[efpg0708]

What do you think the music output would be today ?

I personally think that the current state of Jon's voice poses a strong limitation on what he writes. It's very hard to write a "hard rock" song without the voice drive to carry the chorus to a new level. The perfect example is Bullet: there's a nice buildup before the chorus, yet the chorus fails miserably.

On the other hand, there's inspiration (or lack of). I don't expect Jon to write another Bad Medicine or Bad Name at his age. And even when you consider fantastic songwriters who still have a good part of their vocal abilities intact (Paul, Steven Tyler ...), they haven't released anything that stands up to their old material in ages ...

Please, this isn't another "what happened to Jon's voice thread" !!

Cheers

Eduardo

[liljovi93]

Whilst Jon's voice has an impact, I think it's production that is stopping us having a rock album too. Sometimes the songs just sound a mess when they try to sound 'rocky.'

Kings Of Leon (to name a band) can do a few rock songs without having incredible high notes or fantastic sounding vocals. It's not just JBJs vocals stopping the songs from being rock.

I just don't think Jon wants to do an album that's like that anymore for some reason. I find it strange because when they play a rocky upbeat song at the shows, that's when he looks like he enjoys himself more.

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk

[Nige]

Honestly I don't think it would have made very much difference to the album output, just the live shows.

[jazzsta]

I agree that since "The Circle", Jon's studio voice is clearly restrained.

Songs like "Brokenpromiseland" would be way cooler if the lead vocal was more versatile and loose like it was in earlier records.

Come to think of it, even in "Everybody's Brokiiiin" , this nasal style kills the chorus. Imagine even a 1997 Jon singing this, it would have been several levels more pleasant.


But I think the choice of style for the latest recordings has a lot more factors than just his voice. To continue highlighting '97, check out August 7, 4:15. It is quite a rocker with a low key voice. Or "Radio Saved My Life Tonight", on the live version he sings octave lower in the chorus and still it rocks..

But I personally don't have the complaint about "rock" songs. I rather have the complain about "rock" spirit... Or .. more "soul". I Will Drive You Home is one of the songs that stand out for me from the last record. It's not "rock".

[rolo_tomachi]

His voice, at least in the studio, is not a problem. I think the only thing he should do is make different songs, because let's be honest, everything sounds the same for 10 years, and that sucks.

A more rock sound, will not hurt, come on Jon.

[jovifan93]

Originally Posted by jazzsta

I agree that since "The Circle", Jon's studio voice is clearly restrained.

Songs like "Brokenpromiseland" would be way cooler if the lead vocal was more versatile and loose like it was in earlier records.

Come to think of it, even in "Everybody's Brokiiiin" , this nasal style kills the chorus. Imagine even a 1997 Jon singing this, it would have been several levels more pleasant.


But I think the choice of style for the latest recordings has a lot more factors than just his voice. To continue highlighting '97, check out August 7, 4:15. It is quite a rocker with a low key voice. Or "Radio Saved My Life Tonight", on the live version he sings octave lower in the chorus and still it rocks..

But I personally don't have the complaint about "rock" songs. I rather have the complain about "rock" spirit... Or .. more "soul". I Will Drive You Home is one of the songs that stand out for me from the last record. It's not "rock".

I'd have to disagree about Radio, because that lower octave is exactly what takes all the punch out of the song, but otherwise: yeah.

[polevka]

A smaller range certainly has an influence to the writing because one tends to write what one can sing. However, it is not clear to me how much of a smaller range Jon has. When the voice gets lower it doesn't need to influence the range.
Topics chosen (God Bless This Mess) and production styles chosen (to cover weaknesses in the singing) are more connected with how the person experiences his/her vocal decline than the effective limitations. But there are many other reasons for making certain choices. So I'd say there is an influence but a minor one.

Maybe the influence on the listener's experience is bigger. Forced singing just doesn't sound great. The same melody in a lower key may have less impact, because higher tones stand out more. A lack of power in the voice also doesn't work so well with certain types of songs (Maybe Jon still writes to less for his nowadays voice, so maybe the influence of the vocal limitations into the songwriting should even be bigger?).

Just some thoughts of mine.

[rocknation]

It certainly didn't help that Jon lost Richie's voice as well.

[Bleedingguitar]

More than anything it would have affected Jon's motivation and inspiration to create new music.

Imagine being able to sing like he did in the 80s and 90s. What a gift!
Obviously you want to share that with the world, you want to write rocking songs, and you want to go out there every night and wow the crowd.

And then you have that gift taken away from you! You not only lose your vocal range, you also lose your tone, and you cannot even pronounce words properly anymore. Obviously when you lose your ability you don't feel like rocking.

[Rdkopper]

I think most of you are mixing up the difference between writing and arrangements...

I've always questioned... are we getting the TLFR versions of great songs if they were rearranged and sang the way Jon did in the 80s and 90s???

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk