Paul's voice

[ClamsCasino]

After going on a Mats/Westerberg listening binge--everything from Trash to CFMT--I'm convinced that Paul's recent change to a Dylanesque whine is less about a physical change in his voice or a change in recording techniques than it is about a change in the energy level of his performances. He used to really belt it out, but now almost everything is sung in a neutered "half voice." I think I said before that he used to sing to the back rows, but now he only sings to the back of his teeth. Not only that, but since Mono/Stereo he's been writing vocal melodies that are way above his normal comfort level. "Love Untold" is about as high as his range gets before his voice turns whiny, but now most of his songs are in the thin and reedy high notes way above that. Sometimes he can pull it off, like on "What a Day" or "Got You Down", but most of the time he just sounds like he's been listening to too much emo. And I'd really hate to think that he checked out the other Vagrant bands and said to himself, "So this is what the kids are into now? I guess I'll start whining along with 'em."

As a point of reference just go back and listen to "I Won't." Yeah, I know that album has million dollar production values, but it's still his voice. OK, now flash forward and listen to "Knock It Right Out". That's not age, and it's not recording techniques, and it's not a difference in range. That's just the sound of a guy who's not belting it out like he used to. And I'm convinced that he still can. There are a few moments on the CFMT dvd where he actually opens his mouth wide and pushes some air out of his lungs like he used to. Compare how he sings the first couple verses of "Valentine" to how he sings everything after the solo. After revving himself up with some Beatlesesque "na na na"s he really gets into it and suddenly sounds like Paul Westerberg circa 1987 instead of the whiny shadow of his former self that's been appearing on record and on stage for the past few years. He keeps saying in interviews that he's been taking care of his voice more than he ever has. Does he just mean that he's not singing as loud as he used to? I'm sorry, but his voice sounds best when he's screaming. That throaty roar is what sends the chills up my spine.

I remember a few critics taking Paul to task for affecting a mopey voice on "Don't Tell a Soul", but I listen to that album now and he sounds more alive in his mopey mode than he does in his recent neutered mode. He even caught some critical flack earlier than that for the low-key vocals on the album version of "Valentine", but that just illustrates how big the vocal changes were from "Valentine" to "Someone Take The Wheel" to "Pine Box". Somewhere around "Runaway Wind" Paul said that he thought he found his true singing voice. Well where'd that voice go? Maybe he needs to move his capo around and find that "Runaway Wind" key again.

Sometimes it's just that he's singing way above his range ("Souvenirs" is a good example of that), and other times it sounds like he's half asleep and doesn't feel like putting any energy into the performance. I absolutely love "Kickin' The Stall", but imagine what it would sound like if he would have put a little more oomph into his vocal performance. He could have really roared on that one, but instead he just sort of does a laid back first-take don't-strain-the-voice performance.

I like to imagine an alternate universe where Stereo/Mono and CFMT are sung by the same guy who sang "Unsatisfied", "Hold My Life" and "I Won't". I hope that guy shows up for the Folker tour.

[scoOter]

i find it a little difficult to argue with this sentiment. while i like the recent stuff a lot, i think it is time for the old paul to come back a bit.

[torethatbridgeout]

All hail Clams Casino for taking the time to really flesh out his argument.

Not only is Paul singing to the back of his teeth, he's writing to the back of his skull. I wish he'd play with a band again so he'd start writing for a band again. That's how he got that sublime rough/polished, ballsy/bashful, youthful/wizened sound on most Mats and some solo stuff -- the compromises he made to shape his songs so other people would/could play them made 'em better.

[Elizabeth]

"All hail Clams Casino for taking the time to really flesh out his argument."
fine, but threads like this drive me nuts.
what's a true singing voice? does that mean your singing voice sounds very much like your speaking voice?

[zook]

Nice dissertation Clams and one I wouldn't argue. But the current Paul vox doesn't bother me. Does it measure up to the past - probably not but then again he was no Clay Aiken to begin with. Does the music measure up to the past - some would say not. I guess I see it as a continuously changing thing and this latest incarnation of Paul is fine the way it is to me. His music is more raw, less polished, perhaps more honest - it seems his voice is the same and it fits it well.

I think F**ker will be another change and I hope it is. A constantly moving Paul is a good thing (as long as he doesn't dwelve into hip hop, bossa nova or yodeling) and I am eager to see what comes next. The whole voice arguement could be a moot point. Or he could sound like one of the Chipmunks and then I'll start to bitch ;D

[claypigeon]

ClamsCasino said:

That's not age, and it's not recording techniques, and it's not a difference in range. That's just the sound of a guy who's not belting it out like he used to.

I think the recording technique is the reason for the change though. It's a lot easier to let loose and scream your guts out when you're rocking out with a band. When you're singing by yourself in your basement you tend to be more restrained, and if you do start belting it out it usually sounds forced and insincere. Even though the DVD shows him jumping around kicking mirrors while recording Everything Goes Wrong, there's still only so much energy a one man band can generate.

[ClamsCasino]

claypigeon said:

I think the recording technique is the reason for the change though. It's a lot easier to let loose and scream your guts out when you're rocking out with a band. When you're singing by yourself in your basement you tend to be more restrained, and if you do start belting it out it usually sounds forced and insincere. Even though the DVD shows him jumping around kicking mirrors while recording Everything Goes Wrong, there's still only so much energy a one man band can generate.

I agree completely. If you put it that way then the recording technique can definitely be blamed. I guess what I meant was that there was nothing in the recording technology itself that altered his voice or made it sound like something it wasn't.

[ClamsCasino]

Elizabeth said:

fine, but threads like this drive me nuts.
what's a true singing voice? does that mean your singing voice sounds very much like your speaking voice?

The "true singing voice" thing was something Paul said about his vocals on "Runaway Wind." I don't know what he meant by that, but it almost seems like a reaction against the scream that we'd all been familiar with up until that point. I love the vocals on that song, but it's like he was dismissing the old scream as false and ushering in the new croon as his true voice. I don't think either voice was an affectation, but that was the charge leveled at him when critics got an earful of "Don't Tell A Soul." On that album it sometimes sounded like Paul was making a conscious effort to change his voice into an understated whisper/croon and it came out sounding affected. These days, it often sounds like he's not making much of an effort at all. It's not an affectation, but it's not as "true" as the anguished or angry howl that lets us know he really means it. But I guess it's difficult not to sound bored and sleepy when you're writing songs about being bored and sleepy.

[torethatbridgeout]

ClamsCasino said:

But I guess it's difficult not to sound bored and sleepy when you're writing songs about being bored and sleepy

... or watching rabbits in your yard.

ClamsCasino said:

After going on a Mats/Westerberg listening binge--everything from Trash to CFMT--

Hey Clams, what else hit you after that binge, idea-wise?

[scoOter]

ClamsCasino said:

The "true singing voice" thing was something Paul said about his vocals on "Runaway Wind." I don't know what he meant by that, but it almost seems like a reaction against the scream that we'd all been familiar with up until that point. I love the vocals on that song, but it's like he was dismissing the old scream as false and ushering in the new croon as his true voice. I don't think either voice was an affectation, but that was the charge leveled at him when critics got an earful of "Don't Tell A Soul." On that album it sometimes sounded like Paul was making a conscious effort to change his voice into an understated whisper/croon and it came out sounding affected. These days, it often sounds like he's not making much of an effort at all. It's not an affectation, but it's not as "true" as the anguished or angry howl that lets us know he really means it. But I guess it's difficult not to sound bored and sleepy when you're writing songs about being bored and sleepy.

for the record, i LOVE the vox on runaway wind, and his current voice is not really all that much like it. fantastic song, actually.

[kgp]

He keeps saying in interviews that he's been taking care of his voice more than he ever has

Yeah, he probably says that with a big stogie hanging out of his mouth. Same interviews that say he's quit smoking.

I still think at least in part the change is physical. Most singer's voices change over the years. Listen to really early Dylan, or Mick Jagger.

I think the "true singing voice" quote came from an interview around the time of Eventually. Which, though that is probably more a result of production, still has what I believe to be some of his best vocals. Maybe it's more experimentation, trying to test the limitations of his voice. I definitely hear the lack of energy you mention. I can listen to shows from '93 or '96 and compare that with the Stereo shows and hear it. He seems to be going though the motions, at least from what I've heard.

[ClamsCasino]

torethatbridgeout said:

Hey Clams, what else hit you after that binge, idea-wise?

Here are a few things. A lot of obvious stuff, but it's what came to mind:

Chris Mars was a damn fine drummer, no matter what Paul says. And a damn fine drummer makes all the difference in the world. His playing was as integral to the Mats' sound as Bob's guitar.

Bob's playing was really unique. He was sloppy, but in a way that let you know it was coming straight from his gut. Even his rhythm parts are full of raw emotion. I've been listening to a lot of J Mascis lately, and even though he's miles ahead of Bob technically, I can't help thinking that he must be a fan of Bob's playing. They're both expressive in the same way.

Paul can't play bass for shit. (He can't play drums either, but we already knew that.) He's a great guitar player when he wants to be, so why is he so terrible on bass?

The production on Tim is a real shame. The songs are dynamic as hell, but the recording quality is flat as a pancake. I think "Coulda been" is what Paul says on the DVD. Even the filler is brilliant. If "Dose of Thunder" appeared on CFMT it'd make "Pine Box" look like filler.

With the exception of "Can't Hardly Wait," the drums on PTMM sound really weak. Chris' playing is great, but he's lost in the mix. For some reason "Can't Hardly Wait" has the oomph that's lacking in the other tracks.

The demo of "Red Red Wine" is much better than the album version.

Paul was writing wise and insightful lyrics right out of the gate. "I hate my father/One day I won't" is still one of his most amazing lyrics, even moreso because it's nestled in an obnoxious punk song called "I Hate Music." And of course Chris Mars was responsible for the funniest line in the song--"I hate music/It's got too many notes." Further proof that Chris was a vital and often underrated part of the Mats.

The ballads are more moving and powerful because they pop up after a string of songs like "Gary's Got a Boner," "Pine Box," "I'll Buy," "I Won't," "Shooting Dirty Pool," etc. When you have an album full of ballads with only one or two rockers, like Stereo or Suicaine, the effect is lost. "Shooting Dirty Pool" and "Red Red Wine" may be lousy songs, but "Skyway" sounds like the most beautiful song ever written when you listen to the album as a whole. Nothing on Paul's solo albums can match the power of listening to PTMM from start to finish.

Friday Night Is Killing Me is much better than any of Paul's solo albums, and the production quality is that perfect balance of raw and polished that's eluded Paul for most of his career.

[torethatbridgeout]

ClamsCasino said:

Bob's playing
The production on Tim
Paul was writing wise and insightful lyrics right out of the gate.
The ballads are more moving and powerful because they pop up after a string of songs like "Gary's Got a Boner,"
Friday Night Is Killing Me is much better than any of Paul's solo albums, and the production quality is that perfect balance of raw and polished that's eluded Paul for most of his career.

Thanks Clams. Agreed: Bob was a de facto cowriter just by the idiosyncracy of his guitar. Tim succeeds in spite of its production on the raw strength of the songs. Paul was a teen songwriting prodigy (still is). What Mats albums have on PW solo albums is the snotty rockers are band songs, and the ballads are Paul songs, at least emotionally. You get the crowd/loner dynamic. Solo it's just noisy loner/quiet loner. Friday Night was some good shit.

[zook]

ClamsCasino said:

The ballads are more moving and powerful because they pop up after a string of songs like "Gary's Got a Boner," "Pine Box," "I'll Buy," "I Won't," "Shooting Dirty Pool," etc. When you have an album full of ballads with only one or two rockers, like Stereo or Suicaine, the effect is lost. "Shooting Dirty Pool" and "Red Red Wine" may be lousy songs, but "Skyway" sounds like the most beautiful song ever written when you listen to the album as a whole. Nothing on Paul's solo albums can match the power of listening to PTMM from start to finish.

This is a great point Clammy! I hadn't really thought of this until now but I think you are spot on. I don't know if it was intentionally to sequence it that way but very effective. I always assume there was not a lot of thought put into much of what they did (meaning they just liked to wing it) but I think they are smarter then they let on.

[ClamsCasino]

zook said:

This is a great point Clammy! I hadn't really thought of this until now but I think you are spot on. I don't know if it was intentionally to sequence it that way but very effective. I always assume there was not a lot of thought put into much of what they did (meaning they just liked to wing it) but I think they are smarter then they let on.

They're definitely smart people who knew the value in playing the fool. I love Paul's quote about Bob: "I don't know if he's the stupidest genius or the smartest idiot I've ever known." Do you remember the time that the biggest asshole on the block said something nice to you? Or how about the day that the school bully read a poem in class and it was actually good? "Skyway" and "Within Your Reach" are kind of like that. Those songs mean more coming from a bunch of obnoxious drunks than they would coming from somebody who did that sort of thing all the time. It somehow seems more poignant when the dumbass says something sweet. Some people might think that a whole album of Westerberg ballads is nicer to listen to, but one or two well-placed tunes like "Skyway" or "Here Comes a Regular" are so much more powerful than a whole album's worth of Skyways.

[DaveinDK]

I don't want to ride you here Clams, cos I think you make some really good points in this post in general.

However, some of you guys make it out as though the positioning of the quieter ballads between the rock and roll numbers is some kind of genius strategical move. I mean it's pretty much the way music has been played since the beginning of time. It only makes simple common sense to sequence iot this way, and it's the way albums and concerts have been performed and recorded forever. Imean, it's the exception, not the rule, that you will find an album by any popular music act to have more than three four fast tunes in a row before breaking it up with a slower one. All the truly great rock and roll albums have some element of this.

Everyone wants to hear a variety of tempos, and rhythms, and it gets boring to hear the same thing for 14 songs in a row. (This is why I couldn't get into that last Beck album. Every tune was the same.) I agree with Clams that this is the case with some of Paul's stuff, particularly Stereo and Suicaine. Not enough variety, and a big reason for the success of PTMM.

Putting slow songs between fast ones alone,however, does not make a good album in itself. Skyway, Nightclub Jitters, Regular, and Reach are all fantastic songs that stand on their own.

[zook]

Dave, that's true and I don't think that this is a new concept to any of us. But it's the Mats were talking about here. The guys who seem to take pride in derailing their career and NOT do the common sense thing. They rarely seemed to do things by the book so I hadn't thought much about the sequencing except to think that there was little thought put into it. I think the band is a lot smarter than they let on in many aspects though.

[ClamsCasino]

Yeah, you're right, Dave. But I can't really think of another band where the contrasts were so sharp. I look at the track lists to PTMM or Hootenanny and it's just one surprise after another. Those little pockets of vulnerability tucked in the middle of all the rowdy stuff come pretty unexpected. Particularly early on, before anyone knew that what Paul really wanted was to be was a fulltime balladeer. No, there's nothing original about sequencing a rock album with a couple of ballads, but somehow there's some unique magic that's going on in combinations like Gary's Got a Boner/Sixteen Blue/Answering Machine or Red Red Wine/Skyway/Can't Hardly Wait or even Knockin' Em Back/Pine Box/Meet Me Down The Alley.

[GtrPlyr]

To continue with what Dave and Clams have said, I think that the great albums by the Mats, do more than just throw in quieter ballads amongst the rockers.

You look at the sequencing of an album like "Let it Be" for instance: You start with "I Will Dare" which is a roots based rocker, complete with a Mandolin backing, which is followed by "Favorite Thing" that changes gears with its a punk/rock structure. You have "Tommy Gets His Tonsils Out" which is straight up Punk, which seques into "Androgynous" a quiet, catchy, piano based ballad. "Unsatisfied" delivers an emotional, heart-on-sleeve rocker, then we get the mainly instrumental "Seen Your Video." The album closes with the angst filled "Sixteen Blue" and the unique, bare bones "Answering Machine" which eschews the usual conventions of rock, with its minimalist palette of electric guitar, vocals, and a hint of drum machine. All these elements fit so seemlessly, that a lot of people don't realize how different this recording was, compared to others of the era. Their ability to assimilate disparate influences, from numerous genres, without it sounding forced or jarring, is what made the Mats standout amongst their peers, and leave a lasting legacy.

[torethatbridgeout]

DaveinDK said:

some of you guys make it out as though the positioning of the quieter ballads between the rock and roll numbers is some kind of genius strategical move. All the truly great rock and roll albums have some element of this.

That's true. But Westerberg saw something special in the Mats' mix, too. I think the quote from one of the recent interviews was something like: We were the best in the world at switching from quiet, sad songs to out-and-out rockers, even better than the Stones.