In another thread there was a mention of how Paul Westerberg and Stephen Malkmus can't sing. Well, I suppose from a certain point of view that's true, but what do you all think constitutes "singing"? If someone isn't always pitch-perfect and doesn't use vibrato in their voice, does that mean they can't sing? Or is a likeable/interesting sounding voice enough by itself? The line is often blurry..I wouldn't consider Jeff Tweedy a very "good singer" at all yet I love listening to him sing. I enjoy Stephen Malkmus more than Jeff Buckley, though JB obviously was light years ahead in singing ability.

any thoughts?

I'll take passion and energy over pure singing ability any day of the week. Clay Aiken can sing but he's not at all appealling or interesting to me.

Elvis Costello evolved from a shouter to a singer over time, although a lot of people don't like the latter Costello's new singing chops.

Buckley's a great example. An amazing, operatic voice, but not very entertaining as far as I'm concerned. Others love him, of course, but I think the singing is overblown more often than not.

Of course, it depends on the style of music. If you're singing over loud guitars, rock-style, lack of singing ability matters less than over quieter, more poppy stuff.

Indie's not the only genre where you don't strictly need to be a good singer, so long as your voice conveys the emotion of the piece.

Basically what everyone above me said. But at the same time, I don't have a good voice, and I definately couldn't sing in an indie rock band. The singers' voices aren't good in a traditional sense, but they still have a unique qualitity that makes them interesting it hear, and in many cases make them more interesting than if the voice was perfect. To me a voice that isn't perfect appears more emotional and honest than someone who hits every note pitch perfect. People like Bob Dylan, Jeff Mangum, and Will Sheff are often labeled as bad singers, but are some of my favorite because of the honesty and emotion they bring to the table.

what makes you say these people are "better" or "worse" singers? what constitutes these labels to be slapped on these people as though it were as much a fact as the sun coming up everyday?

If you have a pretty strong voice, I guess that's a good thing. Neko Case (New Pornographers), Tunde Adebimpe (TVotR), Kellie Sutherland (AiH), Mick Collins (The Dirtbombs), and a handful of other singers have, if not exactly American Idol voices, at least impressive singing voices. Then there's the great majority of neither-bad-nor-great voices. And there's all the singers who have their quirks and odd distinguishing characteristics (Jeff Mangum springs to mind first).

Then there's the anti-good singers. 90 percent of these are in a band that can arguably be called "art punk", "post punk", or "no wave". The Rapture are a good example. Teenage Jesus & The Jerks and Sonic Youth are also good examples.

quote:

Originally posted by ineedsymbols:
what makes you say these people are "better" or "worse" singers? what constitutes these labels to be slapped on these people as though it were as much a fact as the sun coming up everyday?

Well, if it is widely recognized that a singer can not hit a note or sing on pitch I think you could call that person a conventionally bad singer. Other guys can hit notes but have very distinctive voices (Dan Bejar of Destroyer). I don't think you could call the last category bad singers, but I don't have any problem calling somebody like the lead singer from Trail of Dead a bad singer.

Speaking of bad singers, did anyone here Jeff Gordon do "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" at Wrigley? "I'm just so happy to be here at Wrigley Stadium." What a joke!

I just thought of one overlap between the "impressive singing voice" group and the "anti-good singing voice" group: Nick Cave. The Birthday Party were an art-punk/post-punk/no-wave group, and Nick Cave sang in a manner appropriate for such a group, but when he wailed and screamed you could tell that he had a really strong voice.

This thread is utterly legit but still utterly pointless. Thanks but ugh. Somebody tell me I'm wrong.

quote:

Mick Collins (The Dirtbombs)

You're damn right about that one, Buck. That dude has some serious pipes, especially for their style of music. I bet the women swarm him on stage.

Does anyone else think that you actually get indie cred for having a bad or unusual voice? From my experience, Pitchfork tends to give bonus points to guys who can't sing. I'm not sure they've ever complained about a singer's voice in a review. If they have, I've never read it. Take the most recent Books album. That dude can not sing. His voice is so weak and thin, yet Pitchfork specifically said something positive about his voice if I remember correctly.

By the way, another singer with some serious pipes: Mark Lanegan.

I think it's a good thread. I think about what makes a voice sound good to me, as opposed to being able to "hit notes" correctly or whatever.

Well, my point is that people won't agree on who's the best band, what's the best album, the best song, the best singer, etc. That's a given. So this is as good a place as any to talk about singers. It's just that music affects everybody so personally that saying something categorically seems pointless. Opinions and discussion are good. I just hope nobody gets pissed when their love gets dumped on.

Well, American Idol is proof that you can be a great singer and still be singing really boring, pointless music.

So why can't you be a bad singer and sing great music?

I would submit the idea that a singer can often ruin a band by not being able to truely adapt with the band's style or be able to contrast in a new or interesting way. Frank Black of the Pixes is a great example, the song Debasser would not be nearly as amazing had it been done in the standard pop style.

(Side note: Screamo sucks.)

I don't think this thread is (hope it isn't) pointless..there is a traditional viewpoint that exists, regardless of your or my opinion, that would say Pavorotti can sing and Lou Reed can't. No one has to accept this as "sun rising fact" but there is some middle-of-the-road standard in place. the point is that some artists defy this standard, in either direction, and their music works or doesn't work as a result.

I think the live music experience really puts it in perspective. I know someone who thought the Silver Jews guy (can't remember his name) was hands-down a terrible singer, but once that person was dragged to one of their live shows they grudgingly admitted that, for the music they were trying to make, his singing was right on and enjoyable..

Amongst Bob Dylan's contributions to popular music, allmusic.com notes that "as a vocalist, he broke down the notions that in order to perform, a singer had to have a conventionally good voice, thereby redefining the role of vocalist in popular music." People haven't had to be good singers in popular music since the 60s- it isn't just Indie Rock. If you sing with passion, that's generally good enough if the songwriting's strong.

..for the record, though, Pitchfork has criticized singers voices. Almost an entire review of some Hot Hot Heat album (Make up the Breakdown, maybe? I don't really care enough to look) was devoted to how grating the singer's voice is. But if you've ever enjoyed a Pavement song, I think it's easy to get over the conventional notion of what a good singer is. Sure, you can still appreciate Jeff Buckley (the example everyone else has given, and justly), but Jeff Mangum's still the man.

Ditto that songwriting makes quality music and not vocal ability. That's why guys like Dylan and Tom Waits will always be cooler than the dude from Dream Theater.