UNITED KINGDOM 2010 - Josh Dubovie - That Sounds Good to Me

[thms]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -tune.html

Britain's Eurovision singer was not most out of tune

The UK may have come last in the Eurovision Song Contest but Josh Dubovie was not the most out of tune performer, it was suggested.

That honour went to Serbia's Milan Stankovic, who despite coming well above Britain in 13th place hit 117 wrong notes in last night's contest, according to research by text question and answer service 63336.

In comparison Dubovie, 19, missed 49 notes - equivalent of 16.7 per minute - during his rendition of That Sounds Good To Me.

This made him the fourth most out of tune competitor in a league table of the 25 nations who took to the stage in Oslo, Norway.

However, Dubovie's pitch was better than Eurovision winner Lena, who sang bum notes at a rate of 21.9 per minute when she performed hit Satellite for Germany, earning her third place in the table.

The statistics were collected by pitch perfect researchers who analysed the live performances and compared them with versions recorded for the Eurovision album.

 

[FallenAngelII]

Scientifically verifyiable investigations on pitch do not invalidate someone's objective opinion about whether a singer is good or not.

I never said that. I said that no matter what your personal opinion on him are, he was still one of the worst performers on final night when it came to staying in tune, something crucial for being a good vocalist. His vocal abilities are subpar, i.e. he cannot be considered a "good singer". You can think whatever you want, the scientific facts tell another story.

You can say he's one of your favourite singers, or that he's got one of your favourite singing voices, etc., but you cannot claim he's a good singer because that is scientifically measurable! Being a good singer entails, among other things, being able to stay in tune and having a wide range. He was terrible at staying in the tune and the song barely had any range at all. His performance did not prove him a good singer.

I wonder if you'd be saying this if there wasn't a handy investigation on the subject.

I've been saying it for years. Vocal ability is not subjective. Because vocal ability is not something like art, which si subjective to each person. Vocal ability is a skill that can be honed, a skill which can be measured, a skill which can be compared, a skill which can be scientifically verified.

It's not like a painter whose art may speak to some, yet not others. It's more like being an athlete where you can measure someone's ability, like, say, their ability to kick a football. You can do this to singers by measuring how well they can stay in tune and how large their range is.

Just because you say that it is not subjective doesn't make it so. In fact, I would argue semantics on this one. I think the entire definition is up or debate.

So, in your mind, being a good vocalist is entirely subjective? As long as there are people out there who think you are a good singer, you obviously are? So the many, many, many Idol rejects the world over who didn't even make it to the second audition because they were terrible at exactly everything are actually good vocalists because their parents, their friends and their greedy voice coaches think/claim they are good?

I'll give Josh props for one thing: They barely altered his singing in the studio version. All they did was autotune it so he was in-tune for the entirety of the song. They didn't alter his voice to be less shaky, etc. Heck, they didn't even improve on his prolonged note on "opportunit-yyyyyyyyyyy" (it's quite obvious he cannot hold a single note for a prolonged period of time. He loses his breath quite quickly (another sign of him being a sub-par singer) and thus his voice also loses volume and he has to end the note abruptly, clearly prematurely as compared to how the composers wrote the song to be sung.), which actually makes it sound a bit peculiar (since even in the studio version, his voice keeps going quiter and quiter during that one note and then ending abruptly before it's "supposed" to).

Cheap producers or just realistic and honest producers?

 

[Samb]

His vocal abilities are subpar, i.e. he cannot be considered a "good singer".

You're basing this on one performance in one of the most-watched programmes in the world. One perfomance. So your assertion is a generalisation.

Vocal ability is a skill that can be honed, a skill which can be measured, a skill which can be compared, a skill which can be scientifically verified.

There is no perfect singing standard, so this is not actualy verifiable fact. You can hit notes and still be a bad singer. I would have thought Singstar et al would have proved that.

So, in your mind, being a good vocalist is entirely subjective?

I didn't say entirely. But your position is one that is mathematical, almost formulaic; and one that does not apply to the arts.

 

[FallenAngelII]

You're basing this on one performance in one of the most-watched programmes in the world. One perfomance. So your assertion is a generalisation.

So are most people in this thread claiming he's a brilliant vocalist. It's all we have to work with. Also, I'm also asing it on his national final performance. And he made the same mistakes both times, so his inability to stay in tune can't be blamed merely on nerves because he went out of tune mostly at the exact same notes both times. And the song isn't even hard to sing. It was one of the easiest songs to sing in the contest because it barely had any range, it didn't jump wildly between notes ever and had only, like, two prolonged notes (both of which he botched).

Not even being able to stay in tune while performing a song which is technically easy to perform does say something about your vocal ability.

There is no perfect singing standard, so this is not actualy verifiable fact. You can hit notes and still be a bad singer. I would have thought Singstar et al would have proved that.

SingStar has a horrible voice recognition system. Also, if you have perfect pitch, even if your voice is grating, you are a good vocalist on a technical level.

I didn't say entirely. But your position is one that is mathematical, almost formulaic; and one that does not apply to the arts.

It does when it comes to skills which can be honed. Even arts such as... art can be technically measured to some extent. For example, one can measure how well someone can perfectly replicate a still life or a portrait, just as one can determine how well one can stay in tune, how well one can hold out long notes and how large one's range is.

According to you, what exactly does "being a good singer" entail? Apparently, being able to stay in tune, having a large range, being able to sing long notes play quite small parts in determining how good a singer is? Apparently, someone's subjective opinion about how good of a singer someone is trumps all that?

 

[Samb]

So are most people in this thread claiming he's a brilliant vocalist.

I couldn't care, it doesn't detract from the argument. The thing is that you're trying to base an assertion on one perormance because there is evidence for it, thats what you have to work with. You can bold things all you like.

Also, if you have perfect pitch, even if your voice is grating, you are a good vocalist on a technical level.

oh wow

example, one can measure how well someone can perfectly replicate a still life or a portrait

Art is not a replicatable form. Is that the bottom of a barrel I hear scraping?

As far as i'm concerned, you can keep shouting about technics, science et all until you're hoarse, I couldn't particularly care - and it seems the majority of posters here don't either.

 

[AlekS]

As far as i'm concerned, you can keep shouting about technics, science et all until you're hoarse, I couldn't particularly care - and it seems the majority of posters here don't either.

If you don't care then why did you quote his post? Thrice.


In any case would you please concentrate on the subject instead of labeling someone's behavior. Thanx.

 

[Samb]

If you don't care then why did you quote his post?

Because pointing out its shortcomings is not mutually exclusive.

I don't see anything wrong here.

 

[AlekS]

If you don't care then why did you quote his post?

Because pointing out its shortcomings is not mutually exclusive.

I don't see anything wrong here.

It wouldn't be mutually exclusive if you didn't reply to him at all.
Ponting out its shortcomings means that you care.
In any case I'd like you to point out opinion's shortcomings... not shortcomings of its owner

 

[FallenAngelII]

I couldn't care, it doesn't detract from the argument. The thing is that you're trying to base an assertion on one perormance because there is evidence for it, thats what you have to work with. You can bold things all you like.

Funny, you keep cropping out anything in my posts refuting what you're about to write (despite the fact that I have already pre-empted your shoddy arguments most of the time) in order to make your points look less ridiculous.

I did not base my assesment of Josh's vocal abilities off of just one performance, I based it off of two (national final + ESC final) and the fact that he goes out of tune at pretty much the exact same spots indicates that it had nothing to do with nerves, it's just the extent of his ability.

Also, if you have perfect pitch, even if your voice is grating, you are a good vocalist on a technical level.

oh wow

Is my English not plain enough for you? What part of "technical level" was too Dutch voor jou?

Just as one can be perfectly adept at replicating a still life without being able to create actual art which touches the beholder, one can train one's voice to be able to perfectly replicate notes, yet stay a good vocalist strictly on a technical level because one's voice is by nature annoying.

As far as i'm concerned, you can keep shouting about technics, science et all until you're hoarse, I couldn't particularly care - and it seems the majority of posters here don't either.

Funny. It's like you're not even reading my posts before replying to them, simply skimming them trying to find even the slighest weakness to "refute". I said that when it comes to art, you can measure something specific, such as an artist's ability to perfectly replicate, for example, a still life. You can then compare the skills of two different artists at replicating a still life without making any real judgment on their overall ability at creating art.

Likewise, you can measure certain skills to measure how good a of a vocalist someone is. Because being a vocalist means having good vocals and that is something quite measurable. You can rage all you want about how subjective singing ability is (it isn't) since it's an "art" (no, music is art, singing ability is not), but it won't change the facts.

Also, the "majority of posters here don't either"? What, the, oh, three people who have had the courage to go up against? The 4 or so misguided individuals who have, with a straight face, claimed Josh hit every note perfectly (clearly they were wrong), most of which have stayed noticeably silent once I threw the article up for discussion?

According to you, anything that is even close to being able to be considered an art is strictly subjective and someone can be considered a good artist as long as there's someone, somewhere willing to support them. I guess that 3 yearold's finger painting is fine art since his or her mother gave him or her praise for it. I guess that American Idol reject who couldn't even hit 50% of the notes of their audition piece is a brilliant singer because his or her friends keep telling him or her that.

Or is someone only a "good vocalist" when you think they are?

 

[MrJadeEwen]

Arguments and disputes through essays?

don't kill your hands too much guys, the song sucked... it got last place better off discussing 2011 then bantering over "what if" scenarios

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

^
xgood

 

[Samb]

Or is someone only a "good vocalist" when you think they are?

I think we're done here.

 

[charlesf]

JOSH SAID IN AN INTERVIEW:

"Everybody is entitled to their opinion and I think I did what I could with the song," he said.

"Personally I like it, I tried to add my own twist. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but maybe if I release a new one, people will like that instead."

Josh's being classy and professional about it, not joining a pile-on on the composer (as mediocre as the song was, it ain't cool for the performer to do so). But you can read between the lines. Josh plainly was aware of the limitations of the song.

Must say Josh comes across as a very nice chap. Not sure he has the charisma to do that well in showbiz, but I wish him well.

Now, I wonder how the UK will react to this. They really need to up their game.

 

[AdrianW]

Or is someone only a "good vocalist" when you think they are?

I think we're done here.

I agree. I suggest that everyone who does NOT have an obsessive desire to keep the argument going says no more on the subject!

 

[Matt]

escdaily.com

The BBC has stated that it as “very disappointed” by the UK’s result in this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, coming last out of 25 with “That Sounds Good to Me”.

A statement on the broadcaster’s Eurovision Facebook group read: “Obviously we were all very disappointed with the UK result this year. But rest assured we’ll be working hard to improve the UK’s position in 2011. A number of ideas are already being discussed within the BBC as to how to do this. Naturally it will take some time to firm up our exact plans.”

When Jemini came last in 2003, the BBC scrapped the then national final “A Song for Europe” and replaced it with “Making Your Mind Up” in an effort to re-launch the contest domestically. James Fox finished 16th the following year, however only him and Daz Sampson escaped the bottom four at Eurovision under the new national final.

After Scooch finished second-last in 2007, the BBC changed to “Eurovision- Your Decision”, but this only lasted one year after Andy Abraham came last in 2008.

2009 saw fortunes turn around with “Eurovision- Your Country Needs You”, fronted by Graham Norton. With Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber and Diana Warren writing the song, and Colin Barlow giving it and the singer record-label backing, the United Kingdom finished fifth in Moscow. However the joy was short-lived as the UK again finished last this year, coupled with the BBC’s worst set of viewing figures for the contest in recent years.

 

[Matt]

UK Televotes (Final)

12 pts Ireland
10 pts Turkey
08 pts Greece
07 pts Germany
06 pts France
05 pts Denmark
04 pts Belgium
03 pts Cyprus
02 pts Iceland
01 pt Romania


UK Jury (Final):
12 pts Romania
10 pts Greece
08 pts Ukraine
07 pts Israel
06 pts Albania
05 pts Turkey
04 pts Denmark
03 pts Georgia
02 pts Armenia
01 pt Portugal

Combined Vote (Final):
12 pts Greece (8+10 = 18)
10 pts Turkey (10+5 = 15)
08 pts Romania (1+12 = 13)
07 pts Ireland (12+0 = 12)
06 pts Denmark (5+4 = 9)
05 pts Ukraine (0+8 = 8 )
04 pts Germany (7+0 = 7*)
03 pts Israel (0+7 = 7 *)
02 pts France (6+0 = 6*)
01 pts Albania (0+6 = 6*)



Televoting (Semifinal):
12 pts Lithuania
10 pts Ireland
08 pts Turkey
07 pts Cyprus
06 pts Georgia
05 pts Romania
04 pts Netherlands
03 pts Bulgaria
02 pts Sweden
01 pt Denmark
Jury Vote (Semifinal):
12 pts Romania
10 pts Israel
08 pts Bulgaria
07 pts Ukraine
06 pts Sweden
05 pts Turkey
04 pts Ireland
03 pts Armenia
02 pts Cyprus
01 pt Azerbaijan
Combined Vote (Semifinal):
12 pts Romania (5+12 = 17)
10 pts Ireland (10+4 = 14)
08 pts Turkey (8+5 = 13)
07 pts Lithuania (12+0 = 12)
06 pts Bulgaria (3+8 = 11)
05 pts Israel (0+10 = 10)
04 pts Cyprus (7+2 = 9)
03 pts Sweden (2+6 =
02 pts Ukraine (0+7 = 7)
01 pts Georgia (6+0 = 6)

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Like Josh's new Facebook page, he'll be happy if you do .
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Josh-James-Dubovie-Official/176573902389360

 

[Stella]

liked

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

JOSHHHHHHHH!!

 

[Quent91]

ooh I missed him when I was in NY He wasn't there