I have been enjoying art rock type stuff like Beatles, TVU, Bowie, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, etc...

I have been enjoying art rock type stuff like Beatles, TVU, Bowie, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, etc. But why do they all have such awful singers? What is some art rock with actually talented singers?

Bowie should get a new singer

One of these things is not like the others

>Thom Yorke
>an awful singer
Pick one

listen to captain beefheart

But they aren’t..

He is though, he does nothing but that annoying sad sounding high pitched thing always with shitty enunciation. There's moments like Climb Up The Walls where he does that scream bit, but even that scream wasn't great. His not high pitched as fuck standard singing (a lot of which is on Pablo Honey) is pretty monotonous.
I wish he went beyond "Howlin Wolf but always acting obnoxious" in what I have heard from him cuz he obviously had talent.

men arent good singers

>The Beatles
>Bowie
>Bad Singers

I hate to see what you consider good singers.

what are you talking about. lou and nico sound fucking awesome. great singing does not only mean whitney houston lmao

>Thom Yorke
>Not a talented singer
What world you livng on bozo?

>bowie
>tom yorke
>the beatles
>bad singers
0/10 made me respond

Bowie is one of the best singers of all time

>subjective "vocal talent" affecting enjoyment of the album

listen to sulk by radiohead

Those are horrible opinions but maybe try the Doors

>I have been enjoying art rock type stuff like Beatles
>art rock
>Beatles

What a strange troll. Got your replies though.

I think the Beatles have decent vocals. John, Paul, and George could all carry a tune and them singing in harmony sounded pretty good to me. As for the rest, yeah, rock singers suck in general. Morissey's probably my favorite rock singer.

Patton has an amazing voice.

Listen to Mr. Bungle/Patton-era Faith No More

Wow, I can't believe these responses I have gotten. Like, you guys need to listen to more genres with actually talented vocalists. Listen to some of the best people in vocal jazz, R&B/Soul, Indian Classical music, some of the better opera singers out there, etc. Like note how much detail and emotion there is in their delivery due to how much vocal control they have. The guys I mentioned in the OP have weak delivery and can't do as many things with their vocals. Now I understand that what I posted in the OP isn't exactly vocally driven, but it's just weird for them to put so much work on a lot of other things then not have the vocals be as good as everything else.

Oh yeah I forgot he has like this crazy vocal range, right? Imma check him out.

Area - Arbeit Macht Frei

Listen to Tim Buckley

>Indian
>good singing

>implying getting that kind of vocal texture and doing that much vibrato or passing tone or w/e other techs they use doesn't take crazy amounts of skill

>crazy amounts of skill
>implying that's relevant

Those genres are totally different from what art rock is trying to achieve, though. Some of the appeal to art rock is the lack of what is traditionally considered “good” singing. Not exactly sure how you can criticize the Beatles’ singing though.

Spoken like someone who’s never listened to Indian music

Seconded

Roger Waters is not bad at all neither is John. but i know what ur sayin

The topic's literally about vocal talent, dude.
>Some of the appeal to art rock is the lack of what is traditionally considered “good” singing
I understand that, but that defense can only really arguably work for Thom because Radiohead's shit is meant to be sadboy depressing and shit as the other people just have pretty standard but boring vocal ability that isn't really doing anything particularly atmospheric.

If you consider Lou Reed or Lennon or Yorke bad singers it means you have shit taste, it means you think American Idol tier singers like Beyonce or Taylor Swift are good because they have the right "technique". You probably think Mariah Carey or Christina Aguilera are good musicians. So, rock music in general is not for you, stick to "r&b" and walmart christmas compilations and whatever trash Simon Cowell is producing

>Indian classical music
Spotted the pajeet.

>Beyonce
>Mariah
Yes
>other two
god no

Fuck off with your pretentious trash. You talk like the singers you're defending have these raw, crazy rock n roll vocals, but no they are boring as fuck. They don't have so much energy/rawness/craziness in their performance like Iggy Pop's crazier moments that their lack of technical ability is justified. No they are pretty monotonous instead.

Way to lay the fresh heat on em

>Paul McCartney is a bad vocalist because he doesn't sing Opera

You're a fucking retard.

That's...not what I said at all. Dude at least read a post before you respond to it in a frothing rage.

>Beyonce
>Mariah
>Yes
OK, why didn't you just say that right from the start? Time to pack it up boys

>being too musically illiterate to recognize talent regardless of genre
Yeah, gtfo dude

Hey faggot, nobody gives a FUCK about "technical ability", go back.

It's pretty clear that whatever you think "art rock" music is isn't for you. So why waste time? Keep enjoying Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston

Embarrassing temper tantrum ass post.
I obviously like the music, but wish there was more talented vocalists. Idk how this caused everyone to get so overtly triggered here.

>this guy actually thinks Mariah Carey is more talented than Bob Dylan or the Beatles
Holy shit imagine having this taste

Dylan has a terrible voice though. No single Beatle has a voice on the level of Mariah either. I didn't even mention Bob though, so I think you're just butthurt.

>Dylan has a terrible voice though. No single Beatle has a voice on the level of Mariah either.
Peak soy

The quality is supposed to be detached, sardonic, furious, cynical and impressionistic, not atmospheric. It is inherited from folk, music hall, cabaret, art singing, vaudeville and (more immediately) Bob Dylan, Anthony Newley and garage rock.
In the case of Bowie, Peter Noone (a good vocalist) did Oh You Pretty Things, which is pleasant but loses all of the meaning and just sounds like an artifact of the early 1970s charts. Life On Mars? is supposed to be a variation of Comme d'habitude/My Way (an incredibly successful song that Bowie applied to translate officially but was rejected) but while the latter is a nice song sung by impeccably great vocalists, it doesn't have the weight of Life on Mars? and has now slipped behind it in popularity.
Barbra Streisand covered Life on Mars? and it was utterly atrocious. Lulu's Man Who Sold the World is alright but it still loses something.
Every technically competent singer who sings these types of songs makes them sound worse most of the time. Iggy's interpretations of David's songs are great because he has the same approach and David was obviously highly influenced.
Granted, some vocalists like James Brown, Kate Bush or Prince can go inbetween the two sides of singing but it's rare (and for some, jarring)

Rock music is SUPPOSED to sound raw, the voice is meant to crack and sound hoarse and shit. That's the whole purpose of it, looks like you need to get some cock and balls and stop being so faggy worrying about perfect pitch and vibrato

I don't see how that one style can work for something as multi faceted as Bowie's music. You go through this crazy journey on Ziggy for example but on every track he's got that same exact tone.

Streisand's take on that song had many things wrong which were out of her control, and Lulu's aight.

I made this point earlier itt that these guys don't even have the raw rock n roll energy of someone like Iggy Pop. Like why don't you guys ever fucking read the topic before posting?

This sounds like a cliche but soul >>> technique. Someone like Bob Dylan might have a "terrible" voice technically speaking but he can express a billion times more emotional nuances in one song than Mariah Carey has done in her entire career. This isn't even subjective, it's not debatable. And you can bet your fucking ass Dylan has as much raw energy as Iggy Pop, just listen to any 66' bootleg. And anyway, why the fuck are you expecting Iggy tier screams in art rock? Your way of judging singing is embarrassing

None of this is even remotely true. Mariah's objectively got far more nuance in every way possible than Dylan's monotonous shlock since she has that level of vocal control to be able to deliver such nuance. This is like 14 year old lewronggeneration kid levels of cliche "soul" because you still have that immature belief that music on the poppier end can't do emotions.

I just did a quick skim through of Royal Albert Hall. Don't hear the as raw as Iggy bits.

>And anyway, why the fuck are you expecting Iggy tier screams in art rock?
It's rock music, that's why. You can still try to have layers of other instruments and colorful harmonic progressions while still being a bit raucous, no?

>Your way of judging singing is embarrassing
Eat a dick dude, at least I try to look at the actual qualities of the music itself rather than preconcieved notions. Like it only becomes obvious you and others keep wanting to mention Mariah itt because they look down on her and the music associated with her, because it's not in the generic western internet music fan canon or w/e the fuck. But you guys actually have no idea wtf you're talking about when it comes to her best stuff either. Just an immediate assumption that she's trash just cuz she's pop who's only considered good because of her vocal range nothing else.

To hear Bowie's range you need to dip into:
Station to Station (Stay, Wild Is the Wind)
Low
Scary Monsters
Fair amount of here-and-there tracks that are good. Let's Dance even had some good tracks!

LMAO kill yourself soyboy

>"""soul"""
>isn't even subjective

lol

Lou just likes doing a gay voice.

For an amateur with no musical training Nico has an excellent voice, she can even sustain a decent vibrato

...