Can't hit the high notes anymore

So alot of 70s/80s artist are back on the road but a huge majority of them just can't hit the high notes or sing the old songs the way they used to.. I understand these guys are getting older but I have noticed when you have to down-tune the old songs they just dont sound the same...in fact some of the 70s and 80s songs are ruined when you down-tune them...and that makes going to the shows suck...what do you guys and gals think?

It's a rarity that I go to live performances much anymore, so isn't too much of a big deal for me. I'm happy just to get out of the house and away from the wife and kids stresses of everyday living for a night.

That being said, I was very disappointed in the Van Halen show I saw a few years ago. DLR was just dreadful. On the other hand, seeing Black Sabbath around the same time and seeing Ozzy warble off-key all night was part of the charm.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I didn't pay to see either one of those shows mentioned, so I wasn't overly concerned about the performances. Had I paid a small fortune to see them, I may have been more critical.

You know who can still hit the high notes, Micheal Sweet. Man that guy is a powerhouse.

As well, John Gallagher from Raven is still shattering some glass.

ultmetal wrote:

As well, John Gallagher from Raven is still shattering some glass.

Truth. He hasn't lost much at all from his prime that I could tell.

Sometimes tuning down sounds OK but I agree that many times it ruins the songs.

A lot of these classic bands just hire new young singers to hit all the old notes.

The new guy from Boston sings those insane notes in "More than a Feeling", for example.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Sometimes tuning down sounds OK but I agree that many times it ruins the songs.

A lot of these classic bands just hire new young singers to hit all the old notes.

The new guy from Boston sings those insane notes in "More than a Feeling", for example.

While they aren't my cup of tea, the guy that sings in Foreigner now (whose names escapes me) seems by most accounts I've heard to be doing a fine job. Same thing with Journey.

I'm actually kind of glad, over the years I've become annoyed with "the high notes" and prefer vocalists that stay comfortably within their range. It helps that very few artists I listen to now feature that type of vocals.

However, I don't have an issue with many of the 70s singers now. Ian Gillan still sounds like nobody else on the planet, even if he can't do Child In Time any longer, the newer songs fit his current range perfectly. Geddy Lee has sounded great on the recent performances of the R40 tour, sure, they tune down a little from what they once did but I don't have an issue with it, the songs are still the same songs and Geddy Lee is still 100% Geddy Lee.

I also generally don't have an issue with bands that tune lower now than they did in the past, to me a live performance doesn't have to sound "exactly" like the studio albums...if I wanted to hear that I'd just stay home and listen to the records instead. I don't mind when bands changes things up, re-arrange and improvise, in fact I prefer it.

S.D. wrote:

I also generally don't have an issue with bands that tune lower now than they did in the past, to me a live performance doesn't have to sound "exactly" like the studio albums...if I wanted to hear that I'd just stay home and listen to the records instead.  I don't mind when bands changes things up, re-arrange and improvise, in fact I prefer it.  

I'm in agreement with you there. Extended solos, changing tempo, crowd chatter, heck, even mistakes and false starts make a live show more interesting. If you want perfection, make a playlist on your ipod and stay home.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I also generally don't have an issue with bands that tune lower now than they did in the past, to me a live performance doesn't have to sound "exactly" like the studio albums...if I wanted to hear that I'd just stay home and listen to the records instead.  I don't mind when bands changes things up, re-arrange and improvise, in fact I prefer it.  

I'm in agreement with you there. Extended solos, changing tempo, crowd chatter, heck, even mistakes and false starts make a live show more interesting. If you want perfection, make a playlist on your ipod and stay home.

The Opeth DVD "In Live Concert At Royal Albert Hall" leaves all the mistakes in place. In one song Mikael breaks a string mid-song and they swap the guitar out, no overdubs or anything fixed. During the last song the lead guitarists rig goes out for like 3 minutes and Mikael just talks to the crowd until it's fixed and they can finish the song. I think that stuff is cool and really gives you the feel of what it would have been like to see that particular show.

Quote :

You know who can still hit the high notes, Micheal Sweet. Man that guy is a powerhouse.

I agree, he sounds great. But he seems self-conscious about it, as he actually asked fans through Facebook how they would feel about another singer being brought in to hit the highest notes on the next Stryper record.

glassprison wrote:

Quote :

You know who can still hit the high notes, Micheal Sweet. Man that guy is a powerhouse.

I agree, he sounds great. But he seems self-conscious about it, as he actually asked fans through Facebook how they would feel about another singer being brought in to hit the highest notes on the next Stryper record.

That would be cool. They could get King Diamond for the high notes! 

King Diamond's voice really isn't that high, he just has a great falsetto.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Sometimes tuning down sounds OK but I agree that many times it ruins the songs.

A lot of these classic bands just hire new young singers to hit all the old notes.

The new guy from Boston sings those insane notes in "More than a Feeling", for example.

While they aren't my cup of tea, the guy that sings in Foreigner now (whose names escapes me) seems by most accounts I've heard to be doing a fine job. Same thing with Journey.

It's Kelly Hansen (from Hurricane) and he did a great job when I saw Foreigner this past February. Jeff Pilson's backing vocals are a help too.

Diamond Dave and Vince Neil are both hosed.

It shames me to nay say my man Kory, but Mr. Clark's voice has been better.

Michael Sweet sings just as good as he always has.

Eric AK from Flotsam struggles with the high notes.

It really depends on the music. I've heard some bands downtune and I only really noticed when I played the live version next to the studio version because the energy was still there. With some tracks though, maybe it's the melody or the chord change or the performance itself, but downtuning just takes the life out of it.

A prime example is live stuff from the Genesis reunion tour. Not that they were ever really balls out rockers, but some of their stuff became downright sleepy and plodding from the stuff I've seen/heard from that tour.

On the other side, when Rush downtunes, it still sounds good and exciting live.

If someone can't hit the notes and those notes are essential to the song, it loses me a bit - why tour at that point? It'd be like an arthritic guitarist going out on tour but having to mime (badly) to the original tapes or just play in a way that a teenage novice would find embarrassing. I think there's a point where you have to pack it in OR just turn it over to someone else. BUT, if you're going to do that second one, it better be a ringer who can actually bring the thunder or you're REALLY wasting everyone's time by not only watering down the act, but for no good reason.

When I saw Ian Anderson the last time, I knew he'd had a vocal ringer out on tour with him, but the new guy didn't really have that strong a voice anyway. It was ok, but it was a lot of posturing and "theatrical gesturing" when I would have preferred someone who was capable of actually having the vocal oomph Anderson himself was capable of 30 or so years back.

But, for all that, you have guys like David Coverdale who get a lot of crap, but who I have infinite time for. Granted, I can tell even from the official live stuff that his voice is a bit rough, but at his age, I'm amazed he's got a voice to speak of at all. I'd still check out Whitesnake given the chance and I'd be realistic that I was going to see an elder statesman, not some 20/30-something.

So, to answer the question, it depends?

Quote :

you have guys like David Coverdale who get a lot of crap, but who I have infinite time for. Granted, I can tell even from the official live stuff that his voice is a bit rough, but at his age, I'm amazed he's got a voice to speak of at all. I'd still check out Whitesnake given the chance and I'd be realistic that I was going to see an elder statesman, not some 20/30-something.

Thats why we have Jorn  who does a better job with whitesnake songs than whitesnake. I have tickets to see whitesnake tonight...been watching some videos of the current "purple" tour and it seems like Coverdale starts out strong but by the end of the show he is spent..plus we are at the end of the first leg of the tour..so I will see. I noticed in the setlist a few nights ago in Texas Coverdale cut the set short by 6 songs because of his voice exhaustion..

That's a shame, but it's not exactly outside of the territory for a 63 year old man who did some hard living from the sound of it.

I was really hoping dane would hit some of his famous high noted on the latest sanctuary album...

Runicen wrote:

When I saw Ian Anderson the last time, I knew he'd had a vocal ringer out on tour with him, but the new guy didn't really have that strong a voice anyway.  It was ok, but it was a lot of posturing and "theatrical gesturing" when I would have preferred someone who was capable of actually having the vocal oomph Anderson himself was capable of 30 or so years back.  

Of course when it comes to Anderson it's an injury, he permanently damaged his voice in the mid 1980s and there's no returning from that. However, I think he did an awesome job of working within his new range on the material released after that point and I also think he did an excellent job re-arranging many of their older songs so he could still sing them.

With Anderson he's still a great musician and songwriter, I would never want an artist like that to stop recording just because they have a physical setback that limits them in comparison to their early days. He's a better flute player now than ever before, still an excellent acoustic guitarist and one hell of an arranger, those are the type of gifts that keep on giving.

I saw Tull a couple times in the late 90s and they were phenomenal, one of the best live bands I've ever seen. Sure, Anderson didn't sound like he did in 1972, but I think most Tull fans are aware of his vocal injury and are forgiving of that aspect.

S.D. wrote:

King Diamond's voice really isn't that high, he just has a great falsetto.  

Plus, he has a girl singer helping him out live these days.

thejokeriv wrote:

S.D. wrote:

King Diamond's voice really isn't that high, he just has a great falsetto.  

Plus, he has a girl singer helping him out live these days.

Don't spoil my fun! I just want to see King Diamond as a member of Stryper! 

S.D. wrote:

Runicen wrote:

When I saw Ian Anderson the last time, I knew he'd had a vocal ringer out on tour with him, but the new guy didn't really have that strong a voice anyway.  It was ok, but it was a lot of posturing and "theatrical gesturing" when I would have preferred someone who was capable of actually having the vocal oomph Anderson himself was capable of 30 or so years back.  

Of course when it comes to Anderson it's an injury, he permanently damaged his voice in the mid 1980s and there's no returning from that.  However, I think he did an awesome job of working within his new range on the material released after that point and I also think he did an excellent job re-arranging many of their older songs so he could still sing them.  

With Anderson he's still a great musician and songwriter, I would never want an artist like that to stop recording just because they have a physical setback that limits them in comparison to their early days.  He's a better flute player now than ever before, still an excellent acoustic guitarist and one hell of an arranger, those are the type of gifts that keep on giving.

I saw Tull a couple times in the late 90s and they were phenomenal, one of the best live bands I've ever seen.  Sure, Anderson didn't sound like he did in 1972, but I think most Tull fans are aware of his vocal injury and are forgiving of that aspect.  

I'm with you 100% on that front. I'd love to see IA keep putting stuff out, but I do wish that he would pick top tier SINGERS if he's going to have someone else taking on that role. Martin Barre recently went out doing Tull stuff and put out a few albums of rearranged tunes (highly recommend, actually) and there was a similar problem with his singer being a kind of low key blues singer. It just doesn't add to the material, but at least the guy doesn't get in the way of it. With Anderson, he's always picked such great musicians to back him up, it seems a waste that he doesn't pick someone who can really sell it to the rafters to do the vocal heavy lifting. Just my take. It was still a badass show!

With regard to his vocal injury though, I know he took a hit during the Under Wraps tour in '84 or thereabouts, but there were a couple of other points where his voice went through some very dramatic changes on record. Heavy Horses saw him go really deep and gravelly by comparison to everything that came out before. Then, he almost sounded normal on Stormwatch and A only to go rather thin an nasal on Broadsword and the Beast (a favorite of mine regardless). After Under Wraps, he came back and his voice seemed to get stronger up to Roots to Branches, where it's like the air got taken out of it entirely and he just couldn't push (listen to "This is Not Love" off of Catfish Rising to see what I'm talking about with his voice seeming to bounce back a bit). I'm just curious if there's any info out regarding what happened to his voice other than the obvious vocal fatigue, etc. in '84. Seems like there's more to the story than just that one big blow out.