Grammy Awards

On a related topic, I don't think *anybody* on this forum is going to defend the Grammys themselves. They're a complete and utter joke. The discussion is just about some of the performances (and performers) that were on the Grammy telecast.

Fair enough.
I even commented about some of the performances themselves in my first post.

I don't know much about the history of Sinatra.

Did he write is own lyrics or any of the music?

I think a vocalist who sings lyrics penned by someone else is certainly musical, and can be considered a performer, but I might have a hard time calling them a true musician.
 
GaGa will be around for quite a while. Controversial like Madonna and outrageous like Cher and both of those ladies had quite the staying power in the music/entertainment industry. You heard it here first ;)

Funny, I thought a couple years ago, Amy Winehouse was going to change the face of music. Now, she is truly a "Butter-Face"
 
First, a lot of what you've posted I agree with, these are just a few things that stuck out that I had to respond to.

I've now seen this pointed out several times in this thread. And each time I read it I think, how sad a commentary is it on a genre, that we award someone special points for writing their own music. I know that probably reads like sarcasm, but it's not intended as such. I've spent a lot of time on UM over the years and have never once heard someone say about a Metal band, "They write their own songs."

You never hear it simply because writing your own songs is "normal" for a metal band, so there's no need to state it. But that doesn't mean that trait can be quantified as a good or bad thing. If I'm looking for the best possible music experience, I can imagine plenty of occasions where combining writer and performer in one person is a bad thing. I mean, you don't want your architect framing out your house, or your plumber doing lighting design, do you? So the dividing singers and songwriters as is common in the "pop" world can make a lot of sense. On the other hand, at times combining the roles may give an authenticity to performances that would otherwise be impossible to create. Though, in the metal world, usually 4/5ths of the band is playing someone else's song anyway, and if genuine authenticity is what we require, wouldn't we demand to see screenwriters acting in movies?

I'm not allowed to point out the inverse relationship between musical talent and popularity?

You're allowed to point it out, but I don't know how you could possibly demonstrate that claim. First, as you said yourself, "talent" is pretty hard to define. Then, there are tons of shitty, talentless and unpopular bands. I won't claim the opposite (that there is a positive correlation between talent and popularity), but I'd say that claim could be argued just as well as yours.

The other implication you can draw from that statement, is that the only way our American Idol culture is going to grant Andre and Elton that wide a national audience, is if they're performing with Mary J. Blige and Lady Gaga.

Don't know if you're aware of this or not, but of those four, Lady Gaga is the only one (thus far!) who hasn't been a prominently-featured guest on American Idol. Andrea and Elton have been pimped heavily (there was even just a rumor that Elton will replace Simon Cowell!)

Again, if you think if ABC was running a concert featuring Elton and Andre, while CBS was running one featuring Mary and Lady Gaga, that ABC would garner higher ratings, raise your hand.

*raises hand*! Kids don't watch network TV anymore, only old people do. :loco:

Neil
 
How are your first three bullets not generalizations about pop music?
Mitch... with all due respect, it seems you keep accusing me of one thing, and then changing your argument. You specifically accused me of, "implying that anybody that could be categorized as "pop" was by definition less talented than performers in other genres." As proof of my transgression, you quote four bullet points where I never once compared Pop music to any another genre.

And you state as fact that pop music appeals to the "lowest common denominator". Sounds like a derogatory blanket statement about pop music to me.
While I can appreciate why you see my assessment as derogatory, I view my assessment as an accurate depiction of Pop, not a generalization.

What makes something popular, almost by definition, is that it appeals to the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator is a unifying element that reduces large and complex sets of fractions to smaller, simpler sets. You can read that as an insult if you choose. However, what I stated can be reasonably demonstrated as follows:

Pop music doesn't...
  • require the listener have a sophisticated knowledge of music
  • require that people go searching for it (because it's omnipresent)
  • require that the listener listen to a song over and over again (because the hooks are obvious by design)
  • doesn't have long musical interludes that the listener must sit through to reach the chorus
In doing all these things, Pop music accomplishes the goal of appealing to the lowest common denominator. You may not care for the term because you find it's most common usage insulting. However, your preferences don't invalidate the accuracy of the observation.

Zod
 
I already said in my previous post that I completely respect whoever does not like her music. My post wasn't about that, nor was it directed at you what so ever.
I know... I was just pointing out that my opinion of her wasn't based on nothing.

I mentioned that she writes her own songs because I assumed people were not aware of it (based on comments insinuating that she and other artists mentioned here have no talent). There are comments here implying that. I broke her down because of a poster who felt the need to compare her with someone else. My post was just geared for those who probably thought she was a lip-syncing diva who doesn't contribute to the writing process at all because she "is" a pop star (as we know many of them don't).
Fair enough.

Again, if you don't like her music, voice or songs - cool. I think she has a great voice, I like her songs and as I mentioned in my first post, absolutely love her visual eye.
That's cool. As we agree, people should like what they like. Honestly, my interest in this thread has little to do with her.

Cheers.

Zod
 
Some more good points there Zod.
Much (not all) pop music simply caters to short attention span music fans.
It caters to folks who primarily listen to what's on the radio, or at home as background.

Us metal fans nit pick EVERY part of the song
(IE - the intro, verse, chorus, verse, bridge, outro, etc, etc).

Most pop is simple verse, chorus, verse.

A good pop song is a good pop song.

Though I have more respect for Blink 182 or the RAMONES who actually WRITE their own simple pop songs.
 
First, a lot of what you've posted I agree with, these are just a few things that stuck out that I had to respond to.
Naturally... brilliant minds... :loco:

If I'm looking for the best possible music experience, I can imagine plenty of occasions where combining writer and performer in one person is a bad thing. I mean, you don't want your architect framing out your house, or your plumber doing lighting design, do you?
I'm not quite sure your analogy is a fair one.

So the dividing singers and songwriters as is common in the "pop" world can make a lot of sense. On the other hand, at times combining the roles may give an authenticity to performances that would otherwise be impossible to create.
If they were combining elite songwriters with the finest singers, to create the best possible art, I'd have no issue with it. However, are you prepared to argue that when Sony pairs the Britney Spears with a team of well paid songwriters, high art is the goal?

You're allowed to point it out, but I don't know how you could possibly demonstrate that claim.
There's no way I could prove it empirically, though I'd have fun attempting to do so; PowerPoint slides, Excel spreadsheets, and pictures of Milli Vanilli (who won a Grammy). :lol:

Don't know if you're aware of this or not, but of those four, Lady Gaga is the only one (thus far!) who hasn't been a prominently-featured guest on American Idol. Andrea and Elton have been pimped heavily (there was even just a rumor that Elton will replace Simon Cowell!)
My comment wasn't intended to link the artists with American Idol, only to speak to the preferences of our American Idol culture.

*raises hand*! Kids don't watch network TV anymore, only old people do.
So it was Grandmothers in Boca Raton watching the Grammys, tuning in to see Eminem, Lady Gaga and Pink?

Zod
 
What annoys me the most in music is the lack of honesty... I think that is by far the most important aspect of music. I do not care about the genre, just give me real.

Honesty is subjetive, it's all about perception... To my sensibilities, a lot of pop music sounds fake and overproduced... Not interested, thanks.

And the same goes for metal, actually. A few years back I started to get really tired of most things metal. Although it's not necessarily "fake" as pop music, a lot of it lacks spontaneity...Bands started to actively try to create something "unique", mixing all sorts of styles, doing all sorts of crazy arrangements just to sound original... But it sounds so forced to me... Can't get into the uber-techinical stuff... It's being original for the sake of being original... And metal actually has been suffering from the "overproduced" problem that I mentioned above... Sometimes I just want something a bit more real, less polished, less perfect...


So yeah... Altough I am coming from a different perspective, I agree with Jason and Zod.
And to me it's not because of its simplicity or lack of quality.... Considering the quality of the people working with those artists, criticizing the quality of the music and/or arrangements is silly. Only incredibly talented musicians and producers work with them... and they usually ARE GOOD SINGERS...

I will take Anathema with its two below average singers over Beyonce any day of the week.