Geddy's Voice

[amish_ashaman]

All of this talk about how Geddy's voice has changed and he can't sing the old stuff anymore really gets under my skin. Why not just do the damn songs anyway? Surely they could make it work. It seems simple, really. Just rehearse it, and if it doesn't sound right, make adjustments. Geddy isn't the only singer whose voice has changed over the years, but I don't hear other bands talking about it. Hell, some bands have had singers die or leave the band and other guys sing the stuff. Is it the same? No. Does it still kick ass to hear it live? Absolutely. I've seen Iron Maiden without Bruce (Blaze Bailey) and they still kicked ass. Robert Plant still sings Led Zeppelin songs in the shows for his various projects (like the tour with Allison Krauss---they killed it on Black Dog, Battle of Evermore and When the Levee Breaks). Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend have got to be pushing 70 and they still do the old stuff. I saw the Dead after Jerry died and Bobby and Phil just sang the songs. BFD. I'm not alone in wanting to hear some old songs live. They ought to just play the stuff and quit worrying about if it sounds perfect or not. Edited June 18, 2010 by amish_ashaman

[shaun3701]

umm... they DO play older songs.

[amish_ashaman]

QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jun 18 2010, 02:03 AM)

umm... they DO play older songs.

I'm talking pre-2112. Geddy has said in interviews that anything before that time(and some stuff through AFTK or so) is difficult because he can't hit the notes anymore.

 

I know they played part of By-Tor on the R30 and Vapor Trails tours, but if the setlists on Cygnus-X1.net are correct, prior to that, they hadn't played anything from FBN or COS since the Signals warm-up tour in 1982, when they played By-Tor, In the End and Beneath, Between, Behind.

 

There are a lot of bands with catalogs as big as Rush that change the setlist every night and tap into the entire catalog. I'm glad they don't change nightly, because if they did I'd want to see every show. But why not change it up from tour to tour a little more than they do and get a little deeper into the catalog?

[Sir Lerxst]

QUOTE (amish_ashaman @ Jun 18 2010, 09:21 AM)

...prior to that, they hadn't played anything from FBN or COS since the Signals warm-up tour in 1982...

The played Anthem on the Roll the Bones tour, as part of a medley, with vocals.

 

 

 

Granted, it was 19 years ago.

[Mara]

Sure, how much "adjusting" could they do before it got ridiculous? And what happens when Ged's voice craps out after five shows?

 

As far as Daltrey and Townshend - Daltrey still has it to a degree. Pete needs to shut up and just play the guitar.

[Alex]

QUOTE (Mara @ Jun 18 2010, 08:09 AM)

And what happens when Ged's voice craps out after five shows?

LOL

 

Geddy:

 

Show 1: WE ARE THE PRIESTS OF THE TEMPLES

 

Show 2: WE ARE the PRIESTS of THE TEMPLEs

 

Show 3: WE ARE the priests of the TEMPLES

 

Show 4: WEEEEE ArE the PrIests of THE TEmples.

 

Show 5: we are the priests of the TEEEmples

 

Show 6: we are the- k f**k this.

[hughes&kettner]

they tune down their guitar/bass to make it easier for ged to sing songs like circumstances and temples. it depends on if the song works or not when you tune down. they may try some older stuff tuned down and not feel 100% satisfied with how it ulimately sounds. zep did the same when they did their show in '07.

[syd11]

I don't totally agree that they could pull off all of the old stuff successfully just because so much of the vocals were much higher

than Ged's current range. I think Anthem, Bastille Days, What You're

Doing, Something For Nothing, etc. would all be a stretch. I have been

pushing for In the End since a good portion is more talk than scream.

[bigalfan]

I know I'll probably get some heat for this from the 'purists', but if we're missing __________________, because Geddy can't quite hit the range anymore (and that's understandable that he can't) then would it be SOOOO awful if they either simply left the lyrics out in a few places OR overdubbed in a few places?

 

We get Cygnus X-1 in it's entirety if they overdubbed Ged's younger voivce on the part that would rip his throat out now? Are you kidding me!!??? HECK YA! We understand...or at least I would, and would WELCOME it!

[amish_ashaman]

I'd like to hear it and decide for myself if it sounds bad or not. How bad could it be, really? Why not just do the best you can without ripping your throat out? I can't imagine that that would be worse than not hearing those songs at all. I personally am not hung up on having perfect vocals on every song.

[syd11]

QUOTE (bigalfan @ Jun 18 2010, 08:52 AM)

I know I'll probably get some heat for this from the 'purists', but if we're missing __________________, because Geddy can't quite hit the range anymore (and that's understandable that he can't) then would it be SOOOO awful if they either simply left the lyrics out in a few places OR overdubbed in a few places? We get Cygnus X-1 in it's entirety if they overdubbed Ged's younger voivce on the part that would rip his throat out now? Are you kidding me!!??? HECK YA! We understand...or at least I would, and would WELCOME it!

Well he doesn't do the long scream during Temples anymore.

[poddish]

Sure, SOME older songs would need to be altered quite a bit in order to be played, but you mustn't forget that others would be much easier to make work. I'm betting that "In The Mood" would be incredibly easy to play with lower vocals. I'm not saying that that song SHOULD be played, I'm just saying it COULD be played. Sure, "Bastille Day" would need to be reworked, but who knows? They might surprise us and get some songs working that we'd never thought were possible anymore.

[Mara]

QUOTE (bigalfan @ Jun 18 2010, 09:52 AM)

I know I'll probably get some heat for this from the 'purists', but if we're missing __________________, because Geddy can't quite hit the range anymore (and that's understandable that he can't) then would it be SOOOO awful if they either simply left the lyrics out in a few places OR overdubbed in a few places? We get Cygnus X-1 in it's entirety if they overdubbed Ged's younger voivce on the part that would rip his throat out now? Are you kidding me!!??? HECK YA! We understand...or at least I would, and would WELCOME it!

I'd hate that. That's exactly what performers who can't sing live, or at least can't stay on pitch, do.

[Todem]

Rush has probably tried out a bunch of pre 2112 stuff and it just did not work for them. They do not want to play a tune that would not sound right.

 

 

Those vocals are insanly high. And I have heard The Who these days...not even close to what they used to sound like. They sound old.

 

Rush still sounds young, hard and loud. And who cares if we don't hear some high screamers anymore.....they have so much material!

 

Bring on the tour!!!!

[Tick]

QUOTE (syd11 @ Jun 18 2010, 09:30 AM)

I don't totally agree that they could pull off all of the old stuff successfully just because so much of the vocals were much higher than Ged's current range. I think Anthem, Bastille Days, What You're Doing, Something For Nothing, etc. would all be a stretch. I have been pushing for In the End since a good portion is more talk than scream.

I agree.

The bottom line is fans may say they will accept less then what Geddy used to sing like, but the reality is if Rush played Something For Nothing, and it was sung in a low 3 octaves lower key it wouldn't sound right and fans would complain about that.

It you can't do something justice just leave it alone and stick with your strengths. Singing something in a toned down monotone key does not sound good, and thus shouldn't be done. I would rather hear Geddy sing stuff that he sounds good singing.

 

 

That's the way I feel anyhow.

 

Also keep in mind, if Geddy were to decide to sing something like Fly By Night for 60 or 70 dates, he could very well strain his voice big time, thus effecting the entire show and shows to follow.

 

Yes, I am a vocalist so my opinion should carry some weight as I can speak from experience.

Edited June 18, 2010 by tick

[Tick]

last post edited because I meant to say Something for nothing and not In the end.

[shaun3701]

Personally I don't care about anything Rush - COS, none of that material was that great anyway. I'm happy with the occasional By-Tor.

[cygnus_thegodofbalance]

QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jun 18 2010, 03:21 PM)

Personally I don't care about anything Rush - COS, none of that material was that great anyway. I'm happy with the occasional By-Tor.

Exactly the way I feel. By-Tor is a great song, but that's about it. Everything else is your standard Zeppelin rock song. In the End just screams Zeppelin. Come to think of it, 2112 isn't even that great of an album.

[LeaveMyThingAlone]

QUOTE (amish_ashaman @ Jun 18 2010, 01:43 AM)

All of this talk about how Geddy's voice has changed and he can't sing the old stuff anymore really gets under my skin. Why not just do the damn songs anyway? Surely they could make it work. It seems simple, really. Just rehearse it, and if it doesn't sound right, make adjustments. Geddy isn't the only singer whose voice has changed over the years, but I don't hear other bands talking about it. Hell, some bands have had singers die or leave the band and other guys sing the stuff. Is it the same? No. Does it still kick ass to hear it live? Absolutely. I've seen Iron Maiden without Bruce (Blaze Bailey) and they still kicked ass. Robert Plant still sings Led Zeppelin songs in the shows for his various projects (like the tour with Allison Krauss---they killed it on Black Dog, Battle of Evermore and When the Levee Breaks). Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend have got to be pushing 70 and they still do the old stuff. I saw the Dead after Jerry died and Bobby and Phil just sang the songs. BFD. I'm not alone in wanting to hear some old songs live. They ought to just play the stuff and quit worrying about if it sounds perfect or not.

I have heard recent performances of a lot of those bands you mentioned and I disagree with you...they sound like sh!t.

 

 

Did you SEE The Who's performance at The Super Bowl? Brutal....

 

The difference between Rush and a band like The Who, or Rolling Stones, or even Grateful Dead, is Rush still rocks and outs on an incredibly high quality show. They know a song like Cygnus, Bastille Day, By-Tor would not sound right or do them justice

[Tick]

QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Jun 18 2010, 04:38 PM)

QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jun 18 2010, 03:21 PM) Personally I don't care about anything Rush - COS, none of that material was that great anyway. I'm happy with the occasional By-Tor. Exactly the way I feel. By-Tor is a great song, but that's about it. Everything else is your standard Zeppelin rock song. In the End just screams Zeppelin. Come to think of it, 2112 isn't even that great of an album. No, your wrong on one thing. 2112 is an amazing album. It is landmark, and it was ahead of its time. It redefined an entire genre of music.

[cygnus_thegodofbalance]

QUOTE (tick @ Jun 18 2010, 03:48 PM)

QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Jun 18 2010, 04:38 PM) QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jun 18 2010, 03:21 PM) Personally I don't care about anything Rush - COS, none of that material was that great anyway. I'm happy with the occasional By-Tor. Exactly the way I feel. By-Tor is a great song, but that's about it. Everything else is your standard Zeppelin rock song. In the End just screams Zeppelin. Come to think of it, 2112 isn't even that great of an album. No, your wrong on one thing. 2112 is an amazing album. It is landmark, and it was ahead of its time. It redefined an entire genre of music. Haha yeah I guess so, but I wasn't born then, so I can't say   Today, when I listen to it, I hear a great (not spectacular) first side, and then some average songs on the second. Something for Nothing and Bangkok are fine songs, but Tears, Lessons, and Twilight seem to fall short for me.

[metaldad]

QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Jun 18 2010, 03:38 PM)

Come to think of it, 2112 isn't even that great of an album.

It is better than S&A

[Xanadu93]

QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Jun 18 2010, 04:49 PM)

QUOTE (tick @ Jun 18 2010, 03:48 PM) QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Jun 18 2010, 04:38 PM) QUOTE (shaun3701 @ Jun 18 2010, 03:21 PM) Personally I don't care about anything Rush - COS, none of that material was that great anyway. I'm happy with the occasional By-Tor. Exactly the way I feel. By-Tor is a great song, but that's about it. Everything else is your standard Zeppelin rock song. In the End just screams Zeppelin. Come to think of it, 2112 isn't even that great of an album. No, your wrong on one thing. 2112 is an amazing album. It is landmark, and it was ahead of its time. It redefined an entire genre of music. Haha yeah I guess so, but I wasn't born then, so I can't say   Today, when I listen to it, I hear a great (not spectacular) first side, and then some average songs on the second. Something for Nothing and Bangkok are fine songs, but Tears, Lessons, and Twilight seem to fall short for me. Heh, I pretty much feel the same about 2112. Side two is why I don't see it as a "great" album, it's hit-and-miss.   Maybe it's me, but I fail to see how it "redefined an entire genre of music". Can anyone else chip in and give me an answer as to what genre it redefined?

[metaldad]

QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Jun 18 2010, 03:49 PM)

Haha yeah I guess so, but I wasn't born then, so I can't say

When the hell were you born ?

[cygnus_thegodofbalance]

QUOTE (metaldad @ Jun 18 2010, 04:30 PM)

QUOTE (cygnus_thegodofbalance @ Jun 18 2010, 03:49 PM) Haha yeah I guess so, but I wasn't born then, so I can't say  When the hell were you born ? 1990. Only a youngun.