| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
sleeper 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
 Posted: February 20 2006 at 13:57 |
 ivan_2068 wrote:
sleeper wrote:
ken4musiq wrote:
However, even if Hackett's work was easy to play, music doesn't always have to be technical to be entertaining; it's also about beauty and expression. Often times, it's hard for musicians to combine these two aspects of music. It's not what you play but how well you play it.>.
Boy this thread will not die. Being that I was the one who resurrected it, I will end my contribution here with the young lads insightful words. The point I was getting at by criticizing Gabriel's voice was two fold but most important to say when a musicianship is not exclusively about ability, like we prog heads tend to believe. I am a drummer and when I was a lad and first heard Bruford, I was struck by that snare drum sound. Years later I found out it was what made him famous. It was not a revelation that caused him to do this. He did not have a strong left hand and got that high popping sound to cut through the ensemble on the back beat. Now a days many snare drums are sold without a mute so you can't even muffle out the higher overtones. Many older snare drums have had them removed. When a musician does not have a certain ability it gives him the opportunity to be innovative. In that sense, in art, inablity elicits ingenuity. One can ask if the limitation to Peter Gabriel's voice was the reason why he developed his unique performance style and lyric writing ability. He did not write lyrics to show off his voice. The other point was just to see how far people will go to defend something that just might not be worth defending. The acquiescence to fact may bring about more insight.
|
You seem pretty adamant about the fact that Gabriel has a bad voice, I for one haven't a clue as to where your coming from with this as I find his voice supperb. Its true that he isn't amazing at the absolute top of his range but does have an impressive range. Most importantly he sings in a unique theatrical style and sings it brilliantly, this style has only been reproduced well by Fish but he used it in a much harsher way to add his own mark of individuality. Please don't try proclaim Gabriel singing as lack of ability and present it as fact as the fact is I find him the best singer I have ever heard.
|
Sleeper, I'm a Gabriel fan, but I must accept Ken4musiq got a point, and I've benn pointing it since I cameinto this forum.
Pëter Gabriel's vocal range is not among the best in the Prog scenario, that's true, but he's IMO the best Prog vocalist ever. How can anybody say something so contradictory? Easy:
- Peter Gabriel has a problem with high ranges, but a good vocalists studies his voice and uses some technique to cover it.
- Phil Collins has the same problem so he shouts (As in Mama) or repeats the last word of a phrase like in The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (Seconds Out) And the lamb (Lamb, Lamb, Lamb) lies down (Down, Down Down)....on Broadway... This IMO represents a total lack of technique.
- Peter Gabriel knows this problem, so he adds a lot of emotion to his song, almost a narrator, but instead of rising his voice or using tricks (very common in old crooners who had already lost their voices) he creates a special and unique semi yodeling. This simple effect adds more drama and feeling to his song, almost like a cru fr help like In the Cage or a repressed lust in The Musical Box.
This is technique, this is what a great vocalist does, he doesn't have a powerful voice as Lake or Wetton, but he replaces all with a great deal of emotion that in some cases reaches the level of aggression. Nobody transmits more feelings than him, and that's a merit.
Another case interesting to study and from whom I talked before also is David Surkamp from Pavlov's Dog, his voice is horrible, even higher than Geddy Lee's but the guy obviously listened Edith Piaff and started to copy her style creating a trembling at the end of each phrase, and he reaches great levels of emotion in songs as Julia that almost break my heart.
A great vocalist on this days doesn't need a great voice, he needs something extra that Peter Gabriel has and most singers don't, some call it technique, others call it soul, I believe booth are important and Pete has both. That's the difference.
Iván
|
Thanks Ivan, I think you explained the reasons as to why Gabriel is an exelant vocalist better than I could, its that Soul and Emotion that his voice takes on that puts him beyond other singers IMO, and he does have a very good range, it just doesnt go as high as a lot of othe singers but then he never needs it to, Dancing With The Moonlit Night shows this perfectly IMO. As I mentioned above I believe Fish is the only singer to ever use this style of singing to such good effect (but in a different way). I've read that Peter Hammil also uses a similar technique but having never heard VdGG or his solo works I cant say myself.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
 |
jeromach
Forum Newbie
Joined: February 20 2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 26
|
Posted: February 20 2006 at 18:01 |
I didn't read all comments here (just no time unfortunately), but imho the whole rating 1-5 more or less already implicates that it's difficult to choose between 4 and 5 if you really like an album or think it was most influential etc. etc. Personally I would rather rate on a scale of 1-10 where 9 is extremely good/important and 10 can only be reserved for a maximum of two or three albums of your personal choice. Now I know the system here is 1-5 and I don't directly want to advocate to shuffle it up, but who knows, in future. Just to make choices a little more subtle. Then when it comes to Genesis (which was also my choice of doors in the chamber of 32 to enter the prog music world): 8 and over;
Trespass : 8 (rough gem)
Nursery Cryme : 9 (musical box!!!)
Foxtrot : 9
Selling : 9
Lamb: 9,5 ( !!!)
(Translated for 1-5'ers: 4 - 4,5 - 4,5 - 4,5 & 4,75)
|
|
I don't have a signature
|
|
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: February 20 2006 at 18:32 |
|
As for Gabriel's voice, having arranged the Lamb for the stage
production, I constantly had to transpose the songs down that were too high
for our singer, and the lower vocal parts up...that is to say, Gabriel exceeded
his voice BY FAR in both the upper and lower registers. In fact, I was often
astonished at how high up he was singing, for instance in "It", when it
doesn't sound at all like he's singing up there, as the Bee Gees would in
"Stayin' Alive". Strictly speaking, technically, that is the work of a very
accomplished singer, and anyone who maintains he has "trouble with the
highs" doesn't know what they're talking about. As for the expressive,
emotive side, I think we agree there's no discussion.
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: February 20 2006 at 20:19 |
I wanted to add that (oh, I'm back) I've been listening a lot to Selling England over the last week and I think that it is actually Genesis trying to come to grips with American music. The oragan and guitar solos in the first three songs seem very bluesy. I think for me this sounds quite striking and dissonant to the very ambient texture the band tries to create. It gives a very Weill -like texture to the music, which I had been hearing but not putting my finger on. Well the concept is about corruption and Brecht/Weill kind of comes to mind anyway. More so is the 1973 Lou Reed release "Berlin," which is also a very dark album. I guess the blues is often there in Genesis' music but it is so subtle as oppossed to prominent everywhere else, it may go by unnoticed.
Also Selling has three choruses. I forgot that Collins song and Battle of Epping Forest, which is so epic you kind of forget that it has a chorus. Is this a move for more popular appeal?
Edited by ken4musiq
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: February 20 2006 at 20:27 |
A great vocalist on this days doesn't need a great voice, he needs something extra that Peter Gabriel has and most singers don't, some call it technique, others call it soul, I believe booth are important and Pete has both. That's the difference.>>>
A vocalist really never did need to have a "good voice." Being a singerI don't know if that is always a good thing. One of the things I liked about heavy metal was that it brought a lot of operatically trained voices into the mix. A lot of prog today has benefitteed from that.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 20 2006 at 22:30 |
ken4musiq wrote:
A vocalist really never did need to have a "good voice." Being a singerI don't know if that is always a good thing. One of the things I liked about heavy metal was that it brought a lot of operatically trained voices into the mix. A lot of prog today has benefitteed from that. |
I have to agree with you, when I played drums with the band (and didn't smoked a Kent package a day) I used to sing some tracks and never had a great voice, I could follow the tune and that was enough for us.
But I never said that peter Gabriel is a singer, I consider him a vocalist.
IMO and from a translation of Spanish (Cantante - Vocalista), a singer is a person who has a nice voice, can follow a melody and nothing more, some of them are successful becauser people are not as demanding as we are.
A vocalist is something more, a vocalist is a guy who knows his voice, his strong points and his weak points, a person who creates and or adapts music to fit with his voice, a person who makes an advantage of his weak spots.
I won't ever be tired of mentioning Gabriel, he knew from the start that the high ranges were not the adecquate for him and he used to let Phil Collins back him with the higher pitches like in The Musical Box:
- Peter sings the low: "Play me my song"
- Phil backs him with the higher: "Here it comes again"
When this was not possible, Peter used the semi yodel to reach the high notes without having to create an abrupt end of the phrase or repeat words endlesly to fake that he's carrying a note for a longer period and this added dramatism to the song.
That's a vocalist, a guy who not only sings whatever they play, a vocalist is a guy to knows perfectly his voice and how to take the best from it.
Peter Gabriel surely was not born with the best voice in the market, but the guy is a genius and as a cat always falls on his feet.
Iván
BTW: There's something interesting with The Musical Box on stage, yesterday i was watching the Belgium TV show and Genesis In Concert DVD (boot) with Peter. And Phil already was tarting with the bad habit of repeating words. Genesis on stage (Don't ask me why) played the songs higher and Phil sings that part of the backing vocals of The Musica Box saying:
"Here it comes again..gain...gain"
Almost the same annoying thing he did with The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway in Seconds Out.
Edited by ivan_2068
|
|
|
|
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 06:28 |
|
Again, I would contradict the contention that Gabriel had problems with
the high range. If you sit at a piano and look at where he is singing it's very
high up, but the quality of his voice is so rich that it actually sounds lower.
Try singing along, I defy you to hit the notes he does on on "It", for example.
He does push his voice to the limit, which may give the impression at
times of uncertainty, but I find this an expressive effect very appropriate to
rock singing. You get that also with Brian Wilson, and he had about the
highest, fullest, richest falsetto in rock history.
Edited by RoyalJelly
|
|
Fragile
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 27 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 1125
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 09:13 |
labbai wrote:
Genesis was the best band ever, with some other bands at the time... With Peter Gabriel... got all Genesis that I love, same with Yes...Yes Album was the last I liked... Yes made 3 albums with Tony Kaye...
Rick Wakeman is a keyboardist without a soul 
|
With a statement like that Your'e clearly insane.  As for all those Collin's derailments ' Trick and Wind asides' they were the death nails in the Genesis's coffin.The Lamb is my fave followed by 'Foxtrot'
Edited by Fragile
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 11:07 |
RoyalJelly wrote:
Again, I would contradict the contention that Gabriel had problems with
the high range. If you sit at a piano and look at where he is singing it's very
high up, but the quality of his voice is so rich that it actually sounds lower.
Try singing along, I defy you to hit the notes he does on on "It", for example.
It's very high, but it's evident he had problems with very high ranges, yesterday as I mentioned before, was watching the In Concert Bootleg DVD (The one that he starts saying "My name is Brittania, I'm the voice of England before the Daily Express". 
An he has very muchtroubles with the a capella section espeially when he sings "Cried the Queen of Maybe" it's obvious he's truying to reach a higher range than he's capable of.
But I agree, his voice is rich and versatile, in Battle for the Epping Forest he makes around 10 or 12 different voices almost in a conversation, I never seen any other vocalist doing that.
He does push his voice to the limit, which may give the impression at
times of uncertainty, but I find this an expressive effect very appropriate to
rock singing. You get that also with Brian Wilson, and he had about the
highest, fullest, richest falsetto in rock history.
I believe that especially on stage he had problems, it's true that as someone else mentions Genesis played in a higher tone in concert and I don't know why.
But that falsetto (Or as I call it semi yodeling) is a way of reaching notes that are higher than his natural range without sounding forced. But this is an intelligent way of doing it, instead of shouting or cutting the phrases not to fore the voics.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 11:31 |
A vocalist is something more, a vocalist is a guy who knows his voice, his strong points and his weak points, a person who creates and or adapts music to fit with his voice, a person who makes an advantage of his weak spots.>>
I think it is good that we re-clarified that distinction. (although I would say that we might let singers get away with technical flaws that others would be criticized for) I would not let anyone get away with saying that Gabriel's singing at the end of Supper's Ready is good singing. If you feel that moves you and you enjoy it, great, but it is not good singing. For many in detracts from the enjoyment of the ending.
Good singing is not everything. On "Don't Give Up" Kate Bush actually colors here voice to match Peter. What better voice to sing a song like that than Peter's. In the mid-80s stuff, he really got his voice together to mass market his appeal and he is sailing through those high notes that are very difficult for him on the earlier albums. For many people, this really detracts from the enjoyment of the music. It creates a dissonance where one might not necessarliy be needed. On many tunes like the beginnning of Dancing with the Moonlit Knight (I always forget the name so . .) he sings in that high tessitura, but those notes are not supported. It is very different to sing up there than to squeak out the notes and if you are a trained singer it makes a difference to your enjoyment of the music. That having been said, I can understand the lack of technical ability on Gabriel's voice can pass of a vulnerablility that can be very appealing in popular music. Bono made a career out of it.
PS I love when Gabriel and Collins sing together. Collins has a light bouyancy in his voice that really compliments Gabriel's voice. I wish they had done that more on the albums, but it is good to see that they did it live. It's surprising that PC never wanted to be a singer and ended up being a big time pop singer. He's really not as band as people make him out to be. He made a lot of sacrifices to be with the band.
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 12:08 |
RoyalJelly wrote:
Again, I would contradict the contention that Gabriel had problems with
the high range. If you sit at a piano and look at where he is singing it's very
high up, but the quality of his voice is so rich that it actually sounds lower.
Try singing along, I defy you to hit the notes he does on on "It", for example.
He does push his voice to the limit, which may give the impression at
times of uncertainty, but I find this an expressive effect very appropriate to
rock singing. You get that also with Brian Wilson, and he had about the
highest, fullest, richest falsetto in rock history.
|
I think you are right; the band did not limit the song writing to what one would say was limitations of the human vocal range. This happens a lot in rock singng. Singers are often asked to sing outside of the limits of the voice where a trained singer might say, I can't sing that or I won't sing that.
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 13:09 |
Ken, your posts are contradictory, you say that he has a poor voice (a veiw I most definatly dont share with you) and then go on to say that you like his singing. This may not be that contradictory in essence but the way you are writing your posts it is getting confusing. Do think he is a good singer or not, and if not then why do you like his singing if you dont think its any good?
BTW, stop trying to claim that his singing is bad is a matter of fact, it is most definatly a subjective view and one that I do not share with you.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|
horza
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 31 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2530
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 13:21 |
Has this thread not expired yet 
|
|
Originally posted by darkshade:
Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.
|
|
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 13:41 |
ken4musiq wrote:
A vocalist is something more, a vocalist is a guy who knows his voice, his strong points and his weak points, a person who creates and or adapts music to fit with his voice, a person who makes an advantage of his weak spots.>>
I think it is good that we re-clarified that distinction. (although I would say that we might let singers get away with technical flaws that others would be criticized for) I would not let anyone get away with saying that Gabriel's singing at the end of Supper's Ready is good singing. If you feel that moves you and you enjoy it, great, but it is not good singing. For many in detracts from the enjoyment of the ending.
|
Wrong, his singing at the end of Supper's Ready IS good singing, though it may not be to your taste. Please name a few singers then, who are better? In my opinion, he's the best singer to come out of rock, period, easily the best in prog (next to Hammill), and any talk of him being not a good singer is totally ga-ga.
|
|
ken4musiq
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 14:03 |
sleeper wrote:
Ken, your posts are contradictory, you say that he has a poor voice (a veiw I most definatly dont share with you) and then go on to say that you like his singing. This may not be that contradictory in essence but the way you are writing your posts it is getting confusing. Do think he is a good singer or not, and if not then why do you like his singing if you dont think its any good?
BTW, stop trying to claim that his singing is bad is a matter of fact, it is most definatly a subjective view and one that I do not share with you.
|
I think I have been clear in my assumptions and though I have gotten a little hot water for stating what I consider to be facts, ever body comes with a system of value judgments that they consider just as factual. The previous post states quite New people and people in general who come to this site are inundated with pro-Genesis rhetoric without any criticism. People leave and I do not think that that is good for the people who ar trying to make money on the site.
I am basing my observation on the history of vocal performance as I know it. Discussions to the quality of voices are as old as the hill. When Rousseau criticized the voices of the French opera all heck broke out. You cannot have an active discussion about music without all heck breaking out. The great Astor Place Riot of 1848 as another example.
I came to this site and was actually excited that there were so many fans of Genesis that I could learn from. But I am not going to sit placidly and just absorb what ever peple say about the band. What Ivan and I have been trying to get to is an idea of how do we come to understand PG performing style critically.
Do I like his voice, at times I do but overall I find the quality lacking. I base my objectivity on the history of vocal preformance while at the same time understanding that art is not about "ability" exclusively but "creativity." People have argued taht Beethoven developed his style becasue he could not write in an Italiante style. The twentieth Century has a host of singers Louis Armstrong or Lotte Lenya, who are not great singers per se. Billie Holiday, Bob Dylan or Edith Piaf are singers who actually invented a new singing style. Did PG invent a new style of singing? If so he would be one of the greatest rock singers in its history. How did he do that?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 14:09 |
Royal Jelly wrote:
ken4musiq wrote:
|
A vocalist is something more, a vocalist is a guy who knows his voice, his strong points and his weak points, a person who creates and or adapts music to fit with his voice, a person who makes an advantage of his weak spots.>>
I think it is good that we re-clarified that distinction. (although I would say that we might let singers get away with technical flaws that others would be criticized for) I would not let anyone get away with saying that Gabriel's singing at the end of Supper's Ready is good singing. If you feel that moves you and you enjoy it, great, but it is not good singing. For many in detracts from the enjoyment of the ending.
| | |
Wrong, his singing at the end of Supper's Ready IS good singing, though it may not be to your taste. Please name a few singers then, who are better? In my opinion, he's the best singer to come out of rock, period, easily the best in prog (next to Hammill), and any talk of him being not a good singer is totally ga-ga. |
100% agree with you Royal Jelly, at the end of Supper's Ready Peter Gabriel is spectacular, good singing is too weak to describe this moment.
A good singer may have a great and trained voice, but Gabriel never pretended to be a Carusso or Pavarotti, he's a rock singer and the requirements for Rock are not the same that to sing Die Walkure (Pavarotti or Carreras, not sure which one, once said that Wagner was a sadist that composed music that was almost impossible to sing by humans).
But what Peter Gabriel achieves at the end of Supper's Ready is beyond what most great rock singers with better voices do, he makes the song believable, hey the Lord is comming back, and the guy shows and incredible range of emotion, I almost kneel and pray.
Compare it with Phil Collins (Who does a nice but inferior job), he shouts as he was angry, as I said once seems like his mother in law is comming to dinner and not the Lord of Lords, king of kings to take us to the new Jerusalem.
He's not Freddie Mercury, no way, but I don't imagine Freddie or Greg Lake singing this part with the same emotion, despite both hae more gifted voices. But this guys were born with hose voices, it was almost fror free, Peter Gabriel created his own style starting from a somehow limited range, and this my friends is worth an applause.
Iván
|
|
|
|
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 14:26 |
|
I agree with you too, Ivan, but not the part about the limited range...except insofar as every singer's range has its limits. But in arranging the Lamb, I was astonished at how high AND how low Gabriel's range is, he has a much wider range than Ian Anderson, Jon Anderson, Roger Waters, and Bono put together.
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11985
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 14:30 |
easily the best in prog (next to Hammill),
I'm not sure I understand this...."easily" suggests far superior to anyone else...
|
|
jeromach
Forum Newbie
Joined: February 20 2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 26
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 14:30 |
|
As a Genesis fan I could simply add; Gabriel's voice technically might be less "professional", but it comes from the soul. Phil Collins' voice is technically better or more developed, but lacks true spirit. Take care; this is a very big generalisation, I really don't mind listening to Phil and you can admire his professionalism. Where Gabriel is the artist, Collins is a very good copier and he was able to perfectionize his voice, act and the band itself. True, for me Genesis stopped existing after Duke and long ago I hated Phil Collins for what I regarded as his rape of the band, but who am I, just a fan, not any of the band members that had to made a living out of it. Besides, finally he reached a much larger public and to be honest, would you rather see them listening to Phil or to John Travolta?
|
|
I don't have a signature
|
|
RoyalJelly
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 582
|
Posted: February 21 2006 at 15:30 |
Tony R wrote:
easily the best in prog (next to Hammill),
I'm not sure I understand this...."easily" suggests far superior to anyone else...
|
It's only an opinion, but I think he's the best singer in this particular genre...much is a matter of taste, I adore the two Andersons, and all have their own strengths, but I'm convinced that Gabriel is technically the strongest, alongside Hammill, who was for him also a big influence. But I'm very interested in other people's ideas of who is as good as he, or better?
Edited by RoyalJelly
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Overrated Genesis?
