• 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.

Bands that singers ruin...

#142
drews.anderson said:
And still sounds like NuMetal vocals on songs that are not. Not improving with time, I think. Just love AEnima, and will never forgive Keenan.
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree. The last thing you could level at Tool would be 'nu-metal vocals', and I'm not even sure what that means or what you mean.
 
#145
bassteban said:
Totally agree. Dude sounds like a spoiled preteen byotching about getting the wrong birthday present.
Click to expand...
Excellent summary of my thoughts on their first album. However, De la Rocha sounded like he went through a late puberty onset between that and their later albums, and thus making their later material far more enjoyable IMO.
deeptubes said:
Yeah. He needs to realize that he does NOT have a melodic voice. It seems like ever since they released "Under The Bridge", that they are trying to use it as a template.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Their best work was when Anthony was rapping. He is enjoyable as a high energy vocalist, and disappointing when trying to find/maintain notes. The occasional "singing" song was okay as a novelty or exception, but I agree it's become far too much of the rule with their later material.
Red_Merkin said:
I do. To me Chris Cornell was the worst of the early 90's Eddie Vedder clones, and he is my entry to this annoying singer thread.

Dude just ruined Soundgarden for me, and turned the band that was Rage into boring, generic radio rock.
Click to expand...
Chris Cornell predated Vedder by a margin in terms of recorded output.

I agree that his work with Audio Slave was weak, but his voice was shot by then. His best years are behind him by nearly two decades at this point.
WJGreer said:
For me, definitely Rage Against The Machine. To my ears, Audioslave was the solution for 100% of what I didn't like about Rage, and left everything I did like.

I know many will disagree.
Click to expand...
I feel the exact opposite. Both vocalists worked better in their respective groups IMO.
LikeRaphael said:
Every killer metal band that has growling for singing.
Click to expand...
+100000.

I'm open minded up through screaming, but the ultra low unintelligible cookie monster growling is a dealbreaker.
drews.anderson said:
Tool is an extraordinary band, but the NewMetalish vocals...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if they're "nu-metalish" but after trying really hard to like Tool for quite some time I've determined that Keanan's vocal work is what keeps them from clicking with me. I tend to prefer a higher register, I tend to prefer more grit, I tend to prefer less wallowing, I tend to prefer a ton more energy.
nortonrider said:
Neil Young
Click to expand...
I can't say I'd love his music more, but I really can't get past his voice to make a fair assessment of his tunes.
bassteban said:
Dude in Cinderella and Brian Johnson(AC/DC), who I suspect are one and the same. Awful beyond words
Click to expand...
Later period Johnson was thin and raspy enough to be as weak as Tom Keifer. In his prime, however, Johnson had a much more powerful delivery.


As for my own contribution to this list, I really get turned off by the "pop-punk American Idol" vocal sound -- or at least that's the classification I've come up for it in my head. It's the attempts to sound classically trained and/or the overuse of pitch correction software that's created a legion of excessively earnest sounding young men who are hitting every note and clearly have never taken a sip of whiskey or smoked a cigarette in their lives. Think of it as the inverse of David Lee Roth. While I don't love pop punk, at least some of the sonic aesthetics are acceptable prior to the vocals arriving and reminding you that you're listening to something so stripped of rough edges that it's been completely castrated of its original goals.
 
#146
Tituscrow said:
We will agree to disagree. The last thing you could level at Tool would be 'nu-metal vocals', and I'm not even sure what that means or what you mean.
Click to expand...
Of course we can agree to disagree! And I totally respect your point of view!
And then, as I said in the other post, "Nu-metal vocals" are the ones that bring to my mind images of band members doing short jumps all over the stage at the rhythm of the song...
 
#147
I realized that I have a particular fondness for some 80's synth-pop

...despite the fact that I have to conciously lower my standards when listening just so that I can tolerate the singers. There's just something about that yowling, nasal, ever-so-slightly flat (or, in some cases, not slightly) delivery that so many of the New Romantic/funny haircut singers of the 1980s affected that drives me batty. Yet I love the music, and so just wind up sucking it up and listening despite the fop on mic.

E.g.,
- David Sylvian with Japan
- Peter Murphy with Bauhaus/Dali's Car
- Tom Bailey with Thompson Twins
- Curt Smith and Roland Orzabal with Tears For Fears
- Simon Le Bon with Duran Duran
 
#149
Floyd Eye said:
Dude, are you friggin' kidding me? You might be the only person on the planet to ever utter these words. Those harmonies are one of the things that sets AIC on the very top of the 90s Seattle groups ( and in the upper eschelon of all rock and roll bands in general).

Obviously opinions are subjective and I certainly respect yours, but my opinion is that Layne Staley had the coolest voice in the history of recorded music and the way he and Cantrell harmonized in 5ths brought out a haunting aspect that is unequaled by anyone.
Click to expand...

Like I said at times. Nowadays I appreciate the harmonies, but there was a phase where I listened to Alice in Chains for about 5 months straight and that was my biggest gripe about them after sort of falling out of love with them. Nowadays I like them just fine, albeit sometimes I get an "eww" factor off of the harmonies. But the whole addition of the new singer and the new record sounds great, and songs like "Rooster," and "I Stay Away," I have no trouble listening to, some of their other songs like "Hate to Feel," etc I kind of have an "eww" reaction to.
 
#153
So many pretentious hipsters in this thread. With that being said, my pick would be Mudvaine. I just can't stand the dudes voice. Love the music, especially the crazy rhythms between the bass and drums, but Chads voice is like nails on a chalkboard. Also, Thom Yorke. Used to dig Radiohead in my younger years, but I just can't stand his voice as it relates to the music. The reason I put that qualifier on there is that I love Muse, and I see Matt and Thom as having almost the same voice, but Muse sounds like Radiohead with a set of balls. Seen them both live and Muse was just so much more entertaining to watch, plus (in my opinion) the music is so much more bold. YMMV
 
#155
Man, to each his own, but a lot of folks here sound like they'd be content to have every rock and roll singer sound like the average American Idol finalist. One of the great things about the music of the past 50 years is how a conventionally awful vocalist (Dylan, Waits, Watt, Geddy, Bon, etc.) can stir up emotion as much (or more) as a vocal virtuoso. Like many have said, a lot of these bands wouldn't have gone nearly as far as they did with a more "pleasing" sounding singer.

That said, I've never been very fond of System of a Down's vocals, nor Dream Theater. I'm still trying to warm up to Springsteen and Radiohead.
 
#158
I never saw the appeal in males doing falsetto, always seemed comedic to me. Also, one thing I noticed recently about 80's metal is all the operatic vibrato. Doesn't really ruin it, but makes me snicker, but so do the tight leather pants, spandex and pirate shirts.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back