• 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.

How do bad singers get away with sounding good?

#81
Spectrum said:
I have a pretty strong dislike for opera, but I am aware that most opera singers can blow away most pop/rock singers in every technical way that can be measured.
Click to expand...

today that's not so true. after the 60's, the quality of technique decreased a lot, most singers can't articulate the words making it impossible to understand what they are singing, and also they last few years due to extended abuse of the vocal cords.

in fact, after Pavarotti, opera singers lost their "fame". he was from a previous age, lasted until his death.

another thing is that opera is written in the range of the singer, so a tenor won't ever sing a baritone piece, and never go out of his range.
in pop/rock music most songs are written "for the instruments", and the singer has to adapt. the key of most ACDC songs is so wrong for a man, and that's why both Bon Scott and Brian Johnson have to sing so high in a screamy/squeaky voice, but they are written to sound good on guitars :D

when we talk about pop and rock singers, that's where we encounter "humanity" and feelings; from the late 60's up to today many singers were just good frontmen.

one example is Jon Bon Jovi: he's the lead singer, he has the character, but Richie Sambora is a better singer, with better intonation and technique, and that's why he sings all the backing vocals even in ranges extremely difficult for a tenor.
however he's not the frontman, because he can't sing with the same attitude.
 
#84
I've been istening to the song "I Will Go Sailing No More" (Toy Story) by Randy Newman and I think that it gives me the answer to my question.



Newman's pitch is all over the place. Sometimes he's flat, sometimes he's sharp, and sometimes he's way off. There's spots where he sounds like he's hurting himself trying to reach a note. His tone is rough. His pronunciation is indistinct. From a technical standpoint it's a disaster.

Yet his performance as a whole is simply gorgeous just the way it is. In fact, if that same vocal part were performed technically perfect, I think it would probably ruin the song.

With casual listening to this song, it might seem as if Newman is just a bad singer, technically. But, after carefully listening to it about 20 times, I came to the conclusion that every tiny detail of his singing is intentional. When he's off pitch, it's not an accident. He wants that note to be flat. He wants to sound like he's straining to reach that. He wants to sound like he's an ordinary guy singing a soliloquy for himself, and not a professional singer putting on a show.

It kind of reminds me of Picasso. To the non art person, his paintings are often ridiculed as looking like something that your 6 year old kid drew in crayon, but that's not only untrue, but it completely misses the point. His paintings aren't supposed to be an accurate reproduction of reality - they're intentional distortions of the "ideal".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crazyBassClown and dougjwray
#88
I'll re-say what's been said. Everyone has their unique set of "ears" and there's no accounting for taste. Here where I live, we have a week long festival of music every year. All kinds of entertainment, many different skill levels. The off key singers who literally scream make me run and hide. Everyone else, who isn't screaming, is fine by me. I lost my voice (if I ever had one) a couple decades ago. So for me as long as there's some presence and no screaming, the singer is doing okay. Great singers are a-freaking-mazing...call out a note and they hit it just like touching a key on a keyboard. Never ceases to amaze me.
 
#90
Just one guy’s opinion, but defining what embodies a “good” vocalist is such a subjective thing it is impossible to sum it up where a majority of listeners could agree.
You could define what makes a good operatic voice, but Luigi Zamboni would fail miserably doing Matchbox Blues, as would Albert King trying to be Figaro.
Too many variables. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassAndCigars
#91
Michedelic said:
I think you’re missing the point of this thread. A singer’s role is to sell a song, convey whatever message, feeling, mood, or emotion there is in the lyric (unfortunately there’s not a whole lot of substance in many song lyrics, but that’s a different discussion for a different time).

Often, just like the perfect actor cast for a unusual role, a singer with some kind of limitation can put the song across in an equally perfect manner, especially if the lyrics/song is theirs. If not, a particular vocalist’s idiosyncratic style brings a new interpretation. Perfection can be boring, bland, and superficial.

No matter what she was singing, even if it was an upbeat tune, Billie Holliday always brought the sound of a heart broken into a million pieces and a world weariness with her slippery upper pitch. Joy Division’s Ian Curtis communicated a private sense of dread and frustration that ironically millions could relate to, but unfortunately it became too real for him. Lou Reed’s monotone was street-wise and cynical, yet on a song like “The Bed”, that(plus the way his voice cracks on the high notes)paints a portrait of a person in shell-shock, denial, and resignation over the suicide of his partner, who already dragged him through a living hell, yet he’s still somewhat wistful about her. Lastly, for impending doom and despair, you don’t need any downtuned band, but instead absorb the whispered suboctave drone of Leonard Cohen. You want it darker? He’s your man.
Click to expand...
Leonard Cohen--yes, perfect example. If Hallelujah isn't played at my funeral, I'm walking out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drredplate, ajkula66 and BadMonk
#93
Jazzdogg said:
IMO, IME, it's because we react to music emotionally AND rationally.

I enjoy some vocalists who aren't very good singers because listening to them makes me feel something, or transports me back to another time and place.

I've listened to several well-trained professional vocalists who didn't add anything relatable or emotional to their presentation of a song to establish a connection with me.
Click to expand...
I agree. Also, it's the sum of all parts. I can listen to a so-so singer who writes incredible lyrics, or who has a unique voice or way of singing. But even if the singer is just "ok" in these areas, if something interesting is happening with the music that appeals to me, or if it complements the singer in a way to make for an engaging listen, then that's all I need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jazzdogg
#96
Talk about great singers with little to no stage presence: Watched a PBS documentary on Roy Orbison last night. I've never been a huge fan of his music, but his vocal ability was pretty phenomenal. At one point he even said something along the lines of: "My shows basically consist of people watching me sing."
 
#97
Les Claypool is an interesting specimen as a vocalist. I don't think anyone would consider his voice to be technically good. It's often described as "cartoonish". Many think it's harsh and irritating. I know several people who've said they would really enjoy listening to Primus and Claypool's other projects if only he wasn't singing. His voice literally ruins the music.

I'm not quite so judgemental. To me, Claypool's voice is just good enough to get the job done and the cartoonish quality of it generally fits the overall feel of his music.

Furthermore, I give a lot of leeway to bands that have virtuoso players and decide to just make do with "adequate" singing skills from one of the musicians rather than bringing in an extra person.

Someone earlier in this thread laid out something like a chart of the desirable traits that make up a good singer. Their point was that you could get by with being deficient in a few categories, as long as you made up for it by exceeding in other categories.

With Les Claypool, his obvious technical deficiencies and his nasally voice are offset by the fact that his band(s) are primarily about the music that's being played; the singing is more of an afterthought. It's only there to provide a bit of narrative coherence to the music.

Plus, Claypool is an amazingly entertaining and charismatic front man. The audience at his live shows experiences a spectacle. They're watching him jump around and gesture (often in some bizarre costume) while playing some insane bass grooves at the same time. No one cares that his voice is weird.

On the other hand, I've seen videos of Primus on their Rush - Farewell to Kings tour, where they perform the song "Zanadu".

I'd have to say that Claypool's voice is cringeworthingly awful. It actually does ruin the music for me because that song is supposed to be this grand, majestic piece, inspired by this epic, poetic fantasy. With Claypool singing it in his nasally voice (made worse by him clearly straining badly to reach the higher notes) it just spoils the mood of the song.

Listen for yourselves:



It sounds great during the instrumental parts. But as soon as the vocals come in, it starts sounding unpleasant.

Good singing is circumstantial. Its value depends on the context.
 
Last edited:
#100
It's been said multiple times that a lot of the perceived quality of the singing voice is extremely subjective. If the listener enjoys it, then it's good - at least for that particular listener.

So, I'm genuinely curious about Bruce Sprinsteen's voice. Does anybody actually like his voice, or do his fans simply put up with it because they it's all about the overall vibe and feel, as well as the meaning behind the lyrics.

Personally, I can't listen to Bruce Spingsteen songs because his voice irritates me so much. I've even invented a word that I use to describe how Springsteen sings.

Showling -- A combination of shouting and howling at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dougjwray, covermego and denton57

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back