Seperate Ways 1986 ROR Tour!

[madsplash]

I understand not digging the tempo. It's a matter of taste. I guess my point for this post was to show the people that said his voice was cracking and he no longer had the range, that this obviously wasn't the case. He's singing as high as he EVER did here. Not holding notes as long because of tempo, whether that was done for this reason or that reason, we don't know.

My point was that he had as much range as ever here and maybe even more so. So the theory that his voice was shot after Frontiers is wrong. Not an opinion, just flat out wrong.

That's all I was trying to say, but I guess no matter how or what I say, some take offense to it. Sounds like a personal problem for those few. I have many pleasant people on here(and about 20 members that I speak with privately) that don't wanna argue with everything I say, and you know what? That's enough for me.

[Onestepper]

I understand not digging the tempo. It's a matter of taste. I guess my point for this post was to show the people that said his voice was cracking and he no longer had the range, that this obviously wasn't the case. He's singing as high as he EVER did here. Not holding notes as long because of tempo, whether that was done for this reason or that reason, we don't know.

My point was that he had as much range as ever here and maybe even more so. So the theory that his voice was shot after Frontiers is wrong. Not an opinion, just flat out wrong.

That's all I was trying to say, but I guess no matter how or what I say, some take offense to it. Sounds like a personal problem for those few. I have many pleasant people on here(and about 20 members that I speak with privately) that don't wanna argue with everything I say, and you know what? That's enough for me.

Part of the problem is that you attack people, and call them wrong before they ever get a chance to respond. If you have an opinion...say it and move on. No one cares if you don't want to be challenged..it's a message board, you will be challenged and people will disagree with you. It doesn't make you or them bad.

And your point about his range/voice etc. is not fact. It is your opinion. No more important than anyone else's around here.

[Arianddu]

I understand not digging the tempo. It's a matter of taste. I guess my point for this post was to show the people that said his voice was cracking and he no longer had the range, that this obviously wasn't the case. He's singing as high as he EVER did here. Not holding notes as long because of tempo, whether that was done for this reason or that reason, we don't know.

My point was that he had as much range as ever here and maybe even more so. So the theory that his voice was shot after Frontiers is wrong. Not an opinion, just flat out wrong.

That's all I was trying to say, but I guess no matter how or what I say, some take offense to it. Sounds like a personal problem for those few. I have many pleasant people on here(and about 20 members that I speak with privately) that don't wanna argue with everything I say, and you know what? That's enough for me.

Except that, as BJG pointed out, S2M said nothing about you, just that he didn't like the recording. He even specifically said he wasn't saying it to be negative, just voicing his opinion of the piece. YOU were the one who took it personally, and you were the one who took offence. And then you were the one who threw back unwarrented insults and belittling comments.

I think you may be the one with the personal problem. It seems to be that unless people are completely agreeing with you, you take everything they say as a personal attack. We get that you have a hard-on for Steve Perry's voice - welcome to the club! - but seriously, move beyond, find something more to talk about. Because the more you harp on, attacking anyone who does not share your opinion, then the more people are going to lose patience with you. It's very nice that you have some friends on the board; try being a little less up-tight, and you might find that you can have friends who don't always agree with you, but are friends anyway. Or do you just want a fan club?

Because when you get the loons losing patience with you, alarm bells should be ringing that maybe the problem is with your communication skills (of which listening is an important skill) and not the topic or the opinion.

[Jana]

I understand not digging the tempo. It's a matter of taste. I guess my point for this post was to show the people that said his voice was cracking and he no longer had the range, that this obviously wasn't the case. He's singing as high as he EVER did here. Not holding notes as long because of tempo, whether that was done for this reason or that reason, we don't know.

My point was that he had as much range as ever here and maybe even more so. So the theory that his voice was shot after Frontiers is wrong. Not an opinion, just flat out wrong.

That's all I was trying to say, but I guess no matter how or what I say, some take offense to it. Sounds like a personal problem for those few. I have many pleasant people on here(and about 20 members that I speak with privately) that don't wanna argue with everything I say, and you know what? That's enough for me.

Did you read BJG's post? You don't accept other people's comments and responded back in a baiting way to a few. Everybody was just stating their opinion or thoughts, no problems, and you respond to some people's opinions on his voice or song in a negative tone. I think the personal problem was yours in this particular thread. So, of course, then you irritated people. Nobody had a problem with your thread topic . It was a good topic to discuss. We were just commenting about the song. You took it to a personal level against some people. What did you expect would happen?

[Jubilee]

...Nothing last forever.. I mean could you imagine M Jackson singing ABC during the Thriller years... Voices change and for males it happens a few times and it is common to take a slight dive in your mid 30's.. Nothing you can do about that..

Well, I wouldn't call it "taking a dive" - to me, it conveys a slightly negative tone.

But, in a way, you are correct - according to my College Vocal Coach, Raymond Buckingham, the Male / Female Singing Voice does NOT reach its full potential until after age 30.
Now, at age 41, I can hear the strength and confidence & have the Voice that I always wanted. Finally!

So, yeah...."American Idol" is a joke: what are you gonna do with these performers, once their voices fully mature & they don't have "the Sound" that got them the gig in the first place....?

I agree. I wouldn't call it "taking a dive" either. SMFP's voice didn't even START to get good to me until the Frontiers era. By the time they got to "Raised on Radio" it was right in the pocket for me. While his earlier work in the upper range was stellar (or insert your own superlative here) as a listener, I liked the more mature sound of his later work.

As for "American Idol", it's no joke. We know these two things about the record industry: it's youth oriented, and most artists, if they're lucky, are going to be one-hit wonders. The fact of the matter is they're not planning for tomorrow, because there very likely isn't going to be a tomorrow. There's just the here and now. Most young artist don't seem to know any better, and record company's are just churning them out, chewing them up, spitting them out, and moving on to "the next big thing". Most artists won't be around long enough for their voices to fully mature anyway.

[madsplash]

[quote="bluejeangirl76] Its been a pattern with him and that's why people "jump" on him. I think most are just sick of it.
Honestly, the best thing to do would be for everyone to stop responding to him, period. [/quote]

Honestly, that'd be great for SOME to do, and you are one. Again, I have enough people here who understand what I say and respond to it positively and discuss things amusingly. Anyone who finds me offensive doesn't have to read my posts, do they?

Believe me, I have several people who when they post, I just skip right on over it and know that it's best to not even bother reading it. There are enough great posters here to read their stuff and enjoy it without getting lured into arguments, which I admit that I do let myself get lured into too often, and I'm really working on and trying to correct that. I'm getting better and will keep getting better at not responding to getting baited into arguments. That I can promise.

I also promise to try not to get irritated when someone doesn't like a vocal performance as much as I do.. As I said in my later post, I had no problem with anyone saying they didn't LIKE the tempo or the arrangement or whatever. My problem was that it was called "horrible" which is incorrect from a technical standpoint. As Jeremey said that he didn't love the version but that it was spot on pitch-wise and all of the trademark vocal acrobatics were there, which was my whole point for posting in the first place. To show that in 1986/87 on the ROR tour, his voice had not diminished and he hadn't lost any range.

Again, I'm going to really try to stay completely positive in my posts. I admit that at times, when someone doesn't agree with something that I feel passionately about, I do get irritated and wonder how in the world they couldn't hear the same thing I do. I'll still feel that way, but will try very hard not to respond or post in any negative manner.

I've still never done what I would call personally attacked anyone. Not compared to some of things I've had said about me. And 90% of any negative things I've posted have been in response to something that was said to, or about me, first.

There are obviously some people here who I rub the wrong way and some who I don't care for, but we shouldn't let that bring a negative vibe to any certain post. For that I'm truly sorry and will do my best to try and avoid contact with those people to minimize any silly friction.

[bluejeangirl76]

Its been a pattern with him and that's why people "jump" on him. I think most are just sick of it.
Honestly, the best thing to do would be for everyone to stop responding to him, period.

Honestly, that'd be great for SOME to do, and you are one. Again, I have enough people here who understand what I say and respond to it positively and discuss things amusingly. Anyone who finds me offensive doesn't have to read my posts, do they?

Noted with a big eyeroll.

For the millionth time, it isn't what you say, its the WAY you do it. If things like "that sucked" or "that was horrible" are said, its only because those were peoples' opinions. Its what makes us all different and sparks interesting discussions. Neither of the people I quoted said anything poor directly toward YOU. But replying back with negativity and name calling, which has been your pattern, is what turns people off.

Just because you claim something is awesome does not make it fact, it makes it your opinion, and for you to turn around and call people illiterate, uncreative, etc. for not sharing in that opinion makes you look like you're sporting major attitude.

None of the people who've replied back to you with different takes on things or converse opinions care in the least how many people "support" or "agree" with you privately, so that tune really needs to be taken off of repeat. You have a fan club, we get it. The majority are turned off by your attitude, not what you're posting about.

Incidentally, this post is meant to be honest and respectful, note the lack of name calling and immaturity. I don't do that around here EVER unless I know its crystal freaking clear that I'm joking. For the two years I've been here, I have ALWAYS gotten along with the vast majority here because of that fact. I can disagree and discuss in a respectful way and I don't wish to create enemies by showing attitude in the way I post. You should consider giving that a try and that way maybe your threads will stop turning into debates about your attitude.

For what its worth, I found this to be an interesting topic because I like the ROR boots. You just have to realize that a lot of people have strong opinions about that tour, about those years of Journey, and especially about Steve Perry. You slammed the hell out of StM just because he didn't like it... and you can't see what's unreasonable about that? You threw a nasty shot at LLL for a silly somment about spelling... also unreasonable.

[Deb]

Just because you claim something is awesome does not make it fact, it makes it your opinion,

No way! Get outta here! JSS and EM are awesome, it's a fact, not just my opinion! Sorry girlfriend, just had to throw that out there and poke ya in the ribs.

[Suzanne]

I understand not digging the tempo. It's a matter of taste. I guess my point for this post was to show the people that said his voice was cracking and he no longer had the range, that this obviously wasn't the case. He's singing as high as he EVER did here. Not holding notes as long because of tempo, whether that was done for this reason or that reason, we don't know.

My point was that he had as much range as ever here and maybe even more so. So the theory that his voice was shot after Frontiers is wrong. Not an opinion, just flat out wrong.

That's all I was trying to say, but I guess no matter how or what I say, some take offense to it. Sounds like a personal problem for those few. I have many pleasant people on here(and about 20 members that I speak with privately) that don't wanna argue with everything I say, and you know what? That's enough for me.

Except that, as BJG pointed out, S2M said nothing about you, just that he didn't like the recording. He even specifically said he wasn't saying it to be negative, just voicing his opinion of the piece. YOU were the one who took it personally, and you were the one who took offence. And then you were the one who threw back unwarrented insults and belittling comments.

I think you may be the one with the personal problem. It seems to be that unless people are completely agreeing with you, you take everything they say as a personal attack. We get that you have a hard-on for Steve Perry's voice - welcome to the club! - but seriously, move beyond, find something more to talk about. Because the more you harp on, attacking anyone who does not share your opinion, then the more people are going to lose patience with you. It's very nice that you have some friends on the board; try being a little less up-tight, and you might find that you can have friends who don't always agree with you, but are friends anyway. Or do you just want a fan club?

Because when you get the loons losing patience with you, alarm bells should be ringing that maybe the problem is with your communication skills (of which listening is an important skill) and not the topic or the opinion.

I second that. Or I guess third that since BJG pointed it first.

[bluejeangirl76]

Just because you claim something is awesome does not make it fact, it makes it your opinion,

No way! Get outta here! JSS and EM are awesome, it's a fact, not just my opinion! Sorry girlfriend, just had to throw that out there and poke ya in the ribs.

You're operating on 50% fact only. JSS is awesome. EM... well maybe I haven't heard enough EM material to judge. I bet you could send me free crap though to help convince me (I'm a capitalist... LOL).

[Arianddu]

I've still never done what I would call personally attacked anyone. Not compared to some of things I've had said about me. And 90% of any negative things I've posted have been in response to something that was said to, or about me, first.

You have. More than once. To people who said nothing about you, who just have a differing opinion.

[madsplash]

I've still never done what I would call personally attacked anyone. Not compared to some of things I've had said about me. And 90% of any negative things I've posted have been in response to something that was said to, or about me, first.

You have. More than once. To people who said nothing about you, who just have a differing opinion.

Sorry, that's just not the way I see it. I guess "attacked" is a relative term. Different to me and to you, and that's OK, right?

Opinions are great and should differ. I guess when someone says"That's horrible", I need to remember that it means it's horrible to their ears, even if it's absloute fact that it's technically great. It doesn't mean that they like it. I'm just used to people saying "I really don't like that" as MOST on this post did. I again, will try and watch how I take someone's opinion.

What's funny is the fact that I think any of the few that don't care for my posts/tone/attitude, would get along really well with me in person. I'm a straight shooter and all of my friends know exactly where we stand, and I expect that of them.

I think many times emotions and intentions get lost in the translation from a person through typing and not getting the emotional reaction. I know that I make it a point to NEVER type something that I wouldn't say when talking with someone face to face. I think many others here should practice that same thing, I don't just mean insults and the tough talk that I know some wouldn't have the guts to say in person. Even just the opinions we express and the way we express them.

Again, I am what I am, and have enough people on here who like me and more than enough in my everyday life who matter to me, to get upset at a few who I don't see eye to eye with. I will keep working to try and respect others opinions and either ignore many of them, as I already do, but am not going to get baited into arguments anymore, and am going to just post on the main forum a lot less in general.

[Arianddu]

I've still never done what I would call personally attacked anyone. Not compared to some of things I've had said about me. And 90% of any negative things I've posted have been in response to something that was said to, or about me, first.

You have. More than once. To people who said nothing about you, who just have a differing opinion.

Sorry, that's just not the way I see it. I guess "attacked" is a relative term. Different to me and to you, and that's OK, right?

I have two words for you:

Double Standard.

[madsplash]

I've still never done what I would call personally attacked anyone. Not compared to some of things I've had said about me. And 90% of any negative things I've posted have been in response to something that was said to, or about me, first.

You have. More than once. To people who said nothing about you, who just have a differing opinion.

Sorry, that's just not the way I see it. I guess "attacked" is a relative term. Different to me and to you, and that's OK, right?

I have two words for you:

Double Standard.

I have two great words for also, but they wouldn't help anything. You can probably guess what they are.

Seriously,

Not a double standard. To me, attcking someone is telling you that they had sex with your deceased mother last night, which was said to me. THAT is a personal attack, not saying that if you don't think that my original post wasn't technically excellent singning that that makes you musically illiterate, well maybe that was a strong way of putting it, it does. Any trained vocalist will tell you that that performance was spot on and the difficulty level was outrageous, even if they didn't like the tempo, the arrangement, the ERA of the band, whatever.

What I said may have been a little harsh, but it sure as hell wasn't a personal attack. I think a lot of people are just a wee bit too sensitive.

Either way, this is getting old. I know how you feel, you know how I feel, let's move on. I've said I'll try to be more courteous of other's opinions. That's the best I can do, right?

[Don]

You people amuse me. Who will respond next. Everybody wants to get the last word in. Re-read your posts. Everyone is saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just copy and paste the next response.

Next up?

[Onestepper]

You people amuse me. Who will respond next. Everybody wants to get the last word in. Re-read your posts. Everyone is saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just copy and paste the next response.

Next up?

I for one will not respond again. I just hate saying the same thing over and over just to get in the last word. So to review, I won't be responding just so I can act like a cut and paste angel. Rinse and repeat.

[Rhiannon]

You people amuse me. Who will respond next. Everybody wants to get the last word in. Re-read your posts. Everyone is saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just copy and paste the next response.

Next up?

Yeooorrrrgg... thank you Sir Bot. +1.

[bluejeangirl76]

You people amuse me. Who will respond next. Everybody wants to get the last word in. Re-read your posts. Everyone is saying the same thing over and over and over and over again. Just copy and paste the next response.

Next up?

Yeooorrrrgg... thank you Sir Bot. +1.

+2. Its completely pointless, so I'm out.

[brywool]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPUFLfGmyWY&feature=related



My God, they played this song fast and SP's vocals were soaring and as good as they EVER were. What this proves is that he sang as he wanted to sing.
The theory that his voice changed after the Frontier's era stuff is now shown to be a choice by him. He could still do all of the high vocal acrobatics AND give us the more textured, big ballsy voice of the Frontiers album.

Tell me that this isn't the best live rock vocal performance you've heard. Just freakin' ridiculous! Listen to the notes he hits near the end. His voice was gone? Really?

It's all about how the man WANTS to sing. His mental state of mind may have been "toast" during the ROR tour, but we can see that his VOICE sure as hell wasn't.

It's terrible. Listen to what he does on the chorus. Doesn't sing the right note at all, but goes down to a way low note on the "Some Day Love will find you..." He started doing that in the latter part of the Frontiers tour and it just ruined the harmonies. I hate this performance and always have. I'm not sure what your deal is with Perry and constantly swinging from his sack, but you seriously need to listen to what and how he's singing. Compare this with a performance of it from the first half of the Frontiers tour. This version (I THINK this is the Philly show) is absolute crap. The band sounds like crap... oh, and you DO know why they're playing it so fast, right? They did that so that SP wouldn't have to hold notes as long. That's not conjecture, it's a fact.

If you're going to post a track and hail it, you really need to make sure it's a good track. This totally explains to me why he took time off.

Post "Still They Ride" from the Frontiers Japan tour. THAT is magic. Post Separate Ways from the show they did before they released Frontiers- That is great. THIS is an awful version.

[Arianddu]

I've still never done what I would call personally attacked anyone. Not compared to some of things I've had said about me. And 90% of any negative things I've posted have been in response to something that was said to, or about me, first.

You have. More than once. To people who said nothing about you, who just have a differing opinion.

Sorry, that's just not the way I see it. I guess "attacked" is a relative term. Different to me and to you, and that's OK, right?

I have two words for you:

Double Standard.

I have two great words for also, but they wouldn't help anything. You can probably guess what they are.

Seriously,

Not a double standard. To me, attcking someone is telling you that they had sex with your deceased mother last night, which was said to me. THAT is a personal attack, not saying that if you don't think that my original post wasn't technically excellent singning that that makes you musically illiterate, well maybe that was a strong way of putting it, it does. Any trained vocalist will tell you that that performance was spot on and the difficulty level was outrageous, even if they didn't like the tempo, the arrangement, the ERA of the band, whatever.

What I said may have been a little harsh, but it sure as hell wasn't a personal attack. I think a lot of people are just a wee bit too sensitive.

Either way, this is getting old. I know how you feel, you know how I feel, let's move on. I've said I'll try to be more courteous of other's opinions. That's the best I can do, right?

I am a trained vocalist. Your originally cited piece was not technically excellent singing. It was very flawed, and sounds like someone singing too fast, under too much pressure, straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes. It was pitched and in tune, just, but technically excellent it was not. And I am a certifiable Perry loon.

You have a double standard. When someone does not agree with your opinion, you respond as though they are attacking you personally, but when it is pointed out that you have made a personal attack on someone, you claim it is just a difference of opinion. You can't have it both ways. Go back and read the comment StocktontoMalone made, and your response. HE said nothing personal to you. YOU made a personal, insulting and unwarranted attack on him. It is not the first time you have made a similar personal attack on someone who has expressed a differing opinion. And you know the really stupid thing - S2M has stuck up for you before. He isn't one of the people who dismissed you out of hand, or made over-the-top insults, but you reacted exactly as if he was. He said the performance was horrible and it was! I hated hearing that performance, I hated hearing a great, brilliant singer under those conditions. It was horrible to hear that amazing, wonderful voice being forced into that strained performance.

As for trying to be more courteous about other people's opinions - yes, please try to do so. You might find that if you stop being so breathtakingly arrogant, you might get a little less negativity directed your way. A little humilty goes a long way.

[Deb]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPUFLfGmyWY&feature=related



My God, they played this song fast and SP's vocals were soaring and as good as they EVER were. What this proves is that he sang as he wanted to sing.
The theory that his voice changed after the Frontier's era stuff is now shown to be a choice by him. He could still do all of the high vocal acrobatics AND give us the more textured, big ballsy voice of the Frontiers album.

Tell me that this isn't the best live rock vocal performance you've heard. Just freakin' ridiculous! Listen to the notes he hits near the end. His voice was gone? Really?

It's all about how the man WANTS to sing. His mental state of mind may have been "toast" during the ROR tour, but we can see that his VOICE sure as hell wasn't.

It's terrible. Listen to what he does on the chorus. Doesn't sing the right note at all, but goes down to a way low note on the "Some Day Love will find you..." He started doing that in the latter part of the Frontiers tour and it just ruined the harmonies. I hate this performance and always have. I'm not sure what your deal is with Perry and constantly swinging from his sack, but you seriously need to listen to what and how he's singing. Compare this with a performance of it from the first half of the Frontiers tour. This version (I THINK this is the Philly show) is absolute crap. The band sounds like crap... oh, and you DO know why they're playing it so fast, right? They did that so that SP wouldn't have to hold notes as long. That's not conjecture, it's a fact.

If you're going to post a track and hail it, you really need to make sure it's a good track. This totally explains to me why he took time off.

Post "Still They Ride" from the Frontiers Japan tour. THAT is magic. Post Separate Ways from the show they did before they released Frontiers- That is great. THIS is an awful version.

Ahem.....see 4th post on second page of this thread. Get with the program, Bry!

[madsplash]

I've still never done what I would call personally attacked anyone. Not compared to some of things I've had said about me. And 90% of any negative things I've posted have been in response to something that was said to, or about me, first.

You have. More than once. To people who said nothing about you, who just have a differing opinion.

Sorry, that's just not the way I see it. I guess "attacked" is a relative term. Different to me and to you, and that's OK, right?

I have two words for you:

Double Standard.

I have two great words for also, but they wouldn't help anything. You can probably guess what they are.

Seriously,

Not a double standard. To me, attcking someone is telling you that they had sex with your deceased mother last night, which was said to me. THAT is a personal attack, not saying that if you don't think that my original post wasn't technically excellent singning that that makes you musically illiterate, well maybe that was a strong way of putting it, it does. Any trained vocalist will tell you that that performance was spot on and the difficulty level was outrageous, even if they didn't like the tempo, the arrangement, the ERA of the band, whatever.

What I said may have been a little harsh, but it sure as hell wasn't a personal attack. I think a lot of people are just a wee bit too sensitive.

Either way, this is getting old. I know how you feel, you know how I feel, let's move on. I've said I'll try to be more courteous of other's opinions. That's the best I can do, right?

I am a trained vocalist. Your originally cited piece was not technically excellent singing. It was very flawed, and sounds like someone singing too fast, under too much pressure, straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes. It was pitched and in tune, just, but technically excellent it was not. And I am a certifiable Perry loon.

You have a double standard. When someone does not agree with your opinion, you respond as though they are attacking you personally, but when it is pointed out that you have made a personal attack on someone, you claim it is just a difference of opinion. You can't have it both ways. Go back and read the comment StocktontoMalone made, and your response. HE said nothing personal to you. YOU made a personal, insulting and unwarranted attack on him. It is not the first time you have made a similar personal attack on someone who has expressed a differing opinion. And you know the really stupid thing - S2M has stuck up for you before. He isn't one of the people who dismissed you out of hand, or made over-the-top insults, but you reacted exactly as if he was. He said the performance was horrible and it was! I hated hearing that performance, I hated hearing a great, brilliant singer under those conditions. It was horrible to hear that amazing, wonderful voice being forced into that strained performance.

As for trying to be more courteous about other people's opinions - yes, please try to do so. You might find that if you stop being so breathtakingly arrogant, you might get a little less negativity directed your way. A little humilty goes a long way.

Ok, whatever you say. I'm a somewhat trianed vocalist also. It's all good. The things you say about "It was very flawed, and sounds like someone singing too fast, under too much pressure, straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes", is your OPINION. The second part of your statement " It was pitched and in tune", is FACT. And if you are a "trained vocalist" as you say, you know the difficulty of singing those notes at that tempo on pitch. That's all I was ever trying to say.

Some may prefer it at that tempo and again, it's your opinion that it's too fast, under too much pressure. straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes. The second part of your statement can be measured as a FACT with a simple electronic tuner. The other stuff can't be measured with anything other than descriptive words.

As you can see, I'm respecting your opinion, because that's what most of your statement is, your opinion.

[Gordon from Edinburgh]

Jesus Christ, it almost sounds like they're mocking the song. That was awful. Perry's singing the song in "spurts" and it comes across as if they're trying to get the song over with. I did like his singing around the 4 minute mark. The rest is garbage. The tempo sucks.

Shouty at times but better towards the end - thats what you meant yeah?

[brywool]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPUFLfGmyWY&feature=related



My God, they played this song fast and SP's vocals were soaring and as good as they EVER were. What this proves is that he sang as he wanted to sing.
The theory that his voice changed after the Frontier's era stuff is now shown to be a choice by him. He could still do all of the high vocal acrobatics AND give us the more textured, big ballsy voice of the Frontiers album.

Tell me that this isn't the best live rock vocal performance you've heard. Just freakin' ridiculous! Listen to the notes he hits near the end. His voice was gone? Really?

It's all about how the man WANTS to sing. His mental state of mind may have been "toast" during the ROR tour, but we can see that his VOICE sure as hell wasn't.

It's terrible. Listen to what he does on the chorus. Doesn't sing the right note at all, but goes down to a way low note on the "Some Day Love will find you..." He started doing that in the latter part of the Frontiers tour and it just ruined the harmonies. I hate this performance and always have. I'm not sure what your deal is with Perry and constantly swinging from his sack, but you seriously need to listen to what and how he's singing. Compare this with a performance of it from the first half of the Frontiers tour. This version (I THINK this is the Philly show) is absolute crap. The band sounds like crap... oh, and you DO know why they're playing it so fast, right? They did that so that SP wouldn't have to hold notes as long. That's not conjecture, it's a fact.

If you're going to post a track and hail it, you really need to make sure it's a good track. This totally explains to me why he took time off.

Post "Still They Ride" from the Frontiers Japan tour. THAT is magic. Post Separate Ways from the show they did before they released Frontiers- That is great. THIS is an awful version.

Ahem.....see 4th post on second page of this thread. Get with the program, Bry!

OOPS, hard to keep up! Maybe I assumed it was an Eric Martin clip?

[Arianddu]

Ok, whatever you say. I'm a somewhat trianed vocalist also. It's all good. The things you say about "It was very flawed, and sounds like someone singing too fast, under too much pressure, straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes", is your OPINION. The second part of your statement " It was pitched and in tune", is FACT. And if you are a "trained vocalist" as you say, you know the difficulty of singing those notes at that tempo on pitch. That's all I was ever trying to say.

Some may prefer it at that tempo and again, it's your opinion that it's too fast, under too much pressure. straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes. The second part of your statement can be measured as a FACT with a simple electronic tuner. The other stuff can't be measured with anything other than descriptive words.

As you can see, I'm respecting your opinion, because that's what most of your statement is, your opinion.

1. Singing too fast.
As Jeremey has pointed out before, singing a piece too fast affects your ability to maintain breath control. It has nothing to do with the aesthetics of the tempo - the piece is being sung too quickly, adversely affecting his breathing and phrasing ability. Check out 0.35 - the word 'two' is pronounced toe, towo and too. At 1.18 and 1.20 he discernably loses breath before finishing the note and is unable to take in sufficient air because of the speed.

2. Under too much pressure.
Stress and tension give singers difficulties. The two most common effects are loss of pitch control (often ascribed to 'nerves') and a tightening of the vocal chords that make purity of sound very difficult and maintaining long notes hell. From the openning phrase 'Here we stand' it is clearly discernable that he has an issue with tightened vocal chords; the tone is unmistakable. At multiple points, it obvious that he is having to force the note, rather than singing it easily and with fluidity. Check out 0.33, 0.55, 0.59, 1.16, 2.10, 2.21 for easily heard examples.

3. Straining to maintain intensity.
Listen at 1.02 - he is singing from the throat, in effect shouting in tune rather than singing. When a good singer starts doing that, it's usually down to a) difficulty maintaining good diaphragm technique, usually due to an inability to take in enough air (see point 1) and b) difficulty with overly tight or swollen vocal chords, meaning that purity of sound is sacrificed in order to stay on pitch (see point 2). Listen at 0.55 - it's particularly discernable how much he is having to strain to hit the note. And then at 1.02 you can hear his singing voice drops completely to spoken voice on the 'to survive the tide' phrase. At 1.08 'some day' is not in tune, and isn't even in speaking voice, it's a loud croak.

These aren't opinions, they are discernable facts to anyone with an ear to listen and an understanding of vocal technique. Just as factual as pitch and tuning.

And as for pitch and tuning:

From 1.09 to 1.30 he is singing below pitch. At 1.17 he's out of tune. 1.53 the note is slightly flat. 2.07 the high warble top notes are flat and horrendously strained. 2.14 he loses pitch dramatically, his voice goes right down and he then has to 'swoop' up to the note. 2.22 he avoids the high note altogether and sings down. I'd keep going, but to be honest I can't bear to keep listening.

" you know the difficulty of singing those notes at that tempo on pitch. That's all I was ever trying to say"

Yes I know the difficulty of singing those notes at that tempo and struggling to maintain pitch. The fact that Steve Perry could ever sing that song at all is one of the many reasons why he has my deepest respect as a singer. That doesn't change the fact that this was horrible to listen to. It doesn't make Perry any less of a great singer; no one can perform brilliantly under bad conditions. You stated that this was an example of technically excellent singing, and it is not. For all the technical reasons I have listed above.

The example you first gave of Steve singing this song is not the good example of vocal technique that you claim. This is much better -
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8pZzEIgQ7UI&feature=related

You need to be careful about the challenges you throw out on this board, you know. Some of us are hellishly pedantic

[madsplash]

Ok, whatever you say. I'm a somewhat trianed vocalist also. It's all good. The things you say about "It was very flawed, and sounds like someone singing too fast, under too much pressure, straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes", is your OPINION. The second part of your statement " It was pitched and in tune", is FACT. And if you are a "trained vocalist" as you say, you know the difficulty of singing those notes at that tempo on pitch. That's all I was ever trying to say.

Some may prefer it at that tempo and again, it's your opinion that it's too fast, under too much pressure. straining to maintain intensity and hit the notes. The second part of your statement can be measured as a FACT with a simple electronic tuner. The other stuff can't be measured with anything other than descriptive words.

As you can see, I'm respecting your opinion, because that's what most of your statement is, your opinion.

1. Singing too fast.
As Jeremey has pointed out before, singing a piece too fast affects your ability to maintain breath control. It has nothing to do with the aesthetics of the tempo - the piece is being sung too quickly, adversely affecting his breathing and phrasing ability. Check out 0.35 - the word 'two' is pronounced toe, towo and too. At 1.18 and 1.20 he discernably loses breath before finishing the note and is unable to take in sufficient air because of the speed.

2. Under too much pressure.
Stress and tension give singers difficulties. The two most common effects are loss of pitch control (often ascribed to 'nerves') and a tightening of the vocal chords that make purity of sound very difficult and maintaining long notes hell. From the openning phrase 'Here we stand' it is clearly discernable that he has an issue with tightened vocal chords; the tone is unmistakable. At multiple points, it obvious that he is having to force the note, rather than singing it easily and with fluidity. Check out 0.33, 0.55, 0.59, 1.16, 2.10, 2.21 for easily heard examples.

3. Straining to maintain intensity.
Listen at 1.02 - he is singing from the throat, in effect shouting in tune rather than singing. When a good singer starts doing that, it's usually down to a) difficulty maintaining good diaphragm technique, usually due to an inability to take in enough air (see point 1) and b) difficulty with overly tight or swollen vocal chords, meaning that purity of sound is sacrificed in order to stay on pitch (see point 2). Listen at 0.55 - it's particularly discernable how much he is having to strain to hit the note. And then at 1.02 you can hear his singing voice drops completely to spoken voice on the 'to survive the tide' phrase. At 1.08 'some day' is not in tune, and isn't even in speaking voice, it's a loud croak.

These aren't opinions, they are discernable facts to anyone with an ear to listen and an understanding of vocal technique. Just as factual as pitch and tuning.

And as for pitch and tuning:

From 1.09 to 1.30 he is singing below pitch. At 1.17 he's out of tune. 1.53 the note is slightly flat. 2.07 the high warble top notes are flat and horrendously strained. 2.14 he loses pitch dramatically, his voice goes right down and he then has to 'swoop' up to the note. 2.22 he avoids the high note altogether and sings down. I'd keep going, but to be honest I can't bear to keep listening.

" you know the difficulty of singing those notes at that tempo on pitch. That's all I was ever trying to say"

Yes I know the difficulty of singing those notes at that tempo and struggling to maintain pitch. The fact that Steve Perry could ever sing that song at all is one of the many reasons why he has my deepest respect as a singer. That doesn't change the fact that this was horrible to listen to. It doesn't make Perry any less of a great singer; no one can perform brilliantly under bad conditions. You stated that this was an example of technically excellent singing, and it is not. For all the technical reasons I have listed above.

The example you first gave of Steve singing this song is not the good example of vocal technique that you claim. This is much better -
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8pZzEIgQ7UI&feature=related

You need to be careful about the challenges you throw out on this board, you know. Some of us are hellishly pedantic

You've said so much here that is WRONG about this performance and about things he's doing for effect rather than the way he recorded it, I don't even have the time to go through it line for line and write a reponse.

If you took this a challenge it wasn't meant as such and I'm sorry, but in my eyes you failed it. Do you claim to have perfect pitch? I'd really like to hear you sing.

Here's the bottom line. I like this performance, although I do prefer it at a slower tempo, and you don't like it. Correct?
Would you agree that the theory that he could no longer hit the same notes pre-Frontiers, is proven wrong here? Just that only. What do you say?

[Gideon]

Absolutely horrendous. I believe Deb mentioned that the ROR-era featured Perry's finest vocal moments, and I have to agree. That said, this performance sucked. Completely and utterly. I don't know who called the shots on song tempo, but whoever did needs to have a solid kick in the balls. I realize that I might get shot for suggesting this, but I've seen several videos of JSS and Augeri doing SW better than this particular performance and Arnel kicks Perry's ass (again, on this particular performance) by miles and miles and miles ad infinitum.

But none can compare to Perry's performance on the Day on the Green videos. If anyone hasn't seen that, get your asses to Youtube and enjoy it. He really nails the "feelin' that it's gone" line there with chilling precision.

Edit: I have no idea who you are, Madsplash, nor do I intend to put words in your mouth. That said, the "lulz u r wrong but i cba to correct u" has been a tactic used for internet debating/trolling since time immemorial. You've basically just said "No, you're wrong but I don't have to tell you why you're wrong. You just are."

[WIX]

I agree his fluffy hair was the hottest ever on this tour!

[finalfight]

Just because you claim something is awesome does not make it fact, it makes it your opinion,

No way! Get outta here! JSS and EM are awesome, it's a fact, not just my opinion! Sorry girlfriend, just had to throw that out there and poke ya in the ribs.

And so the JSS/Martin bandwagon gatecrashes yet another thread!

[Deb]

Just because you claim something is awesome does not make it fact, it makes it your opinion,

No way! Get outta here! JSS and EM are awesome, it's a fact, not just my opinion! Sorry girlfriend, just had to throw that out there and poke ya in the ribs.

And so the JSS/Martin bandwagon gatecrashes yet another thread!

But of course! http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BpFjKXLQwAQ

Actually, I just made that comment jokingly to lighten the thread up a bit...............but ya I'm pretty passionate about my favorite music, LOL female version of Rip Rokken.

I've had the opportunity to see two of my faves perform together not once, not twice, but three times in the last couple years...........what are the odds, so YA............I's one happy camper!