Jump to content

Orioles Summer Music Series


Going Underground

Recommended Posts

On 6/29/2019 at 7:32 AM, Enjoy Terror said:

My wife’s second favorite genre, next to spiritual pop a la SHINE FM. 

Religious pop is way way worse, I promise you. There’s only so many ways you can say the word Allelujah and none of them are interesting.

My parents subjected me to Amy Grant when I was growing up so I feel your pain ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/17/2019 at 1:02 PM, wildbillhiccup said:

It's MUCH worse than 80s pop music. Just the fake twang alone makes it worse. The lowest form of music on the totem pole right now IMO. 

Umm, anything autotuned is automatically worse than anything else. You or I could be pop singers/rappers with just a few pushes of a button.

ICP is also really, really bad. No redeeming value to anything they have ever made. And that's coming from someone who likes 2 Live Crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 12:40 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

You're saying you can't sincerely recite a list of stereotypical objects and social problems from rural America in a fake Kentucky accent over a slide guitar track?

Sincerity is the most important thing.  Once you learn to fake that, you've got it made.  ?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dedwretched said:

Umm, anything autotuned is automatically worse than anything else. You or I could be pop singers/rappers with just a few pushes of a button.

ICP is also really, really bad. No redeeming value to anything they have ever made. And that's coming from someone who likes 2 Live Crew.

That depends on what effect they are trying to get out of it.  This track uses autotune or something like it to modify the vocals.

Much like drum machines, the technology is not inherently bad, it is all in how it is used.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So you're saying that a legitimately good singer using autotune for artistic effect is automatically worse than random some guy badly covering Jimmy Buffet songs at your local bar for $50 a night?

At least the Jimmy Buffet guy isn't trying to mask any shortcomings.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 1:01 PM, Can_of_corn said:

That depends on what effect they are trying to get out of it.  This track uses autotune or something like it to modify the vocals.

Much like drum machines, the technology is not inherently bad, it is all in how it is used.

 

I can't view this because I'm at work. What is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 2:01 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

So you're saying that a legitimately good singer using autotune for artistic effect is automatically worse than random some guy badly covering Jimmy Buffet songs at your local bar for $50 a night?

I'd rather listen to someone ham it up or do karaoke than listen to the trash on the radio because the person singing is showing their true colors. They're not hiding behind Pro Tools or whatever people use to fix up their voice. It's the aural version of airbrushing or Photoshop.

Name one legitimately good singer who uses autotune. I realize this is subjective, but I'm curious to hear your answer.images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4Rh1GqpQzOdsMZzOYfZ_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dedwretched said:

I'd rather listen to someone ham it up or do karaoke than listen to the trash on the radio because the person singing is showing their true colors. They're not hiding behind Pro Tools or whatever people use to fix up their voice. It's the aural version of airbrushing or Photoshop.

Name one legitimately good singer who uses autotune. I realize this is subjective, but I'm curious to hear your answer.images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4Rh1GqpQzOdsMZzOYfZ_

I like a small handful of Nate Reuss or .fun songs and they use autotune for effect.  But really I'm just against unjustified use of authoritative statements like "anyone who does X is automatically worse than all people who don't."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • Brecht has TOR upside.  We’re good at finding #3-#5 types just in developing them, but we need that TOR arm upside and develop. 
    • I thought Baker had a better chance of getting a strikeout. Even though he created that mess it looked like he could have worked out of it.  Generally not in favor of bringing in guys for bases loaded situations unless they’re absolute nails and have an extremely high K rate.  Akin’s K rate is higher this year but I still don’t believe he was the better option than Baker. 
    • We’ve been picking really athletic types when not picking high in rd 1. Position player wise.   2023 - EBJ, Horvath, Josenberger, Cunningham, Etzel Not that are prior picks haven’t been athletic, if you know what I’m trying to say. We don’t take plodders as position players. 
    • Your complete mischaracterization of Os players aside, Miller is likely nothing more than a 60-70 IP reliever with high arm injury potential. (Note: when I say nothing more, I mean that as I don’t think they convert him to a starter next year or even if they do, I think he’s a ticking time bomb) I don’t care how old Kjerstad is, he’s a high end prospect that you control for 6 years and Stowers is an everyday OFer with big power potential. Sure, in a perfect world you get younger talent and if so, that’s fine..but if they got offered that and that was the best deal on the table, they should make the deal. FWIW, I think that deal would get beaten or they would get someone that maybe isn’t ranked as high as Kjerstad but someone younger and maybe more all around upside even if they come with a bigger risk.  
    • 100% in on Kirby. Wouldn’t require much on the prospect front. And has some track record.  That’ll require the Rangers to throw in the towel. Not sure they’re there, yet.
    • Yes to Crochet, absolutely not for Miller, yes to Skubal. Skubal will require a haul, though.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...