IMO there's a difference between a trained singer and someone who has a signature style to their voice. Lots of singers don't have operatic qualities to their voices or formal training, but are able to bring their own unique style to the table, and I think that's always been a quality that A&R types were looking for when trying to assess an original band's overall sound. That whole list of singers someone posted earlier is comprised of people like that.I’ve got teenage daughters, so it’s hard to avoid “The Voice” on TV. And I don’t hate it; they’ve made it kind of fun with all the ball-busting among the coaches.
But I do sometimes wonder how far certain famous singers could get on a show where the quality of their voice is the only measured element. Peter Gabriel wouldn’t have gotten past the audition. Chris Cornell would have gotten a four chair turn in the first ten seconds.
But when you listen to their recorded material, particularly their studio material, you're not hearing sour notes. You may be hearing tonal qualities that aren't classically "correct" but either they or someone in the studio put in the work to make sure their singing was, for the most part, on pitch, in those days before autotune and similar SW. Maybe it's not quite so good live; I couldn't even listen to CSNY's live album because the singing was so off in comparison to their studio work. That may have had more to do with stage conditions than ability, I don't know.
There are exceptions to this, of course, I can think of some early records where the singers went off the charts, pitch-wise, in certain places. But for the most part these are stylistic issues, not pitch issues.
Last edited:
