Actually lots of people argue for Di'Anno over Dickinson, not me though. Their first two albums are really good and some people like those over Dickinson's.
ACDC had great success with two lead sings The sad part is they were not looking to change lead singers.
Definition of clear-cut: very obvious and sharp : free from doubt or uncertainty : very definite. Definition of qualifier: a content word that qualifies the meaning of a noun or verb As it can be clearly seen, using the adjective "clear-cut" is most certainly a strong qualifier, as in the use of the word "very," among others, to define it. I did not use the word "clear-cut," nor any adjective, in my description within my first post. My first post in this thread: POST: But that's good to good- what about an improvement? If that's the case, I would say: 1. Fleetwood Mac- Bob Welch to Lindsey Buckingham/Stevie Nicks... 2. Pink Floyd - Syd Barrett to Roger Waters... EXPLANATION: The word "improvement" is used. Not clear-cut, nor vast, nor immense, nor tremendous, nor significant, nor substantial, nor enormous, or any other adjectives. Now, your response: POST: Seriously...?...Not that Syd was a quality vocalist... but, to say this is a clear cut "improvement"... is likely just a matter of taste...Waters, Barrett, nor Gilmour were competent vocalists.... They could barely get by... MY RESPONSE: The adjective "clear cut" is introduced, which was clearly not mentioned in the preceding post, nor was any adjective included. The word "improvement," by itself, can certainly be interpreted to mean a minor improvement, if one wishes to do so. As in "the addition of Terence Jones was an improvement over Pat Patterson." I would venture to say that many wouldn't consider the 2013-2014 version of Terence Jones to be anything but a minor improvement over PP. As far as the "barely get by...," well, that's a matter of opinion. One that I disagree with strongly. My use of emotion within my posts does nothing whatsoever to make your opinion any more valid; you think he is barely a singer, and I think your opinion is based upon a hearing condition you may suffer from that you may not be aware of. None holds more weight. The only thing that remains besides two individuals stating opinions- is the fact that you incorrectly described my original post. If you still do not understand that, perhaps a refresher course in grammar would be beneficial for you. Is that objective enough for you? :grin:
BTW, the reason I mention "improvement" in terms of going from Barrett to Waters/Gilmour is that, in my view of singers, one does not have to be a technically pure singer to be a great singer. I am of the opinion that a unique, distinct voice - albeit one that can reasonably carry a tune - is just as enjoyable as a technically pure voice. By that definition, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Michael Bolton, etc. would all be in my top 20-30, and they're not. Give me Bruce Springsteen, Roger Daltrey, Robin Zander, Joey Ramone, etc. any day over them. I don't have a problem with people being moved with Celine Dion singing My Heart Will Go On, but give me Springsteen's "Backstreets," Cheap Trick's "Best Friend," or The Who's "Guitar and Pen" any day over that.
Dandorotik... you're seriously engaging in some serious self-indulgent defeatism here... Every single argument in your trilogy of posts.... is pretty much in agreement to everything I've said from the beginning... You just established how your reasoning is entirely founded on personal taste... Yet are criticizing someone's musical ear (which is not founded on taste) for disagreeing with your definition of "improvement"... which is inaccurate... You reasons are now admittedly ambiguous... in your argument against the term "clear-cut"... not objectively definitive or unambiguous... Here's the definition of the word improve... im·prove v. im·proved, im·prov·ing, im·proves v.tr. 1. To raise to a more excellent quality or condition; make better Your personal tastes do not a technical improvement make on the subject of music... Here's an extreme example... If someone favors Bob Dylan to Luciano Pavarotti on the subject of singing... it doesn't make Bob Dylan equal or comparable let alone "better" than Pavarotti at singing.... Therefore any claim of improvement on the basis of genre preference... is inaccurate... To a more pertinent example... To say you prefer Gilmour to Barrett, where there is no - as you yourself have just admitted - distinct vocal difference in quality or condition... on the basis of your preference (wonderfully illustrated by your Celine Dion comparison to Springsteen)... does not make one an measurable improvement over the other... or better...
In essence... you really should've taken a hint... Also, would've served yourself better by taking a page from Rimbaud's reply... who is in favor of David's singing over Syd's... Where he disagrees (forgivingly) with my claim that Gilmour is entirely without the talent of singing... but agrees, he's not all that capable... Pointing, appropriately, where the appeal truly lies... A description that rests on one's personal tastes...
Absolutely not. You are still not getting it, and you never will. I said improvement. You said clear-cut improvement. They are not the same. Even in your definition below, it does not indicate an extreme degree of change- "more excellent" can be a little more, "make better" can be a little bit better. I write for a living, and when I am describing a more superlative achievement, that's what I use: substantial, significant, groundbreaking, immense, enormous, game-changing, 180-degree turnaround, extreme, and, yes, clear-cut. As in, "Instituted an ERP system that represented a clear-cut improvement over the existing legacy system." I do not include that adjective if the change is not significant, as in "Improved profitability 5% following 2 years of over-budget performance," unless the 2 years were really bad, then I might say, "Improved profitability 5% that represented significant gain over prior 2 years of severe budget deficits." Or something like that. But, what you're doing is trying to twist things around, anyway. I mean, come on, if you're seriously going to tell me that those two mean the same thing, that that particular adjective is basically redundant, well, my opinion is that you really do know you're wrong and you're just trying to save face. You could literally pose the same question to nearly anyone who gets it, and they'd all agree on the difference. But, go ahead and be purposefully ignorant and pretend that my original comment is equal to yours. Nice try. You can argue till you're blue in the face about your opinion, and I can do the same, and it won't make any difference in terms of who's right and who's wrong. But, actually, even the word improvement is subjective. So, if you say that you think one is not a substantial improvement, it is still your opinion. This is not a factual argument. You can't prove vocal quality any more than I can. I can say that I believe having a rougher voice is more rich and meaningful, and you can disagree, and we're still not talking about anything that can be proved empirically. Es un empate.
#120 on this list (not a poll, but moves up and down based on reader input): http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_vocalists.html #26 here: http://www.ranker.com/list/best-rock-vocalists/rockboy A poll with 129,781 votes And #9 on this, with comments (personal list): http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/207758-lifers-top-20-rock-vocalists-of-all-time "First off, he was better than Syd Barrett (who I don't think was all that good anyways). He was also better than Roger Waters, who he shared some of the vocal work in the band with. Gilmour sang my favorite song of theirs ("Wish You Were Here"), and he did the refrain for "Comfortably Numb". His voice wasn't nearly as crass as Barrett's was, and he had both a recognizable and very well-tuned voice."
Oh, well an insistent opinion based on personal tastes, not on ability + blogger links certainly makes your claim of "improved vocals" an irrefutable fact.... Brilliant... And I'm the one "not getting it"... too rich...
Actually, the opinions are just that... opinions. However, it turns out that you were actually correct and I was wrong. When I looked at the title, it said "Best lead singer change..."- so, technically, the thread title used a superlative. Therefore, in responding to the thread, I was implying it was a "best" lead singer change. Which, of course, it was not- I felt it was more of a minor change. But, the fact is that I was wrong on the whole clear-cut matter based on the thread title, and you turned out to be correct. Damn, I hate being wrong.
I'm a big fan of Gilmour but always though Rick Wright was always extremely underrated as a musician.
i remember reading about the singer from 'against me' having a sex change operation to become a female a couple years ago. does that count? <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cx8n-6vPjAg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So, you have a problem with Perry improving Journey due to your perception of their movement toward a pop direction upon his arrival, but you're standing by Van Hagar as one of the only examples in 'contention?' And because you know that will be seen by many as ridiculous, you're going to the "but they still sold a butt load of albums" card? Boo this man. You had a point until you Hagarred. I like me some red rocker, but get on your Bad Motor Scooter and ride out of here with that stuff.
The only bands I can remember having success after changing singers are Fleetwood Mac Iron Maiden AC/DC Black Sabbath Rainbow Deep Purple
Black Flag with Ron Reyes <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kOMdilYvo6I?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Black Flag with Henry Rollins <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/8QTsQymUCiY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Honestly, I like both equally in different ways..but I think Rollins allowed them to progress better as a band musically and lyrically.
i cant wait to hear how the red hot chilli peppers will sound after anthony dies from a heroin overdose and they get a singer who can actually "sing" and write lyrics that are not awful.
