4 ms·

It’sa sad day when shallow content like this reaches the HN front-page. Calling a narrow subset of U.S.American/UK artists as “greatest artists of all time” is

It’sa sad day when shallow content like this reaches the HN front-page. Calling a narrow subset of U.S.American/UK artists as “greatest artists of all time” is a big joke on the art of singing. Others are complaining about missing Nusrat Khan, or Dimash but heck, they didn’t even include Western greats like Pavarotti!

matsemann 6y ago
Ooor instead of being angry about the page and calling it a sad day, you could be happy about the interesting discussion it generated? Lots of new stuff here I've never heard about that was cool to check out.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Ooor instead of responding only to people's emotions and trying to control them, you could respond to the content of their post and admit they have a point. We all have choices. Saccharine positivity is ruining HN. In the past few days I've seen HN posts that: 1. Said a company's behavior only looks immoral, but it's actually not their fault, because they're just following incentives. 2. Said volunteerism isn't needed right now because lots of people are out of work. 3. Complained about a long-form article not containing science, because they only read the first few paragraphs of the article. The first is a reprehensible position, the second is harmfully ignorant, and the third is willfully ignorant. But all they had to do to get upvotes is say these horrible things in a nice tone. Responses which called a spade a spade got downvoted and/or deleted entirely. This isn't even "being kind". It's not kind to screw people over because you're following incentives. It's not kind to encourage people not to volunteer during a time when the need for volunteerism is at a high. HN is optimizing for a shallow veneer of being kind over actual kindness. I've considered just leaving HN in the past few weeks, but decided to stick around and try to change things. But at this point, getting downvoted or even banned doesn't feel like much of a loss to me. That's not to say you should care if I leave--you should care that your forum is becoming a place where people pat each other on the back for innovating, whether or not they actually innovate or their "innovations" are uninformed or harmful. And sure, this did generate some interesting conversation, but the most interesting thing to me is The Range Planet[1] link, which could have been the original submission. [1] https://therangeplanet.proboards.com https://therangeplanet.proboards.com
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    > Saccharine positivity is ruining HN. Hehe that made me laugh out loud. I've not heard that before. Has that claim been made before on HN? (Links to comments welcome, thanks.)
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      I've made the claim before, in different words, but to be honest I think the post you're responding to is the clearest summary I've personally written. My thoughts on the subject are a work in progress, and I'm not aware of anyone else saying this. I'd be happy to hear if others think the same thing.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    > you could respond to the content of their post Not so sure what your rant has to do about my post, really.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      The target audience for my post seems pretty sure what it has to do with your post. I'll be happy to clarify if you're actually asking for clarification, but it seems like you're making a statement rather than asking a question.
- FlyingSnake 6y ago
  I’m not angry, I’m just sad at the lack of depth here. A list that calls it self “greatest of all time”, and excludes most of the musical art from the world is not front page worthy. Also it’s pretty callous to assume that everyone in the world listens to US American pop music. I wonder if you would “check out” the cool stuff with a list containing Nusrat, Bhimsen Joshi, Miriam Makeba, Camané etc.
  - glaberficken 6y ago
    HN is US centric US is "self-centric", "insular" As in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series This is a generalization, of course...
Dumblydorr 6y ago
Not to mention there is little accuracy in these ranges. They don't tell you the tonal quality of these high and low notes, which may occur properly in only a single song which the singer can't even replicate live. The idea that Axl Rose can legitimately hit that full range with good technique is laughable.
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  Agreed. There's also the issue of falsetto versus natural range. It's funny to see Thom Yorke right next to Freddie Mercury with similar ranges, because Thom Yorke uses falsetto all the time, whereas Freddie Mercury typically didn't. It would not surprise me if Mercury's range was far larger on the high end than Yorke's. To be clear, that's not a criticism of Yorke--there's a lot more to vocal talent than range, and I'm actually a huge Radiohead fan.
jjulius 6y ago
Beyond that, my issue is with the use of the phrase "all time". It really should be, "the last 50 years" or so.
wink 6y ago
Maybe they tried to include some but their names were even more horribly mangled than BJÃ¶RK and simply fell off the table.

matsemann 6y ago

Ooor instead of being angry about the page and calling it a sad day, you could be happy about the interesting discussion it generated? Lots of new stuff here I've never heard about that was cool to check out.

kerkeslager 6y ago
Ooor instead of responding only to people's emotions and trying to control them, you could respond to the content of their post and admit they have a point. We all have choices. Saccharine positivity is ruining HN. In the past few days I've seen HN posts that: 1. Said a company's behavior only looks immoral, but it's actually not their fault, because they're just following incentives. 2. Said volunteerism isn't needed right now because lots of people are out of work. 3. Complained about a long-form article not containing science, because they only read the first few paragraphs of the article. The first is a reprehensible position, the second is harmfully ignorant, and the third is willfully ignorant. But all they had to do to get upvotes is say these horrible things in a nice tone. Responses which called a spade a spade got downvoted and/or deleted entirely. This isn't even "being kind". It's not kind to screw people over because you're following incentives. It's not kind to encourage people not to volunteer during a time when the need for volunteerism is at a high. HN is optimizing for a shallow veneer of being kind over actual kindness. I've considered just leaving HN in the past few weeks, but decided to stick around and try to change things. But at this point, getting downvoted or even banned doesn't feel like much of a loss to me. That's not to say you should care if I leave--you should care that your forum is becoming a place where people pat each other on the back for innovating, whether or not they actually innovate or their "innovations" are uninformed or harmful. And sure, this did generate some interesting conversation, but the most interesting thing to me is The Range Planet[1] link, which could have been the original submission. [1] https://therangeplanet.proboards.com https://therangeplanet.proboards.com
- yesenadam 6y ago
  > Saccharine positivity is ruining HN. Hehe that made me laugh out loud. I've not heard that before. Has that claim been made before on HN? (Links to comments welcome, thanks.)
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    I've made the claim before, in different words, but to be honest I think the post you're responding to is the clearest summary I've personally written. My thoughts on the subject are a work in progress, and I'm not aware of anyone else saying this. I'd be happy to hear if others think the same thing.
- matsemann 6y ago
  > you could respond to the content of their post Not so sure what your rant has to do about my post, really.
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    The target audience for my post seems pretty sure what it has to do with your post. I'll be happy to clarify if you're actually asking for clarification, but it seems like you're making a statement rather than asking a question.
FlyingSnake 6y ago
I’m not angry, I’m just sad at the lack of depth here. A list that calls it self “greatest of all time”, and excludes most of the musical art from the world is not front page worthy. Also it’s pretty callous to assume that everyone in the world listens to US American pop music. I wonder if you would “check out” the cool stuff with a list containing Nusrat, Bhimsen Joshi, Miriam Makeba, Camané etc.
- glaberficken 6y ago
  HN is US centric US is "self-centric", "insular" As in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series This is a generalization, of course...

Dumblydorr 6y ago

Not to mention there is little accuracy in these ranges. They don't tell you the tonal quality of these high and low notes, which may occur properly in only a single song which the singer can't even replicate live. The idea that Axl Rose can legitimately hit that full range with good technique is laughable.

kerkeslager 6y ago
Agreed. There's also the issue of falsetto versus natural range. It's funny to see Thom Yorke right next to Freddie Mercury with similar ranges, because Thom Yorke uses falsetto all the time, whereas Freddie Mercury typically didn't. It would not surprise me if Mercury's range was far larger on the high end than Yorke's. To be clear, that's not a criticism of Yorke--there's a lot more to vocal talent than range, and I'm actually a huge Radiohead fan.

jjulius 6y ago

Beyond that, my issue is with the use of the phrase "all time". It really should be, "the last 50 years" or so.

wink 6y ago

Maybe they tried to include some but their names were even more horribly mangled than BJÃ¶RK and simply fell off the table.