>>2815700This post is both a shitty poorly photoshopped image and a badly formatted shitpost. What a joke.
>>2815701By that logic one could say that Family Force 5 were "good for a crunkcore band" while ignoring that crunkcore in general is a cancerous genre and FF5 are still awful no matter how you look at it. Being "good for your time/place/genre" doesn't fucking mean jack shit if you can't stack up against anyone else.
>muh politicsNot relevant and fuck off.
>crooninghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crooner>Before the advent of the microphone, popular singers like Al Jolson had to project to the rear seats of a theater, as did opera singers, which made for a very loud vocal style. The microphone made possible the more personal style. Al Bowlly, Gene Austin, Art Gillham and by some historical accounts, Vaughn De Leath are often credited as inventors of the crooning style but Rudy Vallée became far more popular, beginning from 1928. >Some performers, such as Russ Columbo, did not accept the term: Frank Sinatra once said that he did not consider himself or Bing Crosby "crooners".Try again.
Being recognizable =! being unique. Example: I wouldn't called Brian Ferneyhough recognizable due to the sheer dissonant and difficult to analyze nature of his compositions. At the same time he is highly unique, and extremely influential. Most people won't recognize a single Stockhausen song, even a famous one like Hymnen, yet he remains one of the most important and influential composers of the avant-art music canon.
At the same time, even bringing up Swans, they don't have a distinctive style unless you consider deep baritone vocals and heavy grinding repetition to be recognizable. Even their s/t/Filth/Cop/Young God lack Gira's baritone vocals. If anything, I'd argue that having a "recognizable" sound is a bad thing, since it indicates that said musician has been reliant on a certain style or sound to the point where it's all they're famous for.
