Is Bob Dylan the most important person in music? - Page 3

OldSmell · 02-28-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

wouldn't make it past round one on American Idol

That's because he's a great singer.

Satchmo8101 · 02-28-2007, 07:39 PM

I am not sure which is worse the talentless hacks that are the judges on American Idol, the generic and bland singers, or the show's fans.

aka

Lowest common denominator, BABY!

Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, and Christina Aguilera all have excellent voices. They each also waste all that talent. Also, like most singers today they suffer from the malady of melisma.

At one time singers would use melisma musically. Today's singers, whether they have a good voice or not, their singing is needlessly melismatic.

Having said that....this thread has now

or if you're Old School.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE

Roivas · 03-01-2007, 10:59 AM

Yes. Many unnecessary flourishes.

Sara_smile · 03-01-2007, 04:14 PM

The only thing going for Bob is his songs. The bands that covered them have done a better job than he could ever, but this is not what I'm trying to get at. He's important to music because of his songs which influenced other songwriters to probe into deeper, more suggestive lyrics.
His singing style isn't generic or bland--I'll give you that--but it isn't an example of good singing. Sometimes it sounds as if he were half-singing, half-talking. This is unique and it served the songs, nothing else.
American Idol isn't a benchmark of good singing even though some of the contestants are gifted vocalists; I never said it was or ever will. Broadway is the benchmark for good singing. In order to get a part in a musical such as 'The Phantom Of The Opera' you have to be extremely gifted as a vocalist.

mpittman · 03-02-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sara_smile

The only thing going for Bob is his songs. The bands that covered them have done a better job than he could ever, but this is not what I'm trying to get at. He's important to music because of his songs which influenced other songwriters to probe into deeper, more suggestive lyrics.
His singing style isn't generic or bland--I'll give you that--but it isn't an example of good singing. Sometimes it sounds as if he were half-singing, half-talking. This is unique and it served the songs, nothing else.
American Idol isn't a benchmark of good singing even though some of the contestants are gifted vocalists; I never said it was or ever will. Broadway is the benchmark for good singing. In order to get a part in a musical such as 'The Phantom Of The Opera' you have to be extremely gifted as a vocalist.

Ok, you've just taken some interesting points too far. Your going to find that around RM text book definitions don't carry much weight. What you define as good singing isn't going to apply to a lot of people here. Your views and opinions are just that, yours. Don't state them as fact.

For me that polished singing doesn't do anything for me. I want a voice that's different from everyone else. To hear the same tired over-flashy vocal style is boring. I'll take rough, lower-range craziness over Broadway any day.

Roivas · 03-02-2007, 11:00 AM

Sarah Brightman makes me go for the nearest bucket. I think Charlotte Church might be worse, though.

It's like drinking box-wine and thinking your some sort of aristocrat.

Team-Rancho · 03-02-2007, 11:04 AM

I think Dylan sucks.

Roivas · 03-02-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Team-Rancho

I think Dylan sucks.

You're just mad 'cause I dissed Brightman.

Team-Rancho · 03-02-2007, 11:22 AM

Alright. Are we even now?

panbient · 03-02-2007, 12:32 PM

to consider that some dude born in 1941 is the most important person to the most basic communicative artform available to our species even predating the written word is kind of absurd. no?

maybe, like satchmo said, if things were limited to contemporary styles, and still, if there was no elvis would there have been a bobby d?