Not "best"; not "favorite."  Rather, which singer has the greatest vocal control and expressiveness overall?  It's my poll, and I deliberately left out a number of important voices in order to narrow the field.

I am guessing this will require some thought.  At very least, I expect it to be difficult for those who do not have a foregone favorite.  It was near impossible for me.  (My choice forthcoming.)

Peace.

I voted for Peter Gabriel, his kinda theatre-like vocals have a lot of expressiveness. I think Hammil might come close, but i don't have that many of his records, cant really tell. Same for Fish, his vocals on script are great.

The other two (ian anderson and greg lake) have beautiful voices and are great vocalists, but their vocal style doesn't really fit that well to the question, i think they belong into another group.

No doubt in my mind

Fish is my number one, Gabriel is a good second. the rest I wouldn't consider for top 20 or so

I narrowed it down to Peter Gabriel or Fish.

Fish it is!

Peter Gabriel, the guy always transmits the message to the audience, that's being expressive.

About vocal control, Peter is one of the few musicians that has made an advantage from one of his weaker points, he doesn't reach too high ranges, so he started to use that semi yodelling that he made famous and gained in dramatism (In the Cage is a good example I always will use).

Listen Battle for the Epping Forest, the guy does more than 10 different voices and even dialogues with himself.

Ian Anderson goes for the second place.

Iván

I also have voted for Peter Hammill (with double "m", Maani ), because his voice is the most impressive and theatrical (the things I really prefer). Peter Gabriel comes the close 2nd.

But speaking about the favorite vocalist I'd vote for Yes's Jon Anderson...

Lake certainly sings with a high degree of passion - but that's not necessarily a good thing - Hammill can almost kill a song with the extremes of passion he tends to put in. Lake's voice has hallmarks of having been trained early in life - probably in a church or school choir (I don't know his background, that's just what it sounds like), and as a result, his consonant enunciation and vowel sounds are very good, from a technical perspective. His tuning is generally good (with one or two exceptions) - but overall, there's a "precious" aspect to his voice that leaves me cold, on the whole. Again, there are exceptions - ITCOTCK being just one. Lake does not seem to dramatise lyrics, or have a sense of the drama within the music - his feel is more for the drama of a show, which is a different thing. Vocal control = 7/10, Expressiveness = 6/10.

Anderson's voice is wild and shows no wish to be trained. By wild, I don't mean in the sense of Arthur Brown or The Legendary Stardust Cowboy, since it is also comparitatively restrained. What I mean is that he allows his voice to dance around the lyrics, taking on characterisations where necessary. His voice sounds absolutely absorbed in the music, and is an essential part of the "Tull" texture. Technique-wise, I have always found his voice a little "nasal" for my taste,  and, as a vocalist, I think he's a great flute player... Vocal control = (is this relevant to Ian??!!!) 5/10, Expressiveness = 8/10.

Hammill, as I mentioned earlier, tends to over express - fans would probably argue that this is a good thing - the sign of an impassioned performer, but I find it detracts from the music overall - which is a great pity, since VDGG produced some very fine music. He has a wide vocal range, but his control is subservient to the feeling he puts into the vocal lines. His voice has the hallmarks of some vocal training - possibly operatic, since he often uses vibrato as a colouring technique. Sometimes, though, when I consider the vocal melody along with the lyrics, I find the colouring a little excessive. Vocal control = 8/10, Expressiveness = 7/10 (he loses points for being overly expressive!).

Gabriel shows little sign of vocal training, as his voice tends to dance around the notes in a manner that doesn't convince me that it's entirely intended from a purely musical perspective.  However, from a dramatic perspective, he obviously gets the results he wants, so that shows a great deal of control. Here is the natural voice of a singer who simply enjoys what he does without taking it too seriously - and it shows. Gabriel sticks within the range he knows he has, only pushing the envelope at the top end, and allowing it to "crack" with emotion, without allowing it to get "precious". His vocal sounds are more varied even than Hammill's, as he gets into various characters to suit different songs or different sections of songs. Vocal control = 8/10, Expressiveness = 9/10.

Like Gabriel, Fish sounds self-taught. I'm not at all convinced that he modelled his sound on Gabriel, as I hear far more Hammill influence in the Fishy one. He expresses his lyrics almost perfectly - you couldn't imagine them being projected any other way - and uses a wide range of vocalisations. His voice has a tendency to sound "pinched" at the top - but so does Gabriel's - unless he moves into falsetto, which he does convincingly, without sounding like the Monty Python harpies. Fish's passion for very strong melodies requires a considerable amount of vocal control, which he delivers, and the quality of his lyrics  demands high attention to detail in expressiveness - which he pulls off perfectly. OK, nothing's perfect... Vocal control = 9/10, Expressiveness = 9/10.

Going for Ian Anderson...I've listened to his vocal lines and he can come out with a surprising flurry of notes, all right in key. If it's intentional, it's great control (if not, it still sounds good).

Gabriel's got second place- his vocal control isn't outstanding, but he's got a great stylistic range which helps with the expressiveness factor.

I don't know much Fish...sorry. From what I've heard he's got a good rock voice, but I don't remember being blown away by it in any respect.

Hammill...meh. He's got plenty of drama, like Gabriel, but without the yearning husky throat or musical aptitude to match it. Not much control but a lot of expressiveness...if you call overwrought melodrama expressive.

On the flip side, Lake has impressive control. I personally find his voice generally pleasant but expressionless, except when he feels he has to rock, and then it's just annoying and expressionless.

I tried hard to be objective. Really, I did.

James Lee wrote: I don't know much Fish...sorry. From what I've heard he's got a good rock voice, but I don't remember being blown away by it in any respect.

You are not really familiar with fish-era Marillion?

Fish is by far the better vocalist out of the choices.Rock voice? Nah,emotion and expression in spades and an ability to pull it off live too.A genuine superstar.

Peter Nicholls!

From the choices available I would probably go:

1 Peter Gabriel

2 Greg Lake

3 Pete Hammill

4 Ian Anderson

5 Fish

Reed Lover wrote: You are not really familiar with fish-era Marillion?

Not familiar enough to make an informed decision. I think I listened to Script once or twice, a decade or so ago. Not really my cup of tea...or should that be: not my kettle of fish?  

James Lee wrote: Reed Lover wrote: You are not really familiar with fish-era Marillion? Not familiar enough to make an informed decision. I think I listened to Script once or twice, a decade or so ago. Not really my cup of tea...or should that be: not my kettle of fish?

It's a taste worth the effort of acquiring, IMO

JrKASperov wrote: Peter Hammill does with his voice that Gabriel cannot: control. Gabriel often jumps with his voice, which is a clear sign of NO control. However, Hammill never does this, and he knows how to form his voice to more emotions and expressions.

Interesting, (I agree btw) but Hammill also does punk vocals well (Johnnie Rotten of the Sex Pistol, reportedly had Van Der Graaf down as one of his favourite bands.......), check out his live cover of the Strangler's Tank (backed by the Stranglers and Robert Fripp)

"Nadir's Big Chance" is a great expression of Hammill's "punk personality" - pre punk rock (1975), and is rumoured to be one of Mr Rotten's fave albums. It's not easy listening, that's for sure...

Voted Gabriel.

In rock or pop music of any kind I think its unrealistic to expect singers to be in tune all the time. Lets not get too prog snobby about this. Peter Gabriel and the like are rock singers, they are not opera singers. It doesn't matter if there's a few bum notes in there. I would much rather listern to PG than Jon Anderson, for example, who I would say is technically better than PG. Its not just that I prefer Genesis songs, its that I think Anderson sounds like a big girls blouse  Thats his style, I happen to prefer Gabriels.

  Ozzy Osbourne

________

Lunar

Dick Heath wrote: Sorry, as ever I'm going to be different. Francis Dunnery is my man., both when in It Bites (when at times, he could be the best Peter Gabriel sounding vocalist around ), and then his solo career. Sure he has taken his references from Gabriel and to a far lesser extent  Fish, but he has then extended the expressiveness of those guys  into a much broader range. Take a listen to his cover of Cat Stevens's Father & Son (ex. Long Tall Helicopter - in fact listen to whole album) for an excellent example of his power - makes that recent hit (which had to bring in Yoshif Mohammed in to save it) sound desperately poor.

 Dick. I also think Francis is the most original Pete Gab sounding vocalist, he developed indeed a unique style that distinguishes him from other Gab-clones (Peter Nichols, Fish, the guy who sings in Citizen Cain). Moreover, he is also one of the best Holdsworth-influenced guitarist.

All:

Thanks for your responses.  All very well thought out and reasoned.  Good cases are being made for all the singers.

After a great deal of angst - to say nothing of repeated listenings to numerous albums - I found myself voting for Anderson, with Gabriel a very close second (Fish third, Hammill fourth, Lake fifth - for which threefates is gonna hand my head to me! ).

Anderson's vocal control is almost frightening.  Setting aside "expressiveness" for a moment, he can do things with his voice that are truly amazing - almost "operatic" - in the sense of breath control, trills, rolls, etc.  I have rarely heard the "bum note" from him, even when he is doing difficult "dips and turns" with his voice.  And even with his occasionally strange, and often nasal, voice, he enunciates better than anyone else in the field (with the possible exception of Lake): I never have trouble making out the lyrics, even if I am not following along with them.  This is not true of Gabriel, Fish or Hammill, who all mumble or elide occasionally (and not just for effect).

Re "expressiveness," here I was torn between Anderson and Gabriel.  In fact, I think Gabriel may have a slight edge, but that his edge is increased by the overall expressiveness of Genesis' music vis-a-vis Tull's; i.e., Anderson and Gabriel may be equally expressive, but since Genesis' music is, on the whole, more expressive than JT's, Gabriel comes out ahead by a hair.  Still, Anderson is equal to the task, if "expressiveness" includes not only vocal inflection and emotion, but the voice - timbre, range, etc. - being most appropriate for the music itself.  In this regard, I think Anderson's voice is just a tad more suited for Tull than Gabriel's is for Genesis.  (After all, Genesis went on to record with Collins on vocals, and did very well, even if Collins is no Gabriel.  Can you imagine anyone being able to handle JT's vocals properly with Anderson gone?...)

So, in the words of the "caller": It's Anderson in the lead, with Gabriel back by a nose.  Fish is coming up fast from behind, with Hammill and Lake neck and neck along the rail.  Photo finish?

Peace.

P.S.  Emperor: I only caught the error (Hamill) after I posted, and one cannot edit the poll itself.  I also realized I had forgotten to include the question!

maani wrote: So, in the words of the "caller": It's Anderson in the lead, with Gabriel back by a nose.  Fish is coming up fast from behind, with Hammill and Lake neck and neck along the rail.  Photo finish?

Missed opportunity there Maani for a few piscotorial puns - which one of the five is now hard of herring, but has come in in first plaice........................ etc. A sort of codded message but I won't carp (he said with a breaming smile).

Towards the end of the Under Wraps tour, Ian Anderson developed a serious throat problem which forced the band to cancel some later tour dates. The ailment affected Ian's voice permanently, and the band entered a three-year period of rest, punctuated only by the releases of the "greatest hits" album Original Masters and David Palmer's A Classic Case, a symphonic interpretation of Tull's music with Ian and Martin playing on some tracks.

I also remember reading something about throat cancer or something somewhere too, and that was more recent.

Jim:

You are correct: I should have made it clear that we were discussing studio vocals only.  That said, all of the five have had their "off" concerts; I'm not sure Anderson is alone in this regard.

utah man:

I agree with you re Italian prog vocalists, particularly Alberto Piras, who may be the single most amazing vocalist in prog (though many have a hard time with his crazy, screaming operatic voice - in Latin, no less...one either loves him or hates him...).  However, why stop there?  There are Scandinavian, Eastern European, South American, even Japanese prog vocalists who have exceptional voices.  As noted, I kept the field "close" deliberately.

Thanks again to all and sundry, both present and future.

Peace.

Hangedman wrote: I think as a singer i have to say peter hammil is (this is my opinion) the best singer in almost all respects to ever be in rock and roll. My favourite is gabriel but hammil is better as far as im concerned. I dont know why people are voting for fish that much, i mean fish is great (really great) but ive always found him to be gabriel lite... hmm maybe i should check out moreo f his solo material.

I would think Hammill-lite rather than Gabriel-lite - Fish's style is so much more evocative of PH than PG. This is totally apparent on the "Fish-era" Marillion albums

There's nothing about Fish's voice that makes me think PG - or lite, come to think of it!

Man Erg wrote: Hammill Soothing and scary often in the same line of verse.

Yes, that demands the largest amount of control from a vocalist. Hammill does it better than any other one in this poll... and in a bolder manner, too.

Regards. 

I don't know if this is correct in musical terms, but voice control IMO is about using the strong aspects of the voice and learning how to deal with the weak ones and has almost nothing to do with having a a great or an average voice.

That's the reason why I voted for Peter Gabriel, I really don't believe he has a great voice, he sounds raspy and has serious problems with the high ranges, but he learned how to deal with the problem, as I mentioned before the semi yodeling at the end of a word is a great way to cover his weak spot without avoiding high rages, but adding more dramatism and emotion instead.

Phil Collins is a good singer (Not vocalist), has a nice voice for the soft stuff  but has a lot of troubles when trying to do the harder parts or change the voice,  there are Gabriel songs that he never (Or at the most one time) dared to do on stage, like Battle for the Epping Forest (Because too many different modulations of voice are required) or Dancing with the Moonlit Knight, because that acapella section is too hard for a guy that sings in one and only range.

When Gabriel had to give emotion he changed the voice to adapt to the circumstances, Collins only shouted, listen the difference between the two endings of The Musical Box, Gabriel transmits desperation and or some form of lust and Collins only rises his voice, the best example is Mama, the noises he makes are frustrating for me.

In the cases when Collins tried to sing Gabriel tracks like Willows Farm on Supper's Ready (Seconds Out) it was really disappointing, he noticed he couldn't impersonate more than one character and tried to replace the different modulations with funny voices (Which are not funny), in his version of The Lamb in the same album he has to repeat words to avoid reaching parts where he can't get, like singing And the lamb lies down (down down down) instead of making the only "Down" last longer, what simply annoys me.

That’s why I voted for him as the vocalist with best voice control, even when there are guys like Lake or Wetton with much better natural voice.

Iván

Peter Hammill has both the greatest range and the greatest control of any of the vocalists mentioned in the poll, and if anything his voice seems to improve with age.

Peter Gabriel's attempts at working class accents on Genesis songs like 'The Battle of Epping Forest' or 'Get 'em out by Friday' sound extremely unconvincing to me - rather like Sting's embarassing attempts to sound 'black' in the early days of The Police. However, he's more than made up for it since (Gabriel, not Sting).

Peter Gabriel's attempts at working class accents on Genesis songs like 'The Battle of Epping Forest' or 'Get 'em out by Friday' sound extremely unconvincing to me

I partially agree about the accent in Get' em Out by Friday, not his best song for sure, but remember what a job he did in The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, hesounded very convincing as a Puerto Rican/New Yorker. I read he had to work very hard to get rid of his British accent to sing in that album. 

Iván

utah_man wrote: The Italian prog musicians have had a unique ability to maintain a high level of vocal quality even with the "newer" groups like Deus Ex Machina. Their correct usage of vibrato is a case in point Alberto Piras - Deus Ex Machina

Without a doubt this guy is the absolute best.

Ivan makes a strong an convincing case for Gabriel, but I surprised myself and went for Fish.

Fish to me is not a great singer. His solo album "Songs from the mirror" shows just how poor he is when he covers other people's songs. When he's performing his own material (solo or Marillion) though, his control and expresiveness is unique. He disguises the shortcomings in his singing ability by relying entirely on those qualities.

He lacks the ability to impose those qualities on other people songs, as they are not personal to him. I suspect when Fish writes his lyrics, he is already considering how he will perform them, and searching for words which will complement the emotion he wishes to convey. Sometimes, this can lead to the lyrics becoming trite but more often than not, it works well.

There are many better singers than Fish, but that is not the question here, is it?

Certif1ed wrote: Considering Maani's points, I'm very tempted to re-assess Ian Anderson's control, as his voice is not only sensitive to, but leads and colours the music overall. I'll have to re-listen to my Tull albums, as I'm not convinced by all of the technical points Manni raises...

I'm not certain that Ian's control was formally taught...he is so un-forced in his delivery that I suspect his vocal prowess is raw natural gift plus years of 'on the job training'. Although I wouldn't be surprised to find out he served time in a church choir...any Tull biography folks out there to confirm?

James Lee wrote:  Although I wouldn't be surprised to find out he served time in a church choir...

 My God you could be on to him. Hymn 43 indeed!

Captain Fudge wrote: ROBERT PLANT, RIGHT???????????????

That's so obvious he needs no mention in a poll.