web feature NME Greatest Singers Of All Time

[Bells]

Has any of you noticed the 'Matt Bellamy' font when you point to any of the pictures???

 

I have. I thought my computer was trying to manipulate me

[StrawberryGloss]

I have. I thought my computer was trying to manipulate me

 

I know, me too! But I checked in another computer to make sure!

[Caff]

I don't understand people who vote for Bowie. I sing better than him, and I can't sing. I ackknowlege his contribution his generation's music, though.

 

Freddie

 

I think Bowie can sing, maybe not the best but that's not the point I guess - it's like Matt's not the greatest singer but nobody would say he can't actually sing. It's not as ridiculous as Bob Dylan being there (which thankfully he isn't) for example.

 

Glad Freddie is in the lead though.

[haze015]

Another stupid poll.

 

 

If it was a real list of the greatest singers ever, it would be populated by opera singers, not rock/pop ones!

[Dockertae]

Another stupid poll.

 

 

If it was a real list of the greatest singers ever, it would be populated by opera singers, not rock/pop ones!

 

I suppose if you mean technically best, but I would tend to take best to mean most enjoyable to listen to generally. Otherwise every best band list would be solely filled by bands like Dream Theater.

 

Not disagreeing that these polls are pointless though.

[LyraSilvertongue]

I suppose if you mean technically best, but I would tend to take best to mean most enjoyable to listen to generally. Otherwise every best band list would be solely filled by bands like Dream Theater.

 

Not disagreeing that these polls are pointless though.

 

This. I personally don't enjoy listening to opera singers, generally.

[haze015]

I suppose if you mean technically best, but I would tend to take best to mean most enjoyable to listen to generally. Otherwise every best band list would be solely filled by bands like Dream Theater.

 

Not disagreeing that these polls are pointless though.

 

How else do you judge "greatest" though?

 

Being the most popular doesn't make something "great". Dream Theatre and so on wouldn't get a look in either on a technical level.

 

This. I personally don't enjoy listening to opera singers, generally.

 

Not the point. For example, I don't like Beyonce, doesn't mean she's not a great singer and in all fairness, should be higher than her idol, Arethra Franklin on that list.

[LyraSilvertongue]

How else do you judge "greatest" though?

 

Being the most popular doesn't make something "great". Dream Theatre and so on wouldn't get a look in either on a technical level.

 

 

 

Not the point. For example, I don't like Beyonce, doesn't mean she's not a great singer and in all fairness, should be higher than her idol, Arethra Franklin on that list.

 

There's no way to quantify 'greatest' because it means different things to different people. Which is why these polls are so meaningless.

[haze015]

There's no way to quantify 'greatest' because it means different things to different people. Which is why these polls are so meaningless.

 

Of course it is possible to quantify greatness!

 

It's just that people in these types of polls seem to think their own personal opinions have any relevance. "Great" isn't followed by "It means different things to different people" in the dictionary.

[LyraSilvertongue]

Of course it is possible to quantify greatness!

 

It's just that people in these types of polls seem to think their own personal opinions have any relevance. "Great" isn't followed by "It means different things to different people" in the dictionary.

 

In your opinion technical ability is the way the judge greatness? Or are there other factors? Do enlighten me.

[haze015]

In your opinion technical ability is the way the judge greatness? Or are there other factors? Do enlighten me.

 

It's the only way in all fairness.

 

Great and popular don't go hand in hand. I'm not even into opera, but have heard opera singers do things that "ordinary" singers can't do and do think it's unfair that people with such skill get left forgotten because a greater number of people prefer something else which doesn't require the same level of skill.

 

Fair enough people prefer other things. But far too often, people will just lean on the old "It's my opinion, therefore should be respected" bollocks rather than try and quantify why they feel something is great.

[Dockertae]

How else do you judge "greatest" though?

 

Being the most popular doesn't make something "great". Dream Theatre and so on wouldn't get a look in either on a technical level.

 

I would disagree with this on the basis that music is entertainment and thus it's pretty easy to define the best by what the majority of people enjoy. Someone could be as technically good as they want, but if no-one likes them, as an entertainer, are they really the best?

[haze015]

I would disagree with this on the basis that music is entertainment and thus it's pretty easy to define the best by what the majority of people enjoy. Someone could be as technically good as they want, but if no-one likes them, as an entertainer, are they really the best?

 

That would be an entirely different question though.

 

Music isn't strictly entertainment. It's just sound.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

[LyraSilvertongue]

It's the only way in all fairness.

 

Great and popular don't go hand in hand. I'm not even into opera, but have heard opera singers do things that "ordinary" singers can't do and do think it's unfair that people with such skill get left forgotten because a greater number of people prefer something else which doesn't require the same level of skill.

 

Fair enough people prefer other things. But far too often, people will just lean on the old "It's my opinion, therefore should be respected" bollocks rather than try and quantify why they feel something is great.

 

But for the purposes of these kinds of polls, greatest doesn't mean 'most skillful' or even 'most popular'. It means 'who do you like the best'.

[haze015]

But for the purposes of these kinds of polls, greatest doesn't mean 'most skillful' or even 'most popular'. It means 'who do you like the best'.

 

Yes and that is why they are stupid.

[Dockertae]

That would be an entirely different question though.

 

Music isn't strictly entertainment. It's just sound.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

 

I'll just agree to disagree here, I don't think technical ability is the single definitive way to judge the meaning of 'best', and I also think all music is entertainment based on the fact that it's a human endeavour pursued for the sake of itself. Lastly I don't think that John Cage 4:33 counts as music, otherwise you could literally call anything music.

[haze015]

I'll just agree to disagree here, I don't think technical ability is the single definitive way to judge the meaning of 'best', and I also think all music is entertainment based on the fact that it's human a endeavour pursued for the sake of itself. Lastly I don't think that John Cage 4:33 counts as music, otherwise you could literally call anything music.

 

Read the definition of best and how suddenly is this definition any different when applied to an art form?

 

Anything can be music, including silence. There's plenty of music that's not for the sake of itself, such as film soundtracks, where it is there to emphasis emotions and so on appearing on screen, not there just to sound nice and us humans do respond to music.

 

"Who's the greatest..." is a very different question to "Who's your favourite...". Surely this is something people learn when doing exams?

[Dockertae]

Read the definition of best and how suddenly is this definition any different when applied to an art form?

 

Anything can be music, including silence. There's plenty of music that's not for the sake of itself, such as film soundtracks, where it is there to emphasis emotions and so on appearing on screen, not there just to sound nice and us humans do respond to music.

 

"Who's the greatest..." is a very different question to "Who's your favourite...". Surely this is something people learn when doing exams?

 

Okay, I'll bite.

 

Firstly, art is a form of entertainment. It doesn't matter whether it's subtly altering the mood of a movie or whether it's an in-your-face pop song or whatever, the only value of music is its appeal to people. That makes it entertainment.

 

If you believe anything can be music, then logically you also believe that music can't be objectively critiqued, which goes against the basis for your whole argument. Are you saying that anything can be music but only some people are allowed to decide what these things are?

 

The problem you're having with this greatest/favourite thing is that you're unable to accept that music only has value based upon people's reaction to it, and therefore cannot be objectively quantified. You're basically inferring that some people are more qualified to identify the value of something that is 100% subjective.

 

I'm heading out now, so I won't be responding anymore, so like I say, I'll just agree to disagree.

[LyraSilvertongue]

The problem you're having with this greatest/favourite thing is that you're unable to accept that music only has value based upon people's reaction to it, and therefore cannot be objectively quantified. You're basically inferring that some people are more qualified to identify the value of something that is 100% subjective.

 

This is what I was trying to say. 100% agree.

[haze015]

Okay, I'll bite.

 

Firstly, art is a form of entertainment. It doesn't matter whether it's subtly altering the mood of a movie or whether it's an in-your-face pop song or whatever, the only value of music is its appeal to people. That makes it entertainment.

 

If you believe anything can be music, then logically you also believe that music can't be objectively critiqued, which goes against the basis for your whole argument. Are you saying that anything can be music but only some people are allowed to decide what these things are?

 

The problem you're having with this greatest/favourite thing is that you're unable to accept that music only has value based upon people's reaction to it, and therefore cannot be objectively quantified. You're basically inferring that some people are more qualified to identify the value of something that is 100% subjective.

 

I'm heading out now, so I won't be responding anymore, so like I say, I'll just agree to disagree.

 

Oh dear.

 

I just said music can be anything. So don't start twisting what I said into the complete opposite or try learning to read properly, not to mention contradicting yourself after saying 4'33" is not music. There's no definition of what music is and no real way to define it.

 

And I'm saying it's impossible to judge who the "greatest" is without specific criteria, which only really leaves technical ability as personal opinion isn't suitable for that. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that?

 

I'm not saying technical ability makes music good or bad in any way.

 

 

There's plenty of unknown session musicians out there, plenty who play purely for love, not sign record deals and go for fame who are simply incredible at what they do.

[LyraSilvertongue]

Oh dear.

 

I just said music can be anything. So don't start twisting what I said into the complete opposite or try learning to read properly, not to mention contradicting yourself after saying 4'33" is not music. There's no definition of what music is and no real way to define it.

 

And I'm saying it's impossible to judge who the "greatest" is without specific criteria, which only really leaves technical ability as personal opinion isn't suitable for that. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that?

I'm not saying technical ability makes music good or bad in any way.

 

 

There's plenty of unknown session musicians out there, plenty who play purely for love, not sign record deals and go for fame who are simply incredible at what they do.

 

Which is a rubbish way to judge the greatness of anything, be it music, art, literature. Which leads me to my earlier conclusion that greatness cannot be objectively quantified and there's no point trying.

[haze015]

Which is a rubbish way to judge the greatness of anything, be it music, art, literature. Which leads me to my earlier conclusion that greatness cannot be objectively quantified and there's no point trying.

 

Singing isn't strictly "music", it is a physical activity that you train yourself to do.

 

There is a difference, it is possible to judge someone on their ability to perform an instrument, which includes singing. Whether or not it's good "musically" is a different matter, which will be down to personal opinion, which is a personal judgement.

 

If you can't judge something with specific criteria, then you can't judge anything without. So are you trying to suggest that opinion is completely worthless?

 

 

 

By the way, I'm used to having the way I approach music challenged all the time.

[LyraSilvertongue]

Singing isn't strictly "music", it is a physical activity that you train yourself to do.

 

There is a difference, it is possible to judge someone on their ability to perform an instrument, which includes singing. Whether or not it's good "musically" is a different matter, which will be down to personal opinion, which is a personal judgement.

 

If you can't judge something with specific criteria, then you can't judge anything without. So are you trying to suggest that opinion is completely worthless?

 

 

 

By the way, I'm used to having the way I approach music challenged all the time.

 

Same principle applies to singing imo.

 

No, that opinion will vary from person to person so you can't apply any hard and fast rules or criteria to it.

 

Is that because you're usually wrong?

[haze015]

Same principle applies to singing imo.

 

No, that opinion will vary from person to person so you can't apply any hard and fast rules or criteria to it.

 

Is that because you're usually wrong?

 

Actually, everything you've been coming out with would be wrong and rightfully torn apart for being so narrow-minded.

 

Opinion is a personal judgement based on personal criteria and that is based on all sorts of factors. I'm not saying the most technically skilled will make the best music, but it is possible to admire the skill that has gone into something separate to the artistic side of it.

 

There's a lot of work for session musicians and they won't get work by talking crap about not being to judge and opinion varying between people, they need to be as skilled as possible on their instrument so they can do what they are asked to do, otherwise they are out of a job. It is possible to be a session vocalist and the exact same applies.

 

 

Edit - Surely if you can't explain or quantify an opinion you may have, surely that opinion is worthless and somewhat ignorant? Obviously there can be further/different criteria.

[LyraSilvertongue]

Actually, everything you've been coming out with would be wrong and rightfully torn apart for being so narrow-minded.

 

Opinion is a personal judgement based on personal criteria and that is based on all sorts of factors. I'm not saying the most technically skilled will make the best music, but it is possible to admire the skill that has gone into something separate to the artistic side of it.

 

There's a lot of work for session musicians and they won't get work by talking crap about not being to judge and opinion varying between people, they need to be as skilled as possible on their instrument so they can do what they are asked to do, otherwise they are out of a job. It is possible to be a session vocalist and the exact same applies.

 

How, exactly, is what I've said narrow-minded?