John Lennon's voice - early vs. later

another I missed. Are we done?

 

Heroin and cocaine are damaging to the throat and accompanying structures. Lennon was snorting heroin in the late 60's and cocaine in the 70's and during Double Fantasy.
Age was a factor, lack of touring and singing regularly was a factor, losing weight was a factor, drugs were a factor.
There is a noticeable difference in his singing voice over the years due to all these factors and that he was singing different material as well.

 

Cigarettes...

 

That's probably the biggest factor in the change from 1975 to 1980. Wasn't he smoking several packs a day at the time of his death? If he hadn't been killed (and didn't change his ways), I suspect lung cancer would have gotten him even before it got George.

 

He just didn't take care of himself if you can believe what you read. Hopefully he would have quite the cigarettes before serious illness set in. I have read that he smoked several packs a day.

 

Check these out.



Money - John Lennon & Plastic Ono Band - Toronto 1969

 

Prior to that John had been drinking heavily and doing cocaine for over a year with Harry Nilsson (who's voice was permanently altered during the ***** Cats sessions where he damaged his voice, reducing his range, etc.). John also stopped doing the double tracked vocals that were characteristic of his earlier sound during The Beatles and the echo that Phil Spector applied to his voice for the first three studio albums from1970-1972 John stopped doing it at 1973. He was also getting older and all of this comes to play.

As to lung cancer, he could have lived quite some time before seeng it occur. If it had been genetic (no way to know if his mom would have developed it as she was killed so young) and his dad lived till he was 63 (he died of stomach cancer) so it's hard to predict. Heck, my mom lived until she was 72 before lung cancer took her out). It's kind of hard to predict.

 

Just not 1979.

 

Gitanes.

 

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds (with Elton John)

 

IMO, the Elton John performances are poor or meaningless examples of the state of John's voice. He's overshadowed by Elton's voice, he sounds unrehearsed (obviously) and really, not so good. He sounds like any barroom busker, shouting out a song they know a few of the lyrics to. I mean, it's great in concept, but not so much in execution.

I pretty much agree with the original premise that John's voice had deteriorated since his prime Beatles days. I attribute that mainly to under-use. As an amateur sometimes-singer, I know that if I have any hope of sounding good, I have to sing often and regularly - if I haven't been exercising my vocal chords consistently, my voice comes out sounding weak and tentative. I'm sure this applies even to a "real" or professional singer. I believe that John could have regained a lot of his chops if he was a regular performer. It seemed that he was about to get back into the game, but, alas, it was not to be.

I've been paying close attention lately to him singing "Rock and Roll Music" on "Beatles for Sale". That seems to me to be an obvious attempt to follow up on "Twist and Shout", and while it doesn't reach the heights of mayhem that song did, it's still a great raw performance. Go, John, go!

 

A great studio performance of Too Much Monkey Business would have been great. That said, the BBC versions are pretty awesome.

 

John Lennon's voice changed a great deal over the years. If you listen to the earlier recordings and then compare them to the later ones, you can't miss it. They sound like two different singers. Listen to John's singing in A Hard Day's Night and then compare it to Sgt. Pepper or the White Album. It's like day and night. In fact, everything about John Lennon changed around 1965-1966.

 

Similar arguments can be made for Paul's voice...especially during the Get Back period...sounds like an entirely other singer.

..back to John..he was a solid Rock and Roll singer in the very early days, but I think his best period was during the Help!-Revolver period. His voice sounded "thicker " and richer, in my view, than at any other point in his lifetime.

While he still sounded great in the '67 period, a bit of a thinness started to become apparent and this particular 'texture' advanced as time went on. By Abbey Road it doesn't sound as nearly the strong voice it had been 3 years earlier. Without getting into '"reasons", this was more so into the 70's.

I actually think that the 4-year "break" did him some good, vocally. While the music on DF didn't exactly set the world on fire, I think his voice sounded stronger than it had in years.

Overall, I just want to add that technical singing aspects/abilities aside, Lennon had my favorite voice of any Pop/Rock vocalist (even his speaking voice had a very noticeably attractive presence). His voice may not have had the greatest range or the most power, but it had a natural charismatic, tonal expressiveness equaled by few (to my subjective ears, equaled by none)). Far as the studio, no one's voice lent itself as beautifully to double tracking or echo-like effects as John's did. Pure, natural magic.

 

Valid points

 

It's all Yoko's fault!

 

his later years voice was a far cry from the Beatles...I just didn't enjoy it as much...

 

Better a dm than a post on such detail?

 

He simply didn't sing so hard and I don't mean volume, but depth of feeling...

 

What's a "dm", and what makes it important 7+ years later?

 

'direct message'...perspective...we done?

 

John was the strongest singer at the start of their career, but it diminished later. Paul, on the other hand, started off weaker, but just kept getting better and better until at least the late 70's (IMO).

 

John lost confidence and drive, Paul gained both.

 

wow. mellow out dude.

 

Paul stayed Paul ...John morphed...never thought Paul was weak at any period in the Beatles...