Page 10 of 10
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:10 pm
by enframed_Archive
Angry_Dragon wrote:Any band with an Eddie Vedder knock-off for a singer.
any band fitting that description would also be better to do without the music.
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:14 pm
by enframed_Archive
can? insane.
maybe with mooney, but the music during the mooney years wasn't as interesting, it was a bit more straighforward and almost needed lyrics sung. would have helped if they made more sense.
suzuki's voice was just another instruemnt and a nice, fun one at that.
same goes for thom yorke, i like his voice as an instrument.
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:20 pm
by JDanger_Archive
Every band should lose the vocals. Unless the vocalist is a robot.
As Machines are superior to humans.
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:10 pm
by Skronk_Archive
Rotten Tanx wrote:I agree 100% with radiohead. With no vocals I might even listen to an entire song.
Tool & APC
ticdouloureaux wrote:Skinny Puppy
YO31 wrote:Jesus Lizard
tommydski wrote:teenage jesus and the jerks.
Adam CR wrote:Killdozer.
tallchris wrote:90% of metal would be far better without vocals.
What were you guys thinking?
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:08 pm
by Isabelle Gall_Archive
Andrew L. wrote:
Yow trivialized their music with his hokey clown act. He blustered his way through every song with the same meaningless schtick and as a consequence all their songs 'feel' vey similar.
It's not that he couldn't sing. 'All my favorite singers can't sing.' It's that every song sets the same mood because of him. And it's not a mood that runs very deep. It's superficial and already sounds dated. This band hasn't aged well for me because of the vocals.
I would listen to this band much more, and take much more from the music if it weren't for the groggy-voiced 'crazy guy' shrieking about nothing all the time.
Excellent post, which I agree with 100%. I did see TJL live too, by the way.
Yow always sounded as if he's nothing more than vaguely 'angry' with his own ineffectuality to be anything other than vaguely or ineffectually anything. If that sounds mean, i'm sorry. I'm sure all you Jesus Lizard fans are really big, tough pussyfucking guys who can more than take it. I invested a lot of time and money in this band, and the results were entirely joyless (albeit with incredible drums and bass playing).
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:13 pm
by TheMilford_Archive
MORTARDS!
This is truely the most stoopid thread EVER.
So in all of these bands, wether you hate them or not, the singer IS the sound of that band....
If I wanted to hear Rush without vocals I'd put on a Zombi record... if you wanna hear Metallica without vocal put on the first Don Cab record.
I hate Thom York's vocals too... therefore I wouldn't waste my time trying to imaging the band without the vocals.... I guess I just don't like Radiohead.
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:23 pm
by kenoki_Archive
occupant wrote:I vote for Janes Addiction. I would still hate them, but not nearly as much.
i second that emotion
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:13 pm
by cal_Archive
Slovenly
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:01 pm
by Colonel Panic_Archive
Ink & Dagger
Bands that would have been-would be better w- no singing
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:10 pm
by Steve V_Archive
Some, not all, Einsturzende Neubauten would make really good instrumental songs, but with vocals they miss the mark for me.
I adore Uzeda, I really do in every way shape or form you could possibly adore something in, but if they didn't have vocals they'd still be an awesome instrumental band.