Great singers with clear voices? (that sing so clearly you don't need a lyric sheet)

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by Herb Hunter

I rarely hear him but Al Stewart’s exceptionally clear pronunciation, which admittedly could sound affected, was, nevertheless, refreshing given that the unwritten rule for rock and pop music seems to be that a singer should either affect a slurred regional accent or if one’s native accent happens to be fashionable, to add an extra measure of garble.

I'm an Al Stewart fan .

[Don Lampson]

Al Jolson, and Jimmie Rogers....

Don

[Tone Monster]

George Beverly Shea

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by Don Lampson

Al Jolson, and Jimmie Rogers....

Don

If you mean the country singer he was my father's favorite. I've always found his folksy almost bluesy style appealing.

[zabdart]

Originally Posted by kerbie

Ella Fitzgerald. To me, nobody else is close. Among many other things, she was well known for her perfect clarity.

Glad you mentioned Ella, but I would also include Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Sarah Vaughan and Joe Williams in this category.
By the way, the trend in singing in a gritty voice which often garbled the lyrics was started by Louis Armstrong.

[hovishead]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Well first off lets clarify I did not say" obviously" and I did qualify "if your not familiar with and well versed in audio engineering" And I simply noted that you have not posted in the recording forum. If that offends you then ignore "not having posted" and I change my statement to read. "if you not familiar and versed in exactly what mix engineering does and how it contributes to the sound and how the various mix techniques apply to clarity , then you are disagreeing based on a lack of knowledge of, or ignorance of how mixing might be more important than diction. If you are well versed in mix engineering then I stand corrected and you are not speaking from ignorance, you are simply mistaken IMO .

Not to mention I clearly stated the diction plays a part in clarity. But the fact remains if you really have very little or no idea how much the mix contributes or detracts from the clarity. Then you can disagree all you want but can't really be considered to be speaking from knowledge. Given that thru mixing alone you take any vocalist (even ones with the best clarity and diction) and make them much much less intelligible in the mix. Or conversely you can take singers with more limited diction and clarity and make them "clear as day" in the mix as per the definition the op gave . And the definition the OP gave that I was directly replying to that you disagreed with, was and is still much more a reflection of mixing than diction.

So basically you are saying "I am right and you are wrong - just because"

You can apply all the audio engineering you want to a singer that mumbles, whines, moans and slurs but that isn't going to make their lyrics any more intelligible.

On the other hand you can simply plug in a Zoom H2 recorder and capture a singer with great diction and their guitar accompaniment and hear all the lyrics clearly without tweaking anything.

I really don't think you understood the question here. The OP wasn't asking about making a singer "clear in the mix", she was asking about singers that sing with great diction. The "in the sense that they sing so clearly that you don't ever need a lyric sheet" was the clue here.

I know when I hear a singer that sings lyrics with impeccable diction - and it's not audio engineering that makes this magic happen believe me. Unless of course they apply this studio magic to buskers on the street now too.

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by kerbie

Ella Fitzgerald. To me, nobody else is close. Among many other things, she was well known for her perfect clarity.

good point. In fact almost all of the famous crooners of the '40s to '60s had singing skills way above most modern singers.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by lizzie

What I mean is that you don't need to look up the lyrics on the internet because every word is as clear as day.

I'm not talking about memorizing the lyrics, just hearing them and knowing what they are when listening for the first time.

ohhhhhh ok now I get it.

[Dr. Spivey]

Eva Cassidy hasn't been mentioned.

[saxonblue]

Jim Morrison. I doubt I've ever looked at a lyric sheet for a Doors song but have had no trouble hearing & memorising (if need be) lyrics to pretty well any of their tunes.

[KevWind]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by hovishead

So basically you are saying "I am right and you are wrong - just because"

No I did not say "just because" I said if your not versed in audio engineering you lack the knowledge to make an informed comparison about about the relative importance. This is the second time you have attempted to put words in my mouth.. You do realize people often resort to a straw man argument when they lack a substantive rebuttal ?
It's like me disagreeing with an aero space engineer about the relative importance of design and engineering vs. the pilot, in the safety and comfort of modern aviation. Yes I owned two small planes. But I lack the aero engineering knowledge to make an informed opinion about the relative comparison, and am indeed the one likely to be wrong plain and simple.

You can apply all the audio engineering you want to a singer that mumbles, whines, moans and slurs but that isn't going to make their lyrics any more intelligible

. Only at the the extreme ends would this be remotely close to correct. For most of what is sung and recorded it is simply wrong. Yes it is true you cannot change diction thru mixing. But you definitely can make whatever diction is present more or less intelligible. The fact that you may not understand, or simply refuse to consider what role mixing plays in the how and why, does not diminish the significance of it's importance.

On the other hand you can simply plug in a Zoom H2 recorder and capture a singer with great diction and their guitar accompaniment and hear all the lyrics clearly without tweaking anything.

And I can take that audio file off the Zoom pop it into a DAW and make way less intelligible or unintelligible, or make it more intelligible.

[QUOTE]

I really don't think you understood the question here. The OP wasn't asking about making a singer "clear in the mix", she was asking about singers that sing with great diction. The "in the sense that they sing so clearly that you don't ever need a lyric sheet" was the clue here.

Yes I do in fact understand the question. BUT How clearly it is reproduced (and the fact that the vocal sounds "clear as day") is very definitely a function of mixing and diction, not simply one or the other. Yes indeed there are singers with better diction, BUT based on the definition (that I quoted)that the OP gave "for her question", I was pointing out that the question is ignoring a significant aspect of what and how you are actually hearing it as "clear as day". And does not reflect the whole picture and was possibly ignoring arguably the larger percentage involved as to what is actually going when hearing recorded music vocals "as clear as day".

I know when I hear a singer that sings lyrics with impeccable diction - and it's not audio engineering that makes this magic happen believe me. Unless of course they apply this studio magic to buskers on the street now too.

You have finally hit upon a situation that would in fact leave it all up to diction and we could agree on . That is to have all the singers listed in an un amplified acoustic space and let them sing, then you would indeed have a valid comparison as to being specifically " diction". But what the OP was asking about and the largest percentage of the singers listed, were undoubtedly posted from having listening to recorded music and they arguably have good diction. BUT as I pointed out much if not most of that "clear as day" aspect you are hearing is in fact a function of how it was mixed.

I was offering some insight into what else besides diction is actually involved in what we are hearing as being "as clear as day" or not, in the typical reproduced music we here on a daily basis . You can either consider it or reject it your option, BUT There appears to be little to be gained in further back and forth, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[hovishead]

No I did not say "just because" I said if your not versed in audio engineering you lack the knowledge to make an informed comparison about about the relative importance. This is the second time you have attempted to put words in my mouth.. You do realize people often resort to a straw man argument when they lack a substantive rebuttal ?
It's like me disagreeing with an aero space engineer about the relative importance of design and engineering vs. the pilot, in the safety and comfort of modern aviation. Yes I owned two small planes. But I lack the aero engineering knowledge to make an informed opinion about the relative comparison, and am indeed the one likely to be wrong plain and simple.

. Only at the the extreme ends would this be remotely close to correct. For most of what is sung and recorded it is simply wrong. Yes it is true you cannot change diction thru mixing. But you definitely can make whatever diction is present more or less intelligible. The fact that you may not understand, or simply refuse to consider what role mixing plays in the how and why, does not diminish the significance of it's importance.

And I can take that audio file off the Zoom pop it into a DAW and make way less intelligible or unintelligible, or make it more intelligible. Yes I do in fact understand the question. BUT How clearly it is reproduced (and the fact that the vocal sounds "clear as day") is very definitely a function of mixing and diction, not simply one or the other. Yes indeed there are singers with better diction, BUT based on the definition (that I quoted)that the OP gave "for her question", I was pointing out that the question is ignoring a significant aspect of what and how you are actually hearing it as "clear as day". And does not reflect the whole picture and was possibly ignoring arguably the larger percentage involved as to what is actually going when hearing recorded music vocals "as clear as day".

You have finally hit upon a situation that would in fact leave it all up to diction and we could agree on . That is to have all the singers listed in an un amplified acoustic space and let them sing, then you would indeed have a valid comparison as to being specifically " diction". But what the OP was asking about and the largest percentage of the singers listed, were undoubtedly posted from having listening to recorded music and they arguably have good diction. BUT as I pointed out much if not most of that "clear as day" aspect you are hearing is in fact a function of how it was mixed.

I was offering some insight into what else besides diction is actually involved in what we are hearing as being "as clear as day" or not, in the typical reproduced music we here on a daily basis . You can either consider it or reject it your option, BUT There appears to be little to be gained in further back and forth, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't remember using any straw man argument. I argued my points as you did, and while I'm not a studio engineer I find the "It's like me disagreeing with an aero space engineer" rather insulting (you don't know me and my background and I don't know you or yours). But I will agree to disagree.

As to answering the OP's question.

I'll throw Tom Paxton and Loudon Wainwright III into the mix.

[Herb Hunter]

Hovishead, surely you can appreciate and acknowledge the psychoacoustic effect of auditory masking which can render excellent enunciation unintelligible.

[hovishead]

Originally Posted by Herb Hunter

Hovishead, surely you can appreciate and acknowledge the psychoacoustic effect of auditory masking which can render excellent enunciation unintelligible.

What I'm trying to get across is that the quality of the singer's vocal delivery is infinitely more important than the audio engineering process in the context of the OP's question.

As I said before while studio techniques may bring the vocals to the front and make them crisper and more cutting they cannot elevate a singer with bad diction to the ranks of those singers that the OP is looking for in her question.

The artists that are being mentioned by other posters obviously didn't use the same producer/engineers or studio for every album, yet their vocal clarity generally shined through regardless.

If you heard any of these artists in a live setting that would be the case also.

(There are countless artists that I love that don't sing with great diction on any of their records but I would never consider to lay the blame for this at the feet of their producers/engineers/recording studios)

[ewalling]

This does all depend on what the vocals are for, doesn't it? Mick Jagger once said that he intentionally slurs words because he's aiming for mood and impression rather than precise, clear-cut messages. I imagine the same principle holds when the fat lady in a Viking helmet blasts forth in an opera!