Pink Floyd sans instruments

I've been listening to this acapella version of Dark Side Of The Moon. it's pretty cool.

http://www.darksidevoices.com/clips/

You can listen to little snippets there. it's worth it just to hear the bloke doing the drum sounds. Novel, yes, but it still sounds incredible. I think Money was a bit of a gamble, but it works

[size=9:2cc3705d60]Note to reader: I consider the a capella genre to consist of two sub genres. The first is people singing without any instruments. The second is people singing without instruments who try to sound like they have instruments. The text below refers to the second genre.[/size:2cc3705d60]

This does not work for me. At all. There's something about a capella that makes my skin crawl. I can't explain it, hearing a capella makes me feel embarrassed and awkward. I know there are very skillful a capella groups out there, but I can't take them seriously.

I just can't help seeing visions of me hitting a powerchord on a Gibson SG with the Marshall amp cranked up to 11 all the way across the board drowning out the matchingly clad mothers (with their chic little scarves) and fathers of two point three children trying to deliver Led Zeppelin's Black Dog with all the drum sounds made by the weird looking tenor in the back. And their chic scarves will be blown away. And their throats will become sore from trying to overpower me. But they will not succeed. And I will be pleased.

I like rock. A capella has never been, is not and will never be rock. It is a heretic mockery only topped by karaoke as far as lack of musical value goes. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind.

[size=9:2cc3705d60]Thanks though, Ella, for linking it. I am always interested in all things Pink. Also, if there are any a capella singers reading the boards, sorry for upsetting you, but go buy some real instruments, they're really quite easy to learn.[/size:2cc3705d60]

But..but..karaoke rocks.

[quote:22be899765="KaptenKaries"]I know there are very skillful a capella groups out there, but I can't take them seriously.[/quote:22be899765]

[size=9:22be899765]The company I work for is called A c a p e l a G r o u p (the proper spelling was already copyrighted) and I can't take them seriously most of the time either [/size:22be899765]:cooler:

Edited to avoid being googled unduly... :cooler:

>shrug<

Yep, fair enough, you either love it or you hate it. People messing with stuff always gets strong reactions from the die hard fans. As much as i like Pink Floyd, i wouldn't consider myself one of them. I just think it's a nice sounding adaptation. Thankfully I'm not plagued by such disturbingly lucid internal visions at the thought of acapella either. 'Chic scarves', that's impressive detail

For the record, i don't think it would work with Led Zepplin. Or, really, anything that requires meaty power chords. I imagine that effect is pretty difficult to simulate vocally, unless you like, swallowed a motorbike.

Something Grace said ages and ages ago on the topic of... music or something, seems relevant here. I don't want to inaccurately paraphrase, and I think it was on the old board which isn't working right now, but the point I got from it was that the human voice shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not a conventional instrument.

But as for this thing, I think it's definitely a case where comparisons to Marmite would be very valid.

marmite is goooood.

And the old board is not working? bizzare?

[quote:5934a4374c="Delphine"]Yep, fair enough, you either love it or you hate it. People messing with stuff always gets strong reactions from the die hard fans. As much as i like Pink Floyd, i wouldn't consider myself one of them. I just think it's a nice sounding adaptation. Thankfully I'm not plagued by such disturbingly lucid internal visions at the thought of acapella either. 'Chic scarves', that's impressive detail [/quote:5934a4374c]

It's not about covering one of my favourite bands. I loved Dub Side of the Moon. I just can't stand a capella.

[quote:5934a4374c="Delphine"]For the record, i don't think it would work with Led Zepplin. Or, really, anything that requires meaty power chords. I imagine that effect is pretty difficult to simulate vocally, unless you like, swallowed a motorbike.[/quote:5934a4374c]

That's the whole thing, isn't it? It never really works. What you get is a pale rendition that almost sounds like the original recording, only the instruments sound lame and the lead singer even lamer.

[quote:5934a4374c="Delphine"]Something Grace said ages and ages ago on the topic of... music or something, seems relevant here. I don't want to inaccurately paraphrase, and I think it was on the old board which isn't working right now, but the point I got from it was that the human voice shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not a conventional instrument.[/quote:5934a4374c]

I fully agree, the human voice is a wonderful instrument. There are choir works that I love, and vocal performances that makes me weep with sheer extacy (Oskar Bly's Swedish rendition of Gethsemane anyone? That scream at 2:32 is otherwordly). What seem to mark the vocal tracks I enjoy is that they have been written for or improvised by singers. Tracks meant to be sung. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a vocal track that was meant for a slide guitar.

[quote:5934a4374c="Delphine"]But as for this thing, I think it's definitely a case where comparisons to Marmite would be very valid. [/quote:5934a4374c]

Sorry, I've lost you there. Marmite's a kind of meat extract, isn't it?

[quote:ad01017a9f="KaptenKaries"] Sorry, I've lost you there. Marmite's a kind of meat extract, isn't it?[/quote:ad01017a9f]

No, it's a yeast extract. And I believe the point to her saying that was because with marmite, you either love it or hate it, there is not really a point to debate the subject of "Marmite - Good or Bad" because everyone had thier own very black and white tates.......*takes a deep breath*

Did that make sense?

Exactly

Marmite's famous for being either loved, or hated. It's an acquired taste, which is perhaps what i was trying to say.

Thanks for explaining that. Yes, I can see some people might enjoy a capella music. Obviously, they're wrong, but as I see no harm in letting them continue their misled beliefs, I'll leave it for now.

Maybe the acoustics are a bit off, up there in your arse.

(Edit: Om wanted a comma.)

the best use of acapella I've seen (the voice used to sound like instrument version)... http://84.40.3.164/

[quote:1de7a6e597="Maljonic"]Tates = bad, yes it's all perfectly crumulous and not in the least unpossible.

P.S. I think they cheated with the music by having drum beats and cymbals, unless they were uber good and that was all voices too.[/quote:1de7a6e597]

They are uber good, the drums and cymbals was just one bloke. He embiggened that role with his cromulent performance.

[quote:22e024999e="chrisjordan"]Maybe the acoustics are a bit off, up there in your arse. [img:22e024999e]http://www.fatmanintweed.com/beans/cheery.jpg[/img:22e024999e][/quote:22e024999e]

My head is perfectly positioned on top of my shoulders, and the acoustics up here are crystal clear. Thank you.

[quote:8e91757347="OmKranti"][quote:8e91757347="KaptenKaries"] Sorry, I've lost you there. Marmite's a kind of meat extract, isn't it?[/quote:8e91757347]

No, it's a yeast extract. And I believe the point to her saying that was because with marmite, you either love it or hate it, there is not really a point to debate the subject of "Marmite - Good or Bad" because [b:8e91757347]everyone had thier own very black and white ta[i:8e91757347]s[/i:8e91757347]tes[/b:8e91757347].......[/quote:8e91757347]
I would have said it tasted dark brown, myself... KK, it's often thought to be a meat extract because of the strong taste and colour but as Om explained perfectly, it is made from yeast... And it is GOOD [size=9:8e91757347](not like that pansy Vegemite crap they eat in Australia... )[/size:8e91757347] :cooler:

Edited for pelling (missing s)

I think I've understood the concept by now. Surströmming.

Goodo. And you're very welcome.

[quote:bbd4bedce9="Maljonic"][quote:bbd4bedce9="OmKranti"][quote:bbd4bedce9="KaptenKaries"] Sorry, I've lost you there. Marmite's a kind of meat extract, isn't it?[/quote:bbd4bedce9]

No, it's a yeast extract. And I believe the point to her saying that was because with marmite, you either love it or hate it, there is not really a point to debate the subject of "Marmite - Good or Bad" because everyone had thier own very black and white tates.......*takes a deep breath*

Did that make sense?[/quote:bbd4bedce9]

Tates = bad, yes it's all perfectly crumulous and not in the least unpossible.

P.S. I think they cheated with the music by having drum beats and cymbals, unless they were uber good and that was all voices too.[/quote:bbd4bedce9]

Are you making funner me?

As in creating a clone that would be you, but more fun ?

[quote:c7d5a3f6ab="Katcal"]As in creating a clone that would be you, but more fun ?[/quote:c7d5a3f6ab]

Smarty Pants!

[quote:d8f04fbf75="Buzzfloyd"]'It never really works' - doesn't that depend on what they were trying to do? Besides, whatever they were trying to do, whether it worked or not is a matter of opinion. I have only been able to hear a snatch of this recording so far, since Garner insisted on it being turned off immediately, for reasons that he failed to make clear, so I can't comment on this particular performance at the moment.[/quote:d8f04fbf75]

As far as I've understood, what they're trying to do is to sound as close as the original as possible, without using anything else than their voices, or in your words, 'demonstrate how well the human voice can reproduce that type of sound'.

Lets evaluate this in two different ways.

First we regard this piece as a demonstration of the possibilities of the human voice, similar to how a salesman would demonstrate a vacuum cleaner or a lawn mower. The piece is not meant to be enjoyed musically, it's a showcase of authentic sounding textures. In this case, I agree, they are very skillful. I almost can't hear they're not using a real drum kit sometimes! Very good, pat on the back, we've found us a winner! But it's not music. It's not meant to be enjoyed, it's meant to be impressive. And I am impressed. But I am not enjoying it on a musical level.

Now let's regard this piece as if it was created to be musically enjoyeable. It is a cover of a well-known song. I've heard lots of covers I've enjoyed, and some covers I've even liked more than the original (Toploader's cover of King Harvest's Dancing in the Moonlight is a good example). I can't speak for you, Grace, but I know every single cover I've enjoyed have added something new and unique to the cover that didn't exist in the original. This new element can be a new beat, a new texture or something else.

So what does an a capella cover add that wasn't there in the original? One obvious answer is a new texture. What makes a capella covers special from other covers? The difference is they're trying to get the texture as close to the original as possible. So the one thing that differences the a capella cover from the original is the one thing they're trying to get rid of. I haven't yet heard someone succeed. It's like trying to whisper louder than you can shout, win a marathon by running backwards or knock out Mike Tyson with one hand tied behind your back. You're deliberately making things harder for yourself than neccessary.

And even if they would succeed, there would be no difference at all listening to one or the other, making the effort, on a musical level (remember we've already dismissed the awe-factor) a complete waste of time.

My opinion is that they're not adding anything new, they're just subtracting from the original.

[quote:d8f04fbf75="Buzzfloyd"]But isn't the automatic dismissal of a song performed in a certain way like insisting that a filmed version of a play is never as good as seeing it on stage? Or like saying that a book read in your head is like a pale rendition of the book read aloud, only with a really lame narrator?[/quote:d8f04fbf75]

I don't think so, in this case. I think a capella contradicts itself, which is what I tried to prove above.

[quote:d8f04fbf75="Buzzfloyd"]To dismiss a song just because it is not the original version seems odd to me.[/quote:d8f04fbf75]

That is not what I am doing. I previously mentioned I enjoyed Dub Side of the Moon, but I'll say it again. I really enjoyed Dub Side of the Moon.

[quote:d8f04fbf75="Buzzfloyd"]To dismiss a capella performances undiscriminatingly (that is, without judging each on its own merits) also seems odd.[/quote:d8f04fbf75]

I've tried above to judge a capella by two different merits. What merits do you think would be a capella's 'own merits'?

[quote:d8f04fbf75="Buzzfloyd"]Would you object to the same pieces being played on acoustic instruments? Or being reproduced on synthesisers (which I guess is a closer analogy)?[/quote:d8f04fbf75]

Not before I had heard it, no. They might do it good and I would like it. They might do it bad and I would not like it. They might even do it good and I would not like it, because they would do it in a genre that I don't particularily enjoy.

[quote:d8f04fbf75="Buzzfloyd"]Besides, regardless of how close this performance is to the original track, I find it an impressive feat that a human voice can be made to so closely resemble the sound of another instrument. To me, that's worthy of note regardless of the song used to showcase the talent. And surely that's the point of this, anyway - using a well-known piece, so that people are familiar with the expected sound, in order to demonstrate how well the human voice can reproduce that type of sound. I would have said that, if this was what the choir were trying to do, it worked very well indeed. [/quote:d8f04fbf75]

I agree, it is impressive. I could not make such sounds with my voice, and it is worthy of note. Yngwe Malmsteen is impressingly fast at playing pentatonic scales. Would you agree that musical quality lies beyond mere technical skill?

[quote:d8f04fbf75="Buzzfloyd"]You don't have to like the piece, of course, but to dislike it [i:d8f04fbf75]just because it's a capella[/i:d8f04fbf75] seems very strange and closed-minded to me.[/quote:d8f04fbf75]

And my conclusion is that I dislike it because this kind of a capella, the kind that covers songs to try and sound as close to the original as possible, is not music. When done skillfully it is an impressive circus act. But music it is not.

[size=9:d8f04fbf75]Edit: proof of how much I enjoyed Dub Side of the Moon can be found in my last.fm statistics, where Easy Star All-Stars holds the 22:nd place.[/size:d8f04fbf75]

"Not meant to be enjoyed musically"? Are we going by the KaptenKaries Dictionary Definition of "music" here? What possibly gives you the authority to pronounce what is music and what is not? i'm genuinely baffled.

I think you'll find that a capella singers do not try and reproduce the sounds of the instruments to the very last degree (with the exception of the drums). They're singers. It's an interpretation of a song, not a reproduction of one. They take the sounds the individual instruments make together, and simulate the overall effect through harmonies and vocal effects.

So, I would say they do add something new to it. When I heard this for the first time, I thought what a pleasant overall sound it produced before i thought "wow, those drums sound so lifelike". It impressed me after I had appeciated it as a nice piece of music. It's quite different. It's certainly not everybodies cup of tea, which is what i said earlier. I'm perfectly happy for people to dislike it. If they have issues with people [i:08ca1262e0]liking[/i:08ca1262e0] it though, that really annoys me. It's the difference between saying "i don't like your jumper" and "you really are an utterly stupid moron for wearing that jumper".

Also: it really doesn't matter how much you liked Dub Side of the Moon. This is less about pink floyd now, and more about the fact you're presenting your views on a capella as if they are cold fact, and when in actual fact, "judging by its own merits" appears to mean, for you, "pointing out all things I don't like about it". I don't think you've said a lot about the actual example of a capella here. Mostly, it's rantings about why you hate a capella in general. Fair one. We get the point. It's a matter of opinion and not worth arguing about. I just get annoyed by statements like this:

"When done skillfully it is an impressive circus act. But music it is not."

"Also, if there are any a capella singers reading the boards, sorry for upsetting you, but go buy some real instruments, they're really quite easy to learn."

I consider this pure arrogance.

this is probably besides the point, but a cappella doesn't have to be all mimicry. when you're at church and all the pianists are ill or on vacation, you sing a cappella. when you're up in the mountains and all you have is your tent and some bugs, you sing a cappella. in the shower. in your car when your radio is broken.

sill music.

unless you're just a really really horrible singer. even then, it might be music in your universe. individual opinions are cool like that.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"][quote:2167dd9527="KaptenKaries"]And my conclusion is that I dislike it because this kind of a capella, the kind that covers songs to try and sound as close to the original as possible, is not music. When done skillfully it is an impressive circus act. But music it is not.[/quote:2167dd9527]
You almost had me agreeing with you there. I followed your reasoning up until this point. The argument that a cover that tries to mimic the original is adding nothing new is fair enough - but if the original is music, then the cover must be too. If Westlife do a version of [i:2167dd9527]Uptown Girl[/i:2167dd9527] that many people are unable to distinguish from the Billy Joel original, then their version must be as much music as Billy Joel's is. Billy Joel may be the more admirable musician, the one doing more worthwhile work, but both versions of the song are music.[/quote:2167dd9527]

Yes, I realise I chose my words a bit recklessly. Perhaps "It shows no musical value to me other than the musical value that have survived from the original, which makes me regard it as a display of skill rather than a piece of music" would better express what I mean.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]Regarding the a capella mimicry of other instruments, I personally feel it [i:2167dd9527]does[/i:2167dd9527] add something to the performance. I think, though, this depends upon what it is you enjoy in a performance in the first place. For my part, I enjoy not only the music (on all its levels) and the lyrics, but the skill of the performer too. To me, it is as enjoyable to hear someone performing so well on their instrument when it is the human voice as when it is an electric guitar. The level of skill involved in reproducing a performance is part of the show to me, part of what makes it enjoyable. It's the same music, which I enjoy, and an incredible display of skill, which I believe is [i:2167dd9527]not[/i:2167dd9527] just a circus act, but part of the performance.[/quote:2167dd9527]

I agree, an incredible display of skill doesn't mean a performance is just a circus act, if there is a musical achievement in there somewhere, too. I can also agree that an incredible display of skill can add to a performance, a great song will be an even greater experience with the added awe-factor.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]If the a capella group's ability is just a circus act, then Jimi Hendrix's ability to produce the novel sounds he got out of a guitar was also just a circus act, not music, and not worthy of merit.[/quote:2167dd9527]

I never said an ability to produce unexpected sounds from an instrument or throat was not worthy of merit.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]I do agree with you that musical ability lies beyond mere technical skill, but it seems to me that you have an inherent contradiction in your argument:
[quote:2167dd9527="KaptenKaries"]And even if they would succeed, there would be no difference at all listening to one or the other, making the effort, on a musical level (remember we've already dismissed the awe-factor) a complete waste of time.

My opinion is that they're not adding anything new, they're just subtracting from the original.[/quote:2167dd9527]
If there is no difference at all from the original then it is still the piece you like, so there is no subtraction.
[/quote:2167dd9527]

Ah, the subtraction would be when they fail to sound exactly the same as the original. But as you said, the new texture this failure (intentionally or not) have caused can to some people mean added value. I admit I was wrong there, this a capella texture may be pleasing to some.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]Furthermore, 'we' have not already dismissed the awe-factor. [i:2167dd9527]You[/i:2167dd9527] have. I disagree with you about whether or not it should be dismissed. I believe it is an intrinsic part of the performance and cannot be dismissed. It is possible to combine two elements together in a performance, such as comedy and song, dance and drama, vocal acrobatics and music.[/quote:2167dd9527]

I had dismissed the awe-factor for the sake of my second argument, just as I had dismissed the musical factor for the sake of my first argument. I was dividing my case into two different arguments to deal with them seperately.

Yes, vocal acrobatics and music can be combined into a performance.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]I say that, if the a capella group were to succeed and there were no difference at all listening to one or the other, the effort - on a musical level - is far from a waste of time, but a staggering achievement in singing. And either way, you're listening to a piece of music that you like perfectly well.[/quote:2167dd9527]

This is where I disagree. The effort would not be a waste of time as a vocal acrobatics achievement (and I would be truly amazed at hearing such a thing!), but if there would be no differences, musically nothing would have changed. No change, music wise.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]If the a capella group were to fall short of their attempt and there [i:2167dd9527]was[/i:2167dd9527] a difference between listening to them and listening to the original, then there is still a problem I see with your argument:

You like covers that are different from the original. This cover would be different from the original. Therefore, musically, it adds something new, and you would, theoretically, like it.[/quote:2167dd9527]

Again, I agree I was wrong. Musically it adds something new and unique, which, so far, has been a criteria of all covers I've liked. It's not the only criteria, though. The rest of my criteria are probably just a matter of taste.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]But you don't like it, because the group were not trying to be different, but trying to be the same as the original. Therefore, it's not the performance that bothers you, but the intention of the performers. So you are not judging this piece by its own merits on musical quality, but over an intellectual quibble.[/quote:2167dd9527]

I guess neither you or me know the core intention of a capella performers. My guess is that one of the reasons they do it because they enjoy the challenge of the vocal acrobatics. It is probably different between different performers, too.

I think my natural dislike for a capella covers is that I interpret their attempt to sound instrument-like as a failure, as they don't sound exactly the same. This makes me think it's a silly way to do something that could be done better with a stereo and a cd. But I think now that my interpretation of their attempt may be wrong. And as you've argued, what difference does the intention do, if the product is enjoyeable.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"][quote:2167dd9527="KaptenKaries"]So what does an a capella cover add that wasn't there in the original? One obvious answer is a new texture. What makes a capella covers special from other covers? The difference is they're trying to get the texture as close to the original as possible. So the one thing that differences the a capella cover from the original is the one thing they're trying to get rid of. I haven't yet heard someone succeed.[/quote:2167dd9527]
So if you prefer it to sound different, you should be OK with this. But you reject what the group has done on the grounds of what it was trying to do. But if it achieved what it was trying to do, the song you would hear would be indistinguishable from a song you love, you wouldn't notice, and you would just enjoy the performance.[/quote:2167dd9527]

Yes, if they hit it spot on, I would just as much enjoy listening to an a capella group doing a cover as hearing the original. I would like it because I liked the original, not because of the vocal acrobats' achievement. I would also probably be awe-struck by the skill of the performance, which has nothing to do with the music they performed, but it would be easier for me to judge their skill as they would present it with a piece of music I knew well. Just as I would more enjoy listening to a good high fidelity equipment reproducing one of my favourite albums than a low fidelity equipment reproducing the same album.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]Is the a capella performance music?

If it sounds identical to the original, and the original is music, then it has to be. If you can't tell the difference, then it's still the piece you enjoy. It is produced in an unusual way, that's all. People used to say that synthesised music was not real music, because the sound was reproduced in a different way, but I would disagree with them. I also posit that any performance is more than just music, which is one part of the total.[/quote:2167dd9527]

I totally agree.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]What if it doesn't sound identical to the original? Then, by your standard, it is still music because it adds something new. If this was unintentional, it is still inadvertently true. Either way, the intention was to perform a song, which, in my book, is music.[/quote:2167dd9527]

Yep, I agree here too, in contradiction with my previous post. The new texture might have a musical quality of it's own. Go ahead and listen to as much a capella music as you want, I won't stop you!


[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"]If it is not identical, but adds something new (intentionally or not), do you enjoy this piece of music? You may or may not, but to judge it on its own merits as a performance (since you asked what I meant by that) would mean forgetting about what the performers were trying to do and thinking only about what they did. Do you like that performance of that song? If your answer is, "No, I found it a bit lifeless," or, "No, I found the vocalist sounded like he was trying to hard" or something similar, then fair enough! But, "No, because it was an a capella performance, which I think is a waste of time" is to judge it on entirely different grounds.[/quote:2167dd9527]

Now I understand what you meant.

[quote:2167dd9527="Buzzfloyd"][quote:2167dd9527]And my conclusion is that I dislike it because this kind of a capella, the kind that covers songs to try and sound as close to the original as possible, is not music. When done skillfully it is an impressive circus act. But music it is not.[/quote:2167dd9527]
As I have argued above, I believe it [i:2167dd9527]is[/i:2167dd9527] music. I believe it is also an impressive showcasing of skill, and that the two are not mutually exclusive. You might dislike the song, but I find your reasons for disliking it to be strange and contradictory.[/quote:2167dd9527]

If you like how it sounds, not just because you like the original piece of music but because the delivery adds something new for you, then the delivery will be a musical achievement to you. If you like it because of the amazing skill of the vocalists, then the performance will be an acrobatic achievement to you. And it can be both at the same time.

To me, the delivery doesn't add anything, I just feel like I miss something. So I regard it as an acrobatic performance, even though you've proven to me that it can in fact be a musical performance as well.

I think you're right in calling my reasons strange and contradictory. I find my behaviour and reasoning contradictory all the time. And even though I can see how you've proven me wrong through this, I can't help still considering a capella covers sub standard music. I just do. Strange? Yes. Contradictory? Yes.

My inconsistency doesn't surprise me as much as it used to.

[quote:500ffe26d9="Delphine"]"Not meant to be enjoyed musically"? Are we going by the KaptenKaries Dictionary Definition of "music" here? What possibly gives you the authority to pronounce what is music and what is not? i'm genuinely baffled. [/quote:500ffe26d9]

That bit was when I was evaluating a capella as a showcase of vocal skill. I was, for that paragraph, ignoring the musical aspect of it all.

I cannot do anything other than to base my statements on the KaptenKaries Dictionary Definition of "music", as I know no other definition.

[quote:500ffe26d9="Delphine"]I think you'll find that a capella singers do not try and reproduce the sounds of the instruments to the very last degree (with the exception of the drums). They're singers. It's an interpretation of a song, not a reproduction of one. They take the sounds the individual instruments make together, and simulate the overall effect through harmonies and vocal effects. [/quote:500ffe26d9]

This mistake of mine is what I think might be the reason to my dislike for the genre.

[quote:500ffe26d9="Delphine"]So, I would say they do add something new to it. When I heard this for the first time, I thought what a pleasant overall sound it produced before i thought "wow, those drums sound so lifelike". It impressed me after I had appeciated it as a nice piece of music. It's quite different. It's certainly not everybodies cup of tea, which is what i said earlier. I'm perfectly happy for people to dislike it. If they have issues with people [i:500ffe26d9]liking[/i:500ffe26d9] it though, that really annoys me. It's the difference between saying "i don't like your jumper" and "you really are an utterly stupid moron for wearing that jumper".[/quote:500ffe26d9]

I hope you didn't interpret my post as "you really are an utterly stupid moron for listening to a capella music". That was not what I wanted to communicate.

[quote:500ffe26d9="Delphine"]Also: it really doesn't matter how much you liked Dub Side of the Moon. This is less about pink floyd now, and more about the fact you're presenting your views on a capella as if they are cold fact, and when in actual fact, "judging by its own merits" appears to mean, for you, "pointing out all things I don't like about it". I don't think you've said a lot about the actual example of a capella here. Mostly, it's rantings about why you hate a capella in general.[/quote:500ffe26d9]

Perhaps I was making the mistake of basing my argument on grounds that were not cold fact. I think the "judging by its own merits" thing was just me not knowing exactly what the sentance meant.

But yes, I was pointing out the things I didn't like about a capella. Just as you are now pointing out the things you don't like about my post.

[quote:500ffe26d9="Delphine"]Fair one. We get the point. It's a matter of opinion and not worth arguing about. I just get annoyed by statements like this:

"When done skillfully it is an impressive circus act. But music it is not."

"Also, if there are any a capella singers reading the boards, sorry for upsetting you, but go buy some real instruments, they're really quite easy to learn."

I consider this pure arrogance.[/quote:500ffe26d9]

I am sorry I annoy you, that is not my intention. When I look back to it, both those statements was wrong, the first because it did not correctly communicate what I was trying to say, and the second one because it was kinda mean, wasn't it?

From my point of view, there is really no difference between this kind of a capella and Apocalyptica doing a cover of Metallica songs with classic instruments. Both have their own merits, fairly big ones being the innovation of the idea and the quality of the implementation.

At the end of the day, both are music. Those who liked the originals may not like the covers. I myself tend not to like covers of original songs I like.
They may not be original music but rather reverse-engineered music, but that doesn't stop them from being music.

[quote:e854130aa0="Buzzfloyd"]Fair enough, KK! For the record, I do a lot of a capella singing in the true sense of 'singing unaccompanied by musical instruments', but I have never done any of the kind that mimics other instruments.[/quote:e854130aa0]

That's the kind I occationally like, then.

One of my favorite groups to listen to and just chill with are The King's Singers. They do all of their songs a cappella. Some of their Beatles covers are really neat.

Well here's the opposite, a Nirvana song done by an orchestra : http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4803423935382385205

Pretty neat...