Greg Lake vs Peter Gabriel

Alitare wrote: But that's like saying Petrucci can play faster than Clapton and expecting it to be meaningful. I still prefer Clapton every time. I'd take songwriting ability over songplaying ability nearly any day. They're both essential, but the one precludes the other.

Greg Lake hands down. I would speculate that even PG, with his massive ego and (for my tastes) better overall career in music, would concede that. BTW the live perfomances on the box sets were re-engineered in 1998 with new vocal tracks.

Peter Gabriel has the more interesting voice I think(not counting all the bad filler Lake did in the ELP albums). And today he's the one who actually has a voice now, so PG.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dellinger wrote:   I got the Genesis Live Boxset a few months ago, and I must say, given the Gabriel era live material I heard, that I like better the live versions of the songs. On one side, they play with more energy, and specially Collins is on fire on the drums (which would usually be very low in the studio albums); on the other side, Gabriel's vocals sound less annoying (in some cases, as with the NY City song, MUCH less annoying). And, as a matter of fact, "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight" is perhaps the one song that I liked the most live... it's so much more potent (again... those drums). Probably the band performance (even when Genesis is one of he few bands that sounds almost exactly on studio and on stage, a proof of this is that the songs last almost the same), but Peter a capella entrance doesn't sound as agood as in studio. There are a few songs I like on sta}ge ore like: The Musical Box (Really much more emotional in the end) Supper's Ready (Apocalypse in 9/8 is brilliant on stage) The rest sound very similar IMO. BTW: I believe Greg Lake has a beautiful voice, but it's a bit soulless. Iván

Indeed, the ending of Supper's ready is so much better (and powerful) live, as far as I'm concerned. However, I am rather ambivalent on which version I prefer, specially because of the "humorous" middle section, which I found somewhat annoying in the live version, while I feel the studio one is even brilliant, with everything sounding just as it should (and I usually don't like humor in music)... so, in the end, I feel the studio version is perfect in every way (even if it may be somewhat less powerful at the end), and slightly prefer it over the live one. As for Musical Box, I also like that one better live. In general, even if the live versions of Genesis may be very similar to the studio ones, they just get an edge than may be missing on the studio ones. Greatly, as I already said, because of the drums.

On Seconds Out, Phil sings the final part of "The Musical Box"... I actually liked it (not sure if more than Gabriel's, since I'm so used to Gabriel's singing by now, but still, I like Collins singing better in general), and I would have liked to hear a whole version of the song with Phil. As for theatric singers, I belive I like Peter Hamill much more than Gabriel, however, I have heard very little of him (or Van Der Graff Generator)... I must do something about that.

I love that Annie Haslam is in a prog band. As a matter of fact, in my favourite Renaissance songs, I love the way the beautiful music and her beautiful voice share duties, it only enhances her voice in my view.
I also think Gilmour is a very good singer... perhaps not technically as great as others (as Annie herself), but hes got some warmth in his singing that is really unique to him.

rogerthat wrote:   Annie Haslam shouldn't even have been in a prog rock band!   Her voice was too unique to have to share time with long (and often boring) instrumental sections.  Geddy gets it in the occasional song but consistently and maybe that's down to the fact that he sees himself as a bassist first and foremost.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   I can't disagree more with his statement, the best singers need good, elaborate usic to challenge them,

On the other hand, I believe the true extent of a singer's greatness emerges as he/she is placed in more and more sparse settings, with less, if any, accompaniment.  A singer should be able to carry a song on the strength of his own voice without a lot of instrumental stuff going on to prop him up and make him sound better than he is (e.g. Ozzy Osbourne vis-a-vis Black Sabbath).  To that end, I can point to the below video of a performance of Let It Grow, delivered more or less impromptu (I think) in a hotel in Brazil.  The accompaniment is heard only feebly but it doesn't really matter because Annie's voice doesn't fail:



Worth noting is that she is over 50 in this performance.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   the best proof is that the greatest singers perform opera, where they have to deal with 20 more characters and much more instrumental passages than in Renaissance.

That is a largely classical/traditional notion which I don't agree with.  Yes, opera singers are probably the most technically accomplished, I won't dispute that unless I have enough evidence in the specific case to do so.  But, technique, again, is not everything.  I find John Lennon's rendering of Imagine more soulful than Pavarotti and of course that's just my opinion.  

On a tangent, in our - Indian - classical system, the vocalist is supreme...at least in those recitals that do involve a vocalist.  Just saying that there is another perspective to the subject.  Prog, especially of the symphonic/classic variety, often seems to use the vocalist as somebody who narrates a story in a tune and that really doesn't leave him much scope to project HIS personality, his special traits as a singer.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I can't imagine anybody but Annie Haslam singing Song of Sheherezade, but I saw her on a youtube video doing sections of this song as a soloist and was disappointing. The good singer enhances the music and a good band as Renaissance with a great pianist as John Tout  anda second vocalist as Jon Camp enhanced the voice of Annie.

Perhaps, you have taken my comment a bit too literally.   In epics like Scheherazade, an instrumentalist per se is indispensable.  If I have guessed right, you are referring above to a string section which Annie vocalises in live performances.  The effect would obviously not be as majestic as a whole string set performing it but I can't think of very many other singers who could take on that challenge in the first place.  The challenge, by the by, was made necessary by the limitations of 70s synthesizer, or at least Tout's limitations in utilizing them, at any rate. 

As far as the musicians go, the three of them were competent but not indispensable.  That is probably why Renaissance have got on smoothly with their gigs with a new set of musicians since 2009.  If anything, with two keyboardists in the new line up, the live act is better in many ways than in the 70s.

On the other hand, a composition like 'Rockalise' suggests that Annie Haslam may have got on just fine without Renaissance and perhaps done a few better things.  That's just my opinion again but I would nominate Rockalise as my favourite piece of music with Annie's voice without hesitation.

rogerthat wrote:   On the other hand, I believe the true extent of a singer's greatness emerges as he/she is placed in more and more sparse settings, with less, if any, accompaniment.  A singer should be able to carry a song on the strength of his own voice without a lot of instrumental stuff going on to prop him up and make him sound better than he is (e.g. Ozzy Osbourne vis-a-vis Black Sabbath).  To that end, I can point to the below video of a performance of Let It Grow, delivered more or less impromptu (I think) in a hotel in Brazil.  The accompaniment is heard only feebly but it doesn't really matter because Annie's voice doesn't fail:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I like John Lennon's songs (some of them), but lets be honest, the guy has a totally nasal voice, we like him more for his music than for his ability as vocalist. I seen Pavaroti singing Nessun Dorma in 1980 directed by Zubin Metah, and almost made me cry, even when I'm not a fan of Italian Opera, on the other hand German Opera fascinates me. Whoever thinks this is pure technique, has no sensibility, and honestly, IMO John Lennon can't be compared with this guy (BTW: In 1980 Pavarotti was almost 50), and he sung until 2006 when he was 71 years old with very little loss in his skills.

Unquestionably Pavarotti is at an entirely different level of technical skill, didn't dispute that.   But as for sensibility, I find this very overwrought, or most Western classical singing for that matter.  So much emotion shouldn't have to be projected, it can also come from within.  The voice inherently has a lot of emotion and that doesn't really come through in this kind of singing, not for me anyway. 

Now, as for Lennon, I have heard many, many covers of Across The Universe and not many convincing ones from amongst them.   The lines may be simple but the inflection is elusive, especially the somewhat lazy, dreamy manner in which he sings Jai guru deva.  Pavarotti did not try to sing like this so I cannot really compare the two, but I do know what I'd rather listen to.  Lennon writes great songs, yes, but he also conveys a lot of sincerity and that is not a quality I often hear in Western classical singing.  To some extent, also in prog rock singing, where again, dramatizing rather than emoting is given more importance.