Chris Cornell Is Overrated

Pearl Jam and toast

lucylespian wrote:

I think the only thing that everyone agrees on is that Axel is a tool, even if we love his singing, which I do.
Talented, but a tool.

I love Call Me a Dog, I think Since I've Been Loving You is as good or better.

that's my favorite plant vocal performance.

DELETED

..

lucylespian

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

that's my favorite plant vocal performance.

Yeah, I tried to have a quick think. Immigrant Song is good too, Dazed and Confused, Rock'n'Roll of course.
I like Cornell, sometimes I find him a bit whiny, definitely would not say he sucks. There are too many genuienely crap guys out tehre singing to put him in teh sucks dept, JJ for example, now he sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ledbetterman10

DOSW wrote:

Why is this even argued...? Some people think he sings better than others. It's a completely subjective issue that can't be intelligently argued because there's nothing concrete about music. At all.

you're right.

searchlightsoul

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

as far as live performances, Plant's voice started going downhill around In through the out door and it sounds totally different today than it did in say '72. but in their prime? Cornell's voice vs. Plant's voice? Plant by a mile for me.

Plant is only rated because he was in Led Zepplin. He has NEVER been able to sing like Cornell or being as versatile. A lot of people seem to not have listened to Euphoria Morning where Chris really explores many vocal influences and avoids screaming completely. In fact he's pretty much avoided high pitched screaming since Superunknown.

facepollution

searchlightsoul wrote:

Plant is only rated because he was in Led Zepplin. He has NEVER been able to sing like Cornell or being as versatile. A lot of people seem to not have listened to Euphoria Morning where Chris really explores many vocal influences and avoids screaming completely. In fact he's pretty much avoided high pitched screaming since Superunknown.

Absolutely. Plus, something else a lot of people forget, is that Chris is a Baritone unlike most of the other 'high' singers from the 70's and 80's who were mostly tenors, thus reaching those sort of notes was far more natural to their range. Cornell's overall range was far more impressive because he could go from a Vedder low to a Plant high in a split second - not very many singers can do that.

Byrnzie

Chris who?

You'veGotRedOnYou

This is all a bit silly. If you wanna try and say that "Cornell is overrated" or "Cornell has no talent," then you are just silly. I mean, I am not the biggest fan of his in the world, but the guy is mega-talented. One of the best voices ever, and his lyrics in most cases are bad ass. Can some of you people not deal with the fact that Vedder isn't the only singer/songwriter from the 90's? And, by the way, Steven Tyler is extremely overrated. I love Aerosmith (seen them live 3 times), but there are way better front men out there.

yosi1

You'veGotRedOnYou wrote:

This is all a bit silly. If you wanna try and say that "Cornell is overrated" or "Cornell has no talent," then you are just silly. I mean, I am not the biggest fan of his in the world, but the guy is mega-talented. One of the best voices ever, and his lyrics in most cases are bad ass. Can some of you people not deal with the fact that Vedder isn't the only singer/songwriter from the 90's? And, by the way, Steven Tyler is extremely overrated. I love Aerosmith (seen them live 3 times), but there are way better front men out there.

I don't understand your post. Why can't I say that Cornell is overrated and still think he is talented? I personally love a lot of his work, but that doesn't mean I think he is as good as other/most people make him out to be. When lots of people say, that he is "far and away the BEST singer ever with absolutely no comparison", it just makes me roll my eyes. Sure he's a great singer, but he isn't alone as a great singer. There are plenty of others out there who I prefer and think are more talented then Chris is, while still loving him.

You'veGotRedOnYou

yosi wrote:

I don't understand your post. Why can't I say that Cornell is overrated and still think he is talented? I personally love a lot of his work, but that doesn't mean I think he is as good as other/most people make him out to be. When lots of people say, that he is "far and away the BEST singer ever with absolutely no comparison", it just makes me roll my eyes. Sure he's a great singer, but he isn't alone as a great singer. There are plenty of others out there who I prefer and think are more talented then Chris is, while still loving him.

Sorry, there has been a lot of Cornell attacks the past few weeks. Personally, I don't think he's that overrated. Not near the ranks of Cobain or, dare I say it, Vedder. I'm not even a huge fan of his. I just don't see where the overrated thing is coming from.

nowayimfaithfull

You'veGotRedOnYou wrote:

This is all a bit silly. If you wanna try and say that "Cornell is overrated" or "Cornell has no talent," then you are just silly. I mean, I am not the biggest fan of his in the world, but the guy is mega-talented. One of the best voices ever, and his lyrics in most cases are bad ass. Can some of you people not deal with the fact that Vedder isn't the only singer/songwriter from the 90's? And, by the way, Steven Tyler is extremely overrated. I love Aerosmith (seen them live 3 times), but there are way better front men out there.

Of course its silly, its as silly as what you said about tyler.

Ive seen cornell more than 3 times and he wasnt all that till the last audioslave.

Its really funny because I have been defending tyler and I really am not a big fan.

Just like everyone saying yes gnr was good, well they were good because they had other people in the band.

lets face it all the singers in this thread are good, regardless if we like them or not. It more than likely comes down to how they create their music, which they all did very well.

But someone stated they heard plant on dvd, and than saw chris live, that comparrison really cant be drawn. recordings are tuff, especially resleased ones, they doctor them up.
As far as studio all these singers have been good.

I think what started this thread was the fact that chris gets a freee pass on this website.
Chris is deffinantly great and at the top, it becomes debateable on whos better, because their styles fit other peoples musical needs.
You are commparring singers from differant generations, Their is a whole crop of singers not mentioed here that chris has taken after, that wernt around when the plants and tylers and dalty's were out.
Ronnie james dio, chris surely sings similiar to him on badmotor.
sebastion
the singer from the cult
all of the punk rock singers all these seattleites looked up to.
you can rip these guys too but they could also sing and braught a differant sound to the table thru the 80s.
And you cant ignore the fact that cornell may have looked up to some non mainstream singers.

My point is leaning towards what someone else said earlier.

These names are all overated, they have all been pop icons, who capitalized on their style and creativity. Which in turn opens the door for criticism.

As crazy as this sounds in the real world outside of hear I think vedder is underated. He never gets the praise that chris gets.

Lifted

DOSW wrote:

I'd take Cornell in his prime over Plant in his prime any day. It's all just a matter of taste... or rather, it's probably more of a matter of which voice you got to know first. Most younger people like myself will probably take Cornell, and some of the older folks (not old, but older) will probably take Plant.

actually i'd say it's not about older or younger. most people in general would take plant. led zeppelin is a far superior band. robert plant is a far superior singer than cornell. soundgarden is overrated, chris cornell is overrated and audioslave just flat out sucks.

Ledbetterman10

Tiki Barber wrote:

actually i'd say it's not about older or younger. most people in general would take plant. led zeppelin is a far superior band. robert plant is a far superior singer than cornell. soundgarden is overrated, chris cornell is overrated and audioslave just flat out sucks.

I agree with everything except Audioslave flat out sucking. I think they're okay.

yosi1

Tiki Barber wrote:

actually i'd say it's not about older or younger. most people in general would take plant. led zeppelin is a far superior band. robert plant is a far superior singer than cornell. soundgarden is overrated, chris cornell is overrated and audioslave just flat out sucks.

Agreed. And just for the people who will obviously jump on this, saying Cornell and Soundgarden are overrated does not mean that they are bad. They are still a great band, just not the best band ever, like people on this board seem to believe.

Ledbetterman10

yosi wrote:

saying Cornell and Soundgarden are overrated does not mean that they are bad. They are still a great band, just not the best band ever, like people on this board seem to believe.

exactly

Pearl Jam and toast

Tiki Barber wrote:

actually i'd say it's not about older or younger. most people in general would take plant. led zeppelin is a far superior band. robert plant is a far superior singer than cornell. soundgarden is overrated, chris cornell is overrated and audioslave just flat out sucks.

Seriously, there's no way Plant is 'far superior' to Cornell. I wouldn't argue if you said you liked him better, but Cornell is up there with the best of them.

muppet

Does anyone get the feeling that Cornell's voice is modified in the studio during some of the Audioslave stuff? I know that studio and live are completely different, but hearing how he struggles he sings live, it just makes me wonder how he can pull off some of the stuff he does on the record.

Pearl Jam and toast

muppet wrote:

Does anyone get the feeling that Cornell's voice is modified in the studio during some of the Audioslave stuff? I know that studio and live are completely different, but hearing how he struggles he sings live, it just makes me wonder how he can pull off some of the stuff he does on the record.

He's always been like that. Though I wouldn't say he's ever struggled live.. except on the first AS tour. The Live in cuba DVD is a terrible showing of his voice.. he had laryngitis but still went out and performed.

Oh and there's no way he's using studio modification. Some delay here and there but that's it - and that won't give you a good voice.

muppet

Yeah, I suppose I was basing his live stuff on the Cuba DVD and some other bad days. Never got a chance to see Audioslave live, which is a shame. Still the Cornell tour to look forward to though!

Ledbetterman10

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

Cornell is up there with the best of them.

for me, Soundgarden (Cornell in particular) lacks consistancy. I love a few songs. but there are some songs that, while I won't say they "suck," I just have no interest in every listening to them. I think that even the most casual Robert Plant listener can listen to an album of his (Zeppelin or solo) and even if they completely hate a song, they'll find that the next two or three are to their liking. for me, a casual Soundgarden listener, such is not the case with them. and I love Pearl Jam, Nirvana, and Alice in Chains. I own every possible thing ever put out by Nirvana or PJ and I have all of Alice's studio albums. so it's not like I don't "get" this kind of music. I'm just not into them.


Kyle Petty, Son of Richard is a fine Cornell moment though.