# Rock "Vocalists"



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What is your opinion on the vocal capabilities of the majority of rock groups? IMO, because they are not properly trained much more than half the time, they use their vocal chords improperly and are pitchy and just poor vocalists.

What they do have going for them is that they often sing with a lot of heart and passion, and while I love soul in music, I prefer when it's combined with good technique.

This is one big reason amongst others that I have been slowly moving away from rock and more into classical.

There are certainly still some rock songs I like, but the only artist I still follow is Rufus Wainwright, which I've said in many threads.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

As long as they sing with passion and get the music across well, I like it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> As long as they sing with passion and get the music across well, I like it.


They do do that, certainly! Most of them, at least.

Can we all agree Freddie Mercury is the best singer in rock music, technically speaking?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've also always felt Michael Jackson sang more from his heart than with technique which is odd for a pop star. I never found his voice to be on the same level, technically, as other pop stars.

But boy did he have energy and passion.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> As long as they sing with passion and get the music across well, I like it.


But there are some vocalists I really can't stand: Michael Stipe, the guy from Radiohead, from the Flaming Lips, from the Buzzcocks, from Neutral Milk Hotel


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> But there are some vocalists I really can't stand: Michael Stipe, the guy from Radiohead, from the Flaming Lips, from the Buzzcocks, from Neutral Milk Hotel


Wayne Coin of the Flaming Lips is truly horrid. Thom Yorke of Radiohead is hit or miss, when he is on, I really love it, but this isn't the majority of the time.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've also always felt Michael Jackson sang more from his heart than with technique which is odd for a pop star. I never found his voice to be on the same level, technically, as other pop stars.
> 
> But boy did he have energy and passion.


Michael Jackson had a unique voice. I love his singing. I don't like Freddie Mercury at all, but it may be the material rather than he singing.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Personally there is a lot of Opera I don't like hearing, which has a lot of show off moments especially by Puccini. Plus I hate O Sole Mio, which they play the Pavarotti version on the radio often. I find the music with a lot of show off moments to be really vulgar.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Michael Jackson had a unique voice. I love his singing. I don't like Freddie Mercury at all, but it may be the material rather than he singing.


I'm not a Queen fan either, but I do acknowledge the man can sing like no other.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally there is a lot of Opera I don't like hearing, which has a lot of show off moments especially by Puccini. Plus I hate O Sole Mio, which they play the Pavarotti version on the radio often. I find the music with a lot of show off moments to be really vulgar.


That's kind of why I am not really huge into Rachmaninoff or Liszt.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Lennon knew his voice was awful, even. He was right not to like it, haha! :lol:

I do kind of mean that, though, but certainly he wasn't hurting financially.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

If we started to list the rock singers with less-than-perfect, or outright "bad" voices, we would be listing a huge number, a huge percentage, of the most loved, admired, revered names in the genre. Rock is not about technically great or smooth or polished voices. Neither is The Blues. Neither is cante flamenco. Sometimes you get singers with great voices, but the material and their delivery of that material must carry the weight.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> If we started to list the rock singers with less-than-perfect, or outright "bad" voices, we would be listing a huge number, a huge percentage, of the most loved, admired, revered names in the genre. Rock is not about technically great or smooth or polished voices. Neither is The Blues. Neither is cante flamenco. Sometimes you get singers with great voices, but the material and their delivery of that material must carry the weight.


I get it, I just don't like it.

I think Paul Mcartney is great singer, though.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Traditionally, Rock music is anarchic (or some variation of), so most of its vocalists are going to sound un-polished, gritty, and so forth. Raw emotion, "living" the music is what one tends to be listening to in this regard, not technical polish. Of course, there are several subgenres of Rock that arent in the anarchic mold, far from it. Over time, Rock has assimilated and included pretty much all/most other genres of music.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

The rock singers that sing well in your opinion (Freddy Mercury and Paul McCartney) seem to be the singers I least like in rock.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Rock singers generally should have a sort of 'vitriol' to their singing - Ian Gillan is a really good example. I also like David Byron's singing on the first Uriah Heep records. Bon Scott and Brian Johnson (AC/DC) are really 'rocky', I like them too - raunchy and to the point.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What is your opinion on the vocal capabilities of the majority of rock groups? IMO, because they are not properly trained much more than half the time, they use their vocal chords improperly and are pitchy and just poor vocalists.
> 
> What they do have going for them is that they often sing with a lot of heart and passion, and while I love soul in music, I prefer when it's combined with good technique.
> 
> ...


I actually prefer popular singers.
While I like to hear a classically trained singers, I absolutely love the uniqueness and originality of a lot of popular singers. First of all the classical technique was developed in order to achieve a lot of volume, because there were no microphones. That means that singing like that you have to lose the natural sound of the voice. So you can't have a classical singer whispering like Zeze Gonzaga, or a raspy but incredible voice like Dock Boggs, Tom Waits, Rick Johnson.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> They do do that, certainly! Most of them, at least.
> 
> Can we all agree Freddie Mercury is the best singer in rock music, technically speaking?


No, he was a great vocalist but I prefer someone like Tim Buckley. But why do you care about technique?
That's not what makes a great singer. Or guys like Bobby McFerrin or Anna-Maria Hefele should be considered the ultimate singers.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> The rock singers that sing well in your opinion (Freddy Mercury and Paul McCartney) seem to be the singers I least like in rock.


I agree. Mercury has his moments, though I generally find him superficial. It's difficult to think of many vocalists that are more mundane or trivial than Paul McCartney.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

If the voice suits the music well I'm not bothered how technically 'good' it is - I'd rather have good music with so-so vocals than the other way around. It depresses me that there are so many gifted female pop singers about but the generic push-button pap that is written for them does little or no justice to their vocal talents - i.e. any of the 'r n b' genre. I heard a Beyoncé album some time back and one of the tracks was a kind of sassy 70s funk throwback and she really nailed it - needless to say virtually the rest of the album was lame beyond belief because that's what sells.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bob Dylan. We could go on about Bob Dylan and that wretched voice. A toad with asthma attempting to sing. Yet this raspy, broken voice gives us the outrage of _Hurricane_, the erotic languor of _Lay Lady Lay_, the venom of _Positively 4th Street_, the weary cynicism of _Things Have Changed_, the joy of _Tonight I'll be Staying Here With You_. It's the material (Nobel Prize material) and the way the material is delivered.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> I agree. Mercury has his moments, though I generally find him superficial. It's difficult to think of many vocalists that are more mundane or trivial than Paul McCartney.


Beefheart is one of the few. But at least it didn't get in the way of the music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Check out these vocals. His later intentionally off-key vocal style was a big influence on Coyne from the Flaming Lips and others






I don't particularly like his vocals, but the music is ok.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

There is some interesting use of screams like Lennon's Plastic Ono Band, but here is some used as part of the melody. Black Francis, a very unique singer.






Ok, maybe not so unique. But individual


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What is your opinion on the vocal capabilities of the majority of rock groups?


That almost all of them have singers who can sing better than I can.



Captainnumber36 said:


> IMO, because they are not properly trained much more than half the time, they use their vocal chords improperly


What, _in particular_, is it that you think rock vocalists are trying to achieve, but failing to due to poor technique?
(One reasonable answer might be 'not hurting their voices', but then, there might be a certain nobility in sacrificing one's voice for the sake of a couple of good songs / gigs!)



Captainnumber36 said:


> and are pitchy


I don't think the _majority _of rock vocalists are pitchy - That seems an odd statement.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally there is a lot of Opera I don't like hearing, which has a lot of show off moments especially by Puccini. Plus I hate O Sole Mio, which they play the Pavarotti version on the radio often. I find the music with a lot of show off moments to be really vulgar.


If you want _pitchy_, opera's where it's at! "Never mind the note I'm supposed to be singing, check the vibrato!"


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

topo morto said:


> If you want _pitchy_, opera's where it's at! "Never mind the note I'm supposed to be singing, check the vibrato!"


lol, so true. Sometimes there so much vibrato I don't even know what note the singer is actually singing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

topo morto said:


> That almost all of them have singers who can sing better than I can.
> 
> What, _in particular_, is it that you think rock vocalists are trying to achieve, but failing to due to poor technique?
> (One reasonable answer might be 'not hurting their voices', but then, there might be a certain nobility in sacrificing one's voice for the sake of a couple of good songs / gigs!)
> ...


they are live!!!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm not discrediting soul and emotion in delivery, but if I had to choose between excellent technique and lots of emotion, I'd choose technique.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not discrediting soul and emotion in delivery, but if I had to choose between excellent technique and lots of emotion, I'd choose technique.


that's like saying that if you have to choose between a great actor and a mediocre one with a handsome face you would choose the latter.
A singer is like an actor, it does matter if he or she is good looking, that's not the important thing. Emotion in music is much more important than technique, in any genre (at least for me).


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not discrediting soul and emotion in delivery, but if I had to choose between excellent technique and lots of emotion, I'd choose technique.


Oh boy. Sorry, can't agree with this one. What's the point of technique if it doesn't serve the purpose of relaying emotion(s) (and/or concept(s) ... they're interchangeable) ?

And, if the emotion(s), concept(s) have infact been relayed, particularly if to an extraordinary degree, was it bad technique after all, regardless of the vocal means in which this occurred?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not discrediting soul and emotion in delivery, but if I had to choose between excellent technique and lots of emotion, I'd choose technique.


Enjoy, Cap'n!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

norman bates said:


> that's like saying that if you have to choose between a great actor and a mediocre one with a handsome face you would choose the latter.
> A singer is like an actor, it does matter if he or she is good looking, that's not the important thing. Emotion in music is much more important than technique, in any genre (at least for me).


I disagree with your metaphor. Technique is not like the looks of an actor, it's more like this when it comes to acting, how convincing was the persons ability to portray the roll. There are many daytime soaps where they are clearly with emotion (and looks too) but they are not convincing (technique).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Enjoy, Cap'n!


That is something I have always respected about pop stars (when not overusing autotune) is their ability for good technique.

But both technique and emotion are important to me, and the best have both.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Oh boy. Sorry, can't agree with this one. What's the point of technique if it doesn't serve the purpose of relaying emotion(s) (and/or concept(s) ... they're interchangeable) ?
> 
> And, if the emotion(s), concept(s) have infact been relayed, particularly if to an extraordinary degree, was it bad technique after all, regardless of the vocal means in which this occurred?


I'm sure the balance between emotion and technique is different for all of us; it's really not a black and white deal.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I disagree with your metaphor. Technique is not like the looks of an actor, *it's more like this when it comes to acting, how convincing was the persons ability to portray the roll.*


I agree with that definition. The ability to make the carachter real. That means the ability to show emotion in a convincing way. If an actor is good looking but he can't do that, or he's melodramatic or not expressive his aspect does not have any importance, he's still a terrible actor. He will make the movie worse.

Now take a singer: if a singer has studied technique, and he knows how to have volume, hit high notes, make fast and difficult passages, but he can't convey emotion in a piece of music, he is definitely a worse singer than one with a ugly voice, uncertain pitch and no technique but able to put life in a song.
As Neil Young said in Tonight's is the night:

"Well, late at night when the people were gone
He used to pick up my guitar
And sing a song in a shaky voice
That was real as the day was long"
"Because people let me tell you
It sent a chill up and down my spine"

that's what a great singer is for me.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Try Mike Patton, you've got a new universe awaiting


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

norman bates said:


> I agree with that definition. The ability to make the carachter real. That means the ability to show emotion in a convincing way. If an actor is good looking but he can't do that, or he's melodramatic or not expressive his aspect does not have any importance, he's still a terrible actor. He will make the movie worse.
> 
> Now take a singer: if a singer has studied technique, and he knows how to have volume, hit high notes, make fast and difficult passages, but he can't convey emotion in a piece of music, he is definitely a worse singer than one with a ugly voice, uncertain pitch and no technique but able to put life in a song.
> As Neil Young said in Tonight's is the night:
> ...


Pitchiness makes me cringe, I find it to be unprofessional. I find poor technique to be unprofessional in general, I'm not interested in a lot of emotion with poor technique, that's me though. On the opposite end, not all technically great singers are for me mostly because of the songs (see pop stars).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

David OByrne said:


> Try Mike Patton, you've got a new universe awaiting


 Are you trying to give me an early death?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I find poor technique to be unprofessional in general


Professionality is not a good way to value a musician to me. When I listen to Atahualpa Yupanqui I don't think, "oh, he's is so professional" or "he's hitting a high note", like music was the tricky number of a juggler done superficially for the wow factor. It's more the fact that while he sings he put life in the music. That's what great art is about.






Then sure, you had singers like Maria Callas who had amazing technique AND a fantastic ability to show emotions. But If she had just the former, I don't think she would have been so celebrated today.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

norman bates said:


> Professionality is not a good way to value a musician to me. When I listen to Atahualpa Yupanqui I don't think, "oh, he's is so professional" or "he's hitting a high note", like music was the tricky number of a juggler done superficially for the wow factor. It's more the fact that while he sings he put life in the music. That's what great art is about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you've read my posts carefully, you would see I am not saying I don't like soul and emotion. In fact, my favorite is when both are there!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

In a lot of rock and alternative music, for the singing to match the concept or mood of the music, it may call for vocals that are not traditionally great technically. That kind of vocals may actually get in the way of conveying the mood or ideas in the music. Think of the song, Paint it Black. Can Josh Groban or someone more "technically gifted" be able to sing it like Jagger did? Could anyone other than Plant sing Stairway to Heaven? This genre calls for alternative techniques in singing. And those alternative techniques may be not be in line with traditional technique.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> In a lot of rock and alternative music, for the singing to match the concept or mood of the music, it may call for vocals that are not traditionally great technically. That kind of vocals may actually get in the way of conveying the mood or ideas in the music. Think of the song, Paint it Black. Can Josh Groban or someone more "technically gifted" be able to sing it like Jagger did? Could anyone other than Plant sing Stairway to Heaven? This genre calls for alternative techniques in singing. And those alternative techniques may be not be in line with traditional technique.


I've never liked Mic Jagger's voice. Plant is better imo, but still not there. But, this is one reasons I've turned from the genre. But I agree, acceptance from fans of alternative singing styles is at least how the genre survives.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I really love Jim Morrison's voice too.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Are you trying to give me an early death?


If by "early death" you mean show you a singer and musician that can do everything. The whole range from gentle subtle smooth jazz, to alternative rock, to death metal, to outright screaming at the limit of his vocal chords (which not many vocalists do), then YES


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

David OByrne said:


> If by "early death" you mean show you a singer and musician that can do everything. The whole range from gentle subtle smooth jazz, to alternative rock, to death metal, to outright screaming at the limit of his vocal chords (which not many vocalists do), then YES


I got the screaming at the limit of his vocal chords where he is wearing some gas mask of sorts. Not a good first exposure! :lol:


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Ok Captain, based on what it seems like you're looking for, you're bound to be impressed by at least some of these -- each combinations of extraordinary emotional expression and what you seem to mean by technique. I linked you up to some of their best performances 

Meredith Monk





Tim Buckley





Van Morrison





Mary Margaret O' Hara









Sinead O'Connor





Bjork





Joni Mitchell





Lisa Gerrard (Dead Can Dance)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4ImhwW3FaMZhRRTSYkk0q0F3k_UQ57F1

Elisabeth Fraser





Nick Cave (mainly because you like Jim Morrison)





NOTE: I just noticed that only some of these are the lead singers of "rock" bands (the others are solo acts with backing band), which is what you were apparently referring to in the OP, but whatever


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Ok Captain, based on what it seems like you're looking for, you're bound to be impressed by at least some of these -- each combinations of extraordinary emotional expression and what you seem to mean by technique. I linked you up to some of their best performances
> 
> Meredith Monk
> 
> ...


I'm tempted to stop my current CD of Piano Concertos to check out your suggestions, but I don't want to at the same time!

Ugh. Decisions, decisions!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm really liking this Meredith Monk so far!

And then it got annoying after a bit, and then just weird. :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The one that intrigued me the most was the Meredith Monk, but it got repetitive after a bit and then just flat out strange as I said above.

I think I could really get into Leonard Cohen though. I've only heard the entirety of his final album and of course Hallelujah and really loved it. It is by chance that my hero Rufus Wainwright cites him as an influence!


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I got the screaming at the limit of his vocal chords where he is wearing some gas mask of sorts. Not a good first exposure! :lol:


Lower, softer voice:











Just listen:






More classical style:






Dark, moody and aggressive vocals:






More:


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

His fun, upper register voice:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

After-hours, I will say all of those vocalists are far and beyond the typical rock vocalist.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The one that intrigued me the most was the Meredith Monk, but it got repetitive after a bit and then just flat out strange as I said above.
> 
> I think I could really get into Leonard Cohen though. I've only heard the entirety of his final album and of course Hallelujah and really loved it. It is by chance that my hero Rufus Wainwright cites him as an influence!


I think we're wasting our time here. Somehow I think you have some sort of preset conceptions of rock and rock singers. AfterHours posted a load of great songs and all you're intrigued by is Meredith Monk. Well, 98% of everything is crap and the same goes for rock. The other 2% is heaven and you should open up if you want to be a part of that. Personally I suggest you take a good listen to Joni Mitchell and Nick Cave.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> After-hours, I will say all of those vocalists are far and beyond the typical rock vocalist.


Thank goodness!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> I think we're wasting our time here. Somehow I think you have some sort of preset conceptions of rock and rock singers. AfterHours posted a load of great songs and all you're intrigued by is Meredith Monk. Well, 98% of everything is crap and the same goes for rock. The other 2% is heaven and you should open up if you want to be a part of that. Personally I suggest you take a good listen to Joni Mitchell and Nick Cave.


Not everyone likes the same thing. I'm open to trying things, but you shouldn't try to force me to like things.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm really liking this Meredith Monk so far!
> 
> And then it got annoying after a bit, and then just weird. :lol:


It's an avant-garde vocal, theatrical performance, so maybe it was a bit of wishful thinking on my part to recommend that one. She is possessed, passing through various states, on the verge of dying amidst such powerful transformations. The unbelievable technical feat of it and the amount of emotional sensation it traverses is astonishing.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

One rock band I've always wanted to investigate more was a band called "The Pentangle". I find them amazing, and to my preference. Check out this song:


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

On pitchiness:



Captainnumber36 said:


> they are live!!!


There is some truth in that - But then, there are some ways in which rock concerts may be less conducive to ideal vocal performances - such as the vocalist needing to improvise, dance, talk with the fans, play an instrument, or dodge bottles being thrown. There are definitely also _some _ rock vocalists who might be there for reasons other than the reliability of their vocals - I agree with you there. But if it's genuinely true that a _majority_ of rock vocalists can't hit the notes, then I've obviously been pretty lucky with the performers I've chosen to see so far...


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

In the UK there was a 1970s group called Sailor who had a couple of big hits. I remember one publication describing lead singer Georg Johan Tjegodiev Kajanus (a Norwegian who, incidentally, is directly descended from the Russian aristocracy) as "sounding like Bryan Ferry with a bad case of lockjaw". Still makes me chuckle, that one.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Leo Tolstoy, _Anna Karenina_

IN a similar sense, all good, polished vocalists (in Rock) are alike, and all idiosyncratically "unprofessional" or otherwise sub-par singers are unlike, each in his or her own way. I mentioned Bob Dylan previously. Some others with, shall we say, "non-prime" voices would include Joni Mitchell, as above, Laura Nyro, Robert Plant, certainly Billy Corgan, Chrissie Hynde, Polly Jean Harvey, Patti Smith....... Actually, we could continue the list of bad, or wobbly, or thin-voiced or screechy singers until the cows come home and add their bellowing to the din. The point is that Rock (Pop to a much lesser extent) is a matter of the material, and, especially if the singer wrote the material, a matter of good material being offered vocally by someone who is committed to it. Vocal quality is only very rarely ever an issue among the audience for rock--the only time I find it comes up is from people who "just don't like X's voice" (usually Dylan's). Again, all a matter of personal taste, but a matter that is at the outer periphery of the Rock experience for almost all those who really like Rock.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Leo Tolstoy, _Anna Karenina_
> 
> IN a similar sense, all good, polished vocalists (in Rock) are alike, and all idiosyncratically "unprofessional" or otherwise sub-par singers are unlike, each in his or her own way. I mentioned Bob Dylan previously. Some others with, shall we say, "non-prime" voices would include Joni Mitchell, as above, Laura Nyro, Robert Plant, certainly Billy Corgan, Chrissie Hynde, Polly Jean Harvey, Patti Smith....... Actually, we could continue the list of bad, or wobbly, or thin-voiced or screechy singers until the cows come home and add their bellowing to the din. The point is that Rock (Pop to a much lesser extent) is a matter of the material, and, especially if the singer wrote the material, a matter of good material being offered vocally by someone who is committed to it. Vocal quality is only very rarely ever an issue among the audience for rock--the only time I find it comes up is from people who "just don't like X's voice" (usually Dylan's). Again, all a matter of personal taste, but a matter that is at the outer periphery of the Rock experience for almost all those who really like Rock.


I have to say that to me Joni Mitchell besides being a great singer has a beautiful voice.
I can't think of many vocal performances amazing as that sort of yodel at the ending of this version of Woodstock (4:10 in the video)


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Leo Tolstoy, _Anna Karenina_
> 
> IN a similar sense, all good, polished vocalists (in Rock) are alike, and all idiosyncratically "unprofessional" or otherwise sub-par singers are unlike, each in his or her own way. I mentioned Bob Dylan previously. Some others with, shall we say, "non-prime" voices would include Joni Mitchell, as above, Laura Nyro, Robert Plant, certainly Billy Corgan, Chrissie Hynde, Polly Jean Harvey, Patti Smith....... Actually, we could continue the list of bad, or wobbly, or thin-voiced or screechy singers until the cows come home and add their bellowing to the din. The point is that Rock (Pop to a much lesser extent) is a matter of the material, and, especially if the singer wrote the material, a matter of good material being offered vocally by someone who is committed to it. Vocal quality is only very rarely ever an issue among the audience for rock--the only time I find it comes up is from people who "just don't like X's voice" (usually Dylan's). Again, all a matter of personal taste, but a matter that is at the outer periphery of the Rock experience for almost all those who really like Rock.


Just as importantly, the idiosyncrasies enhance the material, if they are in tune with its message. Who better to sing a moaning, depressing song than a whiny, nasally vocalist? Who better to sing a song about being weak and vulnerable than someone whose voice is crumbling a little?

Often, the technical 'imperfections' are, in fact, not imperfections at all; their absence would diminish the material.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Put me down as someone who, personally, loves the voices of Joni Mitchell, Chrissie Hynde, _et al_! As topo morto points out, their vocal idiosyncrasies often enhance the material. And these highly-individualized voices become an integral part of the whole experience of singer and song. I don't know how many people have told me they can't deal with Geddy Lee's voice, but Rush without that unique voice is.....unimaginable. Ditto for so many other artists and groups.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> They do do that, certainly! Most of them, at least.
> 
> Can we all agree Freddie Mercury is the best singer in rock music, technically speaking?


No, we can't. Besides, "technique" might be important for preserving the health of vocal chords, but not for singing rock.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

One of the women I've always thought had/has one of the most clear and powerful voices in Rock is Ann Wilson of _Heart_. And sister Nancy is no croaking frog either. Their duo singing on especially the studio version of their cover of Led Zeppelin's _The Battle of Evermore_ is spine-tingling.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Even when I was listening to rock music, in the back of my head, the "imperfections" always bothered me. I like a soulful performance, but not at the expense of "proper" execution.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Even when I was listening to rock music, in the back of my head, the "imperfections" always bothered me. I like a soulful performance, but not at the expense of "proper" execution.

What is "proper execution?" To me it seems to be about that which is best suited to the work of art... in this case the performance of a given song.

If I were take this into the realm of the visual arts... painting... there is no "proper execution".





































All four of these paintings involve a mastery of paint handling, drawing, composition, color, etc... but each employs a different concept of mastery toward different expressive goals. The songs of Muddy Waters, Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, or the Rolling Stones don't call for a polished classical vocalists. Indeed, such a vocalist would lose much of the expressive elements that are a kery element of the music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Even when I was listening to rock music, in the back of my head, the "imperfections" always bothered me. I like a soulful performance, but not at the expense of "proper" execution.
> 
> What is "proper execution?" To me it seems to be about that which is best suited to the work of art... in this case the performance of a given song.
> 
> ...


You make good sense, and it's a good way to look at rock vocalists. However, none of those paintings are to my taste, and neither are rock vocalists.

It doesn't seem like my taste in painters and music do not seem to line up, I tend to enjoy Picasso's cubism, Van Gough, and Claude Monet to name a few.

Their lines are far from perfect, but that's not really what I'm looking for. But my ears and eyes are looking for different things to feed my soul, so be it!


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Even when I was listening to rock music, in the back of my head, the "imperfections" always bothered me. I like a soulful performance, but not at the expense of "proper" execution.
> 
> What is "proper execution?" To me it seems to be about that which is best suited to the work of art... in this case the performance of a given song.
> 
> ...


Yes, thank you. This I agree with ^^^


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't think it's so much the uniqueness that sends me away from rock vocalists as much as when it's obvious they are having trouble executing their own songs the way it's intended to be; when they are obviously straying from the album versions, and not on purpose.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

forget this post.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I suppose I define "proper execution" as performing in a way that the artists intends it to be. 

Unintentional mistakes are obvious to me, it's a blessing and a curse.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think there is an underlying tone in Rock Music of "I don't care" & "Who gives a ******" which doesn't resonate well with me. It shows in their message and performance, their lack of care. This has never sat right with me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Rock music isn't very sophisticated, and I look for that in music, certainly. If it is sophisticated, I have to love it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Rock music isn't very sophisticated, and I look for that in music, certainly. If it is sophisticated, I have to love it.


Some rock is very sophisticated, even if it doesn't appear that way to everyone.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Some rock is very sophisticated, even if it doesn't appear that way to everyone.


lol, you guys have helped influence me to listen to classical exclusively now, lol! The reverse effect has happened.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> lol, you guys have helped influence me to listen to classical exclusively now, lol! The reverse effect has happened.


No problem, as I always say. Your loss, Cap'n


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> No problem, as I always say. Your loss, Cap'n


It's truly the only music for my heart, .


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

As I said, we 'were wasting our time' (not meant negatively or personally). Well, maybe not, as the Captain knows his preferences even better. I hope he also understands non-classical a little better.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> As I said, we 'were wasting our time' (not meant negatively or personally). Well, maybe not, as the Captain knows his preferences even better. I hope he also understands non-classical a little better.


I have. It was a worthwhile discussion!


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> lol, you guys have helped influence me to listen to classical exclusively now, lol! The reverse effect has happened.


Well, what did you expect? This is a classical music forum. You fell right into the trap


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

By the way.... Thom Yorke's current performance at Glastonbury isn't doing it for me. I guess when you're the biggest band in the world you can get away with it....


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^

But the Glasto crowd will still cheer with one-eyed devotion just like they do for the likes of Coldplay.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

topo morto said:


> By the way.... Thom Yorke's current performance at Glastonbury isn't doing it for me. I guess when you're the biggest band in the world you can get away with it....


Ya, his vocals can be very hit more miss imo.


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Wayne Coin of the Flaming Lips is truly horrid. Thom Yorke of Radiohead is hit or miss, when he is on, I really love it, but this isn't the majority of the time.


I think millions of fans love Michael Stipe's voice. He may not have the pipes of Freddie Mercury but do you really need Mercury's pipes to sing "Losing My Religion"?. And then there's Wayne Coin. I ADORE his voice. I cannot imagine anybody who can do justice to "Chrome Plated Suicide":angel:


----------



## huntsman (Jan 28, 2013)

*What about this lad...? **

David Michael Draiman (born March 13, 1973) is an American songwriter and the vocalist for the band Disturbed as well as for the band Device. Draiman is known for his distorted voice and percussive singing style. In November 2006, Draiman was voted number 42 on the Hit Parader's "Top 100 Metal Vocalists of All Time".[SUP][1][/SUP] (Wiki)

**



*


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2017)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> But the Glasto crowd will still cheer with one-eyed devotion just like they do for the likes of Coldplay.


I think the Glasto crowd can cheer without reference to whether TY's singing is doing it for topo morto. I must say that whilst some of the singing was a little 'off', that's to be expected since his style is more about emoting than hitting the notes.


----------



## bestellen (May 28, 2015)

Both technique and emotion are important to me, and the best have both.


----------

