Another poll about colour coding

View previous topic View next topic Go down

What do you think of the proposal outlined below?

38% 38% 
[ 8 ]
57% 57% 
[ 12 ]
5% 5% 
[ 1 ]
 
Total Votes : 21

Another poll about colour coding

Post  Celice on Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:13 pm

This thread is a spin-off from the "To Blue or Not to Blue?" thread, where one of the reasons some opposed routinely trying to differentiate modal and non-modal vocals is the frequent lack of a clearly identifiable threshold. I lamented that we have a similar problem now with the notion of significant vs insignificant notes, leading to much disagreement about what does and doesn't "count".

I feel that the best way to deal with this is to use a colour, possibly red which is already used on some (mostly older) threads to denote "extremely bad, unimpressive or unintentional notes" which some now prefer to omit altogether, for these and other notes deemed questionable for some reason. As with other colour coding, this is of course optional, and there would be some threads where it would have no purpose.

Further discussion (quotes are from the other thread which I derailed by starting this debate there):
There's always going to be subjectivity no matter what you do. Even if we make it so that we allow anyone to count any notes they feel like, we can't always agree on the exact pitch, octave, whether it's an overtone, whether there's an effect on it, whether it's the singer in question, and so on and so forth. Sure in most cases this won't be the case but we've had two forums worth demonstrating how often people's ears can disagree in cases of extreme notes or "red notes" if you will.
This is a legitimate point. Obviously we will sometimes have difficulties with other notes too, for various reasons (e.g. if they're buried in the mix, or in low quality amateur footage), and sometimes "red" or extreme notes will still be easy to pitch; but I can't deny a general correlation. This is why it makes sense to me to use one colour for "questionable" notes, which can include all of the above scenarios. We can even include footnotes in spoiler boxes explaining what the issues are with those particular notes if we want.
Holsety wrote:Celice, I'd suggest you not support a system that's too subjective to be effective at all. That way, your statements about subjectivity would be remotely valid.
We can't keep subjectivity out of notewatching altogether, but to me, judging whether a note is "good" enough to count is the epitome of subjectivity. It seems that the main criteria being used to judge a note's "significance" (other than the actual pitch) are duration, quality and intent. Of those, duration is the only criterion which is objectively measurable, and even then it's rather arbitrary: do you decide a specific minimum acceptable duration, or does that depend on other factors too? When it comes to ascertaining how intentional or otherwise a note is, in some cases it may be obvious but in others we're reduced to blind guesswork. Quality is the most subjective of all (see David Gilmour thread for example).
Obviously, we have no clear threshold between "significant" and "insignificant" notes, and this can lead to considerable debate, which I feel could be alleviated somewhat if we still list the notes but differentiate them somehow.
avatar
Celice
Moderator

Posts : 2299
Join date : 2012-08-27
Location : Probably in bed

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Holsety on Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:11 pm

Celice wrote:We can't keep subjectivity out of notewatching altogether, but to me, judging whether a note is "good" enough is the epitome of subjectivity. It seems that the main criteria being used to judge a note's "significance" (other than the actual pitch) are duration, quality and intent. Of those, duration is the only criterion which is objectively measurable, and even then it's rather arbitrary: do you decide a specific minimum acceptable duration, or does that depend on other factors too? When it comes to ascertaining how intentional or otherwise a note is, in some cases it may be obvious but in others we're reduced to blind guesswork. Quality is the most subjective of all (see David Gilmour thread for example).
Obviously, we have no clear threshold between "significant" and "insignificant" notes, and this can lead to considerable debate, which I feel could be alleviated somewhat if we still list the notes but differentiate them somehow.

Have you ever thought about what these threads look like from the point of view of the singer? They'd laugh if they saw the cracks and uncontrolled screeches we list on these threads, especially when almost everybody else is against that kind of notewatching.

Let's start with duration. While some singers can hold a pitch for a very short time with amazing control, not every singer can do that. When a singer hits a note in a melody, we don't worry as much about duration and intent. With spoken notes, I make sure they keep the pitch long enough that they're intending to keep it after a certain point.

Next, quality. This one isn't that difficult. If multiple users find a note bad enough, it's usually worth setting aside without entering an argument. In the case of David Gilmour, Conor was overreacting as he does occasionally. The general opinion was that it's a pretty underwhelming note, which is reason enough to leave it alone.

Intent is not too hard, either. We usually accept this with notes that successfully follow a melody; and as I mentioned with spoken notes previously, we figure that they're intending the note if they sustain it or stay on the pitch for long enough. An example I can think of is a spoken section by John Lennon on a Christmas Record. He spoke on a C♯2 for the entire 40-seconds-or-so of the segment.

We'll never get rid of subjectivity entirely, because we're basing these threads off of art, which is almost entirely subjective. Establishing a concrete pitch is pointless, just because it would cause more argument. It's more wise to leave it up to the fans of the singer, which usually works fine without much trouble. The way we do things now is not that difficult, and it only causes more drama when the argument to bring the shitty old system back appears again. I'm personally not a fan of differentiating bad notes from the rest of the thread. Considering you're listing them as "Other Notes", you're kinda hiding that they're insignificant. The only reason people would want this is to increase the ranges of the singers on the forum; and that's not what it's about anymore.
avatar
Holsety
Admin

Posts : 3049
Join date : 2013-04-27
Age : 21
Location : Lake Isle of Innisfree

View user profile http://www.last.fm/user/MajorHolsety

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  The Great Heroins on Fri Aug 29, 2014 5:12 pm

Yeah, I really have never understood why "red" notes are added to OPs in the first place.  There really is no point in including things that are just downright unintentional or poorly done.  The only way I could see it making sense to add poor quality notes is if it's someone like John Lennon who's high notes can get pretty "red" but are still enjoyable enough to encourage the listener to add it to their OP.  However, I think in cases like these there is no reason to differentiate said note as "red."  Just keep it black; people who know the songs will know what the note sounds like.  Nobody needs a color system to tell them what they think qualifies as unimpressive.  As if there wasn't enough subjectivity on this site!
avatar
The Great Heroins
General Moderator

Posts : 2608
Join date : 2013-12-30
Age : 21
Location : LA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Celice on Fri Aug 29, 2014 6:33 pm

I don't see how marking a note as questionable is more subjective than disqualifying it.
Holsety wrote:Have you ever thought about what these threads look like from the point of view of the singer?
Yes, I have, and that's one of the reasons I think my approach works best. Situations like this...
Urban breed wrote:
Yoodik wrote:It's somewhat hidden. It's a strange screech in the background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTpsbjThEa4&t=1m53s
Hey guys! I am sorry to disappoint you but that "strange screech" in the background is just, if memory serves, just a sound effect I added to the track.
...might be a bit less awkward if notes like that were marked as questionable in the first place. On the other hand, we had people arguing to exclude Tim Foust's lowest fry notes, which I don't think many people would say are great notes, but they definitely don't fall into the categories of cracks or other randomness. I'd be very surprised if he didn't think those notes counted as part of his range, since this seems a clear case of intentional rangewanking.

Holsety wrote:Let's start with duration. While some singers can hold a pitch for a very short time with amazing control, not every singer can do that. When a singer hits a note in a melody, we don't worry as much about duration and intent. With spoken notes, I make sure they keep the pitch long enough that they're intending to keep it after a certain point.
Very tricky to judge.

Holsety wrote:Next, quality. This one isn't that difficult. If multiple users find a note bad enough, it's usually worth setting aside without entering an argument. In the case of David Gilmour, Conor was overreacting as he does occasionally. The general opinion was that it's a pretty underwhelming note, which is reason enough to leave it alone.
What if it were a singer who had no other notes at that pitch or higher? Are we only going to count whelming notes? (Yes, I know that's probably not a real word.)

Holsety wrote:Intent is not too hard, either. We usually accept this with notes that successfully follow a melody; and as I mentioned with spoken notes previously, we figure that they're intending the note if they sustain it or stay on the pitch for long enough. An example I can think of is a spoken section by John Lennon on a Christmas Record. He spoke on a C♯2 for the entire 40-seconds-or-so of the segment.
That's a pretty unusual one! We also have cases like Steve Carell's high note, where it's fairly obvious he's deliberately singing off tune, but beyond that we can't really know how controlled or intentional it is; and there's Amy Lee's squeak which was presented in a compilation with no context provided, which makes it pretty impossible to ascertain intent.

We'll never get rid of subjectivity entirely, because we're basing these threads off of art, which is almost entirely subjective. Establishing a concrete pitch is pointless, just because it would cause more argument. It's more wise to leave it up to the fans of the singer, which usually works fine without much trouble. The way we do things now is not that difficult, and it only causes more drama when the argument to bring the shitty old system back appears again. I'm personally not a fan of differentiating bad notes from the rest of the thread. Considering you're listing them as "Other Notes", you're kinda hiding that they're insignificant. The only reason people would want this is to increase the ranges of the singers on the forum; and that's not what it's about anymore.
The way I see it, honest reporting of total ranges reinforces rather than diminishes the message that range is less important than good singing. We have people saying things like "but if we counted everything, everyone would have like a 4 or 5 octave range". Leaving aside the fact that some people still won't have a 4 octave range even if you count every squeak and grunt (excuse me while I wallow in self-pity... OK, I'm back) the point is that the extent of most singers' ranges is actually a lot more similar than most people imagine, and a wide range doesn't necessarily mean a good range. It's not size that counts, it's what you do with it.

Btw I'll be away for the weekend, so if I don't reply for a while it doesn't mean I'm sulking!
avatar
Celice
Moderator

Posts : 2299
Join date : 2012-08-27
Location : Probably in bed

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Holsety on Sat Aug 30, 2014 2:14 am

Celice wrote:I don't see how marking a note as questionable is more subjective than disqualifying it.

Marking a note as questionable does nothing for me, as someone who's viewing the thread for the first time. It just shows how little we know about who we're researching. Any human being could color notes this way differently, so it's not remotely credible in this aspect. It's better to leave the notes off. I don't know why you consider leaving notes off so subjective. Usually if a small amount of people disagree with the note, we can usually leave it off without much trouble; especially because it usually starts too much conflict that way. In the end, people will get over the missing notes on the threads, because this forum is not their life; and if it is, they usually suffer a ban or choose to ragequit over it.

Celice wrote:...might be a bit less awkward if notes like that were marked as questionable in the first place. On the other hand, we had people arguing to exclude Tim Foust's lowest fry notes, which I don't think many people would say are great notes, but they definitely don't fall into the categories of cracks or other randomness. I'd be very surprised if he didn't think those notes counted as part of his range, since this seems a clear case of intentional rangewanking.

If the notes are that bad, they are not worth listing on the thread next to actual good notes. They don't deserve to be indistinguishable; which is why we stopped listing those notes instead of coloring them when we started using purple. Listing them separately is just confusing. Why bother?

Well, just because it's low doesn't mean it's suddenly good. Of the lowest notes I've heard from him, I consider them all annoying and worth nobody's time. He's just reaching down as low as he can to impress the audience. Though we're generally more generous with low notes than high notes, there's such a thing as bad low notes.

Celice wrote:Very tricky to judge.
No, not really. You should never give them the benefit of the doubt and list it anyway.

Celice wrote:What if it were a singer who had no other notes at that pitch or higher? Are we only going to count whelming notes? (Yes, I know that's probably not a real word.)

You're telling me we need to document every shitty burp and crack just because they're range-expanding? TRP1 logic.

I'd argue underwhelming notes are usually bad news because it's a nicer way of saying it's not a good note. In most cases t's situational because we can usually come to a conclusion after enough discussion about one note. We'll never come to a universal conclusion in every situation without argument, and that will never happen. Your system's not going to alleviate that by any means, either. We need to move on to a system that spurs good discussion, about how this singer has a great sound in their high register, rather than constant, inevitable arguments about a voice crack. Why is that credible? Why should we count that? WHO CARES?

Celice wrote:That's a pretty unusual one! We also have cases like Steve Carell's high note, where it's fairly obvious he's deliberately singing off tune, but beyond that we can't really know how controlled or intentional it is; and there's Amy Lee's squeak which was presented in a compilation with no context provided, which makes it pretty impossible to ascertain intent.

So, you're saying we should list all these notes instead, as if we'll suddenly stop arguing to disregard them? You know, we did come to a conclusion about the note, and it's not there anymore. That was a note that was pretty clearly unintentional and very short; so melody isn't everything. And yes, we can judge whether a note is intentional based on who it is we're notewatching. As I said, you shouldn't be giving singers benefit of the doubt. If they meant to do it, then they ought to be able to do it consistently.

Celice wrote:The way I see it, honest reporting of total ranges reinforces rather than diminishes the message that range is less important than good singing. We have people saying things like "but if we counted everything, everyone would have like a 4 or 5 octave range". Leaving aside the fact that some people still won't have a 4 octave range even if you count every squeak and grunt (excuse me while I wallow in self-pity... OK, I'm back) the point is that the extent of most singers' ranges is actually a lot more similar than most people imagine, and a wide range doesn't necessarily mean a good range. It's not size that counts, it's what you do with it.

Uh, no. Singers find it laughable, probably even embarrassing, the idea of us counting the shitty, unintentional noises they make. They also struggle to understand what a lot of the colors mean, whether they can't find the color key or because they don't know our standards at all. I think we're better off keeping it as simple as possible for most singers, describing where to look for the notes and their tone rather than just include every shitty sound they've made. It's amazing to hear how some singers have astonishing control of their high registers. Why would we possibly want to include every other singers' cracks and burps alongside them? Makes the former look a lot less credible all of the sudden.
avatar
Holsety
Admin

Posts : 3049
Join date : 2013-04-27
Age : 21
Location : Lake Isle of Innisfree

View user profile http://www.last.fm/user/MajorHolsety

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Karl on Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:17 am

AcapellaBass wrote:Every sound you make with your vocal cords should be part of your vocal range, in my opinion

Karl
Range Advisor

Posts : 2077
Join date : 2013-07-26
Age : 18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  rustyfo on Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:35 am

The Great Heroins wrote:Yeah, I really have never understood why "red" notes are added to OPs in the first place.  There really is no point in including things that are just downright unintentional or poorly done
avatar
rustyfo

Posts : 215
Join date : 2013-02-27
Age : 28
Location : Copenhagen

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Celice on Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:28 pm

Holsety wrote:
Celice wrote:I don't see how marking a note as questionable is more subjective than disqualifying it.

Marking a note as questionable does nothing for me, as someone who's viewing the thread for the first time. It just shows how little we know about who we're researching.
There's no shame in admitting ignorance: I respect that a lot more than pretending to have the answers.
Any human being could color notes this way differently, so it's not remotely credible in this aspect.
Any human being could make different choices about which notes to include and exclude too, so I'm not sure I understand your point.

Holsety wrote:If the notes are that bad, they are not worth listing on the thread next to actual good notes. They don't deserve to be indistinguishable; which is why we stopped listing those notes instead of coloring them when we started using purple. Listing them separately is just confusing. Why bother?
What if a singer's entire range sounds like shit?

Well, just because it's low doesn't mean it's suddenly good. Of the lowest notes I've heard from him, I consider them all annoying and worth nobody's time. He's just reaching down as low as he can to impress the audience. Though we're generally more generous with low notes than high notes, there's such a thing as bad low notes.
Of course there is, but where is the line between bad and good, or bad and acceptable or whatever? Who are we to judge? It's not black and white. Why do you think any of us are qualified to decide exactly where the line should be? Isn't that a bit narcissistic?


Celice wrote:Very tricky to judge.
No, not really. You should never give them the benefit of the doubt and list it anyway.
Well at least you're admitting the possibility of doubt.

Celice wrote:What if it were a singer who had no other notes at that pitch or higher? Are we only going to count whelming notes? (Yes, I know that's probably not a real word.)

You're telling me we need to document every shitty burp and crack just because they're range-expanding? TRP1 logic.

I'd argue underwhelming notes are usually bad news because it's a nicer way of saying it's not a good note. In most cases t's situational because we can usually come to a conclusion after enough discussion about one note. We'll never come to a universal conclusion in every situation without argument, and that will never happen. Your system's not going to alleviate that by any means, either. We need to move on to a system that spurs good discussion, about how this singer has a great sound in their high register, rather than constant, inevitable arguments about a voice crack. Why is that credible? Why should we count that? WHO CARES?
This was in response to an arguably good note which certainly wasn't a "crack" or "burp", but why count vocal ranges anyway? What are we even doing here? If we're only going to discuss "good" singing and cherry-pick the parts of singers' ranges that we actually enjoy, we should probably consider renaming the forum.

Celice wrote:That's a pretty unusual one! We also have cases like Steve Carell's high note, where it's fairly obvious he's deliberately singing off tune, but beyond that we can't really know how controlled or intentional it is; and there's Amy Lee's squeak which was presented in a compilation with no context provided, which makes it pretty impossible to ascertain intent.
So, you're saying we should list all these notes instead, as if we'll suddenly stop arguing to disregard them?
I don't think everyone's miraculously going to stop arguing, but I remember some of the arguing that went on back in the TRP1 olden days when notes deemed falsetto weren't usually listed, and I think when we listed them but differentiated them the forum became somewhat calmer (or maybe I'm just wearing rose-coloured glasses).
You know, we did come to a conclusion about the note, and it's not there anymore. That was a note that was pretty clearly unintentional and very short; so melody isn't everything.
The corresponding note in the original actually isn't that much longer.
And yes, we can judge whether a note is intentional based on who it is we're notewatching. As I said, you shouldn't be giving singers benefit of the doubt. If they meant to do it, then they ought to be able to do it consistently.
We'd need to be experts on every singer we notewatch to apply this kind of analysis. In a case like this, how can we possibly know whether he would be able to do it consistently when he has no reason to attempt such a thing?
avatar
Celice
Moderator

Posts : 2299
Join date : 2012-08-27
Location : Probably in bed

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Holsety on Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:50 pm

Celice wrote:There's no shame in admitting ignorance: I respect that a lot more than pretending to have the answers.
Ignorance often leads to conflict on this forum, if you haven't noticed.

Celice wrote:Any human being could make different choices about which notes to include and exclude too, so I'm not sure I understand your point.
When the majority of the forum excludes notes easily qualified as red according to your system, this is not the case. I could make the Paul McCartney thread and color the "Back Seat of My Car" note orange, and then someone else could color it blue, and someone else could not color it at all. What does this prove? That this system sucks.

On the other hand, one person could choose to exclude that note entirely. That doesn't make the thread any less credible, as Paul has a massive collection of music to search through that one note would make a little difference. It's not the same thing at all.

Celice wrote:What if a singer's entire range sounds like shit?
They're probably not a singer then, so they shouldn't be considered as a thread in the first place.

Celice wrote:Of course there is, but where is the line between bad and good, or bad and acceptable or whatever? Who are we to judge? It's not black and white. Why do you think any of us are qualified to decide exactly where the line should be? Isn't that a bit narcissistic?
Do you ask that as if there's no line being drawn in your own threads? You know, red? You already make the same 'judgments' yourself. 

In any case, there shouldn't be one, because the concept of notewatching is subjective. We don't make lists of requirements for what makes a musician 'good'. That doesn't work. It isn't that hard to share it with a group of people and ask them what they think of it. Count it based on their response, or post in in the thread asking for others' opinions on the clip. I'm guessing you'd rather us have no standard and include everything. 

This was in response to an arguably good note which certainly wasn't a "crack" or "burp", but why count vocal ranges anyway? What are we even doing here? If we're only going to discuss "good" singing and cherry-pick the parts of singers' ranges that we actually enjoy, we should probably consider renaming the forum.
Why would we want to discuss bad singing? Is that something you're really interested in? Does it really widen the spectrum of vocal discussion for you? Why do you even find it worth discussing considering how much of the forum is sick of it, constantly urging new users to look at the newer system, listed as highly recommended on the thread in which it is introduced?

Celice wrote:I don't think everyone's miraculously going to stop arguing, but I remember some of the arguing that went on back in the TRP1 olden days when notes deemed falsetto weren't usually listed, and I think when we listed them but differentiated them the forum became somewhat calmer (or maybe I'm just wearing rose-coloured glasses).
And things would probably become even more easier if we moved on to describe notes based on where they are in the song and what they sound line tonally, rather than what register I think they're in. The idea of counting a good-sounding range shouldn't be referred to as 'cherry-picking' or whatever you're calling it. It's like saying we should mix in all the tainted potatoes with the good ones, which is effectively how this happened.

We'd need to be experts on every singer we notewatch to apply this kind of analysis. In a case like this, how can we possibly know whether he would be able to do it consistently when he has no reason to attempt such a thing?
You seem to treat it like we have to be trained experts with degrees to research vocal range. The concept of excluding displeasing notes does not require vast intelligence. There are plenty of members on the forum willing to help decide whether something is worth including; I see it on the Skype chat quite a bit. If a note is underwhelming or bad, oh well. It only turns into an argument when a user automatically includes it without consulting someone, or in some cases, over-exaggerating their own point.
avatar
Holsety
Admin

Posts : 3049
Join date : 2013-04-27
Age : 21
Location : Lake Isle of Innisfree

View user profile http://www.last.fm/user/MajorHolsety

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Celice on Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:04 am

Holsety wrote:
Celice wrote:Of course there is, but where is the line between bad and good, or bad and acceptable or whatever? Who are we to judge? It's not black and white. Why do you think any of us are qualified to decide exactly where the line should be? Isn't that a bit narcissistic?
Do you ask that as if there's no line being drawn in your own threads? You know, red? You already make the same 'judgments' yourself.
To a certain extent, yes, I have to admit you have a point there, but providing an opinion (whether it's about vocal register or whether a note is melodic, "red" or whatever) along with information for others to agree or disagree if they're interested enough is very different from behaving as though our opinions are close enough to fact to decide what does and doesn't "count" as part of a vocalist's range. Some of the notes whose "significance" is disputed nowadays wouldn't even have been likely to be marked "red" under the old system. Besides, I'm not using the old "Red marks extremely bad, unimpressive or unintentional notes" anyway (I've never actually used exactly those words in exactly that order); I prefer "other" or "questionable", which seem a bit less judgemental to me, and it can also make sense because as mentioned previously, "red" notes tend to be more likely to be questionable for other reasons too (e.g. pitch and origin).

We'd need to be experts on every singer we notewatch to apply this kind of analysis. In a case like this, how can we possibly know whether he would be able to do it consistently when he has no reason to attempt such a thing?
You seem to treat it like we have to be trained experts with degrees to research vocal range. The concept of excluding displeasing notes does not require vast intelligence. There are plenty of members on the forum willing to help decide whether something is worth including; I see it on the Skype chat quite a bit. If a note is underwhelming or bad, oh well. It only turns into an argument when a user automatically includes it without consulting someone, or in some cases, over-exaggerating their own point.
You seem to be taking my reply somewhat out of context: I was referring to your claim to be able to able to judge whether or not a note was intentional, and your implication that you could also accurately estimate the probability of the vocalist being able to do it consistently, based on who produced the note. My point was that judging whether a singer would be able to reproduce a note consistently may be blind guesswork if we're not particularly familiar with the singer, and perhaps in some cases even if we are.
Perhaps I could clarify a little with a couple of examples:
https://soundcloud.com/irene-mciver/wolfman-jack-clip
https://soundcloud.com/irene-mciver/since-i-dont-have-you-g5
I'm not suggesting you would try to discount either of those high notes, but you can fairly easily form an opinion on whether one, both or neither are pleasing to your ears (this may of course differ from others' opinions on the matter). However, you'll probably find it less easy to form an opinion on whether one, both or neither of those singers would be able to hit that note consistently. The thing is, how much does that actually matter?
avatar
Celice
Moderator

Posts : 2299
Join date : 2012-08-27
Location : Probably in bed

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Buh-Red on Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:37 am

rustyfo wrote:
The Great Heroins wrote:Yeah, I really have never understood why "red" notes are added to OPs in the first place.  There really is no point in including things that are just downright unintentional or poorly done

also basically everything holsety has said In Love

Buh-Red

Posts : 3840
Join date : 2013-01-22
Location : Bannock-ham Palace

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Holsety on Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:41 am

Celice wrote:To a certain extent, yes, I have to admit you have a point there, but providing an opinion (whether it's about vocal register or whether a note is melodic, "red" or whatever) along with information for others to agree or disagree if they're interested enough is very different from behaving as though our opinions are close enough to fact to decide what does and doesn't "count" as part of a vocalist's range. Some of the notes whose "significance" is disputed nowadays wouldn't even have been likely to be marked "red" under the old system. Besides, I'm not using the old "Red marks extremely bad, unimpressive or unintentional notes" anyway (I've never actually used exactly those words in exactly that order); I prefer "other" or "questionable", which seem a bit less judgemental to me, and it can also make sense because as mentioned previously, "red" notes tend to be more likely to be questionable for other reasons too (e.g. pitch and origin).

You're still making a clear divide between 'good and bad', which is what you complain about us doing. It doesn't matter where the line is drawn if there still is one. Your exact wording doesn't really matter either, because again, you still have a divide yourself.

You seem to be taking my reply somewhat out of context: I was referring to your claim to be able to able to judge whether or not a note was intentional, and your implication that you could also accurately estimate the probability of the vocalist being able to do it consistently, based on who produced the note. My point was that judging whether a singer would be able to reproduce a note consistently may be blind guesswork if we're note particularly familiar with the singer, and perhaps in some cases even if we are.
Perhaps I could clarify a little with a couple of examples:
https://soundcloud.com/irene-mciver/wolfman-jack-clip
https://soundcloud.com/irene-mciver/since-i-dont-have-you-g5
I'm not suggesting you would try to discount either of those high notes, but you can fairly easily form an opinion on whether one, both or neither are pleasing to your ears (this may of course differ from others' opinions on the matter). However, you'll probably find it less easy to form an opinion on whether one, both or neither of those singers would be able to hit that note consistently. The thing is, how much does that actually matter?

It's as easy as discounting it if there isn't any evidence, and counting it if there are multiple clips or instances of them doing it. If it's great singing in good context this doesn't matter at all, but it really isn't that hard. As I said, you shouldn't give a singer the benefit of the doubt in this situation, at least with an updated system.
avatar
Holsety
Admin

Posts : 3049
Join date : 2013-04-27
Age : 21
Location : Lake Isle of Innisfree

View user profile http://www.last.fm/user/MajorHolsety

Back to top Go down

Re: Another poll about colour coding

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum