worst lead singer of a 70's rock band
- Thread starter jeansimmions_jr
- Start date
Tattoo'd Lady
Scentless Apprentice
ohhh dude fa sho, i cant stand them
Hmmm....Tomcat I disagree, Roger and David's vocals are Perfect for the type of soundscapes Pink Floyd creates. You either like them or not, and I like them a lot.
digapony
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Posts
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Bob Dylan's voice is definitely an acquired taste, but I love him.
I think any singer is going to be considerably worse live than in a studio environment.
I think any singer is going to be considerably worse live than in a studio environment.
I am going to have to disagree with you EB about that, in the studio they can get the best sound quality possible for a recording. A live performance is completely different and depends on the acoustics of the venue the PA system and even how many people are attending. That's not to say some singers aren't great live, but I think you can get better results when it comes to recording in a studio over 90% of the time.
digapony
Junior Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2010
- Posts
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Even though he isn't even near classic rock, Gerard Way from My Chemical Romance is a prime example- he sounds like crap live, because in the studio he can hit like soprano notes because he was technical aids and repeated tries to get it sounding great...but live he sings like 2 octaves lower and he still fuggs up the high notes.
I don't mind MCR, not a big fan of theirs, but seriously Dig, they have been using studio tricks since the 60's, and very few bands even attempt to play live and recreate their sound on album. But when a vocalist really falls short performing live, that would be the most noticeable drop off from a studio recording for sure.
Even though some singers do better in the studio.. Brad Delp is a perfect example, not bad live, but much better in the studio, they have almost unlimited attempts in the studio as well, but live there are plenty of singers that excel, many of them I'd rather hear live, the sound may be worse, but there can be a lot more passion depending on the person, some bands just aren't great studio bands, they don't record well, but they play and sing much better live... an example of a band that sounds at the same level live and studio, Eagles... Any live recording I've heard has not been any worse than the albums for notes and accuracy and what not...
Cosmic Harmony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Posts
- 12,935
- Reaction score
- 25
Well not all singers are worse live. Justin Hawkins, Jack White, Iggy Pop, Freddie Mercury, Ronnie James Dio, and many others are all just as good live as in the studio. I think it's very possible for a singer to be just as good live as in the studio but the better they sound in the studio (Brad Delp for example over say....Iggy Pop) the harder it is to reach that bar live. Really though, constantly reaching that bar, whether in the studio or a stadium, is what makes a singer truly great, is it not?
