Reapers (Song)

[Con101]

You don't seem to understand the point being made. At all.

 

I understand perfectly, and even conceded that I was well out of my depth when discussing stuff like range, but that wasn't the only point being discussed and I don't like how Tjet doesn't seem to be able to convey his points without resorting to this weird "holier-than-thou" rhetoric. As I said, i'm not the first to call him out on it.

[Hat]

Okay let's go through some things again.

 

1. You seem to use the defence that Matt has been praised for his vocal capabilities, so I must imply that everyone but me is wrong.

Answer: The people who praise him are fans and reviewers. Are reviewers required to have any education in music theory or singing theory? Nope. It's funny how reviews are only viewed as subjective when they diss Muse, but when they reward them with praise they're suddenly the music elite of the world.

 

2. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the "fact" that I'm telling others what to think or what they would think if they knew as much as me, which has never been the case. I simply said what I thought based on the facts that I have, which are a lot more researched than any review, that I can promise you. I didn't even start this by disagreeing with anyone or telling them they were wrong. I made a statement and people like you disagreed with it, so I presented facts. Now, that you chose to ignore those facts because for some reason you apparently can't live with the fact that Matt isn't a great technical singer, that's not my problem.

 

3. You also still seem to believe that I'm trying to prevent someone from liking Matt's voice, which I never did or implied. As I said in my first post, I myself love his voice, technical flaws aside.

[frozenbanana]

Isn't there a thread for all this stuff about Matt's voice

[Hat]

Matt's technique isn't bad. He's not super, but he does just fine.

His technique used to be a lot worse, but he survived with great natural breath support. 2012 he's improved a lot, but is still a bit one-dimensional and limited range wise. And now he's started going downhill again.

[Bumpypotato]

His technique used to be a lot worse, but he survived with great natural breath support. 2012 he's improved a lot, but is still a bit one-dimensional and limited range wise. And now he's started going downhill again.

 

The man's getting older, I guess. Hopefully the limitations will help him write better melodies.

[Con101]

"You're just telling us what we should think!!"

 

Straight up never said this. It seems it is you who isn't understanding basic points now, or perhaps exaggerating truths to advance your argument. I said you were predicting what we would think if we had your "knowledge", arguably that is more smug to be honest.

[Hat]

The man's getting older, I guess. Hopefully the limitations will help him write better melodies.

Yeah, it's just so weird that it happened so quickly. And I really hope so too. Really tired of just hearing him belt out the song title for the chorus.

[Hat]

Straight up never said this. It seems it is you who isn't understanding basic points now, or perhaps exaggerating truths to advance your argument. I said you were predicting what we would think if we had your "knowledge", arguably that is more smug to be honest.

Yes that one was obviously a hyperbole. Now how about the rest of that post?

 

And I literally never did that. YOU made the suggestion that I did, and I gave you a throwaway reply in a small segment of my post, and you just got stuck on it, much like you did now. I might as well accuse you of ignoring all the arguments you can't reply to with "now you're being a dick"

[Con101]

Okay let's go through some things again.

 

1. You seem to use the defence that Matt has been praised for his vocal capabilities, so I must imply that everyone but me is wrong.

Answer: The people who praise him are fans and reviewers. Are reviewers required to have any education in music theory or singing theory? Nope. It's funny how reviews are only viewed as subjective when they diss Muse, but when they reward them with praise they're suddenly the music elite of the world.

 

2. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the "fact" that I'm telling others what to think or what they would think if they knew as much as me, which has never been the case. I simply said what I thought based on the facts that I have, which are a lot more researched than any review, that I can promise you. I didn't even start this by disagreeing with anyone or telling them they were wrong. I made a statement and people like you disagreed with it, so I presented facts. Now, that you chose to ignore those facts because for some reason you apparently can't live with the fact that Matt isn't a great technical singer, that's not my problem.

 

3. You also still seem to believe that I'm trying to prevent someone from liking Matt's voice, which I never did or implied. As I said in my first post, I myself love his voice, technical flaws aside.

 

Literally everything above is simply not true. We get that you have more knowledge than people in the industry, musicians and reviewers alike. I understand that you think your "knowledge" renders their informed opinions as less than yours.

 

I never ignored the facts, as I stated many times I conceded you were right about his vocal range, but there were many more points than that.

 

I also never said you were trying to prevent anyone from liking Matt's voice, you're just plain making stuff up now, which is strange.

[Con101]

And yes, they would.

 

That was in reply to me asking whether you thought people would change their opinion on Matt's voice with your knowledge on the matter, so yes you did say that.

[Tobiiiaaas]

Anyway....back to Reapers.

 

Got no problem with matt's lyrics on this one, he's written better and he's written far worse. These are pretty solid for him.

[Tesseract]

Anyway....back to Reapers.

 

Got no problem with matt's lyrics on this one, he's written better and he's written far worse. These are pretty solid for him.

 

Agreed. I actually really like the verses lyrically, especially the 2nd one.

[Tobiiiaaas]

Agreed. I actually really like the verses lyrically, especially the 2nd one.

 

Same, people complain they're too literal but you can read other meanings into them, including personal ones as mentioned further up the thread.

[Hat]

[spoiler=Huge post]

Comparing Alex Turner and Matt Bellamy is frankly quite ridiculous, and I love both bands.

Comparing Brendon Urie to Matt Bellamy was also slightly ridiculous.

You can personally find Matt's voice to not be to your taste (although strangely you said it is) but to say he is technically nothing special and lacking in range is quite stunning to read in text form.

 

Well first off, I still don't understand the issue in comparing Matt Bellamy to great singers, especially when Alex Turner was cited as an example. Technical know-how or not, Matt is widely considered a great singer. Are you suggesting if more people knew as much as you on the subject they would change their mind?

 

I definitely know next to nothing about range, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that, but regardless I think it's fair to say that a singer's merits should be judged on whether or not what they can achieve in a studio setting can be translated comfortably to a live setting, that's usually the barometer isn't it? And some of the frontmen you cited don't do this as well as Matt. I've seen Flowers, Bennington and Tankian in concert with their respective bands and I thought they were weak vocally to be frank. Flower's voice pretty much disappears under any sort of strain. Bennington looks like he's under serious stress when singing and his performance reflects this. Tankian doesn't seem to have the lung capacity to keep up with the speed of his delivery on records.

 

I understand you are knowledgable into what makes a singer technically sound and you were talking about their vocal range, but if you're asking me what simply sounds most aesthetically pleasing, I think Matt pisses over a lot of the frontmen you suggested. And that was what the original discussion was about, I just naively took it down the range "route" because I think you're way too harsh with your opinion of Matt's voice.

 

So, just to clarify, if people "knew what you knew", Matt would no longer be considered a great singer? Expect an extermination drone inbound lest you one day have a platform on which to inform people of this knowledge. You could be a threat to one of Warner's most lucrative properties!

 

I wasn't worrying and i'm deliriously happy that you know of so many artists, but I didn't say Bennington looking weird means what you thought I meant, I said he looks under strain hitting a lot of his notes, and it reflects in the performance. He sounds strained.

 

A lot of your posts seem to contain a thin veil of condescension that suggest you think your opinion on certain matters is more valid than other people's, for one reason or another. I'm not the first to take issue with it and I can pretty much guarantee I wont be the last.

 

No, you're telling people what they would think if they knew "what I know" about the technical aspects of someone singing, that is unbelievably self-righteous. Ha, are you serious? The condescending tone isn't something I've just noticed on this thread, it's riddled throughout all of your posts.

Here's my argument then, Matt Bellamy is a great singer and neither you, nor any other of the high-horse posters can tell me that opinion is in any way less valid than your own.

So, here I collected all your posts on the subject. Let's begin.

 

 

Comparing Alex Turner and Matt Bellamy is frankly quite ridiculous, and I love both bands.

You misreading the post.

Comparing Brendon Urie to Matt Bellamy was also slightly ridiculous.

You not knowing Brendon Urie, which I explained. They are very similar live singers.

 

You can personally find Matt's voice to not be to your taste (although strangely you said it is) but to say he is technically nothing special and lacking in range is quite stunning to read in text form.

I explained both the technical and range aspect clearly as a reply to this. So basically replied to all your original points. Now let's move on to the ones you made after that.

 

Well first off, I still don't understand the issue in comparing Matt Bellamy to great singers, especially when Alex Turner was cited as an example.

Once again not reading properly.

 

Technical know-how or not, Matt is widely considered a great singer. Are you suggesting if more people knew as much as you on the subject they would change their mind?

Wrong. People with technical know-how often critique Matt's vocals, it's just that you never see it in the reviews or wikipedia pages. So yes, I obviously believe that if more people knew more about the technical aspect of singing, they would see Matt's technical flaws. It's not self-righteous, it's simple logic.

 

I think it's fair to say that a singer's merits should be judged on whether or not what they can achieve in a studio setting can be translated comfortably to a live setting, that's usually the barometer isn't it?

Well it is if you want it to be. But as I said, there are loads of great live singers. Jimmy Gnecco, Adam Lambert, Steven Tyler, Brendon Urie, Daniel Heiman, Daniel Gildenlöw, Jeff Buckley, Tim Buckley, Dave Gahan, Martin L Gore, Maynard, Chris Corner, Chris Cornell, Mike Patton, Gotye, Tom Chaplin and so, so many more.

Bennington looks like he's under serious stress when singing and his performance reflects this.

but I didn't say Bennington looking weird means what you thought I meant, I said he looks under strain hitting a lot of his notes, and it reflects in the performance. He sounds strained.

Now first off, that's exactly what I thought you meant when you said stress, but to clarify, you never actually said "strain" in that first post. And as I already explained, that's because of his tremendous breath support to reach notes which are way out of Matt's range. If he was to sing in Matt's chest range, he would look much less red in the face.

 

I understand you are knowledgable into what makes a singer technically sound and you were talking about their vocal range, but if you're asking me what simply sounds most aesthetically pleasing, I think Matt pisses over a lot of the frontmen you suggested. And that was what the original discussion was about, I just naively took it down the range "route" because I think you're way too harsh with your opinion of Matt's voice.

That actually never was what the original discussion was about. I was the one who made a statement about Matt's capabilities as a vocalist, mentioning technical aspects, and you disagreed with what I said about those technical aspects.

 

 

Now, these were all the points you made, and I replied to pretty much all of them. So now, "but there were many more points than that.", please show me where they are.

[demon45]

Does anyone else think that the synth in the verses should have been centered instead of left? To me, the centre is too empty.

[psychx]

Same, people complain they're too literal but you can read other meanings into them, including personal ones as mentioned further up the thread.

 

This whole album seems to have a double meaning. His relationship with k.hudson + the whole mind-control thing.

[Tobiiiaaas]

This whole album seems to have a double meaning. His relationship with k.hudson + the whole mind-control thing.

 

I do think the album has much deeper themes than just the Drones front of it all. There's a lot more thought into it than might generally be assumed.

[psychx]

Does anyone else think that the synth in the verses should have been centered instead of left? To me, the centre is too empty.

 

Not me. Too much to the centre and the bass would probably overwhelm the synths - i didnt even notice the synths till you mentioned it

[Jobby]

This whole album seems to have a double meaning. His relationship with k.hudson + the whole mind-control thing.

 

Well, he's said a few times that he sees drones and stuff like that as a good metaphor for loss of empathy.

 

Also, don't think I've seen anyone else mention this yet but I fucking love how he delivers the 'Killed by...' and 'By your...' falsettos, bending them up and kind of trailing off at the end. He tends to cut it off short live.

 

That bit and then the pre-chorus riff might be my favourite part about the song.

[Mattestro]

Also, don't think I've seen anyone else mention this yet but I fucking love how he delivers the 'Killed by...' and 'By your...' falsettos, bending them up and kind of trailing off at the end. He tends to cut it off short live.

 

 

 

That bit going into the pre-chorus riff might be my favourite part about the song.

 

 

yeah, highlight for me as well

[Hat]

Same. Although the highlight is the vocals in the first part of the first verse. Love them so much.

[Archer29]

Same. Although the highlight is the vocals in the first part of the first verse. Love them so much.

 

Yeah I think the first verse is the best vocal delivery of the whole song.

[Clunge]

I think this is the best 8-bit cover I've ever heard.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te8IKAQn8BQ

[demon45]

Not me. Too much to the centre and the bass would probably overwhelm the synths - i didnt even notice the synths till you mentioned it

 

Hmm, i think it's just because they are pushed so far to the left, if they were kept left but bought a bit more top centre and increased that bass, it would have filled the spectrum a little better. It niggles with me.

[Con101]

[spoiler=Huge post]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, here I collected all your posts on the subject. Let's begin.

 

 

You misreading the post.You not knowing Brendon Urie, which I explained. They are very similar live singers.

 

I explained both the technical and range aspect clearly as a reply to this. So basically replied to all your original points. Now let's move on to the ones you made after that.

 

Once again not reading properly.

 

Wrong. People with technical know-how often critique Matt's vocals, it's just that you never see it in the reviews or wikipedia pages. So yes, I obviously believe that if more people knew more about the technical aspect of singing, they would see Matt's technical flaws. It's not self-righteous, it's simple logic.

 

Well it is if you want it to be. But as I said, there are loads of great live singers. Jimmy Gnecco, Adam Lambert, Steven Tyler, Brendon Urie, Daniel Heiman, Daniel Gildenlöw, Jeff Buckley, Tim Buckley, Dave Gahan, Martin L Gore, Maynard, Chris Corner, Chris Cornell, Mike Patton, Gotye, Tom Chaplin and so, so many more.

Now first off, that's exactly what I thought you meant when you said stress, but to clarify, you never actually said "strain" in that first post. And as I already explained, that's because of his tremendous breath support to reach notes which are way out of Matt's range. If he was to sing in Matt's chest range, he would look much less red in the face.

 

That actually never was what the original discussion was about. I was the one who made a statement about Matt's capabilities as a vocalist, mentioning technical aspects, and you disagreed with what I said about those technical aspects.

 

 

Now, these were all the points you made, and I replied to pretty much all of them. So now, "but there were many more points than that.", please show me where they are.

 

Ok dude, I concede. Your knowledge on the matter and commitment to this discussion far exceeds my own. You win, I was wrong and you were right. End of debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But Matt is a great singer.