Album Rating: 3.5

His pitch is part of his performance. You are talking about his vocal lines and that's a different story

Performance includes both vocal lines as well as the delivery of them. Both Lessard's vocal lines and his vocal delivery are pretty subdued and samey throughout the album.

Album Rating: 3.5

I see the vocal lines more as a part of the composition. Let's say someone covers a song, this person would sing the same lines, but the performances would be different

The performance would be the same if the vocal lines and every inflection was mimic'd exactly, which for this album would be pretty easy to do since there's hardly any.

Album Rating: 3.5

That's a fair point, but isn't a performance more about how things happen than what things happen? If that makes sense. You could sing the same notes, but with more passion for example

Album Rating: 4.0

These vocal lines are insanely difficult to sing with any passion though. I think he already shows passion in his delivery, but the lines themselves just don't bring any energy to the table

I feel like it's both. What notes you play or sing + how you play or sing those notes. I can see why you feel the performance is different from composition, but in my experience, performance also affects composition.

Like, you might write a certain melody, but when you record it you find things that work better than other things depending on the way it works with the energy and tone you're giving it.

Also, I'm reminded of a Devin Townsend interview where he said he's not averse to autotune because sometimes you nail the tone and feeling of a vocal part and not the pitch and the pitch is easier to correct, so go for it, because if you kept redoing the part to get the pitch right it's going to change the feel of it.

Album Rating: 4.0

"Except clearly people were referring to Lessard's PERFORMANCE and NOT his pitch when they say he's flat."



Was that clear? Cuz coming from a guy who studies music, FLAT is a term used commonly to describe pitch.



Regardless, I still took it as being limited in range, which is why I offered a couple of comparisons.



I still stick by my statement. Vocal range is dependent on the music its suited to. I think his range in this album is perfectly balanced with how this album plays out.

Album Rating: 2.5

Sweet more Contortionist debate



Where we at

Album Rating: 4.5

gahd Language really is SO much better tho

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

it is tbh

Album Rating: 4.0

I barely remember this album, all I know is that I was bored listening to it

"Was that clear? Cuz coming from a guy who studies music, FLAT is a term used commonly to describe pitch"

I thought it was contextually clear. No one is accusing lessard of singing off-key. Just critiquing the general lack of energy and variation in the vocals.

Album Rating: 4.0

Agreed, sitar.

Album Rating: 4.0

YEA, I KNOW, SITAR.



That is why I suggested the confusion on two levels. One being pitch, and one being range, and then I argued that both are rather silly, because range shouldn't dictate a good vocal performance.



Matt Berninger from the national has a fairly piss poor range a good amount of the time, but his performance is rarely classified as flat.



My second comment merely clarifies that using the term FLAT might not be the best word to use to describe his performance because it can refer to multiple things, namely PITCCCCHHHHH, because it's a literal term used to describe it, which you know.

Album Rating: 4.0

I seriously wouldve 4.5'd this after listening 3 times over



Jammed recently and it's soooo mehhhh3.6ish

Album Rating: 2.5

Listening to this album after Exoplanet: https://media.tenor.com/images/1941bfc2568af17808e6cd924ca969a2/tenor.gif

Album Rating: 4.5

sorta correct... papad

"YEA, I KNOW, SITAR.

That is why I suggested the confusion on two levels. One being pitch, and one being range, and then I argued that both are rather silly, because range shouldn't dictate a good vocal performance.

Matt Berninger from the national has a fairly piss poor range a good amount of the time, but his performance is rarely classified as flat.

My second comment merely clarifies that using the term FLAT might not be the best word to use to describe his performance because it can refer to multiple things, namely PITCCCCHHHHH, because it's a literal term used to describe it, which you know."


BRUH! Don't act like you've never heard of context.

"Pitch" can also be a grassy field on which sports are played, the throwing of a baseball, the distance between the threads of a screw, the gradient of an incline, a type of resin and, incidentally, the intensity of something. And that's just the noun meanings I can think of off the top of my head. Yet, no one is confused when someone says a singer's pitch is off.

Similarly, literally no one except you seems to have a problem understanding the context of the word flat being used to describe Lessard's performance. It's almost as if context has some kind of role to play in human communication and makes the meaning of certain words clear.

And additionally, I agree that the using of a wide range of notes does not ipso facto make a performance interesting or energetic and that, conversely, using a narrow range of notes does not ipso facto make a performance monotonous. The argument is that here Lessard's performance here is generally monotonous and unmemorable, due to a combination of his lack of energy in vocal delivery, as well as the melodies themselves being pretty samey throughout the album.

Album Rating: 4.0

..."and that, conversely, using a narrow range of notes does not ipso facto make a performance monotonous. "



Which was my argument in the first place man.



"The argument is that here Lessard's performance here is generally monotonous and unmemorable, due to a combination of his lack of energy in vocal delivery, as well as the melodies themselves being pretty samey throughout the album."



Which is it then? You now seem to be contradicting yourself. We're running in circles. I'm done.



Shit's not flat.