What bands are extremely famous, but their vocalists aren’t particularly known for their great technique?

Submitted by kriisso t3_z8s3sq in Music

The Red hot chili peppers are my favorite band, but I think they could get a spot in this list. When I read about why some people don’t like them, the reason is often that they think Anthony’s vocals ruin the instrumentals. While of course his voice doesn’t ruin the songs for me (I wouldn’t listen to them so much if it did), I do prefer a few of instrumentals to the OG versions. Overall, he’s often criticized for his singing, but the peppers are still going strong. Any other examples of this?

4

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Chelular07 t1_iycxc6n wrote

Corey Taylor from slipknot has an amazing vocal range, but is mostly known for his growly slipknot vocals.

Editing to add I just realized this is the opposite of what you were saying.

1

Wiseguy899 t1_iycxv20 wrote

Van Halen w/ David Lee Roth.

He was exactly what that band needed as a frontman, but vocal technique wasn't a high priority.

12

LLCoolDave82 t1_iycz04x wrote

Roger Daltrey/The Who

Mick Jagger/the Rolling Stones

0

-MurphysDad- t1_iyczkvz wrote

Oasis neither brother is a great singer but it suited the sound perfectly

4

[deleted] t1_iyczkzd wrote

Ride (not extremely but popular)

0

salt_23 t1_iyd02aw wrote

Dave Mustaine/Megadeth

17

amazingmikeyc t1_iyd0cb7 wrote

Loads, it's why they call them Vocalists not singers!

3

avalonfogdweller t1_iyd0hl6 wrote

The Pogues, Shane sounds like an obnoxious drunk on most of their songs but dammit it works

1

Adon1kam t1_iyd0pqh wrote

If you look up the video of the first time the killers played Mr Brightside live, I truely can not say this with any more emphasis, it is fucking awful. But truely good for them for turning it into legit queen levels of recognition

3

whoadwoadie t1_iyd0uc3 wrote

Limp Bizkit. If you stretch extremely famous to “big for a couple years in the UK,” Stone Roses

2

[deleted] t1_iyd1ect wrote

RHCP. He good though. Oh, and The Grateful Dead.

2

kriisso OP t1_iyd1m2e wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#806,876)

Yess, I’m listening to the Slane live performance at the moment though and he did amazing! I don’t think I have what it takes to determine if he was doing a great job in detail but I like it lots

0

real_horse_magic t1_iyd2qj7 wrote

Stephen Malkmus from Pavement

Kim Gordon from Sonic Youth

2

Anonra23 t1_iyd33y3 wrote

I stopped reading after “the Red Hot Chili Peppers are my favorite band.”

0

ToxicAdamm t1_iyd81k0 wrote

Replying to Wiseguy899 (#805,712)

I listened to a Roth interview a decade ago and he explained how he grew up on Jazz music. Oftentimes, jazz ensembles would have vocalists that would riff over the beats (known as Scat).

With that context, his vocal stylings made perfect sense.

3

helpless_emoji t1_iydbtt5 wrote

Mastodon Though they made a good decision by making Brann their third lead vocalist, and Troy shows signs of improvement, they still have a long way to go.

1

latinoresiste t1_iydc5dq wrote

Deftones.

Motorhead.

Pretty much every single punk band..

The prodigy.

Marilyn Manson.

1

KODO5555 t1_iydcg6c wrote

Ozzy. But no one else would sound right.

3

EveSixxx t1_iydfbxi wrote

Blink 182 - Mark and Tom are what they need to be for a pop-punk outfit, no one will ever say (or really shouldn’t say) that they have incredible vocal chops.

3

Anonra23 t1_iydmwkk wrote

Replying to chubberbunner (#809,501)

Does it matter? There’s a lot of bands and music that I like. I don’t care for rhcp. Their music is boring. They seem to think that they have to touch every fret on their instruments and the songs sound like they want to fall asleep.

−5

chubberbunner t1_iydpgsy wrote

Replying to Anonra23 (#813,740)

I fully agree that they are boring as hell. I think we should still let people enjoy them and be able to talk about it lol… btw my favorite band is Coheed and Cambria. Are you a fan by chance?

2

the-grand-falloon t1_iydq99l wrote

Some of these, it's hard to say, because it can be chalked up to "that's exactly what they're going for." Someone mentioned Marilyn Manson, who... I don't know if anyone would call him a "great" singer, but his vocals are absolutely part of his draw. He basically has a selection of voices (abrasive singing, screaming, deep croak, falsetto, hissing whisper) and he changes between them like it's a separate instrument.

I'd put Bob Dylan in that same boat. There's a folksy charm to his voice that's absolutely part of his schtick, but I'm in the camp that says the best version of a Bob Dylan song is when it's by someone else.

My submission would be Cake (dunno if they're still famous. Remember Going the Distance?). There were a number of bands in the 90s who didn't really sing, they kinda talked their way through their songs. Soul Coughing was another one. I liked them well enough, probably because I could actually understand what they were saying. I just hope the singers were also playing an instrument, because everyone else was working real hard.

0

aredditpseudonym t1_iydqmaf wrote

So your question implies that the vocalists have a great technique, but aren’t particularly known for said technique?

Hard call! Bon Scott maybe? He had an outstanding technique, but I think the general opinion emphasizes more on his output than his chops.

3

oxfordfox20 t1_iydrmwq wrote

Replying to whoadwoadie (#806,683)

It’s a bold move to question the legitimacy of the Stone Roses while without so much as a line break giving the green light to Limp Bizkit.

If their fame was in dispute though, the shitness of Ian Brown’s voice definitely gives them a place at the top table of this group…

2

kriisso OP t1_iydsmrn wrote

Replying to aredditpseudonym (#814,939)

When you put it like that, it does sound like it. I should’ve worded myself properly because what I meant was that the singers’ technique is not that great and/or often criticized… but the question you answered is actually way more interesting lol

2

kriisso OP t1_iydt4xd wrote

Replying to Anonra23 (#813,740)

I’m going to have to disagree because some songs might feel like lullabies but some are the complete opposite, but I can see why anyone wouldn’t like them, it doesn’t matter. It’s the same as me not liking… any band. However I don’t think that means you get to judge what I like? As if they’re the only band I listen to… I listen to way more artists 🥴I have my own reasons to like rhcp as well, and they do go way beyond music.

That wasn’t even the point of the post btw

0

whoadwoadie t1_iydu37r wrote

Replying to oxfordfox20 (#815,268)

Absolutely fair in terms of quality: love that first album. As the question was just for “extremely famous,” Stone Roses was big at the time but has just the one album while Bizkit is forever notorious with two separate albums that sold at least twice the Stone Roses’ entire discography, so they’re probably the more famous froup

2

syialb04 t1_iydw651 wrote

Replying to salt_23 (#806,428)

He isn't the most technically gifted vocalist out there. But damn check out that really long held note/scream he does at the start of "Loved To Deth" off of their debut album! I love his vocals personally. His vocals are perfect for what Megadeth does.

2

syialb04 t1_iydwghd wrote

Ozzy in Black Sabbath. Not the most technical vocalist/best singer out there. But he definitely did what he does amazingly with Black Sabbath.

1

Anonra23 t1_iydybsi wrote

Replying to kriisso (#815,738)

I mean for me it does matter. Your opinion about rhcp colors your opinion of what you were making. I was being a little trolly and jokey about it but it does mean fundamentally that we like and care about different music and I can’t relate with what you’re asking.

−1

mentyio t1_iyez28e wrote

I’d actually say tool but because Maynard James keenen has a softer sounding voice to my mind and it doesn’t fit as well with the aggressive sound they produce.

2

waltsmusic t1_iyfa4j4 wrote

I really don’t get this thread. Like none of these people are trying to be opera singers or whatever. In rock n’ roll music, singing is meant to sound unique and get across emotion. If you do that, then you are a “good singer”. Being a good singer has a different definition in rock or indie music than it does in classical or jazz or whatever.

Most of the people here are legends and perfectly convey emotion with a unique sound. That makes them “technically good” in that style. I really do understand that people can dislike particular, but that really should not be the same as calling unique innovators “bad singers”.

2

kriisso OP t1_iyfdc6f wrote

Replying to waltsmusic (#835,530)

Well I definitely get what you mean. The point of the post was mostly to see which singers might not be “technically” amazing at it, but are still appreciated and famous. In most cases if, as you said, the singing is unique and conveys emotion, I enjoy it lots.

2