Peter Hammill vs Jon Anderson

boo boo wrote: 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.

I agree a singer doesn't have to have a beautiful voice. For instance I listen to a lot of extreme metal, and the singers can sound really harsh. I think Jon Anderson has much more power than Hammill, though.

boo boo wrote: (how in the heck did this comparison come to be anyway?

It comes from a debate that a friend and I had. I probably should've mentioned that in the initial post.

LiquidEternity wrote: I'm surprised Petey's way ahead here. I love the guy, and he's way, way ahead of that weak little Anderson, but I figured Yes had enough hardcore fans to win any poll involving the band in any way.

Me too. I thought PH would be massacred in this poll, but I'm pleasantly surprised.

PH is one of my favorite Prog vocalists ever!!

progkidjoel wrote: Anderson has an amazing voice, whilst for me, Hammil sounds incredibly melodramatic in an really forced and unenjoyable way 90% of the time.

Perhaps we should start a poll with Peter Hammill & Toby Driver! They would be much more compatible for comparing. I feel like Driver is doing now what everybody thinks Hammill was doing back then... only Driver makes it work with music!

The only reason I haven't started a poll like this, is because I can't stand watching Toby take a beating like that!


Edited by Anderson III - May 23 2010 at 02:13

boo boo wrote: Again, I'm not denying that Gabriel has a far superior octave range. But you can't ask Jon to do something that for him is physically impossible.   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.

I didn't say there is.  But I do have trouble understanding how Jon is supposed to be one of the most accomplished singers in prog.  I didn't call into question your preference because you are entitled to yours as I am to mine.

boo boo wrote:   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.

Er, I didn't mean it THAT literally.   I am talking about like how on Dancing with the Moonlit Knight,  Gabriel starts off somewhere in the middle, then goes low on "By the POUND", then high on "Dance my lord".  There's nowhere near so much variation in Jon's singing.  Which could be got over - because range is not such an important criterion - but then he also sings so flatly.

boo boo wrote:   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.

You are wrong. There is an excellent cover of Holy Diver on the tribute album with a near dead-on Dio impression. Ray Gillen nailed the Dio songs too in his all too brief stint with Sabbath. A singer can be mimicked to a large extent especially if people decide that is an end in itself for them but Dio's style was very original and his projection of personality distinct and unmistakable when he arrived on the scene, that's what makes him legendary.  Tate was to an extent foreshadowed by Halford and Bruce which is why I wouldn't put him in the same category as Dio but he certainly has a distinct style. When you call him generic, you are referring to the myriad power/heavy metal bands ever since that have singers trying to sing like Tate.

Morrison had very little range and really only sang in two modes, crooning and screaming. But he sings with power and has a very hyponotic allure in his voice that can make even his most silly lyrics sound haunting and effective, and he could build up the tension in a way very few singers could hope to achieve. His style is very different from Jon so he's not the best example I could have used. A better example would have been Ian Curtis of Joy Division or David Gilmour and Rick Wright, or even Randy Newman, as they sing in a very reserved way and don't use a lot of vocal tricks and instead solely rely on the uniqueness of their voices. 

Edited by boo boo - May 23 2010 at 00:51

boo boo wrote: For me the tone of the voice is more important than the technique. Ian and the two Peters are more technically skilled but save Gabriel I prefer Jon (though much love to Hammill and Anderson), I don't think singing that isn't very emotive equals dull singing because sometimes the voice does everything that needs to be done,  I think that's the case with Jon. And yes the quality of a voice in terms of how it sounds and how aesthetically pleasing it is is a purely subjective thing.