What do you think of Peter Hamill's(VDGG)singing?

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.

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. 

rogerthat wrote: I would because (a) the timbre which is very difficult for anybody to alter and (b) the accent.

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.

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.  

Hi,

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.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - June 16 2013 at 15:34

I love his voice on the albums, but don't care much for how he sounds today when singing the 70s material.

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.

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.

Edited by dr wu23 - June 17 2013 at 20:18

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.