Best Singer of All Time is...

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

Let me ask you - how can you explain that so many people, both 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.? 

 

The Earth has 7.5 billion people. The percentage that think Rembrandt and Hendrix are good, is probably tiny. That said, humans of certain cultures or ancestral origins tend to like those artists. I don't think numbers are equivalent to objectivity. 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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, sphinxsix said:

 

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

 

Should art then be judged blindly :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, sphinxsix said:

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

 

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 

 

E.g.?

 

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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

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

Not sure. 

 

11 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

E.g.?

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, sphinxsix said:

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.

 

That's crazy. An artist uses the material that suits the piece of art, not what is hardest to tame. Using something that's hard to tame just for that reason is dumb. Deducting points off a piece of art because an artist used easy to tame materials is also dumb. 

 

If the contest is to judge who can best tame materials then by all means use that metric. But, creating art is about creating art, not objective measurements used by the ministers of art information. If there were no art judges, just think about all the people in those positions who'd be out of work and couldn't give grades in school.

 

There's a reason for judging art and it doesn't have anything to do wit the art. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

54 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

If it wasn't for some art critics and historians some names in art which have really deserved a wide recognition might have passed unnoticed..

Imagine how many people they missed who were “better.”

[The Computer Audiophile]

She is one of my favorites. Sings live at all concerts and has style.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

As long as we're talking singers and not just voices, one of my favourites is Beth Hart—blues, and definitely a screamer.

Love her!