Singing Talent

by **Linda Marchu** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 6:37 pm

I think Macca has a superb voice, with an incredible range (those kinda singers that appear one in a thousand years, like Freedie Mercury). He also can sing like a bird, like Elvis or like Steve Tyler
Lennon had a special gift to sing, with a voice that seems to be from another planet. I think he reaches low notes better than Macca.
What do ya think?

by **scrodfish256** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 11:57 pm

both great voices, no doubt about it. John's voice could be very haunting and that was what I liked about it. I'm not sure about the john hitting the low notes better.

by **Gastro (gone)** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:43 am

John's is better by a long shot. Paul's voice cannot cut it live, never has. On the loud rocking songs his voice is more of a scream. Compare John's voice on the live set from Lennon Anthology disc 2 to Paul's Unplugged or concert performances. I'm not sure what your musical tastes are like but I'm into alot of Russian, Serbian and Greek folk music and those guys have awesome voices for their age. I saw a famous Greek singer the other night, he is 65 y/o and I'd hate to be his support act. So much power and control. Rock and roll singers are just not in the same league. Paul is great in the studio for his ballads.

by **admiralvanderbilt** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:38 am

The combination of the Lennon and McCartney voices was magical because of the contrast - Lennon's range is lower and his voice more abrasive. So much drama comes from the switch between the two. Eg McCartney's "when I'm home" section in Hard Days' Night - like the sun coming out after the Lennon section. Also, their different ways of contructing melodies really fitted. Lennon - short phrases, narrow range, McCartney - longer phrases, greater range.

Not better or worse - just different.

An incredible twist of fate that put these two guys together.

by **Brains** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:40 am

quote:Originally posted by Gastro Boy
John's is better by a long shot. Paul's voice cannot cut it live, never has. On the loud rocking songs his voice is more of a scream. Compare John's voice on the live set from Lennon Anthology disc 2 to Paul's Unplugged or concert performances. I'm not sure what your musical tastes are like but I'm into alot of Russian, Serbian and Greek folk music and those guys have awesome voices for their age. I saw a famous Greek singer the other night, he is 65 y/o and I'd hate to be his support act. So much power and control. Rock and roll singers are just not in the same league. Paul is great in the studio for his ballads.

sigh... Long Tall Sally? Let's see John, or ANYONE do better than that. Compare 'Rock 'n' Roll' to 'Run Devil Run'.

Admiral, you're exaxctly right about the "When I'm Home" bit from AHDN. It's the combination that makes it really good.

In the early days there were songs (like I Wanna Hold Your Hand) in which the two voices blend so uniquely that it's almost as if there's only one singer (of course you hear two) singing with that magical voice of the beatles...

Paul's voice is more pleasant, John's is more haunting. 'Julia' is not as pleasant as 'I Will', 'Let Me Roll It' not as good as John would have done it (can't think of a John song that's really like that).

Not better or worse - just different.

p.s. Linda, what do you mean with 'singing like a bird'?

by **Steve-o** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:46 am

quote:Originally posted by Gastro Boy
John's is better by a long shot. Paul's voice cannot cut it live, never has. That's pretty funny. Both statements. And you say you don't bash? CHOKE!!!!![:D]

Both are just different, IMHO. And we don't have, sadly, much to hear from Lennon live. I say listen to Back in the USSR, She's Leaving Home etc etc etc. Macca also has one of the most varied voices in Rock history. He can sound so different from one track to the next. Awesome. Lennon's WAS haunting, but range-wise, he can't match McCartney. But they DO sound stunning together. I would also say that Paul was a much better harmony vocalist than Lennon.

by **dsnito** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:57 am

Lennon - GREAT voice, but sometimes(not just him, as also Paul and anyone else, no one is a unfailable "machine") failed in live shows as we can hear on the Filmore East concert(STINYC), his voice didn't sound so good. As also on the Elton's Madison Square concert, when he sang along with Elton "I Saw Her Standing There" without no worry to tune his voice(maybe just for that became so good in that show...?)...
We have to see that's VERY different to record the voice with all those studio tricks(overdubs, echoes, sound filters, mixings) and live singing in a crowded arena, don't you agree??
Paul's voice IS really special, he IS the versatile "man of a thousand voices"...
Paul and John, each one has a particular spell...two great voices!!!

Peace.

by **Gastro (gone)** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:38 pm

quote:Originally posted by stevew628
quote:Originally posted by Gastro Boy
John's is better by a long shot. Paul's voice cannot cut it live, never has. That's pretty funny. Both statements. And you say you don't bash? CHOKE!!!!![:D]

Both are just different, IMHO. And we don't have, sadly, much to hear from Lennon live. I say listen to Back in the USSR, She's Leaving Home etc etc etc. Macca also has one of the most varied voices in Rock history. He can sound so different from one track to the next. Awesome. Lennon's WAS haunting, but range-wise, he can't match McCartney. But they DO sound stunning together. I would also say that Paul was a much better harmony vocalist than Lennon.

Dude I'm right and you know it. As much as I like Paul's studio voice he can't sing live. A real singer does not scream or screech. Paul does not have a deep voice hence he has no power. The AHDN part you guys bring up makes me chuckle. He's singing in a higher register, same as Long Tall Sally. He can scream very well I'll give him that but he can't project power in his voice. The proof is in his live albums. There is no song where his voice sounds like the way it was recorded. That's why folks there are singers in this world. Most of them can't write music or lyrics but they can sure as hell as sing. Paul can do abit of everything but he's not the master of anything except his bass playing.

by **Steve-o** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:42 pm

Bash Boom Bah....CHOKE!!![:D]

by **Gastro (gone)** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:22 pm

Laugh as much as you want but why don't you try reading a few books about Paul where most of my information comes from ie Paul's own mouth.

Paul himself think's his best quality is his bass playing. Ahead of song-writing. Singing does not even come into the picture. If you like Long Tall Sally then good for you but most people think he sounds like a buzzing bee... Shuddup !! You just want to swat that thing.

btw dude, Day tripper is a John song LOL!!! HOHOHO!!![:D]
but u don't believe it because Paul said it in his book right?????HEEHEE HAAHAAHA HOOOOHOOOO[8D]
I love this immaturity thing, can't wait till I'm 47 !!

Singing Talent

Singing Talent

Who is online