[Jonathan & Julie Hart]

While song singers are weaker technically, most of them have some sort
of vocal affectation which makes them stand out of the crowd, so to
speak.  Sadly, there seems to be a proliferation of Eddie Vedder clones,
who I consider a weak singer *Prepares for flame*

I think Jim's voice would not be powerful enough, nor unique enough to
capture people's attention.  I don't think the songs on Fuzzface would
get anyone's attention, save us Oily fanatics...

IMHO, Rob and Bones are much better suited to sing lead...

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Blomquist [mailto:bjorn.blomquist@mbox301.swipnet.se] 
Sent: May 14, 2003 5:21 AM
To: 'Jonathan & Julie Hart'; 'powderworks'
Subject: SV: [Powderworks] Jim's singing



> Jim's voice, while good, is IMHO definitely not good enough
> to be a lead singer.  He doesn't have enough power in his 
> voice.  When he sings lead, it sounds like he's singing with 
> his throat as opposed to with his diaphragm.  It works for 
> Smash the Wobbleboard, but otherwise, I don't think it's suitable.

You've got a point here. To be a lead singer doesn't necessarily mean
that your voice suits *every* type of song. If Jim writes songs for
himself, like Fuzzface, then he'll likely be able to sing them himself.
That's not necessary for songs he's written for Midnight Oil, as Peter
would sing them. But IF Jim was Oil's lead singer, I guess we would have
got used to his singing as well. A singer, good or not, always "sets the
tone" for his/her band. What makes you recognise a band is its lead
singer.

So even if Jim is not the best singer in his band, I still say that
there ARE many lead singers with weak voices like him. In pop music it
doesn't always seem very important what your voice sounds like, as long
as you're singing "from your heart"...

Bjorn