Marillion Vocalists
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24865
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 06:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Marillion Vocalists
Posted By: WaywardSon
Subject: Marillion Vocalists
Date Posted: June 16 2006 at 19:53
|
I was listening to Marbles the other day. Steve Hogarth has a really good voice and it is as emotional as Fish´s voice, but there is a big problem for me..
His pronunciation!! If I don´t have the lyrics in front of me it is difficult to hear what he is singing about. He is often mumbling and this irritates me. I wish he would sing clearly.
Does anyone agree with me ?(or disagree)
|
Replies:
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: June 16 2006 at 21:03
|
He does tend to mumble during some of the slower moments (especially at the beginning of "Fantastic Place"); however, I've never really had a problem understanding him. That could come with hearing Marbles many o' times, though.
That said, the brilliance of Marbles never ceases to amaze me. E ------------- 
|
Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 04:03
I concur  ------------- "The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa |
E-Dub wrote:Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 08:13
| I don't really have a problem with Hogarth's mumbling on Marbles in fits in with the loungy feel of some of the tracks off the album, perfectly accompanied by Rothery's new found interest in jazz, displayed in his solos. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 08:22
|
Hogarth's voice is fine by me.
------------- 
|
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 10:03
|
I kind of prefer it to Fish. But I know I'm a minority by that... ------------- I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t. -Stone Beard |
Posted By: rupert
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 11:51
|
An exclusive minority, BePink.
I don't see a problem when H is rather mumblin' somtimes cause I can read the lyrics in the booklet and I love it if it sounds a little odd and I have to wonder about the words !
Long live the Post-Fish-Marillion ( which, to me, after so many years and albums are the real Marillion anyway, in spite of many fine songs from before ) ------------- ...I'm a musician/singer/songwriter, visit me on www.reverbnation.com/rupertlenz and there you can choose from 125 recordings you can listen to ( for free ) if you're not limited to prog-rock ! |
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 11:56
|
Actually, there are many times when I found Fish hard to understand. And yes, there are also times I find H a little "mumbly." However, mumbling is often used as a "device" for effect. One hopes that it is not overused, and that lyrics will be understandable. Ultimately, I love both of their voices equally for different reasons.
Peace.
|
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 13:26
|
Styistically Fish and Hogarth are different vocalists. Where Fish was more expressive with his vocals, Hogarth has a better overall range. But I guess that doesn't really go with the topic? I think Hogarth does mumble sometimes, but it doesn't really mar the quality of the music they write. I mean, it was hard to understand Fish sometimes. All vocalists do it at one point or another, so it isn't really a big deal.
Hogarth and Fish are both cool in my book.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: M. B. Zapelini
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 18:22
|
I used to like Fish's voice - because I didn't listened to Genesis with Peter Gabriel back in 1983 (I would discover Gabriel's work with Genesis - and his solo albums - two years later). Apart from this, Steve Hogarth was always a favorite of mine - his work on "Easter" is better than anything Fish sang. ------------- "He's a man of the past and one of the present" PETER HAMMILL |
Posted By: necromancing777
Date Posted: June 17 2006 at 18:37
If sat down with gun to head and was forced to choose between the two...I would probably go with Hogarth. Though I think Fish a better songwriter within the band.
As far as the band on a whole, I enjoy the pre-Hogarth music more. I think it would be a kick to hear Hogarth sing on more Fish tracks.
P.S. - I absolutely love the Hogarth version of Warm Wet Circles/That Time of the Night on their 'Wish You Were Here' DVD. ------------- 
"Your progressive hypocrites hand out their trash, But it was mine in the first place, so I'll burn it to ash." |
Posted By: rupert
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 15:17
|
there are quite some old tracks sung well by hogie, like "Slainte Mhath", "Sugar Mice", "Lavender", "Garden Party", "script"... but i definately don't like to hear him sing "Kayleigh" and I prefer songs from "Season's end" onwards when they're playing LIVE... ------------- ...I'm a musician/singer/songwriter, visit me on www.reverbnation.com/rupertlenz and there you can choose from 125 recordings you can listen to ( for free ) if you're not limited to prog-rock ! |
Posted By: zFrogs
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 15:25
|
I prefer Fish but I really enjoy Brave and Steve is a good vocalist. Fish lauch many greats albuns and Marillion too. I think that both are in good vibes. ------------- https://www.instagram.com/erifrog/ |
Posted By: zFrogs
Date Posted: June 20 2006 at 15:27
|
Hey I'm not newbie anymore. (hahahah)
And folks, sorry my english is not so good. ------------- https://www.instagram.com/erifrog/ |
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: June 21 2006 at 01:54
|
I think Steve H has a diction problem and at times tries to sing outside his limitations , Fish`s voice to me always sounds relaxed . I didn`t think much of Marbles BTW I thought it was lame |
Posted By: cscrutinizer
Date Posted: June 22 2006 at 16:52
|
Hogarth reminds me of combination of Roy Orbison and an Islamic Imam...
I have Marbles, and I'm not too fond of it. It reminds me too much of U2, Coldplay, and other "alterna-pop" bands. Invisible Man is pretty cool, but it is a soundscape, much like their other works on Marbles. My favorite thing about progressive rock is composition, but you won't find much of that on Marbles... Not even decent songwritings. They've taken on the contemporary laziness of writing soundscapes.
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 14:58
|
The only problem I have with Steve H is he always comes off sounding melancholly, and it seems to be the only emotion he can thoroughly express. He also lacks the quirkiness of Fish, but that may come as a relief to some I suspect. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 15:15
Obscure Scottish poet vs. Obscure English mumbler 
I like em both.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 15:26
Not to mention the almost Milkman.   -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 16:21
I'm inspired to make a poll, but I think it might just be too silly.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 16:31
|
I prefer Fish`voice, more emotional, and for my ears is a great voice, also he will be touring to Mexico un august!!!
------------- Follow me on twitter @memowakeman |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 17:37
| Always thought Hogarth a better singer by far..but much of the inspiration left the band after Fish left... sadly. |
Posted By: Third_Guard
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 17:48
| My favourite is Fish, but Hogarth, as a singer, is better than the first one. I feel that Fish give me more emotions than Hogarth. |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 17:51
| Love Fish's voice- one of the great voices of the whole genre from any era (although cues are taken from Peters Hammill and Gabriel). He has a flair for the dramatic and has great power, spitting out the lyrics at times yet is also capable of a more subtle approach. Hogarth's voice or that era of the band in general, I'm less enthusiastic towards. It's a technically fine vocal but I just don't feel he stands out from a crowd like Fish did. I really ought to give the later Marillion another whirl but for me they lost something with Fish. |
Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: June 23 2006 at 23:47
 |
Posted By: rupert
Date Posted: June 30 2006 at 15:29
|
Marbles is subtle and heartfelt though it doesn't have the power of its 2 pre-decessors ( Anoraknophobia & .Com ), stagnant is something Marillion with Hogie never were...
------------- ...I'm a musician/singer/songwriter, visit me on www.reverbnation.com/rupertlenz and there you can choose from 125 recordings you can listen to ( for free ) if you're not limited to prog-rock ! |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: June 30 2006 at 16:17
|
No contest - Mr Dick wins hands down.
His taming of Peter Hammill's style and blending it into his own, combined with perfect dramatic and melodic expression of his supreme lyrics make him almost untouchable in terms of technical quality, despite the obvious fact that he's not a technical singer: The techniques he uses are necessary for expression, whereas Hogarth skips technique on the whole for a less lucid approach to his less lucid lyrics. But it's the fact I like Fish's style more than Hogarth's that really cements my vote. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 23:22
I tend to agree
|
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 23:45
|
Prefer Fish of the early 80's. I gather he no longer has much of a voice. Saw Marillion during the Clutching at Straws tour and he couldn't reach any high notes by then (had some backing vocalists for that)... has quite a bit of character as a singer and that makes up for much of what he lacks technically (should have stopped smoking a long time ago, that migt have helped). Hogarth's good and recognizable, I like his singing, but... Mogens |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 00:30
|
Both let it fly sometimes, but the difference is in that when Fish wails it's very resonating and bombastic, while Hogarth is a bit fragile and can't pound it out like Fish. Though he did make AMAZING progress in the time between Anorak and Marbles. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Flip_Stone
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 12:45
|
Here we go again with the eternal Fish-Hogarth Marillion vocalist debate. Oh well, might as well throw in my two-cents worth.
I personally prefer Fish over Hogarth. Fish has a much fuller voice, and can get more intense. Hogarth is a decent singer, but he often sings too feminine, as though he's part woman. A guy can sing with depth and emotion without sounding like he's wearing perfume and vogueing around on the floor. Further evidence of this is on the sometimes-embarrassing moves and actions that Hogarth resorts to on video (check out the Six of One - Half Dozen of the Other video collection). I rest my case.
|
Posted By: dralan
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 14:51
| Hogarth has a decent enough voice, but Fish was the heart and soul of Marillion before he left and there is really no comparison. I think they should have changed the name of the group myself. I know Genesis changed frontmen mid-career and were able to pull it off, but Marillion just dont have a strong enough musical identity. |
Posted By: rupert
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 12:38
|
[QUOTE:. I think they should have changed the name of the group ] RIGHT, but that's far too late now, and... well, they're strong as ever with H, if you like his coice, too... I don't want the past back, not for a minute ! ------------- ...I'm a musician/singer/songwriter, visit me on www.reverbnation.com/rupertlenz and there you can choose from 125 recordings you can listen to ( for free ) if you're not limited to prog-rock ! |
Posted By: progadicto
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 14:16
|
I don't have any problem with SH voice...My only problem with SH voice is when he sings old-stuff songs... that's almost a crime...
------------- ... E N E L B U N K E R... |
Posted By: prog4evr
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 16:55
| Hogarth redeems himself on a song such a 'Interior Lulu' from the Marillion.com release, but otherwise Fish's grittier vocals captivate the listener as Gabriel did for the first albums of Genesis (compared to the wimpier, pop sound of Collins). |
Posted By: mgallard
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 17:32
|
Collins: Wimpier... not at all. Actually when I started listening to Genesis, I knew nothing about the vocalist change and I never really noticed any difference :-) not too trained an ear at that time too (early teens), but it just serves to show that the change wasn't all that obvious for a normal listener. I enjoy Collins' vocals very much up until Duke, after that something changed and he lost the magic I enjoyed, I think it's his way of singing, more than his voice, that changed, could be the mixing process, the mics, could also be that time has something to do with it too (nothing lasts forever). Mogens |
Posted By: rupert
Date Posted: July 14 2006 at 14:36
|
Not always, but in the "Kayleigh"-case I'm keen to agree, that's a crime to my ears... but what about Sugar Mice, Script, Slainthe Mhath and Garden Party ???? I think it really fits, even on Lavender, but nonetheless when I'm going to a Marillion-show with H I don't wanna hear the old stuff cause I prefer the "new", starting with the "Season's end"-album ------------- ...I'm a musician/singer/songwriter, visit me on www.reverbnation.com/rupertlenz and there you can choose from 125 recordings you can listen to ( for free ) if you're not limited to prog-rock ! |
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: August 01 2006 at 12:47
| I consider myself a Marillion fan, I love all their albums ( now I am a minority). I love both Fish and Steve Hogarth, two awesome vocalists as far as I'm concerned. I also think people shouldn't compare singers, albums, musicians, bands so much. Excessive comparison leads to narrow-mindedness...Sorry. |
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 11:41
|
Marillion aren't doing any Fish material these days. Slowly started to weed out that era around .Com, and by the time they toured for Anoraknophobia, it was all Hogarth era material. Fine by me.
They will pull out the occasional Fish classic at the conventions, however. E -------------
|
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 17:58
|
It's all about Fugazi and Clutching At Straws for me, these days. The title track from This Strange Engine is very cool but that's honestly all the Marillion I need. I wouldn't mind having Reel To Real (or is it Real To Reel?), though.
------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: August 06 2006 at 19:13
|
<<Reel To Real>>
From what I read in their book, Separated Out, Real to Reel was overdubbed like crazy. It's practically a studio album. E -------------
|