I love that performance of A Plague of Light-House Keepers off the Godbluff DVD, though.  My favorite part was when Hammill maniacally banged the piano during "The Clot Thickens".

Netflix.

 

Iván

Hammill is a better singer technically I guess but I prefer Jon, alto singers are pretty darn rare and his voice is a big part of what makes Yes a unique band. His voice has gotten a little weaker with age but still, I'm not sold on that Benoit guy, it's not Yes without Jon, ok, Drama was excellent, but Horn just kinda sounded like Jon,  he didn't really imitate him.

 

Hammill is more emotive, and he uses those kinda vocals to excellent effect, but he dominates his music while Anderson uses his voice like just another instrument in the band. And it's pretty rare that the singer is the most underrated member of a band but in Jon's case that's especially true.

 

rogerthat wrote: No contest, Hammill by miles, Jon is one of the most boring singers I have had to bear with (because Yes are so awesome), in and outside of prog.

 

I have NEVER understood how people can love a band while saying they can't stand the vocals.  Especially because the vocal harmonies are a very important part of Yes.

i go with god :]

 

Hammill can be pretty hammy but it's often in a way that's quite entertaining and suitable to the music.

 

People rag on Jon for not emoting, but that isn't true, on some songs he really does pour it out but a lot of times being a "powerhouse" isn't his goal at all. He doesn't write "personal" songs nor does he really use his voice as a lead instrument but rather just another instrument that interplays with everything else. And like every other member of the group he has moments where he shines. I can't imagine Heart of the Sunrise or And You And I or Revealing Science of God or Onward being sung by anyone else, no, I can't have any of that nonsense.

 

And to say he's not even an important member of the band is absolutely ridiculous, considering how many great Yes songs (or great sections from Yes songs) were written solely by him, his greatest contribution is the songwriting and I have absolutely no doubt that he's the best songwriter in the group, and I'd say Sunhillow is the best solo effort of any Yes member. That's not to say Wakeman, Howe or Squire aren't great songwriters as they have some great solo stuff of their own. But I think Sunhillow comes the closest to actually sounding like a Yes album, not that it really does, it's pretty unique.

 

So because Jon won't be involved with the upcoming Yes album my expectations are very low.

 

Unless it's an "A Capella" track, I don't see the problem neither.

 

I love the composition of every pre Going for the One and Drama album (well maybe Tales not), the instrumental performance of guys like Howe, Bruford, Squire, White, Moraz Wakemsn, Kaye, etc.

 

But simply can't stand Jon Andersons voice, too acute and IMHO with no work or technique, I use to compare him with David Surkamp, who sounds like Geddy Lee with helium, but the guy exploits his timbre and with technique adds a vibratto very similar to Edith Piaff.

 

Jon just throws his voice, and his lyrics are terrible.

 

I can't stand that.

 

Iván

 

I don't even find any vibratto in Jon's voice, it's just so flat. IHe sounds well in the most rocking tracks as "Your's is no Disgrace", because the instruments cover him, but if Relayer wasn't that great, I wouldn't even listen it because Soon.

 

And his solo work..........I have just rated Olias with one star.

 

But even worst, when Jon came to Lima as soloist, I left the concert after 30 minutes, only done this one time before when Genesis started to sing Illegal Alien.

 

Iván

 

I never got why people hate Jon's lyrics so much, it's nothing really obnoxious or stupid or anything, they're really too abstract and cryptic for me to have an opinion on them, but I like that I don't really know what the hell he's singing about because that adds a mystery to it and allows me to imagine what a Yes song is about by letting the music speak to myself, I get my own visualizations of the music without it being ruined by some typical rock lyrics about generic love and sex topics. Radiohead are the same way.

 

Personally I think Jon's lyrics were just fine until they started being you know, coherent, like on Tormato. He should have stuck to his abstract style because that way I can't tell if they're really banal or not. I don't think his lyrics are really that pretentious, because having read about his inspiration for the lyrics on CTTE and Tales he really takes that stuff to heart and because I have't read Siddhartha or Autobiography of a Yoga I can't really critique his grasping of the concepts explored in those works, I doubt most people who criticize his lyrics have read them either. I know it's a cliche thing to say but I really think it's a text example of people loving to bash things they simply don't understand.

 

Also, he indeeed uses vibrato but not too often. Really, isn't vibrato just a cheap trick for singers to sound "emotional" anyway? Jon isn't trying to impress anybody with his singing. I think for his kinda voice it's best to keep it reserved and not to try and sing like most rock singers and be aggressive. Because then he'd probably sound like freaking Bon Scott or something.

 

I also think it's very unfair to say his vocals have no technique, he doesn't have an opera singers voice but he makes the best of what he has. I think it was David Byrne who said that the better a singer someone is the harder it is to believe what they're saying.

 

 

Really? I have never seen that anywhere. He's sorely underrated if anything.

 

Personally I don't care how technically accomplished he is or isn't, many of my favorite singers are not of the technicallly accomplished variety.

 

boo boo wrote: Personally I don't care how technically accomplished he is or isn't, many of my favorite singers are not of the technicallly accomplished variety.

Yes, but I/we were not talking about you!

 

David Byrne and Jim Morrison can't sing like Steve Perry or Geoff Tate, but I find the former to have way more interesting voices. I'm not really impressed by very technical singers who come off as generic and American Idol-ish.

 

I think Jon makes up for his limitations but knowing what they are and finding a way around that. I can't really think of a band with better vocal harmonies than Yes, save The Beatles and Beach Boys of course.

 

boo boo wrote: David Byrne and Jim Morrison can't sing like Steve Perry or Geoff Tate, but I find the former to have way more interesting voices. I'm not really impressed by very technical singers who come off as generic and American Idol-ish.

That is all fine but technical accomplishment isn't about preferences, it is an objective thing. I don't know why you are debating this when you say you did not make assertions about Jon's technical prowess, I am just saying he is not all that accomplished.

 

boo boo wrote: I think Jon makes up for his limitations but knowing what they are and finding a way around that. I can't really think of a band with better vocal harmonies than Yes, save The Beatles and Beach Boys of course.

Er, Queen? Gentle Giant? And if you are talking of Beach Boys, how about ABBA?

Personally I don't give a darn about lyrics in general, I have never really anaylized any of Jon's lyrics because I'm not one to anaylize lyrics really, below average or even terrible lyrics (unless it's like Insane Clown Posse level or something) really doesn't ruin the listening experience for me if the music works.

 

 

That's a matter of taste Boo Boo,. I can't stand so extremely acute voices without real emotion, take Gabriel, in Musical Box ending, it's really breathtaking or when he sings Supper's Ready:

 

God, that's emotion, and the lyrics help´, because he's shouting that the Lord is coming and you believe it, the guy is pure emotion.

 

 

boo boo wrote: David Byrne and Jim Morrison can't sing like Steve Perry or Geoff Tate, but I find the former to have way more interesting voices. I'm not really impressed by very technical singers who come off as generic and American Idol-ish.

 

Well, Jim Morrison had one of the best voices I ever heard, guys like him or Greg Lake, don't require a great dose of technique, because heir range is so good, that vcan't get better.

 

BTW: When talking of technique, I'm not talking about over acted American Ido contestants (most of which don't have a great technique, by the contrary, they abuse of he extreme ranges to impress), I'm talking about guys who have a limited range, but use their weakness in the benefirt of the msic, already talked about David Surkamp from Pavlov's Dog, when he sings Julia, the guy has an horrendous voice and extremely acute, but that vibratto llows him to be unique, even when Pavlov's Dog was a great band, withou Surkamp (probably their weakest link), they would be just one more melodic Prog band with nothing special.

 

Or Peter Gabriel, is not a secret he's not comfortable with high ranges, so when he doesn't reach a note, he makes that unique semi yodel like in Biko (Sounds like a cry of pain) or In the Cage (The yodelling is a scream of terror and claustrophobia tha makes the listener feel trapped in the cave.

 

boo boo wrote: I think Jon makes up for his limitations but knowing what they are and finding a way around that. I can't really think of a band with better vocal harmonies than Yes, save The Beatles and Beach Boys of course

 

Hmm..What about:

boo boo wrote: I'd much rather listen to great, exciting music with banal lyrics than really boring, generic music with great lyrics.

 

It's not that I don't like powerful and emotive singing (check avatar) but it's not the only way to sing.

 

Also I prefer the harmonies of Yes to the bands you mentioned though Genesis and Queen have great harmonies as well, as do the other bands you listed. Another band I think has excellent harmonies is Gentle Giant, I know you're not a fan of them.

 

And no I don't think Dio is "American idol-ish" in the slightest, indeed he had one of the most effective voices in metal, he's great on a technical level of course but that's not what makes him a legendary singer, it's that nobody really sounds like him, even though god knows how many metal singers have tried.

 

I'm not saying emotive singers are "American Idol-ish hams", I'm saying that emotive, technically gifted singers WITHOUT a very interesting voice come off that way to me. Tate doesn't really have a unique or interesting voice to me but I can understand that people feel differently. Everyone's ears work differently.

 

Jon DOES sing in different pitches, of course his octave range is very limited so it's always gonna sound distinctly Jon, again the guy has no control over the voice he was born with and he makes the best of his limitations.

 

My biggest complaint about the new guy is that he doesnt change his register at all and sings in the highest register on every part of every Yes song even when Jon sang in a lower register. And that really does ruin some of the songs for me. And it comes to show that Jon is not as disposable as you (and apparrently the band) seem to think.

 

The big difference is that Gabriel's range suits what HE does because he plays a wide variety of characters, which is NOT what Jon does. Jon doesn't even try to do what Gabriel does. Jon uses stream of conciousness lyrics and the way he sings is somewhat similar to chanting, he doesn't attempt the kind of theatrics that Gabriel is such a pro at. It's a completely different style of singing and there's not really much of a point in comparing the two. You prefer one style over the other and that's understandable. But there's no objectively "correct" way to sing. Everybody has their own method.

Oh c'mon, everyone knew Hammill was gonna get more votes, I certainly did.

 

Hammill is very good but one thing that he and Jon have in common (how in the heck did this comparison come to be anyway?) is that they are certainly not for all tastes, Hammill's approach is very similar to Roger Waters but while he's technically a better singer I prefer Waters, because when Waters' voice snarls and aches it comes off as much more sincere (like he really DOES have problems) and with Hammill it's more theatrical and show-bizzy. Nothing wrong with that, but I certainly understand why it turns people off.

 

As for what Anderson III said, Hammill's "ugly" vocals is a bit part of his appeal to me, a lot of great singers don't have "pretty" voices, though Hammill's voice can be either really pretty or really "ugly" and he often goes back and forth between his soft and loud voice in a lot of songs and that makes him really exciting and unpredictable, so he's the closest thing to a prog Jim Morrison in that respect. He has more of an edge to him than other prog vocalists that makes him a bit more rock n roll so it's no wonder VDGG are one of the few prog bands to actually have influence on punk rock.

 

Mainly I think a great singer can either have a lot of power (Hammill) or a very unique and interesting voice (Anderson) but he doesn't have to have both.

Aren't you the one that said this site is Symphonic biased on another thread?

 

Jon plays in one of the most popular Symphnic bands, Peter Hammill plays in a respected but weird Eclectic band.

 

Due to the large number of Yes fans, I honestly believed Jo would win.And by far.

 

Iván 

 

You have a picture of Fripp for your avatar. Can you even begin to imagine Jon Anderson singing "Disengage"? It's the best tune on Exposure; in fact, Hammill's singing is the most powerful thing about that album (which is a great disc, by the way). Fripp is one of Hammill's biggest fans and loves his singing, and I agree with him on that opinion.

 

Jon Anderson is okay (I've got all the old Yes albums and used to love them) but as far as lyrics and vocal versatility go, there's no comparison. It's Hammill (for me, anyway).

 

 

Just what I was going to say except worded better...!

It is rather hard to perform the right queries on Jon Anderson or Peter Hammill since much has been written about them here on PA, but you can http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55740 - click here to view the poll.

 

Certainly I respect that you like JA better, and I think the majority of the planet would agree with you! Otherwise, VdGG would have been a lot more successful (I've tried to turn several people onto VdGG over the years and, while they liked the music enough, they couldn't get past his vocals, at least the gruffness from Godbluff on [people are generally okay with the earlier, less harsh Hammill style]).

 

But you used the word 'power' and, even if you hate the sound of his voice, there's no denying that PH can belt it out stronger and in a way that JA (and, indeed, most singers) could never hope to match. Hammill has inspired, and can more than match, the best of several classic heavy metal and punk legends (Bruce Dickenson from Iron Maiden, Rob Halford from J. Priest, etc). Doesn't mean that you'll like the sound of it, but there's no denying the balls-out raw power behind it (I can't imagine JA, or Peter Gabriel, Ian Anderson, etc, singing any of the harsher songs on Nadir's Big Chance or Vital - if you're not familiar with those albums, don't get them as you'll probably loathe them, but rest assured that 'power' is not something lacking in those albums). In no way is Jon Anderson a more 'powerful' singer than Peter Hammill, unless your using the word to describe your experience of listening to JA, i.e. a 'powerful' experience.