Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton John
lol well of course his voice sounds good with puscifer. The songs are very easy to sing and catered to his voice perfectly. He takes no chances with his voice on puscifer.
Maynard still has my favorite vocal tone and can still sing very good as long as the song is right in his range. But to say that his voice is still as technically compelling as it was in the 90s is to show everyone how much of a fanboy certain tool fans can be.
He cant sing like he used to...period. You cant argue this. Look up his attempts at pushit and opiate in 2006 and there is your objective proof =). Hell, listen to how he sings the chorus's to stinkfist and 46&2. You can tell that he is struggling...so dont give me the "he just changed up the melody" because it is very transparent that he is altering the melodies so he can sing them still.
He has lost his vocal power...but he is only human and like i have said, it is impossible to sing the way he did in the 90s and push yourself vocally to that limit and not have voice problems down the road.
|
Damn.. I hate to say this, but there was a time when I would have hated you for saying what you just said. I mean, Tool is hands down my favorite band, and I respect their musicianship in every way; dissecting their rhythyms, digesting the lyrical content, and holding, in utmost respect, their place in music history. I always will, and hearing your words grates against my soul because of the special place this band has in my heart.
Unfortunately, I expected the "he's changed so the way he sings changed" defense. I'm not saying this couldn't be right, I'm just saying that hearing this as the reason his voice doesn't punch through the mix... well, that excuse runs a little thin over time.
I would love for this to not be the case, but it seems we're asking a lot for there to be a truly audible and coherent vocal presence in Tool's music these days. I have hours and hours of recordings from nearly all the years they've played. It's tough for me to say this, but you'll see a definite difference in vocal capability, not style, in recent years. Maynard's style has ALWAYS been to blend in with the music, that's what made Tool a different breed of music in the first place. All I'm saying is that there is a difference between blending in and being drowned out.
Although the two shows I saw from last tour had some moments, don't get me wrong, the man can sing his heart out, there was still many moments I felt a lacking vocal presence. To the point of it being a little unnerving on a technical level. As in, you haven't been able to decipher the last minute and a half of his words even though you know the songs word for word. I hate to be the one who says things like this. I would love for Maynard to belt out lyrics in my face so loud it blows my face off just to prove me wrong, but I feel he's no longer in his prime.
I'm only 24 and still learning how this aging process works, but I hold out hope he can still rock our balls off well into his mid to late forties. I feel it's a matter of if he still has that drive to want to push himself like he has in the past. I know he's way past proving himself. Now it's a matter of maintaining a legacy. A legacy so vocally demanding that the only person he has to lose to is himself. Still, these guys have made something iconic for our time, Tool. He is the voice and that's too much a crucial part to have missing in action.