| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: July 26 2014 at 05:07 |
 rogerthat wrote:
Gabriel did well as a pop artist because he was such a good songwriter. On the other hand, INXS had barely anything original to offer so if at all they still succeeded, a large part of the credit has to go to Hutchence. Anyhow, the reason I don't consider Gabriel's timbre to be particularly great is it's too nasal and does not have a large presence. As I said earlier, this is more noticeable when you follow up a Gabriel-sung track with that sung by a singer with a powerful voice. And it's NOT because he is singing within himself, even at full tilt his voice somehow feels small. It also loses shape pretty early into his upper register, though that has more to do with range. He is artful in using these limitations in a way that appears to suit the music but limitations he does have. |
I can't say that I agree with you about Gabriel but that is wholly a matter of preference, I don't believe his skill as a song-writer had that much bearing on his pop success - any more than his adroit choice of video (Sledghammer), subject matter (Biko) or singing partner (Don't Give Up) - the record buying public bought his singles and albums because they liked his singing - hit singles are bought for the way the singer sings the songs not for how the writer writes them. I'd also not describe his singing voice as nasal and I maybe too forgiving for the timbre of his head-voice when he does use the upper registers but that has always sounded throaty rather than nasally to me (and that will always sound weaker and more forced than trained singers no matter who the singer is, but as I recall he seldom uses it).
Having seen him dozens of times over the past 37 years in venues both large and small I can attest his voice has a large enough presence too fill a stadium and that is more noticeable live than any studio recording. He's always had the vocal power to belt out a song to reach an audience and when he emotes there is sufficient presence in his voice to move you even when stood in a field in the pouring rain. Early in his solo career when he was playing small venues stripped of theatrics, costumes and trick lighting his voice alone was sufficient to lift and carry an audience.
rogerthat wrote:
I understand that charisma is not perhaps the right word but I am struggling to come up with an alternative term to describe what I have in mind. Could be aura, maybe, individuality, presence, etc. I don't know, just that some singers have the knack of grabbing a listener's attention right off the bat. I agree with you that in both pop and prog, diversity has gone down substantially over the last few years. It's partly that a lot of singers have learnt to sing well technically, where singers like Gabriel had a somewhat flawed approach. But what was human and endearing about a singer like Gabriel is lost in the process as singers are not balancing technical perfection or near perfection with great stylistic traits in diction or phrasing or riffs. |
Gabriel has never been about immediately grabbing your attention - he's too introverted a character for that and that's not his style. His songs are invariably about the build up, as if he is working up his own confidence from natural introversion to theatrical extroversion (hence the costumes in Genesis), and in doing that he brings the audience along with him. This is perfectly illustrated in live versions of Lay You Hands On Me - the audience roar when he stage-dives at the climax of that gradual build up still sends shivers down my spine when I hear it, that's what charisma sounds like.
I didn't want to dwell on him too much for fear of being accused of sycophancy (thou' that in itself could be seen as an indicator of some charismatic quality), but there you go, I am an unapologetic fan boy. 
|
|
What?
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 05:21 |
I cannot really comment on the live shows because I have never seen him live. However, I do want to say that what is large and small is also relative rather than absolute so when I say his voice has a smaller presence, it is more in relation to other singers who can belt powerfully. I wouldn't say he could belt like Dio or Paul Rodgers, no.
As for immediately grabbing the listener's attention not being his style, ok, fine, but that also underlines the difference in approach between him and a good pop singer. Pop IS about instant catchiness, it is not supposed to take too long or too much effort for the listener to relate to the song. So if it is indeed not Gabriel's approach to grab the listener with his voice, it only bolsters my argument that his success had more to do with his songwriting skills. If Gabriel sang a popular old hit song like say Can't Take My Eyes Off You in the way that he sings on Genesis or his own solo tracks, I doubt there would be many takers for it. I have never heard that kind of bright, punchy singing from any of the celebrated prog frontmen of the 70s (not counting Gilmour there, he did have it and it helped Floyd cross over). Ian Anderson at times, perhaps and certainly Phil Collins which again is no surprise. Prog lovers are fond of arguing that pop singers or musicians lack the technical skills to handle the complexity of prog epics. By the same token, unless I hear it, I would be less inclined to conclude it as only a choice or preference and not also something to do with lacking ability in that direction.
In short, yes, Gabriel can deliver hits by being as clever and intelligent as he likely is but he can't sing an absolutely mundane and banal Nothing's gonna change my love for you and sail through it on the strength of his voice. THAT is what labels look for in a pop singer because that makes their life easier...no risks involved in pushing boring love songs.
Edited by rogerthat - July 26 2014 at 05:34
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 05:45 |
Gerinski wrote:
I admit my sentence "a good singer can easily shine on Pop" was certainly wrong, that's not really what I meant. I meant that the Pop world is more concerned with recruiting good vocalists than with recruiting good instrumentalists, while in Prog often the opposite is the case. |
True in part, but it is a generalisation and plays to the stereotype, I try to avoid that where possible.
If you are only referring to solo singers then the backing musicians are certainly chosen for their ability alone, Simon Cowell doesn't pick random musicians off the street with no regard for their ability to play - he wants musicians who can do the job and pays them handsomely for it.
In Pop groups (does such a thing exist any more?) selection of the individual members is seldom done by any rigid selection process - just like Prog groups they are formed informally from people who know each other or are known to each other - it is a matter of happen-stance and gradual line-up changes that result in a cohesive musical ensemble of musicians.
Gerinski wrote:
Besides, your first sentence seems to imply that there are tens of millions of great singers in the world, and that I find a bit stretching. The fact that most humans have the ability to sing if they receive some training does not mean that every band can find a good singer around the corner. |
I didn't put a number on it or even imply one and I the only time I used the word "great" it was to state that training [alone] will not make you a great singer. I believe there are lots of good singers in the world. The number of applicants to all those ubiquitous tv talent shows is evidence of that -- sure those programmes thrive on the voyeuristic appeal of showing the really bad ones alongside the select few who get selected, but the numbers that apply and the numbers that turn-up for the auditions is huge - all of them believe themselves to be good singers and most of them probably are - the key thing is all of them want to sing. If a band cannot find a good singer then perhaps they're just not looking hard enough.
[pointless anecdote] When I was at school our headmaster decided that the entire school would put on a performance of Handel's Messiah, the only kids excused from singing were those members of the school orchestra and those who could not sing. So the entire school body of over 1000 pupils were auditioned to determine whether they could sing and where in this mass choir their voices fitted, only two of us were rejected. One lad simply could not carry a tune to save his life and I was in the embarrassing position of being someone who could sing well and who loved to sing but whose voice was breaking. Over 1000 auditioned and only two rejects.
[/pointless anecdote]
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 05:49 |
|
^^^ I agree with that. There are indeed lots of good singers in the world and we just happen to be aware of the ones who are able to make it and attain some substantial level of popularity. There are so many people singing old songs for nostalgic listeners in auditoria across my city. Some of them are very, very talented and perhaps have only been unlucky or made bad decisions not to break through. But yes, singing on tune over a decent range say 1 and 1/2 octaves or such is no big deal. Almost anybody can do it and without even much preparation. What is tough is singing on tune even when the music is intricate and keeping it up over a 2 hour concert and having technique robust enough to do that day in day out without the voice going out.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 05:54 |
,,,which is where training and practice comes in.
[sorry Roger, the temperature in the room my PC is in has just hit 38 degrees, I'm going to have to answer your previous post later as I need to take a shower and put fresh clothes on]
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 05:56 |
No problem!  That's pretty hot, by the way, hotter probably than Mumbai today.
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 06:39 |
|
I have to admit that Peter Gabriel evinces more grudging respect than affection in this poster. I saw him live at the Glasgow Apollo in 1980 at the outset of his solo career and he was every bit as irritating and method school 'weird' as I had envisaged from the Genesis legacy. (A sixth former poet who raided his mom's wardrobe). He is however, clearly a very resourceful man who had the foresight to realise that Prog was dead in the water as early as 1974/75 (ish) and therefore bailed to poppier pastures like many of his commendably prescient contemporaries. From memory (yep, I can't be f*cked to look it up) he invested at least a quarter of a million pounds of his own money into bringing the WOMAD festival to reality. Now that is impressive testimony to someone who puts up where most shut up but lets take a judicial step back: is there a more wearingly spurious and irrelevant source of cultural output from any extant genre of foisted contemporary creativity than 'world music'? The likes of Fela Kuti et al are viable because their first world apologist journalists are too scared to call out bland ethnic fondant forgeries for what no Guardian/Wire reader should ever be witness. Gabriel (unwittingly and with the best motives) unfortunately bequeathed a whole heap of anointed dispiriting crap to the world.
Edited by ExittheLemming - July 26 2014 at 16:11
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 08:02 |
Well, having worked for Japanese for 25 years, for my despair I have had to spend quite some evenings and late nights at karaokes and I tell you, seeing the average quality of singing in karaokes you would not so quickly state that every human has the ability to sing (including myself of course, I hated being pushed to sing in the karaokes, most of the songs in the catalog were too unknown to me (to the surprise of my colleagues) and I had to end up singing stuff like Sinatra's My Way). However I did sing in our mates amateur band doing backing vocals and also lead vocals in the long periods we did not have a lead vocalist, and even if my timbre is s*t I did enjoy it and the guys said that I was not too bad, at least I sang in tune, something our lead vocalist mate did not always do  (we were in it just to enjoy as friends and Prog lovers, never with the meaning of being "a band").
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 08:16 |
As for Gabriel, I think is Pop success had more to do with his business cleverness and good contacts (and perhaps a bit of luck) than his ability as a songwriter or singer, although if anything I would say that it was the fact that his voice is so personal which helped attract audiences. And although songs like Solsbury Hill or Biko were hits, he did not achieve real Pop success until So. Maybe this is an element we have not specifically discussed so much in the thread, "uniqueness" and "personal" timbre and way of singing, rather than the more aesthetic or academical meaning of timbre beauty or singing technique. Gabriel is one of those singers who while not having a timbre of the type one would readily define as "beautiful" nor a technique one would readily define as "great", his singing is extremely personal, as made clear by the few clones he has such as The Watch Simone Rossetti or Citizen Cain's Cyrus, when we hear them we immediately say that they sound like Gabriel and like nobody else.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 08:49 |
I think a lot of that is down to his unique diction. He did not try to sing in an artificially smooth way, he just went with his native accent. The way Gabriel sang was, even if flawed, very natural and that gave it its personal quality. Now, people make a whole checklist of hundreds of boxes to tick for a good singer. Not a knock on your thread by the way, I am really thinking of the kind of critique I often see in music competitions on TV. There is too much focus on specifics and in pushing for a certain kind of 'acceptable' sound rather than the overall impact and effectiveness of the performance. Individuality in a performer is sought to be discouraged and purged rather than encouraged and that is having a detrimental impact on the overall singing craft in pop and rock music. Another aspect is perhaps idol worship was not so pronounced in the Gabriel/Anderson era and they were more comfortable just being themselves. But today, aspiring singers want to hit THAT note on Neon Knights the way Dio did, they want to nail Halford's Victim of Changes scream, so on and so forth. And in trying to imitate their idols, they forget to bring forth their own personality in their singing. And if some of these aspirants go on to become singers in bands, the results shouldn't be very surprising.
Oh, sure, karaoke singers rule! I recall the old saying of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. Often times, really bad singers who simply cannot sing at all are the boldest and most unhesitating in taking up opportunities to sing. Those of us who can sing half decent stuff but would not consider ourselves professionals are more reserved and critical of ourselves so we don't come forward unless pushed by friends. Anyhow, the point was only that singing in tune is not really some rocket science and there are lots and lots of people who can do that. In fact, there are people who can sing in tune but otherwise sing in such a crude and unmodulated way that listeners may still not consider them good singers.
Edited by rogerthat - July 26 2014 at 08:52
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 12:12 |
rogerthat wrote:
No problem! That's pretty hot, by the way, hotter probably than Mumbai today. |
Earlier in the week we reached 95 to 100 over here in Portland/Vancouver. Yeah ... it was HOT.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming! On the front, there was a progressive ...
Edited by moshkito - July 27 2014 at 09:41
|
|
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
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
|
Posted: July 26 2014 at 13:03 |
rogerthat wrote:
... Those of us who can sing half decent stuff but would not consider ourselves professionals are more reserved and critical of ourselves so we don't come forward unless pushed by friends. Anyhow, the point was only that singing in tune is not really some rocket science and there are lots and lots of people who can do that. In fact, there are people who can sing in tune but otherwise sing in such a crude and unmodulated way that listeners may still not consider them good singers. |
I have a hard time considering "singers", and mandating to myself that they have to be compared to the scale of notes in order to be considered "singers". Going back as far as even Bertold Brecht and Kurt Weill, it was almost a form of "rap" in the sense that a lot of it was "spoken", and not sung, which I have always felt was a comment that not everyone was a singer, anyway!
Later in the 50's and 60's, there were a lot of theatrical companies experimenting with diction. A lot of this ended up in rock music, not intentionally I don't think, but it's hard to think that the Marlon Brando's screaming Stelllllllllaaaaaaa, or the James Dean attitudes did not enter rock music, because IT DID! MORE THAN EVER! AND, it's still alive in different clothing!
Rock music, more than any other discipline, showed the vocal abilities and prowess that opera never did, or could! It didn't have the imagination!!! But rock music DID! And later, some of the progressive things that we heard, involved an even more different vocal concept that did something that most music was not doing, and it became famous in its own right, and deservedly so.
Edited by moshkito - July 26 2014 at 14:32
|
|
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
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 01:16 |
Finnforest wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
I never think about vocals in such terms as the various attributes. It moves me or it doesn't. The voice is just another instrument in the band to me, something I've tried many times to explain to those who ask "how can you enjoy vocals in a different language like Italian?" Because first, I don't give a rat's ass about lyrics. And second, because often Italian bands have very emotional vocalists who are every bit as expressive as the lead guitar or keys.
|
So you said it even without wanting to, what you find most important is emotion, passion, expression.
One could make a very similar argument about instrumentalists too, some are not technically too proficient but have great passion and expression, others shine because of their sounds, they come up with timbres and effects which fit the song so well, others are mainly technical masters etc etc. The only difference is that ability to write lyrics would not apply (in their judgement as instrumentalists I mean, of course many instrumentalists write lyrics too). |
Not really. Was just an example about RPI. Not a required attribute. A band could have a vocalist who had a dry, non-emotional delivery....a mumbler of sorts....and it could still work just fine with their music. It cannot be reduced to boxes that must be checked. There is only one box. Do I like listening to it? That's the box.
|
This
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 08:46 |
|
^^^ The thing is, the attributes Gerard mentioned are very broad and not specific, so it's not just some box to tick. Let's look at it this way: if a singer cannot write good lyrics, does not have a great voice, does not sing over a large range, lacks expression, has poor diction and also does not perform passionately, would he/she still be able to impress? Quite improbable, I would think. What works in the context of a specific song is rather different from what a singer needs to make a mark in his/her own right. Great folk songwriters wrote great lyrics, great soul singers had great technique, great punk vocalists were passionate.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 08:47 |
moshkito wrote:
[
I have a hard time considering "singers", and mandating to myself that they have to be compared to the scale of notes in order to be considered "singers". Going back as far as even Bertold Brecht and Kurt Weill, it was almost a form of "rap" in the sense that a lot of it was "spoken", and not sung, which I have always felt was a comment that not everyone was a singer, anyway!
|
Surely, surely, surely, you perceive the difference between rapping as an intentional technique and a karaoke singer inadvertently going way off key and not projecting something good with his voice?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 09:25 |
Singers are overrated... If you can also play an instrument, then you get respect points. If you can sing and play an instrument well at the same time... If you are a product of one of those shows, screw you!!!
Edited by Slartibartfast - July 27 2014 at 09:28
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 09:53 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Singers are overrated...
If you can also play an instrument, then you get respect points. If you can sing and play an instrument well at the same time...
|
In the late 60's, the theater and film explorations with "diction" and "voice", along with many experimental productions, the "voice" was being touted, and considered an "instrument". IF, we all here THINK progressively, I doubt we will have issues with the singer, or voice. But we choose to separate the two, and I think that it hurts the completeness of the work altogether.
I remember Tim Curry, in a conversation after one of his shows at the Roxy (Rocky), and he used to say that he liked changing things around each night. He said that you could see in the audience the difference, and sometimes he would sing the portion instead of talking it out, and vice versa.
I think we have to give some credit where credit is due. The experimental edge in those days, was quite alive and visible. All you had to do was go see it, and you didn't even need to get stoned. In the case of Rocky, the worst would be eating your dinner and Meatloaf drives his Harley through the place to the stage! That smell made for a really good aperitif!
Edited by moshkito - July 27 2014 at 10:01
|
|
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
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 09:57 |
rogerthat wrote:
moshkito wrote:
[
I have a hard time considering "singers", and mandating to myself that they have to be compared to the scale of notes in order to be considered "singers". Going back as far as even Bertold Brecht and Kurt Weill, it was almost a form of "rap" in the sense that a lot of it was "spoken", and not sung, which I have always felt was a comment that not everyone was a singer, anyway!
|
Surely, surely, surely, you perceive the difference between rapping as an intentional technique and a karaoke singer inadvertently going way off key and not projecting something good with his voice? |
Brecht/Weill is one of the most difficult theater things to do. So much so that it is nowadays mostly studied in advanced acting classes, and you will not find many performances anywhere for it! It wasn't about being off key.
Again, it wasn't about the "notes" and the "music". It was about its inherant meaning and what it specified. Had nothing to do with music or notes whatsoever, although there are times when it was turned into an amazing piece with musical overtones, as was the case with Marat/Sade in West End, by Peter Brook. A production that no famous rock star in London missed!
TO MY EAR, this is something that folks like David Bowie, Bryan Ferry, Fish, Peter Gabriel, Christian Decamps, Peter Hammill and others happened to be very good about, and they knew how to use their inflections, and feelings, and say something that ended up sound a bit more (or less) like "singing", in the conventional choir style that we consistently compare it to!
Again, the "voice", was merely another instrument for them, and the whole thing was not about just writing another song! The personal side and its strength is the proof for that!
Edited by moshkito - July 27 2014 at 10:00
|
|
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
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 10:35 |
 Ok, I give up. 
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093
|
Posted: July 27 2014 at 11:23 |
Finnforest wrote:
A band could have a vocalist who had a dry, non-emotional delivery....a mumbler of sorts....and it could still work just fine with their music. It cannot be reduced to boxes that must be checked. There is only one box. Do I like listening to it? That's the box.
|
Alright but that's an easy way out, just not caring to trying to understand why things are the way they are, if you are an endeavouring person you can still ask yourself why do you like listening to it more than to something else, it's not about trying to make it a scientific work, but about gaining understanding about what you think and feel and why is it so.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Singers: voice, techniq, melodies, lyrics, passion