Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DaveRam]

One suggestion might be that when people say they prefer John's voice to Paul's, they mean that they prefer to hear John's voice singing his own songs to Paul's voice singing his own songs?

I'd love to hear people throw out various songs they know and love, and speculate on how both Paul and John would have sung that song....

It's more to do with the tone of John's voice for me on The Beatles songs and what George Martin was able to do with it the double tracking that gave it that echoing haunted quality , "A Day In The Life" is a good example "Julia" i also like .
Paul's voice technically is better and bigger than John's it's a jolly voice which i very much like , i prefer Paul's voice on the slower Beatles songs "Fool On The Hill " and "Blackbird" i like , their's no vocal tricks on these songs.
I also like George's voice and Ringo's ,Ringo sounds like me when i try to sing .
(teeth1)

[jjs]

One yardstick would be: whom would you most like to hear singing a beautiful standard?

"Danny Boy" is a gorgeous song, covered by many, including Elvis and Andy Williams. I'd much rather hear Paul have a crack at it than John.

Take another: "Old Man River". Same thing: I'd love to hear Paul do it; wouldn't care that much to hear John's efforts.

Conclusion, based on this litmus test: Paul is my favorite singer of the Beatles.

This isn't a yardstick at all. It's a personal choice and an irrelevant one.

Paul's voice is thinner, and he is constantly trying to sing too high, out of his vocal range (a habit which persists to this day). John's voice was stronger and smoother and more consistent . John has the better voice.  

Whenever this debate starts all I can hear is "Warm and Beautiful", "Don't Be Careless Love" "I'm Carrying" and many more old and recent songs that were completely ruined because he either tried to sing them way too high, or sang them in a stupid voice.

[Mairi]

This isn't a yardstick at all. It's a personal choice and an irrelevant one.

Paul's voice is thinner, and he is constantly trying to sing too high, out of his vocal range (a habit which persists to this day). John's voice was stronger and smoother and more consistent . John has the better voice.  

Whenever this debate starts all I can hear is "Warm and Beautiful", "Don't Be Careless Love" "I'm Carrying" and many more old and recent songs that were completely ruined because he either tried to sing them way too high, or sang them in a stupid voice.

I have to respectfully disagree. John simply doesn't have the range that Paul has, and Paul's voice is MUCH stronger than John's. Speaking as a vocalist, I often cringe when I hear John using improper singing techniques. His voice is nasal at its worst, and thin at its best.  He had great delivery but he wasn't naturally gifted. Paul's voice may have deteriorated over the years, but that's normal.

[Sondra]

I have to respectfully disagree. John simply doesn't have the range that Paul has, and Paul's voice is MUCH stronger than John's. Speaking as a vocalist, I often cringe when I hear John using improper singing techniques. His voice is nasal at its worst, and thin at its best.  He had great delivery but he wasn't naturally gifted. Paul's voice may have deteriorated over the years, but that's normal.

Paul uses improper technique as well. They weren't trained. I don't see how John's nasal tone is a bad thing. He speaking voice was also nasal. I don't think that has anything to do with bad singing. Look at Bob Dylan. People always say his voice sucked, yet I'd rather listen to him sing most of his songs than those songbirds any day. You can't teach soulful delivery and how to convey emotion. Which is more important in the end. Someone could be technically perfect yet be boring as hell to listen to. Plenty of examples of that. You watch American/Canadian Idol right?

[Mairi]

No, I love John's voice, and I completely agree that conveying emotion is much more important than just hitting the right notes. I mean, look at Mariah Carey- ick. However, we are arguing over who had a better voice, not who is a better singer. They are both good singers, but Paul has a better voice.

[Sondra]

No, I love John's voice, and I completely agree that conveying emotion is much more important than just hitting the right notes. I mean, look at Mariah Carey- ick. However, we are arguing over who had a better voice, not who is a better singer. They are both good singers, but Paul has a better voice.

Technically better. That should be the clarification. I think John could handle some of those old standards pretty well really. But sure, Paul's had more range and so on. What's the Bob Dylan quote about Paul's voice?

[Mairi]

I found this: "I'm in awe of McCartney. He can do it all and he's never let up. He's got the gift for melody, he's got the rhythm. He can play any instrument. And he can sing the ballad as good as anybody. I mean, I just wish he'd quit!"

That's cool to hear Bob say that. He was pals with George, but I always wondered what he thought of Paul.

[Sondra]

Here's the full quote. He gave props to Lennon too. I wish he'd have gone into more detail about it though.

"RS: What was your relationship with John Lennon like? Somewhat competitive?

Bob: "Yeah. Only to a certain extent, but not really. Him and McCartney both, really, they were fantastic singers. Lennon, to this day, it's hard to find a better singer than Lennon was, or than McCartney was and still is. I'm in awe of McCartney. He's about the only one that I am in awe of. He can do it all. And he's never let up. He's got the gift for melody, he's got the rhythm, he can play any instrument. He can scream and shout as good as anybody. And his melodies are effortless, that's what you have to be in awe of...He's just so damn effortless. I just wish he'd quit [laughs]. Everything that comes out of his mouth is just framed in melody."

[Mairi]

Cool. He sounds so positive in that quote. Not cynicaL LIKE HE USUALLY IS.




(I accidentally hit the caps lock on those last few words, but I left it like that because I think it looks better that way.)

[jjs]

I have to respectfully disagree. John simply doesn't have the range that Paul has, and Paul's voice is MUCH stronger than John's. Speaking as a vocalist, I often cringe when I hear John using improper singing techniques. His voice is nasal at its worst, and thin at its best.  He had great delivery but he wasn't naturally gifted. Paul's voice may have deteriorated over the years, but that's normal.

This is a pile of crap, sorry to say.

Range doesn't dictate "best" or "better", the sound the instrument makes does. Paul buys into this "range equals better" crap, which is why he constantly completely ruins many of his own songs by trying to sing them way too high, sometimes to the point where you wonder what the hell he was (or if he was) thinking. I don't enjoy listening to someone struggling to hit notes they cannot hit.  It doesn't impress me.

Explain "Don't Be Careless Love" to me, please. and... while you're at it, explain the vocals on the entire "Back To The Egg" album. I didn't get it then and i don't get it now.

Maybe you should go back to singing school if you think John's voice was thin and Paul's was not. Delivery is everything.

[Mairi]

Well, yes, John does have great delivery, what I'm trying to say is that Paul has a better voice. Not how he uses it, but he is more naturally talented. Delivery is important, but it's much more impressive if you have a good voice to begin with. I do agree with you that Paul sometimes sings too high, but he has more than just range. I feel he has a much warmer and richer tone to his voice than John. His early vocal performances are so effortless, whereas you can really hear John straining to perform. Of course John's style of delivery is much more suited to rock and roll, but rock and roll was never really about having a great voice.
Don't get me wrong! I love John's singing! It's perfect for the kind of songs he writes. But there is a difference between being a good singer and having a good voice. Freddie Mercury is pretty much the golden standard for this sort of thing. Not only did he have an incredible set of pipes, but he knew exactly how to use them. Paul and John could both learn a lot from him, methinks.

[Penny Lane]

I feel he has a much warmer and richer tone to his voice than John.

I feel similarly.  I do love the warmth of Paul's voice, or basically his timbre in general.  There is something very comforting to me in his singing voice (especially for ballads).

And Freddie Mercury was amazing, BTW.

[jjs]

Well, yes, John does have great delivery, what I'm trying to say is that Paul has a better voice. Not how he uses it, but he is more naturally talented. Delivery is important, but it's much more impressive if you have a good voice to begin with. I do agree with you that Paul sometimes sings too high, but he has more than just range. I feel he has a much warmer and richer tone to his voice than John. His early vocal performances are so effortless, whereas you can really hear John straining to perform. Of course John's style of delivery is much more suited to rock and roll, but rock and roll was never really about having a great voice.
Don't get me wrong! I love John's singing! It's perfect for the kind of songs he writes. But there is a difference between being a good singer and having a good voice. Freddie Mercury is pretty much the golden standard for this sort of thing. Not only did he have an incredible set of pipes, but he knew exactly how to use them. Paul and John could both learn a lot from him, methinks.

But you still haven't explained "Don't Be Careless Love" and the entire "Back To The Egg" album to me. Or the songs he's ruined on his recent albums. It's not good singing, it's not a good voice.  The voice on "Double Fantasy" runs circles around it. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Paul chose to stay in his natural voice in his natural vocal range, but he doesn't.

And, you can't tell me Paul has ever matched the strength of the vocals on DF. Well, I take it back. Maybe a vocal or two on "Ram" does.

You guys are confusing the question of who has the better voice with "who is your favorite Beatle." I can list dozens of Paul's songs, especially his solo songs where he completely ruined the song (for me and probably others) because of the way he sang it.  Instead of just relaxing, and singing the song in his natural voice in his natural register, he strains, and it sounds terrible.


 

[Penny Lane]

You guys are confusing the question of who has the better voice with "who is your favorite Beatle."

I don't think that's a fair assessment if you're referring to me or Mairi.  I don't think that we misinterpreted this thread topic.  Paul is indeed my favorite Beatle, but aside from that, I genuinely do enjoy and admire his vocal quality.  I've been a fan of his singing for 15 years, and it's just my humble opinion that he has the better voice.

I hope it's not too hard to believe that there are people who prefer Paul's voice over John's (or vice versa).  I know there are things about Paul's singing that bothers you, and that's okay, but it does not bother me.  At the end of the day, it's just simply a matter of personal taste.

 

[Mairi]

I'm saying: Paul had a naturally good voice. He was technically better.
You're saying: Paul sometimes used his voice incorrectly.
 
Sorry, I don't know enough of the solo stuff to answer your questions. Back to the Egg is an okay album. I don't think his singing is that great on it, but I don't think John's singing on Double Fantasy is amazing, it's just good. I'm not disputing that Paul used his voice incorrectly sometimes. I'm just saying that he had a better vocal register. John may have used his voice in a way that more enjoyable for you, but that does not mean he had a better voice. It means he was better at using his voice.

But I must say that I am most certainly not basing my arguments on who my favourite Beatle is. Paul is my favourite Beatle in part because of his singing, and not the other way around.

[Geoff]

And, you can't tell me Paul has ever matched the strength of the vocals on DF.

I'm not in any sense a musician, but the songs on Double Fantasy don't strike me as being particularly challenging to sing. Plastic Ono Band is another matter and has John's best solo vocals, I think.

[jjs]

I'm not in any sense a musician, but the songs on Double Fantasy don't strike me as being particularly challenging to sing. Plastic Ono Band is another matter and has John's best solo vocals, I think.

Who cares if they're challenging? They sound good!

For the person who said they were unfamiliar with Paul's solo work... What you're saying then is that you're basing your judgment on the first 20% of Paul's career as a singer.

Rocky Racoon is not a good vocal, folks. It's a thin, weak, shaky out of tune vocal.

[Mairi]

I am not an expert on Paul's solo work, that's why I said I wasn't informed enough to answer your questions. But I am not completely unfamiliar with his solo work.

What you seem to be saying is that good delivery equals a good voice. I disagree. Good delivery equals a good singer. I think that a good vocal register equals a technically good voice, if not always pleasant for other to listen to. To use a previous example, Mariah Carey. I find her singing horribly annoying, but I still acknowledge that she has a good voice. This does not, however, make her a good singer. Janis Joplin had a mediocre voice, but excellent delivery. This makes her a good singer with a bad voice.

So I don't think we will ever come to consenus, as you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes a good voice.

[Mr. Mustard]

I think Rocky Raccoon is meant to be sung a certain way, in that 'Old West' southern accent that Paul affects.  It's not meant to be a vocal showcase, I think.

Regardless of who's technically better, or who has more range (Paul probably wins there), I've got to go for John.  His voice sounds more soulful.... perhaps because his songs tend to be more autobiographical, less Ob-La-Di-Bla-Da.

And I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Janis Joplin has a bad voice.  But that's another can of worms to open.

[Sondra]

Rocky Racoon is not a good vocal, folks. It's a thin, weak, shaky out of tune vocal.

Hardly out of tune. And he's going for a sound there. It's his choice of delivery. He's mocking the folk rock Bob Dylan type songs that were all the rage at the time. And he does it quite well. Which makes for a good vocal. I enjoy what he does in that song. It's perfect for the type of song it is. That's the genius of Paul. He knows exactly how he wants a song to sound and to come off to people. It may not please everyone and not everyone might understand what he's doing, but it's hardly a bad vocal performance. In my opinion.

And for those who mock things like Ob la di Ob la da, Rocky Raccoon, Silly Love Songs, and even Mary Had a Little Lamb, well again, he's being misunderstood. He's not doing it to produce fluff. Many times he's making a point or there's some hidden meaning behind it. Ob la di Ob la da has more meaning to it than people know.("Rivers of Blood", immigration, West Indian lead character?) Plus it's experimental and an early form of Ska music.  Silly Love Songs was an f-you to a couple of people and Mary Had a Little Lamb was his cocky way of saying he could make a great song out of anything. He's very subtle and unless you read these things somewhere or can pick up on his reasoning, you'd just assume they were fluff. Not so. He could be deeper than Lennon at times. Lennon is easier to understand though because most of his songs were so in your face. Paul's no half wit.