haze015 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 How, exactly, is what I've said narrow-minded? Because you can't separate the idea of say, a great singer singing a crap song or a crap singer singing a great song, the idea that because you like something, it must therefore be great. A singer isn't always the one who writes the song, just doing what they are instructed to do, does that make their ability to sing less great? All I did was suggest the best way to judge the greatest whatever without personal bias was through technical ability. The main area it falls apart is that a lot of musicians don't tend to play at their absolute best all the time as it doesn't always achieve what they want to do artistically. Another area is that a lot of people aren't musicians and may not know much about the technical aspects of what is going on. Another thing is basic ignorance and this idea of natural talent, which is the biggest load of horse shit out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Because you can't separate the idea of say, a great singer singing a crap song or a crap singer singing a great song, the idea that because you like something, it must therefore be great. A singer isn't always the one who writes the song, just doing what they are instructed to do, does that make their ability to sing less great? All I did was suggest the best way to judge the greatest whatever without personal bias was through technical ability. The main area it falls apart is that a lot of musicians don't tend to play at their absolute best all the time as it doesn't always achieve what they want to do artistically. Another area is that a lot of people aren't musicians and may not know much about the technical aspects of what is going on. Another thing is basic ignorance and this idea of natural talent, which is the biggest load of horse shit out there. Can't I? I can't imagine what I've said that's given you that impression. And if I like something, it's great to me. I don't expect anyone else to think the same They'll have their own ideas of great. This is what I've said all along, it's a personal and very subjective thing. You can't take personal bias out of the equation. I think because you're a musician you approach these things from a different angle to the average music fan. Most people don't care too much how their music is put together, they just want to enjoy it. If that's ignorant then so be it. Let's not go down the natural talent road again. We've already been there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Can't I? I can't imagine what I've said that's given you that impression. And if I like something, it's great to me. I don't expect anyone else to think the same They'll have their own ideas of great. This is what I've said all along, it's a personal and very subjective thing. You can't take personal bias out of the equation. I think because you're a musician you approach these things from a different angle to the average music fan. Most people don't care too much how their music is put together, they just want to enjoy it. If that's ignorant then so be it. Let's not go down the natural talent road again. We've already been there I was actually reading a good article the other day in natural talent and it was going on about an experiment where they got people to solve problems after giving them a questionnaire on their attitudes towards it. I've not tried to suggest that music isn't a personal thing, just trying to say that if someone wanted to work out who the greatest ever whatever is, personal opinion cannot be a factor in that. Playing an instrument and singing is a physical activity as well as art, there are areas of music dedicated to the physical/technical side of it more so than the artistic side of it. Also I just find it insane that people actually believe their opinions should be taking seriously if they can't explain why they enjoy or dislike something. Even though we're not fans of opera, I was once watching a TV version of Carmina Burana and at one point, the female singer had a solo and she must have held onto a particular note for not far off a minute, no effort at all, no wavering, nothing, just when you thought she'd have to breathe, suddenly went into modern R&B vocal gymnastics. Seriously impressive, no studio trickery or anything (These guys need to fill a room and compete with orchestras without microphones, so if people want to mention power...) Someone like Bellamy can't do that, so while he may make music I enjoy listening to far more often, as a singer, to say I rate him higher than someone who is years beyond him in ability doesn't make sense. If this was the greatest musician, songwriter or whatever, it would be a totally different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I was actually reading a good article the other day in natural talent and it was going on about an experiment where they got people to solve problems after giving them a questionnaire on their attitudes towards it. I've not tried to suggest that music isn't a personal thing, just trying to say that if someone wanted to work out who the greatest ever whatever is, personal opinion cannot be a factor in that. Playing an instrument and singing is a physical activity as well as art, there are areas of music dedicated to the physical/technical side of it more so than the artistic side of it. Also I just find it insane that people actually believe their opinions should be taking seriously if they can't explain why they enjoy or dislike something. Even though we're not fans of opera, I was once watching a TV version of Carmina Burana and at one point, the female singer had a solo and she must have held onto a particular note for not far off a minute, no effort at all, no wavering, nothing, just when you thought she'd have to breathe, suddenly went into modern R&B vocal gymnastics. Seriously impressive, no studio trickery or anything (These guys need to fill a room and compete with orchestras without microphones, so if people want to mention power...) Someone like Bellamy can't do that, so while he may make music I enjoy listening to far more often, as a singer, to say I rate him higher than someone who is years beyond him in ability doesn't make sense. If this was the greatest musician, songwriter or whatever, it would be a totally different. But often you can't put into words exactly what it is about something that makes you love it so much. You just know that it produces an emotional response that other music doesn't. Why is that insane? Two singers I absolutely adore - Matt Bellamy and Jimmy Gnecco, quite similar in style I guess, both very emotional singers. That's probably one of the reasons I love them but I don't see the need to analyse why I love what I love. The emotional response is what makes it so subjective. No, Bellamy can't do what a trained opera singer can do but he can bring something else to the music other than technical ability. That other factor may be just as important as being able to hold a note for nearly a minute. So how would you rate Bellamy as a songwriter? i know you haven't been the biggest Muse fan for while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 But often you can't put into words exactly what it is about something that makes you love it so much. You just know that it produces an emotional response that other music doesn't. Why is that insane? Two singers I absolutely adore - Matt Bellamy and Jimmy Gnecco, quite similar in style I guess, both very emotional singers. That's probably one of the reasons I love them but I don't see the need to analyse why I love what I love. The emotional response is what makes it so subjective. No, Bellamy can't do what a trained opera singer can do but he can bring something else to the music other than technical ability. That other factor may be just as important as being able to hold a note for nearly a minute. So how would you rate Bellamy as a songwriter? i know you haven't been the biggest Muse fan for while... I never said he didn't have other qualities, but people don't respond to those equally and you get back into the personal thing again and who is to say that a more technically able singer is not able to match those qualities or that others don't see those qualities in that singer? Basically, stop thinking about yourself and what you like for a second and think a bit broader, it's really not hard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I never said he didn't have other qualities, but people don't respond to those equally and you get back into the personal thing again and who is to say that a more technically able singer is not able to match those qualities or that others don't see those qualities in that singer? Basically, stop thinking about yourself and what you like for a second and think a bit broader, it's really not hard! Sigh, I give up. You've misunderstood pretty much every word I've said and I'm fed up banging my head against a brick wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccellino Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Matt got my vote. Can't understand the fanatical following of Freddie Mercury at all, he was interesting and talented but blah, I'm so not fussed about listening to Queen music. I don't care about how long someone can hold a note btw. Music and singing is for entertainment not for boring people to death. Although, I suppose some people do find long notes entertaining just like some people think it's impressive if someone stays under water, holding their breath for a long time. They deserve a prize from the Guiness Book of Records, not a greatest singer award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haze015 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Sigh, I give up. You've misunderstood pretty much every word I've said and I'm fed up banging my head against a brick wall. I understand what you're saying, just my whole point to start with was what a load of shit it is, you've done nothing to convince me otherwise. You should probably have worked out by now that I have little respect for anyone who tries to hide behind "It's my opinion and it should be respected" with nothing of substance to back it up. Opinion isn't everything and the only way anything like this could work is if personal bias could be taken out. There have been studies into how people react emotionally to music, through the release of chemicals such as dopamine in the body as that's all emotions are. Matt got my vote. Can't understand the fanatical following of Freddie Mercury at all, he was interesting and talented but blah, I'm so not fussed about listening to Queen music. I don't care about how long someone can hold a note btw. Music and singing is for entertainment not for boring people to death. Although, I suppose some people do find long notes entertaining just like some people think it's impressive if someone stays under water, holding their breath for a long time. They deserve a prize from the Guiness Book of Records, not a greatest singer award. It was only one example. If Bellamy hadn't of bothered to put the effort in to improve his singing. You wouldn't be here saying how great he is. So don't be an idiot and suggest technical ability counts for nothing. Otherwise, why would so people object to Autotune, in fact, why would people care if singing was in tune for not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoma-kun Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Ok, I'm too lazy to read through all of this. Can someone do a summary of the argument? ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Ok, I'm too lazy to read through all of this. Can someone do a summary of the argument? ^^ Honestly, it's not worth it. Even I'm bored by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tofu Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Ok, I'm too lazy to read through all of this. Can someone do a summary of the argument? ^^ Basically one is arguing that "best" is subjective, the other objective. Both are right, and it really shouldn't have lasted so long. I only read it because I was trying to fall back asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 it's a bit of a travesty MJ is now 1st. although i can't see how it has happened unless all the MJ fans gave their votes. but what would make more sense is NME doing this to get Queen's attention, which they have on facebook. ah nme, you scumbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccellino Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 The final result had Matt at 11th. Jacko was 1st and Freddie 2nd. Being dead must help a lot in these polls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QubiQ Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The final result had Matt at 11th. Jacko was 1st and Freddie 2nd. Being dead must help a lot in these polls Yes, and this is what NME say about him: 11. Matt Bellamy. What would Muse be without their pint-sized, falsetto-singing frontman? He may be small, but give him an electric guitar and a microphone and he becomes one of today’s most energetic rockstars. Then I found this article related to the vote result - I don't really think it got 10 million votes, though. http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/news/international/29010/The-top-20-singers-of-all-time-according-to-10-million-NME-votes NME readers have cast 10 million votes in a poll which has revealed that Muse’s Matt Bellamy is the most notable singer to have emerged during the last quarter century of musical endovour and that Axl Rose is the world’s greatest living singer. Michael Jackson topped the poll with an average score of 9.02 out of 10 ahead of Queen’s Freddie Mercury who was given a score of 8.39. Elvis Presley took third place with an average of 7.17 and Guns N’ Roses Axl Rose finished fourth with 6.47. Axl is also the only living singer to make the top five on the list. Nine of the top twenty performers have joined the choir in the sky. And in further evidence that women can’t sing Aretha Franklin was the only woman in the Top Ten, while Tina Turner scraped into twentieth position. NME’s Top 20 singers of all time:: 1. Michael Jackson 2. Freddie Mercury 3. Elvis Presley 4. Axl Rose 5. John Lennon 6. David Bowie 7. Robert Plant 8. Paul McCartney 9. Stevie Wonder 10. Aretha Franklin 11. Matt Bellamy 12. Ray Charles 13. Jim Morrison 14. Bob Marley 15. Elton John 16. Kurt Cobain 17. Steven Tyler 18. Mick Jagger 19. Marvin Gaye 20. Tina Turner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 And in further evidence that women can’t sing ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QubiQ Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 OK, that was one of the boring articles I have ever encountered. (regret it posting without reading closely.) Please ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraSilvertongue Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 OK, that was one of the boring articles I have ever encountered. (regret it posting without reading closely.) Please ignore it. I thought it was funny. Just NME messing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.