Do you prefer to watch someone who simply sings or an all round performer?

With singers I mean people like Barbra Striesand, Adele, Whitney Houston, Celine Dion or Mariah Carey who are labelled as singers, and their voices are their trademark.

Or someone who sings and performs, like Madonna or Janet Jackson who are known for their elaborate shows and dancing.

Why do I have to choose??When I need to listen to a ballad or a soulful song then I need a great live performance.When I need to listen to a fun pop song or an r'n'b' "banger" then all I need is good choreo and good energy.There is space for both vocalists and performers.

An interesting thread
I do not know really

I love the ones with distinctive voices, the ones who you know who it is even when you've never heard the song before. People like;
Michael Stipe, Howlin Wolf, Feargal Sharkey, Elizabeth Frazer, Morrissey, Tracey Thorn, Screamin Jay Hawkins, Tanya Donelly, Elvis Costello, David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Neil Young.

They may not always be the best singers but what they do comes from their very soul.

I couldn't give a flying toss about how technically good they are or worse, how well they dance. I'd rather go deaf than spend time listening to some Aretha wannabe trying to crowbar as many notes as she can into whatever pile of garbage she's yodelling.

Agree totally.

Leonard Cohen, Aimee Mann, Melanie Safka, Eddi Reader. Bob Dylan. And yes, Michael Stipe too.

I love both, my favourite is Britney, so i love an overall performance, but i love normal singers like Leona.

I much prefer performers to singers. A show with just someone singing would be rather dull to me.

Neither are the main things I look for in any artist, but I suppose I'd have to go with singers over performers because someone not singing would make more of a difference to how they sound than someone not dancing.

I like both.

I like both and it depends on both the artist and style of music. When listening to a song or album, obviously a great singer or musician is preferable to a 'performer' because you're not watching a performance, you're listening to the music. When it comes to live shows, as far as pop music is concerned performers are almost always much more enjoyable. On the other hand, with other genres of music such as folk or jazz, just to give a couple of examples, a big show would often be inappropriate and at odds with the style of music being played.

Both. But generally performers.

Depends. I like both. When listening to music it doesn't matter, I like both equally. But when I see people live, I prefer performers.

Both, though generally I go by voices. Someone can be the best performer that ever lived but if their voice isn't up to much, I'll pass on them.

Madonna, Kate Bush, Prince, Judy garland, Britney Spears, Bjork, Fleetwood Mac, Florence Welch, Xtina, Rihanna, Kylie, The Doors, Sly & The Family Stone and Janelle Monae.

Just put a few of my all time and few current faves up there to have a perspective of what i like in range.

I love BOTH. Someone with a unique or powerful vocal ability that can put on a massive spectacle in theatrics, in entertainment, in visuals.

So someone who sings and performs for me.

I like "singers" and i like "performers" but i love the whole show. Just singing can get redundant and (mainly current acts) who rely on gimmicks get found out and gets repetetive.

Obviously both would be ideal, but if I had to go to a Leona or Britney concert, I'd choose Britney.

it depends on why they perform...

if a performance is there to enhance the musical experience then all well and good, however in many cases surrounding pop, the performance is a distraction that is there to cover or hide poor quality singing/material.

Prefer a singer.

Definitely performers. So many people are good singers but I think it takes something special to be a good performer.

Both. I do really like a strong vocal and am attracted to voices, but performers are good too.

for me the performance side of things is just a distraction.the singer should be able to hold an audience regardless.both would be good, but more often than not it's a case of papering over the cracks.

I have decided a prefer a singer. I have been to so many gigs. But the dancing and amazing effects have never really been a big deal. I have only ever made that exception for Madonna because all of that is what defines her when it comes to her tours. But apart from her, i really like the singing the most.

Definitely singer. I love music... the 'showy' / 'spectacle' side of things is everything but the music... and is of little interest to me.

Performer !

I prefer ''performers'', who can just hold people captivated by what they do. Dylan was never a great singer, but as an all-round artist he's considered one of the best. Neither was The Boss, but he excelled with his power onstage.

I do have a soft spot for a few ''lip-syncers'' - it's hard not to like Britney when she is/was so entertaining, and Madonna has shown herself to be one of the best despite some carefully crafted miming. Blond Ambition, for example.

There is, of course, a line that can't be crossed - those who cannot sing or entertain. I saw a video of Katy Perry performing Firework at the Rock In Rio Festival yesterday, and it was just horrendous. Same goes for that Tweenie Taylor Swift. Awful stuff.

Singer.

Gary Barlow over Robbie Williams any day.