jdeboer01 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 And Gilmore. That would be "Gilmour", not "Gilmore" You have deeply insulted my God. Now you must die. apologies for the double, triple, fripple posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaking Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 That would be "Gilmour", not "Gilmore" You have deeply insulted my God. Now you must die. apologies for the double, triple, fripple posting. I noticed that (which is really weird if I noticed that) but I wasn't in the mood to google in to confirm if I was correct. Apparently I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I can't believe I just read 4 pages of you guys fighting each other over wich song shows Chris' bass talent best He's good enough to play every Muse song, and they're not all that easy. He's also able to play them live without making many mistakes (like Matt sometimes does). But I'd still consider Matt's singing abilities to be really good, not only his range is outstandning, he also has a tolerable technique and contrary to some other famous singers he can tour around without ruining his voice for the next months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zomuse Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Matt's piano skills are good, but he's far from the technical level of most if not all accomplished classical players, I think. His flourish-y playing dazzles a lot of people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chagi Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 his range is outstandning No it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 No it isn't. Can you hit a G# 5? that's not his highest note I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Can you hit a G# 5? that's not his highest note I think I can hit a G#5 and above, doesn't make me a good singer though. But Matt has a very limited range compared to other singers in the same genre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I can hit a G#5 and above, doesn't make me a good singer though. But Matt has a very limited range compared to other singers in the same genre. I didn't say that a vocal range says anything about a singers quality. Neither did I say that there aren't singer with a wider range, but I won't consider them to be better than Matt. Edit: His vocal range wasn't even my point, please stop bitching around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I didn't say that a vocal range says anything about a singers quality. Neither did I say that there aren't singer with a wider range, but I won't consider them to be better than Matt.Neither did I imply that you did. I'm simply adding it because it would inevitably have been your reply to me otherwise. "Yeah well, I doubt that you sound as good doing it". And if you're not judging vocal range with quality in the back of your head, then what's the point? A wide vocal range is completely useless and not even related to music if the person can't actually sing. It doesn't take good technique to have a good range. How can something be outstanding if you're not comparing to others? If someone is the worst in the world at something, then it would be kind of retarded to say that the person is outstanding at what he/she does. Matt's range is not only one of the worst ones I've come across when determining the vocal range of singers(a stupid hobby of mine), but he's also never pushed his voice very far until this year, so only time will tell if it will ruin his voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Edit: His vocal range wasn't even my point, please stop bitching around Your points were range, tolerable technique and not ruining his voice. Well since we've already astablished that his vocal range is very mediocre(albeit a lot better today compared to 3 years ago), how is "tolerable" technique a sign of a good singer? Basically your only valid point is that he has good natural breath support which is why his voice has held up so well through the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Your points were range, tolerable technique and not ruining his voice. Well since we've already astablished that his vocal range is very mediocre(albeit a lot better today compared to 3 years ago), how is "tolerable" technique a sign of a good singer? Basically your only valid point is that he has good natural breath support which is why his voice has held up so well through the years. Well, not few of todays singers have a horrible technique, not to say none at all. And I think Matts shown vocal range is probably just his tessitura, not his physically possible range, while most other singers, espacially in this genre, overdo their range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Well, not few of todays singers have a horrible technique, not to say none at all. Not exactly sure what the last part of this sentence is trying to say, but there are loads and loads of singers with better technique than Matt. He's not close to the worst, but neither close to the best. Simply average. And I think Matts shown vocal range is probably just his tessitura, not his physically possible range, while most other singers, espacially in this genre, overdo their range. I'd say Matt really pushed the limits of his range with T2L. Sure he could probably squeeze out a full C5 on a good day, but it's still nothing special. But if you read my other post I think you'll find that I agree on Matt not really pushing his voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I can go lower and higher than what we've seen from Matt and I wouldn't consider my range outstanding in the slightest People tend to overrate his range a lot from what I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chagi Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Can you hit a G# 5? that's not his highest note I think I can hit a G5, and a D#2, which is way lower than Matt has displayed (that is to say, I'm only using my own range to copmare and I'm otherwise an awful singer). Matt's range isn't really anything special at all, seeing how someone who's as untrained as I am can do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 My range is actually fairly close to Matt's...only a step lower. His A4s seems as hard to him as G4s are to me, and where his comfortable range these days bottom at around A2, mine bottoms at G2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobby Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I'm hardly trained in singing or anything but the highest falsetto note I've hit was a C6 or a D6, I think. Matt's chest voice can probably go higher than mine as I think the highest I can go is probably a Bb4. My lowest note I can comfortably hit is a D2, I think. I've got awful technique though as I've never really been taught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Well anyway, to get back on topic, it you're looking for technical skill better watch out in classical area. Or Dream Theater or something like that. Muse is good, but technically not the best band band in the world (wich is probably Dream Theater today, not counting James LaBrie, he's average). Overall, Muse is still the best band in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave. Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Well anyway, to get back on topic, it you're looking for technical skill better watch out in classical area. Or Dream Theater or something like that. Muse is good, but technically not the best band band in the world (wich is probably Dream Theater today, not counting James LaBrie, he's average). Overall, Muse is still the best band in the world. Ability wise there are better bands. Greatness isn't something people can judge, that's down to taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Ability wise there are better bands. Greatness isn't something people can judge, that's down to taste. I didn't mean to sound objective. Sorry if I did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave. Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I didn't mean to sound objective. Sorry if I did No bother Tbh the last thing we need is another argument!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Muse is good, but technically not the best band band in the world (which is probably Dream Theater today, not counting James LaBrie, he's average) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I'm not sure if you're laughing about Dream Theater or about me being stupidly objectiv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangeseas Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I'm not sure if you're laughing about Dream Theater or about me being stupidly objectiv. I am sure that Thom Yorke is the best musician living on earth. <3 His nasal vocals are so haunting :'( He laughs because you're wrong. Okay, actually he laughed because you called DT "the technically best band today". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksky Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Okay, actually he laughs because you called DT "the technically best band today". Well, they actually are all extremely good with their instruments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 The "technically best band" is such a useless subject. It's like asking which football player can balance a ball on their head for the longest time. Since that ability is close to totally useless in their profession, not very many will care to show the world how long they can do it. Just like many bands are more technically proficient than they let on. Why don't they show it, you may ask. Well the answer is simple: Because they have no reason to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.