How great singers' voices have or have not held up over time

[o0Ampy0o]

No one needs to defend road wear and age. It goes without saying or should. When people cite a particular trait in their post it doesn't necessarily encompass everything including every possible interpretation and misinterpretation imaginable. So if people cite hitting highs it doesn't mean that is the end all be all defining good singing. Come on. Don't be such guitarists. 😉

[o0Ampy0o]

On 4/17/2023 at 9:52 AM, Bill H. said:

 

The first person who came to mind when I saw this thread. Still hits high "A"s strongly, and occasionally high "B"s without the crutch of heavy vibrato - which older singers often apply to compensate for loss of range and precise control of their vocal cords. I used to envy Winwood when I was a teen, and still do today. 

He was mentioned very early in the thread and a video posted but that person deleted their post for some reason. 

[o0Ampy0o]

45 minutes ago, stillearning said:

I have not listened to any of Peter Gabriel’s most recent performances, but I think his voice just got better and better over time, at least for the 40 year time period from about 1970 to 2010.

PG is having back up singers cover the highs. He has that strong falsetto in many of his songs. 

[Outkaster]

Tom Jones can sing his ass off.

[kpl1228]

Ann Wilson of Heart. Still amazing.

Also Cheap Trick's Robin Zander, though in recent years he's showing some wear and tear.

I also think that social media (and YouTube, etc) is the reason Steve Perry didn't return to live performance when his album came out a few years back. It would be no-win. The public only remembers their heroes at their peak, and anything less or different would be critiqued as "slipping."

[Mark Zeger]

3 hours ago, Outkaster said:

Tom Jones can sing his ass off.

Yes, yes he can.

 

 

[o0Ampy0o]

2 hours ago, kpl1228 said:

I also think that social media (and YouTube, etc) is the reason Steve Perry didn't return to live performance when his album came out a few years back. It would be no-win. The public only remembers their heroes at their peak, and anything less or different would be critiqued as "slipping."

In Perry's case he had not been producing material or even performing so the contrast would be quite significant. Elton John, mentioned several times in this thread, has produced albums, had hits and has kept performing during the changes in his singing voice. Like it now or not multiple generations only know him by his post-prime voice.

 

There is something about the early years that people can think of as something different without tainting the present. This was more of a thing when the early material was encased in relatively primative recording technology.

 

Newer artists have everything presented with modern tech. They were not around. But I believe this still persists because so many opportunities remain to observe the contrast. Smokey Robinson was singing anazingly well before Covid. He sounds closer than most to his youthful early days but the liveliness of youth is forever coupled with the old recording tech. Newbies to Paul McCartney might be introduced to him in a multitude of eras and thus may compartmentalize the state of his singing voice. Newbies might not even think the earlier recordings are of the same person singing. 

[TommyRude]

8 hours ago, harmonizer said:

Are you evaluating Mick Jagger's voice by what you hear on studio albums or what you have heard from his live performances? I definitely agree that he has been an EFFECTIVE lead singer, with phrasing that really works well on tons of studio recordings. But I still carry a negative bias about his singing because of a performance I heard on Saturday Night Live in the late 1970s, where his singing sounded terrible. Maybe it's unfair for me to carry that bias based on one performance, but that's where I am.

I called him a 'great' singer, and that's based on a massive body of iconic music that's stood the test of time.  Both the studio recordings and live performances.  For me, a big part of 'great' is coming up with the music and lyrics and phrasing and delivering them in a way that connects without any doubt whatsoever.  Raising my hand - I only saw them live once, but it was a good one, I still remember it vividly, the L.A. Coliseum, 1981, Prince opened up... a whole 'nother story.

 

We're using words that might mean different things to folks.  Your use of the word 'effective'... sure, why not, though that sounds a bit like corporate jargon haha..   Good thing we have a variety of great singers, music would be pretty boring if everyone was technically perfect.  I remember back in the day, all the guitarists were going to the MIT (I think the Music Institute of Technology?) or something like that.  They were all getting good training there, but they all came out sounding kinda the same, all shredding the same licks and the same hyper speed.

[Outkaster]

On 4/19/2023 at 7:22 PM, Mark Zeger said:

Yes, yes he can.

 

 

 

Jennifer Hudson is enamored with Tom in these videos.  Man he has an awesome voice. I think he is 82 now.

[Steve Nathan]

 

[nursers]

Although he was 'only' 54 when this was sung, still great:

 

 

[Sam Mullins]

10 years ago, my brother’s band was inducted into the Iowa rock ‘n’ roll Hall of Fame. It’s mostly local/regional bands with a longtime local following. But every year they have some big-name that had some early career tie to Iowa. That year it was BJ Thomas. All the inductees played and I couldn’t believe how great he sounded at 70. RIP. 

[Outkaster]

Tom was huge in the islands.  In Trinidad my fiance said everyone watched his show.  My girls dad worked for the police dept there and worked in stage bands.  Everyone loved Tom.  His TV show was popular also. He is amazing because of the confidence he has.  He'll sing with anyone

 

 

[TommyRude]

Tom Jones is the James Bond of singers

[CowboyNQ]

8 hours ago, TommyRude said:

Tom Jones is the James Bond of singers

…and a James Bond singer.

[HammondDave]

On 4/16/2023 at 1:49 PM, Baggypants said:

May be a bit of a curveball but, Alice Cooper (75) still hitting the high notes at 7:30 in No More Mr Nice Guy.

 

Any reason to watch Nita….  But yes, Alice can still sing…

 

[Reezekeys]

What's with the negativity towards older singers that transpose? It's the same f***ing song! You're that emotionally attached to a key signature? Sure we have freaks of nature like Stevie, but those guys are very much the exception. Humans age, who woulda thought? Add health and substance issues and we should consider ourselves lucky these folks are still active at all. (Of course I'm biased - one of the lead singers in the band I work with is 76 years old!!)

[bill5]

I'm too lazy (and forgetful) to recall if already mentioned, but another thread reminded me that Ella had it to the very end.

[Ivan May]

Susanna Hoffs of the Bangles is 64 years old, and she still has the ability to hit the high notes. Her voice has not aged at all—she still sounds like she did during the Bangles heyday in the eighties.

[Spider76]

10 hours ago, Reezekeys said:

What's with the negativity towards older singers that transpose? It's the same f***ing song! You're that emotionally attached to a key signature? 

I didn't read that much negativity in the thread: voices change with age, it's just the way it is.

And as stated, changing the key by a half-step really makes no difference.

But when a song is shifted 2-3 whole tones or more, it's not really the same song anymore. It just sounds different: guitars and bass sound different because they have to use different fingerings on different strings, horns and brasses sound different, and of course voices sound different.

It can work when the song is completely rearranged, like Bowie's Life on Mars which on the album is impossibly high. On the last tours he shifted it about a 4th or 5th lower, but turned it into an acoustic piano+voice song.

[Reezekeys]

To me, a song is a melody with its accompanying chord progression. I play plenty of jazz standards with singers, male and female, and have gotten used to playing these songs in different keys. At the end of the day the particular key the song is played in does not figure into how it comes off. I think it's blindingly obvious that a singer that's changed the key of a song they've been doing for decades is not doing it for the fun of it - they need the melody to sound halfway decent coming out of their mouths! It's a choice they make to avoid sounding bad.

 

Of course you're right that instrumentally it won't sound the same as the original because different chords will necessitate different voicings, fingerings, etc. I don't buy that because of these differences, the singer has somehow compromised any kind of "artistic integrity" here - yes it sounds different. So what? It's not 1990 (or 1972 in the case of the band I work with! 🙂 ). Of course, some really great singers (or singers with distinctive but not exactly "classic" voices) use their diminished vocal chops to reinvent themselves or offer a new and sometimes emotionally powerful interpretation of their well-known songs. Can't think of a better example than this:

 

 

 

 

[Spider76]

1 hour ago, Reezekeys said:

. I don't buy that because of these differences, the singer has somehow compromised any kind of "artistic integrity"

...

some really great singers (or singers with distinctive but not exactly "classic" voices) use their diminished vocal chops to reinvent themselves or offer a new and sometimes emotionally powerful interpretation of their well-known songs.

 

I totally agree, in fact I wrote that I never intended this topic in a denigratory way, and surely never thought of "artistic integrity".

It's just a necessity, and of course it will sound different. Not (necessarily) bad and sometimes even better or more emotional, as you rightfully mention.

 

Great examples of Joni, and these are the Life on Mars versions I was writing about.

(And I'm sorry for Wakeman, but I like Mike Garson's version WAY better! 😉 )

 

[jerrythek]

I think the better point is to say it's not the same performance. I don't think a song has changed because of key, or instrumental accompaniment. Plenty of bands keep rearranging their music for artistic and musical reasons, not just singer's range. One of my favorites, Little Feat have evolved their performances over the years, holding on to central riffs and sections of songs, but also playing around with the tune, the parts, the grooves, even some harmonic choices. It's still the same song, just a different interpretation of it.

 

1 hour ago, Spider76 said:

<snip> But when a song is shifted 2-3 whole tones or more, it's not really the same song (no expletive necessary). It just sounds different: guitars and bass sound different because they have to use different fingerings on different strings, horns and brasses sound different, and of course voices sound different.

It can work when the song is completely rearranged, like Bowie's Life on Mars which on the album is impossibly high. On the last tours he shifted it about a 4th or 5th lower, but turned it into an acoustic piano+voice song.

 

[KuruPrionz]

If it is a good song, it can be a good song. Key is irrelevant, original recording is equally irrelevant. Whether it is the "same song" is irrelevant.

If the singer tells the story and the story is good, it's good. 

 

Some of the "note for noters" may be puzzled or frustrated by reality but it won't change anything. 

 

Anybody ever been in a Motown cover band? If you don't have an orchestra and a choir, you are hosed. Or, you provide a groove for dancing and sing the chorus with clarity and your audience dances and sings along (which is what we did). If we were required to duplicate every Motown song, we would have failed spectacularly. 

Fortunately, it seems that only a very few rarified individuals actually care about the largely irrelevant details. 

[Outkaster]

True but changing keys is something that's easy for me to hear and I don't have perfect pitch.  If something is dropped to many keys I can tell.  The vibe of the song changes almost.

[Bobbo Fett]

I'd rather hear a singer perform the song WELL in a lower key than mangle it in the original....and when it's a hit, the argument of 'Well, you shouldn't perform it anymore" doesn't hold water, because your audience is expecting it......

[TommyRude]

Yeah.. sometimes it can be beautiful. I ache to hear Danzig sing 'Harden My Heart' by Quarterflash.

[Tom Williams]

Greg Lake, Touch and Go, 1980s, in C -- powerful!

 

Greg Lake, Touch and Go, 1990s, dropped down to G -- a snorefest disappointment to those of us who loved the first version.

 

Mark Bonilla, Touch and Go, 2000's -- powerful again.

 

Think of all those amazing opera tenors and the unbeatable elan of their soaring high notes and then drop it down a 5th to make a college baritone comfortable.   It just ain't the same.

 

Pitch Matters.

[KuruPrionz]

29 minutes ago, Tom Williams said:

Greg Lake, Touch and Go, 1980s, in C -- powerful!

 

Greg Lake, Touch and Go, 1990s, dropped down to G -- a snorefest disappointment to those of us who loved the first version.

 

Mark Bonilla, Touch and Go, 2000's -- powerful again.

 

Think of all those amazing opera tenors and the unbeatable elan of their soaring high notes and then drop it down a 5th to make a college baritone comfortable.   It just ain't the same.

 

Pitch Matters.

First, I do not consider myself to be a "Great Singer." Just so we have that out of the way...

 

Last time I looked, this website was called Music Player Network. Now it's Amazing Opera Tenors network? 😃

Tom, do you sing? What songs do you sing? Are you limiting yourself to only the songs in your range? 

Are you an Amazing Opera Tenor? Do you only sing in Italian? 😇

Yes, pitch matters. Very few people have a range of 3 full octaves or higher. Typically, the younger we are, the higher we can sing. 

 

I'm also a songwriter. There is no possible way that I can sing songs I wrote in my early 20's in the same keys now that I am 67 but they are MY songs and I like to sing them. People still request them and applaud for them. The folks who hear them now are not the same folks who heard them then. 

 

I also do not hesitate to transpose songs if I think they can work in my range. It doesn't always work, often enough it does. 

 

We don't discuss people like Freddie Mercury in this thread, not because he wasn't a great singer but because he died before he lost his high singing range. 

David Bowie pitched his songs lower as he grew older and he sang them very well in lower keys. 

I doubt Joni Mitchell can even come close to hitting the notes she used to send soaring up into space but I'd love to hear her sing her songs in whatever key she can manage them, if we ever get to hear her sing again. 

 

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree and that's OK, but I do definitely disagree. 😋 Cheers, Kuru

[stoken6]

Didn't Jose Carreras recently tackle some baritone repertoire, in recognition that his vocal range was lower as he grew older? Nothing to be ashamed of. Pick your repertoire with care - bubblegum falsetto disco will likely work in a lower register. 

 

Cheers, Mike.