independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Associated artists & people > Tamar's Album MUCH better than Bria's
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 04/04/09 9:44am

airbak

Tamar's Album MUCH better than Bria's

After objectively listening to both albums here are my conclusions:

1) Bria can hold a note but has EXTREMELY limited vocal range - listen to the lack of confident or creative adlibs throughout her album in comparison with Tamar's.

2) Bria's album lacks the energy that Tamar's had. Compare the two versions of "Kept Woman." Even Prince's guitar playing is MUCH better on Tamar's version as he seems more inspired by the creativity and attitude of her vocals versus Bria's. Tamar definitely gave him more to work with vocally and he fed off of her well.

3) Tamar's album flows through different musical styles (Rock, Jazz, R&B, Contemporary Gospel), which demonstrates her versatility as a vocalist.

4) Tamar's album exhibits more personality and soul, as I found Bria's album flat and overall pretty boring.

5) The track "Elixir" is saved ONLY by Prince's lush lyrics and he seems to show up the milktoast vocals of Bria who seems to NEVER match his intensity and leaves me wishing he had anyone but her, sing the song with him.

6) "Here I Come" is memorable for Prince's music only and could have been sung by anyone.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 04/04/09 9:59am

Bfunkthe1

avatar

I dunno.
I Like Bria's lite breezy album.
I'll have to listen to Tamar again but I remember not caring for it too much initially.
I'll give it another shot.
Really though they are two very different albums.
Fantasy is reality in the world today. But I'll keep hangin in there, that is the only way.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 04/04/09 10:16am

bellanoche

I agree that they are two different albums. However, I think it is natural to make comparisons between the two since they are Prince's latest "protege" efforts.

As I said on another thread, I was not overly impressed with either girl's vocals, especially when I think of Prince vocalists like Bonnie Boyer (RIP), Rosie Gaines, Shelby and even now Liv Warfield. I would not classify either Tamar or Bria as a great singer. However, I do agree with the OP that Tamar's vocals are much stronger than Bria's.

I did not initially care for the Tamar album, but after listening to it more, I can say that there are some good songs on there that show her range and potential. There are some clunkers too, but the songs that work really work and showcase her diversity.

I listened to Bria's album, and it is rather bland and boring. You can do a lite breezy thing and not be sleep-inducing, which I am sorry to say, Bria's is for me. There's just no imagination or creativity in Bria's vocals at all. The music on many of the songs is good, but as the OP said Prince's playing does seem less inspired on the Bria tracks than the Tamar ones. It just seems like he felt it more when he had Tamar as a muse. I know at the Conga Room last weekend he said that he told Bria that going out on the road with Tamar made him fall back in love with his guitar. I think you can hear that in his playing on Tamar's album. You can also hear the effect of them performing live together on the album. They just seem to have a good musical vibe.

The Bria album lacks that umph. After awhile, it all just sounds like one prolonged track. There's little diversity in it except for one or two midtempo songs that still sound a bit dead and forced. Tamar's album had more fun, sass and funk to it. Like I said, you can make a mellow, grown & sexy album but still have some fun, sass and funk to it. However, Bria's effort is kind of stagnant.

Bria just doesn't come off as a "singer" or "performer" to me. She comes off as someone who thinks it would be "cool" to have an album out. Tamar, on the other hand, came off as someone who was trying to build a lasting career, and who would get better over time. Bria sounds like this is as good as it gets with her.

So, I have to agree that as an overall product, Tamar's album is much better than Bria's. It is a shame that it wasn't packaged with 3121 like the Elixer album. Tamar's career would have benefited from that because I think people would have noticed that she does have more vocal ability and range than most of Prince's other proteges. Unfortunately, Bria just sounds like one the usual Prince protege suspects.
[Edited 4/4/09 10:21am]
perfection is a fallacy of the imagination...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 04/04/09 10:26am

Vanity45

avatar

I have no doubts. Even my voice is richer and more colorful than Bria's...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 04/04/09 10:34am

Bfunkthe1

avatar

bellanoche said:

I agree that they are two different albums. However, I think it is natural to make comparisons between the two since they are Prince's latest "protege" efforts.

As I said on another thread, I was not overly impressed with either girl's vocals, especially when I think of Prince vocalists like Bonnie Boyer (RIP), Rosie Gaines, Shelby and even now Liv Warfield. I would not classify either Tamar or Bria as a great singer. However, I do agree with the OP that Tamar's vocals are much stronger than Bria's.

I did not initially care for the Tamar album, but after listening to it more, I can say that there are some good songs on there that show her range and potential. There are some clunkers too, but the songs that work really work and showcase her diversity.
Way to break it down B. lol
I don't disagree with many of your points but I still like Elixer.
But upon your post, I'm going to listen Tamar with a different perspective.
Btw, I LOVE Bonnie Boyer. RIP.
Wasn't she Prince's cousin?
I listened to Bria's album, and it is rather bland and boring. You can do a lite breezy thing and not be sleep-inducing, which I am sorry to say, Bria's is for me. There's just no imagination or creativity in Bria's vocals at all. The music on many of the songs is good, but as the OP said Prince's playing does seem less inspired on the Bria tracks than the Tamar ones. It just seems like he felt it more when he had Tamar as a muse. I know at the Conga Room last weekend he said that he told Bria that going out on the road with Tamar made him fall back in love with his guitar. I think you can hear that in his playing on Tamar's album. You can also hear the effect of them performing live together on the album. They just seem to have a good musical vibe.

The Bria album lacks that umph. After awhile, it all just sounds like one prolonged track. There's little diversity in it except for one or two midtempo songs that still sound a bit dead and forced. Tamar's album had more fun, sass and funk to it. Like I said, you can make a mellow, grown & sexy album but still have some fun, sass and funk to it. However, Bria's effort is kind of stagnant.

Bria just doesn't come off as a "singer" or "performer" to me. She comes off as someone who thinks it would be "cool" to have an album out. Tamar, on the other hand, came off as someone who was trying to build a lasting career, and who would get better over time. Bria sounds like this is as good as it gets with her.

So, I have to agree that as an overall product, Tamar's album is much better than Bria's. It is a shame that it wasn't packaged with 3121 like the Elixer album. Tamar's career would have benefited from that because I think people would have noticed that she does have more vocal ability and range than most of Prince's other proteges. Unfortunately, Bria just sounds like one the usual Prince protege suspects.
[Edited 4/4/09 10:21am]
Fantasy is reality in the world today. But I'll keep hangin in there, that is the only way.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 04/04/09 10:37am

Bfunkthe1

avatar

^
Ok, let me try again.
Agree with several of your points B but I still like Elixer.
That said, I'm going to listen to Tamar again with a new perspective.
Btw, love Bonnie Boyer (rip).
Was she Prince's cousin? I thought I read that somewhere.
Fantasy is reality in the world today. But I'll keep hangin in there, that is the only way.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 04/04/09 10:39am

bellanoche

Bfunkthe1 said:

^
Ok, let me try again.
Agree with several of your points B but I still like Elixer.
That said, I'm going to listen to Tamar again with a new perspective.
Btw, love Bonnie Boyer (rip).
Was she Prince's cousin? I thought I read that somewhere.


Actually, I believe Bonnie was a high school friend of Sheila's.
perfection is a fallacy of the imagination...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 04/04/09 10:45am

Bfunkthe1

avatar

bellanoche said:

Bfunkthe1 said:

^
Ok, let me try again.
Agree with several of your points B but I still like Elixer.
That said, I'm going to listen to Tamar again with a new perspective.
Btw, love Bonnie Boyer (rip).
Was she Prince's cousin? I thought I read that somewhere.


Actually, I believe Bonnie was a high school friend of Sheila's.

Oh.
I wish Prince would've done an album for her.
Oh well. That's another topic for another day.
Fantasy is reality in the world today. But I'll keep hangin in there, that is the only way.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 04/04/09 10:48am

bellanoche

Bfunkthe1 said:

bellanoche said:



Actually, I believe Bonnie was a high school friend of Sheila's.

Oh.
I wish Prince would've done an album for her.
Oh well. That's another topic for another day.


That's how I felt about Rosie. It was too little too late with her album, and she had such a great voice. I have a house track that she sang vocals on that was popular a few years ago, and every time I listen to it I think about how he wasted the opportunity with Rosie because he was too busy recording the uber hits "Go-Go Dancer" and "Carmen on Top." rolleyes
perfection is a fallacy of the imagination...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 04/04/09 10:52am

Bfunkthe1

avatar

bellanoche said:

Bfunkthe1 said:


Oh.
I wish Prince would've done an album for her.
Oh well. That's another topic for another day.


That's how I felt about Rosie. It was too little too late with her album, and she had such a great voice. I have a house track that she sang vocals on that was popular a few years ago, and every time I listen to it I think about how he wasted the opportunity with Rosie because he was too busy recording the uber hits "Go-Go Dancer" and "Carmen on Top." rolleyes

lol
And we all know what an amazing talent Carmen turned out to be.
Fantasy is reality in the world today. But I'll keep hangin in there, that is the only way.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 04/04/09 12:33pm

yeahsheis

To this day, I have never heard Tamara's album, and I pretty damned jealous about it. I understood it got shelved.
mmmm...chocolates
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 04/04/09 12:34pm

2elijah

I really don't want to compare the two like it's a competition thing, because they are two individual artists with their own sounds. However, I feel that Tamar does have the stronger voice range. I purchased her song "Runaway" from her website which is an absolutely beautiful ballad, and you can her her voice range and clear sound.

I feel she can sing ballads and very soulful, blues songs as well, with much emotion. You can definitely feel the emotion in Tamar's voice when she sings. Hopefully she doesn't go the comtemporary R&B route. Listen to her sing "All I Want Is You" which is another beautiful ballad, where her voice is not overshadowed by a bunch of instruments. It's very clear. All she needed was the right backing and I believe her career could have taken off. I can't say too much about Bria because I've never seen her perform live, on tv or elsewhere yet, other than hearing her cd. Listening to Bria's album, one cannot argue that she is more of a smooth, jazz singer. She does okay on contemporary R&B as well, but can sound like the average R&B singer.

Her song 2nite is a nice, club song, and it would be smart if P pushed it as a single to DJs to play in clubs, only thing, it does have a "Janet Jackson" flavor. I wish Bria luck of course, as I said, she has a nice, smooth jazz sound.

With Tamar's voice, I just can't compare her to any other singer out there, because she has her own, distinct sound. So that's just my take on both singers.

I'll also mention Shelby. Shelby has that strong, powerful, soulful/blues sound like Aretha, Jennifer Holiday, and I'll even throw in Leela James. Now Aretha has made her career and she is a legend. Jennifer Holiday, who has a strong voice, but only had the light shined on her for her hit "And I am Telling You" unfortunately, slipped off the radar after a couple of years. Even independent artists like Stephanie McKay could be appreciated.

It is unfortunate that singers like Shelby aren't being sought after by the music industry enough, because of the "manufactured, water-downed" sounds of artists the industry is pushing these days, trying to emulate what "soul singing" used to be.

I would absolutely love it, if Prince would push Shelby and promote her cd. Would have been nice if he did a 4 cd package and included Shelby, for those of us that love that "strong, soulful blues sound, take me to church sound" that we need back. Thank goodness for independent artists though, because if I had to depend on record companies to provide music I want to hear, I'd be at a loss.
[Edited 4/4/09 12:52pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 04/04/09 2:13pm

Wowugotit

Give it up and enjoy Bria. Tamar got the shaft.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 04/04/09 3:46pm

airbak

Wowugotit said:

Give it up and enjoy Bria. Tamar got the shaft.


Tamar DEFINITELY got the shaft. However, I'm sorry but Bria simply doesn't have enough talent to enjoy. I tried to give her a chance but it's just boring and lackluster.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 04/04/09 6:54pm

madcapxtc

It's hard 2 compare their voices: Tamar is definitely a soul singer when Bria's more of a pop singer.

In the end it's not Tamar vs. Bria, because their albums r completely different anyway. It's "Milk & Honey" vs. "Elixer" & i gotta admit i prefer the songs on "Elixer".
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 04/05/09 5:14am

Imago

I agree Tamar's album, Milk & Honey is much better. But that's not saying much, nor does it say that Tamar's album was actually good lol .

Tamar's voice isn't bad, but it's not exactly a standout stellar voice, either. Albeit, Bria's voice has about as much personality as a dried up tape worm.

What makes a protoge's album good or bad has little to do with the singer's voice, but the songs themselves.


I mean, I may get yelled at for this, but Shiela E. doesn't have a great voice either. It's weak, whispy, and boring. But the songs she sings are far better, and she has other talents to command respect.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 04/05/09 6:32am

lezama

avatar

airbak said:[quote]After objectively listening to both albums ...quote]

How does one "objectively" listen to something when the very nature of an individual's experience of an object is SUBJECTIVE?
hmm

Change it one more time..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 04/05/09 8:08am

xenophobia2002

Tamar's Cd includes Redhead Stepchild, which song alone makes it a better album then Bria Valente's Elixir ...
I AM LOOKING FOR USED PRINCE CONCERT TICKETS ... https://www.facebook.com/...erttickets
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 04/05/09 10:27am

airbak

lezama said:[quote]

airbak said:

After objectively listening to both albums ...quote]

How does one "objectively" listen to something when the very nature of an individual's experience of an object is SUBJECTIVE?
hmm



It goes without saying that our opinions are byproducts of our own unique set of ideas, knowledge, tastes, experiences etc. However, I objectively listened to both albums. I'm not crazy about either artist so you can't argue that I had a bias toward either one. That said, Tamar's skills and range far exceeded Bria's musically. This is fact. I'm a musician myself, and am comfortable with this assessment. Now, in terms of my reaction to each album, well of course this is based on my preference and therefore is an opinion. Tamar's offered more excitement and variety where as Bria's was more flat. Some people prefer Bria's album. That's their preference.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 04/05/09 10:34am

bellanoche

lezama said:


How does one "objectively" listen to something when the very nature of an individual's experience of an [b]object is SUBJECTIVE?
hmm [/b]


objectivity

noun
judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices


We all know that objectivity is limited. The extent of those limitations depends on the individual. However, that does not mean that someone cannot objectively listen to music, watch a film or make any kind of evaluation/judgment of an "object" for that matter.

Based on your statement, what would be the point of evaluating anything or having people like juries, politicans/lawmakers, scientists, etc. make decisions if we think that individuals cannot be objective?

Some people are actually rational enough to limit the extent to which their individual emotions or experiences affect their evaluations or decision making. Then in other cases, those experiences, like being an actual musician and evaluating the quality of a musical offering, can help to make a more informed and less emotional evaluation.

You might need to learn more about objectivity and subjectivity before you try to define the terms. I think your post might say more about your inability to be objective than anything else.
perfection is a fallacy of the imagination...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 04/05/09 10:42am

bellanoche

Imago said:

I agree Tamar's album, Milk & Honey is much better. But that's not saying much, nor does it say that Tamar's album was actually good lol .

Tamar's voice isn't bad, but it's not exactly a standout stellar voice, either. Albeit, Bria's voice has about as much personality as a dried up tape worm.

What makes a protoge's album good or bad has little to do with the singer's voice, but the songs themselves.


I mean, I may get yelled at for this, but Shiela E. doesn't have a great voice either. It's weak, whispy, and boring. But the songs she sings are far better, and she has other talents to command respect.


I agree with this about Sheila. I love Sheila, but I would never in a million years call Sheila a great singer by any means. However, she at least had personality with her voice. Also, she is a tremendously talented musician, so the fact that she can carry a tune was a nice added touch.

I never listened to Sheila's albums expecting Chaka-esque vocal ability. However, at least her music was entertaining, and that had much to do with her style and delivery because I do not think she had a bevy of great songs either. However, the ones that worked really worked. I listen to stuff like Pride and Passion, and I enjoy the energy and musicianship of the song. Sheila's vocals aren't great but they are good enough for the song. It's the same with cuts like Glamorus Life, Love Bizarre, etc.
perfection is a fallacy of the imagination...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 04/05/09 10:58am

lezama

avatar

airbak said:


It goes without saying that our opinions are byproducts of our own unique set of ideas, knowledge, tastes, experiences etc. However, I objectively listened to both albums. I'm not crazy about either artist so you can't argue that I had a bias toward either one. That said, Tamar's skills and range far exceeded Bria's musically. This is fact. I'm a musician myself, and am comfortable with this assessment. Now, in terms of my reaction to each album, well of course this is based on my preference and therefore is an opinion. Tamar's offered more excitement and variety where as Bria's was more flat. Some people prefer Bria's album. That's their preference.


I understood what you were saying, although the statement "objectively" listening to something still doesn't make sense. Your reaction to an object is by definition subjective. Hence the diversity of perspectives on all things aesthetic.
Change it one more time..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 04/05/09 11:09am

bellanoche

lezama said:

airbak said:


It goes without saying that our opinions are byproducts of our own unique set of ideas, knowledge, tastes, experiences etc. However, I objectively listened to both albums. I'm not crazy about either artist so you can't argue that I had a bias toward either one. That said, Tamar's skills and range far exceeded Bria's musically. This is fact. I'm a musician myself, and am comfortable with this assessment. Now, in terms of my reaction to each album, well of course this is based on my preference and therefore is an opinion. Tamar's offered more excitement and variety where as Bria's was more flat. Some people prefer Bria's album. That's their preference.


I understood what you were saying, although the statement "objectively" listening to something still doesn't make sense. Your reaction to an object is by definition subjective. Hence the diversity of perspectives on all things aesthetic.


Are you saying that it is impossible to objectively evaluate art or as you called it, "all things aesthetic?" That acutally makes no sense to me. There are critics who do it every day. For example, with music, one can objectively state that one singer has more range than another. One can objectively state that certain compositions are more complex than others. One can objectively state that one composition uses a wider variety of chord progressions than another one. One can objectively state that there is a greater diversity of styles on one album than on another one. This list could go on and on. Subjectivity does not come into play when making these kinds of judgments about music. These same kinds of objective judgments can be made about myriad other "aesthetic" offerings.

Also, I beg to differ with your assertion that one's "reaction to an object is by definition subjective." That is ludicrous. There are many objects that do not elicit subjective reactions. If you have a subjective reaction to every object that you encounter whether "aesthetic" or not, you might need help. So, like I said, I think you might not fully understand the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity.
[Edited 4/5/09 11:15am]
[Edited 4/5/09 11:43am]
perfection is a fallacy of the imagination...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 04/05/09 11:17am

lezama

avatar

bellanoche said:


objectivity

noun
judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices


We all know that objectivity is limited. The extent of those limitations depends on the individual. However, that does not mean that someone cannot objectively listen to music, watch a film or make any kind of evaluation/judgment of an "object" for that matter.

Based on your statement, what would be the point of evaluating anything or having people like juries, politicans/lawmakers, scientists, etc. make decisions if we think that individuals cannot be objective?

Some people are actually rational enough to limit the extent to which their individual emotions or experiences affect their evaluations or decision making. Then in other cases, those experiences, like being an actual musician and evaluating the quality of a musical offering, can help to make a more informed and less emotional evaluation.

You might need to learn more about objectivity and subjectivity before you try to define the terms. I think your post might say more about your inability to be objective than anything else.


I appreciate your defense of the phrase "objectively listened" but:

1) Anything requiring evaluation of fact necessarily invokes subjectivity. Thats in the courtroom, in the doctors office, in government, business, everywhere you look. The idea that you can objectively evaluate something is an oxymoron. Look at your definition again... "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"... The only humans that experience things outside of emotions, predispositions or prejudices are either dead or cannot say anything evaluatory of the object in question because the very act of evaluating something is made possible by reactions to it. Emotions" are the subjective interpretations or translations of sensation and experience.

2) You can be the most "rational" person in the world but reason or rationality is not whats responsible for evaluation. Rationality PRESUPPOSES emotion. The concept of rationality would not even exist if it were not something evoked to bring "emotion" under control. Evaluation occurs first and foremost at the most primary level (that of feeling, sensation and experience translated into all sorts of vague and ill defined emotion). Its only later when we try to make sense of our impressions and we try to forge words to speak that we filter through "reason".

The point of my post wasnt to denigrate his opinions on the subject, but to point out that calling the subjective objective (seemingly to give it more authority or weight) just doesn't fly. One shouldn't look down on the fact that most of what we think and experience is subjective. If anything thats what makes individual imput rich and meaningful. If there was only objectivity there would be no need for this forum for millions of posts back and forth. Or there would be no need for multiple judges on the supreme court, one man or woman could decide "objectively" the fate of what Justice means in the US.

Luckily though, thats not and could never be the case.
Change it one more time..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 04/05/09 11:26am

lezama

avatar

bellanoche said:


Are you saying that it is impossible to objectively evaluate "all things aesthetic?" That acutally makes no sense to me. There are critics who do it every day. For example, with music, one can objectively state that one singer has more range than another. One can objectively state that certain compositions are more complex than others. One can objectively state that one composition uses a wider variety of chord progressions than another one. One can objectively state that there is a greater diversity of styles on one album than on another one. This list could go on and on. Subjectivity does not come into play when making these kinds of judgments about music. These same kinds of objective judgments can be made about myriad other "aesthetic" offerings.

Also, I beg to differ with your assertion that one's "reaction to an object is by definition subjective." That is ludicrous. There are many objects that do not elicit subjective reactions. If you have a subjective reaction to every object that you encounter whether "aesthetic" or not, you might need help. So, like I said, I think you might not fully understand the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity.


1) All statements that evoke an object presuppose a subject right?
2) Should a subject represent a change in the conditions from which they evaluate something, does the object representd change?
3) If I represent a change in subjectivity but I am asked to evaluate something under the conditions that someone else evaluates them, then I can reproduce your subjectity reading of an object but that doesn't make that "objectivity" any more universal.

E.g. Try talking about emotions to a Tibetan that has never stepped foot in the West. Or try pointing out "Sad" and "Heart" and "Action" and see if they see the same "objects" of speech as you. It won't happen. Why? Because they do not share the same concepts as you (i.e. who they are as "subjects" elicit different "objects" of experience).
[Edited 4/5/09 11:27am]
Change it one more time..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 04/05/09 11:41am

bellanoche

lezama said:



1) All statements that evoke an object presuppose a subject right?
2) Should a subject represent a change in the conditions from which they evaluate something, does the object representd change?
3) If I represent a change in subjectivity but I am asked to evaluate something under the conditions that someone else evaluates them, then I can reproduce your subjectity reading of an object but that doesn't make that "objectivity" any more universal.

E.g. Try talking about emotions to a Tibetan that has never stepped foot in the West. Or try pointing out "Sad" and "Heart" and "Action" and see if they see the same "objects" of speech as you. It won't happen. Why? Because they do not share the same concepts as you (i.e. who they are as "subjects" elicit different "objects" of experience).
[Edited 4/5/09 11:27am]


I'm sorry but this nebulous post about Tibetans and subjectivity does nothing to address the discussion at hand. We were discussing your assertion that the OP and others cannot objectively evaluate the Tamar and Bria albums, or as you said earlier, "all things aesthetic." And if you want to get technical, you have misused the term "aesthetic" here. When you discuss the "aesthetic" value or quality of an object, you rely on subjectivity. However, you can objectively evaluate music, art, etc. without making an aesthetic judgment. Would you like to stay on topic or have you thrown in the towel because your assertions are baseless?

I'm over this because, as I said from the beginning, one CAN objectively evaluate music. I can state that one artist has more range or diversity than another, and that is an OBJECTIVE evaluation. However, at the point that I state whether I prefer the artist with more range or diversity over the other, that is a SUBJECTIVE evaluation. I do not need to ask a Tibetan about sadness, hearts or actions to know that.

You can try to regurgitate all the stuff that you gleaned from whatever books you've read about rationality, subjectivity and objectivity all you want, but it appears that you do not have a clear understanding of these terms. However, as I said I am not going to waste any more time on this.

Have a great day. biggrin
[Edited 4/5/09 11:47am]
perfection is a fallacy of the imagination...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 04/05/09 12:03pm

airbak

bellanoche said:

lezama said:



1) All statements that evoke an object presuppose a subject right?
2) Should a subject represent a change in the conditions from which they evaluate something, does the object representd change?
3) If I represent a change in subjectivity but I am asked to evaluate something under the conditions that someone else evaluates them, then I can reproduce your subjectity reading of an object but that doesn't make that "objectivity" any more universal.

E.g. Try talking about emotions to a Tibetan that has never stepped foot in the West. Or try pointing out "Sad" and "Heart" and "Action" and see if they see the same "objects" of speech as you. It won't happen. Why? Because they do not share the same concepts as you (i.e. who they are as "subjects" elicit different "objects" of experience).
[Edited 4/5/09 11:27am]


I'm sorry but this nebulous post about Tibetans and subjectivity does nothing to address the discussion at hand. We were discussing your assertion that the OP and others cannot objectively evaluate the Tamar and Bria albums, or as you said earlier, "all things aesthetic." And if you want to get technical, you have misused the term "aesthetic" here. When you discuss the "aesthetic" value or quality of an object, you rely on subjectivity. However, you can objectively evaluate music, art, etc. without making an aesthetic judgment. Would you like to stay on topic or have you thrown in the towel because your assertions are baseless?

I'm over this because, as I said from the beginning, one CAN objectively evaluate music. I can state that one artist has more range or diversity than another, and that is an OBJECTIVE evaluation. However, at the point that I state whether I prefer the artist with more range or diversity over the other, that is a SUBJECTIVE evaluation. I do not need to ask a Tibetan about sadness, hearts or actions to know that.

You can try to regurgitate all the stuff that you gleaned from whatever books you've read about rationality, subjectivity and objectivity all you want, but it appears that you do not have a clear understanding of these terms. However, as I said I am not going to waste any more time on this.

Have a great day. biggrin
[Edited 4/5/09 11:47am]


GREAT POST Bella! I think Lezama would rather hide behind flawed, quasi-philosophical doublespeak than acknowledge the fact that you can objectively listen to music. When I said that Tamar's album was MUCH better, this is my opinion derived from the facts that I spelled out. Also, the argument concerning Tibetans is completely ridiculous. Although we speak different languages/dialects, there are universal principles and truths that we share in common. This is not only germane to the West. I'm done with this topic.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 04/05/09 12:48pm

salaciousV

I personally do not like Tamar or her album (she had stank attitude with some of us fans in NY) so it soured my grapes on her. But! Her voice and depth overshadow any other protege to date. Only Shelby could take that from her.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 04/05/09 12:50pm

salaciousV

airbak said:

lezama said:

After objectively listening to both albums ...quote]

How does one "objectively" listen to something when the very nature of an individual's experience of an object is SUBJECTIVE?
hmm



It goes without saying that our opinions are byproducts of our own unique set of ideas, knowledge, tastes, experiences etc. However, I objectively listened to both albums. I'm not crazy about either artist so you can't argue that I had a bias toward either one. That said, Tamar's skills and range far exceeded Bria's musically. This is fact. I'm a musician myself, and am comfortable with this assessment. Now, in terms of my reaction to each album, well of course this is based on my preference and therefore is an opinion. Tamar's offered more excitement and variety where as Bria's was more flat. Some people prefer Bria's album. That's their preference.


yeahthat
[Edited 4/5/09 12:53pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 04/05/09 3:26pm

lezama

avatar

bellanoche said:

lezama said:



1) All statements that evoke an object presuppose a subject right?
2) Should a subject represent a change in the conditions from which they evaluate something, does the object representd change?
3) If I represent a change in subjectivity but I am asked to evaluate something under the conditions that someone else evaluates them, then I can reproduce your subjectity reading of an object but that doesn't make that "objectivity" any more universal.

E.g. Try talking about emotions to a Tibetan that has never stepped foot in the West. Or try pointing out "Sad" and "Heart" and "Action" and see if they see the same "objects" of speech as you. It won't happen. Why? Because they do not share the same concepts as you (i.e. who they are as "subjects" elicit different "objects" of experience).
[Edited 4/5/09 11:27am]


I'm sorry but this nebulous post about Tibetans and subjectivity does nothing to address the discussion at hand. We were discussing your assertion that the OP and others cannot objectively evaluate the Tamar and Bria albums, or as you said earlier, "all things aesthetic." And if you want to get technical, you have misused the term "aesthetic" here. When you discuss the "aesthetic" value or quality of an object, you rely on subjectivity. However, you can objectively evaluate music, art, etc. without making an aesthetic judgment. Would you like to stay on topic or have you thrown in the towel because your assertions are baseless?

I'm over this because, as I said from the beginning, one CAN objectively evaluate music. I can state that one artist has more range or diversity than another, and that is an OBJECTIVE evaluation. However, at the point that I state whether I prefer the artist with more range or diversity over the other, that is a SUBJECTIVE evaluation. I do not need to ask a Tibetan about sadness, hearts or actions to know that.

You can try to regurgitate all the stuff that you gleaned from whatever books you've read about rationality, subjectivity and objectivity all you want, but it appears that you do not have a clear understanding of these terms. However, as I said I am not going to waste any more time on this.

Have a great day. biggrin


Did my post go over your head? Sorry. Let me slow it down for you.

Theres two issues: 1) Either you can explain how a human can evaluate something sans emotion (i.e. making it by its very nature constituted by a position of subjectivity) or you can't. And 2) Either a person can evaluate something without having preconceptions of what they're looking for and how they're to go about looking for it or they can't.

And no, we were not discussing non-aesthetic analysis of music. Aesthetic http://www.etymonline.com...=aesthetic comes from aisthanesthai "to perceive, to feel." So unless you're some alien coming to conclusions about something without first perceiving it, all evaluation presupposes as basis in aesthetics. Read some Thomas Kuhn before making any more unresearched comments please.

Thanks
[Edited 4/5/09 15:44pm]
Change it one more time..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Associated artists & people > Tamar's Album MUCH better than Bria's