Top 5 vocals

^How do you know this?

i just saw "tapfret" says in the previous page that let's admit that james labrie is horrible ,. and i must say
that he is one of my least favourite singers of all time!!
but in the same time i love him in "scenes from a memory" and "images and words" other than that i can't bear another DT album!!
anyone feels like me out there??

Snow Dog wrote: Dunno. Just always presumed it was Neil having ago. After all why shouldn't he? I f it was common knowledge I missed it. This is brand new info.

I guess you're right, it isn't necessarily given that it had to be Geddy. But there it is.

And btw, I think it's a cool spoof and it doesn't spoil the song at all for me. Quite the opposite. Maybe it's because I don't like rap in general.

Cheers!


Edited by Capt Fongsby - February 20 2012 at 10:39

Tim Buckley

Capt Fongsby is right; they've confirmed in interviews that Geddy did the rap, though I can't think of any off the top of my head besides the ones he quoted.  I actually used to think it was Alex for some reason.  They lowered the pitch of his voice on the track, and if you raise the pitch you can hear him loud and clear: 

So something like Meshuggah or Zorn's Moonchild Trio play child's level music because the vocalists scream? That makes sense.

Your question doesn't make sense which is why nobody answered it.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: So something like Meshuggah or Zorn's Moonchild Trio play child's level music because the vocalists scream? That makes sense. Your question doesn't make sense which is why nobody answered it.

dennismoore wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dennismoore, Coming from the perspective of someone who once hated harsh vocals and then grew to appreciate them, I think it's important to realize that growls/harsh vocals are one component of the music and don't define an entire artist/piece. There's a difference between "noise music" and noise in music.  Add to that the fact that harsh vocals aren't just noise; because they are made by a human voice, they can have quite a bit of emotional clout.  Portraying negative emotions in music can help listeners to restrain those emotions in real life and keep them in their proper bounds and proper direction.  This happens when the listener puts himself in the place of the performer and relates to his emotions, and it's called catharsis.  Also, harsh vocals can function as a kind of percussion; think of them as melodic percussion, in that they flow like a melody but have a percussive timbre. With regards to the debate over modern era vs. the old days, it was neither better nor worse back then than it is now.  Each age has its own joys and sorrows, conveniences and challenges.  Technological advances have, in ways, made life better, but they also have pitfalls, including the way in which they encourage individualistic thinking.  It's chronological snobbery to try and elevate one era as better than another. Hi Ambient Hurricanes,   Yes, I do think you have something with the catharsis theory. I know two very educated IT professionals with very stressful work and while at one time they enjoyed more classical music-prog, they now listen to this most hateful & screaming rock that is played at a child's level musicially.  To each his own and these two people are obviously quite happy with their current choices in music.   You wrote about chronological snobbery.. that would be perhaps for example, arguing the 50s & 60s.  An Elvis or a BeachBoys thing.  What is happening now compared to the glory days of prog in the 1970s is a real lack of talent.  This is not my opinion. It is from a long interview with a guy called Rick Wakman who plays an instrument and has made a few records.  He said, and we'll need to dig up the actual quoute... that today's record industry does not care about promoting talented musicians, he mentions one Fraser Thorneycroft-Smith. Mr. Wakeman called him the next Eric Clapton, and said the world will never know because the music business is not about promoting talented musicians now.   I am not breaking new ground here.   Oh and nobody answered my question: but I guess by today's standards for singers then in fact:   Tiny Tim was indeed a great singer!   Cheers,   DM

dennismoore wrote:   He said, and we'll need to dig up the actual quoute... that today's record industry does not care about promoting talented musicians, he mentions one Fraser Thorneycroft-Smith. Mr. Wakeman called him the next Eric Clapton, and said the world will never know because the music business is not about promoting talented musicians now.   I am not breaking new ground here.

Perhaps, your last line there holds the key to your own question?  Now, I have not heard of this guitarist that you say Wakeman called the next Clapton so my answer is purely hypothetical.  But do tell me what is so exciting about the next Clapton in the 21st century?  Since the birth of Krautrock, emphasis has shifted gradually to rhythm, texture and ambience as the conventional functions of melody and harmony reached their logical conclusion in rock.   There is a reason why a Ralf Florian or a Brian Eno are considered revolutionary with regard to popular music.   So, really, the next Clapton....might well be old hat?   Who's the next Johnny Greenwood?  Would so want to hear, pretty please.  I am exaggerating, I would love to see a good blues guitarist in concert but what does it offer to me at all as a new studio experience.

In a nutshell, perhaps some talented musicians don't get encouragement because they have not kept pace with the changing flavours of music?  There may still be some of those who deserved recognition and were denied but that's nothing new.  The only musicians from the 60s and the 70s, practically, that we talk about are those who got to record something that fetched decent sales.  There must have been so many others who never got beyond a few gigs for no fault of their own.  At least, today they can use the internet and social media to spread word about them and get some local following even if they never hit the bigtime.   

rogerthat wrote: dennismoore wrote:   Rick Wakeman said,... that today's record industry does not care about promoting talented musicians, he mentions one Fraser Thorneycroft-Smith. Mr. Wakeman called him the next Eric Clapton, and said the world will never know because the music business is not about promoting talented musicians now.     Perhaps, your last line there holds the key to your own question?  Now, I have not heard of this guitarist that you say Wakeman called the next Clapton so my answer is purely hypothetical.  But do tell me what is so exciting about the next Clapton in the 21st century?