But I think I prefer Greg Lake a bit.

 

Singing? They're both excellent.

Playing bass? I'd give that to Lake, since PG has Tony Levin to do that.

Playing guitar? Again, Lake.

Playing flute? Gotta go with PG there.

 

Since the only thing they both do is sing, I'll call it a draw.

Peter Gabriel gave us the psychological masterwork that was ...er..untitled III. All Greg Lake gave us was Lucky Man for cryin' out loud!

Okay, I'm exaggerating, but hey!

 

It's usually referred to as "Melt", Al.Vocally,  I think Gabriel is more evocative, with a far greater depth.

 

 

Gabriel is much more soulfull though as evidenced by Solsbury Hill (possibly my all time favourite song) and Biko among other things.

 

If you add other things:

Gabriel is a better song writer no question

Lake was in his day (1970 -1977) an excellent guitarist ,much underrated imo. Brain Salad Surgery contains his best lead guitar work on KE9 Ist Impression.

 

Both great frontmen in their own ways as well if very different. Lake in the white suit and cool as you like (talking along time ago). Gabriel totally theatrical in approach ,hiding perhaps a certain introvertedness in those weird costumes when in Genesis.

 

 

 

No vote.

Sinefield wrote those lyrics. And Pete's lyrics are great, they're full of metaphor, symbolism, and English humor (which isn't all that funny ).

god damn opinions, they suck

could go either way

voted Lake

Lake is an instrumentalist, singer and song writer in that order.

Overall I think that lake is the superior musician, but this poll is about the voice, so PG wins it for me.

PG without and doubt, just seen some life Youtubes from old genesis era, he is unreal.

 

Regarding the post above, you forget that PG is a poet too, an dramatist and a poet, and one of the best i modern times.

A preformer if you like.

 

WHAT????

 

He's obviously referring to Tarkus but deliberately ignoring a whole load of other stuff. Also Sinfield wrote the lyrics to KE9 3rd Impression not Lake. Actually Tarkus has some excellent lyrics.Lake did a great job considering that Emerson had already composed the music and probably decided the concept in advance. It was well known that Lake didn't like sci-fi heavy concepts but he managed to contribute lyrics that were rich in imagery and not too 'science fictiony' imo.

 

 

Up is great too.

Also I'm really surprised by the result of the poll.

 

I really like this post, it makes so much ummm....sense!

 

no contest

Iván

Don't know what you mean by the word "better" as in better vocal range. Greg has the sweeter vocal chords of the two singers, but Gabriel has a much wider vocal range I would have thought.

Greg deals perfectly with low and high ranges and was much more powerful, Peter has problems with extremely high ranges, that's why he uses that semi yodel to cover that problem and adds drama to the lyrics.

Iván

You know I'm a fan of Peter and voted for him, I consider Gabriel a great vocalist, but I try to be impartial.

Dancing sounds great in studio (remember that SEbtP is perfectly produced), but I have several videos of Gabriel in concert with Genesis and this is what I found:

Still, I believe he's the most communicative and emotional singer in the market, something hat Greg lacks.

Iván

You basically hit the nail on the head; even if we disregard songwriting, it still comes down to the question, "What's more important, technical ability or emotion, energy, and uniqueness?"  I'd choose the latter qualities over technicality any day, which is the reason I prefer Gabriel to Lake; Greg is a great singer, and I'm not saying he's soulless or anything, but his vocals don't even come close to comparing to Gabriel's emotive and powerful delivery.  Besides, PG could do so much more with his voice than Lake could; imagine Lake trying to sing all the whistles, whoops, and shouts on "Melt", for example.

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:

BTW: I believe Greg Lake has a beautiful voice, but it's a bit soulless.

Iván

Massive Ego? Peter?

No way, I followed his career and talked with him twice, the guy is incredibly humble, to the point he seems extremely shy.

In Lima he was embarrassed to find so many people waiting for him in the  airport, he didn't beleived so many people had brought his albums and posters for him to sign.

He took hours but he signed each and every one, on the other hand, members of his staff (except Tony Levin and Melanie) were pretty arrogant.

He even signed a copy of Turn it on Again (Where he doesn't play), that a friend took, the guy was incredibly kind and even humble.

Iván

I think it's easier to recognize that quality in someone like Ella Fitzgerald, because first of all, she stands out more as the primary attraction in her music, while in prog the singers don't stand out as much because there's a larger emphasis on the other musical lines, harmonic complexity, and instrumental sections.  Also, whereas it's easy to recognize Ella's impact on a jazz standard she covered, it's much more difficult to imagine how, say, The Musical Box would sound with someone else singing (not sure if Phil ever attempted this).

But I have a high view of many prog singers; besides Gabriel, I think Peter Hammil possesses this quality you're talking about, as do Joanne Hogg (Iona), Annie Haslam, and Geddy Lee (Yes, I said Geddy Lee).  Those are off the top of my head, and of course, that's in my opinion.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: But I have a high view of many prog singers; besides Gabriel, I think Peter Hammil possesses this quality you're talking about, as do Joanne Hogg (Iona), Annie Haslam, and Geddy Lee (Yes, I said Geddy Lee).  Those are off the top of my head, and of course, that's in my opinion.

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. 

Gilmour is the name  that's often forgotten in these vocalist discussions, maybe because he's such a well known guitarist.   Wonderful singer! In my view - and one that may not get many takers on this forum - a better singer than Gabriel, Anderson, Hammill or Collins.  Speaking of which, I also prefer Fish to these last mentioned singers.   

From more modern names, Daniel Gildenlow is an amazing singer.  While his rendition of Hallelujah is not the best out there, it's really good for a metal singer.  He shows terrific ability to move from harsh, aggressive delivery to more subtle, softer shades.

And, though she is prog related officially, Kate Bush must be mentioned!  She overemotes/overdramatizes too often for my liking but she can also hold it back sometimes and let her wonderful timbre shine.  E.g. Man with the child in his eyes, Breathing, Night of the Swallow, etc.

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

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.

There are great singers that we won't ever mention because they sing anodyne pieces where she's the star but has no challenge.

Renaissance gained from Annie Haslam as much as Annie Haslam gained from Renaissance, it was a symbiotic relation where both received a benefit.

Iván

Well, the folks in Renaissance needed her quite badly.  If anyone else was singing a song as bad as Let it Grow, it would make me barf.  With Annie singing, I actually like it. 

The album that really stands out to me as a Geddy vocal showcase is Presto, where he really carries the whole album.  The songwriting is excellent in general but there are a couple simpler pieces (Anagram, Hand Over Fist) which are okay as compositions but only become great songs because Geddy is singing them.

Gabriel's voice was always thin and buzzy.

 

Since the nineties, Lake's voice has sounded way too throaty.

I always believed that human voice is another instrument, that can sound perfectly on a band or on vocals oriented music. She was able to play with Renaissance and make solo projects, even when I find her solo projects boring

I honestly can't stand Annie singing alone, 

rogerthat wrote:   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.

 

Roger, I'm sure you know technique is not everything in opera.

All the singers in an opera have the same technique and training, but the great ones take the central roles while the ones that don't have the best timbre and are able to communicate with the audience go to the chorus.

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.

rogerthat wrote:   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.

 

Roger, the personality of the singer shines no matter where he plays, that's why guys as Peter Gabriel were so unique playing in Genesis as playing their solo stuff. I heard like 30 tribute bands including The Musical Box, and not one comes near to the original...Not because Tony Banks or Steve Hackett but for Peter mostly, because some of this guys have learned the Banks and Hackett parts perfectly}, but nobody can learn what Peter gave..  

rogerthat wrote:  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.

  

We have different perspectives, i see john Tout as an amazing pianist, and I seen gigs with the oriinal formation and with all the other new guys and is not remotely the same. People go to see them because of the name of the band, but clearly there's a difference between "Live at Carnegie Hall" than any 2000 gig

rogerthat wrote:  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.

-------------
            

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Roger, the personality of the singer shines no matter where he plays, that's why guys as Peter Gabriel were so unique playing in Genesis as playing their solo stuff. I heard like 30 tribute bands including The Musical Box, and not one comes near to the original...Not because Tony Banks or Steve Hackett but for Peter mostly, because some of this guys have learned the Banks and Hackett parts perfectly}, but nobody can learn what Peter gave..

If Phil Collins could take on some of the Gabriel era songs on Seconds Out, they cannot be quite that unique.  I believe a fair few British singers have that kind of voice, though few are quite as low pitched as Gabriel's.   But some of them are in successful bands themselves and wouldn't want to cover Genesis. 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: We have different perspectives, i see john Tout as an amazing pianist, and I seen gigs with the oriinal formation and with all the other new guys and is not remotely the same. People go to see them because of the name of the band, but clearly there's a difference between "Live at Carnegie Hall" than any 2000 gig

That is because the Live at Carnegie Hall concerts had an orchestra to back them.  Same as the King Biscuit albums.  What about the gigs where they performed without an orchestra....and most of the gigs were performed only by the five members.    This is what Mother Russia sounds like live without an orchestra.  With modern technology and two keyboardists working in tandem, the band is able to replicate the orchestral parts better than in this 1976 performance, which, frankly, starts to drag:



Speaking of Tout, he has great touch on the piano but he had his limitations when it came to using the synthesizer.  Most of the tones he used in live concerts in the 70s sound very dated today.   That, once again, is why it would have made more sense for the band to adopt a more rock/pop-like setup with more piano rather than orchestra...viz, more like Things I Don't Understand or Trip to the Fair.   Adapting the essence of Western classical music to a rock/pop-instrumental set up works only up to a point because a five piece is handicapped, in terms of timbre, in comparison to an orchestra.  Long classical pieces sound engrossing because you have string, brass and woodwind, taking turns to play or playing all together, as applicable.  Certainly, if the band is going to be melodic rather than experimental, at least balancing the odd epic with several short songs that let the singer sing makes more sense.