White Heat Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 They are quite good live, despite Kiedis being mediocre, Flea and Frusciante are so fucking awesome. Yes, best bassist and guitarrist of all time in my eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickerman Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Flea is GOAT in terms of bass,but I never really found Frusciante that great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Flea is GOAT in terms of bass,but I never really found Frusciante that great.You should check out his solo record The Empyrean and A Sphere in the Heart of Silence with Josh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Problematique Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Flea is GOAT in terms of bass,but I never really found Frusciante that great. I think Frusciante is underrated, but for RHCP fans is like a God. He is great but not the best of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Heat Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Sorry but i can't be objective about it Stadium Arcadium tour speaks for me, fucking genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickerman Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 You should check out his solo record The Empyrean and A Sphere in the Heart of Silence with Josh. I think I might some time. Never heard of them (knew he had some solo stuff but never listened to it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Heat Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 The Empyrean is Frusciante's creative peak as solo musician. It might not be an accesible album if you haven't heard anything from him but it's worth a listen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzthief Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I wasn't comparing them. I was explaining what I meant by comparing Matt to good singers, so someone wouldn't come and say that Matt is clearly better than singers like Alex Turner. Learn to read. No it isn't. They're both singers in rock bands who do loads of genres, and they focus on strong chest notes and piercing falsetto notes. Brendon just happen to be better at it. To say that they're not comparable only shows that you don't know anything about him. And you're also showing that you don't know much about range. Matt has about A2-Bb4 in usable chest range, and up to about G5 in sung falsetto (A5 if you count his whole career). This means he can sing most songs that don't have low notes, but will have to replace loads of the highs with his comparably weak falsetto these days. He has less chest range than for example Brandon Flowers, Dave Gahan, Brendon Urie, Chester Bennington, Serj Tankian, Chad Kroeger, Jared Leto, Gerard Way, Chris Martin and even Damon Albarn. Honestly I've checked the ranges of loads of artists, and Matt is one of the most limited singers out there in popular music. It's just that he uses the range that he has more commonly than someone like Damon Albarn. Matt also lacks a lot of low range compared to other high range singers (and high range as well tbh). Adam Lambert has SUNG (not yelped like Bellamy's highest notes) up to B5, and down to E2. Jimmy Gnecco D2-C6, Morten Harket C2-G#5 and Brendon Urie D2-C6. Now, tell me how much range you think Matt has simply because you've heard him sing in falsetto. EDIT: We can also add Jeff Buckley F2-D6, Mike Patton has like 6 sung octaves, Patrick Stump has F2-G#5.. Ah yes, me saying that I THINK The Resistance is a bad album is clearly stepping on a lot of toes. Wtf, Gahan has more chest range than Bellamy? Funnily enough, I haven't noticed. If it ain't too bothersome, could you please give some examples (just give the songs, I'll search for the notes myself) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillyracer Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Tjet's post reminded me of my manlove for Mike Patton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Wtf, Gahan has more chest range than Bellamy? Funnily enough, I haven't noticed. If it ain't too bothersome, could you please give some examples (just give the songs, I'll search for the notes myself) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0fBh13UL0I&t=1m45s A4s in this song, so the same as City of Delusion and Madness live. Some high chest screaming at first, B4s. Then a great E5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFlovMGwUoA&t=1m12s backing vocals here go down to B1, so almost a full octave below Matt's lowest. and here's some falsetto singing that goes up to F5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unidentifiable Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Wtf, Gahan has more chest range than Bellamy? Funnily enough, I haven't noticed. If it ain't too bothersome, could you please give some examples (just give the songs, I'll search for the notes myself) I'm more surprised about Gerard Way and Brandon Flowers. I guess I can't tell the difference between chest voice, head voice and falsetto. Oh, and so as not to go off-topic, I love the Reapers studio version. It works well after Mercy, the guitars have tons of bounce and the outro is genuinely unsettling. One (tiny!) thing that annoys me a bit compared with the live versions is that the "killed by" and "by the" vocals are sustained into the pre-chorus riff, and I think it's better when they cut off before it. Edited May 30, 2015 by Unidentifiable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzthief Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0fBh13UL0I&t=1m45s A4s in this song, so the same as City of Delusion and Madness live. Some high chest screaming at first, B4s. Then a great E5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFlovMGwUoA&t=1m12s backing vocals here go down to B1, so almost a full octave below Matt's lowest. and here's some falsetto singing that goes up to F5 Man, you're my favourite swede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con101 Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I wasn't comparing them. I was explaining what I meant by comparing Matt to good singers, so someone wouldn't come and say that Matt is clearly better than singers like Alex Turner. Learn to read. No it isn't. They're both singers in rock bands who do loads of genres, and they focus on strong chest notes and piercing falsetto notes. Brendon just happen to be better at it. To say that they're not comparable only shows that you don't know anything about him. And you're also showing that you don't know much about range. Matt has about A2-Bb4 in usable chest range, and up to about G5 in sung falsetto (A5 if you count his whole career). This means he can sing most songs that don't have low notes, but will have to replace loads of the highs with his comparably weak falsetto these days. He has less chest range than for example Brandon Flowers, Dave Gahan, Brendon Urie, Chester Bennington, Serj Tankian, Chad Kroeger, Jared Leto, Gerard Way, Chris Martin and even Damon Albarn. Honestly I've checked the ranges of loads of artists, and Matt is one of the most limited singers out there in popular music. It's just that he uses the range that he has more commonly than someone like Damon Albarn. Matt also lacks a lot of low range compared to other high range singers (and high range as well tbh). Adam Lambert has SUNG (not yelped like Bellamy's highest notes) up to B5, and down to E2. Jimmy Gnecco D2-C6, Morten Harket C2-G#5 and Brendon Urie D2-C6. Now, tell me how much range you think Matt has simply because you've heard him sing in falsetto. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 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. Once again, Alex Turner wasn't mentioned as an example of a great singer, it was the exact opposite. And the issue with comparing Matt to great singers is that he falls flat in so many aspects, as I said. And yes, they would. And don't worry, I just mentioned some example that I knew you'd have heard of, I can mention just as many (and more) that are great live. And that Bennington looks weird when he sings doesn't mean a damn thing. He uses loads of breath support, that's all. And I said that I really like Matt's voice, so that you took it down the path of technique and vocal range was obviously a way to try and prove that he is more than just a singer who sounds good to some. I don't really care who you find aesthetically pleasing, that was never an issue. You're just as allowed to like his voice as I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con101 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Once again, Alex Turner wasn't mentioned as an example of a great singer, it was the exact opposite. And the issue with comparing Matt to great singers is that he falls flat in so many aspects, as I said. And yes, they would. And don't worry, I just mentioned some example that I knew you'd have heard of, I can mention just as many (and more) that are great live. And that Bennington looks weird when he sings doesn't mean a damn thing. He uses loads of breath support, that's all. And I said that I really like Matt's voice, so that you took it down the path of technique and vocal range was obviously a way to try and prove that he is more than just a singer who sounds good to some. I don't really care who you find aesthetically pleasing, that was never an issue. You're just as allowed to like his voice as I am. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer219 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 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. *applauds* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarthMarenghi Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I don't know why but I like the chorus vocals in the studio version far more than live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpentsatellite Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Guys I have opinions too. Wal Mart sucks. And Cats are the best, as you can tell. I'm continually surprised by how amazing cats are in videos, and how much of a letdown they are in person. They must have some great post-production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3ker Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I love the studio version! I'm really enjoying the production for this album and it just really shines in reapers. So punchy! The track has loads of personality. I could say this for all of the tracks we've heard so far but Reapers really makes me realise how bland a lot of the T2L was. There were some neat tunes in that one but this song alone blows that whole album out of the water, imo. Also I'm quite enjoying the vocal delivery on all the songs so far. Matt's vocals were really strong on the T2L (perhaps better they ever were) but sometimes I get the feeling that the delivery sounded a bit contrived, whereas in the bridge of Dead Inside or Reaper's verses they have this intensity and a slight "urgency" that I always felt was very unique to Matt. When I first heard that bridge kick in (in DI) I didn't even notice how the lyrics were so cheesy/basic, because the delivery seemed so sincere. It was the first time in quite a while that a new muse track actually felt like it had some emotional resonance. Only thing I'm not that excited about is the outro. It kicks ass, and even kinda fits the whole narrative thing thematically, but musically it just feels way too alien to the rest of the song. It must be a face melter live, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGeorge Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I don't know why but I like the chorus vocals in the studio version far more than live. Totally agree, I think it's because it sounds less 80s rock and more robotic. Fits the song more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleluman Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 It's really a shame this album is BHAR all over again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewisF Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Spoiler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Pigeon Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Check that poll out guys! Only 6 dislikes... This is surely the most well liked Muse song on the board since Knights Of Cydonia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonisdead Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 It's really a shame this album is BHAR all over again Don't see why you or anyone bothers bitching about loudness, we all know what it is and very few artists go against it. No point in these annoying posts that only serve to highlight pretension. Literally the most annoying fucking thing. The mixing on this album is far better anyways, so losing those extra frequencies doesn't make this album "as poorly produced/mixed" as BHAR. This is far better by comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bohemian-Cygnus-Running-Out Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Check that poll out guys! Only 6 dislikes... This is surely the most well liked Muse song on the board since Knights Of Cydonia? Yeah! Plus I've seen like almost no negativity on YouTube. I'm loving this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now