Review, Scrutinize, Dissect a Band, Album etc.

[Galactus]

Yeah, some solos are good, though...most aren't.

[maarts]

Having seen Terry Bozzio playing solo-drums, seen Evelyn Glennie do nothing else but play solo-percussion instruments and many other fine examples on TV or video I can only vehemently disagree with you about the value of the drum solo.

It's an awesome sight to see a drummer go effortlessly through his (wide) arrangement of percussion, almost instinctively go crescendo/decrescendo, build up a sequence and throw different rhythm patterns out like it's as easy as buttering a sandwich. I couldn't do it and I respect a good drummer for the hours of work he/she puts into it. Just looking at many drummers during a gig beating the skins until they've squeezed out every drop of sweat makes me respect them even more.

[bowiglou]

unless there is a hypnotic melodious trance like emphasis a la VU or at times Wilco or maybe the Beatles on "I want you" (Abbey Road) or Bowie on the opening 1:37 on Sound and Vision, any solo > 1 minute qualifies as wankery......

[Kensterberg]

I would really like to have the name of this board changed ... I'm a pretty modest guy, and really not that comfortable with my name up in lights, so to speak. So maybe Mr. T will accomodate me in this ... especially since I argued so eloquently to get others to recognize his name-change from Melon to Mr. T.

Now ...

[Kensterberg]

Fingernails on a Chalkboard vs. Car Wheels on a Gravel Road

or, Why Robert Plant is an Annoying Eunoch and Bruce Springsteen is a Great Rock and Roll Vocalist.

I hate Robert Plant. OK, that's going a bit too far. I've never met the man, and his interviews all show him to be personable enough, and apparently quite a decent guy (at least that's the impression he gives more than twenty years removed from his "I am a golden god!" debauched hey-day). So I have no ill will for Mr. Plant personally. But his vocals, or to be more exact, his vocals as lead singer for Led Zeppelin, are enough to have me reaching for a shotgun. Imagine the sound of hundreds of fingernails being run down innumerable chalkboards, that's what Mr. Plant sounds like to my long suffering ears.

Robert Plant personifies a certain kind of rock vocal style, and quite frankly, if all rockers sang like Plant, I'd have nothing but jazz in my collection. The combination of macho posturing in his lyrics (and personna, both on and off-stage), and shrill tenor screaming drives me to change the station whenever Led Zeppelin appear. Plant's voice has no subtlety, no nuance, no emotional weight. It also sounds almost unnatural - a rock and roll Tiny Tim belting out falsetto machismo bluster, you can't make comedy like this up! Plant's approach to almost every performance is to sing as high, and/or as loud, as possible. He never exhibited much range, which isn't really surprising when you consider that it took his band two full records to find any volume setting other than "11," so it wasn't like he sounded out of place.

Plant's vocalisms are completely over the top, completely removed from any sort of worldly anchor. His mannerisms, his screams and moans, were sheer vocal histrionics for their own sake - vocal wanking at its worst (Plant was as showy as any soul diva, the difference is that his thin tenor lacks the technical appeal of a Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey). It's appropriate that his lyrics in Led Zep grew progressively more and more fruity as well, as the entire band floated off into an inebriated ether of their own making. Led Zeppelin took the blues, that earthiest and most rooted of all popular forms, and managed to separate it from everything that made the form so appealing, so naturally related to its audience. Led Zeppelin became a cartoon rendition of a blues-based rock band, and Plant's vocals were a prime ingredient in that mess.

In contrast, my favorite rock and roll singers are almost intrinsically rooted in everyday mannerisms, and seemingly naturally emote a much broader range of emotions than Plant ever assayed while in Led Zeppelin. While he's not my favorite vocalist, Bruce Springsteen represents a good representative of this style. Springsteen sings primarily in a medium tenor range, rarely pushing himself into falsetto. Unlike Plant, Springsteen's voice sounds much more natural, much less forced, and is far better suited to a greater stylistic range. On just his second record, the Boss covered everything from sweet ballads to tough, street-wise rock and roll, and never once sounded forced or mannered. Bruce's voice can be gruff, and particularly as he has gotten older, his voice has become more of a growl. But even this merely reflects the man's age and status, and his new material generally uses this to excellent advantage. (And unlike Bob Dylan, for example, Bruce can still sing his older songs without embarrasment). Throughout his career, Bruce has followed the Dylan model of making the most of what he has, and (virtually) all of his mannerisms are part of driving home the point of the particular song in question. The "sirs" that pepper his vocals in Nebraska, the wistful falsetto in the country-blues version of "Counting on a Miracle," the soulful moans of "I Wanna Marry You" and "Fade Away," these aren't mere affectations, they are part and parcel of what makes those songs such appealing and ultimately moving pieces.

Springsteen's singing is directly related to his speaking voice - something that was always obvious in concert, where Bruce would weave elaborate tales in the middle of his songs - and this further helps to ground his work in daily realities. This is a stark contrast to Plant, whose elaborate vocal mannerisms won't remind anyone of ordinary cadences of speach. Try to imagine Plant talking to the audience in his "stage voice" -- go ahead, I'll wait. Have you stopped laughing yet? Yeah, that's why Bruce is a great rock and roll singer, and Robert Plant isn't.

Rock and roll is the bastard child of the blues and country music, with a few strays mixed in for good measure. From these forms, it inherited the virtue of being a product of its audience, its life mixed with theirs. But when taken to an extreme, like Plant and Led Zeppelin, it loses that vital connection. It becomes something different, and, if I may say so, something less. It becomes a product, an entertainment that is given to the audience from on high - a gift from the "golden god," so to speak. When Bruce sings, it's the sound of his audience as well.

And here I am beginning to sound a familiar note to those of you who've known me for a long time. That unity of artist and audience is a large part of what I find so intoxicating about great rock and roll. Bruce has it, Plant doesn't. Just hearing that, I'm sure that many (most?) of you know what that means about my appraisal of each. So hopefully you now have some idea why Robert Plant is a vocal wanker, and a pretentious one at that! and Springsteen is a great rock and roll singer.

[Galactus]

That's a pretty long way to say "Springsteen can sing while Plant can't".

[Kensterberg]

ded said:

That's a pretty long way to say "Springsteen can sing while Plant can't".

Yep. Or, Plant's a wanker, Bruce isn't.

But Melon, erm, Mr.T was expecting a series of big long posts from me, and I just hate to disapoint people.

[kool]

Springsteen is, for the most part, a monotonous singer. Plant ain't. [or at least wasn't, until he lost his voice about 20 years ago]

[Galactus]

kool said:

Springsteen is, for the most part, a monotonous singer. Plant ain't. [or at least wasn't, until he lost his voice about 20 years ago]

Sounds like someone needs to listen to more Springsteen.

[kool]

I have Tunnel Of Love. I found it dirt cheap about a year ago, and since I've always liked "Brilliant Disguise" I decided to give it a shot. I do believe it's a fine record. But I really have no desire to check out his other stuff. It's a case of "if you've heard one, you've heard them all". The only advantage I'll give him over Plant is that he's a better lyricist. That's where it ends.

[Galactus]

Wow, it is so not a case of "if you've heard one you've heard them all" I understand how someone could feel Tunnel Of Love is kinda monotonous but you can't use it to represent his whole catalouge. Seriously check out Born To Run or better yet check out Live At Hammersmith. I really can't see anyone listening to Hammersmith and thyere be any question as to why Bruce is a better singer...and front man for that matter.

[Galactus]

They both have fairly limited range as singers I just feel like Springsteen uses what he's got far more effectively.

[kool]

I'll give Springsteen one more advantage. He has aged gracefully. Sadly, Plant starting looking [and sounding] like an old fart since the early 80's. But late 60's-early 70's Plant was fucking brilliant!

[achn2b]

what has always impressed me about Springsteen is the different character or inflection he can give toi his voice when harmonizing with himself in the studio. off the top of my head, only Elvis Costello, or Bowie, come close in the way their harmony vocal has a completely different timbre or style than their main singing voice. for an example, listen to Badlands or The Promised Land.

and the first time i saw Bruce live, he really impressed me as to how much better a singer he was than i had always thought. expressive, soulful, and with much better range than i had expected.

[Ayinger]

kool said:

Sadly, Plant starting looking [and sounding] like an old fart since the early 80's. But late 60's-early 70's Plant was fucking brilliant!

I'd agree to a point but actually have been suprised that Plant's last couple of outings having him sounding a bit more "refreshed" -- probably mellowed is more like it. I'd easily put his "Mighty ReArranger" from last year up way beyond his Page "Clarksdale" reunion. In fact he sounds more in tune with his band of late than he did with Mr. Jimmy.