This is why programmes like X Factor miss the mark. They may well find an Adele or a Whitney, but often times the best and most interesting artists are the ones who aren't technically great singers. I would much sooner listen to David Bowie, Neil Young, Bob Dylan or Madonna than I would Adele or Mariah or Whitney.

So what do you think? Most of the artists with technically great voices rest on their laurels and think that their voice is enough and rarely develop anything in the way of songwriting, stage presence, playing an instrument or recording music that serves as more than just a showcase for their warbling.

I suppose having a huge voice is good, people like Mariah Carey have made their money and they have plenty of fans.

Like you I much prefer a voice like Madonna’s rather than the warblers.

Im not particularly a Madonna fan per se. But it does make me laugh when people say she is "talentless" and ridicule her for not having a technically great voice, when the likes of Mariah and Whitney could never make anything as interesting as Ray of Light album for example.

BIB1 - That's just personal opinion and preference though isn't it, as opposed to fact. You obviously prefer bands, or at least artists that prefer to work with session musicians, to solo artists. Nothing wrong with that of course, but you can't use that to generalise that one type of artist is intrinsically any 'better' than the other.

BIB2 - It's probably true that if you have a technically great voice you don't need to learn an instrument, but by the same token, if you know you don't have a great voice, you pretty much need to to cover that. Jack of all trades, master of none, you could say. If you find that more interesting, it could just be because they have to make use of multiple musicians and various gadgets to make up for their vocal deficiencies.

Adele's a bad example of a technically great singer 'resting on their laurels'. She is a writer as well, and, IMO, has great stage presence. Take John Legend and George Ezra, OTTOMH. Great singers, writers and can bang out a decent tune on the guitar and piano. By your standards, they should piss all over the like of Bowie and Dylan because they do have it all.

I like a bit of both. Most of my favourite parts of Mariah songs aren't the belts or whistles but her lower register. I'm not sure it's overrated, just preference.

What made Adele and Whitney amazing was not that they had technically great voices, but that they also conveyed great emotion and sang from their heart. Someone like Mariah to me is not as good as either of them because she doesn't show the same emotion.

Both Adele and Whitney have/had strong personalities as well as their voice.

The problem with a lot of the talent show people is they copy the technical side of them, but they don't get the emotional side.

Is having a technically great voice overrated?

No. If a voice is technically great, you can't overrate it by simply claiming it to be what it is. Firstly I'd prefer not to tie in this phenomenon of a technically great voice with TV 'talent' i.e. entertainment shows. That could be seen as a disingenuous association. Luther Vandross, Gladys Knight, Otis Redding, Lalah Hathaway, Marvin Gaye etc. etc. don't and didn't have anything to do with The X-Factor.

What makes an artist interesting? For me, it is that they make great records; as simple as that. I'm not interested in an artist because they project some image, because they are quirky, or eclectic, or wear certain clothes, or are a bloke in make-up, court controversy, constantly reinvent themselves etc. They might do any and all of that but if their music doesn't cut it I wont care.

Great voices need to be taken care of, they change over the years, singers' interpretations mature. A vocalist is an artist, their voice IS enough. If their style of music isn't your cup of tea, that's fine but there's no need for this sort of inverted snobbery where for instance, any four-piece rock act that happens to knock out their own half-baked material is somehow far better than say, Ella Fitzgerald. (Not directed personally at the OP by the way, I just feel there are too many who take this sort of view).

They may or may not compose, or play, or engineer their records and just as you feel that they record music that "serves as a showcase for their warbling" (which is rather prejorative) I could easily state that many acts record only those songs that won't challenge their meagre vocal capabilities or show up they limited instrumental proficiency.

People don't seem to focus on drummers or guitarists who don't compose music or lyrics or producers who don't play instruments or song-writers who don't sing yet they feel it's no big deal to be a fantastic singer if you don't do something else on the side.

Of course there are mediocre vocalists/stars who only front a record and also mediocre acts who write play and produce there work; I'm just kicking against the generalisations that are made about music. Most records are made by with the assistance of others and not as the work of one and as many of us know, 'stars' will get credit / take credit for things that they didn't do.

i dont call volume 'emotion'... needless to say i dont rate adele, whitney nor mariah.


its not the voice that makes you 'good', its the material you have and how you portray it. thats why dylan, bowie, etc are great artists .

Madonna's voice suits her songs - Sang by another singer the song might not be as good even if 'other' singer is technically better.

Talking of Madonna I've often thought the best non-Madonna type song from the 80's not sang by her is Rush Hour by Jane Wiedlin....that song would've suited her vocal.

A singer with a great voice is a bonus but not the most important factor, it's how they use the voice to get the right sound.
Although any singer who needs autotune or doesn't sing live for me shouldn't have a record contract. They're effectively cowboys.

Madonna is my favourite female artist of all time, due to her quality back catalogue of songs but she isn't the best vocalist (although she is better than she is credited for) especially compared to someone like Karen Carpenter or a 1985 - 1990 Whitney but I'd choose to listen to her songs over any other female singer if I had to choose one.

Although keep an eye out for Connie Talbot over the next decade (who technically is vocally brilliant and getting better as she gets older)

The Beatles are the biggest band of all time but not vocally the best, they still sing to standard and have great melodies (In terms of best vocal group The Beach Boys wear that crown - particularly when it comes to harmony)

Basically I enjoy vocalists at both ends of the spectrum as long as they can sing to a decent level and sing the melody and not go all over the shop, which some belters can be guilty of.

Katherine Jenkins might be technically proficient but I can't bear to listen to her for a second. Give me the erratically pitched Siouxsie Sioux any day.

I was watching a programme when someone was talking about Madonna (Paul Gambacinni or someone) and they said part of her appeal is that her voice is kind of bland. And it therefore doesn't over power the song, and lets the quality of the song shine through. Kind of makes sense, I'm mean, can you imagine a Whitney or Mariah type singing Into the Groove? It just wouldn't work.

The difference with Dylan and Bowie is not that they can play instruments and write their own music, many can do that, it is that they are great creative artists and are recognized as such by their audience. Bowie, Dylan, The Beatles etc bring art to music, they reinterpret the world for us in a creative way and help us understand it a bit better. The best of their works actually mean something. That's what Beethoven, Mahler and Gershwin did as well.


Yeah, the material may vary a bit but the best of it, e.g. Bowie's Berlin Trilogy or Dylan's 'Blonde on Blonde' are insightful as well as sounding good. In the end it is really all about the songs and the music.

A great voice is a major asset, not a requirement. A distinctive tone, image and inoffensive music are what makes singers big today.

of course they could. it's not even that interesting an album. remember for a start that it's primarly william orbit who created the music, so any decent singer could have sang those songs. it's mainly that mariah and whitney aimed for the rnb/soul side of the pop market and remixers turned tracks into dance versions

madonna has a great talent for making money

I'd rather hear Robert Smith than Pavarotti.

i wouldn't say it was over rated, but i'd say most of the people on x factor are over rated. you basically need some good music behind your voice, and of course a good song. if you have good music and a good song you can sound like bob dylan or a gallagher brother and get away with it at times, whereas other tracks need a technically good singer but no-one cares too much about who is singing, such as dance music

part of why those x factor people don't amount to much is because they don't have many skills other than singing, and partly because they just end up making bland music for people who watch a tv show who forget about them shortly after and are then distracted by a bunch of new contestants. remember of course x factor is on ITV during peak time on a saturday night so it says a lot about the audience who have nothing better to do on a saturday night than watch advertisements with garbage tv shows in the middle. people who would buy music from supermarkets and play it in the background whilst doing laundry or driving kids to school

Sometimes a technically superb voice spoils the song. Annie Lennox, for example, can sing flawlessly, but her vocal pyrotechnics make me want to smash the radio.

I don't think it's over-rated but it's not necessary for my personal enjoyment.

It's about interpretation for me.

Well, firstly, I wouldn't put David Bowie and Madonna in the same category as singers, personally. It's nice that you enjoy listening to her though
It's personal preference, and how the singer is able to connect to the audience. Some people love opera and can't bear to listen to Bob Dylan, and vice versa. It's also possible to love both, and a whole variety of other artists.
Of course it is the total package that counts, and no performer can excel in every area, that's just not possible.
X-factor misses the mark for a variety of reasons. IMO, it's the whole concept of taking people off the streets and fast tracking them to stardom that doesn't work. A creative artist needs to develop their own skills at their own pace, not to suit the agenda of Simon Cowell (or whoever it is who is in charge now). In any case, xfactor is basically 'reality' tv, not really about music as such.
My sister only buys one record a year , and that is the winning song from xfactor, no matter who the winner is, or what the song is. There's nothing wrong with that of course, she's entitled to like what she likes, but it's not something I can relate to.

Same.

I agree.

In most genres of popular music a "technically great voice" is by no means a necessity.

Certainly in a genre like Symphonic Metal, though, a "technically great voice" is an absolute requirement. Many vocalists in Symphonic Metal bands are classically trained opera singers.

To me if it is, such a thing is nothing new because if having a great voice wasn't over rated, my newest favorite never would have been placed on the back burner, I love the late beautiful precious Billy Joe Royal SO much!!!

God bless you and his family always!!!

Holly

Symphonic Metal is great music but it isn't as technically challenging as Opera. You might say that not all Symphonic Metal singers could sing Opera but all Opera Singers could sing Symphonic Metal! They wouldn't of course as it might damage their vocal chords.

Singing, indeed playing music, is an expressive art which has its own skill set. Which presumably is how we can describe a performance as technically good. There is a set of features including range, voice control, accuracy of pitch, dynamics, tone, even interpretation and modulation of the notes and rests that we can measure a performance by. There is some degree of creativity and originality available to a performer.

Clearly, someone who writes and composes music and songs is undertaking a different task. They might not be able to sing at all but they can create the source material for the singer or interpreter. I guess that's how professional songwriters do it.

As for singer/songwriters, when the composer is also the performer, you might think they would have a greater insight into how and what the music/song should sound like. They might know best what they are trying to say. And work within their own technical performance limits to say/play it. That seems reasonable. Which is a long way of saying, you don't need to be technically gifted to make great music.

That's a bit unfair to Madonna who wrote most of the lyrics on 'Ray of Light', many of which reflect her interest in spiritual areas. So we get singing in Sanskrit and references to JG Ballard and Max Blagg. That's part of what makes the album interesting as well as the Orbit work. It was a very effective collaboration.