DS Forums

 
 

Singers that sound good in record but disastrous live!!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28-01-2016, 10:13
Kieran_Diver1
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 480

I was looking through concert reviews and was watching live performance videos from some of the biggest names in music... I found that the following big names were great on CD but out of tune live....

Katy Perry
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Esyq94x0bxA

Adam Lazzarra from Taking Back Sunday
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GpBr34V8fl8

Mariah Carey (used to be good but this awful)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1wXgmyuVXYA

Who do you think is awful live let me know??
Kieran_Diver1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 28-01-2016, 10:38
Master Ozzy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 16,507
Katy Perry. She doesn't actually sound that great even on record...she has a pretty basic, average voice. However, live she is absolutely horrific.
Master Ozzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 10:43
ScottishWoody
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fife
Posts: 13,810
Katy Perry is a strange one. I remember seeing her perform Unconditionally on the X Factor in 2013 and it was truly awful. By that time though I had already bought my tickets for Prismatic World Tour. The tour itself was amazing, she wasn't miming (much) and her vocals were pretty good!

If they did use auto tune for the tour then all could be forgiven I suppose.
ScottishWoody is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 12:04
Kieran_Diver1
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 480
Katy Perry. She doesn't actually sound that great even on record...she has a pretty basic, average voice. However, live she is absolutely horrific.
Yeah kinda take back what I said lol!! She isn't all that gd on record but its not painful !ike it is when she's live 😀
Kieran_Diver1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 12:52
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,738
One Direction sound terrible live:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD6rKhzV_m0
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 13:14
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,885

Tell me about it.

It seems increasingly evident that more singers are unable to sing well live.

Apart from the "manufactured" singers, a lot of it is down to all this prancing about on a stage whilst "singing."
Britney Spears mimed to recordings during her shows. There's a video somewhere of what was actually coming out of her mouth whilst she was dancing. She was actually sounding out of breath, due to the physical exertions

However, jazz singers through the ages have much of their careers, mostly worked with either trios or quartets. You've got to be able to sing you get away with that. As any professional musician (I don't mean guitar thrashers) will tell you, that you can't "hide" for a few bars in groups that size, you have to be be paying full attention to your work, all the time.
Few singers can sing well live, on Jools Holland's "Later" programme.
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 13:32
BasilRathbon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 329
Does it really matter whether a singer can sing well live - surely it's what they sound like on record that counts?

Some of my favourite singers, such as Bernard Sumner or Neil Tennant, sound awful live, but on record they're voices suit the style of music they sing perfectly and, unlike most of the X Factor generation, their vocals sound distinctive and have a bit of character.
BasilRathbon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 13:33
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,738
Does it really matter whether a singer can sing well live - surely it's what they sound like on record that counts?

Some of my favourite singers, such as Bernard Sumner or Neil Tennant, sound awful live, but on record they're voices suit the style of music they sing perfectly and, unlike most of the X Factor generation, their vocals sound distinctive and have a bit of character.
Well sort of depends if you want to watch them live doesn't it?
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 13:45
RikScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,784
Well sort of depends if you want to watch them live doesn't it?
...depends what you mean by 'disastrous' as well I think. It can be hard to define, sometimes they are just not as good as their studio recordings and sometimes they are...well..rank rotten.

I was always surprised now dodgy the likes of Tony Bennett and Sammy Davis sounded live...along with people like Van Morrison and Willie Nelson...never rank rotten though
RikScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 13:47
Rocketpop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 815
The lead singer of Within Temptation - Weedy vocals live.
Paloma Faith - Live vocal much more like her talking voice.
Rocketpop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 13:52
len112
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,943
Does it really matter whether a singer can sing well live - surely it's what they sound like on record that counts?

Some of my favourite singers, such as Bernard Sumner or Neil Tennant, sound awful live, but on record they're voices suit the style of music they sing perfectly and, unlike most of the X Factor generation, their vocals sound distinctive and have a bit of character.
Call me old fashioned but being a singer and being able to sing well live used to mean something .
len112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 14:05
RikScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,784
Call me old fashioned but being a singer and being able to sing well live used to mean something .
It should be the bare minimum really, and it's often touted as a selling point.
RikScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 14:28
BasilRathbon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 329
Call me old fashioned but being a singer and being able to sing well live used to mean something .
It should be the bare minimum really, and it's often touted as a selling point.
But by that criteria you'd be ruling out "classic" artists like Bob Dylan and Lou Reed.
BasilRathbon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 14:41
RikScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,784
But by that criteria you'd be ruling out "classic" artists like Bob Dylan and Lou Reed.
Absolutely not...that's possibly another argument about what defines a 'good singer' lol.

I love both of 'em to bits but would have a hard job convincing non fans that they were indeed great singers.

I've heard some awful Dylan live stuff though...likewise Lou Reed...
RikScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 15:42
dearmrman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 10,192
Call me old fashioned but being a singer and being able to sing well live used to mean something .
The Beatles didn't exactly have the best voices...think you mean better to sing live rather than mime and rely on autotune.
dearmrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 16:02
Doghouse Riley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North-West England
Posts: 25,885
The Beatles didn't exactly have the best voices...think you mean better to sing live rather than mime and rely on autotune.
They wrote some decent tunes, but in my opinion many others could sing them as well or better than they could.

These two are making a living covering them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj8LEL4gbQU
Doghouse Riley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 16:11
little-monster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,200
Katy perry is a weird one

Give her a guitar and an acoustic version of her song, she sings great. Her MTV Unplugged proves this. As does her performances of the acoustic One that got away.

Give her a massive stage show and her usual pop hits, she is horrendous. She doesn't sing, she shouts. It's as if she is playing a competition on who can be louder. Her or the music
little-monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 17:48
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,282
I think the thread title only needed to be "singers that are disastrous live" as just about any artist can be made to sound good on record with the studio trickery that goes on these days.

Apart from the usual suspects, the two that spring to mind for me are Lana Del Rey and Paloma Faith. Considering that their voice is supposed to be the main selling point they are pretty bad live imo.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 18:15
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,499
The voice is probably the last thing thats considered by those who peddle pop.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 18:57
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
The Beatles didn't exactly have the best voices...think you mean better to sing live rather than mime and rely on autotune.
The Beatles didn't rely on autotune because it didn't exist until Andy Hildebrand invented it in the 90s effectively. But John Lennon was notorious for not liking his singing voice and had it processed in other ways. Rather creatively I would say,

Recorded sound and live sound are really different forms and I think I know most of my music through recorded sound. Auto-tune is just an effect like reverb or distortion and can be used very creatively. Would Len’s ‘Steal My Sunshine’ or Hellogoodbye’s ‘Here (In Your Arms)’ have the same emotional impact without those bright, auto-tuned enhanced vocal lines? I think not.

Sometimes I want to hear a great singer live but more often I want to hear some great music and ideas expressed, live or not. Bono, Springsteen, Stevie Nicks, Michael Stipe, Trent Reznor, Van the Man...even Ian Brown have all sounded fine. For me, it's the song not the singer...admittedly I am going to see Little Mix to see if they sound as well live as they do on record.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 19:28
dearmrman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 10,192
The Beatles didn't rely on autotune because it didn't exist until Andy Hildebrand invented it in the 90s effectively. But John Lennon was notorious for not liking his singing voice and had it processed in other ways. Rather creatively I would say,

Recorded sound and live sound are really different forms and I think I know most of my music through recorded sound. Auto-tune is just an effect like reverb or distortion and can be used very creatively. Would Len’s ‘Steal My Sunshine’ or Hellogoodbye’s ‘Here (In Your Arms)’ have the same emotional impact without those bright, auto-tuned enhanced vocal lines? I think not.

Sometimes I want to hear a great singer live but more often I want to hear some great music and ideas expressed, live or not. Bono, Springsteen, Stevie Nicks, Michael Stipe, Trent Reznor, Van the Man...even Ian Brown have all sounded fine. For me, it's the song not the singer...admittedly I am going to see Little Mix to see if they sound as well live as they do on record.
I thought we were talking about live performances over records....even if it sounds better on record, would you be happy to go a concert and the artist in question mimed.
dearmrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 20:16
cody jarrett
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 987
Elton John is awful live. He shouts and growls every line.
cody jarrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 20:57
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
I thought we were talking about live performances over records....even if it sounds better on record, would you be happy to go a concert and the artist in question mimed.
I don't expect live performances and recorded performances to match. I think of them as different mediums. There are so many creative things you can do in the studio that are just not possible live. And my preference for experiencing pop music is through recordings not live performance.

I haven't been to a gig where the artist mimed and I probably wouldn't go to one where they would. Little Mix will sing live, I'm sure. U2, Springsteen, Van the Man, Fleetwood Mac, Nine Inch Nails, Mary Chapin Carpenter are my kind of artists and they are all known for being great live. But live is in the moment and recorded music is forever.

If you are really interested in the quality of a singing voice, I would advise you to go to the opera or the jazz club.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 21:27
dearmrman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Utopia
Posts: 10,192
I don't expect live performances and recorded performances to match. I think of them as different mediums. There are so many creative things you can do in the studio that are just not possible live. And my preference for experiencing pop music is through recordings not live performance.

I haven't been to a gig where the artist mimed and I probably wouldn't go to one where they would. Little Mix will sing live, I'm sure. U2, Springsteen, Van the Man, Fleetwood Mac, Nine Inch Nails, Mary Chapin Carpenter are my kind of artists and they are all known for being great live. But live is in the moment and recorded music is forever.

If you are really interested in the quality of a singing voice, I would advise you to go to the opera or the jazz club.
I'm not...you miss understood my point with regards to The Beatles and autotune. A live performance should be heard live no matter how rough the voice, never should be mimed even pop acts.

Though I do sometimes think records can be over produced and try too hard to be perfect..an example for me in that regard would be Oasis with Definitely Maybe followed by the far too slick What's The Story Morning Glory.
dearmrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2016, 21:36
pearlsandplums
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,490
Florence welch is terrible live.
pearlsandplums is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:04.