Musical and Artistic Discernment
#1
Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:17 AM
During the years "band singers" like Ronan Keating and Rod Stewart recognised this and started a solo career. Had they done this in the 50's and 60's....they would have flopped.
Another example is the Beatles. Their vocal abilities was not one of their redeeming qualities. However their ability to harmonise and the use of excellent song material is legendary. The latter permitted John Lennon....George Harrison...and Ring Starr (in that order) to branch out into solo careers in which they were successful. However there was that odd man out....Paul McCartney who, as I said before was up there with Mozart (due to his composing abilities) but could not make it as a soloist (there is always a limit to talented people). He realized this and he was quite successful with the band Wings for many years. I believe that presently he released a CD of his solo performances.Another famous singer in this regard is Mick Jagger.. With the Rolling Stones....he was great. As a soloist????
When one looks back to the 50's and 60's and the bands from the UK and the USA who were around then one realizes that many of their singers (on point) were in the majority not that good vocally...but boy their song material was excellent and we did not care. We loved them!
#2
Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:08 AM
Its just rose tinted glasses that make you think music was better back then.
I will give you that most of the shit played on commercial radio these days doesnt exactly have much musical depth to it, so dont listen to the radio. There is plenty of new music being released that will astound you with lyrical content, amazing music and brilliant singing. You just gotta look harder for it.
#3
Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:58 PM
About lyrical content I was shopping in one of the clothing department stores here in Sydney metro a few years ago and I heard a song sung by a woman being played over the store system...no melody to speak of....and the lyric went something like" You wanna get into my pants" end quote. Surely this is not what you are alluding to when you say "lyrical content"?
#4
Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:23 PM
Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood were better singers.
#5
Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:41 PM
Roderick, on 07 July 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:
Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood were better singers.
'Bout time we found a point of difference you, you, you bloodthirsty shooting person though I doubt you'd be wearing same tinted glasses as the frog.
Wandering star Marvin might cut it for one song and Eastwood with some Rawhide stuff, or for my liking, the bit more recent "Gorillaz", but don't knock the Beatles. By all means ignore the worst of their LSD influenced numbers, but background distraction?
I think not!
#6
Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:39 AM
1) Many of today's young pop stars can only perform their songs in the studio with assistance from "pitch and/or other technology"(to prevent them from singing off key). Consequently when they perform on stage they "mime" their songs.I was told that only Lady Gaga can perform live on stage
And you are talking about 50's and 60's singers.....they had to be good as there was no technology to assist them then.However as I said in my post....many (especially "band singers") had no vocal ability (by this I meant that they had not a "singing voice" (where they were able to use their voice like a musical instrument as similar to soloists), but they were able to sing in time and on key. The redeeming features were however their song material....it was always melodious (pleasant to the ear) and/or catchy.This greatly assisted (and in fact I think that this is what "saved the day") them.
#7
Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:05 AM
dumbcluck, on 08 July 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:
1) Many of today's young pop stars can only perform their songs in the studio with assistance from "pitch and/or other technology"(to prevent them from singing off key). Consequently when they perform on stage they "mime" their songs.I was told that only Lady Gaga can perform live on stage
Scarcely aware. My youngest daughter has mentioned it and I've been meaning to read up on it (with as view to becoming a late to market crooner perhaps).
dumbcluck, on 08 July 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:
.......but they were able to sing in time and on key. The redeeming features were however their song material....it was always melodious (pleasant to the ear) and/or catchy.
The melodious Robert Zimmerman springs immediately to mind.

#8
Posted 08 July 2012 - 04:10 PM
#9
Posted 08 July 2012 - 05:05 PM
dumbcluck, on 08 July 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:
Here you go DC, don't say I don't look after you. Manfred Mann – Just Like A Woman - Stereo Version. I listened and it sounded OK to me, but on that particular song, Dylan's drawling voice works for me (probably aclimatised by repetition).
You'll need Spotify which could be problematic if you remain on dialup, but the NBN is coming to a place near you real soon.
#10
Posted 09 July 2012 - 10:11 AM
#11
Posted 11 July 2012 - 10:31 AM

Nestled in the carrying case but not surrounded by the protective bubble wrap (great stuff).
and more or less ready for action.

and lesser but none the less loved:

Top is a British military fife, next a 'One keyed flute' that came down from my dad's father ( the small holes are where I glued red glass beads, for decoration, when I was about eight

Then a wooden recorder and my much battered 'D' whistle.
Last but not least a small harp, with the flute for size comparison.

#14
Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:26 AM
About songs....there are various aspects to a song....first it's the lyrics.Then there is the all important melody....it has to be melodious (pleasant to the ear)...and catchy. A song like this...and the majority in the 50's and 60's were like this....covers a lot of musical "sins"! A good song covers up a bad singer.....or even a bad band.I mean you can have a singer or a band who is not that "hot"....and they finish up looking "hot" by their song repertoire. However today this is not the case....you have many bad singers and bands and...guess what....their song repertoire is as bad as them.They are fortunate that today's audiences ain't as tough as way back in the 50's and 60's
#15
Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:54 AM
icey, on 07 July 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:
Wandering star Marvin might cut it for one song and Eastwood with some Rawhide stuff, or for my liking, the bit more recent "Gorillaz", but don't knock the Beatles. By all means ignore the worst of their LSD influenced numbers, but background distraction?
I think not!
Absolutely agree re The Beatles. You can still walk into any music outlet and buy their stuff. I doubt that any of the current crop will have such longevity.
And here's an alternative to Clint's Rawhide which might satisfy Roderick's Caledonian bent
