Crappy singers that somehow manage to be good [Archive] - Harmony Central Musician Community Forums

pmtrub

09-20-2008, 10:53 PM

KennethNishimot

09-21-2008, 12:24 AM

soul? emotion? storytelling?

Daniel Johnston technically has a terrible voice. His pitch is bad, his tone is bad, and his time is bad. A lot of this is due to his mental illness. But when I saw him live I was blown away. His performance had a fractured and innocent quality to it that only enhanced the storytelling from the songs. It was touching and very emotional to hear him play live.

I didn't leave the show impressed by his chops, but I did leave the show with a strong feeling that has stuck with me.

That said, Louis Armstrong is an amazing singer, you've gotta give his scat chops some credit where it's due.

Alright, scat-wise, Satchmo was up there with Fitzgerald, but I think that his singing style was too "Different" to be considered traditionally "good". Ne? :cop:

Frank Prince

09-21-2008, 01:17 AM

David Lee Roth. Sammy Hagar was a better singer by leaps and bounds pitchwise, tonewise, rangewise, etc., etc., but VH was never the same without DLR's pitchy screams and awesome spoken word ad-libs.

"I don't FEEL tardy..................." :D

Krypter

09-22-2008, 01:29 AM

Cobain.

indie_randr

09-22-2008, 02:11 AM

Cobain.

Man, Nirvana is the best! Cobain's voice wasn't technically "good", it's true, but it captured the essence of grunge. It's classic.

careful now

09-22-2008, 08:47 AM

i once read in a book somewhere, where a character was comparing cobain's voice to someone with down syndrome.

the next time i heard "teen spirit", i heard what the author was talking about, and ever since then, i can't "unhear" it. :(

enjoy. :o

Bryan316

09-22-2008, 09:50 AM

pmtrub

09-22-2008, 11:29 AM

To each his own. Cobain wrote great hooks, and performed with an emotion that was easy for a lot of people to relate to. Despite his raw style and sound, those are two major components of any great performer.

MDLMUSIC

09-22-2008, 01:41 PM

Whenever the talk turns to popular singers who really don't sing well, I always think of Sonny Bono. By himself, he was pretty bad, but when he sang with Cher, for some reason, his voice just seemed to fit with hers.

Whatever the reason, Sonny and Cher were extremely popular in the day, and of course Cher continues to be. Not sure what Sonny would be doing nowadays if he were still around...maybe Mayor of Palm Springs again?

rhat

09-22-2008, 02:06 PM

Alright, scat-wise, Satchmo was up there with Fitzgerald, but I think that his singing style was too "Different" to be considered traditionally "good". Ne? :cop:

He didnt have any pitch issues.

Frank Prince

09-22-2008, 03:23 PM

Also, Bon Scott. Technically terrible singer with tons of character that made the old AC/DC the great band that it was.

Lee Flier

09-22-2008, 04:04 PM

I love Cobain's voice. :idk:

But yeah, I think a lot of singers who aren't technically great but have tons of emotion, charisma and confidence manage to make their mark. My favorite rock singers are John Lennon and Eric Burdon, and both those guys' technique would probably make most vocal coaches cringe. But I love 'em, and they obviously struck a chord with a lot of people so it ain't all about technique by any means.

BLACKWINGEDBEING

09-22-2008, 04:15 PM

For me it's being a great conveyor of intent as you sing and playing the part of the song's hero that makes people gravitate to a singer that doesn't always hit the vocal mark. That or he's just an entertaining bastard with tons of charisma. :idk:

MapexDrummer

09-22-2008, 04:20 PM

Billy Corgan
Chino Moreno

the studio really helps these guys out.

Bryan316

09-23-2008, 08:16 AM

...and performed with an emotion that was easy for a lot of people to relate to...

Depression?

Al Koehn

09-23-2008, 08:23 AM

Check out Randy Jackson's book "Whats Up Dawg". He has a lot of great stuff to say about this very subject.

al

GDan

09-23-2008, 08:26 AM

Billy Corgan
Chino Moreno

the studio really helps these guys out.

Funnily enough if you listen to early Deftoens demos he used to be a much better singer, he effectively gave up being technically "good" in favour of style.

Bryan316

09-23-2008, 09:47 AM

Never really made the connection why I preferred old Deftones to any of their new material, but you're right! He just doesn't sing the same anymore.

kurdy

09-23-2008, 10:41 AM

For example: Randy Newman, Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, etc...

When does having an awful singing voice translate into "Character"?

Discuss.

I've thought about this quite often, myself.

The simple answer is that they can sing on pitch. Many singers such as the above mentioned have very unusual (sometimes bordering on abrasive) voices, but they can carry a tune. That's the difference between someone like Newman, and someone who just plain can't sing. Also, confidence. A good singer sounds sure of themselves, and can sing with conviction, rather than hesitation.

But there's also a lot of grey area that I can't quite put my finger on. Listening to records where the singer may have given a less than perfect performance, but it doesn't stick out to me as much, vs hearing a lower-budget indie recording on Myspace, or a clip on YouTube where every imperfection just sort of jumps out at me more. My guess is that a good production/mix can smooth over and mask certain flaws in a performance, but why it can, I'm really not sure.

pmtrub

09-23-2008, 10:53 AM

Depression?

Depression and angst, yes.

Kid Klash

09-23-2008, 12:26 PM

Bob Dylan
Mick Jaggar
Mark Nopfler
Eric Burdon

They're all great story tellers, who tell their stories with lots of emotion and personality, even though they don't have "pretty" voices.

Surrealistic

09-24-2008, 01:59 AM

... even though they don't have "pretty" voices.
Exactly! Who said a voice has to be 'pretty' to be good? On that basis you might call any piece of art that isn't pretty 'crappy'.

For me, I'd be much more likely to call a pretty-voiced singer 'crappy' than the likes of Louis Armstrong, Dylan, Jagger, Tom Waits et al.

Celine Dion? Ugh! :facepalm::lol:

Fieldsofgreen

09-25-2008, 02:05 PM

Frank Zappa...

Well, not sure he made it work, he sang better with his guitar.

Jersey Jack

09-25-2008, 02:41 PM

But there's also a lot of grey area that I can't quite put my finger on. Listening to records where the singer may have given a less than perfect performance, but it doesn't stick out to me as much, vs hearing a lower-budget indie recording on Myspace, or a clip on YouTube where every imperfection just sort of jumps out at me more. My guess is that a good production/mix can smooth over and mask certain flaws in a performance, but why it can, I'm really not sure.

Man, is this ever the BIG QUESTION?!? I actually never noticed the vocal flaws in many less than ideal singers (esp. Neil Young and Thom Yorke) until I started taking lessons. Now it all leaps out at me, but you know what....it doesn't matter! But when I do little recordings of myself (and I do believe my voice is not technically worse then Young, Yorke, etc.) the flaws are so painfully obvious. And this isn't a just a problem with listening to my own voice. I agree that a lot of amateur recordings aren't capable of masking flawed vocals.

But is masking really the right word, as the flaws are there, once you find yourself paying attention to them. It's just that good production somehow leads people to NOT NOTICE them.

Boy, I wish I could do that!

markm102000

09-26-2008, 06:03 PM

I'll add a few for consideration:

Joe Cocker
Van Morrison
Tom Waits

and early Rod Stewart

tlbonehead

09-27-2008, 02:08 AM

tlbonehead

09-27-2008, 02:10 AM

Exactly! Who said a voice has to be 'pretty' to be good? On that basis you might call any piece of art that isn't pretty 'crappy'.

For me, I'd be much more likely to call a pretty-voiced singer 'crappy' than the likes of Louis Armstrong, Dylan, Jagger, Tom Waits et al.

Celine Dion? Ugh! :facepalm::lol:Nothing more sickening than a "pretty" voice.:thu:

tlbonehead

09-27-2008, 02:12 AM

Depression and angst, yes.Yep. Hardly something new in music. As long as there has been music there have been songs with depressed topics, self pity, etc.

Jon Hiller

09-27-2008, 07:44 AM

Mike Peters of The Alarm.

Li10

09-27-2008, 09:08 AM

Billy Corgan
<snip>

the studio really helps these guys out.

Lol yeah. I like that sort of airy sound Corgan gets on Siamese Dream, especially the songs Soma and Hummer, but it's hard for him to recreate it live.

GDan

09-28-2008, 03:14 PM

Cobain is funny because although he wasnt a good singer smells like teens spirit is a deceptively hard song to sing. If you dont have good control of your belt/yell the chorus will seriously mess you up.

SevenString

09-28-2008, 06:49 PM

Elvis Costello

vanlatte

10-01-2008, 12:14 PM

Tough question...what is the definition of "best"? Most popular? Can hit the highest note? Lowest note? Best scream? (is that singing? :D )

I honestly don't think I could pick one singer and label them as "the best". All I could do is list some of my favorites:

Peter Gabriel
Chris Cornell
Paula Cole
Sarah McLaughlin
Paul McCartney
Nancy Wilson

Absolute Dood

10-03-2008, 10:25 PM

Ozzy is one that comes to mind....

10-03-2008, 11:45 PM

Lol yeah. I like that sort of airy sound Corgan gets on Siamese Dream, especially the songs Soma and Hummer, but it's hard for him to recreate it live.

Actually, his live voice has been better than his studio voice lately.

ChordGirl

10-04-2008, 01:57 AM

Chris Kristofferson and John Prine. Honestly, I don't think either has managed to be a good singer, but great songwriting has carried them a long way. :thu: I don't really think the rest are crappy singers. So much of it is emotive delivery, IMO. :idk:

Ed A.

10-04-2008, 02:06 AM

Lætitia Sadier from Stereolab

WynnD

10-04-2008, 04:44 AM

The first mentioned list included several singer/songwriters. Everyone is entitled to sing their own material.

I always noticed that the singers that go down in history have unique voices. Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby. I do have trouble telling Mariah Carey apart from Whitney Houston. While both have great voices, I don't think they're unique enough to make a historical vocal statement. Listen to very early Bing Crosby and you will hear a great, but undistinguished male solo vocalist, but you wouldn't recognize him to be the crooner that he ended up being. You probably can't find any of those recordings in a movie. By his movie career, he already had nodules on his vocal cords. That was what required him to change his singing style to what we all remember.

UberPwnage

10-05-2008, 12:00 AM

Roger Waters

Silverfox

10-05-2008, 02:19 AM

I think having a certain character in your voice is more important than being a smooth, pretty vocalist. When all you need is one word from the singer to understand who he/she is, then you have done something right. Standing out from the crowd is more important than being the most technical singer.

IMO that is.

WowieZowie

10-05-2008, 08:35 AM

For example: Randy Newman, Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, etc...

When does having an awful singing voice translate into "Character"?

Discuss.

I think that crappy singers are the ones that fail to bring forth the emotion of a particular song.

These singers that you have mentioned are rather good if you ask me. Especially Satchmo. His rendition of Dolly, and wonderful world, are extremely expressive, and match in my mind what the writer was hoping for in the BEST case scenario.

So, I guess we should ask you, what makes a "good" voice? Is it 7 octaves? Smooth style, crazy vibrato? Power, range, ability to scream? ?????? I would imagine that I have a much different opinion about who has a good voice than you. Your opinion is no less important.

Personally, I can't listen to singers who are doing all that vocal acrobat crap. (and perhaps you think these types are good?) I'll turn it right off. Because to me, they are not making me "feel" anything as it relates to the song. (I have a feeling about them personally - but that only means that they have failed the song. They have changed the focus to be "look at me, I can do this. etc. And in the end you ask yourself, what song were they doing again?")

Sypher13

10-07-2008, 08:16 PM

Cobain was horrible. Everything he did. Terrible scratchy pitchy voice, nonsensical lyrics that meant nothing tangible, brutally awful guitar solos especially that MTV Unplugged gig on Man Who Sold The World...

I'll never grasp what people liked about him.

reasons i like cobain:
1. scratchy pitchy voice
2. nonsensical lyrics
3. brutally awful guitar solos

I'll never grasp what people dont like about him...

:poke:

Sypher13

10-07-2008, 08:31 PM

I think that crappy singers are the ones that fail to bring forth the emotion of a particular song.

These singers that you have mentioned are rather good if you ask me. Especially Satchmo. His rendition of Dolly, and wonderful world, are extremely expressive, and match in my mind what the writer was hoping for in the BEST case scenario.

So, I guess we should ask you, what makes a "good" voice? Is it 7 octaves? Smooth style, crazy vibrato? Power, range, ability to scream? ?????? I would imagine that I have a much different opinion about who has a good voice than you. Your opinion is no less important.

Personally, I can't listen to singers who are doing all that vocal acrobat crap. (and perhaps you think these types are good?) I'll turn it right off. Because to me, they are not making me "feel" anything as it relates to the song. (I have a feeling about them personally - but that only means that they have failed the song. They have changed the focus to be "look at me, I can do this. etc. And in the end you ask yourself, what song were they doing again?")

+1,000,000 i think its all about the emotion and overall perspective of the vocals to the rest of the song. talented singers are few but even fewer make it on "talent" alone.

Jersey Jack

10-08-2008, 06:44 AM

I think that crappy singers are the ones that fail to bring forth the emotion of a particular song.

So, I guess we should ask you, what makes a "good" voice? Is it 7 octaves? Smooth style, crazy vibrato? Power, range, ability to scream? ?????? I would imagine that I have a much different opinion about who has a good voice than you. Your opinion is no less important.

Personally, I can't listen to singers who are doing all that vocal acrobat crap.

I'm with you on this--those who make the song about their own abilities are to my mind the worst singers! :mad:

But I think the original distinction was between those who do or do not have what is normally considered a good voice--we're not necessarily comparing Dylan to Michael Bolton but Dylan to McCartney, Elton John, Bono, etc.

Still, your point is valid: Folks who develop technical ability (or guitar shredding ability for that matter) will always find a way to use it. (That was the major historical argument against standing armies as well! ) :rolleyes:

WowieZowie

10-08-2008, 09:51 AM

But I think the original distinction was between those who do or do not have what is normally considered a good voice--we're not necessarily comparing Dylan to Michael Bolton but Dylan to McCartney, Elton John, Bono, etc.

Perhaps then my meaning is that, "I don't agree with those who do the considering." Or perhaps I am saying that the question in and of itself is bogus (I don't mean to be offensive here). As if it is asking something that does not make sense. We are being asked why other people feel that someone is not that good at something, yet they are popular just the same. Right?

So, if there were a bunch of pies, and I mean plenty of pies. And everyone wanted to eat pie, and heck, there were even pies that had the same flavor, but were made by different people or companies, and many or most of the people agreed that pie X was not really very good. But for some reason, everyone or a freak'n lot of people ate pie X, then you might want to wonder late at night why that was so (as you were eatin a piece of pie that is). "how come people like pie X??? I mean, it is not very good. Everyone says it." Well you could say that it hits the spot, makes you feel good after you eat it. It isn't made with Rosemary flour, or organic pumkin dresssing, but it is just, ... well ......good.

I guess the reason that these singers who are not considered very good are actually, kinda good. Because the real issue here is are you gonna listen to them late at night.

Jersey Jack

10-08-2008, 11:55 AM

I just don't like pie. :rolleyes:

How about wine? Certain wines (e.g., beaujolais nouveau or white zinfandel :evil:) are very popular and conform to common opinions about good wine. Other wines are, well, an acquired taste, and the unwashed masses will often find them unpalatable or not worth the price. But people like you and me--we know better. :thu:

Tom Waits=fine bordeaux

I do agree with you that good is good, but the fact that Dylan and McCartney are both great singers doesn't mean that we can't talk about what specifically makes them great in each case. Macca can and does hold notes beautifully; Bob usually chooses not to bother very much with such technical stuff. I like Bob.

WowieZowie

10-08-2008, 09:19 PM

Tom Waits=fine bordeaux

Have you heard him sing, "my piano has been drinking?" Man I love that cat. He is the frick'n chits. I like his acting too.

But hey, I also dig, and like singing "You Raise Me Up" by Josh Groban. If you have not heard this dude, man check out his pipes. He has opera strength. Maybe not your taste, like certainly a very expensive Italian wine. Perhaps too comercial for your taste. I like him because he is fearless. I mean, check out the modulation, and power. It is the kind of thing that makes you just laugh and shake your head. Even if you never listen again, check him out. It is pretty trippy dude. I got turned on to him just on a whim. I was doing searches for male backing tracks, and this one kept popping up, so I checked it out. It's a good way to practice, and strengthen your technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBga34W57As&feature=related

Mean

10-10-2008, 06:18 AM

...
..
.
Robert Plant
...
..
.
...
..
.
...
..
.
:p:p:p:p:p:p:pJust kidding:poke::cop:

My vote goes to Alec Ounsworth from Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! he doesnt/cant sign any consonants he got terribly pitching issues and you just cant understand a word he says.BUT I LOVE HIM.
Hmm..maybe lou reed too it's not like he's an accomplished signer (technically wise)

Y0UNGBL00D

10-12-2008, 04:45 AM

caleb followhill of kings of leon
tom waits
wesley willis
the chick from the yeah yeah yeahs

but i love them all

ChristianRock

10-14-2008, 11:20 AM

Two words... Dave Mustaine.

Tag

10-15-2008, 01:40 AM

Two words... Dave Mustaine.

Haha, the thread title was "Crappy singers that somehow manage to be good" not "Crappy singers that somehow managed to defeat all odds and make it big while still sucking".

:poke::p

conquertoascend

10-15-2008, 05:41 PM

i can't believe it took an entire 2 pages before someone mentioned roger waters.

ChordGirl

10-16-2008, 02:21 AM

i can't believe it took an entire 2 pages before someone mentioned roger waters.

I :love: Roger Waters!!:mad:

:D

ButterflyMcGrew

10-21-2008, 08:33 PM

Mark Knopfler's voice blends beautifully with Emmylou Harris's.

Ever notice how Nancy Sinatra's voice sounds like her dad's, except with all of its faults and somehow, missed out on its virtues?

Sad. But she has to have made some bucks from those songs she recorded back in the 60s.

zildjian@consol

10-26-2008, 06:37 AM

SRV or Jimi Hendrix, not great vocals,but you could see their soul, they put all of their emotions out there for you to do what you want with them- honest---- live they are unmatched for that style

Dakora

10-26-2008, 10:58 AM

Chino Moreno is technically perhaps not a talented singer, however he is very gifted as to his ability to write poetic and meaningful songs.

ShlterfmthStorm

11-01-2008, 06:48 PM

Bob Dylan will always be the best example in my book.

Oh and +1 for Daniel Johnson

TWSS

11-01-2008, 07:57 PM

Roger Waters

At least Gilmour could sing. And damn well I might add.

::fred::

11-15-2008, 12:47 PM

Aaron Turner from ISIS

SBF3000

11-15-2008, 02:01 PM

Billy Corgan
Chino Moreno

the studio really helps these guys out.

great point. There are a TON of "studio" bands. I am a big Chino fan, Deftones, Team Sleep. Live they hit it musically, but the vocals always lack compared to the recorded version. But they are aware of this and become showmen and make it about the experience. When you see a band live and it is as good or somehow better than the CD, that is something special my friends. Rare these days.

Laroosco

11-16-2008, 08:41 PM

Alright, scat-wise, Satchmo was up there with Fitzgerald, but I think that his singing style was too "Different" to be considered traditionally "good". Ne? :cop:

Armstrong had an effect on music that few of us today realize. There are few things being done in music today that can't be traced back to something he did.
His vocal style is not what I think you are really taliing about. I think it's his tone. In which case I will site Howlin Wolf as one of my favorite singers ever.

Give respect where it's due

JohnnyRyan

11-17-2008, 04:02 PM

I think it's definetly a character thing. If You can convey a whole other style that no one has heard before, it can be intriguing to people and often can create buzz.

stanfic

11-23-2008, 09:41 PM

Cody Bonnet of As Cities Burn

www.myspace.com/ascitiesburn

TERRIBLE singer, but God, I could listen to them all night (and have on many occasions). Just something about the way they write, in addition to the vocal style, and the fact that it's not perfect, and I know it's not perfect. Just the fact that he's putting it all out there for whom ever to listen to and enjoy. (and the sweet, sweet, glassy tone of his Tele through a Bogner XTC. Amazing.)

romvert

11-23-2008, 10:11 PM

soul? emotion? storytelling?

Daniel Johnston technically has a terrible voice. His pitch is bad, his tone is bad, and his time is bad. A lot of this is due to his mental illness. But when I saw him live I was blown away. His performance had a fractured and innocent quality to it that only enhanced the storytelling from the songs. It was touching and very emotional to hear him play live.

I didn't leave the show impressed by his chops, but I did leave the show with a strong feeling that has stuck with me.

That said, Louis Armstrong is an amazing singer, you've gotta give his scat chops some credit where it's due.
Good point, not very many people really tune into such feelings. But really, that has more to do with the live performance than anything else.All that doesn't shine through on the recording. So, unless you're able to tour yourself to death it's hard to make believers out there...

romvert

11-23-2008, 10:22 PM

Cobain was horrible. Everything he did. Terrible scratchy pitchy voice, nonsensical lyrics that meant nothing tangible, brutally awful guitar solos especially that MTV Unplugged gig on Man Who Sold The World...

I'll never grasp what people liked about him.

To each his own. Cobain wrote great hooks, and performed with an emotion that was easy for a lot of people to relate to. Despite his raw style and sound, those are two major components of any great performer.

Both posters are right; I just thought I'd put it all together...

romvert

11-23-2008, 10:29 PM

Also, Bon Scott. Technically terrible singer with tons of character that made the old AC/DC the great band that it was.

Technically terrible?!? And what type of pipe is this, you're smoking? A drunk? Yes, but as soon as he stepped on stage he was the most professional hard rock singer you'd ever see. He had good breath support and that middle-high resonance that people always struggle to get. Where did you get the idea?

romvert

11-23-2008, 10:31 PM

romvert

11-23-2008, 10:40 PM

I've thought about this quite often, myself.

The simple answer is that they can sing on pitch. Many singers such as the above mentioned have very unusual (sometimes bordering on abrasive) voices, but they can carry a tune. That's the difference between someone like Newman, and someone who just plain can't sing. Also, confidence. A good singer sounds sure of themselves, and can sing with conviction, rather than hesitation.

But there's also a lot of grey area that I can't quite put my finger on. Listening to records where the singer may have given a less than perfect performance, but it doesn't stick out to me as much, vs hearing a lower-budget indie recording on Myspace, or a clip on YouTube where every imperfection just sort of jumps out at me more. My guess is that a good production/mix can smooth over and mask certain flaws in a performance, but why it can, I'm really not sure.
Production has quite a bit to do with it, but also what's acceptable musically to the human ear, plus predisposition from radio and TV stations.

Kid Klash

12-20-2008, 10:19 PM

I would never call Kim Carnes voice "crappy", but it is somewhat unusual... "gravelly" maybe. Her voice is definately unique and good, but out of the ordinary and typical sphere of today's female vocalists. Check her out, singing her 1981 hit "Betty Davis Eyes" and you'll hear what I mean :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBH3TsDSBEw&feature=related