Mariah Carey or Elizabeth Fraser: pick one

um... I love Liz's voice but I listen to Mimi much more so.... her...

mariah carey but only because I REALLY can't stand the cocteau garble

I forget what inspired this comparison. All I knew was that ILM had to talk about it obv.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

lol

Liz. Fucking Elizabeth. Come on. LOL.

the "come on" argument hasn't worked round these parts for a while now

unless there's t's involved

(xpost) Ha, I know, I'm just providing the token "rise to the bait" post for everyone's entertainment!

right <3

Clearly Liz.

"clearly"

Fucking clearly Liz.

which singer is equidistant in style between these two?

Hope Sandoval.

Fraser every time, of course.

i voted Fraser.

equidistant singer - um, Kelis? Beyonce? Vocal acrobatics, but soulful and getting a groove on?
Roisin Murphy? Mara Carlyle? Ethereal, pretty sounds, but firmly entrenched in dance/production based culture?

Mariah please go Dream Pop

Fraser's voice = art
Carey's voice = product

hope ur happy Cunga

Equidistant singer between the two, imo: Enya.

I would vote for Enya!

i could never get into the cocteau twins. sounded too watered down and sweet.

...yeah, `cos Mariah Carey...she's so gritty, isn't she.

Listen to Garlands.... ain't nothin' watered down and sweet there.

Alex OTM.

Re: Garlands I mean.

mariah has some jams, i had to google elizabeth fraser and i've never knowingly heard a cocteau twins song

...yeah, `cos Mariah Carey...she's so gritty, isn't she.

― Alex in NYC, Monday, July 20, 2009 8:11 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i didn't say she was gritty

I have to admit to finding later Cocteaus stuff a little blander. They were probably my favourite band up until Treasure, maybe even Victorialand but I think they lost some fire somewhere after that. Unlike most CT-loving ILMers, I don't even rate Heaven or Las Vegas particulary highly.

(I was listening to an Enya song just recently and I got all choked up. WTF? I think I might be depressed.)

no, that happens to me all the time, it's nothin to be concerned about

ah good

i didn't say she was gritty

No, but your comment here acts as a vote against Liz Fraser in favor of Mariah.

You'll have to forgive me, though. I am an avowed disciple of the Cocteau Twins and think pretty much everything they did was absolutely gorgeous and brilliant. It should also be noted that I VISCERALLY LOATHE MARIAH CAREY WITH EVERY FURIOUS FIBRE OF MY VERY BEING.

No, but your comment here acts as a vote against Liz Fraser in favor of Mariah.

yes, because that's what the question is asking. still doesn't mean i was saying mariah is "gritty"...

and yah i think we understand your opinions

you know, it is possible to dislike certain music for being "sweet," while liking other music for being "sweet"

I really don't get the love for Mariah here. No question about her voice which is impressive etc. But to me she sings in a totally off-putting "virtuoso" style (sort of the vocal equivalent of those really tedious Satriani guitar solos or whatever)... and I wouldn't rate any of her songs (admittedly, I don't know that many) anything higher than slightly beyond average. To be fair though, Liz could be accused of exactly the same, but she has the Cocteaus to back her up and that changes everything.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

That's a relief, I thought ILM had succumbed to mentalism for a moment.

it has

21 people have you mean

I really don't get the love for Mariah here. No question about her voice which is impressive etc. But to me she sings in a totally off-putting "virtuoso" style (sort of the vocal equivalent of those really tedious Satriani guitar solos or whatever)... and I wouldn't rate any of her songs (admittedly, I don't know that many) anything higher than slightly beyond average

^^word-for-word the critical consensus on mariah, esp in the UK, that i took on board until i actually listened to her music

- it really irritates me when people criticise her for SINGING WELL. since when is virtuosity a bad thing?? this is not the same as not finding mariah's particular voice to your taste, the recurring argument seems to disdain the entire notion of virtuosity
- "(admittedly, I don't know that many)" - WELL THEN. i'm not picking on you specifically, but i've heard those complaints so many times, and if i get as far as asking what mariah songs the complainant has heard, they tend to get stuck after 'without you' and the westlife duet. mariah is a superb songwriter imo, one of the finest in pop, with a real knack for making her unusual lyricism work with melodies and beats, and she's managed to do this across a pretty wide range of genres

name a Liz Fraser/Cocteau Twins song as transcendent as "Fly Like A Bird" or as moving as "Make It Happen"

nb i have no real opinion on liz fraser, she has a pretty voice but i can't really be bothered to get into the cocteau twins, what i've heard seems ethereal to the point of insubstantial. she was good on massive attack's 'teardrop' though

by the way this:

Fraser's voice = art
Carey's voice = product

― Alex in NYC, Monday, July 20, 2009 4:31 PM (7 hours ago

makes no fucking sense at all

name a Liz Fraser/Cocteau Twins song as transcendent as "Fly Like A Bird" or as moving as "Make It Happen"

Frosty The Snowman

I mean don't get me wrong as I said upthread I love her voice, but it doesn't really have the emotional range that Mariah's voice does, nor does it have the power that Mariah's voice had at one point.. I mean, she basically is a one trick pony though it is a very pretty, gossamer and pleasant trick. "ethereal to the point of being insubstantial" does sum it up nicely lex

¯\(°_o)/¯

I mean whatever you don't have to agree with me obviously but the results being so lopsided is kind of annoying

Freedom is right in that the "clearly" arguments aren't necessarily "rockist," just like, opinions.

but lex is right in that it is better to have an explanation besides "clearly"...

" :) "

Yes, but sometimes there's no need for much more than, "Her voice is like an itch you can't scratch, and her songs are rubbish", next to which lex's defence just stands as a load of posey pseudo-clever silliness. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-);-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-);-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-);-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

tbh when you really think about it, the cocteau twins were such a weird fucking band it's remarkable that they got as far as they did in terms of being popular. kind of the reverse of tim's point--The attraction of Fraser is her idiosyncracy, her near-inimitability - this suggests a world of private, singular and perhaps inarticulable emotions--given that this band had a singer who dealt in nonsense lyrics 75% of the time and used some completely shitty drum machine sounds on their best, most indelible songs, i've always been kind of blow away that so many people found some common ground w/the cocteaus.

btw i love them that may not be clear from the above.

yeah exactly lex, for example in "Emotions" when she hits those whistle notes, they aren't just showboating, they really do convey that joy that the guy she's singing about brings her.

Oh for cryin' out loud, no they don't.
― Alex in NYC, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 01:27 (14 hours ago) Bookmark

LOL.

God bless the Alex.

Yes, but sometimes there's no need for much more than, "Her voice is like an itch you can't scratch, and her songs are rubbish", next to which lex's defence just stands as a load of posey pseudo-clever silliness. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-);-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-);-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-);-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

― Freedom, Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:39 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude, if you're just defending you're right to say "mariah carey is shit," do it! that's cool! but it's obv a statement that will provoke reactions, just like the reverse.

tbh when you really think about it, the cocteau twins were such a weird fucking band it's remarkable that they got as far as they did in terms of being popular. kind of the reverse of tim's point--The attraction of Fraser is her idiosyncracy, her near-inimitability - this suggests a world of private, singular and perhaps inarticulable emotions--given that this band had a singer who dealt in nonsense lyrics 75% of the time and used some completely shitty drum machine sounds on their best, most indelible songs, i've always been kind of blow away that so many people found some common ground w/the cocteaus.

btw i love them that may not be clear from the above.

― north sea jazz dit weekend (call all destroyer), Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:41 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i agree. i think i was trying to say something similar before, insofar as the line between the mass appeal of pop and the eccentricity of other genres is actually pretty blurry when it comes to personal responses.

yeah exactly lex, for example in "Emotions" when she hits those whistle notes, they aren't just showboating, they really do convey that joy that the guy she's singing about brings her.

Oh for cryin' out loud, no they don't.
― Alex in NYC, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 01:27 (14 hours ago) Bookmark

honestly, tho, it's really not hard to see how experimenting with range and pitch is an expression of emotion. that seems very basic.

you could insert "tori amos" for cocteau twins there and it'd make as much sense - in the chart landscape of 2009 it seems so weird that someone like amos used to have have regular top 40 and occasional top 10 hits

xp

i think we've talked about this before Lex, but like "God" -- it's really quite weird, but also very poppy. didn't it chart pretty well?

top 40 IIRC - but even 'cornflake girl' and 'pretty good year' (both top 10) are kinda weird too, insofar both are lyrically um "oblique" to say the least and slightly askew structurally (the random howling freak-out in the middle of what's otherwise a pretty piano ballad on PGY, for example)

still it's only been 4 years since Kate Bush 'King Of The Mountain' went in at #4

Freedom, I've never said or even thought that songwriting chops ought to be dismissed when evaluating an artist's worth! Just warned against over-emphasising it, that's all! Check upthread.

And lex, I really don't think in reductive "rockist/popist terms", just sometimes use that framework as one of a great many in thinking about music. I thought it was interesting that you, a noted "poptimist", were using the "she writes her own tunes" defence that's all. If you don't agree that that's amusing, we'll agree to disagree, etc. No biggie. Plus, nowhere have I said which side of that often silly divide I fall on, as there are plenty more shades of grey involved than stark black or white. Anyway, if we only ever used that one lens (to shift the metaphor), I agree, we'd be pretty myopic.

Actually, I think Kate Bush is a better comparison w/ the Cocteaus than Tori Amos. Certainly the supreme oddness of seeing/hearing "Wuthering Heights" in the UK charts, with vocal mannerisms almost as indecipherable as "Pearly Dewdrops" were to be six years later, was pretty striking.

Has there been a Kate Bush vs. Mariah Carey thread yet?

that's what i said upthread, do it alex

Yeah, but if I do it, people will get their underwear in a bunch and say I'm being a reactionary rockist guilty of all sorts of unspeakable shtick and blah blah blah. Besides, anyone with an even marginal functional cerebellum knows that Kate Bush is vastly superior to Mariah Carey in every conceivable capacity (yes, even as a sentient human being).

It's not rockist to commend someone for being a good songwriter; it's rockist to consider writing yr own songs to be a core requirement of being an artist.

I dislike the assumed consensus-amongst-all-right-thinking-people that "clearly Liz" implies. I imagine Lex was reacting to the same thing.

Yeah that was wrong of them to forget some people have shitty taste.

ways Bush should've been more like Carey:

1) touring
2) remixes

3) made ridiculous amounts of money

i'm sure Bush has enough cash tho

pretty much every taking sides thread involves people saying "clearly", "obviously" etc.

blueski providing truth in this thread

i've been trying to find a set of terms for artists whose uniqueness is their greatness, vs those whose greatness is their uniqueness, if that makes any sense. ie those who ascend to the 'top' of whatever the mainstream taste-structure is vs. those who basically operate in their own self-invented artistic language. (is this what the manny farber 'termite art' essay is about? never read that). imagine a "Michael Jackson vs. Mark E. Smith: pick one" thread, for instance

in the case of mainstream, 'ascension' oriented artists, their ubiquity and success-within-the-established-game masks how artistically strange they often are, unlike any other in a huge field of imitators and similar strivers. this is, as far as i understand it, close to Bloom's term of the 'canonical strangeness'. in the case of unique, weirdo or 'personal' artists, their supposed rebel innovations mask how disciplined or planned or virtuosic their process is -- or how often their work depends on already-established tropes from previous weirdos (a parallel 'chart' to scramble up, in other words, rather than some free other world) tim i think you kind of talked about this already

...but as a second thought i thought the whole schema was sort of reductive anyway.

we must have done a Mariah singles poll right? but can't find it

nope, Tape Store's been tryin to get me to do it, but i'm lazy

it's like, really time

in the case of mainstream, 'ascension' oriented artists, their ubiquity and success-within-the-established-game masks how artistically strange they often are, unlike any other in a huge field of imitators and similar strivers. this is, as far as i understand it, close to Bloom's term of the 'canonical strangeness'. in the case of unique, weirdo or 'personal' artists, their supposed rebel innovations mask how disciplined or planned or virtuosic their process is -- or how often their work depends on already-established tropes from previous weirdos (a parallel 'chart' to scramble up, in other words, rather than some free other world) tim i think you kind of talked about this already

...but as a second thought i thought the whole schema was sort of reductive anyway.

― goole, Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:49 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is sooooo otm tho

those who ascend to the 'top' of whatever the mainstream taste-structure is vs. those who basically operate in their own self-invented artistic language.

Bowie vs. Eno?

*runs*

It's not rockist to commend someone for being a good songwriter; it's rockist to consider writing yr own songs to be a core requirement of being an artist.

Thank you for saying what I was trying to say, only much more succinctly. Although, yeah:

pretty much every taking sides thread involves people saying "clearly", "obviously" etc.

Yeah, definitely a truth bomb: it's certainly been my impression of these TS type polls and threads. Why the wadded panties on this occasion?

I like both and voted for Liz because she fits more into my personal aesthetic.

But this weird assumption that the ONLY basis for preference of one over the other is some muddled sociopolitical agenda is tired, reductionistic & ultimately pointless rhetoric. It takes a serious lack of imagination to magically assume that the only possible reason to dislike/prefer someone less "popular" over someone who happens to be insanely popular---an arbitrary dichotomy btw, as they could be compared on many other actually *musical* levels---is some pretense toward uniqueness or a disdain for "what the masses like."

that's true as far as it goes, but nobody in favor of mariah carey made that argument

goole, they kind of did.

It just doesn't make sense because under that logic, what would be the basis for choosing one Mariah/Cocteaus song over the other? People wouldn't be able to do that, because the magical socially-fed homunculus in their brain wouldn't have much of a criterion.

blueski providing truth in this thread

CLEARLY ;]

"Mmmm. I'm not sure which Mariah song I like more... Bliss or My All... lemme check which one was most popular and THEN make a decision."

this has nothing to do with anything, but if Seefeel did a remix EP of a few of Mariah's songs, I'd buy it in a second. Her voice is great.

i agree, Turangalila, that it's absurd to assume that a strong preference for a less popular artist indicates a pretense of uniqueness -- i don't go there.

well, that's not entirely true. i mean, i did start that "obscure music" thread w/r/t to this. but i certainly don't go there in the context of arguments/dichotomies like this.

Turangalila I'm gonna be self-centered and assume you're responding to my first post.

Firstly, I should note that I am torn as to who I will vote for in this thread.

My argument was specifically with respect to the sharp distinction some posters were proposing upthread between technique and emotion. In sum, I was saying that this dichotomy appeared to rest on the assumption that for the expression of emotion to be valid/real/meaningful it should be something essentially private or individual; whereas an expression of emotion that belongs to a universally popular tradition (say through use of melisma in R&B) is technique, at best formally appealing but substantively empty.

None of which means that Mariah Carey is better than Liz Fraser. Nor does it mean that Mariah's most popular work is necessarily her best or most effective. Nor does it mean that Liz Fraser might not be better technically AND at expressing emotional content. It doesn't even mean that liking something for its anti-populist individuality is wrong. But it does mean that the dichotomy as expressed starts to look very tenuous and, well, just incorrect, in my opinion anyway.

I actually find Liz Fraser's voice less emotionally affecting than Mariah's (at Mariah's best anyway) but probably more affecting overall. I think Mariah has more great "songs" (mostly because I don't think of Cocteau Twins as writing "songs" much) but I love the sound of my favourite Cocteau Twins records. But I can imagine someone convincingly arguing the reverse of each of these preferences.

Oh, absolutely agreed on that, Tim. I've never really gotten the whole virtuosity-as-inherently-awful line of argument against Mariah. *Love* her whistle register.

Not that i'm big into complex guitar solos outside of Fleetwood Mac and Journey, but I'm not really into the virtuosity-as-inherently-awful line in any capacity.

Perhaps once upon a time it was a useful intervention when prog bores ruled the roost.

Bowie vs. Eno?

*runs*

Liz, clearly.

LOL. So, Eno then ;)

Actually, I really like what Tim says about Mariah writing songs, whereas the Cocteau Twins were more about sounds. I'll buy that.

yeah exactly lex, for example in "Emotions" when she hits those whistle notes, they aren't just showboating, they really do convey that joy that the guy she's singing about brings her.

i was thinking of this thread this in the morning, because i put one Mariah Carey's "One and Only," and as she drifts into a string of high notes, she sings:

"See I'm looking for a man that'll rub me slow
Make me sing real high
When he goes down low"

:)

see alex??!

"well if they ask you, can i sing like usher, say no - but i can make you sing like mariah!"