neally
Diamond Member
Everybody wants to throw it all away sometimes
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 12,141
|
Post by neally on Sept 29, 2012 18:55:20 GMT -5
So just because she might not be a good live performer she's talentless? What about her songwriting and the studio versions of her songs? I know. After many arguments, I have come to respect neally and their posts/opinions but to say somebody is talentless because they do not sing very well live is beyond ridiculous. There is more to talent than singing really well live. I agree with both of you: referring to her as "talentless" was a poor choice of words. As a songwriter, she is clearly more talented than as a vocalist, which I should have clarified. I just happen to be a person who gives a lot of weight to an artist's vocals (raw talent and ability to tell the story written within a song's lyrics) when assessing an artist's talent. What I intended to stated was that vocally, I feel that Lana is extremely limited in the studio (very monotone), but is able to use it in a positive way to connect with her solemn, dark style. It is for this reason that I found her to be rather engaging when I first learned of her and made a conscious effort to follow her. Unfortunately, as I have done this through her short career, I, too have noted some marginal vocal improvement; however, I am quickly disappointed by what I feel is her blatent lack of live vocal talent. To me, this is expressed in both her lack of vocal control and moreso in her surprisingly poor ability express her music through her vocals, the latter of which is a deal-breaker for me. Not to be rude, but I honestly feel that even as of late, when I watch her live performances, they truly seem like a bad SNL parody or joke because I find them to be that horrid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2012 12:28:09 GMT -5
I like Lana's music more but Florence has a much better voice.
|
|
BadRomance
6x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2005
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by BadRomance on Sept 30, 2012 17:57:38 GMT -5
I love both but I think I prefer Florence and The Machine overall.
|
|
The Upper Hand
3x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2012
Posts: 3,188
|
Post by The Upper Hand on Sept 30, 2012 18:53:43 GMT -5
Lana's songs are less 'aggressive'; I prefer Lana's introspection.
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,333
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Oct 1, 2012 9:27:20 GMT -5
Their voices are like polar opposites, I like them both.
|
|
Not Careful Enough
Platinum Member
Liek dis if yu cry everytim
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 1,337
|
Post by Not Careful Enough on Oct 2, 2012 21:00:40 GMT -5
You're right, there is more talent than singing well live, in fact I have to defend pop music to my friends all the time. That being said, it's a lot easier to fake talent in the studio as well. That's what makes good pop music so intricate, you have to weave together different types of talents. This can be anything from looks to voice to studio production. Of course, a singer being able to sing well live is probably one of the more pronounced talents. Lana's problem is that she seems quite talentless all around, or at least has some element of plasticity that turns people off. She could have had minimal involvement in the project and the result would have been the same. Florence on the other hand is undoubtedly talented in many ways. I just can't see the comparison. How does she seem talentless all around? Not all of her live performances are bad AND she is a lead songwriter on every song she has. Lana has never come across as plastic to me.
|
|