In terms of technical vocal ability, I give this one to Whitney.
However, in defining what a great singer is, he/she can sing any genre of music. The only woman on this video that has that undisputed ability is Christina Aguilera. Her voice has transcended pop music into R&B, Blues, Opera, Rock, Hip-Hop, Electronica, Latin, and so on.
LOL You chose the worst videos to compare. It's clear you love Whitney Houston. Whitney can't sing anymore. Chose one of her recent videos not something from the 80s if you want to do recent vids from Mariah.
For me, Mariah will always have the most beautiful and versatile voice. Christina always sounds a mess, in my opinion. Occasionally, when she tones it down, she's good, but usually she screams and oversings the hell out of everything.
In terms of ability, all three are amazing vocalists. Christina has power and emotion, can hit EXTREMELY high notes, and she's good at vocal running. Mariah has the lightest voice of the three. She can't hit notes as high as Christina, but she's better at vibrato. Whitney is right in the middle when it comes to power, running ability, lightness, and power. Not to mention she can hit operatic notes perfectly. 1-Whitney 2-Christina 3-Mariah thumb this up if you agree, but you don't have to.
@nikcoredd Sure, with her yelling and annoying ass vibrato. Beyonce doesn't have near the range nor clarity of voice any of these singers have and their greatest songs destroy anything Beyonce has ever made.
Christina for me wins because she is young and talented i mean dont get me wrong mariah and whitney were good in their generation but this is a new generation now and the young is taking over
@MrDTJones1 you probly havent even heard the whole album your just bangwaggon have you heard the song like primma donna or sex for breakfast ect bionic was genius
whitney is just fucking awful and have you heard DRUGney sing lately ? go watch "whitney singing fail" her voice is dead from bad technique and lots of DRUGS, CRACKNEY FLOPSTON, queen of drugs.
HERE IS THE DEAL they all slay their ranges, Mariah east the lower ranges with her melodic tones, Xstina Slays the Mid Ranges With Her PhoeSoulfuness. And Whitney Dominates the Higher Ranges With no efforts, no strains, and no competition
also, she has the clearest, smoothest voice of the three.
so they answer would be overall
depends on the listener and the mood they are in at that given moment.
but until get get all 3 on stage in their prime. you cant go on, side by side videos
I know that Carey can hit all those high notes and have the largest vocal range of the three of them, but generally I find her voice weak. It's like with Georgia Brown, she has the world record for widest octave range, but her voice is very powerless and Careys high notes have too much air. When I compare with Riperton, the high notes are clear. I'm not saying she's a bad vocalist! But I think her voice is overrated.
@Milussi I AGREE 100% i was gonna type almost the same thing till i read this. mariah has never been the best belter. her voice is weak actually. she has range tho but range doesn't determine quality.
Christina... She has a voice with personality, and she's more of a performer. She could definitely sing so perfectly if she didn't dance in her shows but she's a performer big time and she still sounds great and can belt like crazy <3
I think Whitney has the most powerful voice of them all but Christina definetly wins in terms of range and emotion. Mariah can go very high and hold it there but that's really about it. I love them all and I would buy all of their albums so I guess they all win. Haha, yeah I'll chicken out like that.
Wheres celine!? She outsings all 3 of them but I would still rank it Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, and then Xtina only because she cant be consistent with any of her songs sometimes i just want to hear the song sung the original way without all the vocal acrobatics....all the screaming can get kinda annoying. But all 3 of them are simply amazing in all they do
WHITNEY of course...no question...depth, power, emotion, strength, gesture, truth, soul! She wasn't called THE voice for just any ol' reason....truly AMAZING...GRACE! God's gift!
all of mariah's performances always seem like a telethon for save the church foundations... whitney has a superior voice and its more clear and higher than mariah's. xtina packs the power that mariah lacks. mariah has a more pleasant voice and the whistle register. overall whitney n xtina are better performers!. well now by default, xtina is probably the better one!!!
mariah's voice lacks and is very inferior when compared to the powerful vibrtos of Whitney and Xtina! That is the truth, and the lambs must deal with it.
I just don't think Xtina measures up to the other two. Whitney and Mariah are considered the two most influential female singers of the past two decades, and for good reason...
Christina screams and strains, she just throws her power around... Whitney balances out her power by maintaining the sweet tone in her voice, but with Xtina's power, it just sounds as though power is ALL she has, and that is when she sounds unpleasant...
OK LETS SEE .. BACK IN THE DAY .. WHITNEY OFFCOURSE . AND NOWADAYZ CHRISTINA ! .. mariah.. used to be good but not as good as whitney and now shes just all wispers
You must be borderling retarded. Those two categories of sickness are completely different. Not at all related. You should have killed yourself years ago.
Did I say they were the same? Nope. But they make people act gaga, hence your pathetic comment that I should have killed myself years ago. Don't mix me up with you. Unlike you, my life was planned.
You're the accidental spawn of low-life prostitues and gigolos raised with no prospects or reason to live, You just got by like a thread hanging on the edge of a cliff that would just not blow away.
@ Chimier... well you do know pop music is just "popular music". It really isn't a defined genre. As far as musical history tells us... so I don't think it is a completely fair statement to say she's only sang pop.
When did I say she's ONLY done pop? Never. As for pop music, I am talking about the specific GENRE, not the umbrella term. Christina may have done jazz, soul and blues, but they were far from authentic.
What specific genre? I never said you said she only did pop. Sorry for the misunderstanding, my only point is that you aren't willing to recognize the difference between Urban, hip-hop, and R&B. And saying Bubblegum Pop to Dirty pop is no more stupid than saying light rock and soft rock, which there are music corporation that make that distinction. Anywho, what I'm really getting at is that you are being picky about genres, but the genre Pop, has a similarly unstable history and definition.
There is no difference between urban and R&B. Urban is another name contemporary R&B. Light rock and soft rock are the same thing also. Bubblegum pop and dirty pop are still pop. It doesn't show versatility at all.
Likewise, it could be said that pop is not a style or genre really, but a marketing strategy. Some recognize a difference some don't. Your opinion on the matter isn't the only valid one is what I'm saying.
Well, I was talking about the pop genre, as the subject I was discussing was musical versatility. Trying to differentiate within the pop genre hardly makes someone versatile.
That argument is valid if pop is actually a genre that is based on style, some would argue that it is not. So, in some cases it doesn't show versatility, and other cases it would.
Um, yes, pop has its own rhythmic structure, like jazz does or blues or gospel. In fact, pop music's structure is standardized. Saying Christina is versatile because she sings Bubblegum Pop and Dirty Pop is not proof of versatility at all. The only difference is the subject matter of the song and the difference in instrumentation (sometimes). It is not proof of versatility at all.
Maybe the songs you consider pop all have the same rhythmic structure, but as I said, what pop has been historically called, even as a "genre" doesn't have definite characteristics. Again, it seems mostly a distinction on how it is marketed, not much about its style or structure.
You are welcome to disagree, just putting it out there. If you think there is something incorrect about what I am saying, please correct me.
Musical versatility depends on chord and rhythmic structure, not how the song is marketed. As I said, there is not a big difference between "bubblegum" pop and "dirty pop", jut like there isn't a huge difference between "soft rock" and "hard rock." They are just tiny differentiations within a genre, not two different genres altogether. That being said, pop music is the only kind of music Christina has pulled off well. She failed so bad at jazz, soul and blues. Awful.
Sorry, it is. Just because it is used as an umbrella term doesn't make it any less of a genre than any other music. Rock is used as an umbrella term also for music. Doesn't mean it's less of a genre. All of this "Christina has done bubblegum pop and dirty pop" is just utter bullshit. Your statement is dumped.
The use of Rock as umbrella term is no where close to the extent to which Pop is used as an umbrella term. Rock actually started as a genre as a mixture (not necessarily an umbrella) or other things to create it. Pop, as I explained a shorter version of POPular music, was not about genre at all, but was coined to describe how much something sales or the frequency of play on a station.
Rock had everything to do with mixing styles, pop had nothing to do with style, but sales.
Ok, but it doesn't change the fact that both are used as umbrella terms. Pop music is usually the most popular music out there, hence its name. It's structure was light and simple compared to other genres, thus making it more appealing, which ended up leading to its commercialism. But the fact is, regardless, it IS an established music genre and musical versatility is not proven by a singer experimenting with MINOR differentiations within ONE musical genre.
As I said, rock really isn't an umbrella term. It doesn't include several different songs of different "genres", but that individual rock songs contain a mixing of genres, and that mixture composes a rock song. Maybe i'm harping on semantics here, but I think that is distinctly different from it being an umbrella genre. I don't think it is an established musical genre, you might consider it to be, but it is no where near as defined as other genres, because it was defined by commercialism.
No, it was made as an alternative to rock and roll and it became very appealing to everyone, regardless of whether they liked rock and roll or not. It was not defined by commercialism when it started. It BECAME commercial because of its popularity. The same thing can be said for rock and roll. It BECAME commercial due to its popularity.
No, the first time the term was ever used, as I said, it was about its ability to sale. Different things sale in each decade, that's why you can't really say pop is actually a genre because the style of what sales changes. Yes, and that commercialization of rock is why it can be considered pop music, because it sales, not because it is assimilating to a certain "pop" style. Pop started off being about commercialization, and then it was defined as a "genre" based on what's popular at the time.
See, we are talking about two different things. I am specifically talking about the pop music genre, while you are talking about the term POPULAR music. Minor differentiations in the pop music GENRE doesn't add to a singer's overall musical versatility.
You are insisting that there is a pop genre, i'm saying there isn't a pop genre. There is only a pop "genre" as it relates to the term popular music. The idea that the term "pop music" was first used in the 1950s in reference to a specific genre or style is telling as nothing that we have today sounds anything like the music of the 50s yet we likewise call it pop music... this is because what is definitive about it is the way it is market, not style. The only constant stylistic point is length.
Yeah, but I think that's what your missing. This whole argument about genre is how it is arbitrary, especially when you are talking about pop music. There are wide variations within each genre as it is influenced by things outside of it. The problem is pop is an umbrella for all genres and then variation that happens within those genres. Gospel of today can be the same, but it can be significantly different that's why they've developed significant sub-genres. The same can be said for R&B.
The variations within each genre depend on the structure. There is little difference between bubblegum pop and dirty pop (dirty pop isn't even a subgenre. It's just a name fans give to pop music that isn't squeaky clean).
Besides, some would say there is a distinct difference between rock and rock n' roll. I was referencing rock, not rock n' roll.
What "overall rhythmic structure"? What elements does modern pop share with the pop of the 50s other than length and being about love? When it comes to Rock, Gospel, and even R&B those elements are far more clearly defined than some blanket statement about "rhythmic structure"?
And what do you mean by blanket statement? All genres are defined by the difference in rhythmic and chord structures. Some genres are melodic genres, while others are rhythmic genres. Some are based on a fusion of other genres, giving them a more distinct sound and meter....
Well, for pop, it's usually has a common time signature (4/4 timing), and based on a simple chord progression. It has an intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, then an outro.
So common timing (common meaning that most songs have it, pop or not) and a simple chord progression. I don't know about you, but the blues progression is pretty simple. I know many gospel songs that have exactly that formula for segments of the song (not to mention this structure has nothing to do with the "rhythmic structure" you described).
The characteristics you've described can be applied to a number of songs in different genres. Also many songs considered pop that don't have these.
Some of them can be applied to other songs. Pop music has the most simple musical structure. The blues is way more complex, and uses a variety of musical "expressions", such as blue notes. I assume that you are talking about the twelve-bar-blues when you say the blues scale. The pop genre usually uses simple chord progressions than that.
Give me some examples, because none of the pop songs I have in my head have an intro or an outro. Unless you are talking about intro "Oooo..." and "Ahhh..." as intro, and most of them don't have both...
So you are saying a pop song is one that is easy to make because it has a simple structure, and that is the genre of pop? In the meantime, you can have a song that is a rock song, or a blues song that fits the same bill as a pop song? This sounds a little bit like what I've been saying.
"You can have a song that is a rock song, or a blues song that fits the same bill as a pop song."- Then it's a rock song/blues song or it's a pop song with rock/blues influence. Big difference.
How about an example from the 1950s, where the pop "genre" originated.
But it can't be a rock/blues song with pop influence? So what would be "pure pop" and how do we decide who is influencing who?
So what length does the intro have to be, and the outro as well? And wouldn't the timing be 4/4 or do they got crazy with 12/8 or something? The outro is missing from most pop songs I have in my head, unless you are equating and outro with repetition of the chorus and slowly fading out?
It's all about the song's chord and metric structure. If it's more pop-based, then it's pop. To determine who is influencing it, you have to see how pop-based the song is and if it borrows from other genres. If so, how much does it borrow?
But as I said, pop has a much simpler and easier musical structure than other genres, giving it an easier sound, which is why it was so appealing and became commercial.
So you assume first that it is a pop song, and insist that it is borrowing, unless it borrows too much and then you flip it to another genre, even though it fits the bill of a pop song?
Does this sounds like a clearly defined genre to you? Not to mention not finding any sources that adhere to this definition...
Easy listening made people feel good. It's not a genre of music like classical, soul or blues, just a name grouped.
And what are you talking about? I said nothing of assuming. I said that is how genre is determined: the structure, which gives the song its sound.
So pop music is a GENRE. Popular music is just an umbrella term. Two different things. If you still don't understand, I recommend you read some books on music theory.
Yes, I'm aware of that. You were talking about the timing of the outro and intro, I was asking if the timing was different from 4/4 for the outro and intro, and if so, what is it?
I don't feel like you've shown that pop is genre (but that's just me), you've said some blanket stuff about simple structures and 4/4 time. So far nothing has been definitive to the point of how rock or blues are defined as genre.
That's why I put a question mark.
So, as I said, Easy Listening songs are pop songs?
No, easy listening are not just pop. Easy listening can be anything. I said pop had a simple structure that made it easy. Jazz, blues, soul, even classical can have a easy sound also, but the structure is more complex than pop music.
Pop music is a genre. It's been around for over half a century. And if it's not a gnre, then what was Baby One More Time or Wannabe? R&B? Um, no. It was pop.
What do you mean when you say "that made it easy"? So does this mean the vice versa can't happen, a simple structure that sounds complex? Well, R&B, I find, still falls along color lines, Britney couldn't produce an R&B album if she wanted to. I'm not saying that people don't use "pop" as a genre, my only argument is that it is not definitive like other genres, and usually works like an umbrella term for whatever is popular at the time. Britney and Spice Girls were insanely popular.
Like I said, I feel, you have yet to distinguish it as a definitive genre to the same extent blues, rock, or jazz is defined. You've only stated that they have simple structures, but that isn't definitive of pop only. You also assigned 4/4 time to it, which, as I originally point out, and you just admitted, can be applied to any song. You talk about the timing of intro and outros, but you have reneged on that too.
Pop music's structure is simpler to that of jazz, blues and many other genres. Just read some books about music theory. Time signature is not the only thing that determines musical structure.
I said pop music USUALLY has a 4/4 timing. I never said it was the only one. Just like blues is not the only genre to use the pentatonic scale.
So far it is only an issue of relativity. That pop is "simpler" than jazz. This is not a real definition as it relies on that comparison or ranking of music.
I understand that time signature is not the only thing that determines music structure. You are the one who originally brought it up as if there was a "pop time signature". The problem is that 4/4 is common, it was useless to connect it specifically to pop anyway. At least the pentatonic scale has a steadier relation to the blues.
I never pretended to imply there was a pop time signature. You asked me what does a pop song usually consist of. One of my replies what that a pop song usually has a 4/4 timing and I stressed that other genres use 4/4 timing.
Pop is simpler than jazz. Get some knowledge in music theory, then you''ll understand.
But like I said 4/4 time is common... it makes it a highly irrelevant distinction.
So it is that I'm simply not knowledgeable enough? All you did was name a bunch of elements of music and put the adjective "simple" before them. I'm following along, but you can't seem to describe what you mean by simple. You've been all over the place with intro/outro timings, common timing, it "easy", light, relaxing, fun... all of which fails to say anything objectively definitive about the genre.
But if the timing doesn't change throughout the song, saying that timing is important to the intro and outro is inane. And what of length? I would assume length is an issue with every song (every song has it). Does the outro/intro need to be short or long, or 5-seconds, or what? You're not being very specific and i think that's where we're running into problem with this discussion. You are speaking in generalities.
The intro and outro can be as long as the composer wants it to be, and the length and timing of the intro is important as it sets up the tone for the song. The length and timing of the outro can be important, but it depends on what the composer wants to accomplish, and it also gives the song some sort of conclusion. But pop in general is very simple in structure and timing, more simple than jazz, more simple than blues, more simple than gospel.
But this sounds like information on the outro and intro that is not particular to pop, but to most if not every song. Especially since the way you are describing it, it is all of it is based on what the composer wants to do, but isn't that how all composers are. The decision they make about the song (intro, outros, chorus, metric and chord structure) is based on whaqt they want it to be?
I get the pop is simple in structure, but other genres can be simple in structure. Can I get specifics?
So, like I asked (but you didn't answer), does this mean we rank all music according to simplicity and then the last what, 10-20% is considered pop?
Unless, this is the way it is done, you simply stating that pop is simple in structure has no meaning. Again, details and specifics would help the defining process along.
Let's compare Bach's Minuet in G to the 1960s song "A Lover's Concerto". ALC is in 4/4 timing, instead of 3/4 like MIG. Also, MIG is in the key of G, so is based on the G Major scale, thus the melody differs in a number of ways, but they share similarities, like the rhythmic repitition in the first four measures and the continued repitition in measures 5-7.
So pop can share similarities with other genres, but it will still be simpler.
I understand what simple means when it comes to comparing two different pieces of music, the issue comes with what's simpler when comparing genres. It isn't the same thing, unless you are arguing that there can't be pop song in the key of G with waltz timing. Or that Bach's Minuet is an adequate representation of all things non-pop, and ALC all things pop. Not to mention the comparison between something in the 17th century when "pop" didn't exist, to something in the 20th and transatlantic.
Pop is simpler than classical, jazz, rock, blues, soul, funk, and gospel. In those other genres, the musicians like to switch it up and create twists and turns in the structure to make it more complex and exciting. That doesn't happen in pop.
Classical music has probably the hardest vocal arrangements in music and the tempo usually changes a lot. In jazz and blues, they utilize musical expressions such as improvisation, syncopation, blue notes, swung notes, shuffle notes, call-and-response, and polyrhythms. Funk is a rhythmic genre based on playing one chord in vamp style instead of using chord progressions and the genre is built on the rhythm of the bassline. It has broad chords like sevenths and is mixed with the blues scale.
Soul and gospel are based on chord progressions, and the tritone is very popular and it gives the genres their soulful sound, "bending" notes is quite common also and vocal-wise, the arrangements require the vocals to BUILD.
In pop music, if you're lucky, you get a modulation, so yeah....
So in order to explain about Pop, you are talking about all the other genres? Does that seem like a definitive genre to you, than it is only defined in comparison to other genres? So do you mean to say that if a song has any of these elements it ceases to be a pop song?
Not to mention, your definitive descriptions of other genres just shows the huge difference in definitive speech when it comes to your and KyoHanjin's same description of pop.
Again, you are trying to guess at what I'm getting at instead of actually answering the questions that I asked.
I already know about those genres and what defines them, knowing that is the reason why I was taught that pop is not a definitive genre like other genres. As you exhibited, it's most clear definition is one it has only in comparison to other genres, which means it ceases to be a free-standing, self-identifying genre. Stating it doesn't make it true.
So, you can't have a song that is blues or rock with pop influences? What makes the musical structure clearly pop? So far all you've said is the structure is simple. Does this imply that every other genre structure is complex? You can't have a simple structure blues, rock, or jazz song because that would mean that it is pop?
The chord and metric structure (how simple the sound it and how simple the timing is), the basic outline of the song. In pop songs, the rhythm doesn't usually change, neither do the basic duration of phrases and chord progressions.
A simple structure jazz song would still be more complex than pop.
So basically, you rank all music in term of it's complexity of simplicity and cut off the bottom 10%-20%? Again, this idea of simple is an issue of relativity the way you are describing it it is defined by others. As for simple structure jazz, that depends on your definition of it, and this might be true with jazz, what of rock, blues, doo wop, et cetera.
So simpler timing than 4/4? So what is a simple chord and metric structure? How does one determine that it is simple?
It doesn't depend on my definition. A simple jazz structure is a simple jazz structure. Get some books or take some classes in music theory. You are obviously not understanding. The fact of the matter is a pop genre exists.
You haven't said anything but music terms, all of which I understand. I know what 12/8 is. I know that 4/4 is common time which means it was irrelevant for you to bring it up as specific to pop because it is the COMMON time. At one moment you say outro and intros have important timing, the next moment you say everything is the same timing in a pop song.
You haven't answered most of my questions, you just keep repeating yourself. I don't think it is me.
I said the timing of intros and outros is important, because they are, especially the intros. It sets up the basis for the song.
I have answered all your questions. You seem to have difficulty comprehending. Pop music uses simple time signatures and simple chord progressions, with little or no change in the song structure, compared to other genres.
In terms of technical vocal ability, I give this one to Whitney.
However, in defining what a great singer is, he/she can sing any genre of music. The only woman on this video that has that undisputed ability is Christina Aguilera. Her voice has transcended pop music into R&B, Blues, Opera, Rock, Hip-Hop, Electronica, Latin, and so on.
KharmanAntone 2 weeks ago
LOL You chose the worst videos to compare. It's clear you love Whitney Houston. Whitney can't sing anymore. Chose one of her recent videos not something from the 80s if you want to do recent vids from Mariah.
PresObama2012 2 months ago
Mariah = Rage
Whitney = Power
Christina = ???
MyTalkShow1992 3 months ago
Christina wins, no competition
jakes48162 4 months ago
For me, Mariah will always have the most beautiful and versatile voice. Christina always sounds a mess, in my opinion. Occasionally, when she tones it down, she's good, but usually she screams and oversings the hell out of everything.
1) Mariah Carey
2) Whitney Houston
3) Christina Aguilera.
BigBlyeEyes1234 4 months ago 3
Mariah is number 1
TheSamuelkStuff 4 months ago 5
In terms of ability, all three are amazing vocalists. Christina has power and emotion, can hit EXTREMELY high notes, and she's good at vocal running. Mariah has the lightest voice of the three. She can't hit notes as high as Christina, but she's better at vibrato. Whitney is right in the middle when it comes to power, running ability, lightness, and power. Not to mention she can hit operatic notes perfectly. 1-Whitney 2-Christina 3-Mariah thumb this up if you agree, but you don't have to.
HurricaneSalim 5 months ago
1-Christina (voice of my generation,i'm 20 years old,and in my opinion she has the best voice out there,sorry Lady Shitga Lol)
2-Whitney Houston(i pay alot of respect for this woman , she had a very strong voice wich now it's ruined cause of drugs)
3-Mariah Carey( Nothing good to say about her,i don't rly enjoy her voice and her annoying pre-recorded whistles,sorry)
TheFhira 5 months ago
1. mariah and whitney
2. *available*
iiAmitx3 5 months ago 4
Christina!! -3
LoveDaFreak 6 months ago
Beyonce Shits on all of them #ThatIsAll
nikcoredd 6 months ago
@nikcoredd Sure, with her yelling and annoying ass vibrato. Beyonce doesn't have near the range nor clarity of voice any of these singers have and their greatest songs destroy anything Beyonce has ever made.
ThePharaoho 3 months ago
Christina for me wins because she is young and talented i mean dont get me wrong mariah and whitney were good in their generation but this is a new generation now and the young is taking over
kingof3ful 6 months ago 3
Comment removed
kingof3ful 6 months ago
Comment removed
kingof3ful 6 months ago
whitney. she sings LIVE. the other do not. and BIONIC is the worst album ever.
MrDTJones1 6 months ago
@MrDTJones1 you probly havent even heard the whole album your just bangwaggon have you heard the song like primma donna or sex for breakfast ect bionic was genius
kingof3ful 6 months ago
whitney is just fucking awful and have you heard DRUGney sing lately ? go watch "whitney singing fail" her voice is dead from bad technique and lots of DRUGS, CRACKNEY FLOPSTON, queen of drugs.
PRIMMOFAG 6 months ago
christina!!!
iam0wenn 6 months ago
you should've picked videos of mariah in her youth, it's a biased video
sheru7mera7naam007 7 months ago
Christina at the top?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME..... ha...what a joke
sheru7mera7naam007 7 months ago
HERE IS THE DEAL they all slay their ranges, Mariah east the lower ranges with her melodic tones, Xstina Slays the Mid Ranges With Her PhoeSoulfuness. And Whitney Dominates the Higher Ranges With no efforts, no strains, and no competition
also, she has the clearest, smoothest voice of the three.
so they answer would be overall
depends on the listener and the mood they are in at that given moment.
but until get get all 3 on stage in their prime. you cant go on, side by side videos
prettylilsecret 7 months ago
Whitney>Christina>Mariah...
bumb9 7 months ago
Christina! <3
TobiasTheFighter1504 7 months ago
christina all the wayyy! no competition..
krazykaily78 8 months ago
Olden Time
1. Mariah = Whitney
2. Christina
This time
1.Christina
2. Mariah
3. Whitney
dons3699 8 months ago
so you use clips of whitney in her prime and just randomly pick the rest WTF? WHAT A WASTE OF A VIDEO
DreamloverLambi1 9 months ago
christina
diewdiewaatjeeeh 9 months ago
I Love Mariah, But often I find nothing behind her voice.
atrayu90602 1 year ago
1.Whitney The Best All of Time (The Voice)
2.Mariah
3.Christina..........
Who Aglee?
WhitneyHoustonCeline 1 year ago 4
oohhhh come onnn!!! mariah is the best!!!! even if she sing drunk !
MARIAH IS "THE" VOICE!
9carrusel9 1 year ago
christina is way young than both these ladies shes only 29
kingof3ful 1 year ago
Are u a mariah hater or something like that?
I'm sure you could've found better mariah's vids xD
josee95pp 1 year ago
Whitney is the best !
e35724 1 year ago
You could have chosen better videos for Mariah!
despassos 1 year ago 25
christina win¡¡
danielspears28 1 year ago
CHRISTINAAAAAAAAAAA ROCKS
pablorubiolugo 1 year ago 2
whitney housaton e a melhor e claro isso é obviu
pierrehpp 1 year ago
I know that Carey can hit all those high notes and have the largest vocal range of the three of them, but generally I find her voice weak. It's like with Georgia Brown, she has the world record for widest octave range, but her voice is very powerless and Careys high notes have too much air. When I compare with Riperton, the high notes are clear. I'm not saying she's a bad vocalist! But I think her voice is overrated.
Milussi 1 year ago
@Milussi I AGREE 100% i was gonna type almost the same thing till i read this. mariah has never been the best belter. her voice is weak actually. she has range tho but range doesn't determine quality.
richzero0 1 year ago
This video made Mariah Carey look like crap!
1) Whitney Houston- "I Will Always Love You" (1994 World Music Awards)
2) Mariah Carey- "One Sweet Day" (1996 Grammy Awards with Boyz II Men)
3) Christina Aguilera- "At Last" (Stripped Tour 2003)
luvufosho 1 year ago 2
i believe Mariah, she's my mother hihihi
TheMinestellini 1 year ago
Mariah can tame a note like no other
EllysaE 1 year ago
of course that WHITNEY HOUSTON IS THE BEST.
monroeke5 1 year ago
For me...
Christina... She has a voice with personality, and she's more of a performer. She could definitely sing so perfectly if she didn't dance in her shows but she's a performer big time and she still sounds great and can belt like crazy <3
shaneholden20 1 year ago 3
I think Whitney has the most powerful voice of them all but Christina definetly wins in terms of range and emotion. Mariah can go very high and hold it there but that's really about it. I love them all and I would buy all of their albums so I guess they all win. Haha, yeah I'll chicken out like that.
JRV95 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Christina can go home...
pinkyyy18 1 year ago
the 3 of them are amazing singers! but there's is something in Christinas voice that i just love! it's so powerful and unique! (:
suzieth94 1 year ago
christina then mariah then wats her name.lol
nicolleispretty 1 year ago
Wheres celine!? She outsings all 3 of them but I would still rank it Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, and then Xtina only because she cant be consistent with any of her songs sometimes i just want to hear the song sung the original way without all the vocal acrobatics....all the screaming can get kinda annoying. But all 3 of them are simply amazing in all they do
Ominex77 1 year ago 2
legendtina no1!! mariah high notes in live very poor..
howeve182 1 year ago
this is not the best mariah perf of this song.... the mtv movie awards perf would have won
carlosjr142 1 year ago
1.) Mariah
2.)christina
3.)Whitney
but eatch sing in there own way and there awsome at it
Maxzilla04 1 year ago 2
Whitney Houston
Mariah
Christina
whnippy123 1 year ago
WHITNEY of course...no question...depth, power, emotion, strength, gesture, truth, soul! She wasn't called THE voice for just any ol' reason....truly AMAZING...GRACE! God's gift!
evret0503 1 year ago
Whitney and Mariah can't be compared to just anybody. Whatever they are now, they've already etched their names in history as legends.
Among these two - Whit's better. She's got more fluidity.
karan33774 1 year ago
This one is hard, I say all three.
kalwel1977 1 year ago
1 Whitney - Greatest depth, power and sound
2 Mariah - Greatest Range
3 Christina - Nothing positive to say
Tombothebomb 1 year ago
it will take 2 mariah's and 3 whitney's to oversing xtina now!!!
og2783 1 year ago
@og2783 AMEN to THAT! :D
thekhellsupremacy 1 year ago
all of mariah's performances always seem like a telethon for save the church foundations... whitney has a superior voice and its more clear and higher than mariah's. xtina packs the power that mariah lacks. mariah has a more pleasant voice and the whistle register. overall whitney n xtina are better performers!. well now by default, xtina is probably the better one!!!
og2783 1 year ago
1) Whitney- Legend! Of course! But now, not so much.
2) Christina- She's my generation! Amazing voice out of a little white chick!
3) Mariah- She has a nice voice, but I don't like her songs
FancyStarbucksOrder 1 year ago 2
1)christina
2)christina
3)christina
XxdripperxX 1 year ago 19
Christina ... Its her turn ....Sorry Ladys... Be gratful and please exit ...Stage Left.
Mariah in her prime
Whintey in her prime
atrayu90602 1 year ago 11
Comment removed
CarlosMC1990 1 year ago 17
1.Whitney
2.Christina<3
3.Mariah
nicolevalentino 1 year ago 2
1 Mariah
2 Whitney
Best singers of our lifetime. Christina is also amazing though but don't compare the Mariah and WHitney (in their prime).
feeklv 1 year ago
@feeklv :
B.S. Christina is BOSS LADY....MOVE OVER HAGS. J/k I like all three ;-)
But Whitney seems to have lost her gift.
I guess crack does that.
atrayu90602 1 year ago
1 and 2: whitney and christina
3: Mariah
boynextdoor93 1 year ago
Christina Aguielera is the best and more powerfull then W and M
TheAntonio4123 1 year ago 2
Christina, Whitney, Mariah
singingmysong20 1 year ago
1. Whitney
2. Mariah
3. Christina
ManOfBamboo 1 year ago
1.Christina
2.Whitney
3.Mariah
MusicXiomara95 1 year ago
1st place is christina.
2nd place mariah.
3rd whitney
BrownieLee10 1 year ago
1. Christina Aguilera
2. Whitney
3.Mariah
1flutedude 1 year ago 2
Mariah is the best
dreamlinerzzz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whitney Houston
Christina Aguilera
Mariah GUACALA iduak!
EnLosBrazosDeUnAngel 1 year ago
The video doesn't show the depth of Mariah's singing ability so is fundamentally unfair towards her.
Although I think all 3 are excellent, I'm gonna with:
1. Mariah
2. Whitney
3. Christina
nexosen 1 year ago
1. Christina
2. Whitney
3. Mariah
juliobisognin 1 year ago 3
@juliobisognin EXACTLY what i think!!
singingmysong20 1 year ago
Mariah and Whitney are peers, Christina honestly doesn't compare.
crazy2hazy 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
1.Christina aguilera
2.Whitney Houston
3.Mariah Carey
Simoneholme 1 year ago
Whitney,Mariah,Christina..
ArchiducDeBelgrade 1 year ago
Mariah Carey
Whitney Houston
Christina Aguilera
avm1992 1 year ago
1.Mariah
qwert1446 1 year ago
Christina wins Mariah whistle is the only thing she has going for her. Whitney cant sing anymore. Everyone knows why.
latinheat801 1 year ago
@latinheat801 Fail....as usual.
Chimier 1 year ago
1. Mariah
2. Whitney
3. Christina
BarryWesterhout 2 years ago
1.Mariah
2.whitney
3.christina
deonzax 2 years ago
Xtina obviously !
p4637 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.whitney
2.christina
3.mariah
That`s the way it should be! (:
missLinnAgustafsson 2 years ago
1.Christina aguilera
2.Whitney Houston
3.Mariah Carey
1921kev1 2 years ago
objectively,
mariah's voice lacks and is very inferior when compared to the powerful vibrtos of Whitney and Xtina! That is the truth, and the lambs must deal with it.
Enough said!
BlaaaAndBlaaa 2 years ago
Christina has no vibrato. She has a warble. Big difference. Christina fails.
Chimier 2 years ago
they have different voices, beautiful and perfect in their own way.
stoningking 2 years ago
Mariah
Whitney
Christina
bishona 2 years ago
1.houston
2.Carey
3.Aguilara
^^;
DieazyBabe 2 years ago
1. Whitney Houston
2. Mariah Carey
3. Christina Aguilera
I just don't think Xtina measures up to the other two. Whitney and Mariah are considered the two most influential female singers of the past two decades, and for good reason...
Christina screams and strains, she just throws her power around... Whitney balances out her power by maintaining the sweet tone in her voice, but with Xtina's power, it just sounds as though power is ALL she has, and that is when she sounds unpleasant...
ManOfBamboo 2 years ago
1 mariah
2 whitney
3 christina
chyna9th 2 years ago
OK LETS SEE .. BACK IN THE DAY .. WHITNEY OFFCOURSE . AND NOWADAYZ CHRISTINA ! .. mariah.. used to be good but not as good as whitney and now shes just all wispers
bastianseba 2 years ago 2
I don't believe it was fair to have Mariah's first clip not in her prime.
Viovirtuosity 2 years ago
That was what I was thinking. If you're going to try and use highlights of Mariah's singing, they should be taken from 1996 or before.
nexosen 1 year ago
Raxepy, what kep was mariah Falsetto at 3:55?
MsJohanna123 2 years ago
i love them all!!! but IF i had 2 choose (which i don't) i'd choose TEAM CHRISTINA!!!!!!!!!
tRiShA456 2 years ago
Funny how you intentionally used performances of Mariah and Whitney from when they were past their prime, yet they still won this battle. :/
mellynumerounoo 2 years ago
Whitney is the best duh.She has the power of Christina,and the melodies of Mariah
alleekrocks 2 years ago
Whitney has the power of Christina? I hope not. Whitney has 10x the power of Christina.
Chimier 2 years ago
You must be borderling retarded. Those two categories of sickness are completely different. Not at all related. You should have killed yourself years ago.
grenadaification 2 years ago
Did I say they were the same? Nope. But they make people act gaga, hence your pathetic comment that I should have killed myself years ago. Don't mix me up with you. Unlike you, my life was planned.
You're the accidental spawn of low-life prostitues and gigolos raised with no prospects or reason to live, You just got by like a thread hanging on the edge of a cliff that would just not blow away.
Chimier 2 years ago
@ Chimier... well you do know pop music is just "popular music". It really isn't a defined genre. As far as musical history tells us... so I don't think it is a completely fair statement to say she's only sang pop.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
When did I say she's ONLY done pop? Never. As for pop music, I am talking about the specific GENRE, not the umbrella term. Christina may have done jazz, soul and blues, but they were far from authentic.
Chimier 2 years ago
What specific genre? I never said you said she only did pop. Sorry for the misunderstanding, my only point is that you aren't willing to recognize the difference between Urban, hip-hop, and R&B. And saying Bubblegum Pop to Dirty pop is no more stupid than saying light rock and soft rock, which there are music corporation that make that distinction. Anywho, what I'm really getting at is that you are being picky about genres, but the genre Pop, has a similarly unstable history and definition.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
There is no difference between urban and R&B. Urban is another name contemporary R&B. Light rock and soft rock are the same thing also. Bubblegum pop and dirty pop are still pop. It doesn't show versatility at all.
Chimier 2 years ago
Likewise, it could be said that pop is not a style or genre really, but a marketing strategy. Some recognize a difference some don't. Your opinion on the matter isn't the only valid one is what I'm saying.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Well, I was talking about the pop genre, as the subject I was discussing was musical versatility. Trying to differentiate within the pop genre hardly makes someone versatile.
Chimier 2 years ago
That argument is valid if pop is actually a genre that is based on style, some would argue that it is not. So, in some cases it doesn't show versatility, and other cases it would.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Um, yes, pop has its own rhythmic structure, like jazz does or blues or gospel. In fact, pop music's structure is standardized. Saying Christina is versatile because she sings Bubblegum Pop and Dirty Pop is not proof of versatility at all. The only difference is the subject matter of the song and the difference in instrumentation (sometimes). It is not proof of versatility at all.
Chimier 2 years ago
Maybe the songs you consider pop all have the same rhythmic structure, but as I said, what pop has been historically called, even as a "genre" doesn't have definite characteristics. Again, it seems mostly a distinction on how it is marketed, not much about its style or structure.
You are welcome to disagree, just putting it out there. If you think there is something incorrect about what I am saying, please correct me.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Musical versatility depends on chord and rhythmic structure, not how the song is marketed. As I said, there is not a big difference between "bubblegum" pop and "dirty pop", jut like there isn't a huge difference between "soft rock" and "hard rock." They are just tiny differentiations within a genre, not two different genres altogether. That being said, pop music is the only kind of music Christina has pulled off well. She failed so bad at jazz, soul and blues. Awful.
Chimier 2 years ago
My only point is that pop is hardly a genre itself... so your point is moot.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Sorry, it is. Just because it is used as an umbrella term doesn't make it any less of a genre than any other music. Rock is used as an umbrella term also for music. Doesn't mean it's less of a genre. All of this "Christina has done bubblegum pop and dirty pop" is just utter bullshit. Your statement is dumped.
Chimier 2 years ago
The use of Rock as umbrella term is no where close to the extent to which Pop is used as an umbrella term. Rock actually started as a genre as a mixture (not necessarily an umbrella) or other things to create it. Pop, as I explained a shorter version of POPular music, was not about genre at all, but was coined to describe how much something sales or the frequency of play on a station.
Rock had everything to do with mixing styles, pop had nothing to do with style, but sales.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Ok, but it doesn't change the fact that both are used as umbrella terms. Pop music is usually the most popular music out there, hence its name. It's structure was light and simple compared to other genres, thus making it more appealing, which ended up leading to its commercialism. But the fact is, regardless, it IS an established music genre and musical versatility is not proven by a singer experimenting with MINOR differentiations within ONE musical genre.
Chimier 2 years ago
As I said, rock really isn't an umbrella term. It doesn't include several different songs of different "genres", but that individual rock songs contain a mixing of genres, and that mixture composes a rock song. Maybe i'm harping on semantics here, but I think that is distinctly different from it being an umbrella genre. I don't think it is an established musical genre, you might consider it to be, but it is no where near as defined as other genres, because it was defined by commercialism.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
No, it was made as an alternative to rock and roll and it became very appealing to everyone, regardless of whether they liked rock and roll or not. It was not defined by commercialism when it started. It BECAME commercial because of its popularity. The same thing can be said for rock and roll. It BECAME commercial due to its popularity.
Chimier 2 years ago
No, the first time the term was ever used, as I said, it was about its ability to sale. Different things sale in each decade, that's why you can't really say pop is actually a genre because the style of what sales changes. Yes, and that commercialization of rock is why it can be considered pop music, because it sales, not because it is assimilating to a certain "pop" style. Pop started off being about commercialization, and then it was defined as a "genre" based on what's popular at the time.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
The term "pop music" started being used in the 1950s and it referred to a SPECIFIC music genre.
Chimier 2 years ago
See, we are talking about two different things. I am specifically talking about the pop music genre, while you are talking about the term POPULAR music. Minor differentiations in the pop music GENRE doesn't add to a singer's overall musical versatility.
Chimier 2 years ago
You are insisting that there is a pop genre, i'm saying there isn't a pop genre. There is only a pop "genre" as it relates to the term popular music. The idea that the term "pop music" was first used in the 1950s in reference to a specific genre or style is telling as nothing that we have today sounds anything like the music of the 50s yet we likewise call it pop music... this is because what is definitive about it is the way it is market, not style. The only constant stylistic point is length.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Sorry, there is a pop genre. You learn about it in music theory. What you're doing is giving me the history of the term "popular music".
Does the R&B of 1950 sound like the R&B of today? Gospel music has changed, as have many other musical styles, so your comment again is dumped.
Chimier 2 years ago
Yeah, but I think that's what your missing. This whole argument about genre is how it is arbitrary, especially when you are talking about pop music. There are wide variations within each genre as it is influenced by things outside of it. The problem is pop is an umbrella for all genres and then variation that happens within those genres. Gospel of today can be the same, but it can be significantly different that's why they've developed significant sub-genres. The same can be said for R&B.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
The variations within each genre depend on the structure. There is little difference between bubblegum pop and dirty pop (dirty pop isn't even a subgenre. It's just a name fans give to pop music that isn't squeaky clean).
Chimier 2 years ago
Besides, some would say there is a distinct difference between rock and rock n' roll. I was referencing rock, not rock n' roll.
What "overall rhythmic structure"? What elements does modern pop share with the pop of the 50s other than length and being about love? When it comes to Rock, Gospel, and even R&B those elements are far more clearly defined than some blanket statement about "rhythmic structure"?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Rock came from rock and roll.
And what do you mean by blanket statement? All genres are defined by the difference in rhythmic and chord structures. Some genres are melodic genres, while others are rhythmic genres. Some are based on a fusion of other genres, giving them a more distinct sound and meter....
Chimier 2 years ago
I understand that. I'm asking you what is that for pop?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Well, for pop, it's usually has a common time signature (4/4 timing), and based on a simple chord progression. It has an intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, then an outro.
Chimier 2 years ago
So common timing (common meaning that most songs have it, pop or not) and a simple chord progression. I don't know about you, but the blues progression is pretty simple. I know many gospel songs that have exactly that formula for segments of the song (not to mention this structure has nothing to do with the "rhythmic structure" you described).
The characteristics you've described can be applied to a number of songs in different genres. Also many songs considered pop that don't have these.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Some of them can be applied to other songs. Pop music has the most simple musical structure. The blues is way more complex, and uses a variety of musical "expressions", such as blue notes. I assume that you are talking about the twelve-bar-blues when you say the blues scale. The pop genre usually uses simple chord progressions than that.
Chimier 2 years ago
And this intro/outro structure... you are talking about 1950s pop or modern pop?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Both.
Chimier 2 years ago
Give me some examples, because none of the pop songs I have in my head have an intro or an outro. Unless you are talking about intro "Oooo..." and "Ahhh..." as intro, and most of them don't have both...
So you are saying a pop song is one that is easy to make because it has a simple structure, and that is the genre of pop? In the meantime, you can have a song that is a rock song, or a blues song that fits the same bill as a pop song? This sounds a little bit like what I've been saying.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
"You can have a song that is a rock song, or a blues song that fits the same bill as a pop song."- Then it's a rock song/blues song or it's a pop song with rock/blues influence. Big difference.
Chimier 2 years ago
How about an example from the 1950s, where the pop "genre" originated.
But it can't be a rock/blues song with pop influence? So what would be "pure pop" and how do we decide who is influencing who?
So what length does the intro have to be, and the outro as well? And wouldn't the timing be 4/4 or do they got crazy with 12/8 or something? The outro is missing from most pop songs I have in my head, unless you are equating and outro with repetition of the chorus and slowly fading out?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
It's all about the song's chord and metric structure. If it's more pop-based, then it's pop. To determine who is influencing it, you have to see how pop-based the song is and if it borrows from other genres. If so, how much does it borrow?
But as I said, pop has a much simpler and easier musical structure than other genres, giving it an easier sound, which is why it was so appealing and became commercial.
Chimier 2 years ago
So Easy Listening songs are pop songs?
So you assume first that it is a pop song, and insist that it is borrowing, unless it borrows too much and then you flip it to another genre, even though it fits the bill of a pop song?
Does this sounds like a clearly defined genre to you? Not to mention not finding any sources that adhere to this definition...
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Easy listening made people feel good. It's not a genre of music like classical, soul or blues, just a name grouped.
And what are you talking about? I said nothing of assuming. I said that is how genre is determined: the structure, which gives the song its sound.
So pop music is a GENRE. Popular music is just an umbrella term. Two different things. If you still don't understand, I recommend you read some books on music theory.
Chimier 2 years ago
Yes, I'm aware of that. You were talking about the timing of the outro and intro, I was asking if the timing was different from 4/4 for the outro and intro, and if so, what is it?
I don't feel like you've shown that pop is genre (but that's just me), you've said some blanket stuff about simple structures and 4/4 time. So far nothing has been definitive to the point of how rock or blues are defined as genre.
That's why I put a question mark.
So, as I said, Easy Listening songs are pop songs?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
No, easy listening are not just pop. Easy listening can be anything. I said pop had a simple structure that made it easy. Jazz, blues, soul, even classical can have a easy sound also, but the structure is more complex than pop music.
Pop music is a genre. It's been around for over half a century. And if it's not a gnre, then what was Baby One More Time or Wannabe? R&B? Um, no. It was pop.
Chimier 2 years ago
What do you mean when you say "that made it easy"? So does this mean the vice versa can't happen, a simple structure that sounds complex? Well, R&B, I find, still falls along color lines, Britney couldn't produce an R&B album if she wanted to. I'm not saying that people don't use "pop" as a genre, my only argument is that it is not definitive like other genres, and usually works like an umbrella term for whatever is popular at the time. Britney and Spice Girls were insanely popular.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
It gave it a light, relaxing, fun sound without the complexity of music.
It is certainly a definitive genre. It's just that people mix it up with the term "popular music", which can be any music popular at the time.
Chimier 2 years ago
Like I said, I feel, you have yet to distinguish it as a definitive genre to the same extent blues, rock, or jazz is defined. You've only stated that they have simple structures, but that isn't definitive of pop only. You also assigned 4/4 time to it, which, as I originally point out, and you just admitted, can be applied to any song. You talk about the timing of intro and outros, but you have reneged on that too.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Pop music's structure is simpler to that of jazz, blues and many other genres. Just read some books about music theory. Time signature is not the only thing that determines musical structure.
I said pop music USUALLY has a 4/4 timing. I never said it was the only one. Just like blues is not the only genre to use the pentatonic scale.
Chimier 2 years ago
So far it is only an issue of relativity. That pop is "simpler" than jazz. This is not a real definition as it relies on that comparison or ranking of music.
I understand that time signature is not the only thing that determines music structure. You are the one who originally brought it up as if there was a "pop time signature". The problem is that 4/4 is common, it was useless to connect it specifically to pop anyway. At least the pentatonic scale has a steadier relation to the blues.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
I never pretended to imply there was a pop time signature. You asked me what does a pop song usually consist of. One of my replies what that a pop song usually has a 4/4 timing and I stressed that other genres use 4/4 timing.
Pop is simpler than jazz. Get some knowledge in music theory, then you''ll understand.
Chimier 2 years ago
But like I said 4/4 time is common... it makes it a highly irrelevant distinction.
So it is that I'm simply not knowledgeable enough? All you did was name a bunch of elements of music and put the adjective "simple" before them. I'm following along, but you can't seem to describe what you mean by simple. You've been all over the place with intro/outro timings, common timing, it "easy", light, relaxing, fun... all of which fails to say anything objectively definitive about the genre.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Pop is a genre with an easy chord structure and easy metric structure. There.
Chimier 2 years ago
So you changed "simple" to "easy". Great?
But if the timing doesn't change throughout the song, saying that timing is important to the intro and outro is inane. And what of length? I would assume length is an issue with every song (every song has it). Does the outro/intro need to be short or long, or 5-seconds, or what? You're not being very specific and i think that's where we're running into problem with this discussion. You are speaking in generalities.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
The intro and outro can be as long as the composer wants it to be, and the length and timing of the intro is important as it sets up the tone for the song. The length and timing of the outro can be important, but it depends on what the composer wants to accomplish, and it also gives the song some sort of conclusion. But pop in general is very simple in structure and timing, more simple than jazz, more simple than blues, more simple than gospel.
Chimier 2 years ago
But this sounds like information on the outro and intro that is not particular to pop, but to most if not every song. Especially since the way you are describing it, it is all of it is based on what the composer wants to do, but isn't that how all composers are. The decision they make about the song (intro, outros, chorus, metric and chord structure) is based on whaqt they want it to be?
I get the pop is simple in structure, but other genres can be simple in structure. Can I get specifics?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
But what you're not getting is that while other genres can be simple in structure, they will still be more complex than pop.
Chimier 2 years ago
So, like I asked (but you didn't answer), does this mean we rank all music according to simplicity and then the last what, 10-20% is considered pop?
Unless, this is the way it is done, you simply stating that pop is simple in structure has no meaning. Again, details and specifics would help the defining process along.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Why are you ranking anything? Just enjoy the music.
Chimier 2 years ago
Let's compare Bach's Minuet in G to the 1960s song "A Lover's Concerto". ALC is in 4/4 timing, instead of 3/4 like MIG. Also, MIG is in the key of G, so is based on the G Major scale, thus the melody differs in a number of ways, but they share similarities, like the rhythmic repitition in the first four measures and the continued repitition in measures 5-7.
So pop can share similarities with other genres, but it will still be simpler.
Chimier 2 years ago
I understand what simple means when it comes to comparing two different pieces of music, the issue comes with what's simpler when comparing genres. It isn't the same thing, unless you are arguing that there can't be pop song in the key of G with waltz timing. Or that Bach's Minuet is an adequate representation of all things non-pop, and ALC all things pop. Not to mention the comparison between something in the 17th century when "pop" didn't exist, to something in the 20th and transatlantic.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Pop is simpler than classical, jazz, rock, blues, soul, funk, and gospel. In those other genres, the musicians like to switch it up and create twists and turns in the structure to make it more complex and exciting. That doesn't happen in pop.
Chimier 2 years ago
Classical music has probably the hardest vocal arrangements in music and the tempo usually changes a lot. In jazz and blues, they utilize musical expressions such as improvisation, syncopation, blue notes, swung notes, shuffle notes, call-and-response, and polyrhythms. Funk is a rhythmic genre based on playing one chord in vamp style instead of using chord progressions and the genre is built on the rhythm of the bassline. It has broad chords like sevenths and is mixed with the blues scale.
Chimier 2 years ago
Soul and gospel are based on chord progressions, and the tritone is very popular and it gives the genres their soulful sound, "bending" notes is quite common also and vocal-wise, the arrangements require the vocals to BUILD.
In pop music, if you're lucky, you get a modulation, so yeah....
Chimier 2 years ago
So in order to explain about Pop, you are talking about all the other genres? Does that seem like a definitive genre to you, than it is only defined in comparison to other genres? So do you mean to say that if a song has any of these elements it ceases to be a pop song?
Not to mention, your definitive descriptions of other genres just shows the huge difference in definitive speech when it comes to your and KyoHanjin's same description of pop.
Pop fails to be a self-identifying genre.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
Comment removed
Chimier 2 years ago
Again, you are trying to guess at what I'm getting at instead of actually answering the questions that I asked.
I already know about those genres and what defines them, knowing that is the reason why I was taught that pop is not a definitive genre like other genres. As you exhibited, it's most clear definition is one it has only in comparison to other genres, which means it ceases to be a free-standing, self-identifying genre. Stating it doesn't make it true.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
So, you can't have a song that is blues or rock with pop influences? What makes the musical structure clearly pop? So far all you've said is the structure is simple. Does this imply that every other genre structure is complex? You can't have a simple structure blues, rock, or jazz song because that would mean that it is pop?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
The chord and metric structure (how simple the sound it and how simple the timing is), the basic outline of the song. In pop songs, the rhythm doesn't usually change, neither do the basic duration of phrases and chord progressions.
A simple structure jazz song would still be more complex than pop.
Chimier 2 years ago
So basically, you rank all music in term of it's complexity of simplicity and cut off the bottom 10%-20%? Again, this idea of simple is an issue of relativity the way you are describing it it is defined by others. As for simple structure jazz, that depends on your definition of it, and this might be true with jazz, what of rock, blues, doo wop, et cetera.
So simpler timing than 4/4? So what is a simple chord and metric structure? How does one determine that it is simple?
HRHMychael 2 years ago
It doesn't depend on my definition. A simple jazz structure is a simple jazz structure. Get some books or take some classes in music theory. You are obviously not understanding. The fact of the matter is a pop genre exists.
Chimier 2 years ago
You haven't said anything but music terms, all of which I understand. I know what 12/8 is. I know that 4/4 is common time which means it was irrelevant for you to bring it up as specific to pop because it is the COMMON time. At one moment you say outro and intros have important timing, the next moment you say everything is the same timing in a pop song.
You haven't answered most of my questions, you just keep repeating yourself. I don't think it is me.
HRHMychael 2 years ago
I said the timing of intros and outros is important, because they are, especially the intros. It sets up the basis for the song.
I have answered all your questions. You seem to have difficulty comprehending. Pop music uses simple time signatures and simple chord progressions, with little or no change in the song structure, compared to other genres.
Chimier 2 years ago