Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Top 10s and lists
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Most Painful Prog Vocals
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMost Painful Prog Vocals

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678>
Author
Message
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 21:13
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

 
Why do you consider that such a meaningful task? I find it fairly pointless. You CAN'T be objective about music. Music is just a bunch of arranged sounds, how stimulating it is depends on the ears and our brains are wired differently to find different things pleasurable. What might be a bunch of racket to one person could be the most beautiful piece of music ever to another.
 
And since I find a lot of your reviews highly disagreeable, "objective" isn't really the word I would use. No matter how hard you try, everything you say is still your subjective opinion.


I would never say I like all King Crimson or I love Gentle Giant, that wouldn't be honest, I clearly say I don't like them, but they are  a pair of talented group of musicians, doing music that is considerate great by some.

Of course there's a subjective component, but at least you should recognize when somebody is good despite your taste, that's the objectiveness you can expect from a reviewer.

Iván
            
Back to Top
boo boo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 21:27

Even what is good is subjective.

What makes music (or any art) good is subjective. Some think it's all about skill, in which case they can TRY to be objective about it, it doesn't mean they are. Others think it's about passion and emotion, and there's nothing more subjective than that. How pleasing melodies or rhythms or tones are, also subjective, people may think there's a scientific formula, but there's no one thing that EVERYBODY likes.
 
Hell, I never got what's so great about Jackson Pollock, much of his work looks like a bunch of condiments little kids squirted onto a marble kitchen floor. Yet a lot of people find it beautiful. What can I do about that? Absolutely nothing.


Edited by boo boo - February 17 2011 at 21:39
Back to Top
The Quiet One View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 21:38

^I agree on everything except the 'skill' part, which is the part I agree with Iván. You can perfectly dislike a band, in my case say Metallica, but I really can't deny that they released original stuff and were good (call it decent, or whatever) at what they're doing.

It's objective to say, or at least close to objective, that a guitarist say Steve Vai is technically great. I wouldn't say that's subjective, there's no discussion about his technical abilities. If someone says that he doesn't like him, that's fine, in that case it's subjective, he might not like his technical show-off or whatever. And no one can tell this guy "hey you're stupid not liking Vai, he's simply the best guitarist ever" that's just being close-minded as well as the other way round, this guy who doesn't like Vai thus he says he's not a good guitarist (in terms of technique).
 
 


Edited by The Quiet One - February 17 2011 at 21:43
Back to Top
boo boo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 21:50
There are different kinds of skills though. Some can be argued to be objectively measurable but not all of them. What makes good lyrics, or good songwriting for example. Those kinds of skills are subjective.
 
Instrumental skill? Well, I always say how much skill you have is not as important as how you use the skill you have.
 
On one hand, I admire the technical skills of Dream Theater, on the other I think they totally waste it on boring, generic prog-lite stuff.
 
And on the other hand you have punk rock, many of these bands were not virtuosos, but virtuoso skill wasn't necessary for the kind of music they wanted to make.
 
Sometimes a lack of technical skill can actually allow you to explore musical terrain that virtuosos never would have thought of. Roger Waters actually credited Pink Floyd's originality to their lack of skill.
 
"We didn't imitate anybody because we couldn't."
Back to Top
The Quiet One View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 22:13

^ you're just putting in the shadows with counter-examples that there are musical aspects that are objectively measureable. You admit it, and yet you take it as if it were bad.

I never said that being technically great means good music, read again my post, my point was that there are musical qualities that are objective and are undeniable.
I know that unskilled musicians have made many great music (for me), you don't need to give me examples because I know well what you're talking about. I'm one that dislikes DT technical approach, and yet prefer Pink Floyd's simplicity yet complete uniqueness.


Edited by The Quiet One - February 17 2011 at 22:15
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 22:14
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

Even what is good is subjective.



Indeed.


Reviews and Ratings

2 ratings/reviews total  Sort by By ratings | Alphabetically | Chronologically(default)

1 starsEPIGNOSIS Still the Waters(rating only)
5 starsRADIOHEAD The Bends(rating only)
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 22:15
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

Hell, I never got what's so great about Jackson Pollock, much of his work looks like a bunch of condiments little kids squirted onto a marble kitchen floor. Yet a lot of people find it beautiful. What can I do about that? Absolutely nothing.

Good example I'm not a fan of  Jackson Pollock's paintings, but I have one for two reasons, first, is a good business and second, his technique is perfect, and don't tell me that technique is subjective.

In the same way, I don't like Gentle Giant, but I recognize all of them are skilled musicians and that their technique is impeccable...The subjective elements is I like, or it's good, the objective component is the technique and skills.

Don't tell me that skills are not necessary for Punk, even though is simplistic you need to be skilled in the instrument of your choice, if that wasn't so, the Sex Pistols would had recorded with Sid Vicious instead of using Steve Jones in the bass.

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 17 2011 at 22:27
            
Back to Top
Hawkwise View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 31 2008
Location: Ontairo
Status: Offline
Points: 4119
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 22:26
Kansas   just cant be doing with those vocals ..
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18058
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 17 2011 at 22:27
Why can't we be objective about music? I think the person that can be objective is the person who most can appreciate the talent a band has, whether it is in the composition or playing of music, etc. When I think about Gentle Giant, and I have tried to listen to their albums, I am in the same boat Ivan is....great musicians but does not meet my tastes. That does not mean I hate them.
 
I think what lacks around here in the PA is respect for what all these bands can and have done. We are too focused on the black and white of an album...Respect the fact they have opened themselves up and shown sides we certainly cannot do as the plain old listener and fan. Appreciate the fact that it is only art and we should embrace it, because without that whatelse would we listen to?
 
Trashing a band or saying they are too technical and that makes it sound krappy......I guess its just me but I don't get that thinking. They are technical because they are stretching the limits, nobody (including the bands) say you have to like it when I can shred for 15min, and I also don't think we are asking for that either......it just happens to be what they, the artists, feel like doing or whats in their heads at the time.
 
I guess it boils down to who are we to criticize an artist with a fine tooth comb, take it for what it is and lets not over analyze it, thats when I see respect just disappears.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2011 at 01:08
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

Even what is good is subjective.



Indeed.


Reviews and Ratings

2 ratings/reviews total  Sort by By ratings | Alphabetically | Chronologically(default)

1 starsEPIGNOSIS Still the Waters(rating only)
5 starsRADIOHEAD The Bends(rating only)




oh lol LOL
Clap
Back to Top
Stoned420 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2010
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 25
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2011 at 01:30
Despite Dream Theater being one of my favorite bands, I'll have to say James LaBrie. On certain songs I love his voice, and other songs + live records I can tolerate it, but it doesn't sound good at all.
Back to Top
thehallway View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 13 2010
Location: Dorset, England
Status: Offline
Points: 1433
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2011 at 09:38
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:


 

Trying to be objective in a review is as futile as trying to convince Rick Wakeman to get a hair cut........ LOL


I don't believe so, I always try to be fair and as objective as possible.

Iván

That's just a description then....

"They play the piano for a bit here. Then it's guitar. It might be good or bad, it's up to you. I'm just here to tell you facts. The singing is high but sometimes a bit lower... which may or may not be to your tastes...."

LOL What do you give for a rating........ N/A?



Back to Top
daslaf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 03 2009
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 290
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2011 at 09:41
Is my face on straight by PFM... awful vocals
But now my branches suffer
And my leaves don't bear the glow
They did so long ago
Back to Top
boo boo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2011 at 10:12
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

Hell, I never got what's so great about Jackson Pollock, much of his work looks like a bunch of condiments little kids squirted onto a marble kitchen floor. Yet a lot of people find it beautiful. What can I do about that? Absolutely nothing.

Good example I'm not a fan of  Jackson Pollock's paintings, but I have one for two reasons, first, is a good business and second, his technique is perfect, and don't tell me that technique is subjective.

In the same way, I don't like Gentle Giant, but I recognize all of them are skilled musicians and that their technique is impeccable...The subjective elements is I like, or it's good, the objective component is the technique and skills.

Don't tell me that skills are not necessary for Punk, even though is simplistic you need to be skilled in the instrument of your choice, if that wasn't so, the Sex Pistols would had recorded with Sid Vicious instead of using Steve Jones in the bass.

Iván
 
Well Sid Vicious didn't have the skills needed to make that kind of music, he was just a mascot really, not a bass player, but The Sex Pistols were well known for, well, not being virtuosos by any stretch of the imagination. But they used what skills they had to make the music they wanted and they succeeded.
 
All music requires some kind of skill yes, but some genres are more accessible for people who aren't virtuosos. There are actually a good deal of punk musicians who can really play, but punk's lasting popularity is greatly attributed to the fact that great skill isn't a requirement. Granted a lot of my favorite punk bands tend to be the more skilled ones so skill definitely helps. But  I also like some stuff from musicians whose skills were rather primal.
 
Hell, sometimes even the most terrible musicians have something special about them.
 
Zappa is known for his skills as a composer and guitarist, he was also a fan of The Shaggs and said he couldn't imitate their music when he tried. LOL


Edited by boo boo - February 19 2011 at 05:39
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2011 at 11:08
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

 

That's just a description then....

"They play the piano for a bit here. Then it's guitar. It might be good or bad, it's up to you. I'm just here to tell you facts. The singing is high but sometimes a bit lower... which may or may not be to your tastes...."

LOL What do you give for a rating........ N/A?


That's a "Reductio ad Absurdum"

There are two parts of the review:

  1. The objective part
    • Skills
    • Technical abilities
    • Production
    • Compositional skills
  2. A subjective part
    1. The music is good or bad
    2. I like song "A" more than song "B"
    3. The emotional impact the music caused on me is .......
    4. I think they are the best/worst band ever
    5. I believe this album is their peak/lowest point
    6. etc
So you can narrate, ,make a review interesting, but at the same time be impartial recognizing the technical proficiency, skills etc of a band and their members despite your taste.

If you are not able to combine both aspects, better rate the albums without writing a review.

Iván 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 18 2011 at 11:10
            
Back to Top
boo boo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 19 2011 at 06:03
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The objective part
  • Skills
  • Technical abilities
  • Production
  • Compositional skills
 
I'm gonna dissect this.
 
Skills:

Like I said, not all skills are objective. For example, what constitutes a good riff, or good riff maker, is pretty subjective.

Should we judge every musician by how skilled they are at making traditional music? Or how they go about making the music they choose to make? I think the latter makes no sense.
 
What's the point in criticizing a punk band for not featuring very dynamic instrumentals or drastic time signature changes or flashy solos? What's the point in criticizing a band for sounding atonal and dissonant if that is their intention?
 
Why criticize a rock n roll band (like many here do) for being sloppy musicians when their chaotic recklessness is part of their appeal? Why criticize hip hop for not being very melodic when it's emphasis is on rhythm? Why criticize minimalistic music...... for being minimal? LOL
 
Making whatever music you intend to make requires some kind of skill, everybody acts like the only skill of any value is the kind needed for making the most complex and technical music. That may have been what a lot of people believed back in the day but it's a very outdated and ignorant way of looking at things nowadays.
 
Technical abillities:
 
So this one is objective I guess, but it's value or importance definitely isn't.
 
Production:
 
Even production is subjective. Many people hate slick and polished production, some people love low quality production so much even when it's unintentional. And again, different methods of production suits different kinds of music. I agree that lo fi production isn't ideal for progressive rock, but a punk band doesn't need a producer like Phil Spector now does it?
 
Compositional skills:
 
I question this one also. What makes a good composition? Yeah you guessed it, that's subjective too. Weither you think music should be disciplined and precise or wild and free, clean and crisp or raw and dirty, complex or primal. That all goes down to personal preference.
 
The quality of a song's structure depends on it's intended effect, but music can also leave a positive impression that the musician's DIDN'T intend, so if they failed their intention does that make it bad music even if the listener enjoys it?
 
I'm not saying music is objectively good IF the band succeeds at what they are trying to do, but there's no way of determining it's objectively bad. Even the goddamn Shaggs have their fans (without any sense of irony) and they were the worst musicians EVER.
 
Melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, dynamics, texture, key, pitch, tempo, beat and meter. Those are the prime elements of music composition and the quality of each of those elements from a listener's perspective is purely subjective.
 
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 
So no, I don't think your objective criteria is really that objective at all. I credit you for at least trying to be fair but nobody can give a completely objective review. Even if it was possible, I wouldn't see the point. Trying to be "fair" doesn't give any interesting insight about the music.
 
My main problem with many reviewers here is they obsess over technical details rather than describing why this music is pleasing to them, where does it take them, how does it make them feel, etc. And when people DO attempt reviews like that they may come off as incredibly pretentious, often alienating everyone else because nobody knows what the hell they're talking about.
 
I think what I'm trying to say is, reviews are completely pointless.


Edited by boo boo - February 19 2011 at 06:13
Back to Top
TLM170 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 12 2011
Location: montreal
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 19 2011 at 06:11
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

[
Production:
 
Even production is subjective. Many people hate slick and polished production, some people love low quality production so much even when it's unintentional. And again, different methods of production suits different kinds of music. I agree that lo fi production isn't ideal for progressive rock, but a punk band doesn't need a producer like Phil Spector now does it?
 

I agree! but don't you think that some progressive album would be better with a Higher quality recording?.

exemple: One hour by the Concreate lake - PoS and the early Symphony X

I would appreciate those album a lot more if they would have been recorded with more quality.
Back to Top
boo boo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 19 2011 at 06:22

Yeah, many prog bands strive for bombast and extravagance so not having slick enough production can be considered a weakness.

Not always though, since not ALL prog strives for that kind of thing.
 
For other kinds of bands, high quality production is shunned upon, they think it waters down the rawness of the music. Some people consider Bleach to be Nirvana's best album BECAUSE It's their worst produced, Cobain himself was disatisfied with Nevermind because it was so well produced, he thought it sounded too arena rock as a result, and that's why he had Steve Albini work on In Utero to get the kind of lo fi sound he prefered.


Edited by boo boo - February 19 2011 at 06:25
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 19 2011 at 06:29
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

 
I think what I'm trying to say is, reviews are completely pointless.


That may be true but do you think posting your opinions in the forum carries any more weight than a review?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 19 2011 at 10:24
 
Lets see your directions: 

Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

 
I'm gonna dissect this.
 
Skills:
Like I said, not all skills are objective. For example, what constitutes a good riff, or good riff maker, is pretty subjective.

Should we judge every musician by how skilled they are at making traditional music? Or how they go about making the music they choose to make? I think the latter makes no sense.
 
What's the point in criticizing a punk band for not featuring very dynamic instrumentals or drastic time signature changes or flashy solos? What's the point in criticizing a band for sounding atonal and dissonant if that is their intention?
 
Why criticize a rock n roll band (like many here do) for being sloppy musicians when their chaotic recklessness is part of their appeal? Why criticize hip hop for not being very melodic when it's emphasis is on rhythm? Why criticize minimalistic music...... for being minimal? 
 
Making whatever music you intend to make requires some kind of skill, everybody acts like the only skill of any value is the kind needed for making the most complex and technical music. That may have been what a lot of people believed back in the day but it's a very outdated and ignorant way of looking at things nowadays

Skills in this case is the ability to lpay an instrument, and that's easy to notice even in a Punk band (Despite the fact I would never listen and much less review a Punk album),

You can perfectly tell if a musician is skilled listening him/her play even a simple tume.  
 
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

Technical abillities:
 
So this one is objective I guess, but it's value or importance definitely isn't.

Is not important?

It´s crucial, the technique of each individual of a band allows you to appreciate how well they interplay and how well the band manages to blend different techniques in one song or album.
 
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

Production:
 
Even production is subjective. Many people hate slick and polished production, some people love low quality production so much even when it's unintentional. And again, different methods of production suits different kinds of music. I agree that lo fi production isn't ideal for progressive rock, but a punk band doesn't need a producer like Phil Spector now does it?
 

Like of hate are subjective components, it doesn't matter if you prefer an amateurish production, the point is that you can tell if it's good or bad, if production wasn't important, guys like Spector or Alan Parsons wouldn't be so respected, and popular among musicians in their time. 

Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

Compositional skills:
 
I question this one also. What makes a good composition? Yeah you guessed it, that's subjective too. Weither you think music should be disciplined and precise or wild and free, clean and crisp or raw and dirty, complex or primal. That all goes down to personal preference.
 
The quality of a song's structure depends on it's intended effect, but music can also leave a positive impression that the musician's DIDN'T intend, so if they failed their intention does that make it bad music even if the listener enjoys it?
 
I'm not saying music is objectively good IF the band succeeds at what they are trying to do, but there's no way of determining it's objectively bad. Even the goddamn Shaggs have their fans (without any sense of irony) and they were the worst musicians EVER.
 
Melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, dynamics, texture, key, pitch, tempo, beat and meter. Those are the prime elements of music composition and the quality of each of those elements from a listener's perspective is purely subjective.

The highlighted section responds to my point, you make like them or not, but you can tell if a coimposition starts, develops and ends well
  
Originally posted by boo boo boo boo wrote:

So no, I don't think your objective criteria is really that objective at all. I credit you for at least trying to be fair but nobody can give a completely objective review. Even if it was possible, I wouldn't see the point. Trying to be "fair" doesn't give any interesting insight about the music.
 
My main problem with many reviewers here is they obsess over technical details rather than describing why this music is pleasing to them, where does it take them, how does it make them feel, etc. And when people DO attempt reviews like that they may come off as incredibly pretentious, often alienating everyone else because nobody knows what the hell they're talking about.
 
I think what I'm trying to say is, reviews are completely pointless.

A good review doesn't stop in objective issues, a good review combines both aspects with the impression that the music creates on the reviewer.

If I know and trust a reviewer, I rely more in the subjective aspect, for example if Sean of Gatot tell me an album is a good, I have confidence, because we have similar tastes, but if I don't know the reviewer, I need to know why did an album caused a great impression on them, and that's only achieved reading their description of how skills, production, technique, etc..

And if the reviews are pointless, this whole site is pointless, because it's created to review albums mainly.

Iván



Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 19 2011 at 10:31
            
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.199 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.