QueenZone discussion #1464899
David Bowie strictly as a singer
| Stelios 17.02.2017 07:11 |
Is it me or Bowie was not anything special in terms of vocal ability? We had an argument on Wild Is The Wind and if George Michael did it better than Bowie. To my ears its not even in the same caliber applying that Michael is far superior in strictly vocal terms. And then of course i mentionded Freddie as an example of aside the emotion, interpretation and performance the ability to actually hit the notes and possesing an all around great tone. So do you ever had the impression that Bowie always goes "around" the vocal melody and almost never actually nailing it? |
| dysan 17.02.2017 08:40 |
He's a different type of singer with an artistry that outstrips both George Michael and Freddie Mercury's cabaret turns. |
| Costa86 17.02.2017 09:29 |
His artistry obviously outstrips George Michael's, but I'm not sure it outstrips Freddie's. He was more avant-garde, perhaps, than Mercury, but in terms of musicality, it's a tough one. In response to Stelios' question - I don't think it's strictly warranted to quantify Bowie's abilities purely when it comes to singing. He delivered a package. His vocal abilities can be analysed technically, and it should be fairly easy to determine how "good" a voice he had - although of course technical ability does not always translate to a voice which people love (e.g. Adam Lambert). I think Bowie had a voice which you could easily really like. But I would agree that Michael and Mercury had a "better" voice in that respect. |
| Stelios 17.02.2017 10:32 |
I must admit i am a little bewildered. Overall artistry aside to compare Freddie's -set of pipes- with Bowie's is almost a no-brainer .And to some extent even with Michael's in his best years. Perhaps i approach it more as a nature's gift and raw force combined with the sheer will to take it to its limits. |
| matt z 17.02.2017 11:04 |
He was a brilliant dude who understood music very well (*considerably more than I. I still need to reference A 440/whichever you prefer to tune anything. I can't for some reason hear a note in connotation with a written note) he sang and arranged most of his own harmonies. Freddie had a flair for the dramatic. George had beauty, depth of sincerity and wonderful control. dunno how you could go wrong with any of them David's timbre for rock was a little nasal but whatever. at least he didn't stay crooning (*though it would have suited him) |
| Thistle 17.02.2017 11:23 |
Bowie's voice is liquid gold. Technically, Freddie is a better singer than both Bowie and GM. I've listened to Freddie more than any other artist, and his voice blows me away. But Bowie makes me LISTEN. He's not a great singer, but he has something that makes everything he does sound good. Couple that with showmanship/personality, and Bowie is as good a complete package as anyone. Same with Johnny Cash, and he basically just spoke through everything. I've never liked GM. Don't berate me for that - musical taste is purely subjective. |
| Another Roger (re) 17.02.2017 13:15 |
I like David Bowie. But anyone who claims that Bowie is a better singer than Freddie can not be taken seriously. But that doesnt mean that some people can't prefer Bowies tone or style. John Petrucci is a better technical guitar player than Brian May. Still I prefer Brian May every day because he creates the best sounds for me. |
| Oscar J 17.02.2017 13:17 |
I don't like Bowie's voice very much personally. I'm very sensitive to pitch and thus I find it hard to listen to Bowie, Cohen and other barytones with their slightly wobbly and "liberal" approach to the notes. |
| master marathon runner 17.02.2017 13:34 |
It's the full package that counts. The artist, composing their own work and delivering it from the soul , uniquely by them. Technical ability don't mean Jack shit. That's why Adam Lambert will always be cabaret. |
| dysan 17.02.2017 13:56 |
Just to add to my first post, as a massive Bowie fan, Freddie is obviously the better technical singer. They are worlds apart regarding what they wanted to achieve, and what they did achieve, with music, |
| Gregsynth 17.02.2017 16:38 |
I think Bowie was quite a good singer (especially in the late 70s-onward) with a great baritone voice. |
| dysan 18.02.2017 01:39 |
Freddie always sounded like Freddie - Bowie always tried to put on a different voice depending on the song which has always bugged me. |
| Another Roger (re) 18.02.2017 02:10 |
dysan wrote: Just to add to my first post, as a massive Bowie fan, Freddie is obviously the better technical singer. They are worlds apart regarding what they wanted to achieve, and what they did achieve, with music, |
| Another Roger (re) 18.02.2017 02:11 |
dysan wrote: Just to add to my first post, as a massive Bowie fan, Freddie is obviously the better technical singer. They are worlds apart regarding what they wanted to achieve, and what they did achieve, with music, |
| Another Roger (re) 18.02.2017 02:11 |
dysan wrote: Just to add to my first post, as a massive Bowie fan, Freddie is obviously the better technical singer. They are worlds apart regarding what they wanted to achieve, and what they did achieve, with music,I am not sure if an educated singer will say that he had a good singing technique. According to some it is not recommended to sing like him because its very hard on the voice. But I am glad he did it in his own way. He sounds fantastic. And Freddies register and potential is unmatched in Rock'n roll in my opinion. The power, range and emotion he had was incredible. |
| Stelios 18.02.2017 09:20 |
I think there is a mild confussion in the post around the term technical . I was mostly reffering to the raw material ( natures gift if you like) one has towards his/hers develompnet as a singer/vocalist -which you call technical - and then there is the technique(s) one applies and progresses to master his/hers craft. The two" technical stuff' do overlap becouse one has to work with what he has got but there still is a distinction. |
| jrd1951 18.02.2017 09:35 |
David was actually a very good singer,on Under Pressure there is no electronic interpretation or anything to get in the way of the vocals,,,just natural fab singing from David and Freddie, RIP to both legends.................xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sheer Brass Neck 18.02.2017 10:29 |
For my money, being a great singer and having a great voice are not even close to the same thing. It's like comparing apples and bicycles. Being a great singer means conveying emotion, having people believe in what you are putting across in song. Having a great voice means that you can hit the notes with control, range and expression. In 10 million years, David Bowie couldn't do justice to Bohemian Rhapsody due to his vocal limitations. But his voice in his songs moved people emotionally and spiritually, which for me makes him a great singer. Roger Taylor once said that he was pissed off that it was easy to pass Freddie off as the guy going "day oh" in stadiums, whilst forgetting that he was a fabulous musician whose piano playing was inimitable in the rock world. Same with his singing, not his voice. Dear Friends isn't about a guy who could hit whatever notes he needed to or to showcase his voice, it was a beautifully sung lullaby respectful of the writer's wish. That's what makes a great singer, an honest interpretation of the lyrics that they're working with, not the fact that you can hit 17 octaves in the same trill. Freddie had a once in a lifetime voice, but if he were a lousy singer wouldn't have made a difference. |
| Stelios 18.02.2017 11:30 |
^^^Agree with everything except " but if he were a lousy singer wouldn't have made a difference." Just imagine the chorus of The show must go on and the peaks in its climax ( or the turmoil and anger in Scandal) in a low register. There is a thing as transendece and to be able to express the "inside edge" with similar pitch provided you can bring a higher level of emotion with it . If not it can be even anoying and soul-less high notes for the sake of it. |
| dysan 18.02.2017 14:23 |
Bowie did lots of 'big' bits in songs, but he would be the first to say he was acting like all the kidz on The Voice. He served the song, and if that meant nailing a big note he'd work at it - like when he handled all the guitar on the DIamond Dogs album - he said he really really practised. |
| mooghead 18.02.2017 14:42 |
David Bowie was definitely the best person to sing David Bowie songs, he lacked massively live. But if you are talking about actual 'singing' ability then we have to start with Mick Jagger surely? |
| Stelios 18.02.2017 15:52 |
^^ Yeap Mick is the first who comes in mind in that aspect. I rather like his playfull and passionate singing manner but thats personal taste of course. |
| waunakonor 18.02.2017 16:39 |
master marathon runner wrote: It's the full package that counts. [...] Technical ability don't mean Jack shit.But technical ability is a part of the full package, no? I'd say that technical ability means at least a little bit. |
| mike hunt 18.02.2017 16:48 |
G. Michael was a much better singer than Bowie, but Bowie was by far the better artist and Influence as a writer/musician. Freddie/Bowie? Freddie was the better singer, but was on the same level with everything else. Fashion goes to Bowie, he was doing the glam look before Queen. |
| dysan 19.02.2017 02:26 |
Lest we forget the worst singer of the lot: Elton |
| Thistle 19.02.2017 10:26 |
Again, it's subjective. I disagree about Elton, unless we're talking Elton of recent times lol. |
| mike hunt 19.02.2017 12:54 |
I think Elton was a decent singer |
| dysan 19.02.2017 13:45 |
WTF |
| Stelios 19.02.2017 14:20 |
Elton John is good . Really good in his prime years i think. |
| mooghead 19.02.2017 14:22 |
He may have become a massive tool in recent years but... Elton lost his voice after 'Sacrifice'. If you want to be astounded by how fucking good he could sing then listen to his early 70's stuff. Especially the Madman Across the Water album (in my top 3 of all time) the title track in particular... 'Levon' is my favourite song of all time, including Queen. Writing/singing... beautiful. |
| mike hunt 19.02.2017 14:54 |
He's a legend, no debating that. |
| dysan 20.02.2017 00:48 |
WTF |
| Stelios 20.02.2017 07:45 |
^^ those WTF stand for Whowants Tolive Forever ? |
| mike hunt 20.02.2017 08:47 |
dysan wrote: WTFWhat are you trying too say? |
| Thistle 20.02.2017 10:36 |
Dysan, you're at the fecking wind-up. We don't agree on Elton, that's fine...no WTF's needed :p |
| musicland munich 20.02.2017 11:46 |
Queenzone is so full of .... these days. Elton John' s superb vocals on Album "Victim of Love" not mentioned yet ? Love the album for somewhat reasons. It's a sleeper :) |
| mike hunt 20.02.2017 14:25 |
Queenzone, land of the idiots! Actually, the Internet in general. |
| waunakonor 21.02.2017 00:28 |
Wait, does dysan actually think that Elton John was a bad singer? |
| thomasquinn 32989 21.02.2017 05:54 |
I think you need to distinguish between two things: the quality of his voice itself (timbre, volume, balance of harmonics - the same things that make a high C sound different on a trumpet than on a violin) and the technical skills (range, clarity, smooth transition between registers, phrasing and delivery, etc. - the things that distinguish, say, Eruption played by Eddie van Halen and Eruption played by me). Put together those two different sets of factors make a singer great, terrible or anything in between. I think David Bowie would score very high on the technical skills aspects, and extremely high on the smooth transition between registers and range in general. The quality of his voice itself seems to be another story - I don't think he had a 'good' voice by classical standards, but the way he made use of what he had was simply phenomenal. In many ways, I think his technical skills were superior to Freddie's, although the quality of his voice itself was undoubtedly inferior. |
| Costa86 21.02.2017 06:04 |
Sheer Brass Neck wrote: Roger Taylor once said that he was pissed off that it was easy to pass Freddie off as the guy going "day oh" in stadiums, whilst forgetting that he was a fabulous musician whose piano playing was inimitable in the rock world.So true. Freddie's piano playing has been underrated, perhaps because he himself underrated it. But I always found that, as a rock musician, he was very talented on the piano. Maybe because I have a soft spot for rock songs which start out with a piano segment. E.g. G n'R's November Rain - the live in Toyko version from 1992 is phenomenal, although Axl didn't do all the piano bits himself. |
| Sebastian 21.02.2017 08:31 |
Costa86 wrote: although Axl didn't do all the piano bits himself.Didn't he? |
| Mark_Glasgow 22.02.2017 10:26 |
Freddie was the best frontman of them all and had the best voice. I find Bowie personally very hit and miss and at times takes himself wayyy to seriously....George was good but not on the same level as those two, although he had a better voice than Bowie.. And as for Elton John.....well he did beat all three of them put together in his prime when you look at record sales alone, especially in the US, and in the 70s he was also a great entertainer with a decent voice. All of them will be remembered as up there with the best. |
| Costa86 22.02.2017 10:44 |
Sebastian wrote:link at 3:35 isn't that someone else playing?Costa86 wrote: although Axl didn't do all the piano bits himself.Didn't he? |
| Sebastian 23.02.2017 06:26 |
Dizzy's playing synthesisers, not piano. Axl did all the piano bits. |
| Costa86 23.02.2017 07:06 |
Ah, got it. |
| Daburcor? 26.02.2017 09:15 |
Anyone who can consistently turn in shit like this is a great singer in my book, theory be damned: link |