I'm sort of surprised by Joe's reference to Willie and Waylon as examples
of singers with deficient voices. Townes I'll buy, but to my ears, both
Waylon and Willie have great instruments. Curiously, though, of the three
only Townes can deliver a song or a phrase right to the center of me and
move me. Maybe because I have to look past the limitations to the raw
emotion behind the song while the others can suspend me somewhere
closer to the surface?
I've been spending a lot of time lately with my Tom Waits collection,
anticipating "Mule Variations" release this week. Talk about limited
tools put to best use! Would Tom with the same writing talent be as
captivating if he had a voice like Sinatra, or is it the curious charm of
his gruff vocals that make him so special?
Joe says:
> In fact, in my experience producing and engineering, the most
> interesting performers are not the ones with the best pipes. They are
> usually the ones with an odd voice that they were forced to deal with in
> order to be effective. I would cite Townes, Willie, and Waylon as three
> artists I have recorded who developed strategies for working around
> whatever deficiencies they may have had, and in the process became very
> interesting to the ear, much moreso than a so-called "good" singer. Most
> "good" singers end up doing commercials or being backup chorus singers
> because they are not very interesting to listen to.
