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.
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]

^
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.

Bfunkthe1 said:

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

bellanoche said:

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

Bfunkthe1 said:

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."

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

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?

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

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 .

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.

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.

airbak said:

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.

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.

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]

lezama said:

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.
[Edited 4/5/09 11:47am]

lezama 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.

lezama said:

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.