Why do people here on DS forums not like Matt?

2»

Comments

  • Singy ThingySingy Thingy Posts: 4,321
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I really think this is an attempt at turning subjective opinion into something objective. I think it's a matter of stylistic preference more than anything. The likes of Nate and Adele have soulful-style voices whereas Matt's is more of a modern radio/pop voice. Some people prefer hearing the soulful type of singer like Adele whereas others prefer the more radio-friendly voices of the likes of Justin Bieber etc. but I don't think one's necessarily better than the other.

    It just so happens that artists who have the more modern radio pop voice is more commercial and generally does better in the music industry than the more soulful type of singers (and this is often accentuated further by marketable looks as in Matt's case). Adele is of course an exception to this general rule.

    Not saying that Matt has delivered perfect performances but the potential is obvious. His melismas have been far better and more controlled (IMO) than any of the other singers and he has that resonant, modern radio-style voice that makes him potentially very commercial as an act. I'm a straight male btw so his looks have nothing to do with it for me lol.


    Actually, River made a very knowledgeable and fair post. The only thing I will disagree with is Nate can do more than just "come close" to having "light and shade" and full connection to songs.He achieved that milestone about 5 years ago. He is naturally soulful but has some adapted classical technique in his varied years of music background.(Partly to be the best he could, partly because he just wanted to learn everything and bring the best out in others as well. When I left the uk, it was Nate I trusted to take over my position as vocal coach because I knew he'd do the job with love,and he did )He got drastically shafted in terms of mix and edit, so I can understand where you(River) heard it as limitation. He is a classic oldschool great singer with a modern sound , and in clips where he has a good mix, it shows. I know I sound biased now, but I openly said Nate had the best voice and most potential of any singer I had ever heard back in 2008 when he first approached me for vocal coaching, and I'd say it today with even more certainty.

    Matt's tone is somewhat thin and reedy in places, but not unpleasantly so, and that could be an advantage in pop music if he learns to use it well.His " melismatic passages have all the tell tale signs of someone who learned by mimicking Jesse J and the like,and often they not connected to the song arrangement. That is just inexperience, not lack of talent.

    Many of the boys are modern/marketable . Nate is a rare talent. Niall is also outstanding ,James has a ringing belt voice, and Freddie's tone is fragily amazing. Matt is good, but Nate , Niall , James and Freddie deserved as much exposure/airtime ,if talent is the determining factor.

    River's comment was somewhat subjective,as are all our comments, but mostly objective and factual.You are entitled to your opinion, but you probably shouldn't argue too accusingly with someone who can cite chiaroscoro , usually used in painting, only rarely and by very dedicated vocal enthusiasts )as a factor in their opinion :D ) (Well said, River!)
  • fluffysheep123fluffysheep123 Posts: 254
    Forum Member
    Actually, River made a very knowledgeable and fair post. The only thing I will disagree with is Nate can do more than just "come close" to having "light and shade" and full connection to songs.He achieved that milestone about 5 years ago. He is naturally soulful but has some adapted classical technique in his varied years of music background.(Partly to be the best he could, partly because he just wanted to learn everything and bring the best out in others as well. When I left the uk, it was Nate I trusted to take over my position as vocal coach because I knew he'd do the job with love,and he did )He got drastically shafted in terms of mix and edit, so I can understand where you(River) heard it as limitation. He is a classic oldschool great singer with a modern sound , and in clips where he has a good mix, it shows. I know I sound biased now, but I openly said Nate had the best voice and most potential of any singer I had ever heard back in 2008 when he first approached me for vocal coaching, and I'd say it today with even more certainty.

    Matt's tone is somewhat thin and reedy in places, but not unpleasantly so, and that could be an advantage in pop music if he learns to use it well.His " melismatic passages have all the tell tale signs of someone who learned by mimicking Jesse J and the like,and often they not connected to the song arrangement. That is just inexperience, not lack of talent.

    Many of the boys are modern/marketable . Nate is a rare talent. Niall is also outstanding ,James has a ringing belt voice, and Freddie's tone is fragily amazing. Matt is good, but Nate , Niall , James and Freddie deserved as much exposure/airtime ,if talent is the determining factor.

    River's comment was somewhat subjective,as are all our comments, but mostly objective and factual.You are entitled to your opinion, but you probably shouldn't argue too accusingly with someone who can cite chiaroscoro , usually used in painting, only rarely and by very dedicated vocal enthusiasts )as a factor in their opinion :D ) (Well said, River!)

    Sorry if my post came across as accusational, that wasn't my intention. And I'm certainly not doubting Nate's talent - he sure has a soulful voice and I think his performance at the six chairs was definitely the best out of the boys (not even taking into account that he may have been sabotaged slightly in the mix/edit).

    When I described River's comments as subjective I was mainly referring to his description of Matt's tone as "thin and reedy". I know what River means but I think this is something subjective about Matt's voice that you either like or you don't. To me "thin and reedy" I would replace with "crisp and resonant" and it is this sound quality which I like about Matt's vocals. I agree Matt's voice comes across as slightly inexperienced in parts but I see the potential definitely there

    I was not aware of River's vocal experience and kudos to him, but one thing I have noticed over my own years of studying music and vocals, is that singers or vocal coaches from an Academic background tend to prefer stylistically the type of soulful singer or some alternative style of singer over a more mainstream pop vocal. Feel free to disagree however, in fact I'm open for a debate about this :)
    It's a Music competition first and foremost and every other Boy in his category has way more interesting Music styles that they're going for than Matt Terry imo.

    Christian in particular is chasing down one of my favourite genres in the more Indie sound.

    It is this sort of comment which I also indirectly referred to as being a tad "subjective". Style is a preference as opposed to a quality. Each style has it's appeal to different niches, and musical style is largely independent of vocal ability. It's more a matter of opinion than anything else.
  • Singy ThingySingy Thingy Posts: 4,321
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Fluffysheep, thank you for clarifying and sharing your thoughts.Your post was interesting.I doubt we'll debate too much. It sounds like we agree more than disagree , generally. :)

    I would still describe Matt's tone as thin in places, but , again, it works well for the kind of music he does.If he worked on his technique , IMO specifically with more of a focus on tone production and artistry, on relaxed projection in mixed/.head voice instead of forcing a belt to the point of strain, I think that he could be a standout pop singer with some crossover into other genres.He is good now, but I think his voice could be better than he even knows.

    I actually like a good pop,indie,or rock edged vocal. I am a jazz/rock /soul girl at heart .I was steered toward classical because my voice type (in classical) is dramatic coloratura,and I loved learning, but it wasn't "me".It was great for projecting and precision and dynamics ,but I am all about natural voices developed individually, and a freer expression when performing. For some, that does lead to classical , but for others...it's such an awesome journey,whatever your path, isn't it?
  • fluffysheep123fluffysheep123 Posts: 254
    Forum Member
    Fluffysheep, thank you for clarifying and sharing your thoughts.Your post was interesting.I doubt we'll debate too much. It sounds like we agree more than disagree , generally. :)

    I would still describe Matt's tone as thin in places, but , again, it works well for the kind of music he does.If he worked on his technique , IMO specifically with more of a focus on tone production and artistry, on relaxed projection in mixed/.head voice instead of forcing a belt to the point of strain, I think that he could be a standout pop singer with some crossover into other genres.He is good now, but I think his voice could be better than he even knows.

    I actually like a good pop,indie,or rock edged vocal. I am a jazz/rock /soul girl at heart .I was steered toward classical because my voice type (in classical) is dramatic coloratura,and I loved learning, but it wasn't "me".It was great for projecting and precision and dynamics ,but I am all about natural voices developed individually, and a freer expression when performing. For some, that does lead to classical , but for others...it's such an awesome journey,whatever your path, isn't it?

    Yea I get what you mean, there's definitely still room for improvement with Matt and I agree with most of the points you made.

    Oh nice - actually I also trained in classical singing for a bit (classical mainly due to the lack of contemporary vocal coaches in my town). But I learnt a lot of great vocal techniques which was cool. Recently my focus has shifted to songwriting and producing/mixing so I haven't had much time to work on my singing unfortunately :(
  • King KuntaKing Kunta Posts: 6,081
    Forum Member
    He's forced down everybody's throats. Had him sing 4 times at six chair challenge, then when he wasn't singing they constantly needed to see what he thought of people's performances as if anybody cared and on top of it all his voice isn't really that good enough to justify so much airtime. He's also very bland personality wise. They seem to just be keen on the 'Louis Tomlinson' connection and teenage girls just love it.

    He's the obvious winner and it's not even live shows yet.
  • lulu glulu g Posts: 52,620
    Forum Member
    I don't dislike Matt; I just don't think he's as good a singer as I'm being told by The X Factor that he is. He's not terrible, but if he didn't look like Louis Tomlinson, I very much doubt he would have got through the six-chair challenge based on his performance.

    Apologies for interrupting the more erudite, and interesting, discussion between the above posters. I can hear and appreciate most of what those posters do, but I don't have the technical knowledge to express it as well as they do.
  • Littlegreen42Littlegreen42 Posts: 19,963
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Don't dislike him, he is just so bland. Nothing original about him.
  • SelenaSelena Posts: 29,581
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Don't make him as a person, he seems nice enough, but I don't like the tone of his voice.
  • BBKINGREALITYBBKINGREALITY Posts: 3,084
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Because he has a face like Louis Tomlinson that you just want to punch and he isn't endearing in the slightest. He also sounds like a girl when singing.
  • SelenaSelena Posts: 29,581
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Selena wrote: »
    Don't make him as a person, he seems nice enough, but I don't like the tone of his voice.

    Just seen this I meant don't MIND him as a person. :p
  • TVScanner99TVScanner99 Posts: 1,779
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    He seems like a really nice guy from what we've seen, but I just don't think his performances so far have been any good. I've seen a few of his videos on Youtube and he's quite good in those, so there's still hope.
  • HitstasticHitstastic Posts: 8,596
    Forum Member
    He's fit :D

    ...and there's the problem.

    This isn't Britain's Next Top Model.

    When I "listen" to him sing, I use my ears not my eyes. Shame most people can't do the same thing. :cry:

    Look at James Arthur in comparison. I don't know how often he's referred to as "fit" but in his case it's the music that does the talking. Hence why he's just become the first male X Factor winner to score his second UK #1 hit. Matt Terry will be lucky if he even gets his winner's single to #1 yet alone his follow up.
    lulu g wrote: »
    I think the same is true of Louisa too, although I have not seen much of her.

    Louisa has definitely sexed up her image. Just watch the music video for Tears by Clean Bandit for evidence of that.

    When I first heard Tears, I thought it was a great song - there was no music video to boost the song so for me, Tears did well in the charts on merit alone.
Sign In or Register to comment.