MR

I "re-read" Herbie Herbert's interview from a few years back yesterday and it brought a few questions to mind. In the interview, HH states that SP had troubles singing the songs for the Bill Graham memorial concert and the band had to transpose them to a lower key. Then there is a paragraph that states that SP got the band together one other time after that, prior to TBF...for a rehearsal at which HH says that SP sang well and impressed the guys by singing the dirty dozen etc. This timeline seems a bit contradictory to me...what am I missing?

Couple all this information with the first-hand accounts of the TBF rehearsals / sessions at which SP definitely needed to sing some of the songs transposed down. All this makes me wonder if some days were better than others in regards to SP vocal range during this period. Also, if the band knew that the "dirty dozen" would have to be played in lower keys, why would they have been so pumped to tour again with Perry? I would think that they would be taking a serious hit to their collective "credibility" by risking things out on the road like that.

Thoughts?

Tomulator wrote:I "re-read" Herbie Herbert's interview from a few years back yesterday and it brought a few questions to mind. In the interview, HH states that SP had troubles singing the songs for the Bill Graham memorial concert and the band had to transpose them to a lower key. Then there is a paragraph that states that SP got the band together one other time after that, prior to TBF...for a rehearsal at which HH says that SP sang well and impressed the guys by singing the dirty dozen etc. This timeline seems a bit contradictory to me...what am I missing?

Couple all this information with the first-hand accounts of the TBF rehearsals / sessions at which SP definitely needed to sing some of the songs transposed down. All this makes me wonder if some days were better than others in regards to SP vocal range during this period. Also, if the band knew that the "dirty dozen" would have to be played in lower keys, why would they have been so pumped to tour again with Perry? I would think that they would be taking a serious hit to their collective "credibility" by risking things out on the road like that.

Well, take a listen to any of the boots from Perry's "For the Love of Strange Medicine Tour". I haven't listened that closely to them to really tell if the keys were lowered but, if so, the songs didn't suffer much if at all. They all sound great they way the were played/sung. Anyway, for the Bill Graham tribute, I don't think Perry had been singing much between the end of the ROR tour and that show, so his voice probably wasn't in that great of shape at that point. By the time that the TBF album and tour were nearing, Perry had already been singing for a while and, yes, some days can be better than others as far as vocal performance goes. So, in my opinion, it probably had more to do with Perry getting back in gear as far as singing on a regular or semi-regular basis.

I don't see what the prob is about transposing songs down a little bit. And sometimes all it takes is a semi-tone or a tone down to make it more comfy for a singer who's voice has changed over time.
Far better that than to hear a singer struggling to sound good in the original key?
I would have thought so anyway.
And if the singer's voice sounds good in the lower key - would the audience really mind? Or even notice, if the down was only slight?

Also, regarding breaks in singing and the effect on the voice.
It does get 'rusty' when it's not used.

I had an accident - I won't go into detail, its not really relevant - but it took me two years in total to get back to fitness. I couldn't gig for that time [I am a pro singer] because of my injuries, I could only do vocal warm up's.
When I eased myself back into work, my voice was nowhere near as good as it was before the accident.
It took ages to get it back to it's peak.

And even when there hasn't been a period of being off the road like that, the voice gets better when used more.[Not overuse, of course] - what I mean is, I do on average three gigs each week to make my living. My voice always sounds better after the first gig.
Does that make sense?

SusieP wrote:And even when there hasn't been a period of being off the road like that, the voice gets better when used more.[Not overuse, of course] - what I mean is, I do on average three gigs each week to make my living. My voice always sounds better after the first gig.
Does that make sense?

Of course you make sense!
I believe the human voice is just like a muscle,the more you "flex" it the more it stays in shape.Just like if you don't exercise for a long time,the muscles get limp,the body lacks strenght.

You're right about the voice getting better after one or two shows.I've heard many singers saying that,they described it like a "layer of rust" being lifted off,leaving the voice shiny and smooth.

Exercise is everything.


Btw,Susie,I also agree with your previous post...Toning down the songs for voice comfort purposes is OK.Better a singer who can deliver it than one who would struggle like hell and shred his voice.
Speaking of Perry,I really didn't mind hearing Lights and Faithfully lowered at the BG Tribute...In my ears they sounded great,it was Journey all the way,same guitar tone,same soulful voice - where's the problem?

Same with the Journey songs he did during the FTLOSM Tour - he had an amazing power in his voice and although he had moments when he struggled a bit on the high notes,all in all it was obvious that he felt really comfortable singing them that way.

Shania wrote:

SusieP wrote:And even when there hasn't been a period of being off the road like that, the voice gets better when used more.[Not overuse, of course] - what I mean is, I do on average three gigs each week to make my living. My voice always sounds better after the first gig.
Does that make sense?

Of course you make sense!
I believe the human voice is just like a muscle,the more you "flex" it the more it stays in shape.Just like if you don't exercise for a long time,the muscles get limp,the body lacks strenght.

You're right about the voice getting better after one or two shows.I've heard many singers saying that,they described it like a "layer of rust" being lifted off,leaving the voice shiny and smooth.

Exercise is everything.


Btw,Susie,I also agree with your previous post...Toning down the songs for voice comfort purposes is OK.Better a singer who can deliver it than one who would struggle like hell and shred his voice.
Speaking of Perry,I really didn't mind hearing Lights and Faithfully lowered at the BG Tribute...In my ears they sounded great,it was Journey all the way,same guitar tone,same soulful voice - where's the problem?

Same with the Journey songs he did during the FTLOSM Tour - he had an amazing power in his voice and although he had moments when he struggled a bit on the high notes,all in all it was obvious that he felt really comfortable singing them that way.

That's it - if he had to transpose them down a bit and still sounded good, that proves my point. And he does sound good lower. Soulful and still powerful.


In my present show, we do a lot of 80's covers - because we get booked in places where people want to dance, they love 80's music and we have to give them what they want. Well, if we want to get booked again, that is.

We got several requests over time for 'The Only Way Is Up' by Yazz. Maybe you remember it?
Well the original key is in C#[sharp] - and WAY out of my range, I'm an alto and sound squawky that high, so we transposed it right down to G. Where I can sing it well.
And I can honestly say I don't think anybody even noticed, they are so busy singing along to the chorus and dancing that they just hear the song they like, not the key it's sung in.

I think that fans like we get on MR WOULD notice the key change, because we are all avid fans, but I do think that after geting used to the change, it would be acceptable.

The Journey high notes are buggers to hit night after night on tour and a change down by just a bit could make all the difference - long term- to the lead singer. IMO of course.

SusieP wrote:That's it - if he had to transpose them down a bit and still sounded good, that proves my point. And he does sound good lower. Soulful and still powerful.


In my present show, we do a lot of 80's covers - because we get booked in places where people want to dance, they love 80's music and we have to give them what they want. Well, if we want to get booked again, that is.

We got several requests over time for 'The Only Way Is Up' by Yazz. Maybe you remember it?
Well the original key is in C#[sharp] - and WAY out of my range, I'm an alto and sound squawky that high, so we transposed it right down to G. Where I can sing it well.
And I can honestly say I don't think anybody even noticed, they are so busy singing along to the chorus and dancing that they just hear the song they like, not the key it's sung in.

I think that fans like we get on MR WOULD notice the key change, because we are all avid fans, but I do think that after geting used to the change, it would be acceptable.

The Journey high notes are buggers to hit night after night on tour and a change down by just a bit could make all the difference - long term- to the lead singer. IMO of course.

Excellent points!

LOL,I remember that Yazz song! (now it's playing in my mind,thanks )
I'm sure people in the audience don't notice,nor they care - they come to the shows to have fun,not to analyze.
The Journey fans (on MR),tho...that's another story,LOL!

You know,about the songs being lowered...I believe that a singer who is covering someone elses songs must find the right key suited for his/her voice if the range of the original singer is something he/she cannot cover.
But if the singer tones down his OWN songs,I don't see a problem,even if it's somewhat noticeable.It IS acceptable.

Ultimately,it's the same singer,the same song,the same feeling...At least that's what I hear.

The Grahm tribute tracks can be found among other places on a double disc compilation called "Rareities" (boot) if you can get yer hands on it.

That's not a GREAT performance, but it's an extremely cool posterity piece for what it is.

Red13JoePa wrote:The Grahm tribute tracks can be found among other places on a double disc compilation called "Rareities" (boot) if you can get yer hands on it.

That's not a GREAT performance, but it's an extremely cool posterity piece for what it is.

I've got the video for the "Lights" performance. I've always rather enjoyed it though it was obvious the crowd wasn't into it and Perry's voice was quite scratchy. It's good for what it is, a one-off performance at the time.

I've never understood all the hoopla about the songs having to be sung in their original key. The songs and the vocals are so much more than the high notes to me.

Red13JoePa wrote:The Grahm tribute tracks can be found among other places on a double disc compilation called "Rareities" (boot) if you can get yer hands on it.

That's not a GREAT performance, but it's an extremely cool posterity piece for what it is.

Thanks - but I'm not one of those people who has to own absolutely every CD release.

You say the performance wasn't GREAT, just imagine what it would have sounded like if he had been straining to reach notes he was no longer capable of reaching. Maybe that would have been less 'not great.'

Hell, I don't know what he sounded like, 'cos I wasn't there, but I know what I sound like when I'm learning a new song - until I get it the right key for me, that is.
Makes a cat's chorus sound nice.

ohsherrie wrote:I've never understood all the hoopla about the songs having to be sung in their original key. The songs and the vocals are so much more than the high notes to me.

I think the occasion itself dictated the stripped-backness as much as the shape of p's atrophied vox.

conversationpc wrote:

Red13JoePa wrote:The Grahm tribute tracks can be found among other places on a double disc compilation called "Rareities" (boot) if you can get yer hands on it.

That's not a GREAT performance, but it's an extremely cool posterity piece for what it is.

I've got the video for the "Lights" performance. I've always rather enjoyed it though it was obvious the crowd wasn't into it and Perry's voice was quite scratchy. It's good for what it is, a one-off performance at the time.

Its tough because the audience know him singing the songs in the higher keys so well, must have been weird hearing him sound 'different' - I can understand that, of course its not a problem for little old me because I never sang to stadium sized crowds or sold albums.

But he probably sounded scratchy because he was 'rusty', not because of the key change. I bet after several performances of the songs he sang that day, the scratchiness would probably have gone.

Tomulator wrote: Also, if the band knew that the "dirty dozen" would have to be played in lower keys, why would they have been so pumped to tour again with Perry? I would think that they would be taking a serious hit to their collective "credibility" by risking things out on the road like that.

Thoughts?

Maybe it would have been a more serious 'hit to their credibility' having someone continue to sing the songs high regardless of what damage was being done to their voice.
And no I'm NOT dragging that lipping thing back into things again really, BUT when discussing something like this, it's bound to be in everyone's mind,
but,
Having a singer sing them high badly [after vocal damage has been done] or singing them lower well [and preventing vocal damage or further vocal damage?] Surely the singing them lower and singingthem well is abetter choice?

I mean how bad can these songs be when transposed down a bit? Why not credible any longer?
They are fantastic songs.
I don't think a little drop down would change the status of the song.

And I'd bet ANY singer who has had to 'hang up their mic' might wish they had transposed down a little bit.

Please don't turn this into a fighting thread, let's keep it calm. Please?

I agree completely with everything you're saying Susie. I don't think have Perry sing the songs in a slightly lower key would have been a risk to the credibility of the band or the songs. In fact, having any other singer sing them was a much bigger risk because the signature vocal sound of Journey has a lot more to do with Perry's unique vocal ability than the key he sang in.

ohsherrie wrote:I agree completely with everything you're saying Susie. I don't think have Perry sing the songs in a slightly lower key would have been a risk to the credibility of the band or the songs. In fact, having any other singer sing them was a much bigger risk because the signature vocal sound of Journey has a lot more to do with Perry's unique vocal ability than the key he sang in.

True.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing.

ohsherrie wrote:I agree completely with everything you're saying Susie. I don't think have Perry sing the songs in a slightly lower key would have been a risk to the credibility of the band or the songs. In fact, having any other singer sing them was a much bigger risk because the signature vocal sound of Journey has a lot more to do with Perry's unique vocal ability than the key he sang in.

On some songs, it would barely be noticeable to transpose them down. I don't know much music theory but that's the way it works. Rush has brought some of their songs down a key or two but one it doesn't work for, in my opinion is "2112". That one sounds horrible in a lower key, in my opinion.

conversationpc wrote:

ohsherrie wrote:I agree completely with everything you're saying Susie. I don't think have Perry sing the songs in a slightly lower key would have been a risk to the credibility of the band or the songs. In fact, having any other singer sing them was a much bigger risk because the signature vocal sound of Journey has a lot more to do with Perry's unique vocal ability than the key he sang in.

On some songs, it would barely be noticeable to transpose them down. I don't know much music theory but that's the way it works. Rush has brought some of their songs down a key or two but one it doesn't work for, in my opinion is "2112". That one sounds horrible in a lower key, in my opinion.

Fair enough.
I'm not an expert either, I just know that when a new song is suggested for my Act, it is always played in the original key at first, and if it's too high for me to sound nice singing it, I have it knocked down a semi tone, a tone or maybe a bit more until it's ok for me.
But like most things, sometimes if you alter it TOO much it just doesn't work.
I'm not familiar with that Rush song you mentioned, but maybe thats what happened there, they changed it down TOO far and it just didn't work?

I've found that just a little change is enough to do the trick.

I wanna hear that horrible song in the lower key now.

SusieP wrote:I'm not familiar with that Rush song you mentioned, but maybe thats what happened there, they changed it down TOO far and it just didn't work?

I've found that just a little change is enough to do the trick.

I wanna hear that horrible song in the lower key now.

Some of the vocals on "2112" are extremely high for a male voice and Geddy Lee's vocals from the 70s are certainly much more on the "screechy" side than they are now. Listen to the original and then the live version from their late 90s live album "Different Stages". Big difference.

conversationpc wrote:

SusieP wrote:I'm not familiar with that Rush song you mentioned, but maybe thats what happened there, they changed it down TOO far and it just didn't work?

I've found that just a little change is enough to do the trick.

I wanna hear that horrible song in the lower key now.

Some of the vocals on "2112" are extremely high for a male voice and Geddy Lee's vocals from the 70s are certainly much more on the "screechy" side than they are now. Listen to the original and then the live version from their late 90s live album "Different Stages". Big difference.

Any links to the songs, please?
Geddy Lee's voice never really appealed to me, sorry, so I'm only familiar with the most commercial stuff. He had an 'unusual' voice, I would say. Unique, even.

SusieP wrote:Any links to the songs, please?
Geddy Lee's voice never really appealed to me, sorry, so I'm only familiar with the most commercial stuff. He had an 'unusual' voice, I would say. Unique, even.

Here's a live cut from 1976...It isn't the entire song but the portion that most people have heard on the radio. The vocals don't start until over 4 minutes into the 6+ minute tune...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm08ZO9fZqw

Here's basically the same song from "Rush in Rio", which is from 2003. Geddy still has trouble with the song even though it's obviously lower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPMT-2p8NBU

i honestly cant tell by ear if a song is tuned down.. lots of bands only play in Eb.. thats a half step down .. i think the Lights from bill graham was just played in Am from Bm.. thats 1 whole step... i bet with a full band ect.. you could never tell it......

i dont see a difference in tuning down a bit or playing in a different key..

remember though, Soto tried it in England and did not like it,, so they went back to standard tuning...

LarryFromNextDoor wrote:remember though, Soto tried it in England and did not like it,, so they went back to standard tuning...

Well it's all about ease and comfort, so if he didn't feel comfortable, fair enough.

conversationpc wrote:

SusieP wrote:Any links to the songs, please?
Geddy Lee's voice never really appealed to me, sorry, so I'm only familiar with the most commercial stuff. He had an 'unusual' voice, I would say. Unique, even.

Here's a live cut from 1976...It isn't the entire song but the portion that most people have heard on the radio. The vocals don't start until over 4 minutes into the 6+ minute tune...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm08ZO9fZqw

Here's basically the same song from "Rush in Rio", which is from 2003. Geddy still has trouble with the song even though it's obviously lower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPMT-2p8NBU

Thanks for the links. I wouldn't have known where to start, not being a fan.

Both sound uncomfortably high to me. But ignore me, I never 'got' his voice no matter what key he's singing in.
I'm in the minority looking at that crowd, however!
I loved the aerial shots of that drumkit on the latter link, though! WOW!

Thanks.

SusieP wrote:Thanks for the links. I wouldn't have known where to start, not being a fan.

Both sound uncomfortably high to me. But ignore me, I never 'got' his voice no matter what key he's singing in.
I'm in the minority looking at that crowd, however!
I loved the aerial shots of that drumkit on the latter link, though! WOW!

Thanks.

If that first link is from the show I think it's from, Geddy was actually suffering from a pretty severe cold, flu, or something like that. His voice was a little screechier than normal. I've always thought he sounded like an older brother of "The Chipmunks", if you're familiar with that old cartoon show.

Speaking of shots of the drumkit in that latter show, one of my favorites is during the song YYZ where they have a shot from just above and behind the drumit and it pans out into the audience and everyone in the audience is jumping up and down in unison to the music. It's an awesome shot and one of the biggest crowds they've ever played to.

conversationpc wrote:

SusieP wrote:Thanks for the links. I wouldn't have known where to start, not being a fan.

Both sound uncomfortably high to me. But ignore me, I never 'got' his voice no matter what key he's singing in.
I'm in the minority looking at that crowd, however!
I loved the aerial shots of that drumkit on the latter link, though! WOW!

Thanks.

If that first link is from the show I think it's from, Geddy was actually suffering from a pretty severe cold, flu, or something like that. His voice was a little screechier than normal. I've always thought he sounded like an older brother of "The Chipmunks", if you're familiar with that old cartoon show.

Speaking of shots of the drumkit in that latter show, one of my favorites is during the song YYZ where they have a shot from just above and behind the drumit and it pans out into the audience and everyone in the audience is jumping up and down in unison to the music. It's an awesome shot and one of the biggest crowds they've ever played to.

I remember Alvin and the Chipmunks. Had a Christmas album when I was tiny.
Then I discovered rock and it was 'ba bye Chipmunks.'

When I was growing up, Rush were more popular with boys than girls. Dunno why?
So they passed me by a little, really.
I was into Journey, Queen, Thin Lizzy, Eagles [and Boston a bit].
The guys were into Rush, Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, AC/DC. I heard some of this stuff and liked some bits, but I'm not really into them.
I like drumkits, though!
And good drummers, really good drummers.
That guy in Deep Purple is a pretty good technician, and don't laugh but the guy from Blondie - Clem Burke. Thought he was good.
And Stewart Copeland too.
See what you've done to me showing that clip with the mega drum kit???
I'm away now.......

conversationpc wrote:I've got the video for the "Lights" performance. I've always rather enjoyed it though it was obvious the crowd wasn't into it.

The crowd was made up of 500,000 stoned, flea-infested Deadheads who were there to see the Grateful Dead. They were clueless as to who Journey were which is why it seems the crowd wasn't into it. Cyndy and I were there and had to "de-flea" ourselves after the show.

Lora wrote:

conversationpc wrote:I've got the video for the "Lights" performance. I've always rather enjoyed it though it was obvious the crowd wasn't into it.

The crowd was made up of 500,000 stoned, flea-infested Deadheads who were there to see the Grateful Dead. They were clueless as to who Journey were which is why it seems the crowd wasn't into it. Cyndy and I were there and had to "de-flea" ourselves after the show.

LOL! I wondered about that. There were some people who seemed in to it, but others.... Eh, not so much. Maybe they were scratching their fleas?

Lora wrote:

conversationpc wrote:I've got the video for the "Lights" performance. I've always rather enjoyed it though it was obvious the crowd wasn't into it.

The crowd was made up of 500,000 stoned, flea-infested Deadheads who were there to see the Grateful Dead. They were clueless as to who Journey were which is why it seems the crowd wasn't into it. Cyndy and I were there and had to "de-flea" ourselves after the show.

......de-flea!!!

Lora wrote:The crowd was made up of 500,000 stoned, flea-infested Deadheads who were there to see the Grateful Dead. They were clueless as to who Journey were which is why it seems the crowd wasn't into it. Cyndy and I were there and had to "de-flea" ourselves after the show.

LOL, gotta hate that!

Tomulator......I love your avatar, how cute!