Originally Posted by Jelly Blossom
I'm sorry, I just can't buy the "the song's a personal song so the bad singer who wrote it should sing it" argument.
Compare versions of The Who's "Love, Reign o'er Me", one version featuring Pete Townshend on vocals, and another featuring Roger Daltry on vocals, especially that end "Love" @ 4:36 on Townshend's version and 4:59 on Daltry's:
Pete Townshend vocal:
Roger Daltry vocal:
Whichever one you prefer is entirely subjective, but it's pretty obvious that Daltry did an amazing job interpreting a song that Townshend wrote and took it to a level that Townshend could never achieve. Daltry's ability to articulate his own emotional connection is palpable here.
This example shows how just because someone didn't write a song, doesn't mean that he can't do a better job singing it/interpreting it than the writer did, no matter how 'highly personal' the song might be.
I'm not saying someone else "shouldn't" sing songs another person wrote. I just don't think you can say Billy's voice sucked, so someone else singing would have made the songs even better. It worked, despite his voice sucking. The band may or may not have done just as well (or better) with another vocalist. There's nothing wrong with the way the band did evolve, and no reason to think it definitely would have been better with a standalone singer.