Power Pros Forum

It's subjective to some extent, but it helps to try to find a baseline of singers that everyone can identify with as having a pleasing, strong, practiced voice. Pavarotti. Freddie Mercury. Paul McCartney. Once everyone can agree on some basics around a good voice, then it becomes possible to spot the bad.

A lot of people have no idea when a voice is bad. When I first listened to Deftones as a kid, I thought THIS IS AWESOME. Now I listen to the guy and am just disgusted. It comes with time and experience, that's all there is to it. If you check out those people, or the singer from Big Wreck who I posted earlier, then compare it with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTH71AAxXmM

you should be able to spot some differences. When you're a student of singing, you can even hear the issues with poor control and running out of breath. Some can try to excuse it away - "it fits the style", yadda yadda. Hey, if it floats your boat I guess.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DRuxlPrPkc

If that guitar is pleasing to the ear...well, you need to hear more guitar. I posted a link earlier of someone doing an intricate, mind-blowing solo. This is the same blues scale, up and down, tone terrible, ear piercing. This is seriously where kids start when playing guitar at 14 or 16. If you love this, find a teenage band that is starting out and become their #1 fan, right now.

His soloing isn't even what I take issue with, actually. Its more the wall of noise strumming and tone of the rhythm guitar that I dislike more - but again I don't dig punk at all, and he is a punk/indie guy with some bluesy bits.



Heck no. Ringo Star wasn't complex, but you can tell a beatles tune just by the drum beat. But when everything else in the song fails to impress, sometimes a good drummer can elevate things. When there are only two people in the band, you'd hope the second person brings something, but I haven't heard or seen it.

Can you tell me what it is about those groups that is attractive or sounds good to your ear? Those are two that I would LOVE to figure out the appeal of.

FYI I somewhat agree on the talent of the musician not being the most important thing...sometimes a unique vision or approach is enough. Sometimes a band that isn't that talented has a great sound. I have tons of CDs from groups where the singer is just good to okay...bad vocals are really a killer for me though. One doesn't have to have a decade of constant playing under their belt to make something worthwhile on guitar. It doesn't hurt though

I wouldn't classify any of this as an argument. Friendly discussion! I don't want to come off as a music snob, I'm just a goofball that's happened to be in and around music for 10-15 years. I think of it as a worthwhile exercise to examine one's tastes and what led them there, what there is that is okay/good/great in what they consume...not just for music, but everything (wine, food, relationships, habits). Introspection can yield a lot of beneficial results.

"Hard Row" - The Black Keys

Too late...

to anyone that says Ringo is a bad drummer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a_8F6gflxQ sure, his fills might be simple, but who says that you need to be busy in order to automatically qualify as a "good drummer?" as a drummer myself I'll be the first to admit that really busy and hyperactive drumming can totally ruin a song and make it seem really juvenile. on the other hand, it can enhance the song tenfold and make it a lot more interesting -- there's a happy medium to be achieved.

some people need to realize that technical ability is not the only thing that automatically makes music worth hearing. I could point you to a fair few examples of technically pleasing music that's a total slog. on the flipside, a lot of music that's really simple is appealing to listen to and may even end up having some technical merit as well -- try playing at 40 beats per minute yourself, even if the drummer's doing an incredibly simple quarter note beat, it's very very very difficult to keep time.

re: "bad singing voices." saying that it fits the style is not trying to excuse the supposedly poor singing -- if you had Freddie Mercury over top of a Strokes song, you cannot deny that it'd be out of place and almost laughably bad. besides, Julian Casablancas isn't even a bad singer.

also this is a really Snobby thing for me to say but Jack White isn't punk. straight up garage rock, bruv.

also if you think all punk is automatically not technically interesting, think again. and that's two opposite ends of the punk spectrum right there.

also I'm listening to "A Crash at Every Speed" ~ Disco Inferno

Television definitely pushes out from punk and into more technical rock arrangements. I never liked the singer (sounds like Jagger ugh) but it's not what I think to classify as punk - 3 chords (or less), 90 bpm+, putting out a rough-to-the-ear product...this is kind of opposite from a lot of the punk content.

Gospel - wow, that's a great example. There's a definite groove, some ability going on behind the instrumental portions. The screeching ends all appeal for me, of course.

I don't automatically think all punk is bad, or all their musicians are trash. It's probably something you can argue as true for a good percentage of the cases, but heck the drummer/bassist for Green Day were great for what they did. Of course Green Day was disowned as too-commercial-for-punk, so who knows.

The same is true on the other side. A lot of musician types will talk to me about the appeal of bands that I just can't stand...technical ability may be phenomenal, but the end product is taxing to listen to and not really the most pleasant experience (Dream Theater, some Weather Report). Zappa is another case of that - pure genius, technically amazing, but its not something people can dive in and appreciate easily...I still don't really find it listenable. Then there's King Crimson, more of the same there, but I can appreciate it finally...good way to lose a girlfriend is to push that on her. I know musicians that swear by Captain Beefheart as some of the best stuff out there...with THAT one I almost think they are playing a joke or something.

The point is it's not a simple formula. Some very talented singers are in crappy bands, or produce crappy songs. Some technically amazing artists don't write good tunes. And some goofballs that don't have a whole lot of ability can make something worth listening to. But knowing nothing else, if I had the choice of attending a concert with an accomplished trio that came up through jazz, or a kid that picked up a guitar 2 weeks ago and has a distortion pedal, that's a pretty easy call.

while maybe not fundamentally "punk" like Ramones and Sex Pistols were, their roots definitely lie in punk. I've always thought they were hugely overrated but they proved my example so I went with it.

as for Gospel I figured you wouldn't like the screaming but all the other pieces were there so I went with it. heh.

as for Green Day, they had a great rhythm section and Dookie is one of the best pop punk albums ever put to tape (not like there's heavy competition); I'm not huge on any of the stuff after that, of course. American Idiot is so grating to me.

honestly, I've never hated Dream Theater like most do -- I think they're at the very least entertaining. tiresome, sure, but they're a good bit of fun if you're in the mood for them. Zappa I've only heard Hot Rats from; thought it was good. and I can't stand Beefheart. Trout Mask Replica is a huge joke as far as I'm concerned, but some people swear it's the best rock album ever. I love King Crimson though (or at least ITCOTCK). would never try to push any prog onto my girlfriend, though, don't worry about that.


exactly.

lol tiresome is a great way to describe Dream Theater. I'm exhausted by all the changes, and I'm not even playing them, heh. But impressive as hell, and you're right, in the right setting or mood its great. I feel the same about Dookie, really loved it, but yeah I hear American Idiot and want to drop-kick the band. The fact that it's on broadway and being gobbled up is all the more infuriating.

My first Zappa experience was yellow snow, probably not great intro stuff. There are some real nice grooves and jams all throughout his work, but it takes some work for me to breach that wall. My ear started out too pop-90's friendly.

My current band does a few tunes that are in the Zappa vein - groovy, lots of time changes, but we add some beatle-esque harmonies...occasionally I can squeeze an accessible hook in there, but its rare. More often we are busy switching from 5/4 to 7/8 to some 23-beat interlude. It's a workout!

"Yesterday" ~ The Beatles

"Cruel" - St. Vincent

Does anybody know anything about St. Vincent? She's the opening act for The Black Keys, and I've never heard of her.

Ooo, she was on SNL one time and it was terrible.

well heres one interview i heard on NPR: http://www.npr.org/2014/02/23/280187978 ... al-alchemy

She is around my age (32), went to Berklee so she has some concept of music, and has played guitar in a few known bands so you have to assume she has basic fundamentals. Unfortunately it appears she trends towards the edgy/weird/discordant from just about everything I've heard...its some combo of 80s and the kind of noise-ish stuff that is popular today.

Berklee is kind of the epicenter of music education...some amazing musicians and bands come out of there, but some crap ones do too. I've played with guys that have gone there (both dropped out, or graduated). It's unfortunately not a sure bet that they'll have talent, but they should have skill.

I meant more as to her actual music. Not a biography with her educational background.

Mac would probably know. He's heard of *(censored)* everyone

Apparently my opinion is worthless?

this is my jam!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
thank you cooldude for bringing this song and i together

"Backseat Freestyle" - Kendrick Lamar

s/o berwezfoz