Or how about someone whose vocal style would actually fit with the music. Her voice fits the song perfectly in my opinion.
Oh, so you have all those singers on hand to record the vocals for you? That's neat.
I'm still struggling to see what's so offensive about Mariqueen's vocals in the first place, but that's just me.
In some people's minds, Trent wrote all the music and lyrics, and everyone else in the band just plays what he tells them
opinions and stuff
Yeah, the 80-90's want their idols back, and Phil Collins is really sad about not being on your little list. I personally like Mariqueen's vocals, and this is possibly my favourite HTDA track so far. If you don't feel the same way, then fine. It's a matter of taste, but for the love of God, don't make it into more than that.
Yeah, wait for the Multitracks and then get YOUR girlfriends/wives to sing...
But seriously, there's this school of thought about the certain appeal of having women sing in songs who cannot actually sing... how should I put it... as well as the song is intended to be? And I think this really started with Nico on Velvet Undergrounds Banana-record... so, yeah, time has shown that this approach can also lead to success & great art. Especially today, I see this trend re-emerge in the neo/synthi/80s revival bands like The XX, How to Destroy Angels, Bat for Lashes, Crystal Castles and, to a lesser extend, Ladytron... I mean, especially The XX, they're popular as fuck & that girl might have breath, but her voice has as much passion as an episode of The Office.
So, yeah, I can see why people wouldn't like Mariqueens voice... but c'est la vie. Wait for the multitracks!
So what? Opinion.
Opinion? You called it a "school of thought". Clearly insinuating that there is a conscious decision being made to have "women sing in songs who cannot actually sing... how should I put it... as well as the song is intended to be?". That's not opinion, so drop the cop out and own it.
Yeah. Sorry. No native speaker, just trying to get the right expressions. My point: I say it is AS fashionable today with modern/dark "electronica" AS it was in the days of post-punk and early synth-pop. Second point: People found it "chic" back then; so people will find it "chic" today. Third point: With "no passion"/"bad singer" singer I'm merely saying that they are no trained, high class vocalist with a wide range of styles, big octave range, unique voice, etc... YET they're voices fit the music perfectly (sense of modern alienation, hauntingess, lots of echo... this kind of stuff). Not trying to start another shitstorm here, seriously.
I remember reading that Q was the lyricist, but to be honest, the lyrics sound a lot, maybe too much, like Trent's.
There are certain words that should be erased from the Reznor's family dictionary from now on, too many "hands and knees", "seeing through myself", "slip away", "fade away", "what you are told", "can/can't you see", "holding on", "the beginning is/of the end", "zeros and ones", etc... I hope there is not a single "nothing can stop me/us now" on Welcome Oblivion ffs. XD
Call it recurring lyrics, but they are becoming tiresome in NIN, and those are mostly TR's recurring lyrics (and too many else I didn't mention) which some people are starting to see as a worrisome and laughable lack of vocabulary, but if Q is writing HTDA's lyrics I don't really understand why the whole band doesn't try to correct or slightly change the stuff that sounds too "reznorish".
I don't mean to be harsh, this is just a friendly advice I would give them to not be constantly compared with NIN, and at least I'm not criticizing Q's vocals (which I mostly like) but her lyrics (which I suspect are at least co-written by Trent). XD
This is just nuts. I know it's your opinion, but how you can't be moved by the male/female trade-off of the xx is crazy to me - Romy is essential to that band's whole approach. Also, Bat For Lashes is a project all about female identity - there is NO WAY a man could sing Natasha's songs any better than her. The duet she did with Scott Walker only served to highlight how truly central to the music she is.
This is now off-topic, so I'll get back to what we can all agree on: we want another Nine Inch Nails record with Trent's vocals as the main focus, and Welcome Oblivion is not going to be that record. So some of us will be disappointed until 2014, I guess.
The vinyl version of Welcome oblivion is down to $26 bucks on amazon. Just ordered it. 1 month to go.
well, i'm agreeing with some opinions above, about voice. she sounded alright on the 2010 EP, that was solid, and i can't find a flaw there.
but not so much on all these new songs where she's expanding her range (IYLSE, ice age, how long) there are moments that bring me down to earth while i want to be up in the sky with that music (just like it was with 2010 EP).
the pictures in my imagination suddenly get cracked by reality. these kinds of vocalizing ("o-o-o-ocean, uo-uo-uohh" and the like) do remind me of singing while taking shower.
this is kind of frivolous, but hey maybe that's a concept, to let her loose, to make her slip away? do they want music to just be "okay" and not "fucking outstanding"? their choice i guess.
in my mind i try to find explanations for this while with good music i just listen and enjoy without "back thoughts".
According to Amazon, the vinyl version of the album will be a 3 disc set. Nice.
Q's vocals, imo, are getting better and better. i think she nails it in How Long?, no pun intended. I can just imagine how awesome it would be to see her up on stage singing the songs live.
Not a better package (Rob's already said that), but the band gets a bigger cut from buying through them, plus the instant download of the album on release day thing. If the cost is the same (or only a tiny bit more), I'll buy through HTDA. Otherwise, Amazon - as they're signed now, there's no risk of them selling out, so ordering now won't differ from ordering in May.
Shipping from Topspin is quite expensive, though.
Indeed it is - I'll not place my order until the site's live though, just in case. And I'd value that digital download at £5, so that's an acceptable amount to cost more than Amazon.