(05-09-2016, 08:50 PM)Ben Wrote: i understand that your voice is just another instrument, sure, so why not augment it
but if you just sound like a computer what is the point? there is an element of "ok whatever do what you want" but if youre going to be sitting powerfully at a focal point, you better be able to earn it by not sounding like a robot or whatever. if it's about the visual performance rather than the actual sound, then why do the one man sitting on the stage bit? why not do a balls-to-the-wall cover of something?
(05-09-2016, 08:51 PM)Ben Wrote: why do people think that things that make them all the same (see: the normalization/sterilization/amplification of voice) are good
(05-09-2016, 08:55 PM)Ben Wrote: also, cover songs that are bad. make them good. remake movies that failed. dont redo something that people know and love. thats dumb
I don't understand why people cover songs that are regarded as timeless either. I don't get the point. if someone covers bohemian rhapsody, which is as timeless and untouchable as you can get, they aren't going to add some crazy element to it that elevates the original most likely, and you aren't going to get people that already hated bohemian rhapsody/queen to like it either. so to take the sound of silence and add some lame orchestral arrangement around it and sing with all your epik metal voice power just doesn't do anything for me. if that cover were the original, I'd actually hate it. It makes 100x more sense to take a song that is imperfect, but still impactful, and make it better. I guess essentially what I'm saying is only cover a song if you are confident you can be more skilled and creative with it than the original artist was.
As for the first two quotes, I don't really know what you mean? are you talking about singing in general, or auto-tune, or someone specific?
The one and only king of cums.