I was listening to Please Dont Touch and thought it would have been better with just one lead singer. Then I thought of other albums with different lead singers on different tunes and think that they usually suffer for it. Lack of continuity... other thoughts?
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
I don't think it hurt the Stones or the Grateful Dead. Or the Beatles.
...Or the Beach Boys, or Peter Paul & Mary or Alice In Chains...
We're trying to build a monument to show that we were here
It won't be visible through the air
And there won't be any shade to cool the monument to prove that we were here. - Gene Parsons, 1973
Or Queen, Journey, The Cars, and The Who.Originally Posted by Facelift
Or King's X. Alan Parsons Project. Ambrosia. Utopia.
Page is blank, Dave.
The fact that there were multiple lead singers wasn't the issue. The issue was the fact that the Richie Havens was so much better than the Kansas guy.
Really? http://lpcoverlover.com/wp-content/u..._band_huge.jpg shows up for me even in your reply.
I see it. BTW I wouldn't go so far as to say Ritchie is better than Steve W. He's just awesome in a diametrically opposed way. I think that's what sets people off about them sharing an album. Prog rarely has soul, especially in the vocal department.
It's A Beautiful Day, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver MS, Chicago, Buffalo Springfield, CSN, Eagles.
I'll think of more.
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"
President Harry S. Truman
Sorry, Dave. It was blank the first time, but I see it now.
Not a favorite, but nobody mentioned kiss yet.
I think if you ask their fans, 9 out of 10 will only mention one lead singer of "the Stones, Queen and Journey"I didn't care for either song actually. The saving grace on that album is the title cut with the intro/segue. The rest of the album is hard to take.
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Deep Purple Burn still does pretty good things to my ears.
I got nothin' :
...avoiding any implication that I have ever entertained a cognizant thought.
live samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwbCFGbAtFc
https://youtu.be/AEE5OZXJioE
https://soundcloud.com/yodelgoat/yod...om-a-live-show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUe3YhCjy6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VOCJokzL_s
To get a bit more obscure, City Boy had two dedicated lead singers (three on some of their later albums). So did Shaa Khan. Most of the songs feature the singers singing together/alternately.
-------------
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
"Siento que debemos saber para el sueño de quién brillará esta luz
o consagrar una propia estrella" --Alberto Felici
N.P.:nothing
Styx, anyone?
Personally, I like the variety. It's what made me want to get more APP albums when I was getting into them as a teenager. Not every APP singer could've done every APP song nearly as well as the ones they chose.
Progtopia is a podcast devoted to interviewing progressive rock, metal, and electronic artists from the past and present, featuring their songs and exclusive interviews. Artists interviewed on the show have included Steve Hackett, Sound of Contact, Larry Fast, Circus Maximus, Anubis Gate, Spock's Beard, and many more. http://progtopia.podomatic.com See you in a land called Progtopia!
Pink Floyd
Absolutely agree. I think they did an excellent job mixing and matching, even if Alan Parsons wasn't a big fan of Eric Woolfson's. I always liked the songs he sang.
You could go with Tommy Shaw's other band, Damn Yankees. Or, Shaw's bandmate Jack Blades and Night Ranger. You could also go with The Cars.
There are a lot of good modern bands that use multiple lead singers to great effect. Lacuna Coil, Nightwish, The Reasoning, Kontrust, Amaranthe. Probably could come up with more.
Dead Can Dance, Steeleye Span
There's nowt so queer as folk
Fleetwood Mac.
Wilton Said... , Toronto Art Rock.
http://www.wiltonsaid.com
That might be true of The Stones or Journey, but actual Queen fans know that Brian and Roger did their share of lead vocals. I don't consider people who only own the greatest hits albums are only know the two or three songs that get played the most on the radio to be "fans".
Oh, and in the case of The Stones, I definitely think letting Keith sing lead was a bad idea. I just don't think he has a good voice for it.
Other bands where I think multiple lead vocalists worked rather well:
Hawkwind (Dave Brock and varying combinations of Bridget Wishart, Nik Turner, Harvey Bainbridge, Huw Lloyd-Langton, Bob Calvert, Alan Davey, etc)
Yes (I liked Trevor Rabin and Jon Anderson swapping back and forth on 90125, Big Generator and Talk)
The Who (always wished they had done more of Entwistle's songs in concert)
The Church (typically it's Steve Kilbey who does the lead vocals, but Marty Willson-Piper has song a few lead vocals on their records, and I think Peter Koppes has done a couple here and there)
Camel (I guess Latimer was more or less the designated lead vocalist, but I like Doug Ferguson's lead vocal on Another Night)
And of course Pink Floyd alternated lead vocals between Gilmour, Waters, and Wright, and that worked really well, and as has been mentioned, it worked great for the Grateful Dead too.
Echolyn, and Heart.
But the context you gave was whether or not songs sung by different singers interrupts the flow of an *album.* To that end, I don't think that the Keith songs interrupt the flow of any of the Stones albums on which they appear. I can't speak for Queen or Journey, because I don't listen to that stuff.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks