#btw when I said that bit about TP and his accent - that was not an excuse or a pass. he sounds bad either way unless he used his

[musicrunsthroughmysoul]

I'm not going to write a dissertation on this, but I may write a bit of a novel, so feel free to not read this. LOL

(I'm going on and on about singing and the symbolism of it by comparing two vocalists, basically, but my main focus is one vocalist in particular who I've been listening to for pretty much the first time all year long so I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS.)

I've finally identified what it is about Stuart Adamson's voice post-The Seer/around the time of Peace in Our Time that I hate so much, that bothers me SO MUCH, and it's not just the symbolism of directing Big Country's music at the American market specifically - it actually has to do with singing and the art and the science of it (generally speaking; I'm no scientist as it is, but as a former-sometimes-still-but-rarely vocalist, I KNOW SOME STUFF).

So here's why and it's going to sound like a letdown (which is appropriate because that's exactly how it feels every time I listen to him sing post-The Seer): he's singing in a purposely nasally voice/tone.

Do you want to know how I know this? (Besides being a vocalist and being able to naturally hear the difference in my own voice when I sing in my chest or head voice and when I miss my head and chest voice and end up sounding...uh-huh, nasally!) I have the perfect example - an example that I have listened to hundreds (possibly even thousands) of times more than I've listened to Big Country yet.

Here is one example of someone (not to mention an INCREDIBLY DISTINCTIVE example) using his normal chest and head voice (he slips into a nasally tone in a few phrases, but it's much less prevalent than...in so many other examples, lmao), particularly when he's in the higher part of his singing range, but only up to the 2 minute mark when he starts singing in his nasally voice on purpose/for effect.

Now here is an example of the same person singing almost entirely/exclusively in a nasally tone.

You hear the difference, right? In the first one, his voice is clear, even as he uses his head voice to reach the higher notes (okay, it's like an A4 - not that high, but for a man who really isn't a tenor, it kind of is!). In the second example, he's singing in a nasally tone even for notes that he could easily hit in his chest voice (which is the most standard voice to sing in, as apparently your vocal chords responsible for your chest voice are thicker than your vocal chords responsible for your head voice, and your chest voice is also naturally the most comfortable voice to sing in because it's the same voice you speak in).

Do I...do I even need to provide examples now of differences between Stuart Adamson's voice pre-Peace in Our Time and from Peace in Our Time-on? Okay, I'll do it, even though it's probably just for me. So: in his normal chest and head voice (me, impressed: all of those high notes! In! His head voice!! Period!!!!! I think the highest note he reaches is an A-sharp/B4 flat, btw - I don't have a piano/keyboard at my disposal to confirm that, though, so I'm making an educated guess), and then in his deeply flimsy (irony intended) nasally voice. I actually don't think I can say that he sings that song entirely in a nasally tone/voice, but the CHORUS - that whole thing, oh, yes, shamelessly so and I hate it.

Now I'm finally gonna talk about why the nasal voice, as compared to his regular chest and head voice, is so bad (and if you want to read this as an equal critique of Tom Petty's voice, be my guest!).

So when I called Adamson's post-The Seer nasally voice "deeply flimsy," what did I mean by that, and how does that reflect his use of a specifically nasal voice/tone in a bad way? By "deeply flimsy," I mean that his nasally voice - used on purpose - is disingenuous. It is inauthentic.

And, okay, for a song like "Republican Party Reptile" or "We're Not in Kansas" I can somewhat understand the use of a nasally tone that is inherently disingenuous because it works to further illustrate how fake the characters in "Republican Party Reptile" (his "cousin PJ") and "We're Not in Kansas" (the place, Kansas; in this case, his perception of Kansas) are.

But for any song that IS NOT "Republican Party Reptile," "We're Not in Kansas," or anything else that doesn't obviously call for a disingenuous voice - when it became the voice he sang in pretty much all the time, it meant that he wasn't being honest, voice and tone-wise, toward any of the songs he was singing. Which...I could psychoanalyze him about that if I really wanted to, but I really don't want to here (currently), so I'll just stick to critiquing it regardless of what it might've meant for him personally to do so.

Basically: for him to sing in an unnatural (and thus inauthentic/disingenuous) voice/tone all the time meant that every time he chose not to sing anything in his natural, slightly accented voice (honestly, it's rarely noticeable, and I can't imagine that he was so self-conscious about it that that was the reason he chose not to sing that way anymore), it was just that - a choice. And, in a way, if he chose to sing every song that way, regardless of the song's subject matter or getting into "the character" of the song, then doesn't that cancel out the times he sang that way fittingly (like in "Republican Party Reptile" and "We're Not in Kansas")? ...I'm going to say yes. Because then he wasn't choosing to sing in that tone to fit the song; he chose to sing that way for everything, even everything he would sing in his normal voice before he started singing that way.

So yeah, the nasally voice/tone was unnecessary, except when it wasn't, but it became unnecessary for all time because he used it when he didn't ever need to.

And, really, this is why it bothers me so much: he started out in punk rock, right? And the first rule of punk is "You don't need to know how to do it, let alone how to do it well - you just need to try/do it, anyway." I mean, okay, yeah, he kinda speedran that because he was an incredibly talented guitarist whilst in the punk band The Skids, but as a singer, nonetheless, he always had the permission to do it anyway, no matter how good or bad you are at it. So he brought that idea to Big Country (necessarily, as a vocalist; not as a guitarist), and, naturally, he did improve as a vocalist (especially if you listen to his vocals on the entirety of The Seer)! And he did it all in his natural, authentic fucking voice. But then came Peace in Our Time which, not every song on that album is sung entirely in a nasally tone and, a decent chunk of it includes (but does not feature, imo) his authentic voice, but any time especially AFTER that album (and from specific years - I'd say 1990-on) he sang exclusively in a nasally voice/tone and abandoned his normal voice pretty much altogether.

Which leaves me with the knowledge that all along he could've sung in his normal voice - no matter who he was playing to or why - but that it became a choice to sing in an unnatural, inauthentic, nasally voice and tone. And it was bad! It wasn't Tom Petty "I'm an American Southerner so I can manipulate my voice and tone to accentuate that or even to downplay it" - it was full-on "This is how I sing now even though I've never sounded like this before," and, to be real - it never got him or Big Country anywhere better (capitalistically, if that is how you define success) than they got to before. Now I said I wasn't going to psychoanalyze him but I will say this: maybe he was bitter about that fact, or about the idea that he and Big Country had "peaked," so he imposed his feelings on all of his and Big Country's songs in every fucking performance? But what I can't understand is, did he really not respect his fans OR HIMSELF that much? He chose to sound fake to spite everybody's expectations of him and Big Country? Oof...isn't that a self-destructive bruise that I sure don't want to poke...

I also want to add, after watching a live performance by Big Country from 1990 (you know the music is just fine, but then Stuart sings the whole fucking thing in that tone AND MY EYE TWITCHES), the consideration that (and I'm just guessing here) maybe Adamson used that voice because he thought it was more rock 'n' roll - like maybe he was going for a gravelly voice that a lot of rock singers are known to employ in the middle of their songs or whatever? But...really man, every song you sing is rock and roll, no matter what? I mean, okay, I get it - gone are the days of 'I've always just played folk music with really loud guitars,' (that's the gist of a quote Adamson said at some point) but even quieter, softer songs don't require a gravelly voice that was really never mastered (or *coughs* even started) in the first place...so again I circle back to: even if he ignored his audience, he was still going to ignore what the songs needed, and what he needed, too? It's just...all so unnecessary, and it makes me sad.

Anyway, if you read this far, I will say one last thing about all of this: I'm sorry. About all of it. Except where I mentioned Tom Petty. Then I'm not sorry at all, and please don't ever expect me to apologize for anything I say regarding him. Thank. Honestly, it pains me to say all of that, because Stuart Adamson's natural voice was lovely but above all it was HEARTFELT and I think he very much could have improved even more as a vocalist if he hadn't just straight-up chosen not to sing in his natural voice no matter what, anyway.