Ringo's voice is now better than Paul's
- Thread starter teleman1
- Start date
Boreas
Doctor of Teleocity
Haven't spoken with either lately...
memorex
Poster Extraordinaire
Paul's been screaming his lungs out for decades. As a result, he probably has a lot of scar tissue built up on his vocal cords. Ringo, on the other hand, never abused his voice, so it hasn't degraded as much over the years. But that's not necessarily saying much.
57joonya
Tele-Afflicted
It’s not too straining on the vocal chords to sing “no no no please it only makes me sneeze” lol . I think they’re both great.
It don't come easy.
^^^^^^^^^
Certainly a good point, one of which I started to follow. I am finally realizing that I can’t sing every song in the same key I did 20 years ago.
Case in point: I was singing an old Eagle’s song a couple weeks ago, and my wife (read vocal coach) said that it sounded like I was straining.
Last edited:
I have been a Paul superfan since 1964. Pauls voice is no where near his 30 year old voice or his 2000 voice. Ringo is still pulling his voice out from 40 years ago and he is still a good drummer. Paul is still a great musical, but man, his voice has faltered.
Paul called me the other day asked, "what do you mean"?
When I saw Ringo live maybe 10 years ago he had dropped the keys on the Beatles songs I knew about two steps. I remember mimicking "They're gonna put me in the movies" in the lowest voice I could muster. As mentioned, Paul keeps to the original keys and would probably benefit from knocking it down a half step. Hell, I did starting when I turned 40!
McCartney had a good voice when young, always sang in tune and had good dynamics. However the style of his songs weren't my favorite. He's almost 80 now and from what I've heard his singing voice has declined. So I wouldn't be going to see him sing anymore. Ringo? No jus no.
Moi aussi...big fan of the Fabs. Saw Macca twice in the 90's and I thought then that his voice was struggling. He should've dropped the keys back in the 80's...and possibly his voice would've lasted longer. Alas he didn't...and it hasn't. You can't fault the shows....but what I've seen on TV and Youtube his voice is dire. As for Ringo...well Ringo wasn't one of 'the' singers in The Beatles. He can carry a tune....and by dropping the keys of 'his' Beatles songs he's lasted the test of time. I wonder if George and John were alive and still gigging would they have dropped the keys to their songs ?
McCartney is one my musical heroes and had one of the greatest voices in pop music, but, man, it pains me to listen to what the years have done. Even if he dropped his songs down a full step he would still have "old man warble" on his crooner tunes. He can still bring it on the screamers though, albeit with limited top end range.
Still, he's more than earned the right to continue entertaining as long as he likes. No one can touch his stellar career output. Carry on, Sir Paul.
Still, he's more than earned the right to continue entertaining as long as he likes. No one can touch his stellar career output. Carry on, Sir Paul.
TheCheapGuitarist
Tele-Afflicted
It might be time for him to bring the key into a comfortable level.
radiocaster
Doctor of Teleocity
I always preferred Ringo's solo stuff.
gmann
Friend of Leo's
To be fair, Ringo’s songs have no range. I’m sure Paul could sing them easily.
This. Ringo has always made the most of his limited range and I love him to death, but i don’t want to hear him sing “Maybe I’m Amazed”.
I've always liked Ringo's voice. It's got that cool spoken / sung thing going on like Hoyt Axton or Johnny Cash. Easy to identify and easy to understand. Great for delivering a message. Paul was always more of a "pop" singer which requires a much wider range and age reduces a singers range. Paul's no where near as good as he was 45 years ago but that's to be expected. Considering Paul's age I think he's doing an excellent job. The single Ringo recently released is also a very very cool song.
Similar threads
