| J.J. Blair wrote on Tue, 29 December 2009 11:26 |
| Nizzle wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 08:02 |
| J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 27 December 2009 14:45 |
Jim had a good voice/instrument. He was not a good singer, though.
|
What does this mean?
-t
|
Well, it means that he had a nice sounding voice, but his singing technique was pretty crappy. His pitch wasn't terribly good, and his control was kinda weak. Contrast that with somebody like say, Elvis Costello. Elvis does not have a good voice, but that guy has become a phenomenal singer, whose pitch, tone and control are extraordinary. Or contemporaries like David Clayton-Thomas or McCartney, who have the entire package of instrument and technique.
So, if the question is "was JM a good singer?" Definitely not. He had an excellent sounding voice though that worked in the context of the Doors, and his delivery was convincing. But if you listen to somebody with a similar tone,who really IS a great singer, like Ian Astbury, you hear the difference. Ian has great pitch, great inflection control, etc. It really emphasizes how weak Jim's technique was. Listen no further than "Touch Me" to hear how it's all style and attitude, and pitch and technique are very questionable.
But it was druggie rock, and it was fine for what it was. His crappy singing technique was no worse than Manzarek's mediocre keyboard playing, or Krieger's mediocre guitar, or the shitty "poetry." All together, it was the Doors' sound, and it worked. It was unique, interesting, and a hallmark of that era. Some of the songs were quite good, sufficiently hooky, and the production great enough that they are still around. His voice is instantly recognizable, and the power and tone have a charisma that is very attractive.
But he's not a good singer. He's an OK singer.
|
No offense, pal. But it sounds like you have a hair across your ass with regard to The Doors, in general
- like so many do. Jim communicated and had, IMHO, a KILLER voice and did with it precisely what was needed to communicate. Now, if we are going to bring up Elvis Costello as a metric to adjudicate a rock singer's ability - well, we can cross pretty much everyone else off the list. Vocally speaking, Elvis - starting with Blood and Chocolate(which is one of my favorite rock records of the 80's AND, for me, has one of the best lead vocals ever committed to tape - "I Want You") and in full vocal glory from Brutal Youth(terribly underrated record)on - Really came into his own, vocally, around this time. He is FULL ON CROONING. Some may find his vibrato excessive and compulsory BUT he's been singing his ass off for a good long while. I'm a HUGE fan.
Back to Jim -
I would argue that his intonation, control, and feeling were just fine. Fine, indeed. He could belt it out in one moment and then immediately get into his lower register without issue. He was about abandon and feeling. That's it. I and many others feel it. It seems to me that many, many folks don't dig what The Doors did. I, for one, do. Also - mentioning Ian as someone with a "similar" voice to Jim's and further implying that he does "Jim" better than Jim is gross, to me. I should also mention that I, generally, think he sounds like a poser most of the time.
I am very aware that I'm in the minority here, but I've always found it to be a drag when an artist(s)gets called out on their idiosyncrasy's to further one's assessment of their art, when the real issue is that he/ she doesn't like the art and is pissed off that the general public adores it. I've harbored similar feelings about many other artists.
JJ - I hope I've communicated my thoughts in a way that don't offend. You have always been a great source of information and humor to me both here at PSW and when I worked with you. In the end and the way I see it - I dig the Doors and Jim, and you do not. That's the beauty of art. Viva la difference!
xo
-t
