The change in Eddie's voice

kennyramone

don't read/post often, but felt compelled to comment.

i join those who prefer the current "voice" (sound, melodic choices, etc..)...i rarely listen to earlier bootlegs, or even earlier studio albums.

my reason for posting, however, is to mention ev's use of an inner ear monitor. not sure exactly when he began using it, but i have to think that using it changed how he approaches live shows. (i'm not a musician, have no basis for the thought)

UpSideDown

my thoughts....

2000 he had great power and his range was better

2003 just pure stamina night in and night out, amazing tour

2006 less power overall, but a more refined singing style. Showed great energy as well.
Really kicked it into high gear for the European shows.

2008 - noticed the choppy singing on certain songs (can't remember whats it actually called right now, but you know what im talking about). Seemed out of breathe on some songs, but was still holding it together. LROM and the real me on vh1 were amazing though.

2009- Aside from the occasional gem, it sounds like hes one note away from cracking at any point, out of breathe quite a bit. The shows are still enjoyable, but Im concerned and would like to see them take some time to recover (if its possible at this point)

bootlegger10

I used to be one of those guys who wished Ed's voice was like it was in the old days, but I've changed my tune. I agree his voice has deteriorated since 1996, but he is a much, much better singer now. Perhaps a combination of his range in 1991 and his singing ability now would be the best, but I take Eddie now.

I'll take 2009 Vedder over 2003 Vedder in a heartbeat. I loved the Benaroya boot, but after going to Eddie's solo shows in 2008 and 2009, the boot is kinda boring. I've noticed that Ed's delivery on that boot was very monotone and Ed didn't add a lot to the vocals. I think Ed touring on his own with just a guitar forced him to step up his vocal delivery, and I think it shows on the 2008 and 2009 tours.

nevmiles

hrd2imgn wrote:

smoking (BIG PART)
drinking
drugs (lets be honest here) in moderation???

and the biggest reason: getting older, your voice just gets deeper and you cannot do what you could when you were younger

coupled with over 20 years of singing, it is bound to sound different

+1

dbodner

I think there's two different arguments here, and they should be kept separate.

The first argument of whether he has consciously changed his style, whether maturing as a singer, to preserve his voice, or to avoid pigeonholing himself. Whether or not you prefer this style is entirely personal preference.

the second argument is whether or not he can still sing in the style he did in the early 90's. This argument has very little bearing on which you prefer, just whether he's physically capable of singing in the manner he did in the first few CD's.

Personally, I don't think he's capable of singing as he did in the Ten/Vs/Vitalogy days. Even if you prefer the current sound, I think this is a shame, as having the ability to go back in time and hit the early songs in the way they were originally recorded would be great for nostalgic purposes. Regardless of preference, losing that ability (if true) is a shame. After Yield, most of my favorite PJ studio songs have been slower tempo songs, as I think they fit his current voice better. When he does try to go up-tempo, I find more mumbling than growling. It's great that he's adapted his style (frankly, a necessity), but I can't say I wouldn't love to hear a couple of uptempo songs per album like the past. I don't think he can physically perform something like Porch in a studio setting nowadays.

I think Backspacer was balance for his current voice for uptempo rockers.

not saying it's not understandable, after 20 years of aging and live performances, but denying the change (in ability as well as style) isn't doing anyone any service.

I also think his range and singing ability were underrated back in the early days. Release, Black, Small Town. Great changes of pace from the norm back then.

That being said, I still absolutely love them live, and I enjoyed Backspacer tremendously. Recognizing the change (some of which I believe was mandated out of a change in his voice) doesn't mean I don't still greatly enjoy the band, both in the studio and in concert.

Shawshank

PJamGrungeFan wrote:

True, but that howl was a Vedder trademark

this performance makes me cringe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0fFOfoPrsk&fmt=18

This clip is slightly unfair as an example. To be honest, I don't see how he sounded as good as he did then. That was a massive tour, and he had been sick just prior to that as was mentioned. I think most people would have had a hard time talking, much less singing.

Come Back in Black

dbodner wrote:

I think there's two different arguments here, and they should be kept separate.

The first argument of whether he has consciously changed his style, whether maturing as a singer, to preserve his voice, or to avoid pigeonholing himself. Whether or not you prefer this style is entirely personal preference.

the second argument is whether or not he can still sing in the style he did in the early 90's. This argument has very little bearing on which you prefer, just whether he's physically capable of singing in the manner he did in the first few CD's.

Personally, I don't think he's capable of singing as he did in the Ten/Vs/Vitalogy days. Even if you prefer the current sound, I think this is a shame, as having the ability to go back in time and hit the early songs in the way they were originally recorded would be great for nostalgic purposes. Regardless of preference, losing that ability (if true) is a shame. After Yield, most of my favorite PJ studio songs have been slower tempo songs, as I think they fit his current voice better. When he does try to go up-tempo, I find more mumbling than growling. It's great that he's adapted his style (frankly, a necessity), but I can't say I wouldn't love to hear a couple of uptempo songs per album like the past. I don't think he can physically perform something like Porch in a studio setting nowadays.

I think Backspacer was balance for his current voice for uptempo rockers.

not saying it's not understandable, after 20 years of aging and live performances, but denying the change (in ability as well as style) isn't doing anyone any service.

I also think his range and singing ability were underrated back in the early days. Release, Black, Small Town. Great changes of pace from the norm back then.

That being said, I still absolutely love them live, and I enjoyed Backspacer tremendously. Recognizing the change (some of which I believe was mandated out of a change in his voice) doesn't mean I don't still greatly enjoy the band, both in the studio and in concert.

Agree with this. He can still sing. I preffer the early sound and I don't think he can physically sing like that anymore.. even on a slow song like Oceans... He can't blast it out like he did on unplugged. The power isn't there anymore.. and thats ok. He still has an amazing voice.

zootown

Jennytree wrote:

Does anyone sound the same after 20-odd years?

what 20 years are you talking about girl? I cant be the only one who hears a significant difference just since 05! :shock: He still can have great nights, or even great performances on certain songs. But there is NO doubt that he is struggling on some songs that only 4 short years ago were automatic. I expect everybody's voice to change, but its clear that Eddie abused himself and his voice for many years, now he is starting to pay the price.....Im 40 and once the decline starts, it can be startling how steep the slope can be! The ACL show and the Seattle shows, plus the shows when he was "sick" in Aus are great examples of this. sorry, the truth hurts. My only hope is that Eddie himself gets fed up with struggling and gives up some of his vices....."practiced all my sins, never gonna let me win, uh-huh"----lets hope not!

Aaron 23

dbodner wrote:

I think there's two different arguments here, and they should be kept separate.

The first argument of whether he has consciously changed his style, whether maturing as a singer, to preserve his voice, or to avoid pigeonholing himself. Whether or not you prefer this style is entirely personal preference.

the second argument is whether or not he can still sing in the style he did in the early 90's. This argument has very little bearing on which you prefer, just whether he's physically capable of singing in the manner he did in the first few CD's.

Personally, I don't think he's capable of singing as he did in the Ten/Vs/Vitalogy days. Even if you prefer the current sound, I think this is a shame, as having the ability to go back in time and hit the early songs in the way they were originally recorded would be great for nostalgic purposes. Regardless of preference, losing that ability (if true) is a shame. After Yield, most of my favorite PJ studio songs have been slower tempo songs, as I think they fit his current voice better. When he does try to go up-tempo, I find more mumbling than growling. It's great that he's adapted his style (frankly, a necessity), but I can't say I wouldn't love to hear a couple of uptempo songs per album like the past. I don't think he can physically perform something like Porch in a studio setting nowadays.

I think Backspacer was balance for his current voice for uptempo rockers.

not saying it's not understandable, after 20 years of aging and live performances, but denying the change (in ability as well as style) isn't doing anyone any service.

I also think his range and singing ability were underrated back in the early days. Release, Black, Small Town. Great changes of pace from the norm back then.

That being said, I still absolutely love them live, and I enjoyed Backspacer tremendously. Recognizing the change (some of which I believe was mandated out of a change in his voice) doesn't mean I don't still greatly enjoy the band, both in the studio and in concert.

I prefer his live voice now to then, BUT I will agree in the fact that I do not believe he can hit some of the things he used to be able to...everyone rants and raves about the "gems and rhinestones" bit, but while I had my iphone on random in the car today, the WMA demo session came on...I forgot how high and powerful he used to be! Definitely puts that one small peak in Unthought Known to shame IMO...

davidtrios

Aaron 23 wrote:

Hmm...am I the only one that prefers his voice now to the way it used to be?

I wasn't a huge fan of his tone, before...seemed his higher notes (live) were all very rough and less controlled (IMO) when compared to the howls he puts out now.

I agree I think Ed sounds BETTER than he did during the early 90's. He was unpolished and sounded like a child

AnarionKing

I wish he once would absorb all the energy from the crowd in his palm, put it to his throat and heal it

But seriously, when I listen to some of the boots from the 09 tour I think he sounds amazing. I thought he was perfect at the one show I've been to so far (the rush of just being there, perhaps), but on the boot during some songs you can barely hear him (RVM in Manchester). Maybe it is caused by technical issues.

He should stop smoking, though

Smellyman

BTW- this topic has been ongoing since 1995.

He is still going strong.

Kudos Ed.

billthree

Sorry, but I think you're high if you actually think Ed sounds better now than he did in 1994. Either that or you never saw the band live back then. IMO, the last tour Ed sounded great on was 1998 and ever since 2000 it has consistently become worse. To be honest, I'd rather the band play almost nothing from Ten, VS, and Vitalogy, rather than have to listen to another 2009 version of Why Go, Blood, Alive, etc. The official bootlegs only make it worse as Ed's voice is way too high in the mix.

It happens to nearly every rock singer, so it's nothing new. Regardless, I'll still see the band every time they come through town. It's just now I find myself focusing on other aspects of the band. The core of Matt, Jeff, and Stone sounded as good or better in '09 than they ever have.

stardust1976

doompony wrote:

i think he sounds farking amazing these days.. dunno what the crazies are on about. 4 words. love reign o'er me.

me too.... :roll:

goo

billthree wrote:

Sorry, but I think you're high if you actually think Ed sounds better now than he did in 1994. Either that or you never saw the band live back then. IMO, the last tour Ed sounded great on was 1998 and ever since 2000 it has consistently become worse. To be honest, I'd rather the band play almost nothing from Ten, VS, and Vitalogy, rather than have to listen to another 2009 version of Why Go, Blood, Alive, etc. The official bootlegs only make it worse as Ed's voice is way too high in the mix.

It happens to nearly every rock singer, so it's nothing new. Regardless, I'll still see the band every time they come through town. It's just now I find myself focusing on other aspects of the band. The core of Matt, Jeff, and Stone sounded as good or better in '09 than they ever have.

you said pretty much what I planned to say. I'll take Eddie's voice from '92-'94 any day over the way it is now. I'm not knocking it altogether, because I was floored when I saw them twice back in October by how he could keep going and going through a 2 1/2 hour concert after I had blown my voice out after 5 songs from singing along. I'm of the same opinion that '98 was the best year for Eddie's voice after the early days... a lot of it seemed to bounce back... kinda how Robert Plant started to re-gain his voice in '76/'77 after how shitty it was during the 1975 tour. but anyone with a pair of ears can clearly tell that Eddie's voice has lost a lot of the boom and other ingredients that made people fall in love with it back at the beginning. I cringe at some of the recent bootlegs. after seeing him twice on his solo tour, I realized that his voice is now so much better suited to his Into The Wild, folky type of material. he sounded great.

PJamGrungeFan

Agreed ^^

You're being either ignorant, or just plain stupid if you think Eddie sounded "immature" or "like a child" in the early 90's. His voice was beautiful on the slower tempo songs they did back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZprx2hmdio&fmt=18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luz7CgTM ... 18#t=2m10s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2hvo4aAvQ&fmt=18

Oh and for the people that used him being ill as an excuse for that terrible Jeremy performance, I'm not buying it.

See here ----> the night before http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL0iR8G1mrM&fmt=18

Smellyman

I am 37 now.

There is a lot of stuff I can't do when I was 25, like just rolling out of bed.

Cant believe how spry Ed stil is. He is a bad ass mofo

IamBETEL

I'm with the fans that prefer his voice now over the previous years, I think since like 2005 onward his voice is amazing live. Sure, he can't do things he use to be able to...but he can do things now that he hadn't been able to

SOLAT319

I see all of y'all's points. I just have one thing to say:

HOLD ON sounded EXACTLY like it was in the original recording when they played it on 10/30/09.

mca47

billthree wrote:

Sorry, but I think you're high if you actually think Ed sounds better now than he did in 1994. Either that or you never saw the band live back then. IMO, the last tour Ed sounded great on was 1998 and ever since 2000 it has consistently become worse. To be honest, I'd rather the band play almost nothing from Ten, VS, and Vitalogy, rather than have to listen to another 2009 version of Why Go, Blood, Alive, etc. The official bootlegs only make it worse as Ed's voice is way too high in the mix.

It happens to nearly every rock singer, so it's nothing new. Regardless, I'll still see the band every time they come through town. It's just now I find myself focusing on other aspects of the band. The core of Matt, Jeff, and Stone sounded as good or better in '09 than they ever have.

+1