RockitRide wrote:Matthew wrote:Gunbot wrote:Jana wrote:Ehwmatt wrote:Gunbot wrote:Ehwmatt wrote:And BTW, it's not like they sound incredible on their albums, either.
A lot of them were mouseketeers and got selected because they actually could sing well enough to be on T.V. It's not like they were talentless kids who got lucky.
I don't disagree with you
Britney could sing when she was younger. I've seen clips of her at 13 belting out songs, but something has happened. Now on her last album her voice didn't even sound real most of the time with all the stuff they used. My niece and her friends pointed it out to me and that she never sings live. She only lipsynchs and has done that for many, many years. When a person can't get up and sing one song without lipsynching there's something wrong with that picture. It doesn't mean she can't make a cool club album with great beats, but live don't expect any real singing. Her new CD I haven't heard yet except the youtube clip one song. But at 27 where will she go eventually with her career if she can only lipsynch? Maybe all that smoking didn't help.
Perry loons will tell you that singing live is over rated.

It is!

Singing live is all that matters when it comes to measuring the quality of a voice and the ability of the singer. Recordings are no substitute for a live performance, at least from a singers perspective. I have sung live and on recording. Having unlimited takes in a recording studio is no comparison to the ability to execute live in front of an audience. Unfortunately no one cares about the quality of a voice and that is why radio sounds like it does. You can take so many hours of video and splice together nine 1,2,3 innings from the worst pitcher in baseball and make it look like he pitched a perfect game.
Well..however you want to measure it...Steve Perry was the greatest singer of his generation and why he needs to enter into some kind of trial or contest to prove his talent now to a bunch of messageboard schlubs is completely beyond me.
Also...as someone pointed out earlier...Pro Tools or any other kind of studio trickery....or even multiple takes...can only take a voice so far. It might help with pitch and range, I guess...but talent and soul just can't be simulated.
That's why I think Journey's studio back catalogue has a real value and it isn't just about those numbingly predictable concerts they do. They are all highly produced records but the brilliance of the chemistry and the musicianship is what make those records so classic. And twenty years on I listen to the studio records far more often than I do to live bootlegs...and I suspect 99% of Journey fans do the same.
Sure - knowing Perry's voice was so strong live makes him all the more impressive. But if he'd never played a live gig in his life his voice on the back catalogue would still be extraordinary.