Best Singer of All Time is...

[Bill Brown]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u2bigf337aU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Hope my embedding works.  First ever try!

 

Ellas's voice was close to perfect.  The pitch, tone, held notes, non-excessive vibrato (think Sarah Vaughan, though I also love her), just enough embellishment without the modern "vocal gymnastics"/technique for technique's sake that I hear.  Billie Holiday had the phrasing, oh my (like Frank!), but certainly not the voice.  In general, though, she knocks me out more.

 

I wish I could find the documentary on Louis' singing I saw years ago.  Historical context is important in this.  If you can think of non-classical singing before him in the 20's (wish I could demonstrate), you could see.  What he started was completely unique, just like his trumpet playing, and influences everything we have heard in non-classical since.

 

Sinatra called Tony Bennett the greatest singer.  I'll take Sinatra.

 

Rock:  Layne Staley!

 

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

Damn!  Swing and a miss on the embedding.  Now it worked automatically!  Shouldn't have tried so hard

 

 

[Bill Brown]

George- wonderful reference to "Old Man River."  My favorite version:

 

 

 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Albrecht said:

 

Frank Sinatra completely SUCKS when you compare him to Bono of U2. U2's worst 10 minutes of rock pretentiousness & self-indulgence is still worlds better than a "crooner."

 

Oh my.....

[Bill Brown]

Oh yes, the Carpenter one is nice.

[Bill Brown]

Wonderful, George.  Goosebump territory.  What a voice.

 

Makes me think of operatic versions of Porgy and Bess (Price and Warfield) v Ella and Louis' version on Verve.  I love, love the latter (not that I don't like the former).  I am blown away since acquiring it in the early 90s every time I hear it.  "My Man's Gone Now" and "I wants To Stay Here," another oh my in the good way.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

It is very interesting to me that you espouse extreme musical relativism: "Britney Spears is the same as Mozart is the same as Barry Manilow is the same as Miles Davis....," but then completely cast that aside at the end with a statement that you make as dogmatically and factually as possible.

 

And I am not defending Sinatra, just pointing out what strikes me as a strange dichotomy.

 

"The relativist view sees music as entirely personal; there is no objective basis for determining whether one kind or form of music is ‘better’ than another. Music is simply a matter of subjective taste and personal preference, and bears no resemblance at all to the categories that lend themselves to objective evaluation, such as mathematics and the sciences."  I believe there is objectivity in music quality.  I simply cannot fathom comparing Brittney Spears and Mozart.  It strikes me as profoundly illogical on its face.

 

There are many who could produce art of Spears' caliber, not many (any?) Mozarts.  Not that people can't or shouldn't enjoy Spears or whoever.  I have plenty of guilty pleasures myself.  But to consider them equal in artistic merit?  Not me.

 

Sometimes I will go deep into an artist's music for an extended period.  With the truly great, after returning, many times other music sounds silly, frivolous.

 

Just my thoughts.  No bickering intended,

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

22 hours ago, Albrecht said:

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).

 

I simply found the statement "Britney Spears is the same as Mozart is the same as Barry Manilow is the same as Miles Davis...." to strongly suggest musical relativism; then "Frank Sinatra, - was a below average talent that has nothing of value to bring to the table" to be stated as a dogmatic/objective fact of music/art.

 

Whether art is to be assessed relatively or objectively interests me.  I see the the need for some of the former, but also like some of the latter- certainly differing from many of the opinions expressed in this thread :).  Mozart did produce objectively better art than Brittney Spears; Charlie Parker than an R&B sax player of the same era; DaVinci better than the dude who put the urinal in the art exhibit; Baaba Maal, Andy Palacio, etc. better than XYZ- in my belief.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

22 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

What are the objective criteria for art or music appreciation?

My argument is that there are gradations of quality in art, from bad to great and that there is an objective basis for this.  Not all art or artists are equally good.

 

I wish I could write on this with some degree of respectability, but it isn't in my "wheelhouse."  I remember reading some about it years ago, but don't have a great argument distilled in my head.  Maybe it is just my way of thinking.  It certainly feels "intuitive."

 

One has to begin to speak about things like "taste," "preference," and other concepts and keep them separate.  I would never criticize someone's preferences (at least out loud!), but I think taste becomes refined with learning/knowledge.

 

Am I the only one that gets exposed to new music, initially don't understand it/"get" it, but hear a snippet or two that brings me back, then back, then I understand it and fall in love?  It is the music that becomes the most important to me, much more (if I could only bring a few albums to my desert island) than the classic R&B I love that I grooved to ("got") on first listen.

 

Take it to the extreme.  Are the Sistine Chapel paintings better as art than the crayon drawings of a kindergartener?  Both are art, right?  Are the compositions and orchestration of Ravel better than Motley Crue?  As I said, seems intuitively obvious to me.  I certainly have lots of music I consider "guilty pleasures," we all do and that's cool.  But doesn't make them equal.  Our "preferences" are just that.

 

Bill

 

[Bill Brown]

3 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. 

 

Maybe my last post had this more in mind than AudiophileNeuroscience's.

[Bill Brown]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

I was going to resist reading/commenting further, but can't! 

 

The answer to your first question in my mind is that yes, it is.

[Bill Brown]

11 hours ago, GregWormald said:

I did work with a fair number of artists though. It's amazing how many had 'traumatic' histories and it was always challenging to find ways of "improving their world" without destroying their creativity.

 

Yes, must they "suffer" for their work to be the most creative?  A very interesting concept to consider.

 

Certainly many jazz musicians ended up on heroin following Charlie Parker's use.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

14 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

I actually was ready for a compromise as far as subjectivity/objectivity in judging art is regarded and even proposed it to Chris some 10 posts ago but since he refused I decided to defend my positions uncompromisingly

 

Agree.  That is why I posted a simple "yes" to the question of the merits of the Sistine Chapel v The Dark Side of the Moon.

 

All good.  I hold my belief that art has objective criteria to determine merit as dogmatically.

 

Bill