7.14.17 QAL St Paul, Minnesota
Jul 17, 2017 9:02:45 GMT -5
Post by rihannsu on Jul 17, 2017 9:02:45 GMT -5
I quoted you but erased everything for length.
I think I haven't really communicated my peeve very well. My issue is with saying that a "rock" voice in the first place has to have this gritty sound. So much of what is held up by fans as authentic "rock" vocals is just people literally destroying their instruments. That's like saying that to be an authentic rock musician you have to destroy your guitar on stage every performance. Yes, I know there are musicians who destroyed their instruments on stage but pretty much every case I know of was initially fueled by anger then replicated with cheap knock off instruments.
I'm talking about the frustration of people who have actually argued to me that for instance someone like Bob Dylan wouldn't be just as authentic if he had happened to have a trained and actually pleasant voice. The logic is a bit ridiculous. In the first place the "rock" genre as a whole was not originally defined by the vocals. I would think that very few music genres are defined primarily by the vocals of the singers when those genres came in to being. Rather the vocals took a back seat to the musicians. I have heard many rock bands, even famous ones like U2 talk about vocals don't matter and some even say lyrics don't matter. That what makes a rock song great is in the music itself. For my own personal taste I prefer meaningful lyrics and good vocals but that is not really the driving force in the rock genre. Being a top rock frontman isn't primarily about vocals but rather about showmanship. The Beatles didn't have gritty voices, nor did Elvis for the most part. At the time the "rock" genre was being formed the popular music vocal quality was more in the line of crooners. When did this convention that a "rock" voice had to have grit emerge? It was more in response to who actually became famous and successful and often because by the time a band became successful their singer had destroyed their voice. Or in the case of the late 60's and 70's so much drinking, smoking and drugs went along with rock music that even those that may have started with good voices sounded like crap.
I think that fans not being able to feel emotion from a voice without the singer destroying their instrument is the reason we have so many popular singers having major vocal injuries. I'm not the only one feeling that way as I've read several articles on how that is a factor. Along with the rigors of touring without taking proper care of the voices. It makes me sick to see singers derided for taking care of their voices and holding up as examples people who have destroyed their voices throughout their career or through drink, drugs, smoking and hard living. Should Aerosmith have all remained drug addicts since their creative peak seemed to be during the years when they were all on drugs? I would have a problem with fans who felt that way as well. This need for artists to destroy themselves in order for their art to be deemed worthy is sick. It's something we as fans can change and should change. We should not require artists to destroy themselves in order to entertain us.
I think I haven't really communicated my peeve very well. My issue is with saying that a "rock" voice in the first place has to have this gritty sound. So much of what is held up by fans as authentic "rock" vocals is just people literally destroying their instruments. That's like saying that to be an authentic rock musician you have to destroy your guitar on stage every performance. Yes, I know there are musicians who destroyed their instruments on stage but pretty much every case I know of was initially fueled by anger then replicated with cheap knock off instruments.
I'm talking about the frustration of people who have actually argued to me that for instance someone like Bob Dylan wouldn't be just as authentic if he had happened to have a trained and actually pleasant voice. The logic is a bit ridiculous. In the first place the "rock" genre as a whole was not originally defined by the vocals. I would think that very few music genres are defined primarily by the vocals of the singers when those genres came in to being. Rather the vocals took a back seat to the musicians. I have heard many rock bands, even famous ones like U2 talk about vocals don't matter and some even say lyrics don't matter. That what makes a rock song great is in the music itself. For my own personal taste I prefer meaningful lyrics and good vocals but that is not really the driving force in the rock genre. Being a top rock frontman isn't primarily about vocals but rather about showmanship. The Beatles didn't have gritty voices, nor did Elvis for the most part. At the time the "rock" genre was being formed the popular music vocal quality was more in the line of crooners. When did this convention that a "rock" voice had to have grit emerge? It was more in response to who actually became famous and successful and often because by the time a band became successful their singer had destroyed their voice. Or in the case of the late 60's and 70's so much drinking, smoking and drugs went along with rock music that even those that may have started with good voices sounded like crap.
I think that fans not being able to feel emotion from a voice without the singer destroying their instrument is the reason we have so many popular singers having major vocal injuries. I'm not the only one feeling that way as I've read several articles on how that is a factor. Along with the rigors of touring without taking proper care of the voices. It makes me sick to see singers derided for taking care of their voices and holding up as examples people who have destroyed their voices throughout their career or through drink, drugs, smoking and hard living. Should Aerosmith have all remained drug addicts since their creative peak seemed to be during the years when they were all on drugs? I would have a problem with fans who felt that way as well. This need for artists to destroy themselves in order for their art to be deemed worthy is sick. It's something we as fans can change and should change. We should not require artists to destroy themselves in order to entertain us.