Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 16 2013 at 05:33
I just listened to both and don't find him unrecognizable. He is singing in a lower key in the second and using a more gritty approach while it's very high pitched and clean in the first. By itself, that is not necessarily so unusual...Dio did it incredibly well on the song Too Late (though I don't think Dio's voice is otherwise as supple as Hammill's).
Joined: November 16 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 864
Posted: June 16 2013 at 05:39
bucka001 wrote:
If you can find me two examples of another singer where there's this much of a difference vocal-wise, please give me the names of the two tunes and the artist.
Not a snotty challenge, by the way. Just goofy stuff I find interesting. Would love to hear another singer who just sounds like a completely different person (and not self-consciously or on purpose; just where they're at in that phase or at that time).
Joined: November 16 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 864
Posted: June 16 2013 at 05:39
rogerthat wrote:
I just listened to both and don't find him unrecognizable. He is singing in a lower key in the second and using a more gritty approach while it's very high pitched and clean in the first. By itself, that is not necessarily so unusual...Dio did it incredibly well on the song Too Late (though I don't think Dio's voice is otherwise as supple as Hammill's).
But would you listen to the first, then the second, and think it's the same guy if you didn't know that going in?
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 16 2013 at 05:52
bucka001 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I just listened to both and don't find him unrecognizable. He is singing in a lower key in the second and using a more gritty approach while it's very high pitched and clean in the first. By itself, that is not necessarily so unusual...Dio did it incredibly well on the song Too Late (though I don't think Dio's voice is otherwise as supple as Hammill's).
But would you listen to the first, then the second, and think it's the same guy if you didn't know that going in?
I would because (a) the timbre which is very difficult for anybody to alter and (b) the accent. I have generally found Hammill using more or less same accent in whatever he sings so the spots where he emphasizes some syllables more or less gives it away. Speaking of accents, I was immediately reminded of Kate Bush. Just the pronunciation is so different on Man with a Child in his eyes, Coffee Homeground and The Dreaming. I don't know to what extent she would be able to execute it convincingly live because she has given so few live shows over the years but at least in the studio, it is impressive. Try it, Man with a Child and Coffee Homeground back to back. She even uses completely different parts of her range (apart from singing in a mellow style in the former and more theatrically in the latter) to disguise timbre. Among the men, again, Mike Patton can probably imitate the diction of anybody he wants to cover and incorporate it in originals if he so wishes. Consider his covers of Easy, War Pigs and Something for the girl with everything.
Joined: November 16 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 864
Posted: June 16 2013 at 05:58
rogerthat wrote:
I would because (a) the timbre which is very difficult for anybody to alter and (b) the accent.
Wow. Your ear is better than mine, then. I'll have to cry 'uncle' on that one.
rogerthat wrote:
Speaking of accents, I was immediately reminded of Kate Bush. Just the pronunciation is so different on Man with a Child in his eyes, Coffee Homeground and The Dreaming... Try it, Man with a Child and Coffee Homeground back to back. Among the men, again, Mike Patton can probably imitate the diction of anybody he wants to cover and incorporate it in originals if he so wishes. Consider his covers of Easy, War Pigs and Something for the girl with everything.
Great stuff! Will check it out. Father's Day (an American thing for those not of the U.S.) starting around the household now, I fully expect my five year old to make me bacon and eggs... should be interesting. ;-)
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 16 2013 at 06:03
Well, maybe it's more that as someone who has dabbled a bit in singing, I can hear more nuances without making a conscious effort. It just happens. It's annoying actually because I don't like to pay too much attention to intonation, but the ears bring all the pitch mistakes to notice and make me cringe involuntarily.
He may very well be the greatest rock singer of all time.
He's in my Top 5 Singers of all time. Better than most is close enough
Well, greatness has to be about more than just personal tastes, I guess. For sheer influence or sheer ability, I could name at least a few rock singers whose names would reasonably precede Hammill's. Plant, Daltrey, Gillian, Mercury for the former or Patton, Tim Buckley, Ronnie James Dio for the latter. Among others.
I'd put Hammill above Buckley, Dio and Patton lol
Can't argue about influence though, seeing VdGG never made it "big"
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16432
Posted: June 16 2013 at 13:16
Hi,
I really think, that calling what Peter does ... singing ... is actually not a clear description and evaluation of his work at all.
When you think of "singers", you imagine people that interpret pieces of music with the lyrics. Peter is NOT about interpretations per se ... it is about his life, loves and feelings, and the words are the natural expression of those emotions ... this is the reason why I do not call these "songs" ... because in so many ways ... they aren't.
That said, in the last 10 years or so, he has become very fomulaic and not as open and individualistic as he was 30 years ago, and I am not a great fan of his work for the past 5 to 6 years, when compared to everything before ... you KNEW, before that he lived and died his words ... now, in the most recent stuff ... I don't ... it feels just like a song ... he has lost his edge ... and I want to see him away from VdGG and more into his own expression and inner self ... that one is a true poet!
It's the same thing with Roy Harper ... you end up pushing the envelop and questioning if ... that ... that ... is really singing ... and the only answer you can really give it ... I'm not sure ... it's not a song!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16432
Posted: June 16 2013 at 13:31
Wanorak wrote:
I love Hammill's vocal range and theatricality. I think Fish sounded much more like Hammill than Peter Gabriel.
I think FISH tried ... I do think that in his earlier days, he was more concerned with the theatricality of it all, than the work itself, and I think it scattered his band a bit, but it stood up fine. He is far better today, than then, but we only remember his early work.
I often think that FISH is a bit too "topical" for my tastes ... which takes away from things, unlike Peter Hammill's obvious individuality, which is far more important in his use of words, than a "song" is, or its format!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: June 16 2013 at 15:32
Horizons wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Horizons wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
He may very well be the greatest rock singer of all time.
He's in my Top 5 Singers of all time. Better than most is close enough
Well, greatness has to be about more than just personal tastes, I guess. For sheer influence or sheer ability, I could name at least a few rock singers whose names would reasonably precede Hammill's. Plant, Daltrey, Gillian, Mercury for the former or Patton, Tim Buckley, Ronnie James Dio for the latter. Among others.
I'd put Hammill above Buckley, Dio and Patton lol
Can't argue about influence though, seeing VdGG never made it "big"
You don't have to make it "big" to be influential.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 16 2013 at 20:07
Horizons wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Horizons wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
He may very well be the greatest rock singer of all time.
He's in my Top 5 Singers of all time. Better than most is close enough
Well, greatness has to be about more than just personal tastes, I guess. For sheer influence or sheer ability, I could name at least a few rock singers whose names would reasonably precede Hammill's. Plant, Daltrey, Gillian, Mercury for the former or Patton, Tim Buckley, Ronnie James Dio for the latter. Among others.
I'd put Hammill above Buckley, Dio and Patton lol
Can't argue about influence though, seeing VdGG never made it "big"
"Above" for what? Your personal preference or technical ability? There's no way Hammill can sing over Patton's range and I have never heard anybody barring Ray Gillen who could match Dio's middle register. Whether or not technical skills are everything is a different issue, but I presume the question of who is the greatest has to be based on relatively less subjective considerations than personal preferences.
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
Posted: June 16 2013 at 23:20
rogerthat wrote:
Horizons wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Horizons wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
He may very well be the greatest rock singer of all time.
He's in my Top 5 Singers of all time. Better than most is close enough
Well, greatness has to be about more than just personal tastes, I guess. For sheer influence or sheer ability, I could name at least a few rock singers whose names would reasonably precede Hammill's. Plant, Daltrey, Gillian, Mercury for the former or Patton, Tim Buckley, Ronnie James Dio for the latter. Among others.
I'd put Hammill above Buckley, Dio and Patton lol
Can't argue about influence though, seeing VdGG never made it "big"
"Above" for what? Your personal preference or technical ability? There's no way Hammill can sing over Patton's range and I have never heard anybody barring Ray Gillen who could match Dio's middle register. Whether or not technical skills are everything is a different issue, but I presume the question of who is the greatest has to be based on relatively less subjective considerations than personal preferences.
"The greatest" is an almost completely subjective title; the more specific a value judgement about music, the more subjective it is, and "greatest" is quite a specific and lofty value judgement to make about any musician's work. Calling any musician the greatest, then, has to be based on subjective considerations; technical ability doesn't even come close to determining the quality of a vocalist's work.
That's why I qualified my statement with "may very well be," in order to emphasize the uncertainty and subjectivity inherent in such a claim. Austin's "better than most" is probably more accurate.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 17 2013 at 09:52
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Horizons wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Horizons wrote:
dr wu23 wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
He may very well be the greatest rock singer of all time.
He's in my Top 5 Singers of all time. Better than most is close enough
Well, greatness has to be about more than just personal tastes, I guess. For sheer influence or sheer ability, I could name at least a few rock singers whose names would reasonably precede Hammill's. Plant, Daltrey, Gillian, Mercury for the former or Patton, Tim Buckley, Ronnie James Dio for the latter. Among others.
I'd put Hammill above Buckley, Dio and Patton lol
Can't argue about influence though, seeing VdGG never made it "big"
"Above" for what? Your personal preference or technical ability? There's no way Hammill can sing over Patton's range and I have never heard anybody barring Ray Gillen who could match Dio's middle register. Whether or not technical skills are everything is a different issue, but I presume the question of who is the greatest has to be based on relatively less subjective considerations than personal preferences.
"The greatest" is an almost completely subjective title; the more specific a value judgement about music, the more subjective it is, and "greatest" is quite a specific and lofty value judgement to make about any musician's work. Calling any musician the greatest, then, has to be based on subjective considerations; technical ability doesn't even come close to determining the quality of a vocalist's work.
That's why I qualified my statement with "may very well be," in order to emphasize the uncertainty and subjectivity inherent in such a claim. Austin's "better than most" is probably more accurate.
How does it not even come close to determining the quality of a singer's work? Without skills, he is not going to be able to do what he does on record. How much ever people may like to filter everything through the prism of personal tastes, the fact is Hammill has to be very talented to be able to, for instance, use his falsetto. Even honing a great diction, learning to sing over the backbeat is skill. So it is the backbone of vocal greatness, albeit in conjunction with interpretation. But you cannot produce the interpretation you desire on record if you don't have the ability to do so, in the first place.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 17 2013 at 10:15
Besides, if the only argument offered as to a singer's greatness is "because I say so", it is probably better to simply state that he is one's favourite. Because there's no difference anyway if you don't try to evaluate greatness by some defined parameters. People may choose different parameters to do so, but it has to be against some benchmark otherwise it's like imposing an opinion.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20491
Posted: June 17 2013 at 17:25
rogerthat wrote:
Besides, if the only argument offered as to a singer's greatness is "because I say so", it is probably better to simply state that he is one's favourite. Because there's no difference anyway if you don't try to evaluate greatness by some defined parameters. People may choose different parameters to do so, but it has to be against some benchmark otherwise it's like imposing an opinion.
Roger that..........
54 people actually said they love his singing in the poll......I guess that means we have at least 54 tone deaf proggers on the forum.
Edited by dr wu23 - June 17 2013 at 20:18
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4591
Posted: June 17 2013 at 18:21
dr wu23 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Besides, if the only argument offered as to a singer's greatness is "because I say so", it is probably better to simply state that he is one's favourite. Because there's no difference anyway if you don't try to evaluate greatness by some defined parameters. People may choose different parameters to do so, but it has to be against some benchmark otherwise it's like imposing an opinion.
Roger that..........
54 people acrually said they love his singing in the poll......I guess that means we have at least 54 tone deaf proggers on the forum.
Is that based against a benchmark or are you just imposing an opinion
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: June 17 2013 at 19:48
dr wu23 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Besides, if the only argument offered as to a singer's greatness is "because I say so", it is probably better to simply state that he is one's favourite. Because there's no difference anyway if you don't try to evaluate greatness by some defined parameters. People may choose different parameters to do so, but it has to be against some benchmark otherwise it's like imposing an opinion.
Roger that..........
54 people acrually said they love his singing in the poll......I guess that means we have at least 54 tone deaf proggers on the forum.
I don't think you have to be tone deaf to like his singing because he is very much in tune. The only aspect I don't like about his singing (and which is a big turn off for me) is a certain overwrought manner of expression. But if others like it, so be it. My point was simply that if you call a singer the greatest or even great, it should be for reasons other than just that you love listening to him.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.