And we would have stuck with Mint's method which actually established a consensus for a little while, but everybody won't shut the fuck up about Freddie being too high, so now we will do these breakdowns until that is resolved.

Has Tim vs. Freddie been done?

Breath Support - Buckley
Consistency - Buckley
Diction - Mercury
Endurance - Buckley

Switching - Buckley (by far)
Runs - Buckley
Blending - Buckley
Pitch - Tied
Vibrato - Buckley (by far)
*Damn, Freddie gets spanked here!*

Projection - Mercury
Resonance - Mercury
Use Of Range - Buckley
Sustain - Buckley

Tech vers - Buckley
Tonal vers - Buckley
Stylistic vers - Mercury

Yes, Neg, that's been done already, if you look at the last few pages all I've(I guess we've) been doing is breaking down Freddie against everyone in the top 10.

Freddie's getting his ass kicked...

I think Tim seriously has a shot at beating Wilson actually...

Breath Support - Tied
Consistency - Buckley
Diction - Wilson
Endurance - Wilson

Switching - Wilson
Runs - Tied
Blending - Buckley
Pitch - Tied
Vibrato - Buckley (used more frequently and at higher pitches)
Volume Control - Tied

Projection - Wilson
Resonance - Wilson
Use Of Range - Buckley
Sustain - Buckley

Tech vers - Tied
Tonal vers - Tied
Stylistic vers - Tied

Actually, that method didn't even involve Farnham. He was at 11, Ikon/Lefty moved him to 10 ahead of Balsamo of his own accord, I said nothing about it. I'm also curious, curiosity, why you didn't add Cornell and Tim Buckley to this conspiracy theory because they both got the biggest boosts out of anyone! Oh, but wait, you're probably happy about that aren't you, princess?

And my method was better because it compared everyone at the same time, which establishes how much certain vocalists beat others in certain criteria areas relative to other singers on the list. I honestly didn't manipulate the process at all.

This 1v1 method is flawed, because, for instance, you might decide that (and this is just for examples sake), Wilson beats Tim Buckley, who beats Adam Lambert, who beats Wilson. Then what do you do?

And Ikon, there is no way in the world that Jeff Buckley ties Freddie for diction. I've been listening to a lot of Jeff Buckley lately and diction is not one of his strongest suits. He has okay diction, whereas Freddie's - except for the times that he muddied it for effect, was excellent. Stone Cold Crazy, Dead on Time as examples of good diction, where it is very difficult to have good diction because of how rapid the phrasing is. He also had great dicton in falsetto and higher in his range. You keep moving on with Freddie losing these breakdowns to everyone by like 1 point and deciding yep that means they're better. This is just ridiculous to me, and I'm still not convinced that Tim Buckley actually won that first one you did. Your idea of weighting is different to mine too. I think the 4 pods of criteria should be worth the same, which means that versatility should be equal to control, should be equal to power and range should be equal to technique. Some just have more sub-criteria than others to help you figure it out, but surely thinking of it in terms of 4 criteria is a lot better than a number fast approaching 20!

Princess? What? Anyway, I was just messing with you. The problem is that it's basically impossible to get a consensus top 10 because of disagreements in how singers should be ranked in a score-out-of-ten system. For example, should Freddie get a 9/10 for resonance or an 8/10? You end up splitting hairs.



I can agree with you there. I'd been saying the same thing for some time.

Which is why it wasn't a rank out of 10 method. It was ranking the top 10 at the time, 1 to 10, by each of the 4 criteria areas, technique, control, power and range, versatility and then combining those 4 lists.

So to give you a 3 person example:

Technique:
1. Roger Federer
2. David Letterman
3. George Bush

Control:
1. Roger Federer
2. George Bush
3. David Letterman

Power and Range:
1. George Bush
2. David Letterman
3. Roger Federer

Versatility:
1. Roger Federer
2. David Letterman
3. George Bush

Overall:
1. Roger Federer (1+1+3+1=6)
Tied 2. David Letterman (2+3+2+2)=9)
Tied 2. George Bush (3+2+1+3=9)

Do you get it now? It compares everyone to everyone else at the same time and in the end the guys who do consistently well will make it to the top. This is why guys like Tim Buckley, Mercury and Cornell did well, and why guys like Perry and Balsamo did not.

Ah yes, I remember now. The issue here is that it still doesn't "establish how much certain vocalists beat others in certain criteria". It's simply ranking them in order of best to worst.

Which does establish how much they beat others by because it's relative to all the others in competition for those places.

Because say, Cornell might beat Steve Perry in Power and Range by 8 positions, whereas Perry only beats Cornell in control by 4 positions. So relative to everyone else, Cornell beats Perry in power and range by more than Perry beats Cornell in control.

Fair enough on diction Mint. Also, just so you know, I think your method was fine, and in all honesty, everybody pretty much agreed when we were finished with it, allowing us to move on and actually engage in expanding the list for once. The reason I now go back to the top 10 and am doing these breakdowns with Mercury is because I'm trying to address the issue that everybody won't stop harping over, but we're again running into the same contradictions and close calls that caused the same problems before. Maybe we should organize the top 10 again using your method, but instead this time every one should actually try to actively participate and there might be less complaining when it's done.

runs be Wilsons, nd tonal vers. be T. Buck

I don't think so. I didn't do it in hte nicest way, but i told Mint yesterday that that method incites almost no real discussion, there's little-to-no friendly fire involved, and also unless we were all in agreement that we're doing this in a light-hearted humorous way not involving all of our actual knowledge of vocals... Its a farce because of how disingenuous it is as a "system'. It maybe a lesser of two evils in terms of getting hte list DONE but not in getting it accurate.

So what would you suggest as the right metod, Jest?

The most objective solution is making top 50's for each criteria in criteria rankings and than rank the singers according to those criteria ranking. Of course, that's nearly impossible.

And Ikon, if we give diction to Freddie, he wins that breakdown, so Jeff should stay behind Freddie... I'll look at Cornell Freddie breakdown in a few minutes...

There isn't one. What we do NOW causes great discussion, a need for constant new material etc.. etc.. etc.. ITs a GREAT way to do it... Since we're not all anally retentive like Mint, it allows us the freedom to use all of our knowledge while not having to clear-cut anything. Its perfect.

err i dont think diction gives Merc that breakdown.

I think i already did Cornell/Merc.. will try find