Best Singer of All Time is...

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

If no one has posted it yet, this Singer is probably the greatest of all time...

 

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/big-reads/it-911-reimagined-singer-and-williams

Saw many Singers at the Concours d'elegance last year :~)

 

Best singer - Eddie Vedder. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

Voices are important, but rhythm, use of the voice, and delivery of the emotional content of the music are more important to me. I want to feel connected to the artists' intent, whether it is sad, happy, or ...

So many singers with excellent voices seem to have almost no emotional resonance to the song—all songs are sung with the same techniques, tone, etc.; and when they do sing challenging areas they can try too hard and some notes become 'hard' and even harsh.

 

At the moment I'm following the performances of Diana Ankudinova with chills and goosebumps often.

 

 

Agree completely. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I love Karen Carpenter's voice. Richard and Karen used very careful selection of words and vowels because of how they sounded while she sang, rather than the meaning of the words. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Yeah... I am not sure that it would be bickering... 

 

I do think that it might be "extreme" of you to assert that I am espousing "extreme musical relativism" and "dogmatic and factually".  (Don't get what you meant by that last part).

 

Music as (same with art) has no definition. Music is, and Art is, whatever someone who calls themselves a musician or artist says it is. The audience can call that bad music, or "not music" to them.. but that's just for them. How many people would assert that the band 1/2 Japanese is not music? What about the Residents?.

I can recognize for sure that there are objective criteria like, (Tony Bennett has a wider vocal range that Bing Crosby and has a better ear and misses fewer notes).

But, I am sure that there are Crosby fans who would say that that is not as important. Michael Jackson fans will have a whole other set of criteria that may take their opinion right out of the discussion, - IDK.

 

When you have something that has no definition, one's opinions are no more "correct" than another's. Some teenager who came of age in the 90s may not consider Bing Crosby as someone who was doing music at all, - as their definition of music doesn't even include those old people from the 50s who can't dance.  🙂  Of course I was writing to for "shock value" and to make a point..... And no, - I don't like Britney Spears. But my opinion isn't important to someone who does. And, - for me, - BOTH Britney and Sinatra suck, - and yes, - they suck pretty much equally IMM.

 

Since it's all opinion, - and no one opinion is any better than another in a definition-less area/art, - you might as well assert yourself, - just recognize that your opinion is no better than anyone else's. I don't expect that anyone here would agree with me. Conversely, - someone saying that Sinatra is the greatest singer of all time, - is not at all "wrong."

 

In this discussion, - as in many opinions here, - there are always an underlying set of assumptions that may or may not be shared when talking about art and artisan products that vary.....   Predominately, older white guys from the USA. Few people are mentioning stars like Ejigayehu Shibabaw, Nusrat Ali-Khan, Natcha Atlas, or Youssou N'Dour. Lucky that Ridley Scott liked Dead Can Dance,  - hence the Lisa Gerard mention... Great that @PYP mentioned Cesario Ekova.

 

Again, - not bickering...just wanted to assert that these types of discussions  carry with them a certain level of interesting assumptions that may apply or may not apply to our own unique cultural, and experienced viewpoints of how we define the art that we enjoy and incites our passions...

I agree for the most part. It reminds me of people using the phrase, “s/he really pushed the art forward” or something similar. In art there is no forward or backward, only different. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 hours ago, photonman said:

 

I would say that Chris Cornell was much bedder but Eddie had a bedder agent.  Sadly, Chris had a tragic end like many of his peers.  When Chris started to sing this crazy strong unbelievably powerful voice just bellows from his mouth, effortlessly like Karen Carpenter's.  Totally different genres but still pretty amazing.  

 

To the OP this is a really fun thread, thanks for starting it.  I mean there are so many unique voices and singers out there and it is impossible to say who is the best.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

I guarantee I did not say what you quoted above.

It was me who said it. 
 

Cornell is excellent but I think a bit more abrasive and didn’t have the caliber of songs Eddie has with PJ. 
 

I was fortunate to see Cornell sing with Eddie and Pearl Jam at PJ20 in Alpine Valley. He was a great talent.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

20 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Mozart did produce objectively better art than Brittney Spears;

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

41 minutes 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..

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).. 

 

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, sphinxsix said:

Color is not art, Chris. 

It’s illustrative of my point though.

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

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.?  

 

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.

 

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. 
 

[The Computer Audiophile]

40 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 performed and recorded by contemporary artists who think they can find and add something new.  

 

 

If we’re want to talk about objective facts like who was remembered longer, that’s totally fine. It has nothing to do with judging art though. 
 

History can be funny though. Sports writers now rate Babe Ruth higher (think better) than the sports writers who actually saw him play in person. Perhaps he wasn’t as good as the legend has become or perhaps he’s better given that we can analyze his work with respect to more greats. 
 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

42 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

And Christina Aguilera is an objectively better singer than Britney.

I’ve seen her a couple times. Fantastic talent who sings live every time. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

46 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

While you are right. Humanity’s collective regard for any art or artist forms the hierarchy that ranks both. That ranking puts Mozart higher than Britany Spears (and most everybody else), so basically we grow up being told that a Bach,  a Beethoven, and a Mozart represent the highest attainment of Western culture. - even if personally, many of us don’t appreciate their music and some of us have never heard any of their work, we know the names, and we know that they are considered the pinnacle of our civilization.

Hi George, I definitely hear you on this one but I get heebie jeebies thinking about taste makers deciding which art is better. I’m willing to bet we all know some artists that are far better, in our opinions, than those who got popular, but these guys remained mostly unknown. 
 

Album tracks are often better than officially released tracks as well. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

... 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.?

 

2 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

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

 

 

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, PYP said:

 

After reading the thread thus far, I think I might need some help....

Some of us could've told you that long before this thread :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

29 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

I ran the Digital Imaging Studio @ The San Francisco Art Institute for four years and I suspect every member of the faculty would disagree with you. 

I actually suspect they wouldn't. 

 

Think about it, there are no criteria for creating art and no goals that all artists strive for when creating art. Thus, there can be no such thing as objectively better. 

 

Who is better Rembrandt or Matisse? It's actually even a stupid question because one is creating apples and the other is creating oranges. If there is an objectively better art, then there is an objectively better style and that makes no sense. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Which is better? Both paintings and both pointillism.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 hours ago, botrytis said:

Let's see if Britney can last this long

 

On the other hand, most people don't want to work at 74 years old. Brittney likely has more money than she'll ever need and can retire at any time. Her Vegas residency brings in tons of money and she doesn't even have to travel. Smart career choice.

[The Computer Audiophile]

58 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

There absolutely are criteria for judging art as a quick Google search for that term would show you. And yes, there are goals that artists strive for. Invoking a feeling and communicating an idea are just two that come to mind. 

I’m an artist and don’t strive for those goals. I mustn’t be as good as those who conform. 
 

Plus, invoke a feeling in who and communicate an idea to who, the judges? Pearl Jam music did this to me in the 90s but certainly didn’t do either to most people on planet Earth. 
 

It’s all preposterous. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

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.

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.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

 

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..

 

 

Frank is a cool piece. I’ve seen it here in Minneapolis. Getting really close to it is amazing. I’d say it’s pointillism. 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Completely unrelated, but its all I have art related...  I won 1st place in my HS art fair whatever for a pointillism I did of a squirrel.

Have you seen the piece at Minneapolis Institute of Art? 
 

Rembrandt’s Lucretia is there as well. Really cool. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I guess my bottom line is this, if art can be objectively judged, then of the two paintings I posted, one must be better. Not “one is my favorite” “one is your favorite” “one has more cultural impact” “one is more famous.” One truly has to be better. 
 

I don’t buy into that view of art, whether on canvas or magnetic tape. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I can't readily accept that my dog walking over a canvas with paint on the paws can be equated with art from Picasso. Sometimes it will turn out to be an impossible comparison and where taste and preference rules but I don't think difficulty in some instances makes it impossible in all instances. Maybe?

I love this paragraph. It really describes the continuum on which art lies. Right next to your dog I'd put anything from Yoko Ono. Not saying which side of your dog on the continuum, but right next to it. I just can't get onboard with specifying a certain brain capacity or IQ in order to create art that is "better" than other art. In order to be better, there must be a common thing for which art strives. That just can't exist.

 

Is the Sistine Chapel better than Dark Side of the Moon? Sounds ridiculous to even consider the question. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If it is an objective fact that 90% of art enthusiasts prefer Picasso to Yoko Ono

That makes it a preference of the majority of art enthusiasts. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

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.. 

 

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.