i prefer syd...gilmour was a wanker who slowly ruined pink floyd. at least sammy hagar knows how to party. CABO WABO!!!!!!!!!!!
Pink Floyd never really had a lead singer. David Gilmour has a silky smooth voice and is one of the best rock guitarists ever. Waters has a more maniacal quality. This worked well as a combination. Neither will ever be confused with Freddie Mercury, but the duo would write some of the greatest rock albums ever.
My two cents... 1) Bon Scott was easily the better singer. Not that there weren't great moments for them Post-Scott, but give me the original any day. 2) Anderson was Yes's original singer, having joing the band with Squire in '68. I guess you can say "Post-Drama" when Trevor Horn stepped in for that album. 3) There would be no Floyd without Syd. Of the two singers left once Syd was kicked to the curb, I prefer Waters. Yeah, Gilmore is great, but I prefer the edgy vocals. 4) Journey. Perry 5) Styx. Shaw.
I was thinking seamless transition type thing not better than --Bon Scott was one of the best all time, but Back in Black was one of the best selling rock albums ever.
I don't even consider what David Gilmour does as singing. It's more like talking into a microphone with a low bass voice. Yea...he's good at that.
Pink Floyd had a lead singer and frontman, originally... Syd... Obviously, no one's going to question Waters/Gilmour's musicianship and writing talents.... but, they're hardly good vocalists.... Gilmour's quiet tone, is just that.... It's an old trick done by vocalists to this day to conceal a lack in talent... Britney Spears used the same "technique", though she was obviously much more limited than David... since she kept her volume at least 3notches lower than David, but sang just as closely to the mic... to prevent going off key... Bob Dylan did the same thing... Of course, outside of singing... Britney Spears doesn't belong in this conversation...
Richie Furay to Paul Cotton. <iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xPMadlXtfE0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zachNKsJDJY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Precisely... Volume is kept to a minimum, melody is neglected, vibrato is abandoned... notes are presented, but hardly touched... all for the purpose of staying in key as a vocalist when not in possession of the actual talent of singing...
Charlie Dominici -> James LaBrie -Dream Theater Rod Tyler -> Russell Allen -Symphony X Both huge improvements after the change from debut to second album.
I can't say any of the bands mentioned thus far were improved by replacing the original lead singer. Least of all Genesis.... Surely with all the routine band member changes over the years there are some examples of improvement, but I'll be damned if I can think of one off the top of my head. I'll probably wake up in the middle of the night tonight with the answer.
Yes, and Waters and Wright had singing credits early on too. I just think the dynamic between Roger and David's voices was a big part of their success as well. Kind of a madness vs insanity or yin yang if you will. And thus an improvement over Barrett. But I'll go with Bruce Dickinson over Paul Di'Anno.
But, that's not an improvement... They simply went down a more conventional route vocally, which is more palatable to the fans of the genre... but their singing talent in itself was no better than Syd's... That's what I'm talking about...
Pink Floyd would never have become a hugely successful stadium rock band with Syd. Personally I don't listen to PF but enjoy Syd's solo work.
