The change in Eddie's voice

SOLAT319 wrote:

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.

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I think people are getting confused between the health of his voice and his singing style.

Yes, 90s Eddie had a more powerful, youthful voice, but I like his singing style now much better.

McNairn wrote:

the only problem is that it is nutural to compare Eddie Vedder to a God. A God shouldn't get sore throats after screaming and singing for three hours a night for a few weeks or months. A God should have the same voice at 44 that he had at 24.

He is fucking incredible and there is no singer of any age that can compare!
I saw some killer shows this year (and last) and the signing was amazing. amazing. in a class of his own.
I saw him solo and that was the sweetest sound that could be created.

Ed can smoke and drink and do whatever the fuck he wants to - he has managed himself to be able to produce mind blowing lyrical, musical and emotional intensity continually.

I cannot see any way to criticize his voice right now.

Chrisilein wrote:

Whatever someones opinion is...for me, Eddies voice is still unrivaled!

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

His voice was much more powerful in the early - mid 90's.
Now it is like higher pitched, doesn't have that deep baritone sound anymore.
And when I first heard Backspacer I noticed some cracklings in his voice.
Listening to my bootlegs of the recent tour you can hear some crackling in his voice and its much higher pitched than other boots of years gone by.

He's still a good singer.
Of course his voice will deteriorate, how many shows has he done over the last 20 years, it has to take a toll.
But nothing beats the old days.

Finally, his voice on Binaural is much better than any album since.

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.