Arch/Matheos

His unique sense of phrasing as well. To me, he has more in common in some sense with the RIO singer Dagmar Krause - equally innovative and influential in her own way - than with people he is often compared to, such as Geoff Tate.


Ok, I can now somewhat see where you're coming from and conclude that our tastes in singers are just miles apart. I don't like Dagmar Krause's voice at all either. And yes, I would agree with you that on some level she and Arch are similiar.

Tate had a great voice, but compared to Arch he's just not much to speak of. Arch is a one-of-a-kind vocalist. Once he's dead, no one's going to sing like Arch anymore. Just the way it is.

Fair enough, but there are some one-of-a-kind vocalists I'm not going to miss at all. Think Axl Rose...


What bothers me with the nasally singing styles of John Arch or Dagmar Krause is that it to me hides any emotion that might be there. I just don't get any emotional connection to the lyrics - not saying that there isn't any - I just can't really hear it through that tone and am rather just left with slowly increasing annoyance.

You see, my favourite vocalists are really without an exception vocalists who are focused on conveying emotions rather than reaching a level technical flawlessness. Examples would be Devin Townsend. Sseriously, in pretty much everything he sings, you can really hear that he means it, more so than with almost any singer imo. His delivery is really nuanced, and his voice extremely varied (Qualities which I don't find with singers like Arch).



Same can be to be the reason why I find Cynthesis - DeEvolution to be the superior prog album compared to Arch/Matheos. The singer Erik Rosvold is really focused on portraying emotions on it and really makes the story work, and he really has the kind of tone that I could listen to for hours and hours.



Both sound like they have their soul invested on the performance and that's really something I look for in great singers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really have any problem with Arch's voice, but yea I prefer Alder too. Personally I'd put Tate over both of them, his voice just has so much power and depth.
 
You make good points, but I want to clarify a couple of things.

First, I agree that Dagmar Krause is not the most soulful singer in her early work - while IMO that changed later on (you can check out her work with News from Babel or with Chris Cutler/Lutz Glandien for evidence of that), I didn't intend her as an example of an emotional vocalist. Arch could be said to have the same problem with early Fates Warning, but I think that's at least debatable. It's hard to say how much Arch has grown as an emotional singer compared to Krause, because he simply hasn't made very much music over the years. However, with the release of this new album, I think it's safe to say he has.

Second, I should note that while I value emotion, I don't to the exclusion of everything else. Emotion is not the only purpose of music, and cold, unfeeling, or abstract music has its place just as well. That's a side point, however, because...

Third, I do not agree that Arch's performance on the new album is unemotional. On the contrary, I find his voice invigorating and even moving at some points. It's obvious to me that he cares a lot about the material, not only the music, given how lovingly he crafts the melodies, but the lyrics as well. I think his voice has an ecstatic, yearning quality to it that I do relate to emotionally. So if the intention of your post was to contrast those singers with Arch by claiming that he somehow isn't emotional (at least on this record - old Fates is debatable), I entirely disagree. Which leads me to the next point...

Fourth, emotion is projected onto music as much as it's contained inherently within it. I am willing to accept that some singers lack emotion in the sense that you're unlikely to get much out of them no matter who you are, but I don't think Arch is one of those. I can see from your examples that you connect emotionally to rich and sincere vocal performances. I tend to be more attracted to vocalists who portray ecstasy, desperation, sarcasm, otherworldliness, etc. in their voices, which means you're going to have to deal with wilder changes in phrasing and pitch. Some people think that this makes vocals "wanky" and unemotional, but I don't. This is why I like, in addition to Krause and Arch, ICS Vortex, Geoff Mann, Buddy Lackey, Peter Hammill and so on. I like my share of more deliberate vocalists as well, though, including Peter Nichols, Nick Barrett, Arno Menses, and (late) Peter Gabriel.

Fifth, I don't think emotion and technical flawlessness exclude each other. I would prefer both, other things equal, and if given only one, it would depend on the kind of music I'm in the mood for which of the two I would choose. More technical ability means more capacity for conveying different types of emotion. It doesn't make a good vocalist, but it doesn't hurt.

Sixth, I still like nasal vocals. Really, I don't see the problem with them.

Hmm, I think that's all I have to say. As I said, good points, but I still disagree about Arch overall.
 
Interesting how different people hear the same thing and react to it so differently. Even with all of us being somewhat into the genre of progressive music.
 
This is my favorite album so far this year. Arch's melodies are unmatched and he wrote some great, introspective lyrics this time around. Matheos really stepped it up and surprised me with some of his riffs as well. Some of this sounds like nothing he's every played before. Very modern.

Everyone else gives amazing performances too. Jarzombek just absolutely kills it on same parts, man. I think I can finally accept Zonder being out of Fates Warning now.