What started me thinking about this was the thread about punk rock. I have to confess I don't know much technically about punk music, but the punk voice is basically intended to be an unpleasant shriek, right?
In that thread I mentioned a band called Billy Talent, who started out with the punk rock label. I think they are now classed as alternative or some such thing. The lead singer's name is Ben Kowalewicz. He has what I would guess to be a classic punk voice. He also has some power and range. When I heard their first single I thought, the guy's voice is irritating, but I think I like it. What's up with that?
The song was 'River Below'. Here is the video.
I really like this song. A lot of energy and nastiness, filled out by good guitar hooks. Typical of this band's output. Please somebody, take a look. Don't be afraid.
But I do enjoy Billy Corgan's voice most of the time. And I usually like Dexter Holland's voice. (He's the lead singer for the Offspring, and I had to look it up.) Those are examples of what I would consider irritating voices.
Then of course there are the raspy and gravelly voices that have had so much appeal over the ages. From the blues masters to Janis Joplin to Joe Cocker to Axl Rose. And what about those nasal twangy country voices. Is Don Henley a better singer than Glenn Frey? (Again, I don't know that he really is.) Is it because we appreciate voices that have character or are 'distinctive' rather than the snowy pure and the vanilla sweet?As my thread title suggests, there are also voices that we find just plain irritating, and not in a good way.
What are the voices that you find irritating/enjoyable, and the ones you just find irritating, and do you have any idea why you find them that way?