Riverpoet31 said:

Great points, meow.

There seems to be a group of people on here who equals 'good or great singing' only with 'technical' abilities (a large octave range, polishness) but do these technical abilities automatically mean you are really touched and moved by certain vocals? Character, soulfullness and intention are far more important to me.

Mariah Carey might be able to reach those octaves (and she annoyingly keeps meandering through them), but she does nothing to me, because there is nothing underneath it, its just superficial 'show-time' hiding the lack of soul and authencity in her music.
Tom Waits might be a technicallly 'limited' singer: his voice brought down by whiskey and cigarettes to about 2 octaves, a low grumpy growl, but you can 'feel' him in his delivery, he is able to really move you with his vocals, offering depth in his music.

Whitney Houston is another example. She has the technical ability, she does the octaves, but her music remains superficial. Instead of realling digging deeper, and make more personal music, she keeps it all on face value. And gets way annoying because of that.
Singers like Al Green, Solomon Burke and Van Morrison might not be as polished as she is, but they are FAR better singers, because they really 'connect' with their material, letting their soul shine through, instead of hiding themselves behind plastic R&B.

I was really disappointed when I saw Dylan live. Now he is known for his "stage behaviour" but it wasn't fun to watch or hear. He dedicated the show to his new songs at the time which imo were pretty bland. During that 1 or 1,5 hour he faced the crowd once I think, otherwise we just got to see his back or the left side of him. Of course it's hard to judge from one show, but what's amazing about Bob is his writing skill, his talent in writing great songs. I'll stick to listening to his songs at home. But I can't say it wasn't cool to see him in flesh

Riverpoet31 said:

And don't forget, sometimes the unpolished voice actually works better. I can't imagine how ridiculous Leonard Cohen's work would sound with a smooth-voiced crooner at the helm.

meow85 said:

we heard that effect when Pat Boone sang rock & roll.

VenusBlingBling said:

his new songs over the last ten years have gotten him a lot of critical acclaim so you gotta kinda follow his new stuff too

in my opinion, he is kinda like Prince that way - wanting to play new stuff but realizing most people came to hear your old stuff

you cant please everyone

but he has one of the best bands around, which - again - reminded me of Prince

"Not dark yet" is a beautiful song.

meow85 said:

Darlin' you speak the truth!

One of the most beautiful Dylan songs every "You Belong To Me"
http://www.youtube.com/wa...3hdGmmFa78


Tom Waits' voice IS beautiful:
http://www.youtube.com/wa...jyVZNrWkow

NDRU said:

Yeah, let's not do that again.

guitarslinger44 said:

If beauty is defined in these cases as the ability to feel the words instead of just singing them, then yes. The vocals on both of those, but the Dylan especially, wouldn't exactly be winning any American Idol gigs in a hurry. But I don't think it's an exaggeration to call the delivery beautiful.


Personally, I apply this rule regardless of what genre I'm listening to. Even when it's something that traditionally relies on a good sound rather than real emotion, like bubblegum pop. My favourite Backstreet Boy is because of his ability to emote, and he does so better than most pop performers. Strictly speaking, the man does not have a nice pop voice. But there you go.

The November 27,2008 issue of Rolling Stone was a Special Issue with The 100 Greatest Singers of All Time. Bob Dylan was 7 on that list, Aretha being 1. I am a big Dylan fan, but putting him ahead of people like Robert Plant(15), Freddie Mercury(18), and Prince(30) was ridiculous.

I think Bob Dylan is one of the greatest songwriters who ever lived. He has a dirt-road soul in a world mostly paved over with highways.

For my particular brand of twisted psyche I think you could put together a 15-disc box set of his greatest work that could probably surpass anyone from the 20th century, save perhaps Duke Ellington. And maybe in another 17 years (Dylan is 68), Prince Rogers Nelson.

But quite possibly that's just the cotton in my ears (or head) that brings me to such affected conclusions.

Here’s a slice of Dylan’s music performed by those who are even less technically gifted singers (although the first lady has opera training). Yet, somehow, that gritty soul still manages to stir the very core of humanity, eventually cutting through at least part of this hardened facade ringed with steel bars and barbed wire.

Here's another from Dylan's vast repertoire. It's about the boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter and his very questionable imprisonment.

I was never a fan but have huge respect for him.

japanrocks said:

You can say that about Prince now....unless your a media head you can't compare the two it's silly Prince has far more talent than Bob Dylan...
Case Closed

Bob's my favourite artist ever. About as far away from Prince (musically speaking) as it's possible to get, so I'd understand him being viewed a little...sceptically on here.

Voice-wise I appreciate he's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. As well as the Tom Waits comparison floated earlier I'd suggest you have to hear him in the context of some of the very early blues/country singers (Charlie Patton, Dock Boggs). Some recent Live concerts have been...tricky. He's not too bad if you catch him on a night when he's had a rest, if it's the third night running that he's played...well it does sound a little painful. He ought to look after what's left of his voice a bit better.

There are some interesting parallels between him and Prince though. Both from Minnesota, Both wildly prolific - with a tendency to leave their better works off of their albums, both slightly work-obsessed (Bob tours incessantly). Both have a very dicey relationship with their fans. Both very strong-willed and stubborn. Both Gemini (if that's your thing). Both became stars very young and never had 'proper' jobs.

Bob wrote a song (for the travelling Wilburys) called 'Dirty World' which is a little pastiche of Prince. It's not particularly good, but it's quite funny.

And Bob's about to release a CHRISTMAS ALBUM. Which I think'll be fun, but the Dylan message-boards are up in arms...

japanrocks said:

The critics liking his newer releases doesn't mean I have to Thing is I prefer reading his lyrics, like poems, rather than hearing them as songs. The music doesn't really do anything for me. But his band is tight, thats' true! I did enjoy them, they are very funky and made the show as far as I am concerned.

Apples & Oranges. If you like the message of lets say in a Indie Film, the grit, the focus of something the mainstream isn't making. You will like this kind of music back then. That is Bob Dylan and that type of music. Marvin Gaye went in this direction with Whats Going on and he was getting slammed before it came out by Motown.

So really Bob helped bring down some of those walls for mainstream guys to say more and do more.

Brendan said:

That song is excellent.

LondonStyle said:

"More talent" is an awfully broad statement.

More talent at what?

Playing instruments? Yeah, okay. Dancing? Obviously. Singing? It depends what you're using to measure goodness with. Lyrics? Hell no.

meow85 said:

wait, did you just mention the Backstreet Boys in this thread?

NDRU said:

I did.

Pop music as a genre doesn't get much respect, often with good reason. But this thread's focus does gear around vocal ability and what constitutes a good voice, and vocals are what pop hinges around. If it exists as a cultural force in any way, it's worthy of analysis.

At some point this one developed a rougher delivery atypical of the standard boyband sound. It's unusual given what branch of popular music he works in, but damned if a song like the one I posted isn't more believable for it.

Besides, if Whitney, etc. can be brought up in a serious music discussion, then so can they.
[Edited 9/3/09 11:16am]

meow85 said:

I know I am just giving you a hard time!

Not that I am a fan of theirs but his style immediately struck me as different from the rest of them.

NDRU said:

I know. People give me flak all the time for digging them. They see all this "serious" music in my collection, and then the Boys floating around in the "B" section and they're like -->

It's always seemed to me to be somewhat lazy academics to only ever talk about the same bands or genres in music discussions, whether they're simpler talk like comparing vocal style or more complex like cultural analysis. Having taken a few of those classes in high school and college, it was pretty obvious that apparently the only things worth discussing are punk!grunge!andOMGZriotogrrl! It's interesting at first, but after wading through the 100th essay on Cobain you realize the analytical scope is pretty limited.

If everything that's popular or common is so because of sociocultural forces, then boybands deserve as much attention in that respect as does Dylan. Something's kept this particular boyband afloat years after their peers fizzled out, and IMO it'd be fascinating to see why their fanbase never grew out of them.