I saw him live less than a month ago (in Stockholm July 9th) and didn't notice anything strange with his voice.
Overall a good show, at least the second half. Everything turned into a great show from Something.

At 73, it aint bad.....you wonder if anyone in the Macca camp dare tell their employer however, he needs to adjust his repetoire though.
Dylan's voice went around 25 years ago but many of his fans actually like his delivery!

Quote
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
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-08-03 15:06 by HMS.

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.

I remember that, he said something like his emotions got to him at the sheer size of the spectacle and affected his performance. You'd think he'd be used to large spectacles at this point but I guess it's nice to know he recognizes it and doesn't just phone it in.

The Mick does have a voice coach, yes.

Quote
steffialicia

Quote
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?

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
RollingFreak

Quote
steffialicia

Quote
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?

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.

Reality is that Mick sounds 50 years older than he did in 65. Time waits for no one. Not even a Rolling Stone.

No. No. No. No.
He sounds 20 years older than in 1965. (Maybe 25)
That makes him still the youngest old singer in the world.
In fact, his voice is in very good shape. You overcritical fans you, instead of being happy to have them still around, all you do is niggle and moan constantly. Oh my beloved Stones, how can they treat you this way...

I am a big Macca fan and have seen him many times. His voice currently does often have issues. Even his speaking voice. I believe he has some of the same nodules that plagued Roger Daltry. You can hear the strain in Macca's speaking voice.
Having said that. All the shows I saw he sounded fantastic. The most recent show, last summer in Chicago, he did struggle with the higher register and on the slower songs, which also points toward nodules or some other voice affliction. Yet on the rockers he belted furiously, which sounded better.

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.

Well, he IS 73, so give him a break. However, last year, I saw a clip of Macca and he did the Little Richard "Whooo" like it was 1965.

The way our voices change is interesting. Listen to an interview with Roger McGuinn from the 60s or 70s. His speaking voice is somewhat deep. Then listen to it now, it's almost an octave highter. Could be medication. My brother-in-law started somed meds, and his voice went up an octave.

Quote
tomk
The way our voices change is interesting. Listen to an interview with Roger McGuinn ...

Listen to Leonard Cohen. It is amazing how his voice evolved through the years. Noone would surely suggest it got damaged :-)

Bob Dylan is in great voice too, listen to his Shadow-In-The-Night-Album. Well, the album is booooooooooooooring, but he SINGS.

Maybe he was fooling us for decades, indeed he can sing if he wants to.

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.

I've always admired McCartney's versatility, musicianship (though he keeps it simple) and dedication.

Quote
whitem8
Yet on the rockers he belted furiously, which sounded better.

Amen to this.

Alternate SAY SAY SAY >>> [www.youtube.com]

Latest brilliant singing I Heard from Sir Paul on an album is from 'Run Devil Run'....

2 1 2 0

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.

You know what...

actually you have a point there...

"I hope you didn't record any of this""No I didn't"

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
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
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.

Autotune is a real time device and not used live. If anything something else is used to enhance his vocals.

Quote
More Hot Rocks

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.

really? Did Paul play any songs that were 14 min long (Rambler) or any songs over 3 minutes?

I agree More More Hot Rocks.

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
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.

Hmmm interesting...I saw him a bit over a year ago, and am pretty sure there was some kind of tribute (maybe a video tribute) to "the other guy".
I was nicely buzzed that night so can't recall everything in detail, but do remember it being a marathon length absolutely great show.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

In all respect to Paul I think he has done plenty for Ringo through the years if you've been watching/listening. Plus Ringo is still alive, thankfully. I think Paul is trying his best to represent (and tribute) John and George best he can. Here's a thought - Ringo goes out of his way not to say "Beatles" at least during gigs. Anyone else notice that?

So Paul and Ringo were both in the Buffalo/Toronto area this week. Did they attend each other shows or even better play on stage together?

Quote
More Hot Rocks

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.

really? Did Paul play any songs that were 14 min long (Rambler) or any songs over 3 minutes?

Who cares how long the songs were, actually I stand corrected, he played 41 songs. Those 41 for the most part were upbeat sing a long songs. McCartney's setlist ran over an hour longer than the Stones, had way more content, and lots of banter with the fans. That is what mattered.

Songs that made it to the show like this little gem, Another Girl:

video: [www.youtube.com]

Quote
HMS

Quote
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.

...so 'aaaawfuuuul baaaaaad'