Awful
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Paul McCartney
lankatana — 13 years ago(July 28, 2012 06:33 PM)
This buffoon should hang his head in shame after his 2012 Olympic opening ceremony performance, but I bet that his entourage/sycophants protect him from the truth. He cocked up the jubilee as well, he should be stripped of his knighthood and banished.
If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck, it must be a Duck..or is it? -
bwalright — 13 years ago(September 08, 2012 05:30 PM)
Just watched his PBS special Kisses on the Bottom, his voice is very strained ( even when speaking ). Like chalk on a blackboard, only bearble song was the Valentine song he wrote cause his voice went up & down! Talk about entourage, the famous musicians interviewed must be on something or they are talking about the 60's-90's Paul! His voice is flabby, needs to exercise his vocal chords!
-
OobuJoobu — 13 years ago(September 09, 2012 03:03 AM)
I'm not going to disagree with too much of what's been said on this thread, as big a fan as I am, I do think he is harming his legacy nowadays with some of his appearances at national events.
No one can do regular 3 hour gigs, with his tyle of singing, at his age, without causing some damage to the vocal chords.
The one thing that is just plain wrong though, is the suggestion that he has "a voice that was not particularly great to begin with". That is the comment of someone who really doesn't know what they are talking about.
McCartney had one of the most powerful, and versatile, voices in rock history. He could scream out rockers as good as anyone else, ho could sing ballads as good as anyone else. Take the examples of "Yesterday" and "I'm Down", and then add in to the mix the fact that these were recorded on the same day. -
LaZboyfriend — 13 years ago(September 10, 2012 03:07 PM)
The one thing that is just plain wrong though, is the suggestion that he has "a voice that was not particularly great to begin with". That is the comment of someone who really doesn't know what they are talking about.
I know precisely what I'm talking about. But since you don't get it, let me put it to you in terms you might understand:
McCartney was born in 1942. But if he were born 20 years earlier and tried to make it as a singer in the 1940's or 1950's, he'd never get past an audition. His voice would make him a laughing stock up against the rich, resonant and polished voices of Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Nat "King" Cole, Tony Bennett, Dean Martin, Mel Torme, Perry Como, etc. If born 20 years earlier, McCartney would only have made it as a songwriter (of which he has considerable talent), NOT a singer. His voice is a joke by comparison.
I first discovered The Beatles when I was 10, and even at that young age I cou16d0ld tell that McCartney had a pretty weak voice. It is a combination of sounding "thick" (like someone who just consumed a ton of dairy and has excess mucus) and "creaky" (like someone who just finished a good, long cry). On top of that, he has no discernable vibrato. So when I said his voice was "not particularly
great
to being with", I stand by that remark because it is NOT a "great" voice.
That said, none of the other Beatles had "great" voices either, but what they produced was still outstanding because the genre of music they were helping to usher in did not require "great" voices.
I really wish that hardcore fans would view their "idols" realistically with all of their faults instead of speaking about them like they are above the rest of the human race and can walk on water. McCartney, though a very gifted song-writer, just isn't a "great" singer.
Room for one more, honey. -
OobuJoobu — 13 years ago(September 10, 2012 03:23 PM)
But he wasn't born 20 years earlier, so a fairly irrelevant point.
I could quite easily turn your argument round the other way, and say that Sinatra1c84/Martin etc. would not have got past an audition for a rock band in the 60s , or be able to begin to sing songs like Helter Skelter, Oh Darling, Rode All Night, Maybe I'm Amazed, etc. anywhere near as good as McCartney does, but that would be a quite pointless thing to do, as that's not the kind of singers they were. So equally pointless to say McCartney didn't have a great voice because it didn't have the same qualities as those from a very different genre.
Great voices can be found within many different genres of music, they're not just limited to pre rock n roll era "crooners".
Right now, as I type, I'm listening to Bob Dylan's new album. Now there's someone whose voice divides opinion, especially these days, as rough as it is, at least it's uniquely HIS voice, and not a generic identikit (but technically perfect) x-factor style auto tuned boredom fest. -
LaZboyfriend — 13 years ago(September 10, 2012 03:43 PM)
I could quite easily turn your argument round the other way, and say that Sinatra/Martin etc. would not have got past an audition for a rock band in the 60s
But I already addressed this in my post. I said that The Beatles were helping to usher in a style of music that didn't require great voices. Rock doesn't require great voices. So you're supporting my point that McCartney doesn't have one.
Great voices can be found within many different genres of music, they're not just limited to pre rock n roll era "crooners".
These "crooners", as you dismiss them as, are some of the best male voices of the 20th century - but there still are great voices today. No one in their right mind would ever put McCartney in a "Top 10 Voices of the 20th Century" list. And you know why? Because he's not a great singer.
Right now, as I type, I'm listening to Bob Dylan's new album. Now there's someone whose voice divides opinion, especially these days, as rough as it is, at least it's uniquely HIS voice, and not a generic identikit
This makes me think the problem we're having in communication is what you are defining as "great". Does "great" to you mean "unique" (like Dylan)? If so, then that's a whole different discussion.
You got hung up on the fact, however, that I said McCartney's voice was never great to begin with so again, in terms of being "great", I stand by my opinon that his was never a "great" voice.
Room for one more, honey. -
OobuJoobu — 13 years ago(September 10, 2012 03:58 PM)
"Rock doesn't require great voices", correct, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or are not appreciated when they come along.
Singing Sinatra/Martin/Como style music also doesn't "require" a great voice, but those that did have one rose to the top. I'm sure there were also plenty of lousy singers in that era and style of music, but history will not remember them as well as the greats.
Where on earth did I "dismiss" crooners (which was not being used as a derogatory term). If you care to read the sentence again that I wrote, the logic of it made it quite clear that I appreciate there are great singers within that genre. -
LaZboyfriend — 13 years ago(September 10, 2012 04:19 PM)
Singing Sinatra/Martin/Como style music also doesn't "require" a great voice
I disagree. When singing ballads, "standards", or "torch songs", there's nowhere to hide because it's ALL about the voice. The voice is upfront and exposed, so if the singer doesn't have a great one, he/she can't fool anybody since it's evident from the start.
With rock, on the other hand, a bad or irritating (Lou Gramm of "Foreigner" comes to mind) voice can easily get lost amidst the pounding of drums and clanging of guitars.
Even taking "great" out of the equation, I honestly don't think McCartney even has that much of a "unique" or "memorable" voice, really.
But talented in song-writing, he was/is. There's no denying that.
Room for one more, honey. -
TheGraveLittleToaster — 13 years ago(September 15, 2012 05:28 PM)
Not that McCartney was the greatest vocalist who ever lived, but from an objective standpoint, what makes the more restrained and "conservative" crooning style "better" than rock and roll singing?
__
In your heart, you know he might -
LaZboyfriend — 13 years ago(September 15, 2012 06:50 PM)
The singing voices of the artists I mentioned are not better than McCartney's because their voices were ANY of the terms you've used: restrained, conservative, or "crooning" (a term I still find condescending, since it implies that they were limited in what they could do).
It's because their voices were technically better in terms of resonance and vibrato.
You could strip away the orchestrations from those artists' recordings and still be blown away and entertained by the quality of their voices
a capella
.
As talented as McCartney is, the same can not be said for his voice
a capella
. His is a very flawed voice.
In fact, if anyone could provide a link to any McCartney recording where his voice has been isolated sans musical accompaniment, I'd love to hear it.
Room for one more, honey. -
TheGraveLittleToaster — 13 years ago(September 15, 2012 07:05 PM)
So in your opinion, the previous generation of vocalists were better because they were more technically proficient? There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just trying to clarify.
__
In your heart, you know he might -
LaZboyfriend — 13 years ago(September 15, 2012 07:11 PM)
They were technically proficient, yes but not in the "American Idol" way, where everybody tries to sound like everyone else.
The singers I listed managed to be both technically proficient and unique; their voices had tremendous personality.
This is no doubt a hard balance to strike I guess that's what makes them known as the most memorable male voices of the 20th century.
Room for one more, honey. -
topazthecat1000 — 9 years ago(May 01, 2016 10:20 PM)
In this article about the 1970 recording of Paul's brilliant great song Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, studio engineer Tim Geelan from 2000Mix Magazine said that Paul is such a great singer and that he knows that the vocals they cut over at CBS are Paul singing live right off the floor with a rhythm section into an Electro-Voice RE20 which was a relatively new mic at the time.
http://www.beatlesbible.com/people/paul-mccartney/songs/uncle-albert-admiral-halsey/ -
topazthecat1000 — 9 years ago(May 01, 2016 10:24 PM)
Sadly Paul has lost his once great singing voice from singing all of those great rock songs on records and live into his 60's and 70's,it's really depressing he really doesn't have much of even a talking voice anymore.But he did sing great into his 50's and good into his 60's.
-
topazthecat1000 — 9 years ago(May 01, 2016 10:02 PM)
Here are just a few of the many diverse examples of what a great voice and great singer Paul once was.
Here he sings great,the best song,arrow Through Me he wrote on Wings last album Back To The Egg in 1979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzA-ZuGGJzk
Paul McCartney and wings 1985 One Hand Clapping 1974 TV special Paul amazingly sings this great piano rocker live, from the very good Band On The Run album
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_LiEjIMhoc
Here Paul does his great rocking voice as The Beatles perform his great rocking song,I'm Down at the Ed Sullivan Theater August 14,1965 just one night before their Shea stadium concert August 15th.
https://vimeo.com/133531241
Here is their Shea Stadium performance the next night,
https://vimeo.com/146526352
Here The Beatles play the cover song,Kansas City and Paul does a great rock vocal performance as usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig3n19Y5bOs
Here they play Paul's rocking great song I Saw Her Standing There and once again Paul sings great,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqJ-AGY6Qhs
Here is Paul and Wings great performance of Paul's beautiful song Bluebird from Wings 1976 tour.The version on The Band On The Run album is very good,but this live version is so great!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16rTnPQDf_8
Here he plays acoustic guitar great, and sings great Yesterday live from Wings 1976 concert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgRG4bY3geU
Here is his 1973 video performance of his great love song for Linda My Love and he sings any style great like love songs including his great rockers and everything in between
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SB3x6KtNi4
'Here is the full great 1975 Wings Over Austraila concert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4T4biiXqvs
Etc,etc,etc!
Here he sings great, his 1984 hit No More Lonely Nights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix7ipodULwQ -
Lola_Bedworthy — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 05:02 AM)
You can blusb68ter all you want, but no, you do not know what you are talking about. By definition, trolls don't. You can adequately judge Paul McCartney's voice because you started listening to him when you were 10? Oh, please. Go pontificate elsewhere. You've worn out your welcome here, troll.