The Music Thread.

[otters~1]

atob, I've listened to a few Jurassic 5 songs, and I must say, I'm hearing basically what I expected to. The beats are awesome, but if I want awesome beats I can get some Ratatat going. The lyrics may be creative, I don't know, but they're so low-pitched that I can't understand much (for the most part). Maybe I'm missing something in my approach to this type of music, or maybe I just flat out don't like it.

EDIT: After catching some more, this music is definitely listenable, as it were, but I'm sidetracked on Ratatat. I retract my earlier statement about it being a joke; only some of it is a joke.

ratatat is hip-hop. At least, not predominantly, but part-ways, for sure.

Mostly. But it's hip-hop without the lyrics, which are my least favorite part. Win-win situation.

EDIT: New topic of discussion. Three, actually.
First, what do you guys think of oldies like Ray Charles, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke and the Everly Brothers? Second, what are your all-time favorite band names? Third, which singer has the best voice ever?

[Tanner]

I find it especially ludicrous to hear people talk about how they find the current rap scene oppressive and ignorant because all they rap about is bitches, crack and combining the two when the most out-spoken critics of this type of rap are the majority of the current rap scene. It is maddeningly close-minded of you to talk about a genre when the only representation of it that you've heard are the snippets on the radio before you change the station or out the windows of a gangbanger's pimped out Honda Civic. It would be like if the only rock music I'd ever heard was Nickelback and their ilk and condemning the entire genre because Nickelback is an entirely shitty band. Even this "I just don't really like hip-hop in general" stuff I don't buy. When people say that, what they really mean is that they don't like Ludacris and Lil Jon. I'm tired of people making sweeping generalizations and locking themselves out of an entire musical landscape because North America thought that a good way to kick off the millennium was fill the radio with tracks from an album called Get Rich or Die Tryin'.

To summarize: Just like in other kinds of hate, the hate of a genre of music is mostly born of ignorance. Maybe, like, educate yourself or something.

Recommended listening: Zion I - True & Livin', Madvillain - Madvillainy, Shad - The Old Prince, dälek - Absence, Jurassic 5 - Quality Control, Why? - Alopecia, De La Soul - 3 Feet High And Rising, Dr. Dre - The Chronic, Wu-Tang Clan - Enter The Wu-Tang: 36 Chambers, Clipse - Hell Hath No Fury.

I flat out guarantee you that, among that list, is something for everyone.

[wolfgang]

Good list, though in my books Why?, whilst brilliant, isn't a hip hop act and their sound skews more towards indie and folk rock, with a bit of influence remaining in the vocals. If someone wanted to hear his hip hop side I'd tell them to listen to CloudDead.

I'll add one more album, Company Flow - Funcrusher Plus, one of the most important albums in the development of independent hip hop, it was released in 97 and still sounds futuristic compared to most of the stuff released today. They should probably come to it after working their way through your list because it can be very inaccessible on a first listen.

[SlappyMcGee]

EDIT: New topic of discussion. Three, actually.
First, what do you guys think of oldies like Ray Charles, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke and the Everly Brothers? Second, what are your all-time favorite band names? Third, which singer has the best voice ever?

I'll only address the first and last one, because no truly great names come to mind. (Although, Japandroids is pretty sweet.)

First: I find most of those artists to sound extremely underproduced. They're all recorded very quiet, first of all, stereo didn't exist, and lastly, there isn't much going on outside of expected instrumentation.

And David Bowie is the best singer of all time.

[Seneschal]

And David Bowie is the best singer of all time.

*Cough*Freddie Mercury*cough*
Annie Lennox, Robert Plant, Marvin Gaye, Louis Armstrong, Neil Hannon, Bob Marley and the late MJ of course all come pretty close, but FM still comes out top for me.

[SlappyMcGee]

And David Bowie is the best singer of all time.

*Cough*Freddie Mercury*cough*
Annie Lennox, Robert Plant, Marvin Gaye, Louis Armstrong, Neil Hannon, Bob Marley and the late MJ of course all come pretty close, but FM still comes out top for me.

Well, since we have Under Pressure as a direct comparison of the two, I find it relatively self explanatory. Bowie outshines Mercury in every respect, at least in that song. (Not to mention talent; Bowie is a solo artist, Mercury had an astrophysicist on the Guitar! Unfair advantage AND it's still a close race, says I.)

[otters~1]

Slappy, I see now that our musical philosophies are so different that all arguments between us are futile. I was thinking Bobby Darin, the Everly Brothers, Aaron Neville and perhaps Art Garfunkel. Marvin Gaye was a good thought, cheesemonger.

As to your first point, most of those songs are meant to be quite simple. I fail to see how that's a detriment to their musical ability, or to their music's quality.

PS: I loathe David Bowie.

EDIT: This thought randomly popped into my mind a few seconds ago. Repeated here word-for-word: "Sinead O'Connor had a pretty good voice."

[Seneschal]

And David Bowie is the best singer of all time.

*Cough*Freddie Mercury*cough*
Annie Lennox, Robert Plant, Marvin Gaye, Louis Armstrong, Neil Hannon, Bob Marley and the late MJ of course all come pretty close, but FM still comes out top for me.

Well, since we have Under Pressure as a direct comparison of the two, I find it relatively self explanatory. Bowie outshines Mercury in every respect, at least in that song. (Not to mention talent; Bowie is a solo artist, Mercury had an astrophysicist on the Guitar! Unfair advantage AND it's still a close race, says I.)

Gah, I don't know how to argue this one: you're right that Bowie is better on that song, but if I were to compare two of their own songs, Mercury would come out top most of the time: Radio Gaga, These Are the Days of Our Lives, Somebody to Love, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, etc vs. Heroes, Life on Mars, Starman, Space Oddity, etc is not contest for me. I would say that the fact that Mercury dominates so many Queen songs rather than the guitar as in most groups demonstrates the sheer strength of presence of his voice.

[SlappyMcGee]

Gah, I don't know how to argue this one: you're right that Bowie is better on that song, but if I were to compare two of their own songs, Mercury would come out top most of the time: Radio Gaga, These Are the Days of Our Lives, Somebody to Love, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, etc vs. Heroes, Life on Mars, Starman, Space Oddity, etc is not contest for me. I would say that the fact that Mercury dominates so many Queen songs rather than the guitar as in most groups demonstrates the sheer strength of presence of his voice.

Flagmyidol, I don't know that we can't meet a middle ground, because this is the debate thread; I love Dylan, The Beatles, and a number of other bands you've expressed love for. We're just not talking about them. We're talking about Bowie. :D

I'm glad that you agree that Bowie is better on that song. Now, let me put this out there; I think David Bowie songs are better than Queen songs, on average. For example, Life on Mars? trumps everything any artist has ever done, in my books. (Except maybe Weezer's El Scorcho. :/) But we aren't doing an artist evaluation, we're comparing singers. It's odd that we'd be comparing these two, since one is none for an extremely high range and falsetto, whereas Bowie is known for his low range (although he can certainly go high when he needs to, vice-versa for Mercury.)

Why I think Bowie is superior? Bowie is a pop chameleon. Not only did he evolve each decade with popular music, he also determined largely what popular music would be at any given time. Sure, Queen dabbled in a variety of genres. We can hear songs that have influence we would not expect, but ultimately, for every song where Queen does Dance music, Bowie has a full album. Same with a plethora of genres.

Second of all, Queen without Freddie Mercury would be practically nothing. Although May is an amazing guitarist (sonically if not technically), Freddie Mercury certainly shouldered that band. However, Freddie Mercury didn't even write the majority of Queen songs. The majority of Queen songs he wasn't even INVOLVED in the writing of. David Bowie wrote every last one of his songs, and went through many backing bands while maintaining critical and commercial popularity. So I give creativity to Bowie again.

And we can't sit here and argue sheer preference; although it would be interesting to know who has a more varied range, if that information were professionally available.

[otters~1]

Bowie is a pop chameleon.

Good word for him. Does anyone have an opinion on the people I named? If you've never heard of them, I encourage you to look 'em up.

Incidentally, it appears that you can't italicize 'I' in bbcode.

[Seneschal]

Gah, I don't know how to argue this one: you're right that Bowie is better on that song, but if I were to compare two of their own songs, Mercury would come out top most of the time: Radio Gaga, These Are the Days of Our Lives, Somebody to Love, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, etc vs. Heroes, Life on Mars, Starman, Space Oddity, etc is not contest for me. I would say that the fact that Mercury dominates so many Queen songs rather than the guitar as in most groups demonstrates the sheer strength of presence of his voice.

Flagmyidol, I don't know that we can't meet a middle ground, because this is the debate thread; I love Dylan, The Beatles, and a number of other bands you've expressed love for. We're just not talking about them. We're talking about Bowie. :D

I'm glad that you agree that Bowie is better on that song. Now, let me put this out there; I think David Bowie songs are better than Queen songs, on average. For example, Life on Mars? trumps everything any artist has ever done, in my books. (Except maybe Weezer's El Scorcho. :/) But we aren't doing an artist evaluation, we're comparing singers. It's odd that we'd be comparing these two, since one is none for an extremely high range and falsetto, whereas Bowie is known for his low range (although he can certainly go high when he needs to, vice-versa for Mercury.)

Why I think Bowie is superior? Bowie is a pop chameleon. Not only did he evolve each decade with popular music, he also determined largely what popular music would be at any given time. Sure, Queen dabbled in a variety of genres. We can hear songs that have influence we would not expect, but ultimately, for every song where Queen does Dance music, Bowie has a full album. Same with a plethora of genres.

Second of all, Queen without Freddie Mercury would be practically nothing. Although May is an amazing guitarist (sonically if not technically), Freddie Mercury certainly shouldered that band. However, Freddie Mercury didn't even write the majority of Queen songs. The majority of Queen songs he wasn't even INVOLVED in the writing of. David Bowie wrote every last one of his songs, and went through many backing bands while maintaining critical and commercial popularity. So I give creativity to Bowie again.

And we can't sit here and argue sheer preference; although it would be interesting to know who has a more varied range, if that information were professionally available.

Whilst your middle two paragraphs are interesting, they’re not really relevant, as you said, but I’d still like to say a couple of things: first, comparing David Bowie to Freddie Mercury as a musician is a bit unfair since Bowie is a solo artist whereas Mercury is part of a group: of course he isn’t going to do all of the work, since that would defeat the point of working as a group. If Bowie had been part of a group, he may not have written all of their songs and may have been restricted to the same kind of position as Mercury. Thus, if we compare Bowie to Queen it becomes a whole different kettle of fish. Bowie may be more innovative and varied in the types of music he does, but (correct me if I’m wrong) Queen are still more commercially successful, have a larger fanbase and (in my eyes) are the better of the two, but that’s personal preference and as you said we shouldn’t be arguing that. Secondly, experimentation in different genres doesn’t necessarily equal being a good musician (I’m not saying Bowie isn’t, I’m just saying that the fact that he occasionally sorties into other styles doesn’t make him a better musician than Mercury).
I entirely agree with your last point, it would be very interesting to compare their ranges.

[a happy song]

Gah, I don't know how to argue this one: you're right that Bowie is better on that song, but if I were to compare two of their own songs, Mercury would come out top most of the time: Radio Gaga, These Are the Days of Our Lives, Somebody to Love, We are the Champions, Bohemian Rhapsody, etc vs. Heroes, Life on Mars, Starman, Space Oddity, etc is not contest for me. I would say that the fact that Mercury dominates so many Queen songs rather than the guitar as in most groups demonstrates the sheer strength of presence of his voice.

Flagmyidol, I don't know that we can't meet a middle ground, because this is the debate thread; I love Dylan, The Beatles, and a number of other bands you've expressed love for. We're just not talking about them. We're talking about Bowie. :D

I'm glad that you agree that Bowie is better on that song. Now, let me put this out there; I think David Bowie songs are better than Queen songs, on average. For example, Life on Mars? trumps everything any artist has ever done, in my books. (Except maybe Weezer's El Scorcho. :/) But we aren't doing an artist evaluation, we're comparing singers. It's odd that we'd be comparing these two, since one is none for an extremely high range and falsetto, whereas Bowie is known for his low range (although he can certainly go high when he needs to, vice-versa for Mercury.)

Why I think Bowie is superior? Bowie is a pop chameleon. Not only did he evolve each decade with popular music, he also determined largely what popular music would be at any given time. Sure, Queen dabbled in a variety of genres. We can hear songs that have influence we would not expect, but ultimately, for every song where Queen does Dance music, Bowie has a full album. Same with a plethora of genres.

Second of all, Queen without Freddie Mercury would be practically nothing. Although May is an amazing guitarist (sonically if not technically), Freddie Mercury certainly shouldered that band. However, Freddie Mercury didn't even write the majority of Queen songs. The majority of Queen songs he wasn't even INVOLVED in the writing of. David Bowie wrote every last one of his songs, and went through many backing bands while maintaining critical and commercial popularity. So I give creativity to Bowie again.

And we can't sit here and argue sheer preference; although it would be interesting to know who has a more varied range, if that information were professionally available.

Whilst your middle two paragraphs are interesting, they’re not really relevant, as you said, but I’d still like to say a couple of things: first, comparing David Bowie to Freddie Mercury as a musician is a bit unfair since Bowie is a solo artist whereas Mercury is part of a group: of course he isn’t going to do all of the work, since that would defeat the point of working as a group. If Bowie had been part of a group, he may not have written all of their songs and may have been restricted to the same kind of position as Mercury. Thus, if we compare Bowie to Queen it becomes a whole different kettle of fish. Bowie may be more innovative and varied in the types of music he does, but (correct me if I’m wrong) Queen are still more commercially successful, have a larger fanbase and (in my eyes) are the better of the two, but that’s personal preference and as you said we shouldn’t be arguing that. Secondly, experimentation in different genres doesn’t necessarily equal being a good musician (I’m not saying Bowie isn’t, I’m just saying that the fact that he occasionally sorties into other styles doesn’t make him a better musician than Mercury).
I entirely agree with your last point, it would be very interesting to compare their ranges.

You're using a lot of what-ifs to substantiate your arguments. That's baloney in a stale bap. No one wants to munch on that. Here, I'll make a fresh and tasty sandwich for you:

-

Just because you think it's unfair, doesn't mean you can't compare. Stop being Silly.

Bowie is a solo artist BECAUSE he has the ability, imagination, and drive enough to do so, whereas Mercury had to rely on a band to back him up as he didn't have those abilities, or they certainly weren't as strong. Therefore Bowie is a greater creative entity. Fact. And as creative ability should be a major consideration when deciding who is the greatest singer of all time, well...

Successful experimentaion in different genres certainly adds to the claim of greater musicianship. Diversity is a very important factor here. Bowie is much more diverse, and hugely successful with it. Therefore, imo, a better musician overall.

Don't let your love for Mercury cloud your reasoning. Just because Bowie was more talented in this regard doesn't make Queen's songs any less great! :)

If we were going to argue who was better technically, as Slappy mentioned, we're not in possession of their noted ranges (unless that information is available from a decent source), so we can't do that.

[Seneschal]

You're using a lot of what-ifs to substantiate your arguments. That's baloney in a stale bap. No one wants to munch on that. Here, I'll make a fresh and tasty sandwich for you:

Mmnhm.

Bowie is a solo artist BECAUSE he has the ability, imagination, and drive enough to do so, whereas Mercury had to rely on a band to back him up as he didn't have those abilities, or they certainly weren't as strong. Therefore Bowie is a greater creative entity. Fact. And as creative ability should be a major consideration when deciding who is the greatest singer of all time, well...

I accept that Bowie is the greater creative entity, but that doesn't make him a stronger candidate for greatest singer of all time.
Consider and n-based analogy: I pose the question "Who is the better n-player, atob or lookatthis?" Whilst it is true that atob makes his own maps and must be a good player to thoroughly playtest them, whereas lookatthis doesn't even make his own maps (and thus isn't as creative), this isn't actually relevant to the question. Lookatthis would demolish atob in a highscoring competition (no offence), even though he's much more creative than lat. I think this analogy is reasonably effective, even if I did make it up on the spot.

Successful experimentaion in different genres certainly adds to the claim of greater musicianship. Diversity is a very important factor here. Bowie is much more diverse, and hugely successful with it. Therefore, imo, a better musician overall.

I wouldn't dream of contesting this. It just doesn't answer Slappy's question :/

Don't let your love for Mercury cloud your reasoning. Just because Bowie was more talented in this regard doesn't make Queen's songs any less great! :)

:)

[a happy song]

I accept that Bowie is the greater creative entity, but that doesn't make him a stronger candidate for greatest singer of all time.
Consider and n-based analogy: I pose the question "Who is the better n-player, atob or lookatthis?" Whilst it is true that atob makes his own maps and must be a good player to thoroughly playtest them, whereas lookatthis doesn't even make his own maps (and thus isn't as creative), this isn't actually relevant to the question. Lookatthis would demolish atob in a highscoring competition (no offence), even though he's much more creative than lat. I think this analogy is reasonably effective, even if I did make it up on the spot.

Yeh, ok, except that if we relate Bowie and Mercury to your analgoy, Mercury would be a heroic highscorer, whereas Bowie would be one of the best map authors AND highscorers of all time.

Creativity is a MASSIVE factor here, I don't know why you're even attempting to downplay that.

[Seneschal]

I accept that Bowie is the greater creative entity, but that doesn't make him a stronger candidate for greatest singer of all time.
Consider and n-based analogy: I pose the question "Who is the better n-player, atob or lookatthis?" Whilst it is true that atob makes his own maps and must be a good player to thoroughly playtest them, whereas lookatthis doesn't even make his own maps (and thus isn't as creative), this isn't actually relevant to the question. Lookatthis would demolish atob in a highscoring competition (no offence), even though he's much more creative than lat. I think this analogy is reasonably effective, even if I did make it up on the spot.

Yeh, ok, except that if we relate Bowie and Mercury to your analogy, Mercury would be a heroic highscorer, whereas Bowie would be one of the best map authors AND highscorers of all time.

Creativity is a MASSIVE factor here, I don't know why you're even attempting to downplay that.

I'm not: I freely acknowledge that Bowie is easily the more creative of the two, but that doesn't affect his singing ability, does it? The original question was

which singer has the best voice ever?

(So it was actually flag's question, not Slappy’s as I said before, my mistake)

I’ve gone for Mercury, Slaps (and you) have gone for Bowie; it seems that without information regarding their range and other vocal factors, we’ll have to agree to disagree, as it were.

EDIT: Just occurred to me that tktktk might be a better person than you to use in the analogy.

[a happy song]

I'm not: I freely acknowledge that Bowie is easily the more creative of the two, but that doesn't affect his singing ability, does it? The original question was

which singer has the best voice ever?

Ahh, well, I wasn't paying attention to the initial question. I was arguing who was the greatest overall singer (which should take into account more than just pure vocal ability, imo).

Best voice (ignoring the technical aspects) is a purely subjective matter, it's absolutely pointless to argue. It'd be like me continuing to insist you that you love to eat cheese when you'd just told me you can't stand the taste.

EDIT: Just occurred to me that tktktk might be a better person than you to use in the analogy.

It doesn't matter who you use in that analogy, it still falls short AND backfires on you. ;)

[SlappyMcGee]

I don't know who is more commercially successful and popular; it's proving extremely difficult to get a straight answer on this sort of thing. I will say this, though; If the question was who has the best -voice-, then it doesn't belong in debate at all. The only arguments we could make on the question would be technical range, in which Glenn Danzig probably has the most ranged I've heard of.

[Borealis]

Here is a question for you: What is eclecticism, in an artistic context? Or, where is the line between relative normality and eclecticism? Is it the combining of many genres into one song, or exploring different genres with different albums?

[a happy song]

I'd say successful eclecticism in a musical artistic context would be the blending of genres into a bands overall sound, and exploring different aspects (lighter, darker, faster, heavier, popier etc..) with each album while retaining the core sound that differentiates them from other bands.

Mew do this well, imo.

[Tanner]

Here is a question for you: What is eclecticism, in an artistic context? Or, where is the line between relative normality and eclecticism? Is it the combining of many genres into one song, or exploring different genres with different albums?

Ulver.

[a happy song]

The Prodigy however, I refuse to credit. It isn't difficult to put some synth effects into a computer and then repeat the process over and over again, occasionally screaming to get the crowd going. Even if they play it on a keyboard, it still doesn't require much skill. I'm a grade 7 piano. I'm quite sure I can play that without even having to search up the notes. And then you repeat it again and again. No skill involved.

You make a very good point about rap music, then completely destroy any good it did with this childish nonsense. Try putting a song together like Liam Howlett (man behind the group) does, you won't come close I'll bet.

Just because you can't appreciate it, doesn't mean it doesn't take talent. That they became so undoubtedly massive off the back of a guy chucking some samples and beats together in his bedroom says something about the talent involved.

M

Brighter has the right idea (kinda), you've just got to appreciate what's out there. Dig, and you'll find what you're looking for.

Just curious what that 'kinda' means. Which part do you disagree with?

[a happy song]

The Prodigy however, I refuse to credit. It isn't difficult to put some synth effects into a computer and then repeat the process over and over again, occasionally screaming to get the crowd going. Even if they play it on a keyboard, it still doesn't require much skill. I'm a grade 7 piano. I'm quite sure I can play that without even having to search up the notes. And then you repeat it again and again. No skill involved.

You make a very good point about rap music, then completely destroy any good it did with this childish nonsense. Try putting a song together like Liam Howlett (man behind the group) does, you won't come close I'll bet.

Just because you can't appreciate it, doesn't mean it doesn't take talent. That they became so undoubtedly massive off the back of a guy chucking some samples and beats together in his bedroom says something about the talent involved.

M

Brighter has the right idea (kinda), you've just got to appreciate what's out there. Dig, and you'll find what you're looking for.

Just curious what that 'kinda' means. Which part do you disagree with?

I agree, I wouldn't come close to it. I wouldn't even attempt it, as it is a truly awful sound. I will admit though, that the second paragraphs of the post were uncalled for and unjustified. I had no reason to bash The Prodigy, they're just a "band" that I chose to pick on. It does take talent, but I couldn't call it music I would willingly listen to, or dance to. And I know some awesome dances. Duffy, I love. I can dance to that in the oldschool style which I've grown up in and came to love.

Also, 'kinda'... yeah. All this dance music these days. It isn't dance, it's a load of synthesizers playing a tune. NOT DANCE MUSIC!!!

Or at least not the dance music I like/

Oh, don't get me wrong, aside from a couple of tracks from their earlier albums, I can't stand them either. ;p

The closest I get to Dance and love it is The Knife, some Röyksopp, Hot Chip, et al..

[Tanner]

I honestly can't understand when people say that they don't like a genre of music. I have yet to find a genre without a single artist producing works that I enjoy that fall within its boundaries. Like a wise man once said, "Just like in other kinds of hate, the hate of a genre of music is mostly born of ignorance. Maybe, like, educate yourself or something."

[Seneschal]

I honestly can't understand when people say that they don't like a genre of music. I have yet to find a genre without a single artist producing works that I enjoy that fall within its boundaries. Like a wise man once said, "Just like in other kinds of hate, the hate of a genre of music is mostly born of ignorance. Maybe, like, educate yourself or something."

QFE'd. Exactly. Whether I like a particular song or not depends on the quality of the song, not on the genre it comes from.

[a happy song]

I honestly can't understand when people say that they don't like a genre of music. I have yet to find a genre without a single artist producing works that I enjoy that fall within its boundaries. Like a wise man once said, "Just like in other kinds of hate, the hate of a genre of music is mostly born of ignorance. Maybe, like, educate yourself or something."

Then you have a serious lack of insight about the way people think..

Oh, he gets how childish notions and generalised ignorance works, don't worry. ;)