Samb said:
Okay, if you're going to quote me in a response you should better read yourself and not lump people in. You'll notice most of this thread I haven't really referred to Josh at all - more often the way we select our song, that we have a poor song etc. And heck, I even say in a post that Josh has very little personality! Sure, really sounds that i'm heaping praise on the man!
What, again you reply to a post of mine without reading what I wrote?
You: This is the point about relevance in a nutshell.
Eurovision watchers and voters don't care about the scientific level of pitch accuracy. Unless you're one of these gifted people with a perfect set of ears and pitch recollection?
Me: Have you, you know, read some of the posts in this thread. A whole a bajillion Brits have come in here praising his vocals as if he's some kind of prodigy, as if his voice is great as it stands, as if he was one of the best singers in the contest this year. [Which is why I pulled the scientifically verifiable argument.
I never said
you said anything about his voice. You were ranting about how people don't care if he was scientifically speaking 4th worst in the final vocally speaking. I pointed out that that's neither here nor there, the argument was used to prove a point, to disprove the claims of
some people (and never once did I refer to
you).
The "You"s was a
generic you, which you (that is
you,
Samb) would've realized had you not read everything I write as if it's some kind of personal attack on you.
Samb said:
My point was more that Euroision fans and enthusiasts that watch the show couldn't give a toss about 'scientific facts' and when it comes to something like a song contest don't need scientific research to tell them what acts they can and cannot like.
Which has nothing to do with the argument you just stumbled into the middle of without bothering to read up on the entire argument.
Seriously, you just saw one of my countless posts in this thread and decided to "refute" it despite it being a part of a whole. And I just
told you why your argument has nothing to do with my argument, yet you repeat it!
Samb said:
In something by its very nature is goin to be about personal tastes and to an extent national and regional tastes, a pitch study does not matter because something like singing is notm purely formulaic. You should probably get off your high horse.
Vocal ability is not subjective. Vocal
preference is subjective, as in "I prefer his/her voice over his/her voice". Vocal ability is
not. My argument is that vocally speaking, Josh is mediocre at best. Stick to the subject or butt out of an argument that didn't even involve you to begin with.
Also, clearly Europe has spoken. Out of all 25 entries in the final, Josh was he least liked entry, even among the Western European countries.
That should tell you something.
PoppySnuggleGlass said:
What are we trying to prove here again?
Don't send inexperienced singers whose nerves will get the best of them and make them perform at a noticeably lower level than they are usually capable, and pay special care not to send inexperienced singers with songs which are pants?
Seriously, I predicted Sweden and the UK to do badly (UK to be Bottom 5, Sweden to miss the final or be Bottom 5 in the final had we qualified) months in advance because both countries make the same mistakes:
Send "fresh", young, inexperienced artists whose nerves got the best of them singing songs which were clearly pants.
If either of our countries wish to do better in the future, people need to learn to vote forth better entries (in your case, the selection process has to change so that you have better choices seeing as how you had no choice when it came to the song this year and Josh was simply the lesser of all evils, in our case, the Swedish people need a swift kick in the seat of their pants).
xgay