There's been a lot of rabble on twitter about vocal talent. I realize this has already been addressed on the blog, but a new facet of this argument seems to have surfaced: is vocal talent subjective?
Someone twittered that it was completely subjective, whereas another made the claim that "music, like any other science, is based on fundamental truths."
I think the truth lies in a hybrid between these two bold statements: vocal talent, like literature, is neither entirely subjective or objective, but a spectrum between the two.
I'm no musician, but from my understanding, there is no "fundamental truth" concerning what sounds good. Yes, there are rules that determine the nature of high quality singing, but these rules have been created by humans, so why can another human not refine them by tweaking the standards a bit?
Another reason why I don't understand the whole "fundamental truth" argument is that good singing isn't a black or white ordeal. Singers aren't simply just good or bad. There is such a thing as a mediocre singer. There is a difference a great singer and a really great singer.
Also, singing has evolved over time. I imagine the first type of highly revered singing was somewhat unrefined in comparison to what we typically enjoy today, and what we enjoy today would have probably been considered rubbish back when opera was at its prime.
Another post was made stating that "if the objective requirements have not been met, subjective analysis is unnecessary."
Again, the objective requirements have not always been the same, so who is to say that someone who has a new, unique sounds that seemingly falls short of these requirements couldn't have the power to change them?
This isn't to say that this necessarily applies to Dylan, but it certainly could.
0 comments:
Post a Comment