Yeah, that's right.

pflower metal

I know the concepts of "singing" and "being able to play their instruments" are completely foreign to you, but there's no reason to be scared of them.

Kk bro whatever you say

everyone shut up im trying to music

I posted that the qualifying trait of a good singer is the ability to hit every note all the time. That is a fact; mastery of whatever instrument you play is necessary to be considered "good". I posted that its possible to enjoy someone's voice, despite them not being a good singer; also fact. I posted that Quorthon can't sing, as he can't hit notes. Fact. I posted that Rob Halford, despite me not enjoying his voice, can hit notes and can therefore sing. Fact. I posted that a **** guitarist can have a good tone, despite playing horrendously. Another fact. I posted that a person with a mastery of the instrument can, conversely, have a crappy tone. Yet another fact. Did you even read my post? Also, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I posted live examples of Rob Halford earlier in the thread totally disproving you. He can sing, when he is modfied with studio magic. Otherwise he is tonedeaf.

And regardless, singing is not so much about technical skill as about feel and evocativeness. Ozzy Osbourne was not technically able to hit every note back in the day, but his chill, haunting voice is part of what makes Black Sabbath, Paranoid, Master of Reality, Vol 4 so good. Likewise, Bruce Dickinson is classically trained I believe, and can hit 99 percent of notes he hits. But his voice is annoying and ****. You are wrong.

Everyone sounds like **** on live recordings, and everyone has off nights. Especially when sobriety is unlikely. You really didn't disprove anything.

I listened to a live album of a rush show I saw once

once

Exactly. It's not "studio magic" which makes people sound good on studio albums, its the ability to take multiple takes. And its not limited to vocalists, either. No one's perfect, but people who can't achieve a good take in a studio are truly terrible. Like Quorthon.

Untrue. Its more accurate than judging by studio recordings, where vocal layering and doing 100 takes is the norm.

This is untrue as well. There is plenty of editing that happens in post-production of live recordings. Yes, you don't have a bunch of takes to get it "perfect" but there is still a lot of editing that gets done to make live recordings sound good.

Also, you are making generalizations about studio recordings. Some singers do need a lot of help to get them there so they sound good. But some singers, like David Bowie, would sing songs in 1-2 takes without much altering of his voice. 100 takes is far from the norm for vocal recordings, and this is from somebody who has done production. It comes down to if you're working with quality musicians or not. If you're working with a good group, they know what they want it to sound like and they come prepared to perform. Bad groups take longer because they just aren't as good at their craft. While studios do provide being able to correct imperfections, you can't take poop and polish it into gold. If they can't sing from the start no amount of magic is going to fix them.

I'm not being any more pompous than you are, just less butthurt. And my comment about people with half a brain was a sarcastic jab at ko (sorry bb), not you.

Shadow: Im not talking about live albums, but bootleg live recordings. Audience-recorded stuff that has NO altering done to it whatsoever. It is the most genuine way to gauge a singer's voice.

Will: Im not being pompous. I'm defending a (frankly, talented even if you disagree) band I enjoy from ignorant musings of those with obvious biases against most of the music I listen to. Singing is more than technical skill. Quite frankly it only plays a small part actually, as I stated above. Youre just being a dick for the sake of it and I dont find it amusing at all.

How is an audience recording the best seeing that the low quality of consumer recording equipment will not capture the sound accurately. On top of this no microphone can literally replicate a sound perfectly so it will always be altered in some way.

I'm being a dick because I'm right. You don't understand it, but you just agreed with me. Singing is more than technical skill, but technical skill is still a large part of it. Which is why I've stated three times now that a person with a mastery of an instrument can still have awful tone. But in order to call someone a "good singer", they have to be able to hit notes. More power to you for enjoying someone who's voice you enjoy, but it does not, under any circumstances, make them a good singer. Like my enjoyment of Bob Dylan and Neil Young (for the second goddamn time). You need both technical ability AND a good tone. Someone who just has good tone is **** lazy. Since this is the 3rd time I've said most this, I have to assume you're being obtuse for the sake of trolling.

What Quorthon lacks in technical skill, he makes up for in an evocative, chilling, touching voice, that contributes greatly to the atmosphere and on the whole, BENEFITS the song. He may miss the occasional note but that does NOT make him a bad singer, and that does NOT make you right. You're missing the forest for the trees.

You should rethink your views on singing, especially considering between us two, I am more of a vocalist anyways.