Sign In: or Sign Up! (forgotten password?)
Drowned in Sound

Do singers need to be able to sing?

I've just been listening to NME Hype Band #29484 Black Kids, and I wanted to like them, but I just find the singer's voice really weedy and tuneless. (On an amusing side note, I pointed this out in a comment to a youtube video of them and was met by some very creative abuse... http://uk.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=pmzUnkW_yKw)

But anyway, I would have said that it's fairly important that the lead singer in a band can sing, another example would be the fact that I can't stand Black Grape/Happy Mondays

On the other hand, Jeff Mangum can't really sing especially well, but that doesn't really detract from the brilliance of In The Aeroplane Over The Sea

Discuss?

Schadenfreude | 09 Jul '08, 13:23 | Send note | Report this | Reply



  • ...

    Yes. Because every band with a singer who can't sing is shit. ESPECIALLY The Fall.

    Stealthy | 9 Jul '08, 13:27 | Reply

  • No - but...

    If the singer really can't sing for toffee then no matter how good the band is musically, listening to them is going to be hard work.

    And I name...
    The Twang
    Embrace
    Dinosaur Jr (sorry everyone)
    Coldplay (!!!) - Chris Martin has the world's weediest voice!

    badgertastic | 9 Jul '08, 13:28 | Reply

  • No

    Joe Strummer
    Shame Macgowan
    Jello Biafra
    Joey Ramone
    Tom Waits
    Ozzy
    Lemmy
    Terry Hall

    Need I go on?

    GingerNinja | 9 Jul '08, 13:32 | Reply

  • there are no set rules

    I can't sing but I do. Here is one thing that is kind of a fact though: As much as I love well played instruments i.e., guitars, drums, keyboards and all the rest- nothing trumps a good singer. It's an unwritten law of music.

    rue_the_day | 9 Jul '08, 13:36 | Reply

  • power of no vocals

    who needs singers?

    Hex_Breaker | 9 Jul '08, 13:45 | Reply

  • everyone seems to be conflating

    there are lots of ways in which a singer can be called 'bad' such as:

    1) 'weedy' voice - no projection or personality (Chris MArtin? J Mascis)

    2) tunelessness - see Ian Brown live e.g!

    3) Difficult or gravelly voice (Tom Waits)

    Obviously there is no right or wrong as to whether these voices make a band 'bad' but not all the 'bad' voices discussed fall into the same camp. Personally I love the vocals on Meanwhile Back in Communist Russia and she just speaks them, doesn't sing at all...

    MrScagdenSir | 9 Jul '08, 13:50 | Reply

  • Obviously comes down to your opinion but also the style of music.

    There's quite a lot of music I like where the singer can't sing (and I'm in a band and sure as fuck can't sing but have had some decent reviews regardless) but it obviously does limit what you can do a bit - however much you like the Stone Roses Ian Brown's voice would only work on those kind of songs and Mark E Smith's voice is fine in an abrasive band like the Fall but if he wanted to do soul or ballads it wouldn't work (or it'd work in a certain way - i.e. how Shane McGowan's singing in a Rainy Night in Soho gives a vulnerability to the song that might not be there in the hands of a perfect singer)

    Also I personally far prefer committed or full-throated vocalists who can't sing than weedy or half-hearted vocalists who can't sing.

    theguywithnousername | 9 Jul '08, 13:54 | Reply

  • "All my favourite singers couldn't sing"

    sings Mr Berman, and he'd know. In conclusion: depends, dunnit.

    usa_nails | 9 Jul '08, 14:07 | Reply

  • I don't think so

    a lot of bands I like have singers who you might describe as not being able to sing, Arcade Fire and Win Butler, Modest Mouse and Isaac Brock.

    Jack_El_Biscuit | 9 Jul '08, 14:13 | Reply

  • LOL

    douche

    shrewbie | 9 Jul '08, 16:34 | Reply

  • If it fits the song...

    it doesn't matter.

    I can think of countless bands whose music would lose some, if not all of what makes them special if the singer sounded like a perfectly trained singer with a great range and perfect pitch.

    At the moment my impression is it is almost a bad thing to try and sing well.

    Is it because it doesn't sound "cool" to sing clearly?

    Just seems there are far, far fewer wannabe Jeff Buckleys than wannabe Joey Ramones these days and I am curious as to why people don't aspire to play the stage-school kids and x-factor finalists at their own game, using a conventionally 'good' voice to make interesting and powerful music as opposed to pop-ballad drivel.

    pizz101 | 9 Jul '08, 16:45 | Reply

  • erm

    I'm currently listening to and massively enjoying Algernon Cadwallader. So I guess that makes the answer a resounding NO.

    OceanStorm | 9 Jul '08, 17:09 | Reply

  • Jeff Mangum

    can fucking sing.
    (Know what you meant though.)

    BoyNamedTim | 9 Jul '08, 17:13 | Reply

    • ^ this

      Has a pair of lungs on him.

      I suppose there's a difference between being a good singer for certain purposes and a conventionally good singer.

      I know quite a few people who can't get into Neutral Milk Hotel purely because of his voice. I call them "wankers".

      ntwbf | 9 Jul '08, 19:02 | Reply

  • I don't think the (presumably mad) geezer who does

    'War (What Is It Good For)' in the karaoke in my local every week using one note and one note only should front a band.

    Actually I hadn't quite thought that one through. If I found him a drum machine I bet he'd be in Artrocker being hailed as an avant-garde sensation a couple of months down the line.

    Arfur | 9 Jul '08, 17:14 | Reply

  • Not in the conventional sense

    But bands should have a vocalist with a strong vocal identity who takes their singing seriously. Otherwise they tend to come across as bland.

    Trey | 9 Jul '08, 18:17 | Reply

  • A good voice does vastly, vastly improve a band.

    More so than a good instrumentalist. I think someone further up pretty much said the same thing, sorry.

    supersonic | 9 Jul '08, 18:43 | Reply