CAT5 9075 Posted July 20, 2014 So I was just having a discussion with a good friend about this topic and now I'm curious to know what you all think as well. What do you all feel defines a vocalist, and what do you all feel defines a singer? Is being a vocalist more of an appropriate term for an extremely talented singer, or do we just call them singers? Is being called just a singer any less respectable than being refered to as a vocalist (vice versa)? Let me know, i'm curious to hear your opinions on this! 2 doombox and togz reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
togz 2004 Posted July 20, 2014 CAT5 and I must know, so please. 1 doombox reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Biopanda 2675 Posted July 20, 2014 I'm going to go and say that "singer" implies that one can sing, while "vocalist" is someone who can make noises out of their mouthhole :v 1 237Q reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indigo 389 Posted July 20, 2014 I'll keep it short but to me a vocalist is someone who can use their voice in various ways (e.g. growling, screaming), not just "sing". A good example of this would be Kyo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bear 1817 Posted July 20, 2014 A singer, growler, screamer, rapper and so on are all vocalists, but a vocalist isn't necessary a singer. That's how I've always seen it, but I may be far off here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CAT5 9075 Posted July 21, 2014 I'm going to go and say that "singer" implies that one can sing, while "vocalist" is someone who can make noises out of their mouthhole :v I'll keep it short but to me a vocalist is someone who can use their voice in various ways (e.g. growling, screaming), not just "sing". A good example of this would be Kyo. A singer, growler, screamer, rapper and so on are all vocalists, but a vocalist isn't necessary a singer. That's how I've always seen it, but I may be far off here. My aplogies, but please see my opening post. I've edited it and added some more precise questions on the matter that I'd like to know your opinions on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
saishuu 3220 Posted July 21, 2014 This is a confusing topic for me. I've always been under the impression that anyone can be a singer (professionally or not) and that a vocalist is a singer that's involved in a group. Like vocalist is a "position" a singer has within a band/group or whatever, just like guitarist, bassist and drummer for example. I may be extremely off in this too, though. 2 paradoxal and hitsuji-hime reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JukaForever 758 Posted July 21, 2014 What do you all feel defines a vocalist, and what do you all feel defines a singer? By definition, the 2 words are the same thing. As long as the sounds that comes out from their mouths are somehow melodic, it counts as singing subjectively. The only reason it wouldn't be is because "singer/singing" is associated more, by majority, to the typical way of singing in soul, RnB, pop and such genres. That is just one way of singing but that style is quite predominant. Rapping, growling, screaming and others that are defined is just a style IMO used by a vocalist to sing. It is just to avoid confusion that we properly defined vocalists that use these styles as a rapper, growler, screamer , etc. Is being a vocalist more of an appropriate term for an extremely talented singer, or do we just call them singers? No, they are synonymous terms. I don't see how talent can be objectively be better just by using a different term to describe what is they do. It is almost akin to saying a football player is better at football than a soccer player. Is being called just a singer any less respectable than being refered to as a vocalist (vice versa)? No respect is lost being called a singer, again, I don't see how a synonymous term can allude to something different. Vocalist singing at their specialized genre is more respected by those fans of the genre and less so than those not interested in the genre in the first place. 1 Tetora reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
violetchain 912 Posted July 21, 2014 I've always just used them interchangeably...? 2 Tetora and hitsuji-hime reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hiroki 5521 Posted July 21, 2014 for me vocalist is an upmarket way of saying singer (*_*) 2 togz and Tetora reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetora 625 Posted July 21, 2014 I dont really try and split things up into different terms or categories. To seperate vocalists and singers seems like a way to mentally masturbate over ones favorite singers, no? Like its all just about the message or feeling you get across. Whether it be with tremolos, huge range, perfect falsettos, or just with a scratchy off-key voice and emotion. It's all the same chit. Mick Jagger would never win any singing competition, but he's sold more records and moved more people and changed music more than every American Idol combined. Jimi Hendrix and Van Halen didnt even really know music theory but come out on top over every 'virtuoso' as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shmilly 519 Posted July 21, 2014 As far as I'm concerned, a singer and a vocalist are one and the same thing. There's no qualifications to becoming either one of them, they're just different terms for that role. I'd agree with saishuu though that personally I tend to see a vocalist as a role within a band, as opposed to a solo artist. I can also agree with points that when you think 'singer' you think clean vocals, opera, falsetto; but with 'vocalist' there's a whole semantic field of sounds like screams, growls, inhales, or even rap. It would be weird to me to call a rapper a 'singer'. But the terms themselves are interchangeable in my mind. It's just a matter of how you view said musician. I do have another question to perpetuate this discussion though, particularly for those who see a clear distinction between the two terms. Is there a difference between a good vocalist and a good singer? (For example, someone who can growl and scream skilfully but whose clean vocals are poor or out of tune) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indigo 389 Posted July 21, 2014 Is being called just a singer any less respectable than being refered to as a vocalist (vice versa)? Vocalist does sound more professional and singer can be used about pretty much anybody but no, they're both as respectable. Is being a vocalist more of an appropriate term for an extremely talented singer, or do we just call them singers? It's not a question of talent what term to use. Vocalists don't have to be good at what they do to be called vocalists. There's shitty ones too. Same thing with singers. I agree what someone said that vocalists are members of band and singers are often solo artists Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doombox 4421 Posted July 21, 2014 I agree with some of the prior comments in that not all vocalists are singers but all singers are vocalists. Meaning, "vocals" entail multiple vocal styles like screaming, yodeling, whistle register, singing, ect. "Singing" is a more specific and rigid term. So if you are calling someone a talented vocalist it is appropriate for all styles, but a talented singer would only be used by someone who sings in the general sense of the word. ((Even with all of that said, I've been known to say "singer" when I mean "vocalist" quite a lot due to laziness and general acceptance of the word "singer" also being used as a placeholder for "front-man" and other like terms.)) And I don't think one is any less prestigious than the other, the only way I pass judgement is if the performer is skilled or unskilled at their chosen vocal style. 1 togz reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites