Simple question: Would you say personality and attitude is more important than a good singing voice for a frontman in rock?
posted at 9/27/2012 1:17 PM EDT
A comment yoga made in the Faces/Rod Stewart thread got me thinking....
...Nobody in their right mind is ever going to tell you that Mick Jagger, Ozzie, Johnny Rotten, Jimi Hendrix or Rod Stewart has a great, beautiful singing voice.
But these are not Opera singers. I feel a beautiful voice is actually not a plus for a Rock singer, most Rock music sounds better with a "raspy" , "gravelly" or otherwise unsensational voice. Joe Cocker made a career out of singing Rock favorites with a gravelly voice. Janis Joplin became a superstar with her rough sounding voice ( no doubt her tonsils were being destroyed by liquor and cigarettes...but that's another story, for another day). Neil Young's unsteady, cracking voice makes his music more poignant.
It has always been my opinion that attitude, personality and arrogance has always been a more important factor in a front man for a Rock band than the actual singing voice. As Rock is mainly derived from Blues and Folk music ( which without sounding disrespectful , of course , is music from the lower tiers of society) so actually sounds better sung by "average" or "rough,unpolished" voices.
Other examples:Bon Scott,Geddy Lee, Alice Cooper, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, Steve Tyler, Peter Wolf, Bono.
In fact almost every Rock singer ever has been more about personality than voice, exceptions might include Freddie Mercury, David Bowie,Paul McCartney and Robert Plant...who had better singing voices than most of their peers.
Would you agree with this assessment?