Your picks of mediocre or lousy vocals with great musicians!

Warren Zevon isn't exactly Jussi Bjoerling (well, maybe next to Dylan he could pass), but his cover of "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" blows away the original IMO. Maybe knowing that Zevon was dying of cancer when he recorded it colors my judgement here, but - for me - that is an insanely moving vocal performance.

Yoko Ono deserves special mention here.

The Plastic Ono Band included (at various times): Clapton, Jim Keltner, Alan White, Delaney and Bonnie Bramlett, Billy Preston and John, George, and Ringo, among others.

Actually, this one might be tough to beat.

Funny that we got a Neal Schon response to Bdp.  I was considering making one myself.  I was roped into seeing Journey last year and was struck by two (and a half) things:

1). The concert overall struck me as a completely soulless exercise in nostalgia.  

2).  These guys could play.  Expert musicians across the board.

1/2). Neal Schon, in particular, is enormously skilled.

What most struck me was how little they did with so much.  Other than a few really schmaltzy ones, a fair number of their hits are pleasant enough.  Yet, the entire show left me utterly cold.

It really comes down to personal taste.  Every musical decision they made felt calculated.  Neal Schon covered The Star Spangled Banner and demonstrated what a terrible idea that was.  His playing was certainly admirable, but No!  Do not go there!  Unless you have something truly compelling to add in your interpretation (if he did, I missed it) this is just a very, very bad idea.

I fully understand that others may see it differently, but as good as the players are, the entirety of it didn't work at all for me.  So, in summary:

If Steve Perry qualifies for this thread, I'd say that the little Philippino guy who replaced him does, too.

Slaw,

I think you conflated my response with the one that followed - "panties in a bunch" wasn't me.  I was actually trying to reconcile what you posted with what bop posted.  IMO, Neil Schon is a highly skilled player whose taste does not comport with mine.   For those with different tastes, he might well be a favorite.  I really wasn't trying to make any value judgement at all (beyond the general rule that guitarists should leave the anthem to Jimi).

I was actually trying to note that - although they might appear irreconcilable at a glance - I agreed with both bdp's view of Neal Schon and with yours.

I go both ways on this one.  Jimi just went about playing the guitar in a new and different way.  While I tend to agree with Bdp on both of his main points:

1) Playing should generally be in service to the song
and
2) Jimi's songs weren't often compelling.

Hendrix may be the rare exception to the rule.  

I guess my reasoning is that the other side of the analysis is that playing can also be in service to the technology.  One difference between Bach (whose keyboard was a harpsichord) and Mozart is that the latter had access to a newfangled device called a piano.  What Mozart did to unleash the instrument's potential is significant (and generally compelling) to me beyond what that playing did for the particular piece at hand.

Fast forwarding to the last century (and NOT drawing any qualitative comparisons), you saw a similar opportunity with both guitar and synthesizer.  In my view, the heart of the electric guitar playing  evolution occurred in a roughly thirty year span ending in +/- 1965.  Charlie Christian, Les Paul, Chuck Berry, and Jimi - as well as a potentially contentious list of bluesmen that I'll avoid selecting - all contributed to the evolution of expression from an instrument that didn't even exist as a commercial product before 1935.  That's enough to get me interested, even if the underlying music doesn't always move.

BTW, I'll give Pete Townsend similar props for the synthesizer.  For me, the classical world struggled to find good use (although I like some of Phillip Glass' early ideas more than most folks I know) for the instrument.  Rock musicians tended to use it as a guitar.  Townsend really found a more interesting avenue, IMO.

All in all, an interesting subject to me.  My own views are probably somewhat eccentric, s the ever popular:

YMMV.

Sorry Bdp,

Right you are.

However, my point was not that Bach composed on harpsichord, but that he didn't have a piano (as did Mozart) available.  That instrument's arrival changed technology in a way that demanded IMO new avenues of expression.  Mozart obliged, as IMO did (if on a lesser scale) the electric guitarists and synthesizer-ists (new word!) I mentioned in that post.

So, mea culpa on the error.  It certainly should have read "organ and harpsichord".  Hopefully, my point - even if you don't buy it - was clear despite the poor choice of words.