Jump to content


Geddy's voice sounds just fine!


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#1 Superbaldguy

Superbaldguy

    Restless Young Rushmantic

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 12:25 PM

I keep reading about how awful Ged's vocals are on this latest classic DVD/CD (as much from other review sources as anywhere else); I am perfectly happy with his efforts and he actually has a lot of that old "banshee wait" left in him which identifies himself to this band's music. For those of you who do not like how the vocals came out, too bad - he still has it IMHO.

Rant over.

Let's keep enjoying this special talented trio and rock on through to 2012 where we ill be treated to yet another great album. (and subsequent tour!)

Sponsored Post

#2 danielmclark

danielmclark

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 4076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:15 PM

And so begins thread #349 about Geddy's voice.

#3 Lerxster

Lerxster

    The Sphere

  • Members *
  • 8124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:is everything
  • Interests:Interesting.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 02:01 PM

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 01:15 PM)
And so begins thread #349 about Geddy's voice.

But only the second positive one  wink.gif  

#4 eshine

eshine

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:20 PM

The criticism of his voice by certain fans online has become epically absurd, as if a crack here and there is indicative of a man who needs to quit performing. I love my fellow Rush fans, but sometimes it becomes a bit much - the level of absolute perfection we expect from these guys.

Many of us would kill to be able to pull off the physical aspect of a show at age 58 as well as Geddy does. I keep hearing comparisons to Waters, Daltry and Plant - not even close. Geddy shreds them vocally - he is easily one of the better vocalists of his generation - proving night after night that he can still bring it.

If you're a Rush fan and you're embarressed by the fact that he has a vocal hiccup, heaven forbid, or that he doesn't sound like he did when he was 30 - that's entirely your problem.

His performance of Freewill on this tour is a nice middle finger to his detractors wink.gif

#5 danielmclark

danielmclark

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 4076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:48 PM

QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 03:20 PM)
The criticism of his voice by certain fans online has become epically absurd, as if a crack here and there is indicative of a man who needs to quit performing. I love my fellow Rush fans, but sometimes it becomes a bit much - the level of absolute perfection we expect from these guys.

Many of us would kill to be able to pull off the physical aspect of a show at age 58 as well as Geddy does. I keep hearing comparisons to Waters, Daltry and Plant - not even close. Geddy shreds them vocally - he is easily one of the better vocalists of his generation - proving night after night that he can still bring it.

If you're a Rush fan and you're embarressed by the fact that he has a vocal hiccup, heaven forbid, or that he doesn't sound like he did when he was 30 - that's entirely your problem.

His performance of Freewill on this tour is a nice middle finger to his detractors wink.gif

If you think the summation of his vocal performance is "a crack here and there" then you are in serious denial.

His voice is very, very different from what it used to be. Whether that's good or bad is subjective and up to each listener. But it cannot be denied that he sings very differently than he did even 10 years ago, different even than R30.

There is no shame in admitting that the man's singing voice has changed. But you guys who won't admit that his abilities are significantly different have your heads in the sand. You've got your fingers in your ears and you're yelling "NANANANA CAN'T HEAR YOU GEDDY SOUNDS AWESOME".

"a crack here and there" is ludicrous.

#6 fledgehog

fledgehog

    Playlist Hero

  • Members
  • 25134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:caught in a web

Posted 26 November 2011 - 07:27 PM

Geddy's voice has sounded strained and tired in live performance since the early '90s, and has lost its power in the studio since around Vapor Trails.  It is impressive that someone his age who has been singing the way he does for so long is able to produce any of the notes he does at all, but that doesn't make it good.

#7 eshine

eshine

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 07:48 PM

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 05:48 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 03:20 PM)
The criticism of his voice by certain fans online has become epically absurd, as if a crack here and there is indicative of a man who needs to quit performing. I love my fellow Rush fans, but sometimes it becomes a bit much - the level of absolute perfection we expect from these guys.

Many of us would kill to be able to pull off the physical aspect of a show at age 58 as well as Geddy does. I keep hearing comparisons to Waters, Daltry and Plant - not even close. Geddy shreds them vocally - he is easily one of the better vocalists of his generation - proving night after night that he can still bring it.

If you're a Rush fan and you're embarressed by the fact that he has a vocal hiccup, heaven forbid, or that he doesn't sound like he did when he was 30 - that's entirely your problem.

His performance of Freewill on this tour is a nice middle finger to his detractors wink.gif

If you think the summation of his vocal performance is "a crack here and there" then you are in serious denial.

His voice is very, very different from what it used to be. Whether that's good or bad is subjective and up to each listener. But it cannot be denied that he sings very differently than he did even 10 years ago, different even than R30.

There is no shame in admitting that the man's singing voice has changed. But you guys who won't admit that his abilities are significantly different have your heads in the sand. You've got your fingers in your ears and you're yelling "NANANANA CAN'T HEAR YOU GEDDY SOUNDS AWESOME".

"a crack here and there" is ludicrous.

He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30.

Snakes and Arrows live is a vocal triumph, actually. He sounded amazing that entire tour.

Nothing he does now sounds worse then Ceiling Unlimited did over ten years ago. I wish he knew then what he does now - that not all songs are worth "going for it". Gladly, they dropped that tune.

No denial or head in the sand here. Ged sounds great on most nights and fantastic on really good nights nowadays. He knows his vocal limitation and isn't embarressed at all to accomodate.

What is ludicrous is how embarressed so many of you guys seem to be that he is not perfect for you - all the time.

I have never heard of a singer held up to higher expectations then Geddy Lee is right now by a segment of his fanbois - and what frustrates me is how much he actually does bring it - and how that should be celebrated, rather then drag the guy through the mud over a few vocal hiccups.



#8 eshine

eshine

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:03 PM

QUOTE (fledgehog @ Nov 26 2011, 07:27 PM)
Geddy's voice has sounded strained and tired in live performance since the early '90s, and has lost its power in the studio since around Vapor Trails.  It is impressive that someone his age who has been singing the way he does for so long is able to produce any of the notes he does at all, but that doesn't make it good.

I think VT contains some of his best vocal ever - Earthshine is a vocal tour de force.

#9 danielmclark

danielmclark

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 4076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:15 PM

QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 06:48 PM)
QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 05:48 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 03:20 PM)
The criticism of his voice by certain fans online has become epically absurd, as if a crack here and there is indicative of a man who needs to quit performing. I love my fellow Rush fans, but sometimes it becomes a bit much - the level of absolute perfection we expect from these guys.

Many of us would kill to be able to pull off the physical aspect of a show at age 58 as well as Geddy does. I keep hearing comparisons to Waters, Daltry and Plant - not even close. Geddy shreds them vocally - he is easily one of the better vocalists of his generation - proving night after night that he can still bring it.

If you're a Rush fan and you're embarressed by the fact that he has a vocal hiccup, heaven forbid, or that he doesn't sound like he did when he was 30 - that's entirely your problem.

His performance of Freewill on this tour is a nice middle finger to his detractors wink.gif

If you think the summation of his vocal performance is "a crack here and there" then you are in serious denial.

His voice is very, very different from what it used to be. Whether that's good or bad is subjective and up to each listener. But it cannot be denied that he sings very differently than he did even 10 years ago, different even than R30.

There is no shame in admitting that the man's singing voice has changed. But you guys who won't admit that his abilities are significantly different have your heads in the sand. You've got your fingers in your ears and you're yelling "NANANANA CAN'T HEAR YOU GEDDY SOUNDS AWESOME".

"a crack here and there" is ludicrous.

He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30.

Snakes and Arrows live is a vocal triumph, actually. He sounded amazing that entire tour.

Nothing he does now sounds worse then Ceiling Unlimited did over ten years ago. I wish he knew then what he does now - that not all songs are worth "going for it". Gladly, they dropped that tune.

No denial or head in the sand here. Ged sounds great on most nights and fantastic on really good nights nowadays. He knows his vocal limitation and isn't embarressed at all to accomodate.

What is ludicrous is how embarressed so many of you guys seem to be that he is not perfect for you - all the time.

I have never heard of a singer held up to higher expectations then Geddy Lee is right now by a segment of his fanbois - and what frustrates me is how much he actually does bring it - and how that should be celebrated, rather then drag the guy through the mud over a few vocal hiccups.

You've got it backwards. The fanboys are the ones that make excuses for the object of their adoration in spite of glaring deficiencies. Fanboys are the ones that defend Apple no matter how flawed their products are, the ones that defend Microsoft no matter how anti-competitive they act, the ones that defend Google no matter how powerful they become and how evil they act.

And the ones that defend Geddy's voice as if nothing has changed.

The fanboys aren't the ones who are out there telling the truth: that while Geddy is still a joy to watch and listen to in concert, he is starting to struggle. He's not enunciating properly on many songs. He's singing lower and more erratically.

I'm not making apologies and trying to rationalize it the way a fanboy would. I'm saying that his vocals are different. Better or worse, you can be the judge according to your own taste - but

he

is

different.

And that's the bottom line.

#10 danielmclark

danielmclark

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 4076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:21 PM

QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 06:48 PM)
He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong.

You listen to R30's Red Barchetta then listen to Time Machine's Red Barchetta. You can barely understand half the words on the TM version. The R30 version is not just better, on a scale of 1 to 10, there's at least a 5 point difference between the two.

Now I know you're in denial.

#11 eshine

eshine

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:35 PM

No, it's not the bottom line.

As a fan of the band, I acknowledge and accept that his voice sounds different then it did 30 years ago. I embrace it, quite frankly.

But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly.

It's as if some fanbois cannot accept that they are aging and use the excuse that they are just "being critical" to hold the guy up to rediculous standards. I would love to see the same standards applied in reverse.

The level of criticism here does not jibe with the actual performance.

That is the bottom line.

#12 eshine

eshine

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:38 PM

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 08:21 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 06:48 PM)
He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong.

You listen to R30's Red Barchetta then listen to Time Machine's Red Barchetta. You can barely understand half the words on the TM version. The R30 version is not just better, on a scale of 1 to 10, there's at least a 5 point difference between the two.

Now I know you're in denial.

I really don't care if you think I'm in denial.

Vocally, the R30 show was lacking more then TMT

#13 WCFIELDS

WCFIELDS

    I'd rather be in Philadelphia

  • Members *
  • 8740 posts
  • Location:Central Canada!
  • Interests:Computers<br>Music<br>Work<br>

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:47 PM

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 07:21 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 06:48 PM)
He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong.

You listen to R30's Red Barchetta then listen to Time Machine's Red Barchetta. You can barely understand half the words on the TM version. The R30 version is not just better, on a scale of 1 to 10, there's at least a 5 point difference between the two.

Now I know you're in denial.

Agreed....vocally TM is worse...

#14 eshine

eshine

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:00 PM

QUOTE (WCFIELDS @ Nov 26 2011, 08:47 PM)
QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 07:21 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 06:48 PM)
He sounds better on Time Machine then he did on R30.

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong.

You listen to R30's Red Barchetta then listen to Time Machine's Red Barchetta. You can barely understand half the words on the TM version. The R30 version is not just better, on a scale of 1 to 10, there's at least a 5 point difference between the two.

Now I know you're in denial.

Agreed....vocally TM is worse...

yeah - It's really not, though.

He seems more weathered on R30.

On TMT - he makes up for any early vocal hiccups with energy, ghutso and some really great performances later on.

#15 MCM

MCM

    Rushaholic

  • Members
  • 1601 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:09 PM

QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 08:35 PM)


But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly.



His voice is different, it's aged, but it isn't this awful horrible tragedy that some are making it out to be.  They need to realize the limitations of is voice in the higher registers during a long tour before they pick a set list, rehearse and plan a tour.  

Just to throw some fuel on the fire, I thought he sounded better on this tour, especially the second leg, than he did on the S&A tour.  But that's just me.  He'll never sound like he did 30, 20 or even 10 years ago, just the facts of aging.  Not even he is immune from that as much as we wish he was.



#16 danielmclark

danielmclark

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 4076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:11 PM

QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 07:35 PM)
No, it's not the bottom line.

As a fan of the band, I acknowledge and accept that his voice sounds different then it did 30 years ago. I embrace it, quite frankly.

But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly.

It's as if some fanbois cannot accept that they are aging and use the excuse that they are just "being critical" to hold the guy up to rediculous standards. I would love to see the same standards applied in reverse.

The level of criticism here does not jibe with the actual performance.

That is the bottom line.

You're not reading what I wrote or you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not comparing him to the way he was 30 years ago. 25 years ago, he wasn't the same as he was 30 years ago.

He's not the same as he was six years ago, on R30.

The Red Barchetta example is perfect - on R30, you could understand what he was singing. He had more range. He was naturally higher and wasn't forcing himself to hit notes that he knew he could no longer hit. He sounded effortless. There was no cracking, no "hiccups" (a term you keep using but I can't for the life of me figure out what you think it means).

His delivery was significantly different on TM. It can't be argued that he does not enunciate the words as well as he used to. It can't be argued that he is singing in a lower pitch than he used to. These are quantifiable statements and are not subjective. You can say he's better now than ever, and that's fine. That's a valid opinion. But the fact is that he is different now.

You are a fanboy in denial, unable to accept change.

Edited by danielmclark, 26 November 2011 - 09:12 PM.


#17 danielmclark

danielmclark

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 4076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:15 PM

QUOTE (MCM @ Nov 26 2011, 08:09 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 08:35 PM)


But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly.



His voice is different, it's aged, but it isn't this awful horrible tragedy that some are making it out to be.  They need to realize the limitations of is voice in the higher registers during a long tour before they pick a set list, rehearse and plan a tour.  

Just to throw some fuel on the fire, I thought he sounded better on this tour, especially the second leg, than he did on the S&A tour.  But that's just me.  He'll never sound like he did 30, 20 or even 10 years ago, just the facts of aging.  Not even he is immune from that as much as we wish he was.

The problem here is that nobody, or at least very, very few people, are talking about this like it's a tragedy. Very few people are calling for retirement. What people are saying is exactly what you said: that things are different now.

A lot of people don't like the vocals as much as they used to. A lot of people are getting used to it. A lot of people want to be able to say that things are different now without members flying off the handle and telling us that he sounds better now than he did 10 years ago (which is fking ludicrous).

#18 softfilter

softfilter

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 3677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Part of the Ohio delegation.
  • Interests:Reading mostly military history & local Ohio history. Riding mountain bike on Ohio/Erie canal trail. Discovering new micro brews!

Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:59 PM

In person at the "Q" in Cleveland, thought he sounded like you said just fine.
On blu ray dvd ditto the same, but on cd of TM concert yeah I did notice his vocals were a bit rough during some song segments. confused13.gif ???
Don't care Ged still sings decent enough age considering ,to make Rush live in concert still an enjoyable experience. yes.gif

Edited by softfilter, 26 November 2011 - 11:00 PM.


#19 eshine

eshine

    Prime Mover

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:50 AM

QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 07:35 PM)
No, it's not the bottom line.

As a fan of the band, I acknowledge and accept that his voice sounds different then it did 30 years ago. I embrace it, quite frankly.

But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly.

It's as if some fanbois cannot accept that they are aging and use the excuse that they are just "being critical" to hold the guy up to rediculous standards. I would love to see the same standards applied in reverse.

The level of criticism here does not jibe with the actual performance.

That is the bottom line.

You're not reading what I wrote or you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not comparing him to the way he was 30 years ago. 25 years ago, he wasn't the same as he was 30 years ago.

He's not the same as he was six years ago, on R30.

The Red Barchetta example is perfect - on R30, you could understand what he was singing. He had more range. He was naturally higher and wasn't forcing himself to hit notes that he knew he could no longer hit. He sounded effortless. There was no cracking, no "hiccups" (a term you keep using but I can't for the life of me figure out what you think it means).

His delivery was significantly different on TM. It can't be argued that he does not enunciate the words as well as he used to. It can't be argued that he is singing in a lower pitch than he used to. These are quantifiable statements and are not subjective. You can say he's better now than ever, and that's fine. That's a valid opinion. But the fact is that he is different now.

You are a fanboy in denial, unable to accept change.

Your R30 example is silly and, for the record, - putting your opinions in bold does not make them quantifiable statements of fact. It does the reverse, quite frankly. You come across as very whiney.

#20 danielmclark

danielmclark

    The Professor

  • Members
  • 4076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 27 November 2011 - 11:00 AM

QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 27 2011, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE (danielmclark @ Nov 26 2011, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (eshine @ Nov 26 2011, 07:35 PM)
No, it's not the bottom line.

As a fan of the band, I acknowledge and accept that his voice sounds different then it did 30 years ago. I embrace it, quite frankly.

But the vocal tragedy being perpetuated is not merited. It's over-the-top and silly.

It's as if some fanbois cannot accept that they are aging and use the excuse that they are just "being critical" to hold the guy up to rediculous standards. I would love to see the same standards applied in reverse.

The level of criticism here does not jibe with the actual performance.

That is the bottom line.

You're not reading what I wrote or you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not comparing him to the way he was 30 years ago. 25 years ago, he wasn't the same as he was 30 years ago.

He's not the same as he was six years ago, on R30.

The Red Barchetta example is perfect - on R30, you could understand what he was singing. He had more range. He was naturally higher and wasn't forcing himself to hit notes that he knew he could no longer hit. He sounded effortless. There was no cracking, no "hiccups" (a term you keep using but I can't for the life of me figure out what you think it means).

His delivery was significantly different on TM. It can't be argued that he does not enunciate the words as well as he used to. It can't be argued that he is singing in a lower pitch than he used to. These are quantifiable statements and are not subjective. You can say he's better now than ever, and that's fine. That's a valid opinion. But the fact is that he is different now.

You are a fanboy in denial, unable to accept change.

Your R30 example is silly and, for the record, - putting your opinions in bold does not make them quantifiable statements of fact. It does the reverse, quite frankly. You come across as very whiney.

Enunciation and pitch are quantifiable - measurable. Sorry, you're wrong.

The R30 example isn't silly. Compare the vocals in the first few lines of the song and my point is made.

Also, I bolded the statement that he is different now. You said my bolded words were only my opinion. Are you suggesting that he's not different now than he used to be?

And please, if you're going to resort to calling me whiny, just admit that you have nothing left to say because playing the whiny card just makes you look bad.

Edited by danielmclark, 27 November 2011 - 11:01 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users