That's mostly true, but doesn't mean they'll be unsuccessful. Look at Bob Dylan - an amazing musician who can't sing worth crap. Other musicians who, honestly, don't sing very well: David Bowie and Roger Waters. (yes - I like those musicians very much. But let's face it - they really aren't very good singers).
True and I will add to that list: Neil Young Wayne Coyne (lead singer of The Flaming Lips) Billy Corgan Leonard Cohen Thom Yorke You don't get into these people because you think they "sound pretty", you (if you are like me) like the combination of lyrics with the music.
I disagree with both of you. Dylan is a fantastic singer (and another underrated musician), who gets the very most out of the voice he's got. Neil Young, David Bowie, Leonard Cohen not amazing singers? You're going by the quality of the voice, not the excellent job those people do with the voice they have.
Well, Deckard, that is true, too. Those guys just don't fit the mold of the "classic" singer whose voice is ear candy to the average listener.
David Bowie happens to be my favorite musician of any genre. I never thought of him as a bad singer. I guess all of my views are now invalidated.
I've played a couple of instruments in the past, and I know about music in general.. but I don't actively do much really. Except sing along with the radio or whatever. Anyway, I usually hear the music, the voices, the harmony, the background music.. also the beat. It's weird. I HEAR the lyrics. I know the lyrics and could do decently well on a show like "Don't forget the lyrics". But... I couldn't tell you what a song is about. I know them and sing them...but I don't try to comprehend them at all. So however you want to categorize that.
I'm really not trying to give you a hard time, Manny, but what would Dylan's music be without his voice? Or Young's? Or Bowie's? They are all unique. You hear one word sung by any of them, and you know immediately who's singing.
He is a great musician. And his singing has its own unique personality that makes him appealing. But admit it - he's really just not a great singer. A great musician, a great lyricist, yes... but great singer? No. Same goes for one of my personal favorites, Roger Waters. When you listen to Roger Waters and David Bowie and Bob Dylan, you're able to get past the so-so singing because the music is so fantastic.
But, if their voice is bad, it doesn't matter how much they get out of it. No one pays attention to their effort as much as they do to their ability. That's the way it is really in most things. Scott Skiles gave every ounce of effort he had on the basketball court, but that didn't make him half the player Michael Jordan was, which meant his skills (and his fanbase) were extremely limited. I do think that the singer is the most visible/audible member of the band because it is the one element everyone can relate to. As long as you can talk, you can sing. You may not sing well, but you don't need skill to open your mouth and make noise. Every other instrument requires at least a moderate amount of skill just to pick the instrument up, let alone play it well. I also think there is a difference between talent and persona. Guys like Neil Young get by on style and persona rather than on raw skills. But, it isn't really fair to compare artists from a time before 1990, really before 1980. That was a completely different time in music when very different things brought both critical acclaim and notoriety. To use a more modern reference, I do not consider Eddie Vedder a great singer. He has tons of charisma and has a very specific style of singing, but he isn't a classically gifted singer. On the other hand, Josh Groban is a fantastic classically trained singer. His music is mostly awful and his persona the height of cheese, but he is gifted as a singer. Those are the extremes. The pinnacle of both persona and skill would be someone like Freddy Mercury. To re-use the basketball comparison, it is rare to find a basketball player who is skilled, intelligent AND a dedicated competitor. You might be able to find guys with one or two of those qualities, but all three is nearly impossible, which is why so few fall into the category of the all-time greats. With singers, same thing. To have real talent/skill, charisma AND sing great songs is just rare. It almost never happens. Anyway, back to the discussion.
To some of the people in this thread: Just because the timbre, or sound or tone, of a person's singing voice isn't pleasant to you, doesn't mean they can't "sing" in the sense that they're hitting the notes. For instance a lot of Thom Yorke's mumbliness and whatever, are a stylistic choice, but I don't know if I can ever actually agree to even a small percent with somebody saying "he can't sing"
If Enrico Palazzo sang "Its All Over Now, Baby Blue" it wouldn't work. It wouldn't have the same sort of feeling of melancholy tired surrender. You can’t capture that with technical perfection. In the Nirvana thread there is a version of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Paul Anka. It was far better technically than anything that Kurt Cobain did, but a closser approach to technical perfection destroyed what made it popular in the first place - the mood. It was less for being better. The great impressionist artists like Monet weren't interested in painting the most technically perfect reproduction of reality. The paintings that they produced were great specifically because they weren't perfect, but instead captured something else, like a mood or a feeling. Technical perfection is passé.
The "pinnacle of performance and skill" by a popular musician of today's music would be (IMHO) Sara McLachlan (who is friggin' unbelievable). However, musicians of her talent and ability are in low demand. The millions teem to see 50 Cent. I believe there are musicians of extreme ability in performance and skill in both singing AND playing an instrument that never reach popularity from the masses today. There's a musician of SRV's skill and ability playing in some hole-in-the-wall joint somewhere. And he'll never make it big like SRV did. What used to be a one-in-a-million shot at making it big is now a complete impossibility because that's just not what people want any more.
What Jeff said. My wife, Deckard, is a great example. I have tried a couple of times to get her turned onto Dylan and she can't get past the fact that his voice isn't pleasing to her ear. It's a shame because she is so much more into lyrics than me. So, she would get so much out of Dylan's songs (she has told me that she likes versions of his songs done by other artists like Peter, Paul, and Mary and The Byrds). I mean, I see what you are saying but the normal, average non-musician is going to probably go with what sounds good to their ear. And unfortunately, most people can't filter the voice out to hear the band playing.
I recall doing a poll on this some time ago and more people cared about the Music than the Lyrics something like 60~70% Most people may hear the singer. . but don't 'listen' to what he saying this is why so many top 100 songs have horrible lyrics I'm more lyric oriented. . if the lyrics suck or are offensive to me I generally cannot deal with the song no matter the musical genius but most of the other folx i know. . . don't have this issue most of the bands out there with songs I like I could careless who the singer is .. . I don't know the lead singer to must bands. . . until they go solo or something Rocket River
I'm into music as much for the lyrics as the instrumental aspects. Thats not saying I can't enjoy both because I do. I think the vocals are the singers instument and if it meshes with the other instruments then it all comes together.
