Yes, an open discussion-how not to do it!

Sorry Balfriede but his voice brilliantly conveys the futility and terrible dangers in those great lyrics ably complemented by equally brilliant music.But it's all about our tastes and preferences and singing is my thing as opposed to instrumentalists who can through their abilities  become good/great/or virtuouso musicians.The voice is a God given gift and for me along with others I have mentioned Jon Anderson has given me treasures that I will always cherish

I have on occasions referred to Hammill as a God singer because of the range, power and dexterity and the rawness that only he can inject into vocals.Believe me Balfriede I have been in the Hammill camp for decades especially since I always used 'Stiil Life' as a vocal exercise when I was of a similar age; I have always raved about this man's awesome voice only to be shot down by friends who simply prefer other styles of music.I still cannot agree with you though on those perfect lines from the ' Gates of Delirium' Anderson is perfect and he was at that time still able to write lyrics that stimulated the listener and got over that hellish feeling of overwhelming danger.But such is the gift of such a great piece of music as 'Gates' and when he closes with the beauty of 'Soon' and the emotions therein.

Man, I could write pages!  A drummer turned me on to Yes around 1970 and found the first two LPs very intriguing.  Then the Yes LP came out and everyone I knew was listening to it.  Then fragile knocked everybody on their ass and CTTE was unbelievable.  There were hard core fans that would miss their own wedding to go to a concert.  Topographic was a religious experience for most of us although it did seem a bit over the top.  Then Relayer brought the focus back to the music and then Going for the one blew us all away with Awaken's signature Yes sound.  Many of us were also reveling in Squire's great Fish out of Water LP.  Then came Tormato and the spell was broken.  It just wasn't the same and they lost a lot of us at that point.  I tried Drama but it was mediocre at best.  Sorry to say that perhaps I just got too old to enjoy them anymore but I still find time to listen to the albums leading up to Tormato quite often.  Yes ruled the 70s for prog fans like myself and they are the soundtrack to a lot of great and not so great memories of my adventurous youth.

Certif1ed wrote: erlenst wrote: Well, I'll just point out something that is NOT a fact - you think Peter Gabriel has more range than Jon Anderson? And you are talking about their voices?? That is completely absurd.   No - it's true. Anderson can sing higher - but that does not equal his range. I don't think it - I can hear it. I have perfect pitch.

  You have perfect pitch Certified do you sing?You are of course correct about Jon beiing pitched higher but he also sounds better

Fragile wrote: Having seen both Fish solo and Fish with Marillion neither can hold a candle to Yes live as much as I love the Fish man. I prefer Fish. As for voices Anderson's uniqueness give his voice to my ears a purity that no one else even Greg Lake at his peak can match.. I find more purity in Thom Yorke's voice. As for range and diversity I cannot begin to argue with you as both men (Hammill and Gabriel) have more diverse voices in that they can stretch from one octave to the next two or three.Hammill's control is awesome. But that other stuff about adventurous leaps and decorations is way off. Why? Great vocal control is needed for decorations and leaps, and Jon Anderson hardly ever does either, compared to, say, Ian Anderson - the list can go on very easily. And who are the many others? Neither Fish nor Hammill can hit the emotions like on 'Soon' and 'Turn of the Century to name but a few. I think they both outdo Jon Anderson. There are too many others to list. In recent times, though, Thom Yorke and Matt Bellamy both outdo Mr Anderson easily. In my opinion. Taken from the official book of facts. Nah - still don't see any actual facts in there...

Mharo wrote: I really can't imagine how life would be having perfect pitch, the ability to comprehend instantly everything that's going on in a musical work. I'd love to have such a gift.

Trust me, it's as much a curse as it is a gift - imagine being able to hear every single note that's out of tune - especially if, like me, you love choral music and the only non-professional way to participate is by singing in amateur choirs with amateur orchestras...

Perfect pitch isn't the same as being able to understand everything that's going on in a musical work - you need significant training for that.

It simply allows you to identify any given pitch within a few Herz.

It doesn't apply to rhythm - hence I'm still quite bad at working out time signatures that aren't simple or compound time. It doesn't apply to form - you need to study music in microscopic depth to understand that. It doesn't apply to timbre either - you either like the sound of something or you don't - it's the most subjective part of music after melody, which perfect pitch only helps you to follow accurately - it doesn't help you to write it.

Fortunately, it does seem to apply to harmony - at least, my own version does  I can identify dense clusters of notes and rarely miss one.

But relative pitch can be learned, with practice and determination and little else - and it has much the same effect.

So you can, indeed, have such a gift, if you're dedicated enough to music

You're right - that is what I've been saying all along - I don't like JA 

Matt Bellamy sings for Muse and Thom Yorke sings for Radiohead, so you could say they're rock singers...

I know very well what differentiates a great natural singer from a fully trained singer and much prefer the latter. Give me Emma Kirkby over Janet Baker any day. Although I've "been through the mill", I've fiercely defended my "natural feel" for music over what people have tried to tell me to do - I value natural talent above articificiality, but even talent must be nurtured to fully realise it.

Every singer sings out of tune - trust me on this one.

 

 

Certif1ed wrote: Mharo wrote: I really can't imagine how life would be having perfect pitch, the ability to comprehend instantly everything that's going on in a musical work. I'd love to have such a gift. Trust me, it's as much a curse as it is a gift - imagine being able to hear every single note that's out of tune - especially if, like me, you love choral music and the only non-professional way to participate is by singing in amateur choirs with amateur orchestras... Perfect pitch isn't the same as being able to understand everything that's going on in a musical work - you need significant training for that. It simply allows you to identify any given pitch within a few Herz. It doesn't apply to rhythm - hence I'm still quite bad at working out time signatures that aren't simple or compound time. It doesn't apply to form - you need to study music in microscopic depth to understand that. It doesn't apply to timbre either - you either like the sound of something or you don't - it's the most subjective part of music after melody, which perfect pitch only helps you to follow accurately - it doesn't help you to write it. Fortunately, it does seem to apply to harmony - at least, my own version does  I can identify dense clusters of notes and rarely miss one. But relative pitch can be learned, with practice and determination and little else - and it has much the same effect. So you can, indeed, have such a gift, if you're dedicated enough to music

Recent studies have shown that even perfect pitch can be learned.

Right Cert we will have to disagree again those two are average Joes as singers.The Radiohead one is bamboozling I think he is very poor,I guess it has to be your ears after all

or doon the cludgy