• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bad Singers who made it

#62
Deacon_Blues said:
I don't know all of those singers, but the ones I know on that list are at least good, some of them excellent singers, like Bruce Springsteen or Sting. Both AC/DC singers are/were also excellent, both in terms of attitude and technique (yes, technique - try singing like that for 10 sec without getting hoarse. Brian Johnson's voice have lasted for decades. That should be proof enough he has his technique under control. Edit - Pavarotti, Julie Andrews and Whitney Houston, Robert Plant, Justin Timberlake among others have all suffered from vocal fold nodules (result of bad singing technique), but Brian Johnson is not on this list on wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fold_nodule).


On the other hand, American Idol and similar shows are full bad singers that don't have a single clue about even the basics regarding singing or music. Bad singers sing either out of tune, out of time, or without emotion or attitude.

No bands survive with a bad singer (definition: see last sentence)
Click to expand...

I will have to respectfully disagree. Most of the singers you mentioned in the beginning of your post have a horrible vocal tone compared to the singers you mentioned later. And have pitch problems, force their voices and have obvious breaks. Oh, and I've seen the singer from AC/DC several times, he did lose his voice, if he ever had one long ago. It sounds like hell. He is obviously straining very badly when he sings.
Bruce Springsteen is a good singer? LOL, when did that happen. He's got probably the most limited range I've heard. Most of the time he sounds like he's just shouting.

LOL, pavaroti did not have bad vocal technique. Nodules are not the result of bad technique, they are the result of being a dynamically loud singer, repeated use, and health issue. Polyps form because a lot of air flows over the vocal cords regularly and dries them out. Then when a singer sing with very dry vocal cords the polyps can sometimes form. You need a lot of gentle air flow to sing loudly to excite your resonance.

Evironment can cause it too. I know a female singer that I know has great technique that got vocal polyps after doing a bunch of shows in vegas because it was too dry and she got cactus throat.

I would venture to say that propbably most of the singers you mentioned have come close to getting polyps, its just that the style of music they sing is not all about the singing. No one care is the singer from AC/DC sounds even more harsh.

P.S. Wikpedia does not have the definative answers for all questions in the universe, it is just a list of information another person put together.
 
#63
Mark Latimour said:
Nothing amuses me more than musicians who didn't "make it" ragging online about those that did. Continue, please.
Click to expand...

To me its more saying that those are the better singers, because they are not perfect singers. Just because I like them does not blind me to the fact they can't really "sing"


I love les Claypool. Without his "non singing voice', his music would be seriously lacking. I applaud the singers who can't really sing, they make more interesting music, to me.
 
#69
I remember hearing Lemmy sing with Hawkwind. Altough his voice is not the stuff of legend, it is somewhat good with okay timbre. He is hamming it up with Motörhead: without that grating, used, dirty voice, Motörhead wouldn't be half the band it is.

Also, I like an imperfect singer with a lot of mojo than a perfect one that is souless: give me Janis' honest belting over Celine Dion's cookie cutter timbre and phrasing. No matter how much money she throws at musicians, producers and songwriters, she'll never rock like Janis on a very bad night.

PS: I like weird voices a lot. Except for Dylan.
 
#72
I was going to post this yesterday evening already but got problems with my internet connection. Well anyway....

ric1312 said:
I will have to respectfully disagree. Most of the singers you mentioned in the beginning of your post have a horrible vocal tone compared to the singers you mentioned later. And have pitch problems, force their voices and have obvious breaks. Oh, and I've seen the singer from AC/DC several times, he did lose his voice, if he ever had one long ago. It sounds like hell. He is obviously straining very badly when he sings.
Bruce Springsteen is a good singer? LOL, when did that happen. He's got probably the most limited range I've heard. Most of the time he sounds like he's just shouting.

LOL, Pavarotti did not have bad vocal technique. Nodules are not the result of bad technique, they are the result of being a dynamically loud singer, repeated use, and health issue. Polyps form because a lot of air flows over the vocal cords regularly and dries them out. Then when a singer sing with very dry vocal cords the polyps can sometimes form. You need a lot of gentle air flow to sing loudly to excite your resonance.

Environment can cause it too. I know a female singer that I know has great technique that got vocal polyps after doing a bunch of shows in Vegas because it was too dry and she got cactus throat.

I would venture to say that probably most of the singers you mentioned have come close to getting polyps, its just that the style of music they sing is not all about the singing. No one care is the singer from AC/DC sounds even more harsh.

P.S. Wikipedia does not have the definitive answers for all questions in the universe, it is just a list of information another person put together.
Click to expand...

From past posts I know you disagree with me a lot regarding singing issues, so I think there's no sense to argue about these things too much anymore. We both know we're right... :p But for one last time (I hope):

Saying nodules does not come from careless use of the voice is just wrong. They are the result of not listening to your body when you get dry in the throat and later hoarse (from bad technique, illness, nervousness, allergy, infections etc). What happens is that your vocal folds initially get swollen, meaning you must compensate by using more support and air pressure than normally to sound "normal" again. As the cords get swollen, there is a risk they push stronger against each other, forming nodules that bind together the vocal cords. The bad thing here is that you can sing rather well too even when you have become hoarse, meaning the risk for nodules get stronger.

You're right the air flow might dry out the vocal folds. Therefore you should be careful with the volumes you use in the various singing modes and use air sparsely by supporting well. Some vowels, mainly oh and eh ("oh yeah"), allow for a good chest voice resonance letting the air out easily (I would say the overdrive mode, but as I know you're allergic to CVT for some reason I don't get, I use the old term, even though not 100% the same thing), with minimal air pressure on the vocal cords but maximum volume. Other vowels like o in woman, uh in hungry and i in sit don't let the air out as easily (unless you're in neutral/falsetto/light head voice), and cause a higher air pressure on the vocal cords that might dry them out. Therefore, you can't sing really loudly in a healthy way on these vowels. This would be the curbing mode in CVT terms.

'Nuff about singing technique.. :)

To me, good singing is very little about having a "beautiful voice", whatever that is. It's much more about expressing emotions to an audience - Sadness, happiness, rage, desperation... you name it. A traditionally "beautiful voice" might be completely wrong in a lot of rock music but fit very well in pop or classical. I wouldn't like to hear Andrea Bocelli sing Highway to Hell as I wouldn't like like to hear Brian Johnson sing O Holy Night either. A good singer succeeds in expressing the emotions to the audience in a way the audience in question likes.

I've seen AC/DC live once. They rocked. There was nothing to complain about Brian's performance either.

I admire both Bruce Springsteen and Pavarotti as singers in their respective genres. Bruce for his never-ending power and the honesty/truthfulness behind his words - you hear he believes every word hi sings. Yes, sings. ;) Pavarotti for his powerful and beautiful resonant voice. His various attempts to collaborate with pop/rock singers were not that successful (IMO) though.

I don't care the tiniest little bit if Bruce have a limited range or not. FTR, I don't think he has a very limited range, for example if compared to Chris Rea. However, both have exactly the range they need in order to express what they want to express to the listener. That's what matters. I can keep a note for a good 50 seconds and an "s"-sound for 90. Does that make me a good singer? No, it only means I have a reasonably good support. The audience don't care about that, though.

Wikipedia is not the whole truth, I know that :) but it's a good source of information if you can take it with a grain of salt. However, I don't find a reason to suspect the article I referred to for misinformation. Lack of information? More likely... It says however that Pavarotti got nodules in his young years before he had reached stardom.

Millions of singers will continue singing with a voice they think fits the music, regardless whether it is generally considered "beautiful" or not, healthy or not. Saying there's only one or two healthy ways to sing (you haven't said it AFAIK, but you give an impression that you belong to the group of people believing in this) is misleading, wrong, dangerous and ignorant to those who want to use other sounds. :rolleyes: If all singers knew that if it feels good - no additional sensations in the throat at all - it is good, and that it's possible to produce most sounds in a healthy way, a lot of singers wouldn't have to suffer from the consequences of bad singing technique.

BTW, who said a beautiful voice must be healthy, or vice versa?


PS. I corrected your post from five or six spelling errors. My posts about singing obviously make you boil inside.. :atoz: :D
 
#74
Scott Weiland- Not bad on recordings, but all over the place live.

Tanya Donnely- Oh so beautiful and sings nice on recordings, but live she just screamed a lot.

As for country artists, I think a lot of them "twang" into the note because they can't find the pitch. Especially vocalists of the last 25 years.
 
#75
Deacon_Blues said:
I was going to post this yesterday evening already but got problems with my internet connection. Well anyway....



From past posts I know you disagree with me a lot regarding singing issues, so I think there's no sense to argue about these things too much anymore. We both know we're right... :p But for one last time (I hope):

Saying nodules does not come from careless use of the voice is just wrong. They are the result of not listening to your body when you get dry in the throat and later hoarse (from bad technique, illness, nervousness, allergy, infections etc). What happens is that your vocal folds initially get swollen, meaning you must compensate by using more support and air pressure than normally to sound "normal" again. As the cords get swollen, there is a risk they push stronger against each other, forming nodules that bind together the vocal cords. The bad thing here is that you can sing rather well too even when you have become hoarse, meaning the risk for nodules get stronger.

You're right the air flow might dry out the vocal folds. Therefore you should be careful with the volumes you use in the various singing modes and use air sparsely by supporting well. Some vowels, mainly oh and eh ("oh yeah"), allow for a good chest voice resonance letting the air out easily (I would say the overdrive mode, but as I know you're allergic to CVT for some reason I don't get, I use the old term, even though not 100% the same thing), with minimal air pressure on the vocal cords but maximum volume. Other vowels like o in woman, uh in hungry and i in sit don't let the air out as easily (unless you're in neutral/falsetto/light head voice), and cause a higher air pressure on the vocal cords that might dry them out. Therefore, you can't sing really loudly in a healthy way on these vowels. This would be the curbing mode in CVT terms.

'Nuff about singing technique.. :)

To me, good singing is very little about having a "beautiful voice", whatever that is. It's much more about expressing emotions to an audience - Sadness, happiness, rage, desperation... you name it. A traditionally "beautiful voice" might be completely wrong in a lot of rock music but fit very well in pop or classical. I wouldn't like to hear Andrea Bocelli sing Highway to Hell as I wouldn't like like to hear Brian Johnson sing O Holy Night either. A good singer succeeds in expressing the emotions to the audience in a way the audience in question likes.

I've seen AC/DC live once. They rocked. There was nothing to complain about Brian's performance either.

I admire both Bruce Springsteen and Pavarotti as singers in their respective genres. Bruce for his never-ending power and the honesty/truthfulness behind his words - you hear he believes every word hi sings. Yes, sings. ;) Pavarotti for his powerful and beautiful resonant voice. His various attempts to collaborate with pop/rock singers were not that successful (IMO) though.

I don't care the tiniest little bit if Bruce have a limited range or not. FTR, I don't think he has a very limited range, for example if compared to Chris Rea. However, both have exactly the range they need in order to express what they want to express to the listener. That's what matters. I can keep a note for a good 50 seconds and an "s"-sound for 90. Does that make me a good singer? No, it only means I have a reasonably good support. The audience don't care about that, though.

Wikipedia is not the whole truth, I know that :) but it's a good source of information if you can take it with a grain of salt. However, I don't find a reason to suspect the article I referred to for misinformation. Lack of information? More likely... It says however that Pavarotti got nodules in his young years before he had reached stardom.

Millions of singers will continue singing with a voice they think fits the music, regardless whether it is generally considered "beautiful" or not, healthy or not. Saying there's only one or two healthy ways to sing (you haven't said it AFAIK, but you give an impression that you belong to the group of people believing in this) is misleading, wrong, dangerous and ignorant to those who want to use other sounds. :rolleyes: If all singers knew that if it feels good - no additional sensations in the throat at all - it is good, and that it's possible to produce most sounds in a healthy way, a lot of singers wouldn't have to suffer from the consequences of bad singing technique.

BTW, who said a beautiful voice must be healthy, or vice versa?


PS. I corrected your post from five or six spelling errors. My posts about singing obviously make you boil inside.. :atoz: :D
Click to expand...


First of all when the vocal cords get swollen you know it right away it becomes difficult to sing. So, any experienced singer would stop. the good singers you like would rest, given the chance, if their cords swole. Which doesn't happen much to them because they sing with good technique that sounds tonally good and isn't forced.

The singers who you like so much more I've consistently seen live and seen them sing with forced technique that sounded like they were already hoarse. they do not sing in a way that is healthy and not felt in the throat.

I agree about singers having the voices that are appropiate for the songs they sing, but even hard rock can be sung with great technique. Great technique doesn't cause a loss of emotional involvement by the singer, if anything an easier to use voice with good technique enalbles the singer to get into it more.

The fact that you think the best singers are these singers that makes these awful tones just shows that you have no ear for singing, and only know what you like. The usual story of someone saying because they like something it's the best, or because they don't like something is sucks. Their is a difference between what you like and what is technically better.

I love AC/DC myself but I can hear that the singer is technically very bad at singing compared to say a singer like the one from Queensryche. Just like a lot of people would compare the guitarist from AC/DC to some guitar virtuoso.

P.S. Again CVT is garbadge. It uses the registration method, but gives new names to the registers and even invents a couple more........like the belt register, which the worst nonsense I've ever heard. If you know how to sing there are no registers. I can sing over three and half octaves with no breaks, loud, soft, at a talking level, or in a distorted rock tone. I can do it all day long, as easy as I hum, without going hoarse.

P.P.S. I know pavaroti got nodule. That's actually not uncommon in opera. The style of music calls for the singer to almost always sing loud, because when most operas were written the singers were unamplified so if you couldn't sing very loud you couldn't do it. The music is also standards of opera and are expected to be sung a certain way. Original pop/rock artists have the luxury of singing however they like and are comfortable at the moment. The guy from AC/DC can go on stage and not sound a thing like the record and people still love it. If pavaroti goes on stage and even warbles a little he may get booed off stage.........which has happened to him I understand.

I suggest you raise your standards for what you judge as good singing, it can only help your own voice.
 
#76


No twang here...yea its in Country but to say its used to find pitch or key I highly disagree its the style AKA country. I have found out 2 things since switching to country music 1. You have to be a better cleaner bass player and tighter then you ever have to be playing rock. 2. Vocals have to be good or the band blows.
 
#77
ric1312 said:
1:The singers who you like so much more I've consistently seen live and seen them sing with forced technique that sounded like they were already hoarse. they do not sing in a way that is healthy and not felt in the throat.

2: I agree about singers having the voices that are appropiate for the songs they sing, but even hard rock can be sung with great technique. Great technique doesn't cause a loss of emotional involvement by the singer, if anything an easier to use voice with good technique enalbles the singer to get into it more.

3: The fact that you think the best singers are these singers that makes these awful tones just shows that you have no ear for singing, and only know what you like. The usual story of someone saying because they like something it's the best, or because they don't like something is sucks. Their is a difference between what you like and what is technically better.

4: I love AC/DC myself but I can hear that the singer is technically very bad at singing compared to say a singer like the one from Queensryche. Just like a lot of people would compare the guitarist from AC/DC to some guitar virtuoso.

5: P.S. Again CVT is garbadge. It uses the registration method, but gives new names to the registers and even invents a couple more........like the belt register, which the worst nonsense I've ever heard. If you know how to sing there are no registers. I can sing over three and half octaves with no breaks, loud, soft, at a talking level, or in a distorted rock tone. I can do it all day long, as easy as I hum, without going hoarse.

...

6: I suggest you raise your standards for what you judge as good singing, it can only help your own voice.
Click to expand...

1: Have you asked them if that actually is true, or read about it somewhere? Or is it just a guess? If they were singing with a very bad technique, they wouldn't be able to tour at all anymore. But they do, and are able to pull off great shows.

2: I couldn't agree more.

3: Our view on what's technically good/healthy differs. I don't judge any singer's technique before they say they have a problem or it becomes too obvious they have by failing to pull off a show or so. I never said the singers I mentioned are my absolute favorites, just that I like them and don't judge their technique. Here's a list of a few of my fav. singers: Stevie Wonder, Bono, Don Henley, Lara Fabian, Mariah Carey (yes I think she's an amazing singer), Ella Fitzgerald, Shirley Bassey, Sting, Bryan Adams, James Brown, Marvin Gaye. In addition there's a lot of singers whose voices I like but not listen to, like Ronnie James Dio.

4: Again comparing various singers' technique isn't my cup of tea.

5: I suggest you read the case stories in the CVT book before judging it so strongly as you do. Good for you you have your technique under control. :) I also have a 3½-4 octave range, pretty much exactly the range of a normal electric guitar. I don't feel more limited than you either in terms of using it. Anymore. Not too bad considering I've had singing lessons (CVT) for only a bit over half a year. I still have stuff to learn, although my teacher wondered if I would continue studying.

6: LOL. The sensations (or lack thereof) in my throat tells me if I'm on the right track or not. I don't try to imitate other singers too much, I won't ever sound exactly like them anyway...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back