Originally Posted by Polly Hager
I think the reason female vocalists (I'm one) are sometimes preferred over male vocalists is because a lot of them have more range. They can sing higher, more clearly, and if they're in a cover band like I am, are more useful in covering a wider range of material. In this male dominated business it's refreshing to see and hear a GOOD female vocalist! I don't care for the ones that are pitchy or have a "nasally" sound...I like ones that KICK ASS, like Pink, Kelly Clarkson, Gretchen Wilson, ANN WILSON, Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, etc. There's nothing I detest more than a "lame" female vocalist who can't project or stay on key. But then again, I don't like that in a male vocalist either. LOL

IMO, male vocalists in general are more limited. Very few really impress me. The lead singer for Rascal Flatts is outstanding, he sounds like he has frets in his throat. Geddy Lee from Rush could sing high, but his voice was somewhat irritating to people. When I sing Rush, it's not irritating. smile Robert Plant was my idol growing up. His wails and screams, and vocal imitating Page's guitar was amazing to me. I aspired to be a female version of him (and somewhat succeeded). But a lot of male vocalists are gruff and limited range wise, so IMO, they don't have as much to offer.


If no male vocalists impress you, maybe you aren't paying attention. What about Roy Orbison? Or Elvis? John Denver? Mario Lanza had one of the most incredible voices of the past century. As for covering a wider range of material, I dont like to brag, but I sing everything from Classical to Jazz and Country. I prefer Country, of course (mainly Alt Country), but its all perspective I guess. You sound a bit jaded to me about the industry. I say forget the industry and just do your own thing.



Last edited by VASINGER; 03/11/11 09:31 PM.