jonesy39 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Matt just uses a stupid voice live. I was watching the pro-shot of megalomania at the RAH and his voice just ruins the performance for me. He trys to make his voice deeper and ends up a rable. He does this for a lot of songs live and it annoys me because he goes out his way to do this. He can still hit any note previously heard on any muse song. Yeah this is one of my biggest issues, he appears to be doing this a lot more lately. It is sometimes cringeworthy and as much as I loved the Origin shows this past summer, it was very prevalent. I just don't understand why he goes into that strange deep tone. You can hear it in the older stuff, but it was much much more subtle. Oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeboer01 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Yeah this is one of my biggest issues, he appears to be doing this a lot more lately. It is sometimes cringeworthy and as much as I loved the Origin shows this past summer, it was very prevalent. I just don't understand why he goes into that strange deep tone. You can hear it in the older stuff, but it was much much more subtle. Oh well I used to often wonder about the strange "two different voices" of David Bowie. In his early stuff (Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Diamond Dogs) he sounds like a different person than the later stuff (Scary Monsters, Let's Dance) I like his "early stuff" voice much better! Either way though, I <3 Bowie. Examples: Life On Mars (from Hunky Dory1971) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v--IqqusnNQ&ob=av2e China Girl (from Let's Dance 1983) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzcCVGiP-OE&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Problemfanatique Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 It's not laziness. If they're on tour, they playing gigs almost every night and sometimes they can be up to 2 hour sets. After about an hour a vocalists voice will start to go. He's holding back because if he was to fully go for it every night he'd lose his voice and would struggle for the rest of the tour. Sometimes vocalists will go without talking during the day to preserve their voice for a gig! He probably tends to go for it more at one-off gigs where he hasn't got to worry about conserving his voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeboer01 Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 It's not laziness. If they're on tour, they playing gigs almost every night and sometimes they can be up to 2 hour sets. After about an hour a vocalists voice will start to go. He's holding back because if he was to fully go for it every night he'd lose his voice and would struggle for the rest of the tour. Sometimes vocalists will go without talking during the day to preserve their voice for a gig! He probably tends to go for it more at one-off gigs where he hasn't got to worry about conserving his voice. Two hour sets? Really? That's not what I've been led to understand. I think people are wondering too, what's up with the forced "deep sound". You'd think if he was going to go "all out", he'd have done it at Reading. It was the last show for a very long time. He had Chris do the chorus for Hyper Music! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 It's not laziness. If they're on tour, they playing gigs almost every night and sometimes they can be up to 2 hour sets. After about an hour a vocalists voice will start to go. He's holding back because if he was to fully go for it every night he'd lose his voice and would struggle for the rest of the tour. Sometimes vocalists will go without talking during the day to preserve their voice for a gig! He probably tends to go for it more at one-off gigs where he hasn't got to worry about conserving his voice. Please read at least the first pages of the thread before making silly statements pretending that you know what the discussion is about. We're not idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Two hour sets? Really? That's not what I've been led to understand. I think people are wondering too, what's up with the forced "deep sound". You'd think if he was going to go "all out", he'd have done it at Reading. It was the last show for a very long time. He had Chris do the chorus for Hyper Music! I think Leeds/Reading was near, if not, a two hour set but most of the Resistance tour was around one and a half hours. Also, I think he got Chris to do it simply because Matt wouldn't have been able to pull it off well, Chris has more of an edge to his voice that Matt doesn't really have any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeboer01 Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Chris has more of an edge to his voice that Matt doesn't really have any more. I doubt that's true. And how do you conclude that anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 I doubt that's true. And how do you conclude that anyway? When Chris has a main vocal section (Dead Star, Hyper Music) it's closer to shouting whereas Matt has a more operatic and 'smooth' way of singing. Granted, Matt can put some oomph into his voice when he needs to but I simply think the band knew that Chris' vocals would sound better for Hyper Music's chorus. Matt hit the high notes in the verses so I doubt it was laziness that made him not want to do the chorus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoma-kun Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 When Chris has a main vocal section (Dead Star, Hyper Music) it's closer to shouting whereas Matt has a more operatic and 'smooth' way of singing. Granted, Matt can put some oomph into his voice when he needs to but I simply think the band knew that Chris' vocals would sound better for Hyper Music's chorus. Matt hit the high notes in the verses so I doubt it was laziness that made him not want to do the chorus. Matt doing the chorus would sound much better in my opinion atleast. Chris sounded good, but I prefer Matt. And it was probably laziness that made him let Chris do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 When Chris has a main vocal section (Dead Star, Hyper Music) it's closer to shouting whereas Matt has a more operatic and 'smooth' way of singing. Granted, Matt can put some oomph into his voice when he needs to but I simply think the band knew that Chris' vocals would sound better for Hyper Music's chorus. Matt hit the high notes in the verses so I doubt it was laziness that made him not want to do the chorus.Uhm, Matt's singing in the HM chorus has always been really screamy, as opposed to Chris who did it a lot more controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Matt doing the chorus would sound much better in my opinion atleast. Chris sounded good, but I prefer Matt. And it was probably laziness that made him let Chris do it it was probably laziness that made him let Chris do it laziness It always comes back to this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoma-kun Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 It always comes back to this In the end, that's what this thread is about =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeboer01 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Uhm, Matt's singing in the HM chorus has always been really screamy, as opposed to Chris who did it a lot more controlled. Chris does have a tendency to get pitchy though. I don't know offhand if he was pitchy at Leeds/Reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Chris does have a tendency to get pitchy though. I don't know offhand if he was pitchy at Leeds/Reading. Well, so does Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeboer01 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Well, so does Matt I seem to notice it more with Chris though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoma-kun Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What's meant by 'pitchy' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeboer01 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What's meant by 'pitchy' ? Slightly flat or sharp at times. Slightly out-of-tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectrum IV Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 When Chris has a main vocal section (Dead Star, Hyper Music) it's closer to shouting whereas Matt has a more operatic and 'smooth' way of singing. Granted, Matt can put some oomph into his voice when he needs to but I simply think the band knew that Chris' vocals would sound better for Hyper Music's chorus. Matt hit the high notes in the verses so I doubt it was laziness that made him not want to do the chorus. Spot on. I'm sure Matt could hit those notes if he wanted to, but they wouldn't sound good, so it's not worth the added strain. Matt's belting technique still needs a lot of work... Chris has a more centered approach to those notes and he sounds quite good up there. Chris does have a tendency to get pitchy though. I don't know offhand if he was pitchy at Leeds/Reading. It's more obvious when someone is shaky as opposed to consistently flat. Chris was a bit shaky singing Hyper Music, but Matt also gets quite flat on those notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gohenko Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Tbh, Chris sounded much better singing the chorus of HM than Matt ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudderless Hippy Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I doubt that Chris has the range or the strength in his voice that Matt has. I may be wrong! It's just that Matt has been doing it for a long time and that boy has range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I doubt that Chris has the range or the strength in his voice that Matt has. I may be wrong! It's just that Matt has been doing it for a long time and that boy has range. Yeah, shame that Bellamy has one of the worst ranges in rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumpypotato Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Yeah, shame that Bellamy has one of the worst ranges in rock. Are you high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoma-kun Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Are you high? He is probably high, but he's still right. Matt has a very limited range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Are you high? Yes, but it's still true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Range that he can use in a live setting: Bb2-B4(-C6) Total range: F#2-B4(-C6) neither of those are very special in terms of range. He's still a great singer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.