Hogarth singing Fish songs

E-Dub wrote: When you say "technically better", that means to me that Fish has more range and a richer tonal quality. Sorry, but I don't hear it in Fish's voice. Hogarth handles Fish material quite easily; however, could you imagine Fish tackling, say, "King Of Sunset Town", "Holloway Girl", "The Space", "Gazpacho", just to name a few? Fish's voice is very one dimensional. The guy makes up for it with a passion, however. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and I like his music; but, I don't think it's technically better than Hogarth's. Hell, it's not even technically better than a lot of singers out there. Then again, neither is Hogarth's. Now, it's your turn. And take into consideration the time difference before ever thinking that I won't back up a statement of mine. E

I'm not a Hogarth fan mainly because of his lyrics, but also because of the somewhat vague and anonymous flatness of his tone(s) coupled with a kind of preciousness, the lack of passion that you identified, and the more recent tendency to assimilate Thom Yorke - like so many other vocalists.

Technically, his choice of melodies tends towards the deliberately non-obvious, which is a nasty style to write in - and with notes that are close together - to make them easier to sing. This, along with other technical deficiencies in his writing make the "melodies" weaker. This is one obvious trait that is core to identifying technical "superiority".

Not only does Fish veer towards less obvious melodies, but somehow he made them very catchy and singable - read natural - without sacrificing variety and quality - and here I will make my only concession to similarities with Peter Gabriel.

Now "catchy" and "singable" are difficult to quantify - as are most aspects of melody. But that's a different lecture...

When I reviewed "Brave" and "Marbles", the conspicuous absence of standout material was in the vocals - the melodies, such as they are, are unremarkable, and the vocal style largely innoffensive and there - but with very little technical merit. On Marbles, I did find one or two "moments" - but those were the exceptions, instead of the norm as with Fish.

I don't see how you can say that Fish's voice is one dimensional though - the song "Script for a Jester's Tear" disproves that by itself.

I will re-investigate the songs you name - I can't even imagine how they go, that's how catchy I found the melodies.

Your statement that Fish's voice is "not even technically better than a lot of singers out there" is extremely vague - I could say with equal certainty that it is technically better than a lot of singers out there.

And that includes a certain Mr Hogarth!
    

...are we comparing to Justin Timberlake or Bryn Terfel?
    
    
    
    
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - September 27 2006 at 03:45

Oh boy, I have a feeling this could go on for awhile. We may have to agree to disagree.

<<I'm not a Hogarth fan mainly because of his lyrics, but also because of the somewhat vague and anonymous flatness of his tone(s) coupled with a kind of preciousness, the lack of passion that you identified, and the more recent tendency to assimilate Thom Yorke - like so many other vocalists.>>

You just don't like it. Nothing wrong with that; however, I feel that Hogarth's vocals tend to be less pretentious than Fish's. OK, maybe you (personally...I don't) hear a flatness, but sometimes Fish strikes me as being style over substance, in terms of his vocals. Just a bit over-the-top with the rolling of the "r's" and such.

<<Not only does Fish veer towards less obvious melodies, but somehow he made them very catchy and singable - read natural - without sacrificing variety and quality - and here I will make my only concession to similarities with Peter Gabriel.>>

You mean like "Kayleigh"? I think both incarnations of Marillion have exhibited a variety of song structures, ranging from the common to the uncommon; repetitious to complicated. To say that Hogarth only does this is a bit unfair. Maybe with age it's been scaled back a bit, but one could also say the same for Fish. Just listen to the Field Of Crows CD.

<<When I reviewed "Brave" and "Marbles", the conspicuous absence of standout material was in the vocals - the melodies, such as they are, are unremarkable, and the vocal style largely innoffensive and there - but with very little technical merit. On Marbles, I did find one or two "moments" - but those were the exceptions, instead of the norm as with Fish.>>

I think this is where I disagree with you the most. Brave (and Afraid Of Sunlight) could technically be his better performances. The big difference is that Hogarth tends to be a bit more old school rock and roll at times; whereas, Fish isn't. Does that make him technically inferior? I don't think so. Songs like "Living With The Big Lie" and "Hard As Love" aside, his performances on the title track, "Runaway" displays variety without the sacrificing of pitch or stability.

<<Your statement that Fish's voice is "not even technically better than a lot of singers out there" is extremely vague - I could say with equal certainty that it is technically better than a lot of singers out there.>>

We've both been vague up until now. Wouldn't you agree?

You've given me reasons why you feel Hogarth is technically inferior; however, not a lot of reasons why Fish is technically superior. One must wonder if there is a biasness on...well,...both of our parts. Thing is, I like Fish (the singer...not the tasty images provided by PR. OK, I like both!), but you most definitely have a distaste for Hogarth. Actually, I should ask my wife to be the judge as this is what she does for a living (Music major with an emphasis in vocal performance). She has no allegiance to Marillion, Hogarth or Fish (maybe to me, but she loves it when I'm wrong). You pick a Fish tune that you feel exhibits vocal superiority and I'll pick an H tune that does the same and she can be an unbiased judge.

E

Hogarth Rocks, he can sing anything he wants

PR,

I almost wonder if they replied to the wrong post. I didn't see anything wrong with it. As a matter of fact, it made my friggin' mouth water like Niagra Falls.

E

iTunes: "She Chameleon" from Fugazi

<<and your wife and I will have to agree on what constitutes technique or the whole thing is a non-starter.>>

Then prepare yourself because I don't call her "Little Miss Can't-Be-Wrong" for nothing.

<<but let me emphasise that I am not biased by taste in this>>

I find that hard to believe.

<<It'll be good to discuss it with someone who knows what they're talking about>>

Let's not bother. Conversation took a nasty turn with the last comment; although, I'm sure my "bong hit" comment didn't help matters much, but it sure was funny!

E
    

Edited by E-Dub - September 27 2006 at 19:29

E-Dub wrote: PR, I almost wonder if they replied to the wrong post. I didn't see anything wrong with it. As a matter of fact, it made my friggin' mouth water like Niagra Falls. E iTunes: "She Chameleon" from Fugazi

Could be, I guess.

Edited by Peter Rideout - September 27 2006 at 17:22

    

Hmmmm, or Kansas City BBQ!!

Your post wasn't done in anger! It was done in hunger!

E

E-Dub wrote: <<and your wife and I will have to agree on what constitutes technique or the whole thing is a non-starter.>> Then prepare yourself because I don't call her "Little Miss Can't-Be-Wrong" for nothing.

I'm trembling already...

E-Dub wrote: <<but let me emphasise that I am not biased by taste in this>> I find that hard to believe.

I can tell.

E-Dub wrote: <<It'll be good to discuss it with someone who knows what they're talking about>> Let's not bother. Conversation took a nasty turn with the last comment; although, I'm sure my "bong hit" comment didn't help matters much, but it sure was funny!

A bad comedian laughs at his own jokes... it's a well-known fact.

And there was nothing nasty about the last comment - witness the little emoticon that informed you I was pulling your leg about you having to get your wife to fight your battles for you against someone you consider to be intellectually superior - for which compliment I thank you.
    

E-Dub wrote: <<please don't patronise me that way>> Oh sure because you've conducted yourself in a very respectful manner towards me.    E

I have treated you with the respect you've treated me - you should respect that.

But you really shouldn't accuse me of putting my taste before carefully researched facts until you know what those facts are - and since you haven't bothered asking, I've assumed you don't care.

Peter Rideout wrote: Certif1ed wrote:      Cool - I've also got some qualifications in music (in case you didn't know what the "Certif1ed" stood for).      And all this time I thought it stood for "Certified loony!"

At least Peter understands where I'm coming from
    

Edited by Certif1ed - September 28 2006 at 03:31

E-Dub wrote: <<A bad comedian laughs at his own jokes... it's a well-known fact. >> We all laugh at ourselves. As being someone (you consider) so intellectually above me, I'd expect you to know that. We're poor if we can't... how can a "good" comedian find out what the hell the audience is laughing at if he doesn't find his own stuff funny ? He's cheating then ! <<I was pulling your leg about you having to get your wife to fight your battles for you against someone you consider to be intellectually superior>> Watch out. Those claiming to be 'intellectuals' have turned out to be some of the most painfully moronic people I've ever met. It's the humbled common man that I've always found to be the wisest. God is the wisest, we're all very strange, more or less, and artists / specialists are worst ever... <<I have treated you with the respect you've treated me - you should respect that.>> Yeah, can't take the high road on this one. Probably should've harnessed the digits on this little exchange. Still, the 'bong' crack was pretty funny. C'mon, admit it!!    Simply put, you're the first person (and I do mean the FIRST person) that I've ever heard come out and say that this guy is technically better than that guy. Even those who clearly prefer Fish have admitted that Hogarth was probably the better singer, so you evidently possess some knowledge that's unbeknownst to me and a lot of other people. I'd bow down, but I'm late for the gym and I need to get into work early. <<At least Peter understands where I'm coming from>> Well, maybe if I knew you a bit better, I would've too. I believe this is our first exchange, however. Oh, and you've ended your sentence with a preposition, Professor. I really came to like you, E-Dub !!! Rupi E

E-Dub wrote: <<A bad comedian laughs at his own jokes... it's a well-known fact. >> We all laugh at ourselves. As being someone (you consider) so intellectually above me, I'd expect you to know that.

You cannot expect me to know things - we know what we know and that's that - I would have thought that obvious.

I'm not sure why you're trying to disprove that comedian statement so hard, except as an attempt to claw back a little credibility that you feel you've lost.

Are you actually a comedian then?

Are you saying that I should take nothing you say seriously?

In case you were unaware, it's an urban myth - and that was a joke...

The point about intellectual superiority is your implication, not my consideration - but you seem intent on underscoring it!

E-Dub wrote: <<I was pulling your leg about you having to get your wife to fight your battles for you against someone you consider to be intellectually superior>> Watch out. Those claiming to be 'intellectuals' have turned out to be some of the most painfully moronic people I've ever met. It's the humbled common man that I've always found to be the wisest.

Interesting - I've often found that the "humbled common man" is a figment of the imagination of lower-grade intellectual types - who do indeed tend to be the most painfully moronic...

The wisest people I've met tend to be those at their creative peak, and not from any particular class.

E-Dub wrote: <<I have treated you with the respect you've treated me - you should respect that.>> Yeah, can't take the high road on this one. Probably should've harnessed the digits on this little exchange. Still, the 'bong' crack was pretty funny. C'mon, admit it!!

No - I've heard it before, and it wasn't funny then. You were saying that, because I hold a different opinion to you, for whatever reasons I have (and you didn't ask), that somehow I must be equated with someone who has consumed an unspecified quantity of narcotics - presumably with the implication that a person in such a condition is intellectually impaired to a very high degree.

What is funny about insulting someone that thinks differently to you?

E-Dub wrote: Simply put, you're the first person (and I do mean the FIRST person) that I've ever heard come out and say that this guy is technically better than that guy. Even those who clearly prefer Fish have admitted that Hogarth was probably the better singer, so you evidently possess some knowledge that's unbeknownst to me and a lot of other people. I'd bow down, but I'm late for the gym and I need to get into work early.

Maybe everyone else is too shy, or just doesn't have the technical background that I do?

E-Dub wrote: <<At least Peter understands where I'm coming from (re-inserted laughing emoticon - the sense is lost without it - if you remove it, then it looks like some sort of complaint!) >> Well, maybe if I knew you a bit better, I would've too. I believe this is our first exchange, however. Oh, and you've ended your sentence with a preposition, Professor.

I have never made claims to be an English Language Scholar.


BTW, on a much more interesting note, I heard Fish on a radio show at 2pm on Saturday, during which, in the space of half an hour (among other items on the show involving other guests), he managed to;

1. Sing a Scottish folk song a capella in an impressive basso profundo.
2. Speak in an almost perfect Cockney accent - although with less comic effect than Dick van Dyke, it has to be said.
3. Sing the Proclaimers' "Letter from America" in the style of Maurice Chevalier.
4. Improvise the lyrics from 4 further nursery rhymes into the verses of "Lavender".
5. Sing "Sweet Home Alabama" in a style that truly rivalled the original in terms of pure rock and roll punch and grit.


Not that I needed any further evidence of his technical superiority... Did anyone else hear this programme - or am I the only one here that ever listens to Radio 2 of a Saturday afternoon
     
    
    
    

    

Edited by Certif1ed - October 02 2006 at 04:01