Re: single most influential, cont.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joe Gracey writes: .One example I have always found particularly grating was the Dead's vocals, which are like fingernails on chalkboards to me, but which apparently don't bother their fans. I find Dylan's early stuff to be engaging, his later stuff to be almost painful, vocally... Harrumph. Shoulda known that. This is the guy who gets to hear Kimmie Rhodes sing in the shower every morning. g Joe X. I love singer's voices. Marcia Ball has one of the nicest speaking voices. In fact, I think if I were forced to admit what it was I actually do well, I would say record singer's voices, because I understand them. I sort of take aural showers in them. Recording The Willie was monumental for me because his voice goes to tape so spectacularly. I think that was one reason I loved Jimmy Day's steel so much- he played the steel like a voice, singing. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: single most influential, cont.
I'm chiming in midstream, so I'm not really sure where this thread has been or eventually went, but Dylan has his "own thing" and for that alone he should be revered. I mean Celine Dion has a great voice, but she still sucks. Occassionally, I forget that Dylan actually *did* have a genuinely good voice - if you listen to the "Royal Albert Hall" disc, you might be surprised. -John ___ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Re: single most influential, cont.
Joe Gracey writes: .One example I have always found particularly grating was the Dead's vocals, which are like fingernails on chalkboards to me, but which apparently don't bother their fans. I find Dylan's early stuff to be engaging, his later stuff to be almost painful, vocally... Harrumph. Shoulda known that. This is the guy who gets to hear Kimmie Rhodes sing in the shower every morning. g Joe X. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: single most influential, cont.
Tom Ekeberg wrote: Carl W.: As a footnote to our discussion, see the new issue of the Atlantic, including an article arguing that Dylan changed pop music more than any other single figure, "including Sinatra, Elvis or the Beatles." Of course. He single handedly made it all right not to know how to sing, not to know how to play and still be a big star. Ah, ha! I laughed my ass off at this one. Ekeberg rises from the mists to denigrate His Bobness! My feeling on this observation is that Dylan is much like other stars who overcame vocal limitations, even used them to advantage. Offhand I am thinking of Ernest Tubb, who actually used his flat, weird vocals as a way to become famous. "Can't sing" means "can't sing as well as the typical good singer" but doesn't really hurt anybody in this context. Bill Anderson was another guy who "couldn't sing" but turned it into an asset by calling himself "Whispering Bill". One example I have always found particularly grating was the Dead's vocals, which are like fingernails on chalkboards to me, but which apparently don't bother their fans. I find Dylan's early stuff to be engaging, his later stuff to be almost painful, vocally. It is true that he opened the door to a lot of terrible singing in the rock bizniss. I actually think he was a pretty good acoustic and rhythm electric guitar player, if that was in fact him on the early records. I like the jangly out-of-tune strat he plays on Hiway 61, etc. Its cool. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: single most influential, cont.
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: really isn't all that good. And while we're goin' down that roadEmmylou on lead these days isn't all that appealing, yet as backup/harmony is quite nice. Oh, that's open to a serious rebuttal, but we are talking about subjective opinions. ANDI sure respect your right to post yours even though I'm tearing my fingernails out not to disagree. g Flat out Worst Singer I can't stand so much it spoils any hope of enjoying the music - Robert Smith of The Cure Flat Out Worst Singer that is horrible but does not spoil the music in any way, shape, or form - Neil Young NP: Jimmy Murphy - Electricity Best, Jerry
RE: single most influential, cont.
His Royness: Tom Ek. wrote: Of course. He single handedly made it all right not to know how to sing, not to know how to play Bob knew how to sing and knew how to play. Still does. Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Seeing the sense in which Bob Dylan don't know how to sing shouldn't be too hard. Seeing the sense in which Bob Dylan don't know how to play harmonica should be a no brainer. Tom Ekeberg Oslo, Norway http://home.sol.no/~tekeberg/
RE: single most influential, cont.
Tomness writes: Seeing the sense in which Bob Dylan don't know how to sing shouldn't be too hard. Seeing the sense in which Bob Dylan don't know how to play harmonica should be a no brainer. Ah, if I only had a brainIn what sense does Bob not know how to sing? He doesn't know how to sing on key? (He does.) Doesn't know how to deliver a melody? (He does.) He doesn't know how to use his voice as an emotional vehicle? (He does.) I'm not even gonna touch the harmonica issue, until I get some sense out of what Tom is talking about. Roy Kasten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: single most influential, cont.
Tom Ekeberg wrote: Seeing the sense in which Bob Dylan don't know how to sing shouldn't be too hard. This is what I actually disagree with. Not being able to sing very well and not knowing how to sing are two different things. I think Dylan made amazingly effective use of a very indifferent vocal apparatus, thus I think that he knows very well how to sing, he just doesn't have the larynx to pull it off very well. 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. The exceptions to this would be people like KD lang whose pipes are so extraordinary (coupled with powerful charisma) that they are mesmerizing. (We saw her at the Roy Orbison Tribute thing out in LA and she stunned me with her power over the audience. Seeing her live made me a believer.) Another example of the previous point would be Elvis. Our daughter has been having an Elvis sleepover party (she's 14 and she heard "Love Me Tender on the radio and said "Mama, Elvis is HOT!"), playing his movies continously for the past two days. I noticed after listening to him sing for a few hours that he had a tendency to go sharp all the time. Not violently so, just a shade sharp. I also noticed that he didn't have the strongest voice in the world. However, he figured out strategies for evading those problems and became a great singer. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: single most influential, cont.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Flat Out Worst Singer that is horrible but does not spoil the music in any way, shape, or form - Neil Young = Nicely put! best, Kate
Re: single most influential, cont.
At 15:26 24.04.99 -0500, you wrote: Tom Ekeberg wrote: Seeing the sense in which Bob Dylan don't know how to sing shouldn't be too hard. This is what I actually disagree with. Not being able to sing very well and not knowing how to sing are two different things. Okay. That's what I meant. I shouldn't have used the word "know". And I would like to point out that I didn't say whether not knowing how to/being able to sing was a good or a bad thing. I think Dylan made amazingly effective use of a very indifferent vocal apparatus, thus I think that he knows very well how to sing, he just doesn't have the larynx to pull it off very well. Like I said, true in some sense, false in some sense. Obviously Dylan knows what he's doing when he's singing. I agree with the examples Joe used in the rest of his post too. I would have to think closer about the Elvis part though. I sometimes feel that he doesn't sing as well as an Elvis should, but I have not tried to analyze what it is that gives me this feeling. But I still say that Dylan doesn't know how to play harmonica (in some sense). I hope this answers Roy's question too. Tom Ekeberg Oslo, Norway http://home.sol.no/~tekeberg/
Re: single most influential, cont.
In a message dated 4/24/99 3:25:09 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I also noticed that he didn't have the strongest voice in the world. However, he figured out strategies for evading those problems and became a great singer. I would beg to differ as the King got into the later part of his career. There is a clip in "This Is Elvis" (the original version, as it was edited from the "expanded" video release by EPE because it was such a negaive visual of E) where what I believe was his last televised concert he sang "Unchained Melody" accompanying himself on the piano. It is one of the most emotional and powerful musical moments I have ever seen. He looks like hell, but that voice is strong and perfect. It makes me cry. Slim
Re: single most influential, cont.
At 05:30 PM 4/24/99 EDT, you wrote: where what I believe was his last televised concert he sang "Unchained Melody" accompanying himself on the piano. It is one of the most emotional and powerful musical moments I have ever seen. He looks like hell, but that voice is strong and perfect. It makes me cry. This amazing clip is on one of the Great Performances videos as well (and the arrangment/interpretation is largely borrowed, I'd say, from Charlie Rich's Sun era version of the song). It makes me cry too. But it makes me cry precisely because his voice CAN'T do it anymore, which isn't so suprising since he's like only a few weeks away from being dead. He can't hit the high notes at all, or the low ones either. It's a pretty pathetic performance, but it's also painfully poignant for the sheer gesture of the attempt, or maybe because of his glassy-eyed obliviousness to his lack of chops. At any rate, Unchained Melody is a very hard song to sing even for someone in their prime, but Elvis doesn't try to sing it differently to account for his new vocal weaknesses; he just plows through. So I agree with you that's it's among the most emotional and powerful of musical moments. But it's incredibly hard for me to watch, especially since I know what he's lost, and what's coming. --david cantwell
Re: single most influential, cont.
In a message dated 4/24/99 4:50:39 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But it makes me cry precisely because his voice CAN'T do it anymore, which isn't so suprising since he's like only a few weeks away from being dead. He can't hit the high notes at all, or the low ones either. It's a pretty pathetic performance, but it's also painfully poignant for the sheer gesture of the attempt, or maybe because of his glassy-eyed obliviousness to his lack of chops. Are you sure we saw the same clip, or is it just not your cup of tea? g Yeah, he looks like hell and the strain is intense, but my God, what a performance. I stand by my perceptions. Slim
Re: single most influential, cont.
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.
Re: single most influential, cont.
John Kinnamon wrote: 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. Willie doesn't have a "big" voice, although it can be loud if he wants to. he's a softspoken guy, and his singing voice is relatively subdued also. Waylon comes very close to having a "great voice" but he's so much himself that you could never mistake him for anybody else, no matter how hard he tried, and I guess what I was trying to convey was that none of these guys could ever sing anonymously like a typical "good singer" can. -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: single most influential, cont.
As a footnote to our discussion, see the new issue of the Atlantic, including an article arguing that Dylan changed pop music more than any other single figure, "including Sinatra, Elvis or the Beatles." (No mention of Der Bingle.) Read and discuss (I haven't, yet). Carl W.
Re: single most influential, cont.
Carl W.: As a footnote to our discussion, see the new issue of the Atlantic, including an article arguing that Dylan changed pop music more than any other single figure, "including Sinatra, Elvis or the Beatles." Of course. He single handedly made it all right not to know how to sing, not to know how to play and still be a big star. Tom Ekeberg Oslo, Norway http://home.sol.no/~tekeberg/
Re: single most influential, cont.
At 09:36 PM 4/23/99 +0200, Tom wrote: Of course. He single handedly made it all right not to know how to sing, not to know how to play and still be a big star. I have no comment. Just wanted to say how great it was to see a Tom Ekeberg post! --david cantwell
