noticeable because of all the different types of singing IMO.Quote
steffialiciaQuote
MrThompsonWooft
Saw him at O2 in May. His voice was great.
Dare anyone mention that Mick's voice is not what it was?
Personally, I think Mick's voice sounds fabulous. I wouldn't be surprised if he's taken voice lessons. His singing sounds much more efficient to me. Does anyone know if he has taken lessons?
Quote
tomk
The way our voices change is interesting. Listen to an interview with Roger McGuinn ...
Quote
MrThompsonWooft
Compare the length of a McCartney show to the length of a Stones show. And within that Stones show Mick takes a two song break. McCartney is also always playing an instrument in addition to his vocal.
Quote
whitem8
Yet on the rockers he belted furiously, which sounded better.
Quote
The Sicilian
Just saw Paul McCartney close his "Out There" tour in Buffalo tonight.
Though his voice was a little raspy probably from playing Detroit the night before, he still managed to play 40 songs. And still screamed the parts in various songs that were screamed in the originals. He also played a couple pianos, a ukulele, and a myriad of guitars including bass, acoustic, lead and rhythm.
Contrast that with the Stones tour I saw this July and they played only 19 songs.
Quote
The Sicilian
Just saw Paul McCartney close his "Out There" tour in Buffalo tonight.
Though his voice was a little raspy probably from playing Detroit the night before, he still managed to play 40 songs. And still screamed the parts in various songs that were screamed in the originals. He also played a couple pianos, a ukulele, and a myriad of guitars including bass, acoustic, lead and rhythm.
Contrast that with the Stones tour I saw this July and they played only 19 songs.
Quote
Doc
Paul uses Auto-tune
Paul does not run around or dance
Paul's music has nothing to do with the Stones' style.
I understand that older people who lived the 60ies appreciate both Stones and Beatles since they lived this golden era.
But to me, Paul is pop, Mick is rock.
I'm into rock.
Quote
More Hot RocksQuote
The Sicilian
Just saw Paul McCartney close his "Out There" tour in Buffalo tonight.
Though his voice was a little raspy probably from playing Detroit the night before, he still managed to play 40 songs. And still screamed the parts in various songs that were screamed in the originals. He also played a couple pianos, a ukulele, and a myriad of guitars including bass, acoustic, lead and rhythm.
Contrast that with the Stones tour I saw this July and they played only 19 songs.
really? Did Paul play any songs that were 14 min long (Rambler) or any songs over 3 minutes?
Quote
Kurt
I saw the Detroit show...
41 songs.
27 Beatles songs.
This guy is an absolute joy to watch.
I can't even compare his live show to a Stones concert.
They are completely different animals.
Both spectacular in their own rights, especially in 2015!
Its astounding to see Paul go from instrument to instrument and play every single song. His band takes a break, but he never does. Minutes shy of three hours.
Interesting to note that he gave special nods from the stage to John and George, but not the other guy.
Quote
More Hot RocksQuote
The Sicilian
Just saw Paul McCartney close his "Out There" tour in Buffalo tonight.
Though his voice was a little raspy probably from playing Detroit the night before, he still managed to play 40 songs. And still screamed the parts in various songs that were screamed in the originals. He also played a couple pianos, a ukulele, and a myriad of guitars including bass, acoustic, lead and rhythm.
Contrast that with the Stones tour I saw this July and they played only 19 songs.
really? Did Paul play any songs that were 14 min long (Rambler) or any songs over 3 minutes?
Quote
HMSQuote
steffialicia
Does anyone know if he has taken lessons?
If he does, I would like to talk to his teacher. Especially on the subject of ruining ballads by horrible overacting.