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.
Whilst I am not a fan of things that cannot legally be called cheese, they sell. The people who eat them have tastebuds. Despite my own tastebuds shrieking in disgust, their preference is as legitimate as my own.
Lilbudha success comes from many different sides. It could be the right place right time. It could be how you look. It is as much about luck as talent. There are hundreds who can sing the pants off many chart artists who don’t get famous. Many good singers are just happy to work.
Lilbudha success comes from many different sides. It could be the right place right time. It could be how you look. It is as much about luck as talent.
I would say that it is more luck than anything else, regardless of skill.
There are hundreds who can sing the pants off many chart artists who don’t get famous.
This is true, but it does not paint an accurate picture. What makes a good entertainer is not purely based on skill at the supposedly featured talent. So, even if the playing field were level, it is not necessarily the "best" singer who will be successful.
You framed opinion as objective. What you challenged was rational thinking, not me.
Nope. You constantly trash others simply because we disagree with you. You have no use for any opinions not your own, no matter how rational and well-based those opinions are. You pretend to "rational thinking," but your chief weapons are the personal attack and the persistent repetition of junk thinking.
There is nothing wrong with liking any type of music, even the autotuned songs you despise....
I didn't say there was. I'm just pointing out some problems with the whole concept of autotuning, including its robotic affect.
The autotuned singers you malign have successful careers. ...
Unlike you, I have maligned no one. Some of them have successful careers as performers, rather than as singers per se. The look, the moves, the costumes, the videos, the reputation - all these outweigh the importance of the actual vocalism. I'm focusing on singing, not the package.
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?
Wrong again. I said that tuning is not subjective. You, proving that you have no genuine ear for music or ability to read for comprehension - or else that there are no limits to your willingness to relentlessly attack those who have the audacity to contradict you, particularly if you've decided that they're "old" - have completely ignored my point.
No surprise there. We're seeing further evidence (as if we needed it) of your gratuitous ignorance and gross intolerance toward those who have a better grasp of the facts in "The White Lion, 400 Years Later" right now. I hope you soon find a better hobby that allows for more consideration of facts, basic consideration of others and their knowledge, and the essentials of civilized discussion.
You do know a lot, but until you learn how better to use that knowledge, you're just rude, hostile, and unpleasant to have around.
I would say that it is more luck than anything else, regardless of skill. ...
Dare I offer an observation based on my experience? Oh, what the hell. Having done a great deal of analysis of this issue, I would say that it's equal parts talent, hard work, and being in the right place at the right time. The last of these is largely luck, but if one has the talent and did the work, the luck is more likely to show up.
You positing that I do not have an ear is an example of your failure in rational argument. Nothing in what I've said suggests I do not have an ear for music. If you think it does, please show your work.
Performing is a big part of being a singer. You can have the greatest voice in the world but if you can’t perform that is not good.
I am however talking about the actual singing. If I am expecting people to buy my recordings then I should be able to hit the note, at least at point blank range. If I can’t make a cake properly I shouldn’t be a baker
I miss the days when American Idol contestants first auditioned for the TV judges unaccompanied. You really got to see what they were made of in musical skills. Plus the goats were funnier.
Performing is a big part of being a singer. You can have the greatest voice in the world but if you can’t perform that is not good.
I am however talking about the actual singing. If I am expecting people to buy my recordings then I should be able to hit the note, at least at point blank range. If I can’t make a cake properly I shouldn’t be a baker
Recordings haven't been about perfect singing for longer nearly as long as there has been recordings.
Pitch shifting by engineers has been a thing in the studio for decades as well as cut and paste assemblage of vocal tracks. Live venues can be horrid and the performer, the sound engineers/bloke at the board and equipment have to be in sync with that for what the singer is singing to be properly represented in the ear of the listener. And that is without the off-key join in by the people around the listener.
And that listener has to care enough. Going to a concert, for many people, isn't about getting a perfect representation of the recorded track. Not for most genres. No one wants to hear an orchestra wing it or play off key, but most do not care if the latest pop diva does unless it is really bad.
As to the baking analogy: Think of your favourite place to get a tart or a croissant. Count how many of them there are. Now count how many Greggs there are.
Performing is a big part of being a singer. You can have the greatest voice in the world but if you can’t perform that is not good.
That depends on exactly what is meant by "performing." If it means singing (solo) in front of others, then I might agree. But if it means something more than that, I'm not as sure. I don't know, for example, that a soloist in the Choir of Kings College, Cambridge, needs to be a performer in the same way as, say, a Broadway actor or a pop star.
Performance is appropriate to the style. It is not necessarily standing out. If you are a solo performer then you need to hold the stage.
Yes recording are created to be almost perfect. Concerts can be a lottery. The people mentioned however I saw singing live on the TV, in a studio with appropriate sound. They did not hit one note.
Performance is appropriate to the style. It is not necessarily standing out. If you are a solo performer then you need to hold the stage.
Yes recording are created to be almost perfect. Concerts can be a lottery. The people mentioned however I saw singing live on the TV, in a studio with appropriate sound. They did not hit one note.
And how many of their fans cared?
From your posts, I assume that you think it is unfair that better singers do not get the opportunity to be in the same place. And I agree. Halfway at least.
Performance is appropriate to the style. It is not necessarily standing out. If you are a solo performer then you need to hold the stage.
Yes, and that was my point—just how "big" performance is as a part of singing depends on what kind of singer one is trying to be.
Performing and singing are two different things. A person can be a good singer—as in having a good singing voice—but not be a particularly good performer, or be a reluctant performer. Likewise, a person can be a mediocre singer, but have the performance skills to make up for it. That doesn't make their singing better; it makes the total package better. In some contexts (like the singer in the Choir of Kings College, Cambridge), singing well, and the willingness to do so publicly, pretty much makes up the whole package.
When I first saw this thread I thought it was going to be about people like me who literally can't sing. Age and acid-reflux has thinned my throat so much I can't make it through a single verse of the easiest hymn, add in bad knees and hips and church has become an exercise in pain.
But lets give up fighting about definitions and post our favorite examples of good singing! Then we can fight about them.
For the aged among us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrK5u5W8afc
Pop music is about image and connecting with it fans as singing.
Being able to actually sing is a fair way down the list of attributes for a pop singer.
@lilbuddha, you have posted absolutely nothing here to indicate that you do have an ear, and an awful lot that indicates that you believe firmly that having one doesn't matter in the slightest. "And how many of their fans cared?" How is that relevant to the discussion?
I happen to agree about the recording studio; I have long preferred recordings of live performances, although many studio recordings are honestly made.
The advantage of actually being at a live performance is the excitement of the singer's tightrope walk: Will she hit all her notes? Of the instrumentalist's tightrope walk: Will he get it right technically while bringing interpretational depth to his performance? The advantage of being at a live performance is sharing all that you get to share all that with others, whether a few dozen or thousands.
If you introduce tech crap like an autotuner or, more primitive but even worse, lip syncing, to the mix, you've destroyed that. All you have is the experience of paying too much for parking and tickets to be in the distant presence of someone whose work you have enjoyed. I'm sure that's enough for some, but I wouldn't waste my time or money.
Even if you don't personally favour whatever the current day's mass-market popular music is, you can't avoid it being used as background wherever you go, so you still have an interest in it being of reasonable quality, even if it's not to your preferred taste.
@lilbuddha, you have posted absolutely nothing here to indicate that you do have an ear,
I've posted that less than perfect singing is not always the important thing. That is more towards knowing there is not good singers, which is not proof one way or the other, but more indicative of an ear than not. Not very strong, but I am not making any claims in that regard.
You threw out an insult. It was inaccurate. So whatever,
and an awful lot that indicates that you believe firmly that having one doesn't matter in the slightest.
Actually, no. People have successful careers despite not having the best vocal control. That is an established fact from way longer ago than autotune. So I am exploring why. For some forms of music, it simply doesn't. For others it does.
The advantage of actually being at a live performance is the excitement of the singer's tightrope walk: Will she hit all her notes? Of the instrumentalist's tightrope walk: Will he get it right technically while bringing interpretational depth to his performance? The advantage of being at a live performance is sharing all that you get to share all that with others, whether a few dozen or thousands.
Some performers, some genres some listeners. Not all.
The Beach Boys literally could not play the songs on their records. The recordings were done in studio by studio musicians. There live audiences didn't care. I doubt most of them noticed.
If you introduce tech crap like an autotuner or, more primitive but even worse, lip syncing, to the mix, you've destroyed that. All you have is the experience of paying too much for parking and tickets to be in the distant presence of someone whose work you have enjoyed. I'm sure that's enough for some, but I wouldn't waste my time or money.
And that is fine. You go spend your money elsewhere and be happy doing that.
Other people will be happy seeing the band/singer they like and not worry about all that. And that is fine.
All I am doing is pointing out that music is preference. Good music is preference. Whether any particular person likes that or not.
All I am doing is pointing out that music is preference. Good music is preference. Whether any particular person likes that or not.
But the question was about good singers, not good music. @Rossweisse is taking that at face value—looking at (or listening for) good singing technique and things like ability to tune without electronic assistance. As another trained singer (albeit one who chose a different career path and who did relatively little professional singing, but who has been singing solos and in choirs and ensembles for 5+ decades), I tend to agree with her.
Yes, musical tastes are very subjective and are based on preferences. Good technique, not so much. I can think of singers whose voices or styles I don’t particularly like, but who I readily acknowledge are good singers, meaning they not only have talent but also have good technique and have mastered the skills of singing well. Likewise, I can think of singers who I love to listen to, even if I think they’re not the best singers, because they have other performance skills that that make up for lack of singing skill or technique.
Your Beach Boys example is a case in point—people liked them and went to their concerts because The Beach Boys were good, fun performers, which made up for (or hid) that they weren’t particularly good musicians. (And yes, I’ve heard them live at a major league baseball game.) But the fact that they could pull crowds who loved the songs and the concerts didn’t make them better musicians than they were. It showed that they were really good, popular performers. That’s not the same thing.
Lilbudha success comes from many different sides. It could be the right place right time. It could be how you look. It is as much about luck as talent. There are hundreds who can sing the pants off many chart artists who don’t get famous. Many good singers are just happy to work.
I always smh at Simon Cowell's jibe at talent show contestants for being 'only' cruise ship singer standard. Many singers I've heard in a cruise ship entertainment company have been excellent and entertaining. And much more listenable to my ears personally than some of today's modern pop singers.
But they don't have connections, or maybe 'looks', or the PR machinery behind them etc. So their talent isn't showcased to sell in the same way. However, many of the singers I love to listen to aren't just, or even, good voices, but are part of a certain 'sound' that appeals to me; where an excellently produced singing voice may fail to be as successful. Eg, Michael Stipe, Robert Plant, Paulo Nutini, Ric Ocasek, Lou Reed etc. And singers like Kate Bush, Van the Man, Leonard Cohen etc have singing skills of a sort, but it's the unique sound to their voices which sells the song.
Currently, there's a female sound going round, though, that seems to be a trend; a sort of light, reedy, twangy sound, with heavy distorted vowels, and a kind of breathless yodel to it. Unpleasant sound (to me), though better than the over-produced autotuned crap of other artists. No doubt it's my age showing!
@Rossweisse is taking that at face value—looking at (or listening for) good singing technique and things like ability to tune without electronic assistance.
Not correct. SHe equated singing on tune with singing at all and that is not how it works.
Lou Reed, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, Kurt Cobain, Johnny Cash and Leonard Cohen are/were singers, but only had a passing familiarity with being in tune.
Yes, musical tastes are very subjective and are based on preferences. Good technique, not so much.
I can think of singers whose voices or styles I don’t particularly like, but who I readily acknowledge are good singers, meaning they not only have talent but also have good technique and have mastered the skills of singing well. Likewise, I can think of singers who I love to listen to, even if I think they’re not the best singers, because they have other performance skills that that make up for lack of singing skill or technique.[/quote]
Technique and scale are subjective to context. Though, if one is performing within a particular context, one can judge against that context, which I have noted. But all that means is that a voice meets those technical criteria. Good is still subjective.
But lets give up fighting about definitions and post our favorite examples of good singing! Then we can fight about them.
For the aged among us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrK5u5W8afc
Oh my! Too many possibilities to choose from. But to be honest, the first ones that came to mind for me were Audra McDonald, Jeanine de Bique and Iris Dement (she starts singing at around 1’45”). Iris Dement has one of those voices that people are likely to love or hate. I love it; there’s such a beautiful honesty in it.
Johnny Cash could sing. He had a rough sound but he hit the notes. There is a difference between voice style and being in tune. Personally I don’t like Mark Knoffler’s (can never spell it) voice. It was more about the instruments. He can write a good song. Also there is more than tuning. Letting air into your voice giving you a better sound. I went to one church were the worship leader hit all the notes but her voice was so closed and hard it hurt. It must have hurt her voice as well.
But lets give up fighting about definitions and post our favorite examples of good singing! Then we can fight about them.
For the aged among us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrK5u5W8afc
Oh my! Too many possibilities to choose from. But to be honest, the first ones that came to mind for me were Audra McDonald, Jeanine de Bique and Iris Dement (she starts singing at around 1’45”). Iris Dement has one of those voices that people are likely to love or hate. I love it; there’s such a beautiful honesty in it.
Good choices! I heard Iris Dement for the first time, singing "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" at the end of the movie,"True Grit." I came home and listened to it about ten times straight off.
I dunno. There's grossly out of tune (as referencer in Tom Lehrer's introduction to Bright College Days - "everyone joins in, each in his own key of course”) and there's missing it a bit, of an off-centre vibrato where it's in there somewhere. But there are other factors; I'd listen to Sandy Denny slightly off key (if she ever was) over a perfectly tuned Amy Winehouse any day of the week on tone grounds alone; I can forgive the fact that Al Stewart never quite hits any of the A-flats in Night of the 4th of May on account of the lyrics carrying it (as ever) and I don't care whether Taylor Swift is autotuned or not because the orchestration is a total turn off.
Someone mentioned Madge at Eurovision further up - she dates from long before autotune and I'm pretty sure the monitor sound mix was to blame - I don't have a extensive live performance experience but I've known mixes so bad you can't pitch against them. People who've heard her live tell me pitching isn't usually a problem for her. She's not my cup of tea but she is surely not "can't sing".
Bob Dylan and Billy Bragg get a let out because they wouldn't be them otherwise. But sometimes it's difficult to distinguish a - distinctive - tone from actual tuning issues.
Everyone has some off notes. All singer are human. Certainly as we age so does our voice. You wouldn’t get a teacher teaching almost right information, you wouldn’t get a mechanic nearly fixing your car, why do we allow people who sing in a style where actual singing is important get away with not singing.
So who would I put forward as a good example of a great singer?
Pink would be a good choice . Not only can she sing she can also perform well. Anni Lenox is brilliant
Bob Dylan could sing in tune when he wanted to. He just didn't usually bother.
And his fans didn't complain when he didn't bother because that is not what they came for.
No one ever went to a Leonard Cohen concert for his marvellous singing ability. Though it has been covered by people with "better" voices, no one will ever sing Hallelujah more beautifully than its author.
In a different genre, Maria Callas had an unusual voice, which I don't particularly like. She certainly didn't always hit the notes, which you'd have thought was important in an opera singer. But somehow her charisma made up for that, at least in live performances.
Cash and Cohen are not virtuosos but I can't off the top of my head think of songs they actually sing out of tune. Dylan too seems quite capable of carrying the tune when he wants to.
I would disagree that the quality of art is an entirely relative affair but it is very multifaceted. Like two people seeing the same object from different angles, seeing two different things but both having a basis in the object itself.
I like to say there is a distinction between talent and inspiration, talent understood as technical ability. There is a lot of music out there that is skillfully played but just not good ("technical death metal" bands, I'm looking at you). And there are musicians with a limited range of technical skill who nonetheless invest their music with great depth.
Tangled Up in Blue from Blood on the Tracks. Come on. I mean, come on. How can you say the guy can't sing?
I'm happy to showcase the music of other artists you reckon can't sing. Have a look at Billy Bragg, or Shane MacGowan from the Pogues. Maybe you think that Luke Kelly from the Dubliners can't sing. Happy to post some songs to try to change your mind. Please note that I stopped listening to music on the radio or TV in or about 1991
Cash and Cohen are not virtuosos but I can't off the top of my head think of songs they actually sing out of tune. Dylan too seems quite capable of carrying the tune when he wants to.
I would disagree that the quality of art is an entirely relative affair but it is very multifaceted.
Of course it is relative. John cage walked the border of avant-garde exploration and the Emperor's new Clothes. There is reasonable justification for either position.
Art is relative and multifaceted.
I like to say there is a distinction between talent and inspiration, talent understood as technical ability. There is a lot of music out there that is skillfully played but just not good ("technical death metal" bands, I'm looking at you). And there are musicians with a limited range of technical skill who nonetheless invest their music with great depth.
Neil Pert sucks. Yes, technically an amazing drummer; but it is drum machine precision and absolutely no soul. Ringo Starr for all his lack of pyrotechnics, is a more interesting drummer than Pert will ever be; despite his mechanical, maniacal, masturbatory excess.
I like to say there is a distinction between talent and inspiration, talent understood as technical ability.
I would bifurcate talent into innate ability (the talent you're born with), and acquired ability (what you get from instruction, learning, and a hell of a lot of practice).
I remember as a youngster being somewhat shocked at how off-key the Mamas and the Papas were in their recording from the Monterey International Pop Festival. I'd only heard studio recordings and was surprised that professionals would be so off-key in a public situation.
Bob Dylan could sing in tune when he wanted to. He just didn't usually bother.
And his fans didn't complain when he didn't bother because that is not what they came for.
True but I was correcting a falsehood, not commenting on talent vs popularity.
NOt really a falsehood, because the point was that singing in tune is not the point of Dylan.
"Only a passing familiarity with being in tune" as applied to Bob Dylan, as you did, is a falsehood. You're saying you were using statements you knew to be falsehoods to make a true point? Sucky way of going about it if you ask me. Can I suggest a phrase: "You're right, I was wrong."
Cash and Cohen are not virtuosos but I can't off the top of my head think of songs they actually sing out of tune.
Same here. And there is a difference between singing out of tune on one hand and playing a little loose with the melody and even the tuning on the other, just as there is a difference in singing out of tune because one can't do any better and intentionally using tuning in an artistic way. In some genres of music, it's acceptable if not expected that a singer will be a little more free with things; in other genres, not so much.
I've posted that less than perfect singing is not always the important thing. That is more towards knowing there is not good singers, which is not proof one way or the other, but more indicative of an ear than not. Not very strong, but I am not making any claims in that regard.
You threw out an insult. It was inaccurate. So whatever, ...
You keep deliberately misstating what I said. I'm talking about singing. You're talking about popularity. Please stop trolling me.
I've posted that less than perfect singing is not always the important thing. That is more towards knowing there is not good singers, which is not proof one way or the other, but more indicative of an ear than not. Not very strong, but I am not making any claims in that regard.
You threw out an insult. It was inaccurate. So whatever, ...
You keep deliberately misstating what I said. I'm talking about singing. You're talking about popularity. Please stop trolling me.
I’m not trolling you. Well, the opera thing was a little bit that.
But the rest is countering your narrowing down what constitutes singing to your own preference and positing that as objective.
I've posted that less than perfect singing is not always the important thing. That is more towards knowing there is not good singers, which is not proof one way or the other, but more indicative of an ear than not. Not very strong, but I am not making any claims in that regard.
You threw out an insult. It was inaccurate. So whatever, ...
You keep deliberately misstating what I said. I'm talking about singing. You're talking about popularity. Please stop trolling me.
I’m not trolling you. Well, the opera thing was a little bit that.
But the rest is countering your narrowing down what constitutes singing to your own preference and positing that as objective.
As a have posted there are genres where singing off key is fine. I didn’t expect Nirvana to be on key. The artists mentioned in the OP sing in Genres where it s important to sing on key.
OK let’s look at it like this. As a competitive ballroom dancer the higher up I got the more accurate my footwork, body positioning and connection with my partner had to be. I did not go professional but got quite high. If you do go pro there is a level of skill expected of you. If you don’t achieve that level you will not succeed. This should be the same for singing surely
Can I suggest a phrase? "mousethief is feeling fighty and would rather score points than engage in the bloody point"
Suggest all you want, it's inaccurate and a wind-up, like much else posted here, as you admit. You just don't like people disagreeing with you, and will twist the sun into a knot to avoid admitting you're wrong.
Comments
I didn't say there was. I'm just pointing out some problems with the whole concept of autotuning, including its robotic affect.
Unlike you, I have maligned no one. Some of them have successful careers as performers, rather than as singers per se. The look, the moves, the costumes, the videos, the reputation - all these outweigh the importance of the actual vocalism. I'm focusing on singing, not the package.
Wrong again. I said that tuning is not subjective. You, proving that you have no genuine ear for music or ability to read for comprehension - or else that there are no limits to your willingness to relentlessly attack those who have the audacity to contradict you, particularly if you've decided that they're "old" - have completely ignored my point.
No surprise there. We're seeing further evidence (as if we needed it) of your gratuitous ignorance and gross intolerance toward those who have a better grasp of the facts in "The White Lion, 400 Years Later" right now. I hope you soon find a better hobby that allows for more consideration of facts, basic consideration of others and their knowledge, and the essentials of civilized discussion.
You do know a lot, but until you learn how better to use that knowledge, you're just rude, hostile, and unpleasant to have around.
I am however talking about the actual singing. If I am expecting people to buy my recordings then I should be able to hit the note, at least at point blank range. If I can’t make a cake properly I shouldn’t be a baker
Pitch shifting by engineers has been a thing in the studio for decades as well as cut and paste assemblage of vocal tracks. Live venues can be horrid and the performer, the sound engineers/bloke at the board and equipment have to be in sync with that for what the singer is singing to be properly represented in the ear of the listener. And that is without the off-key join in by the people around the listener.
And that listener has to care enough. Going to a concert, for many people, isn't about getting a perfect representation of the recorded track. Not for most genres. No one wants to hear an orchestra wing it or play off key, but most do not care if the latest pop diva does unless it is really bad.
As to the baking analogy: Think of your favourite place to get a tart or a croissant. Count how many of them there are. Now count how many Greggs there are.
Yes recording are created to be almost perfect. Concerts can be a lottery. The people mentioned however I saw singing live on the TV, in a studio with appropriate sound. They did not hit one note.
From your posts, I assume that you think it is unfair that better singers do not get the opportunity to be in the same place. And I agree. Halfway at least.
Performing and singing are two different things. A person can be a good singer—as in having a good singing voice—but not be a particularly good performer, or be a reluctant performer. Likewise, a person can be a mediocre singer, but have the performance skills to make up for it. That doesn't make their singing better; it makes the total package better. In some contexts (like the singer in the Choir of Kings College, Cambridge), singing well, and the willingness to do so publicly, pretty much makes up the whole package.
But lets give up fighting about definitions and post our favorite examples of good singing! Then we can fight about them.
For the aged among us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrK5u5W8afc
Being able to actually sing is a fair way down the list of attributes for a pop singer.
I happen to agree about the recording studio; I have long preferred recordings of live performances, although many studio recordings are honestly made.
The advantage of actually being at a live performance is the excitement of the singer's tightrope walk: Will she hit all her notes? Of the instrumentalist's tightrope walk: Will he get it right technically while bringing interpretational depth to his performance? The advantage of being at a live performance is sharing all that you get to share all that with others, whether a few dozen or thousands.
If you introduce tech crap like an autotuner or, more primitive but even worse, lip syncing, to the mix, you've destroyed that. All you have is the experience of paying too much for parking and tickets to be in the distant presence of someone whose work you have enjoyed. I'm sure that's enough for some, but I wouldn't waste my time or money.
You threw out an insult. It was inaccurate. So whatever, Actually, no. People have successful careers despite not having the best vocal control. That is an established fact from way longer ago than autotune. So I am exploring why. For some forms of music, it simply doesn't. For others it does.
People are whinging about singers they think are bad, how is that statement not relevant?
Some performers, some genres some listeners. Not all.
The Beach Boys literally could not play the songs on their records. The recordings were done in studio by studio musicians. There live audiences didn't care. I doubt most of them noticed. And that is fine. You go spend your money elsewhere and be happy doing that.
Other people will be happy seeing the band/singer they like and not worry about all that. And that is fine.
All I am doing is pointing out that music is preference. Good music is preference. Whether any particular person likes that or not.
Yes, musical tastes are very subjective and are based on preferences. Good technique, not so much. I can think of singers whose voices or styles I don’t particularly like, but who I readily acknowledge are good singers, meaning they not only have talent but also have good technique and have mastered the skills of singing well. Likewise, I can think of singers who I love to listen to, even if I think they’re not the best singers, because they have other performance skills that that make up for lack of singing skill or technique.
Your Beach Boys example is a case in point—people liked them and went to their concerts because The Beach Boys were good, fun performers, which made up for (or hid) that they weren’t particularly good musicians. (And yes, I’ve heard them live at a major league baseball game.) But the fact that they could pull crowds who loved the songs and the concerts didn’t make them better musicians than they were. It showed that they were really good, popular performers. That’s not the same thing.
I always smh at Simon Cowell's jibe at talent show contestants for being 'only' cruise ship singer standard. Many singers I've heard in a cruise ship entertainment company have been excellent and entertaining. And much more listenable to my ears personally than some of today's modern pop singers.
But they don't have connections, or maybe 'looks', or the PR machinery behind them etc. So their talent isn't showcased to sell in the same way. However, many of the singers I love to listen to aren't just, or even, good voices, but are part of a certain 'sound' that appeals to me; where an excellently produced singing voice may fail to be as successful. Eg, Michael Stipe, Robert Plant, Paulo Nutini, Ric Ocasek, Lou Reed etc. And singers like Kate Bush, Van the Man, Leonard Cohen etc have singing skills of a sort, but it's the unique sound to their voices which sells the song.
Currently, there's a female sound going round, though, that seems to be a trend; a sort of light, reedy, twangy sound, with heavy distorted vowels, and a kind of breathless yodel to it. Unpleasant sound (to me), though better than the over-produced autotuned crap of other artists. No doubt it's my age showing!
Not correct. SHe equated singing on tune with singing at all and that is not how it works.
Lou Reed, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, Kurt Cobain, Johnny Cash and Leonard Cohen are/were singers, but only had a passing familiarity with being in tune.
Yes, musical tastes are very subjective and are based on preferences. Good technique, not so much.
I can think of singers whose voices or styles I don’t particularly like, but who I readily acknowledge are good singers, meaning they not only have talent but also have good technique and have mastered the skills of singing well. Likewise, I can think of singers who I love to listen to, even if I think they’re not the best singers, because they have other performance skills that that make up for lack of singing skill or technique.[/quote]
Technique and scale are subjective to context. Though, if one is performing within a particular context, one can judge against that context, which I have noted. But all that means is that a voice meets those technical criteria. Good is still subjective.
Good choices! I heard Iris Dement for the first time, singing "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" at the end of the movie,"True Grit." I came home and listened to it about ten times straight off.
Someone mentioned Madge at Eurovision further up - she dates from long before autotune and I'm pretty sure the monitor sound mix was to blame - I don't have a extensive live performance experience but I've known mixes so bad you can't pitch against them. People who've heard her live tell me pitching isn't usually a problem for her. She's not my cup of tea but she is surely not "can't sing".
Bob Dylan and Billy Bragg get a let out because they wouldn't be them otherwise. But sometimes it's difficult to distinguish a - distinctive - tone from actual tuning issues.
So who would I put forward as a good example of a great singer?
Pink would be a good choice . Not only can she sing she can also perform well. Anni Lenox is brilliant
Any examples that spring readily to mind?
No one ever went to a Leonard Cohen concert for his marvellous singing ability. Though it has been covered by people with "better" voices, no one will ever sing Hallelujah more beautifully than its author.
I would disagree that the quality of art is an entirely relative affair but it is very multifaceted. Like two people seeing the same object from different angles, seeing two different things but both having a basis in the object itself.
I like to say there is a distinction between talent and inspiration, talent understood as technical ability. There is a lot of music out there that is skillfully played but just not good ("technical death metal" bands, I'm looking at you). And there are musicians with a limited range of technical skill who nonetheless invest their music with great depth.
For the benefit of the hosts I shall limit myself to three.
One More Cup of Coffee from Desire. Note especially the harmony in the chorus with Emmylou Harris.
It's All Right Ma (I'm Only Bleeding) from Bringing It All Back Home. This song requires the exercise of sustained vocal discipline.
Tangled Up in Blue from Blood on the Tracks. Come on. I mean, come on. How can you say the guy can't sing?
I'm happy to showcase the music of other artists you reckon can't sing. Have a look at Billy Bragg, or Shane MacGowan from the Pogues. Maybe you think that Luke Kelly from the Dubliners can't sing. Happy to post some songs to try to change your mind. Please note that I stopped listening to music on the radio or TV in or about 1991
Art is relative and multifaceted.
Neil Pert sucks. Yes, technically an amazing drummer; but it is drum machine precision and absolutely no soul. Ringo Starr for all his lack of pyrotechnics, is a more interesting drummer than Pert will ever be; despite his mechanical, maniacal, masturbatory excess.
True but I was correcting a falsehood, not commenting on talent vs popularity.
I would bifurcate talent into innate ability (the talent you're born with), and acquired ability (what you get from instruction, learning, and a hell of a lot of practice).
"Only a passing familiarity with being in tune" as applied to Bob Dylan, as you did, is a falsehood. You're saying you were using statements you knew to be falsehoods to make a true point? Sucky way of going about it if you ask me. Can I suggest a phrase: "You're right, I was wrong."
The one leads to the other. The infamous and now a little cliched 3:33 is challenging yes but you find the music in the sounds around you.
But the rest is countering your narrowing down what constitutes singing to your own preference and positing that as objective.
As a have posted there are genres where singing off key is fine. I didn’t expect Nirvana to be on key. The artists mentioned in the OP sing in Genres where it s important to sing on key.
OK let’s look at it like this. As a competitive ballroom dancer the higher up I got the more accurate my footwork, body positioning and connection with my partner had to be. I did not go professional but got quite high. If you do go pro there is a level of skill expected of you. If you don’t achieve that level you will not succeed. This should be the same for singing surely
Suggest all you want, it's inaccurate and a wind-up, like much else posted here, as you admit. You just don't like people disagreeing with you, and will twist the sun into a knot to avoid admitting you're wrong.