Why does everyone hate James Blunt?
- Thread starter Shure
- Start date
Chronos-X said:
They were an example I used of someone who had sold multi-millions of records, broke into the US but were still 'remotely crap' as it was put, I don't care how good their songs were (and I admit some were - Say You'll Be There to add another example). I'd never 'diss' an artist or group just because they are popular.
It's like this:
Some people think that a man with a high voice automatically means good singer. It doesn't. He's got no range; it's all on the top end, like his speaking voice. His records are bad enough but singing live on TOTP he looks and sounds like a bad karaoke singer, ie: no presence, poor control, poor pronunciation (budeyfour instead of beautiful).
It's dad music. A forty-ish fella a work once said that Chris Martin had an amazing vocal range (just because of the falsetto).
I blame radio 2. When middle-aged people hear songs played on R2 ad infinitum they think the songs must be for them.
Some people think that a man with a high voice automatically means good singer. It doesn't. He's got no range; it's all on the top end, like his speaking voice. His records are bad enough but singing live on TOTP he looks and sounds like a bad karaoke singer, ie: no presence, poor control, poor pronunciation (budeyfour instead of beautiful).
It's dad music. A forty-ish fella a work once said that Chris Martin had an amazing vocal range (just because of the falsetto).
I blame radio 2. When middle-aged people hear songs played on R2 ad infinitum they think the songs must be for them.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 738
- Location
- Brisbane
'Those three wisemen, they've got a semi by the sea...' 
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,124
- Location
- Basingstoke, UK
.. but Queen didn't, shows you that you can't always use that as a yardstickBelmit said:The Spice Girls managed it.
I like James Blunt, along with a lot of other stuff which ranges through lots of styles.
Maybe it's because I don't listen to the radio or music television and, therefore, I don't get a chance to hate it all as a repeatative piece of crap. Either way, I like it because it's simple, to the point and easy to listen to.
Phil.
Maybe it's because I don't listen to the radio or music television and, therefore, I don't get a chance to hate it all as a repeatative piece of crap. Either way, I like it because it's simple, to the point and easy to listen to
.Phil.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,920
I saw him live at the Sage, Newcastle last year and it was one of the best live performances ive ever seen. he was amazing.
I personally don't know about the fashion to **** off Blunt, but I disliked "You're Beautiful" from the first time I ever heard it on the radio - and the incessant playing of it every morning and evening on the daily commute by the radio station only made the dislike turn into hatred. He just sounds so pathetic!
riddlermarc said:.. but Queen didn't, shows you that you can't always use that as a yardstick
I'd say it only reinforces the theory that the majority of the music-going public have incredibly banal tastes.
I liked JB the frst time I heard one of his songs and I still like his album that I bought not long after that. But, and here's the rub, I don't listen to Radio 1 or 2 nor do I listen to 'commercial' stations, so I'm not being bombarded all day by You're Beautiful etc. No doubt if I was it would tick me off fairly rapidly.
It does generally seem to be the in thing to **** him off either because he's succesfull or just because everyone else is.
BTW my taste in music ranges from Classical through Folk to Death Metal so it's not as if I only like this genre.
S
It does generally seem to be the in thing to **** him off either because he's succesfull or just because everyone else is.
BTW my taste in music ranges from Classical through Folk to Death Metal so it's not as if I only like this genre.
S
Can't stand his music, it's dull and incredibly uninteresting, if i wanted to listen to something like him i'd listen to jack Johnson, who is IMO so much better it's untrue, not that i'd buy any JJ either, just not really something i want to listen to.
I agree with the few who have said that it's fashionable to hate James Blunt. I don't think everyone hates James Blunt, just the indie fans as he has gone to mainstream for them I think.
I think saying his voice is stupid is just an excuse, what about Clap Your Hands Say Yeah lead, crap voice, but they're still popular. Same with Modest Mouse.
I still like James Blunt's songs have done for a while, before he became so popular as well. My brother bought the album with the grey cover, early 2005 iirc.
I think saying his voice is stupid is just an excuse, what about Clap Your Hands Say Yeah lead, crap voice, but they're still popular. Same with Modest Mouse.
I still like James Blunt's songs have done for a while, before he became so popular as well. My brother bought the album with the grey cover, early 2005 iirc.
Carlos_S said:
Fair enough he isnt the best singer in the world, but at least their songs are varied and slightly interesting. Also, his voice is not bad in an annoying way and it suits the songs.
Never liked James Blunt, not because he is popular either.
I like him and don't like him at the same time.
I'm even not above playing "You're beautiful" or "Goodbye my lover", albeit I sing it an octave down as I'm a baritone, and in a different style to the original.
There's been mentioned the whole 'bigging up' and then 'knocking down' thing, like what occured with The Darkness.
As I see it it occurs because the artist is bringing something radically different from what is being pumped out by the music industry, something unusual. Its like a breath of fresh air amidst the over-manufactured, over produced stuff you usually get. Metal hadn't really been that exciting until the Darkness single handedly revived the genre. Yes, they're crap in a sort of over-the-top gimmicky kinda way, but that exubrance that came with the over-the-top attitude carried them places, and their music was catchy. They knew how to entertain a crowd and that carried them far. Their debut album was recorded in one week, at their expense, each recording done as a single take, with minimal post-production work done.
Then the fatal happened, same as has happened with James Blunt. Over-exposure. I loved "I believe in a thing called love" when it came out. Its has a certain catchy, over the top, energy to it.
But then I heard it again, and again, and again, and again... etc. etc. etc. etc. Now I'm sick of the song. I turn off the radio if I ever hear it.
The same is happening with James Blunt. "You're beautiful" was nice and kinda romantic in an odd way, but more and more it just too familar and has lost any meaning it once had.
Over-exposure kills songs (can't hear "beautiful day" by U2 any more for that matter thanks to ITV football), and unless the artist has a good strong following, it can kill the artist too. I've listened to "Back to Bedlam" a few times, courtesy of napster, and to be frank the album is the same song over and over again, or at least thats the way it feels. Even Bob Dylan albums never felt like that and most of his early stuff was basically just him, a guitar and a harmonica.
I'm even not above playing "You're beautiful" or "Goodbye my lover", albeit I sing it an octave down as I'm a baritone, and in a different style to the original.
There's been mentioned the whole 'bigging up' and then 'knocking down' thing, like what occured with The Darkness.
As I see it it occurs because the artist is bringing something radically different from what is being pumped out by the music industry, something unusual. Its like a breath of fresh air amidst the over-manufactured, over produced stuff you usually get. Metal hadn't really been that exciting until the Darkness single handedly revived the genre. Yes, they're crap in a sort of over-the-top gimmicky kinda way, but that exubrance that came with the over-the-top attitude carried them places, and their music was catchy. They knew how to entertain a crowd and that carried them far. Their debut album was recorded in one week, at their expense, each recording done as a single take, with minimal post-production work done.
Then the fatal happened, same as has happened with James Blunt. Over-exposure. I loved "I believe in a thing called love" when it came out. Its has a certain catchy, over the top, energy to it.
But then I heard it again, and again, and again, and again... etc. etc. etc. etc. Now I'm sick of the song. I turn off the radio if I ever hear it.
The same is happening with James Blunt. "You're beautiful" was nice and kinda romantic in an odd way, but more and more it just too familar and has lost any meaning it once had.
Over-exposure kills songs (can't hear "beautiful day" by U2 any more for that matter thanks to ITV football), and unless the artist has a good strong following, it can kill the artist too. I've listened to "Back to Bedlam" a few times, courtesy of napster, and to be frank the album is the same song over and over again, or at least thats the way it feels. Even Bob Dylan albums never felt like that and most of his early stuff was basically just him, a guitar and a harmonica.