Best rock singer of all times !! ?

Terrapin_Station · 11-25-2015, 08:34 AM

Another aspect of this, by the way, is that I believe it's mistaken to say that musicians (including singers, the voice is a musical instrument) can do things that are not technique. Technique is simply the "mechanics" of how one is producing sound, and the exact characteristics of those sounds. There are mechanics involved in producing all sounds, and all sounds have characteristics.

All sounds, and all technique, is also unique, by the way. No two sounds are logically identical, no two movements (the mechanics of making the sound) are logically identical, etc.

grindy · 11-25-2015, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

You make a distinction between one's favorite x and the best x.

You said that part of that distinction in the case of singers has to do with technique, and factors such as range.

You said that there are singers who are not your favorites whom you feel are better in terms of techniques than (at least some of) your favorites.

So I was asking for an example of better technique from a non-favorite singer compared to one of your favorites.

For example, maybe you'd say that a non-favorite singer has a much wider range than one of your favorites, right? And you'd say that's better technique.

Well, my next question would be this: What's better about having a wider range if that doesn't appeal to you as much as a singer without that wide of a range? In other words, how is that better technique? What sense does "better" make if we're not talking about it appealing to us?

If one thing has a quality that another doesn't, but you don't like that quality as much, or you at least weight that quality low enough that something with that quality doesn't appeal to you as much as something without that quality, then how does it make any sense to say that the presence of that quality makes that thing better?

Technique does appeal to me and I might appreciate someone having a wide range or something like that, even if I wouldn't really like the overall singing or music and might prefer someone with a weak voice and limited range, who nonetheless fits the music nicely in some way.

Or are you talking about the general vapidity and subjectiveness of our concepts of music and everything? Then: Duh. We might as well precede every statement with a disclaimer pointing that out.

Terrapin_Station · 11-25-2015, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

Technique does appeal to me

I don't know if you saw the second post, but it's all technique.

Quote:

and I might appreciate someone having a wide range or something like that,

This is why I don't like to type too much at a time. Stuff gets brushed over. I acknowledged this. The thing is that if range is one of the things you're talking about, you do not weight range that strongly. It's not nearly as important to you as other aspects of technique. So how is having a wider range better technique than the things that you weight much more heavily? That's the question. You'd need to explain why a wider range amounts to better technique even though that's not at all sufficient for you to like someone more than a singer with a more narrow range, but who exhibits other technical factors that appeal to you much more.

Whoever appeals to you more does so because of the sonic qualities of their voice, in context, re how they use their voice, etc. Those things are technique. So you'd need to explain how other qualities of technique are better to you despite you not liking them as much. --I say that the very idea of that is incoherent.

grindy · 11-25-2015, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

Another aspect of this, by the way, is that I believe it's mistaken to say that musicians (including singers, the voice is a musical instrument) can do things that are not technique. Technique is simply the "mechanics" of how one is producing sound, and the exact characteristics of those sounds. There are mechanics involved in producing all sounds, and all sounds have characteristics.

All sounds, and all technique, is also unique, by the way. No two sounds are logically identical, no two movements (the mechanics of making the sound) are logically identical, etc.

Again: Duh.
But if I talk about good singing technique you generally know what I mean, don't you? Even if you know that it's all relative and blah. So do I. But in order to communicate without having to write a lot about really obvious stuff, we have to simplify.

Terrapin_Station · 11-25-2015, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

Again: Duh.
But if I talk about good singing technique you generally know what I mean

I'm going to assume that you're talking about at least a simplification of conventionally accepted "good technique" a la music schools, private music teachers, etc., sure.

But to an extent, assuming that there are anything like universals in that realm is a fiction, and why would we kowtow to it and pretend that it's anything more than it is, re using it to refer to a "favorite"/"best" distinction? That just promotes misconceptions and fallacies--it leads folks to accept argumentum ad populums as having some sort of weight for truth value. It doesn't make the supposed distinction conceptually coherent. Why promote something incoherent?

**Frownland** · 11-25-2015, 09:03 AM

It's only really incoherent if you're the type to question the social constructs surrounding someone's phrasing.

grindy · 11-25-2015, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

I'm going to assume that you're talking about at least a simplification of conventionally accepted "good technique" a la music schools, private music teachers, etc., sure.

But to an extent, assuming that there are anything like universals in that realm is a fiction, and why would we kowtow to it and pretend that it's anything more than it is, re using it to refer to a "favorite"/"best" distinction? That just promotes misconceptions and fallacies--it leads folks to accept argumentum ad populums as having some sort of weight for truth value.

No offense, but you're like that guy who seemingly pops up in every somewhat philosophical discussion and just keeps repeating 'define x' and feels all deep about it.
It's not that I disagree and at times we have to define or redefine what we're talking about, but mostly it's really unnecessary, tiresome and doesn't add anything to the discussion at hand.

Also: Define define.

Terrapin_Station · 11-25-2015, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's only really incoherent if you're the type to question the social constructs surrounding someone's phrasing.

It's incoherent because the supposed distinction turns out to make no sense on analysis, for a number of different reasons, which I've been explaining.

Terrapin_Station · 11-25-2015, 09:16 AM

And I believe that avoiding the promotion of misconceptions, fallacies and incoherencies adds something of value not only to a discussion, but folks' mental lives in general.

You might feel differently about that, of course.

**Frownland** · 11-25-2015, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrapin_Station

It's incoherent because the supposed distinction turns out to make no sense on analysis, for a number of different reasons, which I've been explaining.

That would be what I was referring to. If you use social contexts when reading grindy's original post, it is very coherent.

11-25-2015, 08:34 AM	#111 (permalink)
Terrapin_Station Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: NYC Man Posts: 877	Another aspect of this, by the way, is that I believe it's mistaken to say that musicians (including singers, the voice is a musical instrument) can do things that are not technique. Technique is simply the "mechanics" of how one is producing sound, and the exact characteristics of those sounds. There are mechanics involved in producing all sounds, and all sounds have characteristics. All sounds, and all technique, is also unique, by the way. No two sounds are logically identical, no two movements (the mechanics of making the sound) are logically identical, etc. Last edited by Terrapin_Station; 11-25-2015 at 08:39 AM.

11-25-2015, 09:03 AM	#116 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,548	It's only really incoherent if you're the type to question the social constructs surrounding someone's phrasing. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-25-2015, 09:16 AM	#119 (permalink)
Terrapin_Station Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: NYC Man Posts: 877	And I believe that avoiding the promotion of misconceptions, fallacies and incoherencies adds something of value not only to a discussion, but folks' mental lives in general. You might feel differently about that, of course.