Tom Sez - Maybe we should separate the terms "great singer" and "great vocalist".

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Here's something to mull over.
Is it possible to be a great singer but still have a terrible voice?
Is it possible to have a great voice but still have a terrible singer? (Hint: Most nimrods hold up Celine Dion as having a good voice, but I think thats irrelevant. She hasn't figured out how to do anything useful with it.)

― Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Friday, 10 January 2003 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Damn! I would have sworn that Dan Perry started this thread....

― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 10 January 2003 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

of course. there are plenty of technically limited singers whose voices i enjoy. some voices just have a pleasing texture, or are very expressive. having said this, i wouldn't say technical ability counts for nothing.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 10 January 2003 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

.. Well .. next time I'll read the updates to the Metal Box thread before posting.

It's been a while since I challenged Dan Perry to a duel ...

― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 10 January 2003 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

What about people who actually DO have good singing voices, but use their voices in ways that you wouldn't necessarily call "singing", such as the melodically-charged flow-style vocals of dudes like Lyrics Born and Lateef and the Jurassic 5 dudes and some of the Outkast and Goodie Mob stuff and such?

I personally prefer the term "vocalist", as it can be applied to anyone across the board, from Jello Biafra to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan to Ani DiFranco to Bobby McFaren even. Plus, I think the term "singer" implies some sort of distinction between the voice & the instrumental music, whereas the term "vocalist" seems to imply using the voice as a musical instrument on equal footing with the other instruments involved.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 10 January 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I would say the "great singer" thing has WAY more to do with context than we generally take into account.

For instance, Michael Stipe doesn't have a particularly great voice, but in the context of REM, it sounds perfect.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 10 January 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I totally agree. Being a great singer means you're great at singing what you're singing... If Celine Dion sang "Black Rubber Bags" it would not be better than John Lydon. .. (John singing "I Will Always Love You" may, in fact, be better than Whitney however..)

― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 10 January 2003 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

barthes - and his "grain of the voice" theory - to thread.

― nathalie (nathalie), Friday, 10 January 2003 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with the distinction between "great singer" and "great vocalist". Where I might surprise people is that I do not think a great singer is automatically better than a great vocalist.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 10 January 2003 19:58 (twenty-two years ago)

(John singing "I Will Always Love You" may, in fact, be better than Whitney however..)
If anybody knows Lydon, ask him if he takes "requests"

― Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Friday, 10 January 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.