Best Singer of All Time is...

[sphinxsix]

8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Best Singer of All time is...

 

Singer with a capital 'S', right.?

I would say - probably Isaac Bashevis Singer..

As for singers - this is not a sane question..😜

May I kindly remind you that you're using the word 'neuroscience' in your nick.

It'some kind of obligation, don't you think.?  😉

[sphinxsix]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

I see similarities:

- Cher was 19 when I Got You Babe hit #1

- Both are pretty

- Restricted vocal range, no high notes

Any low notes.? Anyway, you know what the audiophile Brits say - it's the midrange that matters 

 

BTW..

 

[sphinxsix]

It's all cool on this thread but let's get real, guys .  

As for the 'Best of..' kind of threads - I did say it once..

..but it seems I have to say it again - these are all your subjective, personal opinions!

The best singer of all time has to be objectively the best!!! 

And the only factor which can be objectively measured in case of vocalist skills,

I think everyone here will agree, is - vocal range!

 

Let me announce, and introduce to those who haven't heard of of her - Yma Sumac,

the best singer of all time!!! 

 

Wiki:

Quote

Vocal range[edit]

Sumac had a wide vocal register; she could emit notes from above a coloratura soprano to the low notes of a bass and had one of the widest vocal ranges. She was able to emit notes from the tessitura of sopranino, soprano, mezzo-soprano, contralto, tenor, baritone and bass, and was the only person able to do the triple coloratura or the trill of the birds. Her singing voice ranged from ti₁ to re₇.

One source claims that in the song "K'arawi", she reached a Re₈ (00:26). This would extend her vocal range to almost 6 octaves.^[21]

In the song "Chuncho" she sang from a ti₁ (at minute 0:40) to a Re₇ (at minute 2:56).^[22]

In this live she performs a duet with the flute reaching an E₆

 

 

 

Huh.?

[sphinxsix]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Jonna Jinton

 

 

 

Also a kind of product placement, I guess.. 

 

[sphinxsix]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must disagree. Someone’s opinion that Mozart is better than Britney is fine, but there’s no such thing as objectively better in art. 

 

Yes, there is. As a person who studied art history I can assure you, Chris that there are criteria of 'objectively better' in art and I'm sure that can apply to music as well although I am not formally educated in this field. Probably someone here is..

Anyway comparing Mozart and Britney IMO is a little like comparing Space Shuttle Columbia and the basic model of let's say Fiat..

I apologize upfront to all Britney fans but a cheap Fiat isn't necessarily such a bad thing (although as for Fiats I only used to have Fiat Coupe turbo and BTW have great memories of this car).. 

 

 

[sphinxsix]

16 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

What are the objective criteria for art or music appreciation?

 

Let me stress I am not against the idea, I am just intrigued by the notion. I can think of arguments both ways but it sounds like you guys have more experience in the area so I would genuinely like to hear what you think. There are wider ramifications which might apply but again I stress there is no trap in this question. I genuinely am interested in the answer.

 

There are many. E.g. some think of Picasso as of the one of the greatest modern painters but in some regards Braque (not nearly as popular as Picasso) let's say 'proceeded' Picasso ideas or in other words - Picasso copied Braque's ideas (this is not a place to go into details but I guess one could Google it quite easily). Being the first one to use or more correctly to create a particular idea in art is one of such criteria but only one of them. I can't suggest you any particular books on this subject (it's been years since..) but it also should be quite easily 'googleable'..

This could be easily translatable to the music field - if e.g. the Rolling Stones copied some black rhythm and blues music ideas in particular in their early days - at least in this regard the original black artists are 'objectively better'.

[sphinxsix]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Absolutely not. Which color is best, red or blue?

Color is not art, Chris. 

[sphinxsix]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s illustrative of my point though.

 

If you can judge art, which painting by Rembrandt is best?

 

Ha, ha.. Haven't you ever answered a question about the best Pearl Jam album.? 

It's definitely possible to say that some paintings by Rembrandt (it's actually quite personal for me - I live 500m from the house where he was born..) are better than others or better than e.g. some paintings by Frans Hals or by some other artists of the period. As for an attempt of comparing him with eg Picasso - it obviously makes very limited sense.. 

[sphinxsix]

As for history of art - there are quite many tools of analysis of an 'art form' used to evaluate a particular painting or a particular painter. One more example - which artist of a given period did master chiaroscuro better. I'm sure there are similar tools in the field of history of music, there simply have to be.. But like I said - I'm not formally educated in this field.

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I must say that I never thought I would be in a thread arguing the relative merits of Mozart v. Britney Spears. Did I happen to fall into some alternate universe? Help me Obi Wan, you are my only hope. 😀

 

IMO in many regards AS is an alternate universe just like whole this hobby.. 

 

[sphinxsix]

19 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You guys kill me. Judging art is the most preposterous thing. 
 

I saw Britney Spears in concert. Extremely entertaining. She was far better than Mozart. Prove me wrong. 

 

Yeah.. comparing them IMO also makes limited sense, especially taking into account the depth of her masterpieces like:

 

 

In comparison to vulgar and boring Mozart pieces like e.g..

 

 

 

But I have a question, Chris - is she better than Pearl Jam.?  

Or Bjork.? (probably closer musically to her)

 

I'm sorry but for me personally she's like a cheap Fiat.. 

Of course - the world needs cheap Fiats and probably some really love them!

They're just not for me. 

And no-one will convince me of their importance in the car history (except from the commercial dimension)..

 

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’d take that Britney song over anything from Mozart any day. Heck, Mozart couldn’t even sing!  At least Britney could sing with studio help. More than Mozart can say. 
 

 

Britney more entertaining than Mozart, you gotta be kidding, Chris 

 

 

IMO without Amadeus there would be no e.g. some of Hendrix guitar tricks!

[sphinxsix]

35 minutes ago, Mayfair said:

Without commenting on the musical tastes and choices of others (chacun son goût), I will only note that Mozart died in 1791. There aren't many people who are remembered for over two centuries, let alone composers whose work is still widely recorded by contemporary artists who think they can find and add something new.  

 

 

 

I agree. Somehow I tend to think that even the greatest today BS fans will not remember her in 200 years from now..  

 

BTW frankly, I think 'Ooops..' is a very catchy sing and I quite like it, just like I like pieces I mentioned on 'Bizarre Music..' thread.

I also think everyone has a constitutional right to like songs like this one. Music and art evaluation is IMO at least to the same degree subjective as objective after all..

[sphinxsix]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Mozart may be great to some, but I don’t want ministers of information deciding what art is the best. It’s preposterous. 

 

I agree in 100%, like I said we all have a constitutional right to like what we like.

 

[sphinxsix]

8 hours ago, GregWormald said:

I'm not an expert in anything but psychotherapy.

 

Subjectively or objectively, Greg.? 

'Our childhood experiences influence our adult life' - not true, true and if so subjectively or objectively..? 

 

 

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You guys kill me. Judging art is the most preposterous thing. 

 

If it wasn't for 'judging art', every book about e.g. Dutch baroque painting would have to include thousands of names..  

Often quite difficult to pronounce .. 

 

 

Same with music. 

We just don't have that much time for reading, do we 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, GregWormald said:

The words "objective" and "better/worse" always lead me to ask "What are the criteria and who gets to set them?"

I wouldn't let clients use those words without full specifications being provided.😄

 

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must disagree. Someone’s opinion that Mozart is better than Britney is fine, but there’s no such thing as objectively better in art. 

 

12 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

Yes, there is. As a person who studied art history I can assure you, Chris that there are criteria of 'objectively better' in art and I'm sure that can apply to music as well although I am not formally educated in this field. Probably someone here is..

 

11 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

As for history of art - there are quite many tools of analysis of an 'art form' used to evaluate a particular painting or a particular painter. One more example - which artist of a given period did master chiaroscuro better. I'm sure there are similar tools in the field of history of music, there simply have to be.. But like I said - I'm not formally educated in this field...

 

... but I actually don't think I have to be to compare e.g. 'Ooops' with 'Requiem'. In this case one could IMO start with the very basic elements of the music structure of a given composition which are harmonic and rhythmic complexity. Is there someone here who would quarrel that 'Ooops' is more sophisticated and complex in this regard of the two.? 

Let me ask the same questions as far as the lyrics of both pieces are regarded... 

BTW I understand very well people who don't like classical music, still 5-6 years ago I thought of it as of in most cases utterly boring. Now classical is for me the main source of excitement in my musicophile life  but it doesn't have to be to everyone, that would be quite a totalitarian attitude. I actually tend to also think of people who interested only in classical music as of the ones who loose some very important (for me!) things in their music life too..

And I'll repeat once again - I quite like 'Ooops'..

Really 

 

 

[sphinxsix]

8 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

This makes no sense to me. If the artists were trying to create the same thing, based on a reference standard, then we could look at their versions and compare how close they came to the reference. 

 

Why would you compare harmonic and rhythmic complexity? You don't even know what the goal of each artist was at the time of song creation and which is better, more or less complex? 

 

You certainly aren't saying the most complex is the best right? The most complex is the most complex. That's it. 

 

I said we could start with comparing harmonic and rhythmic complexity of both pieces, it obviously doesn't have to be a decisive factor in evaluation of music but may be one of them.

As for Mozart's and Britney's goals connected with 'Ooops' and Requiem creation I somehow tend to think they were more than a little different..

C'mon Chris, this was you who actually had made me realized some time ago on 'Music in General' what contemporary pop is about and how mechanized the creative process usually is in this case.

Once again - comparing Britney Spears and Mozart for me is like comparing Space Shuffle Columbia and a cheap Fiat.. Both are necessary but their roles, constructional sophistication and complexity, historical meaning etc just can't be compared. Period.

I must say that if it gets too far off for me, it probably means that it really got far off here this time.. 

Let's stop here, ok?

I think I also might need some therapy session at this point..

@GregWormald have you ever worked with audiophile patients e.g. via Zoom.? How much would that eventually cost.? Does desktop speakers quality matter in such situation.? 

 

[sphinxsix]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which is better? Both paintings and both pointillism.

 

 

 

I choose Seurat (bottom, most likely much higher price of the two) and also choose to sell it immediately cause I'm not a huge fan of his art. BTW IMO the pointillism of the upper one is a little suspicious..

 

 

[sphinxsix]

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It’s still the case and I’m arguing the other side on this one because nobody else seems willing to admit that aren’t can’t be judged with a straight face and in good conscience. 
 

The bottom line for me is that no art is better than other art. Some has more cultural impact, longer staying power, is more copied, etc... but that doesn’t make it better. Better in your eyes is fine, but that doesn’t make it better objectively.  

 

I will still argue that art can be judged objectively 

Just some examples of possible criteria: uniqueness/originality, professional quality (neatness and craft), aesthetic quality (design, composition, color/tones), concept, selection and application of materials, and complexity/level of technology used.

 

Chris, would you be ready to compromise if I added the word 'quite' to 'objectively', eventually the expression 'with some subjectivist margin'.? 

Just asking..  

(something tells me it's not a good thing to be at war with the site founder )

 

 

As for Picasso, discussed here (I quite like his early blue and rose periods)  - like I said he copied a number of Braque's ideas but OTOH in a way he was the inventor of a card payment. In his later years before leaving a restaurant he often asked if they prefer cash or his quick drawing and guess what was the answer he usually heard.. 

 

As for Fiats - the only one that I had - Coupe Turbo is among the best handling ones that I owned, I really have lots of good memories connected with it.. oh, those winding roads in Alps.. 

 

[sphinxsix]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No worries sphinx. I enjoy lively respectful discussions. It's how we learn about both sides of an issue. I'll always respect you and those who put forth their honest opinions in a kind way. 

 

I still don't see how we can judge art on those categories given that the artist had no clue about them and wasn't even striving for them. It's like me judging your stride on the way to the bathroom this morning. You had no clue you'd be judged and likely don't care. Many artists don't care what others think about their work and don't strive for those goals. Thus, it's crazy to judge them. 

 

How can you judge something on selection and application of materials? An artist selects something based on whatever s/he wants, not what some minister of art information thinks is good or should be used. 

 

Let me ask you - how can you explain that so many people, both ordinary art lovers / listeners and critics, regard e.g. Rembrandt a good painter or let's say Hendrix - a good guitarist.? If so many (probably with few exceptions in these cases) people agree on that, do you think we can say that such judgments are at least to some degree objective.? 

 

[sphinxsix]

3 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

 

I do tink Picasso was a bit of s showman.  In the art world, the artist's personal story is important too.  

 

I would agree with that. The biggest one was probably Dali.

 

[sphinxsix]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The Earth has 7.5 billion people. The percentage that think Rembrandt and Hendrix are good, is probably tiny.

Ok, do you think that the percentage of the ones who think they were bad artists is higher.?

 

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That said, humans of certain cultures or ancestral origins tend to like those artists.

I know an art historian who lives here in Leiden, NL who was born in Japan and is mainly fascinated with late 19th centurey Western art, I OTOH have always been fascinated be art of Japan and China 

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I also don't see how you can judge someone on something that he didn't know he would be judged at the time he created the art. 

E.g.?

 

[sphinxsix]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Should art then be judged blindly :~)

 

At the same time he had an amazing imagination and technique! 

BTW I used to live almost next to the house of his ex muse - Amanda Lear in St Remy - the village I mentioned earlier.

 

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Judging a Rembrandt on the use of materials is crazy. He used what he wanted, not what some judge a few hundred years later would think is best. If he was going for top rating he may have used something different.

You didn't answer any of my questions 

I'm going to smoke a cigarette (outside) now so you have some time though.. 

 

[sphinxsix]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Judging a Rembrandt on the use of materials is crazy.

Yes but e.g. in some art competition the harder to 'tame' materials can deserve a higher rating not necessarily being a decisive factor of the final judgment of course.

 

[sphinxsix]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not sure. 

I would say I'd be ready to bet my money on my answer to this question.

 

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This was my Rembrandt example. He painted and had no clue what the criteria for judgement would be a few hundred years later.

I think I have already replied to it in my previous post.