Annoying voices:
Cher.
Tracey Chapman.
John Fogerty used to bug me a lot.
Willy Nelson I can handle but I can see how he grates on some people’s ears.
I remember that episode very well! And didn’t Keith Richards show up at some point during the show?
Florence Foster Jenkins?
If we want to go into how many singers really didn’t have great voices but had something else that people went for, the list could get lengthier.
Sinatra–not great, but he had the Rat Pack swagger/cool thing.
Jagger–not great, but he’s got animal magnetism and a good stage presence.
Bono–not great, but lots of charisma and passion.
And so on.
Well, everybody must get stoned.
Oh, Lordy, don’t get me started on Springsteen. The man hits two notes: “nasal” and “whiny.” Is it any wonder half his songs are covered by other people and those are bigger hits?
As a comedian I once went to see put it, “Bruce yells everything, and what he doesn’t yell he mumbles.”
Rob Zombie?
Watching Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels has convinced me none of the four guys in KISS can sing a single note on key.
What about “Woooaoooh, I’m on Fire…” in dulcet, crooning, 80’s tones. He doesn’t get too intense in the face of tha song… something else like Romeo and Juliet, Samson and Delilah.
Courtney Love.
'Steen.
I’m on Fire
Fire
I really do think there are objective standards for singing. It is possible to determine whether someone can hit and hold a pitch, whether they can sing in time, how long they can go without a breath, whether they can change their voice for different styles, how broad their range is, how in tune they are with their harmonies, how they handle different styles, how well they can be understood.
Okay, so that last one varies by genre. Of course, in any genre, you get even more objective criteria.
You’re not going to convince me that William Hung is a good singer just becuase someone likes to listen to him.
I think the whole “they’re not singers, they’re entertainers/part of a band/a star” thing has been beaten to death already, but I do think it’s kind of interesting that I like quite a few bad singers in their element.
I won’t argue that Britney Spears is a good singer, but as a vocal instrument in a producer’s dance pop song, she’s good. I hate the aforementioned Courtney Love as a person and think she can’t sing well, but she has an earnest voice filled with pain that works for quite a few Hole songs. Ke$ha’s really bad, but damn if her producers didn’t manage to use her as an interesting component of some fun, immature, dirty pop. And Uffie and Miss Kittin and Peaches and Amanda Blank and Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore and Henry Rollins and Kathleen Hannah and Genesis P-Orridge and… you get the point. If I’m in the mood for electroclash, punk, no wave, bubblegum, industrial or whatever genre, they’re integral parts of the songs I happen to want to hear.
Sadly Lemmy Kilmister can’t sing because he lacks vocal cords. Instead he has a sack of gravel he can rub together and project to accompany Motorhead.
Man, after seeing those Springsteen Videos… I believe that Ben Affleck should do an early Bruce Springsteen biopic in the same footsteps as Lou diamond Philips as Ritchie Valens, Gary Busey as Buddy Holly, Joachim Phoenix as Johny Cash, and as Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles… with ahint of story/bravada ala Eddie and the Cruisers. Sort of a tell all.
Count me in… he couldn’t make the Boys Choir of Harlem or anything… but shit… Tumbling Dice??
I think Student Driver (#154 above) has hit the nail on the head. Anyone expressing enthusiasm for Jagger’s vocals here is doing so by reference to studio recordings in which the best of his limited vocal ability was arrived at by attrition and under carefully controlled conditions. The Stones and their producers triumphed in making these recordings sound like performances, and they have a string of great records - a handful of early singles and the albums Aftermath, Beggar’s Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main Street, even parts of Some Girls - to illustrate the point. But Jagger could never reproduce these vocal performances live. In his twenties he was at his best on stage, with reasonable projection and his head-voice still intact. As he aged and his register dropped (smoking, drinking, and his insistence on running around the stage didn’t help), his live vocal degenerated into a series of rhythmic grunts. One of my great disappointments came aged fifteen at Slane Castle when I had to sit through one of these horrible grunt-fests. It’s far from ideal, but that’s the way it is, and I still enjoy the recordings. To boot, Jagger was intelligent, articulate, egotistical and provocative, perfectly suiting the era he flourished in.
On the broader point, I don’t think that any performer has ever suffered artistically due to a surfeit of technical ability. Certainly it’s not everything in rock’n’roll, but I doubt Keith Richards ever sits around wishing he weren’t so good on the guitar. The aptly named punk “movement” (forgive the ordurous imagery) liked to equate ability with an absence of sincerity or “soul” (credibility and relevance were the mots justes at the time) but if you buy a compilation of punk singles you won’t hear much in the way of flamming, or flubbed or bum notes, so clearly their producers didn’t agree. They knew that no matter how simple the composition or arrangement it sounds better when the band do it well and together.
As to whether there’s ever been a worse very successful singer than Jagger, one name always pops to mind for me. He very obviously styled himself on Jagger, his band had a handful of good singles and one very good album, and like his hero he was provocative and articulate: Bob Geldof.
Anybody that eats Mars Bars with Marianne Faithfull is ok in my book.