They wouldn't have gotten their without Syd... They were a rhythm and blues band before Syd came in with his experimental direction... Why do you think Pink Floyd had those aimless "tryout" albums prior to Meddle...? Waters himself (who was greatly responsible for their resurgence and greatest commercial success) has talked about how uncertain Floyd's future was after Syd was out of the group... They even tried to get Syd to take a Brian Wilson role, where he'd continue to write for them, just not perform and it simply didn't work out... They were lost for a while without him... One of their biggest albums, "Wish you were here", was heavily influenced by Roger's memories/thoughts of Syd... They don't make it as big as they got with Syd - given Syd's music wasn't made for everyone's ear, especially americans - but they don't get the raw experimental elements to rediscover and rearrange without him leading them in that direction.... I enjoyed his solo albums, as well...
Man, WTF? I'd buy talking about maybe Lou Reed, or Mark Knopfler not really singing- but David Gilmour? What about Young Lust? Or Time? That's not singing? Obviously, you all are trolling or really suck at judging singers.
Bull****. I could cite dozens of specific examples of his great singing. Let's see, start with Time. Then, there's Wish you Were Here, Dogs (a particularly great example), the break in Comfortably Numb, etc. Terrific voice- one of the purest-sounding ones in rock (again, see C.N.), but also can rock (Young Lust). Great, great singer. Absolutely. Never, ever crossed my mind he was limited at all. Not everyone is Freddie Mercury or Steve Perry, BTW. I also liked singers like George Harrison, Benjamin Orr, Tom Petty, and Jeff Lynne- distinct voices, but certainly can carry a tune well. Agree to disagree.
Absolutely gets more ridiculous the more I read... melody is neglected??? I mean, seriously, if you've got some weird Syd Barrett that ****s up your judgment that much, well, I'm sorry for you. Seriously, first time I've ever heard people calling Gilmour a no-talent singer- and I visit a lot of music boards, believe me. Well, this is basically Gilmour's f**k you to anyone who says he can't sing: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/T1N84wemDNk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Clear-cut is a qualifier. Let's see, I guess we need an example here: If we got Paul Millsap to replace Terence Jones, that would be an improvement. If we got Blake Griffin to replace Terence Jones, that would be a "clear-cut" improvement.
Absolutely right- Hodgson a founding member, same with Yes, Anderson was a founding member. I stand corrected.
I wouldn't say he is a no-talent singer but agree that he is not really great. His appeal I think is tone and the way he fit within the music. As an instrument, though, his voice is lacking. The song you picked as proof of his great ability is really weird because it is not great. Think about Wish You Were Here. Classic slow song for Floyd that became popular but it is not because of his singing prowess. In fact, there are a lot of places where he misses notes or is off key. Perhaps that is intentional in an attempt to be more emotionally vulnerable but I have always had trouble with those moments because otherwise it is trying to be a straight forward love song. But with Gilmour and Waters I don't really need them to be great singers. Would clash with the music if they had amazing vocals. The music was deep, rich, complex. The vocals were human. Waters had the edge and nihilism and Gilmour had the vulnerable soft tone.
I would suggest you could argue that when Journey changed from Gregg Rollie to Steve Perry it was where the "improvement" came into play but I guess that is even debatable depending on whether you think the pop Journey stuff is "better". Another one to add is Iron Maiden when Paul DiAnno left for Bruce Dickenson. I don't think anyone disputes Bruce is a way better singer but Killers is one of the best metal albums of all time, IMO! DiAnno was the right singer for that album no question. IMO, the only real two bands in contention are AC/DC and Van Halen as they were already very popular bands with very distinctive singers who went through this change. Obviously both bands did really well and I dispute your claim that Van Halen got worse with Hagar. It was just different and if that doesn't do it for you, that's fine. But they still sold a butt load of albums.
True that there would be no Pink Floyd without Barrett. But there would be no DSOTM, WYWH, Animals, or The Wall if Syd hadn't gone crazy and the band brought in Gilmour. That's why I say it was an improvement. And it's not like they were replacing Freddie Mercury on vocals.
You might want to reacquaint yourself with the definition of the term "clear-cut" and the word "improvement"... There is no introduced "quality" that hasn't already been presented by the word used... In this case, improvement... If anything, the term "clear-cut improvement"... is a more of compatibly redundant phrase used for emphasis... than what you're trying to make it out to be... Now, if I had used the adjective "vast" or "immense" then I would've been adding a qualifier... As these words denote a significant degree in difference between the two subjects being compared... While "clear-cut" doesn't... To be unambiguous or distinctly better... is to be an improvement...
But, that's merely a matter of taste... Personally, I prefer Syd's voice... as it transmitted more personality... while, others favored David/Waters for reasons listed in this thread... Neither side is providing evidence of an ambiguous difference/disparity in singing talent... It's taste... not a matter of improvement in vocal aptitude between the three...
Your posts get more emotional with each reply.... which is pretty much verifying my previous claim... Your fandom is simply getting the best of you....
It was a year between albums. Back in Black was released about five months after Bon Scott died, though.
An equally reasonable take here... with a more forgiving approach on the subject of talent.... appropriately reasoned by one's own taste... Like I've been saying all along... Dandorotik might see it, if he were not blinded by his fandom...
I always enjoyed Gilmour's voice, though I think the criticism of it's technical quality is probably appropriate. But if it sounds good, it must be good. Has there ever been a best rock lead singer poll here? Maybe Freddie Mercury vs. the field?
