What a difference...

BuffaloBJgirl · #**131** 11-20-2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesyjames

On Crush things sorta fell apart for me. It's like he decided to start pushing everything through his nose and it's grating. The "rasp" in his voice made every performance sound like he had a bad cold. I genuinely think he was having problems with his voice through out much of the Crush tour. I've heard a bunch of live performances and, at times, things are really bad. Two televised performances that come to mind are the Crush DVD(listened to "I'll Be There For You" lately on there?) and VH1 Storytellers. On the OWN tour things improved, which to me suggests a *problem* that got fixed.

With Bounce, I think his voice took a step in the right direction. Less nasality, more depth. His rasp started sounding less like a "cold" and more like a singer's inflection. He never really stretches his voice on this CD, but he sings the songs well. That's fine by me. Also, I felt his vocals on the "Bounce" tour were leaps and bounds ahead of where he was at with the Crush tour. I personally witnessed some really good performances. No, he didn't break any windows with high notes, but there was a lot passion, emotion, and range. He sounded good.

Now, with TLFR I think he sounds better than he did on Bounce. I'm not sure if that's the producer's influence or not, but just listen to how clear he sounds on "It's My Life" or the emotion conveyed in "Bed of Roses." You may not like the arrangements of the songs, but from a singer's perspective he sounds really good, especially for him and how he's been sounding on recent past albums. Sure, he might not be able to perfectly scream out the "wanted" parts, but overall he sounds pretty good. I think he found a style that suits his voice in its current state and the effect is great.

I really agree with you on this. As much as I like Crush I love Bounce better because his voice is clearer and this continues onto the new album. I noticed on VH1 Storytellers that he was really nasal and I thought it was just me cuz nobody said anything about it (or if they posted anything I didn't see it). He doesn't seem to have that now. He may have had some sinus problems since he does have terrible allergies. Who knows! We can only speculate but it seems to be corrected. I do think his voice is better today than when Crush came out. And as much as a lot of folks would like him to scream out those high notes he did back in the 80's & 90's, I would much rather hear the deeper more nature voice that he has now.

ponrauil · #**132** 11-20-2003, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBJgirl

And as much as a lot of folks would like him to scream out those high notes he did back in the 80's & 90's, I would much rather hear the deeper more nature voice that he has now.

It's not just about the high notes, it's also about power and "natural" rather than "acted" singing.

Ponrauil

BuffaloBJgirl · #**133** 11-21-2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponrauil

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBJgirl

And as much as a lot of folks would like him to scream out those high notes he did back in the 80's & 90's, I would much rather hear the deeper more nature voice that he has now.

It's not just about the high notes, it's also about power and "natural" rather than "acted" singing.

Ponrauil

I agree about the lack of power. I don't think he will ever be a theatrical singer cuz he has no projection. In thinking back except for the screams I don't think he really had a lot of power to his voice. If you notice he just about swallows the microphone when he sings but you can hear Richie several inches back from the mic. As for the "acted" singing - I just don't see that but then again that my opinion.

ponrauil · #**134** 11-21-2003, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBJgirl

As for the "acted" singing - I just don't see that but then again that my opinion.

I couldn't find another word. What i meant by that is that up to These Days he seemed to sort of let himself go naturally along with the music when now he seems to try to "illustrate" it and "play" every word he sings.

Ponrauil

BuffaloBJgirl · #**135** 11-21-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponrauil

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBJgirl

As for the "acted" singing - I just don't see that but then again that my opinion.

I couldn't find another word. What i meant by that is that up to These Days he seemed to sort of let himself go naturally along with the music when now he seems to try to "illustrate" it and "play" every word he sings.

Ponrauil

Oh! Now I understand.

Yeah he did do that on the Bounce tour especially when he was singing "Right Side of Wrong" - LOL! He did that in Detroit in February and I actually laughed! I think he gets bored & doesn't know what to do with himself when Richie has a solo part and Jon doesn't have a guitar in his hand to keep himself busy!

ponrauil · #**136** 11-22-2003, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBJgirl

Oh! Now I understand.

Yeah he did do that on the Bounce tour especially when he was singing "Right Side of Wrong" - LOL! He did that in Detroit in February and I actually laughed! I think he gets bored & doesn't know what to do with himself when Richie has a solo part and Jon doesn't have a guitar in his hand to keep himself busy!

Maybe that's why there are hardly any solos in the last albums... So Jon doesn't get bored on stage...

I think Jon thinks too much now about how he should move and sing and that may make him feel like he's at work rather than having fun.
With Richie staying behind his mic all the time, except for solos that are slowly disappearing, and Hugh that has glue on the soles of his shoes, the front part of the stage doesn't communicate that much fun anymore.
Remember how Richie and Alec used to move and/or headbang? They were really letting themselves go with the music. I'm sure they could still do it, if not as much at least from time to time. And 80% of the songs are still the same, so it really means the songs don't have the same effect on them as they used to. So why still play them if it gets them bored and forces them to "act" as a rock band? For the fans? I for one want to see them having a blast on stage and communicate it to the crowd. To me it's one of the reasons that made this band a great live act, it's one of their basics, as we talked about in earlier posts, that they must settle back on.

Ponrauil

BuffaloBJgirl · #**137** 11-22-2003, 04:33 AM

[quote="ponrauil"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBJgirl

Remember how Richie and Alec used to move and/or headbang?

Trust me when I say this - headbanging over the age of 40 is not a very good thing! Been there - done that & spent a painful week with a heating pad - LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponrauil

I for one want to see them having a blast on stage and communicate it to the crowd.

I think it's all in the moment. I don't know if you were at Giant's this last time but those guys had a blast on stage especially the first night in the rain. They were like a bunch of kids playing in puddles. In fact, several times Jon would jump in one of the puddles on stage and water would be flying everywhere.

He even wacked Richie on the butt & left a wet hand print that was pretty noticeable when Richie turned his back to us.

I agree though that these instances are few & far between. I think after working so hard all those years to get on top that maybe they do want to rest on their laurels and not have to work it so hard. They still are an incredible live act. I've only been disappointed once in all the years and it was at an Ottawa concert. Jon was sick as a dog but still went out there and gave the best performance that he could. Otherwise, I've enjoyed each & every concert I've seen.

ponrauil · #**138** 11-22-2003, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBJgirl

I agree though that these instances are few & far between. I think after working so hard all those years to get on top that maybe they do want to rest on their laurels and not have to work it so hard. They still are an incredible live act.

They skipped France on the last "European" tour

so I didn't see them this time round (I've been on this side of the Atlantic since after the end of the tour), but I believe you, and many others, when you say they still are great live. I've seen them in Paris in 2001, it was a great show, (but 1996 was even better

).

I believe, and understand, that they might feel like resting on their laurels, but I think that the energy they lost (in my opinion) is also due to the new songs. However good they might be, they are not built to inspire special moments live like Blood on blood, Dry County or These Days are.
Songs like these were written through real inspiration when the new ones seem like standard products put out by professionals. Like Everyday sounds like a Best Of album of arena anthems condensed in one song, "put a little of this here, a little of that there...", it's a Bon Jovi product, not a Bon Jovi song. Same goes for most of the Bounce record.

And I sence they are starting to turn their shows into Bon Jovi products rather than keep on giving Bon Jovi concerts. That's a too safe attitude for them to stay on top.

Ponrauil

What a difference...

General BJ Discussion