25 Best Musicians of the Rock & Roll Era?

[adorshki]

Sorry, I don't buy the human voice is an musical instrument. If I fart in tune, is my butt-hole an musical instrument?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_instrument

I think it's down to semantics again, I agree the voice may not be an "instrument" according to the traditional definitions, but I also could cite many exmples of use of the voice which would qualify the singers as true musicians.
One of the most extreme might be those Tibetan temple throat singers.
Another might be the classical Indian stuff.
Best one might be Yoko Ono, although I know that one's beggin' for argument. But for sure, for quite a while there she wasn't worried about lyrics, she was only concerned about what kind of sounds she could get out of herself. Just because it wasn't neccessarily "pretty" to westernized ears didn't mean it wasn't legitimate musically. It had pitch and rhythm, and extremely exotic timbre. It was good enough for Ornette Coleman to jam with, but a lot of people don't "get" him either.

"Singer" as a "subset" of the set of "musicians", perhaps?

 

[bluesypicky]

Interesting debate.
Whilst I can agree with considering the voice an instrument, I see no reason not to consider the anus one too, as per Kurt's subtle reference, or any body part able to emit sounds for this matter. So yes, it's semantics.
The huge difference worth mentioning though, is when we learn how to master an instrument (say guitar at random and for example), we all start with the same handicap, all with the same goal: making the damn thing sound good.
If we consider the voice on another hand, I would contend that 90% of the final result if not 99%(meaning how good your singing will sound) depends on mother nature, and what kind of voice your parents built you with. And yes, I chose to end my sentence with with!
If you're born David Coverdale for instance, it will take you a minimum of work with respect to singing technique to become a Superstar, and (IMO) the greatest rock singer that ever lived. He was born a rock star singer, thanks to his vocal cords.
If you're born with Bluesypicky's voice, tough luck!

 

[tjmangum]

The Velvet Underground and Bob Marley? I don't think so.
Tom C.

+ 1.......... and where is Clapton? This appears to be a list to appease everyone and as a result misses the target by a mile. Heck, when it comes to musicians where's the Stax record crew? Christian Science Monitor does no better at this than Rolling Stone. Duh, just looked closer and it is from Rolling Stone, as reported by CSM.

 

[killdeer43]

Just to keep this intriguing, semantic ball rolling, I always thought of Sinatra as a singer, but not necessarily as a musician.
Sure, he could "make music" but the musicians were those guys behind him playing the melody so he could deliver the lyrics.
This is all hanging by a slender thread.

And then there's the part about lumping a band into the mix as a/one "musician."

*In a brief aside, if I may, consider that in the army all sergeants are soldiers but not all soldiers are sergeants.

Cogito,
Joe

 

[fronobulax]

Just to keep this intriguing, semantic ball rolling, I always thought of Sinatra as a singer, but not necessarily as a musician.
Sure, he could "make music" but the musicians were those guys behind him playing the melody so he could deliver the lyrics.
This is all hanging by a slender thread.

And then there's the part about lumping a band into the mix as a/one "musician."

*In a brief aside, if I may, consider that in the army all sergeants are soldiers but not all soldiers are sergeants.

Cogito,
Joe

I would say how those lyrics were delivered and how he interacted with the instrumentalists would bear on whether he was a singer and a musician or just a singer.

 

[The Guilds of Grot]

Interesting that Joe used Sinatra as an example. I was also going to reference him but since the list was Rock and Rollers, I decided not to.

But, while considering Mr. Sinatra, I did a little research to see if he had ever written any songs. While he does have lyric writing credits on seven songs he's never written any music! He has also never played a "Musical Instrument". Therefore IMHO, he's a "Singer" and possibly even an "Artist" but not a "Musician"!


You all are calling it "semantics", but to me it's pretty cut and dried by the accepted definitions:

"Musician" - One who plays a musical instrument.

"Musical Instrument" - A mechanical device for creating sound. (Therefore not the human voice.)

"Singer/Vocalist" - One who creates music using their voice.

"Composer" - One who writes music.

"Artist" - One who writes or performs music.


"I am not a musician. I don't go in too deep. If you have the music in your head, and you sing it with your body, then you'll be alright" [Luciano Pavarotti]


Now lastly, how "good" you are at said musical instrument is irrelevant as how can it be decided as to what good is. I think I'm a crappy musician, (compared to other musicians I see perform). When I get together with the LTG guitar orchestra they tell me I'm a good musician. So since it's totally subjective and relative, it shouldn't even be considered as part of this debate.


So for those of you that want to ignore the accepted definitions, that's fine by me as to each his own. But I cannot, will not, or have to agree with you. (Yes I live in a very black and white world! )


On a side note/tangent, do you know the difference between a "song" and a "piece of music"? http://www.pianodiscoveries.com/wordpress/2009/10/song-vs-piece-what-is-difference.html

 

[fronobulax]

You all are calling it "semantics", but to me it's pretty cut and dried by the accepted definitions:

"Musician" - One who plays a musical instrument.l

On the contrary, I do a Google search for "definition of musician" and the first result is

mu·si·cian

/myo͞oˈziSHən/

Noun A person who is talented or skilled in music. A person who plays a musical instrument, esp. professionally.

Synonyms player - bandsman - music player - composer

Now by convention the first listing in a "dictionary" is in some way "superior" to the subsequent entries and that definition in no way excludes singers or makes a distinction between singers and instrumentalists.

That said, all we are doing now is discussing semantics and which dictionary we prefer.

 

[The Guilds of Grot]

Hoisted by my own petard!

 

[davismanLV]

As far as Sinatra and others go, I read the subject as musicians of the Rock and Roll Era, not necessarily Rock and Roll musicians. There's a difference.....

 

[adorshki]

If you're born with Bluesypicky's voice, tough luck!

Coulda been worse.
Ya coulda been born with Bob Dylan's voice.
Worse yet, I coulda been born with Bob Dylan's voice.

 

[adorshki]

+ 1.......... and where is Clapton? This appears to be a list to appease everyone and as a result misses the target by a mile. Heck, when it comes to musicians where's the Stax record crew? Christian Science Monitor does no better at this than Rolling Stone. Duh, just looked closer and it is from Rolling Stone, as reported by CSM.

CSM would have conducted an actual poll not a sales analysis.
Of course it probably would have reflected the tastes of the average CSM reader, but now that I think about it, that might not be a bad thing.

 

[killdeer43]

As far as Sinatra and others go, I read the subject as musicians of the Rock and Roll Era, not necessarily Rock and Roll musicians. There's a difference.....

I certainly realize that Frank wasn't a rock and roller, but just chose to use him as an example of this side conversation about semantics and dictionary definitions.
*Nice breakaway discussion from a poll that doesn't carry much weight anyway.

It's all good,
Joe

 

[Ridgemont]

Wow, you guys don't really dig too deep do you? If you look at the article, CSM is commenting on the Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists. This was not a poll taken by CSM or anything else. This is just the same old Rolling Stone list that everybody had issues with last time. Frank Zappa is on the list (See artist #71), just not in the top 25. To reiterate, this is not a Rock n' Roll list. This is the top 25 of Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists...which I always find funny since Rolling Stone only recognizes music made from the mid-'30s (conveniently around the invention of the electric guitar) to present.

 

[adorshki]

Well gosh that kinda lets all the air outta the balloon.
Not that it ever stopped us before.
I say let's carry on while the carryin's good.

Who do you think came first (historically speaking):
Vocalists or instrumentalists?
My money's on vocalists.
:lol:

 

[Ridgemont]

Well gosh that kinda lets all the air outta the balloon.
Not that it ever stopped us before.
I say let's carry on while the carryin's good.

Who do you think came first (historically speaking):
Vocalists or instrumentalists?
My money's on vocalists.
:lol:

Oh Vocalists without a doubt, then some sort of percussive instrument. I have learned a lot over the years from my mother who is a professional pianist turned choir/vocal instructor. The voice is often taken for granted because everybody has one. This is obvious within this silly thread. Everybody can stand up and start singing, thus diminishing its value. It if often equated to running. Everybody can run, some have inherent talent and some not so much. But to become a professional grade runner or to just run injury free, it takes years and years of coaching and training to run well. The same goes for singing. Some can match pitch naturally and some can not. But to hone the skill, training is necessary.

This is not the case with a musical instrument such as the piano or guitar or harp. These are man made devices that create music through us, so we have to learn to use them. Some can learn quicker than others, but we all start as knowing nothing. This makes the general population think that it takes more talent or skill or training to master such a device. That, unfortunately is a fallacy.

We as a society have learned to embrace poor quality singers as they bring so much more to the table such their songwriting/poetry or their ability to play an instrument. The development of the human voice as a musical instrument is not valued by many here in this thread. That is understandable as we as a society have been brought up on music by those who are not trained either. We just do not know how to value it.

 

[dapmdave]

Coulda been worse.
Ya coulda been born with Bob Dylan's voice.
Worse yet, I coulda been born with Bob Dylan's voice.

Unfortunately for all of us, Bob Dylan was born with Bob Dylan's voice. Not that I can do much better, of course.

Dave (I'll sure be glad when all of the smileys are back!)

 

[twocorgis]

Unfortunately for all of us, Bob Dylan was born with Bob Dylan's voice. Not that I can do much better, of course.

Dave (I'll sure be glad when all of the smileys are back!)

I sure wish I could sing badly like him on all those legendary songs...

 

[dapmdave]

I sure wish I could sing badly like him on all those legendary songs...

Trudat, Sandy.

 

[Bikerdoc]

Think of all the "stars" that don't sing nearly half as well as you. Right time, right place, dedication, stubbornness, a bit of luck and they're legends.

 

[adorshki]

Dave (I'll sure be glad when all of the smileys are back!)

Me too. I had to trust that one'd be seen for the deadpan ironic humor it was intended to be.