They’re just discussing technical skill at the moment. Discussing one doesn’t invalidate the other or make it all about one over the other, and I don’t think it makes sense to say that technical skill must never be discussed in the context of rock singers.

I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree with the premise. My point, which I didn’t make at all well, is that a great rock singer can and will sacrifice “good mechanics” to achieve what IMO is the real goal of rock singing — to move an audience and make them feel something. It’s one of the most free, soul satisfying thing about rock music. (Um, unless one’s soul is totally satisfied by the technical aspects of singing, and I totally get if that’s true. I’m a geek too.

My problem with this sort of analysis is that the data samples will always be suspect because of the overarching goals of rock singing that blow past the technical aspects of singing to get to the soul. They’ll be skewed because many singers, within the context of whatever song is being analyzed, weren’t trying to be good technical singers, they were trying to be a great rock singers.

tiger92:

Did you look at the rest of the list? Do these singers not seem like rock singers to you?

Yes, I did. And no, not all of them. : )

lucy:

But you seldom hear anybody remark that technical prowess is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging rock *instrumentalists,* for example, so I don’t see why it’s cringe-inducingly silly to discuss it with vocalists, too.

I agree, point taken about skill being a more common requirement for a great rock instrumentalist than for a rock vocalist (although just like for vocalists, there’s still wiggle room there for someone who is not as technically proficient but can still make great, passionate music versus a technically perfect but soulless instrumentalist no one wants to play with). However, I think that is the nature of rock music, which is so heavily instrumentally based, as opposed to opera or concert singing, which are all about the voice.

To me, a technically good rock singer can add to a great band’s sound, but a technically poor one won’t necessarily detract from it, if they make up for it in other, and IMO more critically important, ways. Which again brings me back around to the… oddness of judging a rock singer based on technique.

YMMV, and thank you all for the interesting discussion!

Thanks for the explanation. Since I have now heard both Adam and Aretha live I can say without a doubt that Aretha could blow Adam, Kris, Allison and Danny combined off the stage. And I’m not even saying that’s a good thing. It’s just that her voice is that powerful. And I saw her way past her prime. She’s like a phenom.

Yeah, she is. … She’s powerful, extremely emotional expressive, etc. But while she’s pretty high even on a lot of measures of the pure technical singing aspect, in those areas there are quite a few people who are probably better at various particular skills, including Adam. He and others definitely best her at register blending, for example. That’s not really her long suit.

Technical singing ability doesn’t make you a star, or original, or the greatest singer, however. Some great technical singers aren’t great *singers,* at all, while some people who don’t even make the top 1000 on “technical singing” are great great singers because of other aspects.

As far as quantity of work — Well, look at Jeff Buckley. He is (deservedly) high high high on virtually everybody’s list of great technical singers in pop, even though his body of work is quite small (tragically). So, no, you wouldn’t declare him one of the greatest singers, period. His body of work doesn’t prove that at all. But you only need a few songs to prove that he’s got the technical chops to be high that list.

And as far as it being dumb to discuss that on a rock board. Well, as I understand that board, they like music a lot and love dissecting it down to the tiniest barest bones, to make teensy distinctions between this singer and that, this band and that, and this song and that…..

Yeah, rock and pop music are much heavier on the passion side than they are on the technical side. But you seldom hear anybody remark that technical prowess is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging rock *instrumentalists,* for example, so I don’t see why it’s cringe-inducingly silly to discuss it with vocalists, too. After all, it *did* have something to do with why people like Freddie and Robert Plant are so widely respected and enjoyed, even if it was far from the whole reason. Some bands and soloists actually do get a lot of their success from being technically amazing and out there, whereas others get theirs for writing, and others get theirs from wild, out-of-control, technically imperfect passionate performances … and some get theirs through a great gimmick, like KISS. … All of it matters to somebody, I think.

Plus, in some cases — though certainly not in all — being a good technical singer helps you *be* more expressive and more versatile and sing more and longer, etc etc.

IMO, rock singing is about everything *except* mechanics. It’s about heart, soul, passion, sex, desire, hate, love, longing and roaring down the highway with the radio up and the top down, but it sure as hell isn’t about mechanics.

Did you look at the rest of the list? Do these singers not seem like rock singers to you? It’s interesting to look at the ORIGINAL top 100 singers and see how Adam came “roaring in” to take the number two spot! Adam seems to be in pretty good company!

Now if only people can respect each for their talent instead of putting down one to make the other seem better.

I respect talent. I don’t respect hyperbole or putting down other artists (including other idols) in my admiration for one particular idol. I don’t care for it this year or any other year. So, I agree with you on this point.

Who might likely to be more successful? A person the media raves about and excites people, or a person who the media is lukewarm to and does not excite people?

Well, there are people who the media is all over, who the public looks at with derision or thinks is a joke or maybe just finds interesting or a curiosity. There are also people the media rarely spends any time on — because they are just doing their job well and don’t do or say anything outlandish or controversial to attract the media — who are very, very successful. So, media “love” is not the best measure of worth in my opinion.

IMO, rock singing is about everything *except* mechanics. It’s about heart, soul, passion, sex, desire, hate, love, longing and roaring down the highway with the radio up and the top down, but it sure as hell isn’t about mechanics.

I don’t think that group is only interested in mechanics–they just happened to be discussing mechanics on that particular thread. And it takes nothing away from the fact that rock music is about heart, soul, insanity, etc., to have a discussion about the technical merits of rock singers for the interest of it. No one is saying that great rock singers must be technically great (many are not) or that technical skill makes a great singer (it doesn’t)–they’re just discussing technical skill at the moment. Discussing one doesn’t invalidate the other or make it all about one over the other, and I don’t think it makes sense to say that technical skill must never be discussed in the context of rock singers. People who are interested in singing like discussing different aspects of singing.

Incidentally, there are plenty of amazing rock singers who have little or no technical skill, but technical skill isn’t completely irrelevant to a discussion of some of the greatest rock vocalists of all times, such as Freddy Mercury. It’s not all that made him great by any stretch of the imagination, but it is part of what made his voice what it was.

…it has nothing to do with the emotional impact of the singer, but strictly the mechanics of singing.

I’m sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

If this group that was linked to in the comments is interested in “strictly the mechanics of singing” then why are they even discussing rock vocalists?

Their whole premise is ludicrous. A discussion about the mechanics of operatic* or concert singing singing? Sure. That makes sense.

IMO, rock singing is about everything *except* mechanics. It’s about heart, soul, passion, sex, desire, hate, love, longing and roaring down the highway with the radio up and the top down, but it sure as hell isn’t about mechanics. A dry dissection of the mechanics of rock singing is the ultimate in trivial, because it ignores what is most critical to making memorable rock music. IMO.

*Yes, operatic singing is also about passion etc., and not just about mechanics. But an operatic singer who is passionate but technically poor won’t thrive. A rock singer who is passionate (and a good writer and/or interpreter of music), even if technically poor, can shape culture and smash boundaries. Or even just rake in a fair amount of cash. But s/he can definitely succeed.

::hops off soap box::

But whatever, the few people disappointed he didn’t come out to sign for them aren’t the ones he should worry about, in the long run, they’re just a very small part of a very big picture.

mrjoezeeBUT maybe we will post a teaser video on @elle_com if you’re all good! Keep following and I will tweet details as I have them.
16 minutes ago from web

mrjoezeeOk, All AI fans. You are all so passionate (aka persistent) but article and pics won’t be out till Dec issue to time with their CD releases.
17 minutes ago from web

That was my attempt at sarcasm since I read a thread calling Adam a diva because he would rather spend time with his boytoy, while the other idols -who have family- are still out there signing.

I think the day the caca hit the twitter fan he wanted to spend time with his mother, Neil and old friends….(Newark day 2)

There is something to be said for positive thinking and putting positive thoughts out there. By having RedOne endorse Adam, it must make people think, hey, maybe there is something to watch here. If he says he good, he must be. Yeah, maybe expectations are high, but a lot of the music buying public just aint that bright. Hello, Britney? At least Adam has talent backing him.

If anything, I’m more worried about the press circuit with a dance/rock song. How’s that going to sound on Ellen or Leno?

Dance-rock can be done quite well live, but I understand what you mean. He can do what GaGa does and do stripped down versions of songs if she feels like it (or has fire shoot out of her bra if she is so inclined). Adam has shown he can do the stripped down version of a song, or go all out. I actually think his re-staging of Mad World on Top 2 night was brilliant in illustrating how he can perform songs differently as well.

Yeah, while it can all amount to nothing (and still, I don’t find what Adam says he is doing that out there as genre-defying albums have been dominating the more underground music scene for awhile and people describing their sound as all sorts of things has been happening in the mainstream a lot, especially the way Adam seems to be describing his), and I agree with the poster that Adam can be a huge AI failure or a major player (he seems to have quite the support to launch though, that’s fore sure), buzz isn’t meaningless. It may not translate into success, but it sure does help it. RedOne saying he went to Adam so he could work with him creates an industry hype since he is the current hitmaker that artists go to for hits (including other buzz artists in other countries, like Little Boots in the UK). It does a great job of starting it, even if it doesn’t reach everyone. But it’s a start.

Story on Kris on the Alexa Chung show with video.