|
|
Post by miketheratguy on May 21, 2014 18:47:55 GMT -5
Well, having flexibility of voice doesn't necessarily mean that you are, in fact, the "best singer". That would be like saying that someone who's skilled with many mediums is the "best" artist. It's an indication of talent, no doubt, and a good way to gauge individual ability. Calling someone the "best" is highly subjective though. Having talent isn't enough, it depends on what you do with it. That's not to say that Axl Rose isn't talented. He obviously is. I just hate his voice, myself. If you want to talk about subjective systems of determination, then Axl Rose also scores massive points for having a ridiculous number of record sales despite having a relatively tiny number of actual album releases compared to others in his medium... That's probably true, but what's your point? You're not one to argue that public approval indicate quality. In fact you've vehemently spoken against such a concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on May 21, 2014 19:38:12 GMT -5
Axl Rose is a douche.
|
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on May 21, 2014 19:43:15 GMT -5
I think this much can, in fact, be conclusively agreed upon.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 21, 2014 20:07:09 GMT -5
While I freely admit to being a pretty big fan of GnR, I'm not interested in the cult of personality aspect of this discussion. My point is simple; in both objective and subjective ways, Axl Rose more than qualifies to be on a list of best singers of all time.
|
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on May 21, 2014 20:15:35 GMT -5
Doesn't mean that he is the best singer of all time....seeing as how that's clearly a matter of opinion for each individual rather than based on accomplishments of skill or career.
|
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on May 21, 2014 20:17:40 GMT -5
Doesn't mean that he is the best singer of all time....seeing as how that's clearly a matter of opinion for each individual rather than based on accomplishments of skill or career. Erm, no... |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 21, 2014 20:17:41 GMT -5
Doesn't mean that he is the best singer of all time....seeing as how that's clearly a matter of opinion for each individual rather than based on accomplishments of skill or career. No, but what it does mean is that acting as if it's somehow out of left field to call him the "greatest" or "best" is nothing but a display of ignorance. I absolutely loathe Elton John... but for me to pretend that he's not one of the "best" songwriters of all time due to his skill at putting lyrics to melody and massive success in the field would be awfully stupid. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2014 20:19:50 GMT -5
I really don't care if he's objectively the greatest singer of all time. All I've heard from him is scratchy noise which somewhat resembles the human voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on May 21, 2014 20:20:13 GMT -5
Doesn't mean that he is the best singer of all time....seeing as how that's clearly a matter of opinion for each individual rather than based on accomplishments of skill or career. No, but what it does mean is that acting as if it's somehow out of left field to call him the "greatest" or "best" is nothing but a display of ignorance. I absolutely loathe Elton John... but for me to pretend that he's not one of the "best" songwriters of all time due to his skill at putting lyrics to melody and massive success in the field would be awfully stupid. Simply clarifying that Axl Rose is the "best" singer of all time (by "proving" apparently) is not in anyway reasonable. Nobody's claiming that they're not successful....but saying they are the best (not one of the best, not one of the successful....simply THE best) is purely opinionated. |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on May 21, 2014 20:32:05 GMT -5
While I freely admit to being a pretty big fan of GnR, I'm not interested in the cult of personality aspect of this discussion. My point is simple; in both objective and subjective ways, Axl Rose more than qualifies to be on a list of best singers of all time. Any time that anyone else has ever said "This movie has made loads of money" or "the audience / fans / critics love it" you've immediately dismissed their comment as groundless, pointing out that people are stupid and often embrace things that are terrible, thus widespread acceptance of anything is completely irrelevant (and, in some cases, evidence that the entity being embraced is obviously crap, which is why stupid people accept it). So I'm not really buying your use of those peoples' exact same argument now. Guns 'N Roses have sold a lot of records. The Nolan Trilogy sold a lot of tickets. Again, I'm not arguing that Axl Rose isn't talented. I'm saying that calling any one singer "the best" is a subjective and rather arbitrary decision based on individual, varying criteria. One can measure his ability to raise or lower his voice to different octaves (and, like everyone else, I've seen no evidence of this but whatever, the "study" is what it is), the results of such a measurement are not an empirical or universally accepted gauge of how "good" a singer is. It's a measurement of the potential for results, not the actual results themselves (which are something that cannot be quantified). A more accurate summary of this study would be "Axl Rose has the best vocal range among popular singers". |
|
|
|
Post by miketheratguy on May 21, 2014 20:36:32 GMT -5
Doesn't mean that he is the best singer of all time....seeing as how that's clearly a matter of opinion for each individual rather than based on accomplishments of skill or career. Erm, no... Erm, yes. If there's an accepted standard for deciding that someone is, factually and inarguably "the best singer" in the world, then by all means tell me the process that's used to determine such a thing and why it does not boil down to personal opinion. While you're at it tell me who was chosen as the best and when the scientists got together to announce their findings. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 21, 2014 20:38:48 GMT -5
Any time that anyone else has ever said "This movie has made loads of money" or "the audience / fans / critics love it" you've immediately dismissed their comment as groundless, So what? I didn't make this discussion about subjective nonsense. You guys did, when you started claiming that "best" could only be defined as a subjective term. In those previous discussions, if I were the one claiming that the subject matter were purely subjective, then it would be fully appropriate for you to respond by pointing out that there were obviously subjective criteria by which the object in question possessed "quality." |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on May 21, 2014 20:39:36 GMT -5
Erm, yes. If there's an accepted standard for deciding that someone is, factually and inarguably "the best singer" in the world, then by all means tell me the process that's used to determine such a thing and why it does not boil down to personal opinion. While you're at it tell me who was chosen as the best and when the scientists got together to announce their findings. |
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Steve on May 21, 2014 20:43:24 GMT -5
Dave Mustaine is clearly the greatest singer of all time.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 21, 2014 20:44:13 GMT -5
Simply clarifying that Axl Rose is the "best" singer of all time (by "proving" apparently) is not in anyway reasonable. Nobody's claiming that they're not successful....but saying they are the best (not one of the best, not one of the successful....simply THE best) is purely opinionated. ... except that it blatantly is. You can argue the point. You cannot reasonably say that the claim can't be made at all. If you want to argue the point, put together a list of objective and subjective criteria, tell me how you're measuring them, and put together a coherent argument. Don't simply sit there and say "nobody could possibly ever say that Axl Rose is the best ever! I simply won't hear of it!" For the record, I don't think that Axl Rose is the best singer ever. Without even putting any thought into it, I'd say that by a reasonable mixture of objective and subjective criteria, Freddie Mercury qualifies as a vastly superior overall performer. My point, however, is that it's ridiculous to dismiss the notion that anyone could ever dare to say that Axl Rose is "the best." (It's equally silly to argue with the tagline for an article when, if you read the article itself, they don't actually claim that he is "the best" or "the greatest"... only that he has the greatest vocal range, which is scientifically accurate, if arguable) |
|
|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on May 21, 2014 20:49:25 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of GnR by any means really. Personally I prefer Vince Neil over Axl Rose.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 21, 2014 20:53:56 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of GnR by any means really. Personally I prefer Vince Neil over Axl Rose. ... as a singer? |
|
|
|
Post by charliebucketsgranpa on May 21, 2014 20:55:17 GMT -5
I'm not a huge fan of GnR by any means really. Personally I prefer Vince Neil over Axl Rose. ... as a singer? Yea, I think it's partially because of the GnR songs I do know I've been completely burned out on all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on May 21, 2014 20:55:44 GMT -5
Scatman is the best singer of all time.
*Turns around and runs off*
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on May 21, 2014 20:57:11 GMT -5
Yea, I think it's partially because of the GnR songs I do know I've been completely burned out on all of them. Yeah okay whatever, I'm not talking about "liking" here. I'm talking about vocal ability. |
|
