The voice of George Harrison - early/mid 60's vs. 70's/80's

Been listening to a lot of early Beatles lately and I have really taken notice of how much stronger George's voice was on the first few albums. Although he wasn't as good of a lead vocalist as John or Paul, he still sounds awfully strong and confident on songs such as "Roll Over Beethoven", "I'm Happy Just To Dance With You", "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby", "Think For Yourself", "Taxman", etc. The tipping point seems to be somewhere in 1967/68. His songwriting was definitely improving but his voice started to thin out even in his mid-20's. By the time of Living In The Material World, there are signs everywhere of a weakening voice - and most of that album was recorded when he was still only 29. And let's not even go into Dark Horse...

So what do you attribute this trend to? Heavy smoking? Genetics? John lost some of his vocal power in the 70's as well but was still much stronger than George. And strangely, Paul the cig smoker and pot connoisseur had the strongest voice of the ex-Beatles even when his began to weaken somewhat in the mid-70's.

 

George kind of abandoned his baritone over the years. I'm speaking of the voice heard on If I needed someone/Think for yourself/Don't bother me/ many other Beatles tracks, which is hardly heard on the solo albums outside ATMP. He spent his whole career trying to duplicated the smoother not low baritone heard on "Something" with increasingly less impressive results.

The songs up through Blue Jay Way demonstrate that lower baritone, which IMO was a very good sounding non challenging effective voice. IMO it should of been his calling card. With "Something" his great vocal went above his weight class and was something that was never gonna be sustained without quitting smoking and going to great effort to take care of his voice.. His natural gift was never gonna endure a r&r lifestyle like John Lennon.

For me, outside his natural distinctive voice and handful of great lead vocal performances, his claim to greatness as a vocalist will always be his harmony singing in the Beatles. He stayed in key better as a harmony singer than lead singer from my observations. I'm mostly referring to the live setting, where the tapes don't lie. Singing harmony in key in front of those audiences is an amazing feat.

I would note that on "Brainwashed" George kind of by default sort of went back to his earlier Beatles baritone. It's not exactly the same, but is IMO his second best solo album.

 

I recently gave the Star Club recordings from Hamburg a good listen, and one of the biggest surprises to me is how strong Harrison sounded then. As you note, his voice just seemed stronger in the early days, in this case I think he was about 18 or 19. Then the far end the other way is his last album, Brainwashed, when he was very ill. I can't really even listen to that record his voice just sounds so frail. But to your point, it does seem he actually lost some vocal strength even in the 60s. Remember, when they were more of a club band, doing lots of covers, he was doing a bigger share of the singing overall. Maybe later he just wasn't getting the vocal workout he once had when they were playing live all the time and therefore the vocal chords atrophied slightly? And of course all the smoking did not help.

 

I honestly felt that by the late 70's and 80's George's voice improved because of better technique. As to their voices being weaker, that happens with age, lack of use (John and George were recording and performing less) whereas Paul was recording and performing more putting a strain on his voice to a degree I'm sure BUT I felt that his voice through the 70's was pretty strong if with a slightly different tone.

George used his mid-range more as time progressed and it was stronger than it was before. I honestly like the way he was singing with a fuller voice, deeper in the 80's.

 

I think his voice is extremally beautiful on "Do You Want To Know A Secret" in the first LP.

 

You nailed great point. His ability to harmonize has always blown me away, considering he is a 2nd tier lead singer.

 

I thought his voice on Cloud Nine album was the strongest of all, but I agree that his voice from about 1966 up to Cloud Nine was much less strong or enjoyable than his early voice. The Living in the Material World album has a very weak George voice. Of course the nadir of them all is Dark Horse.

 

The thickest Liverpudlian accent the Beatles ever recorded. Sooo great!

 

It's interesting to see people praising his early vocals over his later vocals because normally it's the other way around. I thought he did a fantastic job on the Decca tape.

I think the change is related to his effort to tone down his accent starting in the late 60s. IMO his later singing better suited the types of songs he was writing at that point even if it did sound more strained. It conveyed his emotions better as well.

 

I think his vocal ideal changed, from Holly/Berry/Perkins inspired power towards more soulful ideals (Smokey Robinson/Marvin Gaye). From that point of view I spot a development. I love the sensitivity showcased on Living in the Material World. I hear a lot of soul in George’s voice from mid-70s and forward.

 

I think part of the charm of early Beatles George vocals is just how scouse he sounds on record. John and Paul could be mistaken for American rock and roll singers easily on many Beatles records. But George's singing voice was thick with Liverpool. It got less so later, but he his speaking accent is far more noticeable in his singing voice than Lennon, for example. McCartney didn't have as thick of an accent even in his speech even in the early years---partly because his mother wanted him to speak with the "proper" pronunciation when he was growing up. His accent is more "generic British" than the other three.

 

Another vote for the early voice. I'm drawn to unique voices over traditionally "good" vocals, and you would never mistake '64 George (or the rest of the Beatles, for that matter) for anyone else.

His earlier voice also has an earnest quality that's very appealing.

 

I think it comes down to George naturally having a great ear and knowing correct pitch when he heard it. Being able to get his voice to reproduce it may have been a bit more challenging for him than via an instrument. It's very easy to sound bad and out of tune on slide guitar, and we all know how he fared in that regard.

 

Been awhile since I've listened to the Decca, but I thought GH sounded the least nervous of the 3 vocalists — he really rose to the occasion! Got the same feeling listening to the 2016 Hollywood Bowl album.

 

I think his voice got a bit higher and maybe thinner as he aged, which generally isn't a problem or something that turns me off.

Where I feel like he gets into trouble is his technique. He has a tendency to use his head voice when it's not appropriate and he sometimes runs out of gas because he doesn't breathe at the right time.

Those were things that John and Paul seemed to do naturally so it's not about training or inexperience.

 

I like his voice, but I don't think he was an especially talented vocalist. He had very little range but I think he knew how to work well within his limits.

 

According to this source (The Range Place) he was a tenor with a vocal range from E2 - F♯5.

George Harrison | The Range Place

 

Yeah, his voice is really charming. I love how Scouse he sounds in Three Cool Cats.

 

New theory I am just thinking now. He mentioned how studying sitar with Ravi made home gravitate towards liberation of slide guitar to find his style. I wonder if there was at least some similar impact on vocals, which became much more “swoopy” (and to some degree wispy) after mid 60s.

 

George Martin double tracked vocals.

 

Still, it seems Harrison changed his approach to singing around 1968, as the OP states.

He became a much more expressive singer but, as he started to sing more from his heart, some of the weaknesses in his voice were more exposed. It worked well for some songs.

 

That's what's so interesting, his voice seemed to get higher with age, when usually it's the other way around. As with so many great singers, they start out being able to hit those high notes only to later lose the ability due to a lower, huskier, older voice. George basically went in the opposite direction.

 

I think he emoted better in the early days. He sang with more power.. he seemed to get more self conscious about his vocals as time went on.

In the late sixties he seemed to be inspired by Jack Bruce... I Me Mine, Not Guilty, and While My Guitar Gently Weeps seemed to mimic Jack Bruce (higher range) to me....

The best thing about Jeff Lynne's production style...is that he pushed George's voice to the front of the mix... along with George's guitar playing... by the time of Extra texture... Georg's vocals and guitar work were just buried in the mix.


Love him or hate him George is like Neil Young. You know his vocals and guitar work from a mile away. Jeff Lynne was smart enough to realize these were strengths and not weaknesses.

 

See I agree about his voice from the very early days, but in the mid-60s it started sounding monotone (although maybe that was intentional in 1967), so I'm glad he made a change. From 1968-1970 I think he had just the right balance between a better technique and that earnest quality.

Your last pointed reminded me of this quote from Chris O'Dell's book:

George’s voice was so much warmer when he was in the same room with you. Something rich and vital was lost when his voice was surrounded by guitars and drums, overdubbed several times, mixed way down under the instruments, and then pressed onto vinyl. When he sang for us in the kitchen, the library, or by the big fireplace in the main hall, we heard his true, naked voice with no control board, engineers, musicians, instruments, or microphones to dilute its purity or its power. I would watch and listen, knowing how incredibly lucky I was to be there, literally "framing" those moments and locking them away in my memory.