Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Some may recall the composition of Jagger and Richards entitled Singer Not The Song. While, I was not taken by much of their work, I did admire some of their early compositions, including the sentiments expressed in this song. Without labouring over the words a brief excerpt follows.

The same old places and the same old songs
We've been going there for much too long
There's something wrong and it gives me that feeling
Inside that I know I must be right
It's the singer not the song[/size]

This song raises an interesting question in my mind. Does the song make the singer or perhaps the singer make the song? Clearly there are examples in which both are defensible, at least on the surface.

Without wanting to denigrate any artist that has stood the test of time, and with the understanding that most recordings have some merit, if we dig deeply enough it is somewhat easy to find examples of the song making the singer. Bob Dylan's Mr. Tambourine Man, Blowin' In The Wind, All Along The Watch Tower, to name only a few, captivate the listener with there fine melody and interesting lyrics, but for me at least are sung with a voice that takes away from the recordings.

With regard to the singer making the song, the examples are free flowing, at least to my way of thinking. Joe Cocker's, interpretation of "With A Little Help From My Friends" breathes life into a mediocre composition and surely dwarfs Ringo's rendition.

So overall, can a fine performer and singer, sing a bad composition and record a classic or is a great composition immune to problems of pitch and production? I am reminded that if we torture our data long enough, they will confess to anything. Nonetheless, as always, I am interested in your thoughts.

Does the song make the singer or perhaps the singer make the song?

The latter rather than former (IMHO). A good singer can "save" a mediocre song, while a bad singer may ruin a good one. I agree about Dylan, but, on the other hand, he seems to be more known as songwriter/lyricist rather than vocalist. Again - imho.

While perhaps "rock sacrilege", one might put Neil Young in with Bob Dylan. Certainly this point of view may argue that some rock music is an acquired taste. For me, however, I seem to decide quickly whether a particular song is going to be a favourite or not. I admire Young and Dylan, but confess that overall I often appreciate the strength of their compositions better when their music is covered by others. Perhaps the song has saved the singer in the case of these artists. Are there more examples?

Peter,

I agree with your observations on Dylan and Young. IMO they both have interesting, unpolished voices. More in the same vein?

Well perhaps we can add Mick Jagger to this list. He is not a great singer but the songs he sings are for the most part very well written. The same can perhaps be said for a singer on the other end of the genre spectrum...Johnny Cash.

Personally I never considered Jim Morrison to be a great singer. But, he was a great writer.

These examples are just a few off the top of my head, that came immediately to mind after reading your post.

Good examples Brian. I consider that both of these artists had stronger compositions to sing than voices.

Both giants in their own way, Jagger using his stage antics to good advantage but interestingly I consider that it was the original songs and not the singer that shone for me. Cash, on the other hand, had a rough vocal delivery and story-telling ability that was grass-roots based. You had to love Johnny Cash even if you did not appreciate the genre.

A well though out and well written topic by Peter as we have come to expect, I would throw something extra into the mix and that is the production in so far as the overall sound produced enhances both the singer and the song.

If you have ever heard The Byrds version of Tambourine Man(issued on Preflyte album, batch of recordings made before they became successful and only released to cash in) prior to the actual recorded and released version you will get my point the production by Terry Melcher on that track enhanced both the song and the performance.

Anyone who has ever heard Sheila by Tommy Roe the original version issued in 1960 will know that the hit version in 62 was essentially the same vocal performance and of course the same song but it was the production that really made it a massive hit.

Without a doubt Roy, production enhances and I would also argue detracts at times from both the singer and the song. Your comments with regard to Tommy Roe make a good case for enhancement of the quality of the recording.

With regard to overproduction, the Carpenters come to mind but they are slightly outside the 1960s envelope here. Perhaps "Let It Be" fits the bill and a listen to "Let It Be Naked" illustrates this to a degree.

While we are on the subject, why not use Sheila as a case study and link us up to 1960 and 1962 versions so that we might compare the two.

Tommy Roe 1960 version of Sheila released on Judd record label


http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=1127A3A673AF7615

The hit version

Tommy Roe quote:
I wrote 'Sheila' when I was 14 and it was a local hit on Judd Records, which was a label out of Memphis that Sam Phillips's brother started. When I got out of high school, I met Felton Jarvis who wanted to re- record 'Sheila' and we did it in Nashville. It was Felton's idea to have that drumming as he thought it a good gimmick to get airplay. Buddy Harmon did the drumming, Bob Moore was on bass and Jerry Reed and Wayne Moss played guitars.
That's a pretty good band. I play acoustic guitar on most of my things but you can't hear me on that: Felton took me out of the picture as he had such great players."


http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=9111528D02C5C454

Thanks Roy, this allows for an examination of your point. Without a doubt, as Tommy Roe has said in his own words, this is a "gimmick to get airplay" or if you like good sound production techiques. The unsung studio musician hero, often nameless, is responsible for making the difference. While I like the late 1950s guitar solo, the improved rhythm guitar and the background male vocals and drumming took Sheila to a new level.

I would add, that it is the song here and not so much Tommy's voice, in concert with the instrumentation that wins the day.

Interesting! So may i suggest "the performance makes a song or a song makes a performance"? Sounds a bit silly, i know...
Another obvious example of "singer/performance makes a song" is "Blue suede shoes". Many people think Elvis' version is better than Carl's original.
As far as Morrison is concerned - i always had an impression he was more of a performer than a singer. So to speak.

Sheena: I am with you when you say the singer makes the song. It seems to me that the extent to which it is the other way round is limited. A good performance is key obviously both within and between artists.

Elvis, stepped up Blue Suede Shoes considerably and I consider it is his performance that sets the standard for this song. This song had energy from the beginning, but Elvis danced went toe to toe with this one right to the top.

The so called British Invasion of the sixties was an example of songs which were given a new lease by a performance Searchers Needles and Pins is just one example they took a song that had been recorded already and their took the song to, certainly in UK, classic status.

Their version of Don't Throw Your Love Away originally recorded by The Orlons and had actually been on a B Side of a Orlons single is an example of how a song was essentially the same but the performance and arrangement basically made it a totally different song.

Interesting observations. The singer makes the song? In most cases I would agree.

But lets suppose (back then) that we took Dave Clark off his drums and completely away from playing in his band. We then recorded him as a solo singer. What have we got? What would we have that's different from the rest of the artists of the time? Would his voice be instantly recognizable? I am not so sure that it would. I think that we are left with some good songs that would be in need a lot of production.

Interesting idea to stimulate discussion. I think cases can be made for both sides of this although if pressed I prefer substance over form. And as usual I have opinions about some of the things I've read. I thought Morrison had one of the greatest voices in rock until he burnt it out, compare The Doors, with L.A. Woman for example, sounds like he aged about 30 years in between them. Check out his singing in The Music's Over, he had one of the greatest screams in rock.
I think the drums were a gimmick in Sheila mainly because it was almost a direct Buddy Holly's Peggy Sue rip off. the old "steal the essence of the song or the artist trick" it was done all the time and probably still is.
Carl Perkin's version was rock a billy and Elvis's version was rock n' roll and had much more energy. I also prefer Elvis's version although I like both. I think Perkins puts the lyrics over better than Elvis's did.
I feel that Dylan is the ultimate example of the writer making the singer (I always thought that he had a very good voice for folk music especially on his first few albums and that his later atonal style was a gimmick which worked very well). I also feel that Elvis was the ultimate example of the singer making the song.