Give my Regards to Broad Street

by **Ram1** » Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:10 pm

I don't know, man. I think his voice is actually stronger on this tour than 76. In '76, it sounded like his voice was really strained and scratchy. Like Mike pointed out one time, Paul would come out and totally blow out his voice in the first few songs. It was torn up by the end of the show. I think 89/90 was alright. And '93 was bad. 2002 is the best ever, (since the Beatles), IMHO.

by **Steve-o** » Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:15 pm

I was just comparing that song in particular. It was just after V/M-Rock Show, so he was still pretty fresh, voice-wise. His timing was off, though, and that's probabaly due to the band. The 1990 version of BOTR, played right next to the other two is HORRID (in comparison). Slow and he wasnt hitting the notes at all.

by **Ram1** » Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:18 pm

Oh sorry, man. My brain is still half-asleep. You were just comparing BOTR, ok. For some reason I was thinking you were talking about the shows as a whole. I tell ya, it still amazes me how clear and powerful his voice was on this tour. Especially during his acoustic set, when he hit those high notes, it just SOARED throughout the arena. Awesome.

by **Steve-o** » Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:25 pm

Oh man--no doubt. I watch the DVD and listen to the CD all the time, and it helps to remember what I heard live, which cant be reproduced on disc, IMHO. Incredible and very surprising, given 1993 and the CFNYC. The guy worked his ass off on his vocal delvery and very rarely disappionted. Thanks agin, Macca, SIR!.

by **Aujouret** » Thu Jan 02, 2003 4:56 am

Perhaps those salt water gargle things Paul does have helped him with his voice. It is so amazing- i couldn't believe how strong his voice was on the tour in 2002. And no break! I saw him take one drink of water and wipe his face once, by the piano. I don't know how he does it. And he did it so discretely. Paul is so professional. [:)]Most bands are the opposite nowadays.

by **Aujouret** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 12:05 pm

I finally got a chance to see the whole video.
Well, I don't see what all the fuss was about, I think it's a charming little film. It should have been called Paul's little daydream or something. I liked the dream within a dream part of Eleanor Rigby, with all the Dickens bit. That was fun seeing the four all dressed up in Edwardian costume.
Tracy Ullman was rather wasted in this as she is so talented.
Now I shall have to get the CD.
I have never been a fan of No More Lonely Nights, but I admit I was getting to like the song by the end of the film.

by **Steve-o** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 12:08 pm

Yes--Tracy was just hitting big over there about that time, and hadn't really hit it here yet, except for the single on MTV (They dont Know, that Paulie appeared in). I'm like you and take it for what it was. Another chance to see Paul.

by **Aujouret** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:48 am

Oh, yeah, Steve.
And he was so young and very handsome in this film.
Sometimes it's unbelievable just how good looking he was.

by **shorty** » Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:46 pm

The movie came out when I was like 4, I have to say I loved it. It's british humour, my father was born in Ireland and they have the same humour. It was always a movie I remembered growing up.

by **Wings** » Wed Jan 22, 2003 4:36 pm

Like Ringo saying," Can we have the heat turned up or are we studing to be Canadian's"

Give my Regards to Broad Street

Who is online