They can’t sing

HugalHugal Shipmate
I go to a lot of musical theatre so hear good singers all the time. Don’t get me wrong there are some great singers in the pop world. Some are fantastic even. That said and given stylistic differences, why do so many people who can’t really sing make millions while many who have a great voice just get by? Each time I have heard Robbie Williams or Katy Perry sing live on TV they are constantly missing the note. Madonna’s performance on the Eurovision Song Contest was really awful. Let’s have people who can actually sing shall we
«134

Comments

  • MiffyMiffy Shipmate
    I can’t offer any answers, though it strikes me there’s a similar dropping of standards in the literary world. Either that or I’m becoming far more fussy discerning in my old age. Sometimes I wonder if all the editors went out to lunch!

  • Production. Production techniques have advanced so much (I hesitate to say improved) that silk purses can be made of sow's tails and trotters, let alone ears. An early and extreme exmple is "Believe" by Cher, in which it was clear that she had lost it and all kinds of electronic wizardry was employed to produce a tune that was in key albeit a monstrosity in evry other way. .

    Strangely (or not) cover and tribute bands may have singers who make a better job of the original song than does the better-known/original singer. I heard a Deep Purple/Rainbow tribute band (Richie Blackmore's Ego or some such) and the singer managed to sound like Graham Bonnet, which is impressive!
  • In music, art, literature and, dare I say it, Politics, and probably etc. etc. the prevailing culture is 'do you have style, bravado, are you able to wing it and convince everyone else you know what you are doing, even if you don't' - that's what seems to count these days, not actual skill or talent.
  • Chorister wrote: »
    In music, art, literature and, dare I say it, Politics, and probably etc. etc. the prevailing culture is 'do you have style, bravado, are you able to wing it and convince everyone else you know what you are doing, even if you don't' - that's what seems to count these days, not actual skill or talent.

    This reminds me of a book J.B. Priestly wrote in about 1970 titles "The Image Men". It featured a couple of academics, somewhat down on their luck, who, with the aid of a well-off American widow got the science of "Social Imagistics" going, firstly in a hotl room, then at a provincial university and finally back in premises in London.

    It was pretty much as you describe.
  • I listened to a few Johnny Cash covers today. His voice is old and scratchy, and he has a limited range. Some of the songs he chose to cover didn't really suit him, but you could see why he chose them. The words were important. But when he sang a song that fit his brokenness, in voice and his ability to convey its spirit, he was Maria Callas.


  • sionisais wrote: »
    Production. Production techniques have advanced so much (I hesitate to say improved) that silk purses can be made of sow's tails and trotters, let alone ears. An early and extreme exmple is "Believe" by Cher, in which it was clear that she had lost it and all kinds of electronic wizardry was employed to produce a tune that was in key albeit a monstrosity in evry other way. .

    "Believe" was an experiment with autotuning. It was intended to make her voice sound robotic. Had nothing to do with her singing ability. Well-done autotuning is indiscernible. This song came out when the technology was new, and she clearly thought that it sounded cool or neat or something. It doesn't of course. But the people who are being autotuned because they really can't sing, you will never know.
  • Yes, as mousethief said, autotuning hasn't just been used to correct deficiencies. It can be used for deliberate distortion. I thought "Believe" was OK as an experiment. I think Radiohead used it to get that robotic or depersonalized effect, as did Kanye West, also used in hip-hop, and rai, although I don't know this.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Hugal wrote: »
    I go to a lot of musical theatre so hear good singers all the time. Don’t get me wrong there are some great singers in the pop world. Some are fantastic even. That said and given stylistic differences, why do so many people who can’t really sing make millions while many who have a great voice just get by? Each time I have heard Robbie Williams or Katy Perry sing live on TV they are constantly missing the note. Madonna’s performance on the Eurovision Song Contest was really awful. Let’s have people who can actually sing shall we
    Not defending any of your examples, but every performer has a bad day. And age affects the voice.
    ETA: Whilst there are middle of the road singers produced to sound better, what constitutes a good performer is so much more than voice.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I listened to a few Johnny Cash covers today. His voice is old and scratchy, and he has a limited range. Some of the songs he chose to cover didn't really suit him, but you could see why he chose them. The words were important. But when he sang a song that fit his brokenness, in voice and his ability to convey its spirit, he was Maria Callas.
    What constitutes a good voice is subjective. Both to the style of music and to the listener.
  • The interesting thing about rai (N. African folk and pop), is that autotuning adds to the exaggerated melisma. I like it, but I note that purists are up in arms. People say that walking through a N. African market, you are swamped by it.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    . But the people who are being autotuned because they really can't sing, you will never know.

    Not sure about that. I can easily detect it in a number of singers who are not trying to make it obvious, e.g. Michael Buble, Adam Levine. It was also obvious to me the few minutes I was forced to watch that Glee show. Now there may be instances where it is not detectable but it still feels quite ubiquitous.

  • Surprised you can hear anything over the waving of your cane...
  • Please, Adam Levine is older than I am.
  • These threads are typically of the "Get off my LAWN!" variety, so it was a good bet.
  • It all went downhill when they got rid of castrati. Kids just aren't willing to make sacrifices these days.
  • MiffyMiffy Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I listened to a few Johnny Cash covers today. His voice is old and scratchy, and he has a limited range. Some of the songs he chose to cover didn't really suit him, but you could see why he chose them. The words were important. But when he sang a song that fit his brokenness, in voice and his ability to convey its spirit, he was Maria Callas.


    It’s a shame when a formerly brilliant voice begins to go. We’ve seen Jethro Tull a few times in past years and noticed how Ian Anderson had begun to share lead vocals with another band member, as here.https://youtu.be/09VqNLo05lw

    We saw this first in Thick as a Brick 2 , and thought it worked pretty well; less propping up a shaky voice more an extra and enjoyable part of the spectacle.

    Saw them again a couple of years later; the younger vocalist and others weren’t present, just projected up on video. It had lost all its immediacy and vitality IMO. We decided to go home after the first half.
  • edited August 2019
    It's interesting that the OP mentions musical theatre, as this is traditionally an area where actors with relatively limited singing ability could be successful. Neither Rex Harrison nor Richard Burton was a more than passable singer, but each originated leading roles in Lerner and Loewe musicals. Judi Dench does not have the voice of, say, Anna Netrebko, but gosh was she good in A Little Night Music. Come to think of it, I'm not sure one could say that Liza Minnelli ever had a "good" voice by any classical standard.


    Similarly, there is a tradition in country, folk, gospel, and punk music that allows for singers with more emotional than vocal range. Johnny Cash has been mentioned, but one could also mention Leonard Cohen, Kris Kristofferson, Bob Dylan, or Shane MacGowan. Even Joan Baez, whose voice is generally (and, I think, rightly) well-regarded sings in a very idiosyncratic fashion, by which I mean that literally nobody else sings like her and nobody else should probably try. But I'm a fan of all of them. Each sings with authenticity.*

    I don't like a lot of current Top 40 hits because they seem canned and artificial. Auto-tuning probably has a lot to do with that.

    My pet peeve is the trend for young girls (and I mean often very young girls, as in five to eight years old) to belt like aging contraltos. This is very popular and it seems like everyone else things these girls are simply amazing singers. They are clearly imitating a style of singing associated with, say, Whitney Houston, but without the life experience to make this kind of distinctly mature singing believable. Meanwhile, I can't help but think how beautifully, with proper training, they might sing the high notes in the Allegri Miserere or "For I will Consider my Cat Joffrey" from Britten's Rejoice in the Lamb. The pure treble voice is a thing of great and fleeting beauty, and I find the trend for abandoning it in favor of a precocious "divahood" to be perplexing and, quite frankly, vulgar.

    *Literary present, as Cohen and Cash don't aren't really in a position to sing live these days.
  • It's interesting that the OP mentions musical theatre, as this is traditionally an area where actors with relatively limited singing ability could be successful. Neither Rex Harrison nor Richard Burton was a more than passable singer,
    Passable only if you mean passing by the pub they were singing in after you've got blind drunk in the one down the road.
    Similarly, there is a tradition in country, folk, gospel, and punk music that allows for singers with more emotional than vocal range. Johnny Cash has been mentioned, but one could also mention Leonard Cohen, Kris Kristofferson, Bob Dylan, or Shane MacGowan. Even Joan Baez, whose voice is generally (and, I think, rightly) well-regarded sings in a very idiosyncratic fashion, by which I mean that literally nobody else sings like her and nobody else should probably try. But I'm a fan of all of them. Each sings with authenticity.*
    *Literary present, as Cohen and Cash don't aren't really in a position to sing live these days.
    Nonsense, they are in a quartet with Bigfoot and Elvis. Very limited engagements, though
  • You are aware that there are microphones out there which "pitch-correct" - that is to say that the sound fed into them by a singer is fed through some mixing software with the backing to produce an in-tune end product.

    Microphones and mixing have long been used to cover so-called singing starts' inadequacy - I recall an evening in London with Barbara Streisand when there was a power cut: the generator couldn't power more than basic lighting. Orchestra was reduced to bare minimum, playing very softly and you still couldn't hear her in the 6th row of the stalls. Refunds were handed out.
  • I sometimes listen to 'Friday night is music night' on Radio 2. If they are playing selections from musical shows, there are sometimes singers whose names I don't know (and then fail to remember) whose voices are superb. I wish I could still go to London stage musicals.

    I do hope that these programmes are not put through some electronic wizardry!! They have, apparently, live audiences, so I hope it is the way it sounds.

  • The pure treble voice is a thing of great and fleeting beauty, and I find the trend for abandoning it in favor of a precocious "divahood" to be perplexing and, quite frankly, vulgar.

    Preach it! :smile:

    I was often going on at my kids regarding this - 'divahood' is a big thing in the school gospel choir, and man it sounds sh*t. Well, at least my lot know how hard it is to hit a note hard and clean - those divas wobble to the point they just hit the note twice every vibratory cycle. In another era they might have thought they were singing scat, and in the -ology sense I might yet agree.
  • The pure treble voice is a thing of great and fleeting beauty, and I find the trend for abandoning it in favor of a precocious "divahood" to be perplexing and, quite frankly, vulgar.

    Preach it! :smile:

    I was often going on at my kids regarding this - 'divahood' is a big thing in the school gospel choir, and man it sounds sh*t. Well, at least my lot know how hard it is to hit a note hard and clean - those divas wobble to the point they just hit the note twice every vibratory cycle. In another era they might have thought they were singing scat, and in the -ology sense I might yet agree.
    :confounded: Yeah, projecting taste as a quality. Right.
    Teaching children to focus on a star mentality is not the most healthy route, but the rest of your comment sounds suspiciously like the creaking straps of a firmly clutched handbag.

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I remember going to watch Nina and Frederik as a teenager, I think in the old Opera House in Wellington. The sound system broke down, which was not uncommon. Nina, who had been classically trained, could make her voice heard right back where we were sitting. Her partner was a lightweight in comparison.
  • Give the ageism a rest, @lilbuddha. Isn't it okay to dislike some new things? As far as I can tell, universally embracing change wont keep me young and it definitely wont make the kids think I'm cool. They find my very existence "awkward."
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The pure treble voice is a thing of great and fleeting beauty, and I find the trend for abandoning it in favor of a precocious "divahood" to be perplexing and, quite frankly, vulgar.

    Preach it! :smile:

    I was often going on at my kids regarding this - 'divahood' is a big thing in the school gospel choir, and man it sounds sh*t. Well, at least my lot know how hard it is to hit a note hard and clean - those divas wobble to the point they just hit the note twice every vibratory cycle. In another era they might have thought they were singing scat, and in the -ology sense I might yet agree.
    :confounded: Yeah, projecting taste as a quality. Right.
    Teaching children to focus on a star mentality is not the most healthy route, but the rest of your comment sounds suspiciously like the creaking straps of a firmly clutched handbag.

    Depends on whether they are singing solo or as part of the choir.

    If every treble in the treble line is singing with a wide vibrato, then unless the wobbles are perfectly in phase, all you will get is mush. That's not a matter of aesthetics but of how sound waves work.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    Give the ageism a rest, @lilbuddha.
    I did not think handbag clutching was an age thing.
    Twilight wrote: »
    Isn't it okay to dislike some new things? As far as I can tell, universally embracing change wont keep me young and it definitely wont make the kids think I'm cool. They find my very existence "awkward."
    No one needs any excuse to not like something. We all have preferences. However, music is largely a subjective thing and projections otherwise do not deserve any respect.

  • Ricardus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The pure treble voice is a thing of great and fleeting beauty, and I find the trend for abandoning it in favor of a precocious "divahood" to be perplexing and, quite frankly, vulgar.

    Preach it! :smile:

    I was often going on at my kids regarding this - 'divahood' is a big thing in the school gospel choir, and man it sounds sh*t. Well, at least my lot know how hard it is to hit a note hard and clean - those divas wobble to the point they just hit the note twice every vibratory cycle. In another era they might have thought they were singing scat, and in the -ology sense I might yet agree.
    :confounded: Yeah, projecting taste as a quality. Right.
    Teaching children to focus on a star mentality is not the most healthy route, but the rest of your comment sounds suspiciously like the creaking straps of a firmly clutched handbag.

    Depends on whether they are singing solo or as part of the choir.

    If every treble in the treble line is singing with a wide vibrato, then unless the wobbles are perfectly in phase, all you will get is mush. That's not a matter of aesthetics but of how sound waves work.
    The way those opinions were presented felt less like objective criticisms than subjective projection.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    I don't see them as "objective criticisms" but as reasons for their opinions.
  • Lyda wrote: »
    I don't see them as "objective criticisms" but as reasons for their opinions.
    Could be projection on my part, of course.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Well, as you say, it's all pretty subjective. Yet people can assert strong opinions that sound like they think it's objective truth when they really know it is an opinion. Some do think their opinion is in fact objective truth. I had a crotchety middle school teacher who insisted that rock music wasn't really music, but I couldn't pin him down on what the difference was.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    These threads are typically of the "Get off my LAWN!" variety, so it was a good bet.
    No, it's not. Many aspects of performance are indeed subjective, but tuning is not. Anyone who requires the use of an autotuner is not, in my (extensive personal and professional) experience, someone worth hearing.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Lyda wrote: »
    I don't see them as "objective criticisms" but as reasons for their opinions.
    Could be projection on my part, of course.
    Ya think? The agism accusations are in fact a fair cop.

  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I listened to a few Johnny Cash covers today. His voice is old and scratchy, and he has a limited range. Some of the songs he chose to cover didn't really suit him, but you could see why he chose them. The words were important. But when he sang a song that fit his brokenness, in voice and his ability to convey its spirit, he was Maria Callas.
    What constitutes a good voice is subjective. Both to the style of music and to the listener.

    Yep. I can take Kirsten Flagstaff recordings even when she was on the downhill slope. Birgit Neilsen is for me an acquired taste that I have not managed to acquire except for that golden moment when she was at the top of her game (1960-65).
  • PDR wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I listened to a few Johnny Cash covers today. His voice is old and scratchy, and he has a limited range. Some of the songs he chose to cover didn't really suit him, but you could see why he chose them. The words were important. But when he sang a song that fit his brokenness, in voice and his ability to convey its spirit, he was Maria Callas.
    What constitutes a good voice is subjective. Both to the style of music and to the listener.

    Yep. I can take Kirsten Flagstaff recordings even when she was on the downhill slope. Birgit Neilsen is for me an acquired taste that I have not managed to acquire except for that golden moment when she was at the top of her game (1960-65).

    hah! I read that as Brigitte Nielsen for 1/2 a second. I would agree, though I will admit to not being a huge fan of opera, so may not be listening in the same way you might be.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    These threads are typically of the "Get off my LAWN!" variety, so it was a good bet.
    No, it's not.
    But it is.
    Especially as the OP ends with:
    Let’s have people who can actually sing shall we
    All three of the people mentioned in the OP can, in fact, sing. Not perfectly on tune, no, but they can sing.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Many aspects of performance are indeed subjective, but tuning is not. Anyone who requires the use of an autotuner is not, in my (extensive personal and professional) experience, someone worth hearing.
    Your professional experience does not make that statement anything more than opinion. It allows you to asses the quality of a voice within technical parameters, yes. But "worth hearing" is entirely subjective.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Lyda wrote: »
    I don't see them as "objective criticisms" but as reasons for their opinions.
    Could be projection on my part, of course.
    Ya think? The agism accusations are in fact a fair cop.
    Assuming the whingers are old? Yes, that is ageism. "Get off my Lawn" is not exclusive to older people.

  • DavidDavid Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    It all went downhill when they got rid of castrati. Kids just aren't willing to make sacrifices these days.

    You know you’re living in a snowflake world when no one has the balls to become a castrato.

  • 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    edited August 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    All three of the people mentioned in the OP can, in fact, sing. Not perfectly on tune, no, but they can sing.
    No, they can vocalize. Whether or not they can actually sing is a subjective matter.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Your professional experience does not make that statement anything more than opinion. It allows you to asses the quality of a voice within technical parameters, yes. But "worth hearing" is entirely subjective.
    I suppose it, to people without an ear (as it is known). But the use of autotuner technology is instantly identifiable, and entirely phony.
    Assuming the whingers are old? Yes, that is ageism. "Get off my Lawn" is not exclusive to older people.
    It seems to be one of your favorite insults to fling at people with whom you disagree (more than most), regardless of their actual ages. I don't see the reverse happening in your direction.


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    All three of the people mentioned in the OP can, in fact, sing. Not perfectly on tune, no, but they can sing.
    No, they can vocalize. Whether or not they can actually sing is a subjective matter.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Your professional experience does not make that statement anything more than opinion. It allows you to asses the quality of a voice within technical parameters, yes. But "worth hearing" is entirely subjective.
    I suppose it, to people without an ear (as it is known). But the use of autotuner technology is instantly identifiable, and entirely phony.
    Assuming the whingers are old? Yes, that is ageism. "Get off my Lawn" is not exclusive to older people.
    It seems to be one of your favorite insults to fling at people with whom you disagree (more than most), regardless of their actual ages. I don't see the reverse happening in your direction.

    Right. Stepping back onto the pavement, didn’t mean to trample your grass.
  • If you're not singing "on tune" then you're singing, sure, but you're shite. Very little is objective in music. Aiming for a note and missing it is one of those things.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    mousethief wrote: »
    If you're not singing "on tune" then you're singing, sure, but you're shite. Very little is objective in music. Aiming for a note and missing it is one of those things.
    shhhhhhh
    Opera is the language of God and the angels. All the rest is the bleating of sin deluded sheep.
    Even in the lesser <sniff> "musical" forms, being able to precisely hit a note is the sign of one's achieving grace with God.
    The notion that any given note is an arbitrary designation or that taste is at all variable are messages from Satan!
  • Well, I'll give you this: opera is superior to the scraping of a rusty hinge on a large metal door.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Ok just caught up. Firstly I did say that I know certain styles have their own rules.
    Secondly there are roles in musical theatre that are written for those who can’t sing well and Professors Higgins in My Fair Lady is one of them. So is Sally in the stage version of Cabarete and Judy Dench’s role in A little Night Music. There is a difference between knowing you are not a great singer and being able to sell a song, and thinking you can sing when you can’t really. Performance is very important but if you claim to sing then sing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Well, I'll give you this: opera is superior to the scraping of a rusty hinge on a large metal door.

    I think the guys from Einstürzende Neubauten will have something to say about that!
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Well, I'll give you this: opera is superior to the scraping of a rusty hinge on a large metal door.

    I think the guys from Einstürzende Neubauten will have something to say about that!

    Big fans of hinges, are they?
  • I don't know if they ever specifically used hinges but scraping metal plates together, banging on oil drums, rattling chains, breaking glass, etc. was their thing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Production. Production techniques have advanced so much (I hesitate to say improved) that silk purses can be made of sow's tails and trotters, let alone ears. An early and extreme exmple is "Believe" by Cher, in which it was clear that she had lost it and all kinds of electronic wizardry was employed to produce a tune that was in key albeit a monstrosity in evry other way. .

    "Believe" was an experiment with autotuning. It was intended to make her voice sound robotic. Had nothing to do with her singing ability. Well-done autotuning is indiscernible. This song came out when the technology was new, and she clearly thought that it sounded cool or neat or something. It doesn't of course. But the people who are being autotuned because they really can't sing, you will never know.

    OK then. It was an experiment. Leave autotuning to NASCAR.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Opera is the language of God and the angels. All the rest is the bleating of sin deluded sheep.
    Even in the lesser <sniff> "musical" forms, being able to precisely hit a note is the sign of one's achieving grace with God.
    The notion that any given note is an arbitrary designation or that taste is at all variable are messages from Satan!
    Oh, come off it. Stop being such a jerk, if you can possible manage it. I have never said nor suggested any such thing. I did dare to challenge you, and so you have to heap on the sarcasm; how dare anyone challenge the all-knowing lB?

    I happen to love opera (and have been accused of being "posh" for that sin), but of course not everyone does. It is an acquired taste, one which most people never acquire. There is nothing at all wrong with that. But singing in tune is basic. If one wants to make a career as a singer, being able to hit the notes is generally considered essential. Crappy robotic technology doesn't begin to make up for the lack.

    Apparently you don't have an ear. That's fine. But please stop pretending that it's not important in the field of music. And you can take your self-important pomposity and stuff it.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Production. Production techniques have advanced so much (I hesitate to say improved) that silk purses can be made of sow's tails and trotters, let alone ears. An early and extreme exmple is "Believe" by Cher, in which it was clear that she had lost it and all kinds of electronic wizardry was employed to produce a tune that was in key albeit a monstrosity in evry other way. .

    "Believe" was an experiment with autotuning. It was intended to make her voice sound robotic. Had nothing to do with her singing ability. Well-done autotuning is indiscernible. This song came out when the technology was new, and she clearly thought that it sounded cool or neat or something. It doesn't of course. But the people who are being autotuned because they really can't sing, you will never know.


    Oh, dear. I happen to love that song! It's just catchy as hell and has a great drum beat. I am so sorry. I hope you will still like me, Mousethief.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Opera is the language of God and the angels. All the rest is the bleating of sin deluded sheep.
    Even in the lesser <sniff> "musical" forms, being able to precisely hit a note is the sign of one's achieving grace with God.
    The notion that any given note is an arbitrary designation or that taste is at all variable are messages from Satan!
    Oh, come off it. Stop being such a jerk, if you can possible manage it. I have never said nor suggested any such thing. I did dare to challenge you, and so you have to heap on the sarcasm; how dare anyone challenge the all-knowing lB?
    You framed opinion as objective. What you challenged was rational thinking, not me.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I happen to love opera (and have been accused of being "posh" for that sin), but of course not everyone does. It is an acquired taste, one which most people never acquire. There is nothing at all wrong with that.
    There is nothing wrong with liking any type of music, even the autotuned songs you despise.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    But singing in tune is basic. If one wants to make a career as a singer, being able to hit the notes is generally considered essential.
    The autotuned singers you malign have successful careers.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Crappy robotic technology doesn't begin to make up for the lack.
    But it does. Objectively it does because what is acceptable is subjective and people pay loads of cheddar to the people you despise. What this means is that technology has indeed made up for the lack.
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Apparently you don't have an ear. That's fine. But please stop pretending that it's not important in the field of music. And you can take your self-important pomposity and stuff it.
    Nothing I've said has indicated that I do not have an ear. In fact, what I've said more implies I do rather than do not.
    I'm saying that what is good music is subjective and you are saying it is not. Who is being pompous here?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Crappy robotic technology doesn't begin to make up for the lack.
    But it does. Objectively it does because what is acceptable is subjective and people pay loads of cheddar to the people you despise. What this means is that technology has indeed made up for the lack.

    Well, given that you brought up cheddar, it is an objective fact that things called "cheese food" and the like exist and sell in significant quantities at significant profit. These kinds of ersatz eatables are rather looked down upon by people with tastebuds.

This discussion has been closed.