Singers: voice, techniq, melodies, lyrics, passion

This is a great question Gerard, and one that I've always avoided as I feel that prog singers need both a defining character to their voice as well as great range and pitch. I believe that's just one of the reasons, apart from the actual music, that made groups like Yes and Genesis sound so unique. I think that the vocals were more a part of the band's sound than in other genres in that any high pitched singer could replace Ian Gillian in Deep Purple, which did happen in the mid 70's with David Coverdale replacing Gillian, with no major problems from fans. Contrast that with Marillion when Steve Hogarth took over from Fish. There are still Fish era Marillion fans that will not accept any of the band's newer output with Hogarth. So, I think in that prog this makes a big, big difference. The reason why I usually try to avoid the question is that the singers in prog are usually also the lyricists and, with exceptions, they are generally terrible, IMO. On the flip side, great folk lyricists such Guthrie, Dylan and all were, with exceptions, terrible singers or merely passable. Perhaps prog bands should bring back outside poets and writers as lyricists like they did in the late 60's and early 70's like Procol Harum, KC, and Renaissance once did. (So I can at least stop laughing half of the time when I'm listening to prog.)

Edited by SteveG - July 21 2014 at 15:59

I can't say really which one is more important to me. Some singers I absolutely hated when I first listened to them, and now it is the opposite that is true. I find that I should never give up on any singer, because eventually they will start to sound right to me.

Some examples are Jon Anderson and Fish and Peter Hammill. I love these singers, but at first they repelled me. That taught me that every singer deserves to be listened to, I think.

I tend to like vocalists who have the talent but more importantly have interesting styles and fit the music. So I'll take Dagmar, Bon Scott, Leonard Cohen & Peter Hammill over most other vocalists. So I'm pretty much with HolyMoly & ExitTheLemming 

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: On a related note, what does everyone think of classically trained vocalists in prog (or rock in general, for that matter)?  Classical training certainly helps with technique, as the techniques taught in classical voice are the basis for vocal control in all western-music-style singing, but there's also the concern that a classical approach to rock singing can sound out of place and can hinder the unique expressionistic qualities found in traditional rock vocals.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: On a related note, what does everyone think of classically trained vocalists in prog (or rock in general, for that matter)?  Classical training certainly helps with technique, as the techniques taught in classical voice are the basis for vocal control in all western-music-style singing, but there's also the concern that a classical approach to rock singing can sound out of place and can hinder the unique expressionistic qualities found in traditional rock vocals.

I think basic training in classical singing wouldn't hurt. But after a few years, a singer's style would be too much based in classical to be able to adapt to rock. A lot also depends on the imagination of the singer. Dio was not trained but he was inspired by Mario Lanza. He was able to blend perfect use of his registers with the aggression required in rock. My uncle is trained in Hindustani music and when he sings light music, he gets strangely self conscious and tries too hard to emote instead of just singing it in a natural way and appealing through spontaneity.

B than A for me. Melody I view more as a songwriting thing and would give the nod of great melodies to whomever wrote the song. (If that is the singer, than cool, but that's a different skill, in my mind anyway.) Ditto for lyrics. I guess E is third for me by default then.

Mirror Image wrote: ebil0505 wrote: I can't say really which one is more important to me. Some singers I absolutely hated when I first listened to them, and now it is the opposite that is true. I find that I should never give up on any singer, because eventually they will start to sound right to me. Some examples are Jon Anderson and Fish and Peter Hammill. I love these singers, but at first they repelled me. That taught me that every singer deserves to be listened to, I think. I just can't get into Fish or Peter Hammill. For Fish, the tonality of his voice is just annoying to me. For Hammill, it had to do with the way emotes his vocals and his delivery is just jarring to me. What both of these vocalists have in common, for me, is they just sing too much. One mouthful after another and there's no end in sight.

As in, "youbegintowonderifthepointsofalltheancientmythsaresolemnlydirected STRAIGHT AT YOU"?

Mirror Image wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Mirror Image wrote: ebil0505 wrote: I can't say really which one is more important to me. Some singers I absolutely hated when I first listened to them, and now it is the opposite that is true. I find that I should never give up on any singer, because eventually they will start to sound right to me. Some examples are Jon Anderson and Fish and Peter Hammill. I love these singers, but at first they repelled me. That taught me that every singer deserves to be listened to, I think. I just can't get into Fish or Peter Hammill. For Fish, the tonality of his voice is just annoying to me. For Hammill, it had to do with the way emotes his vocals and his delivery is just jarring to me. What both of these vocalists have in common, for me, is they just sing too much. One mouthful after another and there's no end in sight. As in, "youbegintowonderifthepointsofalltheancientmythsaresolemnlydirected STRAIGHT AT YOU"? Yep, you pretty much nailed it.

One of my favorite vocal moments ever   But I can see your point.

Man With Hat wrote: B than A for me. Melody I view more as a songwriting thing and would give the nod of great melodies to whomever wrote the song. (If that is the singer, than cool, but that's a different skill, in my mind anyway.) Ditto for lyrics. I guess E is third for me by default then.

Whether a melody is memorable or not depends on the songwriter. But making it sound less or more melodious depends on the singer. And in many bands, the singer is not the main composer (Genesis, Iron Maiden come to mind) so the singer has to translate the composer's vision, which the latter may not be able to vocalise very well. Comparing Stephanie Adlington's rendition of Ocean Gypsy with the original spotlights this. I don't mind a different interpretation but there is a noticeable lack of melody in Adlington's take.

Gerinski wrote: What do you consider most important for a singer to be considered as a great singer: a) he-she should have a very pleasant or special voice timbre b) he-she should have a great technique, vocal range and mastering of different vocal expression techniques c) he-she constructs really strong and beautiful melody lines d) he-she is a great lyricist e) he delivers his-her singing with great passion and feel and it can be interesting if you can point to examples of singers who have some of these qualities but not others.

The way I see it: A, B, C, and E would make not just a great, but a perfect singer. D would make a great songwriter.