Big Beat Steve Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) But both Lennon and McCartney have long been considered exceptional singers! As a matter of fact, one of MY top ten moments in music is Lennon screaming "Twist and Shout" with his throat already torn to shreds. Politeness in music is not necessarily a good thing. Which only goes to prove what's been said here: I have no difficulty believing that a good singer can perform a song better than its composer. I have yet to be convinced Bert Berns would have done that much of a superior job on this (HIS) song. So ... ? Edited January 25, 2011 by Big Beat Steve Quote
JETman Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 But both Lennon and McCartney have long been considered exceptional singers! As a matter of fact, one of MY top ten moments in music is Lennon screaming "Twist and Shout" with his throat already torn to shreds. Politeness in music is not necessarily a good thing. Which only goes to prove what's been said here: I have no difficulty believing that a good singer can perform a song better than its composer. Ha? Quote
JSngry Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 Gene Puerling had some serious, serious skills. The "muzak-y" sounds of SU are real, but they are also entirely superficial and only occasional. There is a harmonic depth there (literally and figuratively) that is not to be underestimated or trifled with. A buddy of mine once described them as cotton-candy heroin, and that is not far off the mark, on either end. As far as "better than the Beatles", hey, whatever. I don't know what that means, really. but are they better than "elvis"? How can you be better than something which really doesn't exist? Quote
Bright Moments Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 Gene Puerling had some serious, serious skills. The "muzak-y" sounds of SU are real, but they are also entirely superficial and only occasional. There is a harmonic depth there (literally and figuratively) that is not to be underestimated or trifled with. A buddy of mine once described them as cotton-candy heroin, and that is not far off the mark, on either end. As far as "better than the Beatles", hey, whatever. I don't know what that means, really. but are they better than "elvis"? How can you be better than something which really doesn't exist? indeed! Quote
Big Beat Steve Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) But both Lennon and McCartney have long been considered exceptional singers! As a matter of fact, one of MY top ten moments in music is Lennon screaming "Twist and Shout" with his throat already torn to shreds. Politeness in music is not necessarily a good thing. Which only goes to prove what's been said here: I have no difficulty believing that a good singer can perform a song better than its composer. Ha? Is Twist & Shout a song written by Lennon & McCartney, i.e. is this one of their OWN songs Lennon sings so sublimely? So what does it prove if a singer (no matter whether he writes songs of his own) excels on a sing written by somebody else (see the statement made by GA Russell above)? Does this automatically prove that he will be just as excellent on his own material? In short, GA Russell does have a point in what he said above about singer-songwriters IMHO. Edited January 25, 2011 by Big Beat Steve Quote
Noj Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 I almost always like the original best, but I dig a whole lot of covers. Funny, I bet The Singers Unlimited and Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66 are fans of the Beatles' original material, hence the covers. Quote
Brad Posted January 25, 2011 Report Posted January 25, 2011 Gene Puerling had some serious, serious skills. The "muzak-y" sounds of SU are real, but they are also entirely superficial and only occasional. There is a harmonic depth there (literally and figuratively) that is not to be underestimated or trifled with. A buddy of mine once described them as cotton-candy heroin, and that is not far off the mark, on either end. As far as "better than the Beatles", hey, whatever. I don't know what that means, really. but are they better than "elvis"? How can you be better than something which really doesn't exist? Just imagine Quote
JSngry Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Gene Puerling had some serious, serious skills. The "muzak-y" sounds of SU are real, but they are also entirely superficial and only occasional. There is a harmonic depth there (literally and figuratively) that is not to be underestimated or trifled with. A buddy of mine once described them as cotton-candy heroin, and that is not far off the mark, on either end. As far as "better than the Beatles", hey, whatever. I don't know what that means, really. but are they better than "elvis"? How can you be better than something which really doesn't exist? Just imagine Imagining, like any other freedom, can have horrific & life-destroying consequences if one is not careful. Quote
Peter Johnson Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Checked out some Singers Unlimited tonight. I'll tell you what I'd like to hear: Singers Unlimited and Brasil 66 backing John Paul Ringo and George in a mad, 17-minute version of Norwegian Wood. I'd pay good money for that. Quote
JSngry Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 SU at "cheery" uptempo and or "swinging" usually = not so hot for me. But SU doing ballads and/or a cappella = supremely & deeply engaging. This one, with orchestral backing by Robert Farnon, is some serious shit. And for the record, I've only felt this way about them for the last year or so. Did a total 180. Quote
Brad Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 I heard some Manhattan Transfer on the XM Jazz station while driving into work. So, how do you see them versus Singers Unlimited. I much prefer MT but I can see how SU might have some merits. Quote
JSngry Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Manhattan Transfer at their best is good showbiz. Singers Unlimited at their best is great music. The SU a capella albums have some truly breathtaking moments, not just because of the "beauty" of the overdubbed-into-infinity voices, but because of the beauty of what they were given to sing. Gene Puerling was a true master. Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) I first got an ear for the Singers Unlimited in the earl 80s when I'd hear them regularly on after midnight radio - the harmonies really affected me (you know how strangely music can affect you in those midnight hours). But not enough to overcome my silly prejudices - thought I might be buying something too MOR. Overcame those prejudices a few years back and bought: 7 CDS of their MPS recordings (minus the Xmas disc). I love that box! Edited January 26, 2011 by A Lark Ascending Quote
Free For All Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) 7 CDS of their MPS recordings (minus the Xmas disc). I love that box! Me too. I'm a fan. Beautiful arrangements by Gene Puerling, and Bonnie Herman has such a beautiful voice. She's done many commercial jingles in the U.S.- one I remember specifically was for the "incredible edible egg". Edited January 26, 2011 by Free For All Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) I'd have thought anyone who loves the Beach Boys for their harmonies - and there's plenty of MOR arranging on Beach Boys records - could relate to the SU if they gave them a chance. and Bonnie Herman has such a beautiful voice. Absolutely. She's on this marvellous 1979 record alongside Norma Winstone: Their voices weave beautifully through the instruments: Eberhard Weber (bass - cello); Norma Winstone, Bonnie Herman (vocals); Bill Frisell (guitar, balalaika); Gary Burton (vibraphone, marimba). Edited January 26, 2011 by A Lark Ascending Quote
Ted O'Reilly Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 I'd have thought anyone who loves the Beach Boys for their harmonies - and there's plenty of MOR arranging on Beach Boys records - could relate to the SU if they gave them a chance. and Bonnie Herman has such a beautiful voice. Absolutely. She's on this marvellous 1979 record alongside Norma Winstone: Their voices weave beautifully through the instruments: Eberhard Weber (bass - cello); Norma Winstone, Bonnie Herman (vocals); Bill Frisell (guitar, balalaika); Gary Burton (vibraphone, marimba). I always thought the Beach Boys took their stuff from the Four Freshmen, who in turn could do with four voices what it took Stan Kenton a whole orchestra to do... Quote
JSngry Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Although the Four Freshmen predated Gene Puerling's Hi-Los, Puerling considerably upped the ante, perhaps even set the standard, for harmonic adventurousness and complexity for vocal writing of this sort. Brian Wilson has been more "vocal" (pun unavoidable) over the years about the Freshmen influence, but he has given credit to Puerling as well. If you want to hear Puerling's Hi-Los writing at it's most insane, you gotta (pretty much) look for the old Spotlight sides. The later things for Columbia & beyond are missing a lot of the edge that can be found in abundance on those earlier sides. Although, there were two "reunion" sides from the 70s on MPS that are not at all bad. Quote
Ted O'Reilly Posted January 26, 2011 Report Posted January 26, 2011 Although the Four Freshmen predated Gene Puerling's Hi-Los, Puerling considerably upped the ante, perhaps even set the standard, for harmonic adventurousness and complexity for vocal writing of this sort. Brian Wilson has been more "vocal" (pun unavoidable) over the years about the Freshmen influence, but he has given credit to Puerling as well. If you want to hear Puerling's Hi-Los writing at it's most insane, you gotta (pretty much) look for the old Spotlight sides. The later things for Columbia & beyond are missing a lot of the edge that can be found in abundance on those earlier sides. Although, there were two "reunion" sides from the 70s on MPS that are not at all bad. Gene Puerling had a great connection with Hans Georg Brunner-Schwer of Saba/MPS, who let Gene do whatever he wanted. Gene loved Rob McConnell's harmonic sense, and joined with his Boss Brass to do a project with TSU. Gene and Rob became great friends, musically and personally, and as I recall it, it was Rob who got Gene to do a Hi-Los reunion, so as to work together again. They even performed live at the Monterey Jazz Festival in September 1981. There's an aircheck from NPR floating around that I'd like to hear. I was backstage for that concert and couldn't record it... Anyone have it? Quote
JSngry Posted January 27, 2011 Report Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Scary photo, but scary beautiful & imaginative harmonies... http://www.youtube.c...feature=related And then.... Check out at about 0:45 (and then again, to a lesser extent, at about 1:13), the original harmonies just come untethered altogether and float of into this infinite cloud of etheriality, but then they come back like they had never left. Not just anybody can do that... http://www.youtube.c...feature=related Yeah, Gene Puerling had skills. Edited January 27, 2011 by JSngry Quote
GA Russell Posted January 27, 2011 Report Posted January 27, 2011 In the photo of The Singers Unlimited that Jim has posted, second from the left is Len. I read in his obituary that he was the bass who sang "Ho, Ho, Ho" in the Jolly Green Giant jingle. Unfortunately, he was only paid once for that! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.