My vote is for Shakira,beautiful woman and sexy, but her voice is just so bad.....
all vibrato and sounds like a animal suffering.
I would pick on Britnety, but I feel so sorry for her.
Dave
Kenny Chesney, Trace Adkins or Montgomery Gentry; most male 'country' singers make me want to go deaf.
I could never vote Shakira worst pop singer as long as I'm watching her sing.
There are many....but Celine Dion wins the prize. The woman is excruciating. I'd just as soon poke my eye out with a fork than listen to her caterwauling.
Celine Dion can actually sing. Her problem is choice of material and form of delivery, in other words bad taste. This award should go to one of those manufactured pop stars who perform like trained seals in the studio and can't get up on stage without banks of autotune behind them. They might as well be robots or computer simulations. There are any number of people who fit into this category. Jessica Simpson, and her even more wretched sister. The Spice Girls. Most of those idiotic boy bands. I'm sure we could come up with a long list.
Top 3
1. Bananarama
2. Milli Vanilli
3. Jessica Simpson's Superbowl sister
Anyone who truly understands the art of singing knows that Celine Dion is a rare form of talent. Her voice is almost perfect, actually. She does things with the human voice that are impossible for most singers. I think what most people tire of is repetition and overexposure to material. You can hear her voice in shopping malls, grocery stores, TV commercials and in the car all day long, and anyone gets old after a while.
IMO, the worst singer that has ever "made it" by singing is Vince Gill. When I hear his voice I envy the deaf.
I think John Mayor is a terrible singer as well. The guy tries way too hard to have soul, but always ends up sounding like he's trying. He just doesn't "have it". Yes, I know, I know....he's a great guitarist, but so is Vince Gill.
:yak:
The list is endless.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on January 20, 2008, 11:31:24 PM
Kenny Chesney, Trace Adkins or Montgomery Gentry; most male 'country' singers make me want to go deaf.
When I sang in school choirs, nasal qualties were avoided...today they are rewarded.
I wonder if human growth hormones cause nasalocity? Add to it a muscle sleeveless shirt and
a mullet hairdo. Ouch.
Quote from: ElJefe on January 21, 2008, 11:57:25 AM
When I sang in school choirs, nasal qualties were avoided...today they are rewarded.
I wonder if human growth hormones cause nasalocity? Add to it a muscle sleeveless shirt and
a mullet hairdo. Ouch.
Yeah, those not many of those guys do it for me either.
One particular "singer" that gets on my nerves is Axl Rose from Guns 'n Roses...man that "voice" of his is really annoying. Then again, I'm not much of a metal guy but I still liked Robert Plant's voice even though he was a bit much sometimes. Led Zeppelin was the pre-cursor to almost every metal band out there today and they are still, IMO, the standard by which all of the others are to be judged.
Quote from: Denis on January 21, 2008, 12:18:33 PM
Led Zeppelin was the pre-cursor to almost every metal band out there today and they are still, IMO, the standard by which all of the others are to be judged.
Yeah, but if I hear one more Englishman sing "Lord, have mercy on me" (listen up Clapton) I'll be joining the creature and Jeremy 3220 in their requests for deafness.
To the Celine Dion fans who responded, allow me to elaborate on my original post. While Celine CAN sing, my problem with her is how she chooses to use her talent. To me, Celine represents the worst excesses of commercialism, alternating between pointless, bombastic vocal pyrotechnics and maudlin, saccharine drenched tripe. Yeah, she can hit a note, but where's the soul? One gets the sense that everything she records is conceived as a shrewd business transaction, maximizing her bottom line through lowest common denominator product. What I don't hear is art. It's as if someone like Monet chose to spend his career drawing happy faces and stick people - a tragic waste of talent. I'll change my tune on Celine when she changes her tune (jazz, opera, metal, anything but the drivel she currently produces). And I still find her excruciating.
Quote from: stubby on January 21, 2008, 04:24:22 PM
To the Celine Dion fans who responded, allow me to elaborate on my original post. While Celine CAN sing, my problem with her is how she chooses to use her talent. To me, Celine represents the worst excesses of commercialism, alternating between pointless, bombastic vocal pyrotechnics and maudlin, saccharine drenched tripe. Yeah, she can hit a note, but where's the soul? One gets the sense that everything she records is conceived as a shrewd business transaction, maximizing her bottom line through lowest common denominator product. What I don't hear is art. It's as if someone like Monet chose to spend his career drawing happy faces and stick people - a tragic waste of talent. I'll change my tune on Celine when she changes her tune (jazz, opera, metal, anything but the drivel she currently produces). And I still find her excruciating.
Don't mistake me for a Celine Dion fan. I detest her music and find her songs to be the equivalent of audio feces. I don't like that type of music in general. I also agree that Celine at this point is a mere moneymaking machine. Big deal. Who cares. All that jazz. But to deny that she has one of the most amazing voices is crazy. While I don't like anything she does, I can recognize that she is a rare talent. It would be great if she'd make some good music, but good music doesn't sell these days.
Quote from: bearsville0 on January 21, 2008, 06:09:21 PM
Is that like, bling for the ears?
More like, dung for the young.
....or sh1t makes a hit. These days, anyway.
:wave
Quote from: the creature on January 21, 2008, 07:14:47 PM
....or sh1t makes a hit. These days, anyway.
:wave
I think we better stop. :ohmy:
Well. I gotta' say that I don't listen to enough of that stuff to formulate a general opinion BUT....of the stuff I do hear in KMart, Menards and/or Walmart...I can readily identify Avril Lavigne, but probably don't know how to spell her name correctly.
Now...please...I don't wanna' start a flame war that might include mention of her genuine talent for playing instruments or even...maybe...arranging songs. I'm not a violent guy, but this girls' voice, coupled with the dysfunctional subject matter of her songs and the incredibly over-produced arrangements makes me wanna' smack her a couple times and send her to bed hungry in the hope she gets a life beyond herself. In my opinion, she's right down there with the scowling rappers peering at me from their CD covers with that God-awful expression of indifference that says, "Screw you!"
And don't EVEN get me started on Amy W(h)inehouse!?! :roll
Quote from: whiskeyjack on January 21, 2008, 09:22:01 PM
Well. I gotta' say that I don't listen to enough of that stuff to formulate a general opinion BUT....of the stuff I do hear in KMart, Menards and/or Walmart...I can readily identify Avril Lavigne, but probably don't know how to spell her name correctly...
What!? you have no taste for the higher arts!
[youtube=425,350]NmncLYiFyGQ[/youtube]
It's probably a good thing that the YouTube link doesn't work. :laughin: :yak:
oh well, guess we'll all miss out on her wisdom.
Ask yourself this: Which is more of a sad truth, that what passes for good or professional music today is available, or that the public's taste has become so poor as to support such "art"?
I dunno' Creature. You're observations certainly have merit. . . .but maybe for discussion in a different thread. I agree with you: there is a certain disparity in musical tastes today. But it's tough to make extensive social commentary with regard to the musical standards of the day without getting a thread closed. This thread's about "worst pop singer" opinions. You and I could probably make observations all day long about changes we see in the third and fourth generation of musicians since Buddy Holly and Nat King Cole. Interesting discussion that would be.
I can say I really don't like Ms Lavigne's (or whatever her married name is these days) music or even the hostile & sensual impetus that moved her to create 'some' of it. But I'm really not that familiar with her or her music. I hear it in stores periodically. (And I probably shouldn't have said ANYTHING about rappers since they're really not pop singers). But I'm almost absolutely certain that neither the rappers nor Avril would find listening to the Kingston Trio and Peter, Paul & Mary much more than like, a TOTAL waste of life. WhatEVER! :laughin: Fair enough!
Good post, jack.
It is my opinion, and I'm probably going to be in the minority here (but I'm used to that :winkin:), but Rock music in general has been going downhill since the beginning. What Elvis and some of the guys in the 50s were doing was very good and very interesting, but it didn't even take 10 years before the entire genre was consumed with sexuality and came to be the soundtrack for hedonism in general. I think Rock music really had potential, but I think it failed. There is now every possible extreme out there, from death metal where even the sound of it is a bit frightening, to music that is so obscure and abstract that no logical sense can be made of it at all.
In each decade since the 50s the standards have steadily dropped. Once a person actually had to know how to play an instrument....and play it well....in order to be taken seriously. But you can see where it ended up; every kid that can play 3 chords now is in a band and singing about how life hasn't been fair. The lyrics once had depth and meaning, but now, again, the abstract and obscure has taken over. Not really in the name of creativity, that's just a mask. The issue is that there just isn't the talent there anymore, so instead of learning to play the game, just change the rules and make your own game. THAT is pop/rock music today.
Or.... I could just be getting old. :laughin:
Quote from: the creature on January 21, 2008, 11:35:03 PM
Good post, jack.
It is my opinion, and I'm probably going to be in the minority here (but I'm used to that :winkin:), but Rock music in general has been going downhill since the beginning. What Elvis and some of the guys in the 50s were doing was very good and very interesting, but it didn't even take 10 years before the entire genre was consumed with sexuality and came to be the soundtrack for hedonism in general. I think Rock music really had potential, but I think it failed. There is now every possible extreme out there, from death metal where even the sound of it is a bit frightening, to music that is so obscure and abstract that no logical sense can be made of it at all.
In each decade since the 50s the standards have steadily dropped. Once a person actually had to know how to play an instrument....and play it well....in order to be taken seriously. But you can see where it ended up; every kid that can play 3 chords now is in a band and singing about how life hasn't been fair. The lyrics once had depth and meaning, but now, again, the abstract and obscure has taken over. Not really in the name of creativity, that's just a mask. The issue is that there just isn't the talent there anymore, so instead of learning to play the game, just change the rules and make your own game. THAT is pop/rock music today.
Or.... I could just be getting old. :laughin:
Getting Old? I think you've probably always had those opinions. :winkin: You do remind me of an earlier generation of naysayers about popular culture. Fact is, like in nature , people will try everything and what sticks, will last. I think it's all fair game, especially rap and the three chord garage bands. It's all part of the fun. Your "long ago" golden age of talent myth is just that, a myth IMO. There's just no way to have all the info available to be objective about what things are like now compared to then.
People will like what they like, including rap and Celine. Luckily, there's plenty for me to enjoy.
" I think Rock music really had potential, but I think it failed. "
Had the potential for what?
I think it had the potential to make me feel good and start moving... and it still succeeds. As a form, I think it's develpment came full circle and ended itself with the Sex Pistols (plus a few stragglers like Nirvana and Radiohead), but it's still a perfect form of music. What more do you want?
Quote from: the creature on January 21, 2008, 11:35:03 PM
It is my opinion, and I'm probably going to be in the minority here (but I'm used to that :winkin:), but Rock music in general has been going downhill since the beginning. What Elvis and some of the guys in the 50s were doing was very good and very interesting, but it didn't even take 10 years before the entire genre was consumed with sexuality and came to be the soundtrack for hedonism in general.
Even the name it got in the early 50's, Rock & Roll, is a reference to sex. R&R's biggest influence, the blues, was soaked in sex already, so R&R was consumed with sexuality before anyone heard it.
QuoteIn each decade since the 50s the standards have steadily dropped. Once a person actually had to know how to play an instrument....and play it well....in order to be taken seriously. But you can see where it ended up; every kid that can play 3 chords now is in a band and singing about how life hasn't been fair. The lyrics once had depth and meaning, but now, again, the abstract and obscure has taken over. Not really in the name of creativity, that's just a mask. The issue is that there just isn't the talent there anymore, so instead of learning to play the game, just change the rules and make your own game. THAT is pop/rock music today.
R&R was originally very simple 3 chord songs and they're certainly have been recent artist who can play their instrument(Clapton, Vai, etc.) I'm not sure what abstract R&R you are talking about but it sounds like you are comparing the best of the early artist to the worst of everyone since then. What would be 'learning to play the game'? Sounding exactly like they did over 50 years ago? Sure the popular Rock music is mostly junk made to sell, but to take such an extreme position and say that old stuff is the best and everyone since then isn't as good does make you sound like an old fart.
Quote from: bearsville0 on January 22, 2008, 06:26:31 AM
Getting Old? I think you've probably always had those opinions. :winkin: You do remind me of an earlier generation of naysayers about popular culture. Fact is, like in nature , people will try everything and what sticks, will last. I think it's all fair game, especially rap and the three chord garage bands. It's all part of the fun. Your "long ago" golden age of talent myth is just that, a myth IMO. There's just no way to have all the info available to be objective about what things are like now compared to then.
People will like what they like, including rap and Celine. Luckily, there's plenty for me to enjoy.
I would have to mostly agree.
Anyone that can make music, should make it, even it is 3 chords. I admit, I am very distant to most new music because it just isn't my taste and that I am very uneducated as to who's out there playing and what is popular. Everyone has different tastes and there's something for everyone, to each his own. Old time musicians in the early 50's were probably talking about the current state of music, saying the same things that are being said in this thread.
I had heard once at college, in a music class that I took as an elective, that most people form their taste for music by the time they are 26-28 years old. I don't know how accurate that is, but there could be some truth to it. If it is true, maybe it becomes very hard for anyone in their 30's or older to warm up to anything that is different or new? My parents were young in the 40's and they never liked much music after the big-band era, often saying that today's music has no meaning or true talent.
Access to all types of music these days is at an incomparable high. Think about how much music we are exposed to in such a short amount of time (music on TV channels, internet, ipods), compared to say the 8-track tape playing 70's. Where I am going with this is that we are exposed to
far more stuff that we don't like...at a much faster rate....than in the past...exaggerating the thought that everything is going 'down hill'. This is a pretty weak observation and I admit that I'm not really taking the time to put my thoughts into the most accurate words so I apologize in advance for making little sense.
I have to agree with mon ami, Denis. Axel Rose has to be the most annoying "singer" I've suffered through, in a long time. Good band though. They say Bob Dylan can't sing but when I hear Axel butcher Knockin' on Heaven's Door, it's obvious that's not true. Dylan's version is short, bittersweet and superb. Still raises the hair on the back of my neck. GnR's is an abomination.
IMO, Celine Dion is the greatest singer no one wants to hear.
Quote from: ducktrapper on January 22, 2008, 09:05:44 AM
I have to agree with mon ami, Denis. Axel Rose has to be the most annoying "singer" I've suffered through, in a long time. Good band though. They say Bob Dylan can't sing but when I hear Axel butcher Knockin' on Heaven's Door, it's obvious that's not true. Dylan's version is short, bittersweet and superb. Still raises the hair on the back of my neck. GnR's is an abomination.
IMO, Celine Dion is the greatest singer no one wants to hear.
How about G'nR's version of Live and let Die...take a perfectly great McCartney tune and turn it into a whiney rant...shut up Axl, please!!!
Dylan proves that you don't need to be a "good" singer to be a great singer. (Cf. also Neil Young; remember that the original managers of the Buffalo Springfield wouldn't let Neil sing his own songs because they thought he had no voice.)
Celine proves that just being a great singer doesn't make you a great artist.
When Avril Lavigne first started out, I liked her for consciously going against the whole glamourpuss poptart thing. Plus she was punk-lite, which appealed to the former punk rocker in me. But lately she's been moving a bit more in the glamourpuss direction, which I don't like as much.
As for her attitude, I like it, even though it's totally contrived and manufactured. I like popstars who are willing to give the world the finger when they're young. All our boomer favourites did exactly the same thing -- the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Hendrix, Dead, CSN&Y, etc. I contrast that to someone like Britney, who in her heyday presented an image of eager-to-please mindless conformity. Blechh. And of course we now know that the underlying reality in her case was much uglier.
I'm willing to venture a guess that Avril will never have a Britney-style meltdown. I think she's too smart.
Gee guys, I just wanted to rag on Shakira.
You guys got all passionate about it, thats cool though, that means you are all passionate about music.
Good replys and funny too.
One thing though, I HATE RAP! or hip hop or whatever it is.
and it angers me that the kids think its cool and the radio stations play that crap.
I always tell my kids that good music will be around forever , not the crap they are exposed to.
Okay, enough, sorry,
dave
I think this whole thread is moot. To say any of these people mentioned have no talent is just not a true statement. What you're saying is you don't like a particular artist, obviously there are a lot of people who would have to disagree with you based on the sales of the recordings. I don't care for Rap style music but sometimes find myself tapping my toe to the beat because of the steady rhythm, I don't care for Opera singers either but I can still sit through it. Most other music I either like a little or a lot, but I think all the artists that get their music published are seen to have some kind of talent, otherwise they wouldn't sell product.
I remember when rock and roll was becoming the thing, old people saying "that's not music, it's noise". What it really amounts to is narrow mindedness. Let me say I'm not exempt, I have found as I get older that it is harder to adapt to change. I think that evolution will take care of that human defect, the younger generation adapts so much faster to the changing world than the elder generation does.
In closing I have to say I think there are many talented people out their writing or making music of some kind. I think that I have talent but I don't think I am good enough to do it professionally. Some people are just entertained easier than others, some don't even like music at all. It just seems strange to listen to so called musicians trash other musicians, it seems petty.
Petty or not, here I come! I only wish I could tell Axel to his face how much his singing sucks. I pity the fool! I'd have him wishing he was knockin' on Heaven's Door. :whistling:
Btw according to the rules of the American Musicians Union, singers aren't. Musicians, that is.
Quote from: bearsville0 on January 22, 2008, 06:26:31 AM
Your "long ago" golden age of talent myth is just that, a myth IMO. There's just no way to have all the info available to be objective about what things are like now compared to then.
I disagree. There is a way to tell how much better musicians used to be; you can do it simply by listening to older music. Listen to the musicianship of the 40 and 50s, or even the superb jazz musicians on the scene in the 20s and 30s. And obvisously if you take a peek into the classical era you see that people were making music that has not only lasted, but changed the world forever. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people making great music today, but I am saying that they are not making it in the pop genre. I'd be willing to bet that there is nobody on the charts right now, this very moment, that anyone will remember in 100 years. But, you will remember Bach 500 years from now. And Elivs will still be a legend in 100 years. The MTV bobble-heads that are on the scene now will not even be a memory, and it's because they aren't making music that really matters.
Quote from: jeremy3220 on January 22, 2008, 07:34:52 AM
Even the name it got in the early 50's, Rock & Roll, is a reference to sex. R&R's biggest influence, the blues, was soaked in sex already, so R&R was consumed with sexuality before anyone heard it.
R&R was originally very simple 3 chord songs and they're certainly have been recent artist who can play their instrument(Clapton, Vai, etc.) I'm not sure what abstract R&R you are talking about but it sounds like you are comparing the best of the early artist to the worst of everyone since then. What would be 'learning to play the game'? Sounding exactly like they did over 50 years ago? Sure the popular Rock music is mostly junk made to sell, but to take such an extreme position and say that old stuff is the best and everyone since then isn't as good does make you sound like an old fart.
Right, the name is a reference from sexuality, and I understand the history of the blues as well, but we're not talking about the blues. Even if rock's name came from a reference about sexuality, and even though Elvis pushed the envelope for his day, it doesn't compare to what it became in the 60s. Just take a look at the footage of Woodstock. Nudity, fighting, people having sex in front of everyone else, drugs being comsumed by almost everyone in attendance, etc. Now, I've also seen plenty of footage from Evlis' concerts, and I've never seen the same scene as Woodstock. That is my point about the downward spiral of rock music and the culture it created. You won't see those things at a nice jazz club, or at an opera or symphony. Rock music appeals to the lowest of our passions and doesn't tend to bring out the best in humanity. The music of the 60s gave us the attitude of "if it feels good, do it". Now that attitude has evolved into "our course it's right, it feels good!"
Yes, rock started out as 3-chords, but it was fun and creative at the time. Now it's been done to death and it all sounds the same. My wife likes to listen to those "mix" stations where they cut out all the guitar solos and play bands like Matchbox 20, et al. I always tell her, "why don't they just pay one band to play all these songs since all the bands sound alike and play all the same types of songs". The point is valid, there just isn't any creativity. Today all these guys know how to do is play a few chords soaked in distortion and play with their hair between songs. At least in the early days of rock something somewhat new was being offered; today it's just more of the same, but done worse each time.
And yes, I am an old fart. I consider it a virtue. :tongue:
QuoteI only wish I could tell Axel to his face how much his singing sucks. I pity the fool.
Wooo! Is that how you REEEELLY feel? :laughin: Not to worry about Axle, Axal?...Axell?... Anyway, the poor guy won't have a voice to even speak with if he keeps screeeeeching like that.
QuoteGee guys, I just wanted to rag on Shakira.
Well, see? Now look what you've done!! :rolleye: :wacko:. 'Prompted all kinds of opinionated, humorous, passionate, irreverent, moot and petty comments from mostly-once-wannabe professional musicians who, for the most part, probably can't even dance. Darnit@! Ya shoulda' known better, Davey!! :arrow :laughin: :roll
_________________________
QuoteI'd be willing to bet that there is nobody on the charts right now, this very moment, that anyone will remember in 100 years. But, you will remember Bach 500 years from now. And Elvis will still be a legend in 100 years.
Hard to know for sure if that will bear itself out or how, but it does sound likely what with various music curricula at most campuses incorporating not only rudimentary classical training & history but extending courses into popular music history. With my limited vision, I certainly don't see any artists making the same impact today on as grand a scale that popular musicians made between say, 1957 and maybe 1978? And yet. . . .sales are through the roof on some of this stuff they say. Somebody's buying it and setting sales records besides.
Talent doesn't sell itself. From what little I've seen, (and from digging around trying to find these performers on YouTube mentioned in this thread), there's lotsa' more capable, more talented, more motivated musicians on YouTube than there are on the radio waves. And the radio play lists must be twenty years old or better in some genre's. I am moooootly saturated by commercial radio these days in most genre....genri?....genriii?. Anyway, it's been hard for every new generation to stomach the music and behavior of the previous generation from the gitgo. All the older generation can do is provide moooot commentary. :tongue:
(I'm banking on your sense of humor Mr LV? :wave)
QuoteAnd yes, I am an old fart. I consider it a virtue.
:thumbsup :laughin: :roll
QuoteI'm willing to venture a guess that Avril will never have a Britney-style meltdown.
Man, I sure hope not.
QuoteI think she's too smart.
I don't think it's that. I think mental disease has sense enough to avoid her altogether. :bgrin:
Quote from: whiskeyjack on January 22, 2008, 12:23:14 PM
(I'm banking on your sense of humor Mr LV? :wave)
:thumbsup :laughin: :roll
Well take it to the bank and your not likely going to get anything for it.
It's one thing to joke around about a artists talent, but some people seem to have a strong opinion about another human being. I try not to be too judgmental about other peoples talent or lack thereof. I know there are a few members here that I would consider very talented, others that could be better but just require the time to learn because they haven't been playing for 30 yrs. I like to hear members material and if I ever get a way to record myself I will present my own idea of music (which may be or not be worth the time of day to some people). I would just hate to think that people would be hesitant to post their stuff in fear of bad comment or just as bad, no comment. Thinking that gee, these people don't think so and so is any good what will they think of me, I'm nobody.
I could be totally off base, sometimes I have a tendency to over analyze things like this but it just didn't seem like the right thing to be discussing seriously.
It's just my opinion, everyone is entitled to one. I'm not perfect and don't want to tell anybody else how they should spend their time. It just seems like negative thinking is such a waste. Someone once said if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything.
I'm not singeling anyone out it's just the topic that seems to be bringing on the negativity.
I'll just stay away from this thread and let you all go about your business. Let me buy you's a beer before I leave.
:beer :beer :beer :beer :beer :beer :beer :beer
:coffee :coffee :coffee :coffee :donut2 :donut :donut2 :donut
:wave
Quote from: Mr_LV19E on January 22, 2008, 04:00:54 PM
It's one thing to joke around about a artists talent, but some people seem to have a strong opinion about another human being. I try not to be too judgmental about other peoples talent or lack thereof. I would just hate to think that people would be hesitant to post their stuff in fear of bad comment or just as bad, no comment. Thinking that gee, these people don't think so and so is any good what will they think of me, I'm nobody.
As far as the super-rich superstars are concerned, they can handle a good ribbing, even though it's personal. Thier fans sure outnumber us. Have no fear about anyone making bad comments about your work, I think we only pick on those immune to our comments anyway. Satire has a fully deserved place in the world.
Quote from: the creature on January 22, 2008, 12:02:42 PM
I disagree. There is a way to tell how much better musicians used to be; you can do it simply by listening to older music. Listen to the musicianship of the 40 and 50s, or even the superb jazz musicians on the scene in the 20s and 30s. And Elivs will still be a legend in 100 years.
The problem with your argument creature is that you are only looking at recorded music that has survived. I bet there was a lot of background noise even then, but it is either lost or didn't make it to a record. If there is even more background noise now it's probably because it's easier to make a noise these days. Just look at this forum. We have to weed through so much whereas before the record company did the weeding out for us.
I have doubts about Elvis. Just wait, a new generation armed with newly invented, sexy instruments, will totally replace this guitar fad and Elvis will be a mere curiosity.
Quote from: the creature on January 22, 2008, 12:12:44 PM
Right, the name is a reference from sexuality, and I understand the history of the blues as well, but we're not talking about the blues. Even if rock's name came from a reference about sexuality, and even though Elvis pushed the envelope for his day, it doesn't compare to what it became in the 60s. Just take a look at the footage of Woodstock. Nudity, fighting, people having sex in front of everyone else, drugs being comsumed by almost everyone in attendance, etc. Now, I've also seen plenty of footage from Evlis' concerts, and I've never seen the same scene as Woodstock. That is my point about the downward spiral of rock music and the culture it created. You won't see those things at a nice jazz club, or at an opera or symphony. Rock music appeals to the lowest of our passions and doesn't tend to bring out the best in humanity. The music of the 60s gave us the attitude of "if it feels good, do it". Now that attitude has evolved into "our course it's right, it feels good!"
And yes, I am an old fart. I consider it a virtue. :tongue:
creature! You are so SQUARE!!!!! :roll
BTW, by definition, doesn't "old fart" mean "irrelevant and narrow minded." Hardly a virtue.
Although she's not musically relevant any longer, I always thought CHER had one of the worst voices of any pop singer in recent memory. Embarrasingly bad, in my opinion. However I believe that Celine Dion does, on some level have a decent voice, it's just that the whole package is so off-putting. The style of singing, the choice of material, the Endless Hype and huge ticket prices just leave me flat. You'd have to pay me to see her in concert, I'm afraid.
Quote from: bearsville0 on January 22, 2008, 04:45:42 PM
The problem with your argument creature is that you are only looking at recorded music that has survived. I bet there was a lot of background noise even then, but it is either lost or didn't make it to a record. If there is even more background noise now it's probably because it's easier to make a noise these days. Just look at this forum. We have to weed through so much whereas before the record company did the weeding out for us.
I have doubts about Elvis. Just wait, a new generation armed with newly invented, sexy instruments, will totally replace this guitar fad and Elvis will be a mere curiosity.
Actually, there is no problem at all with my argument. You actually proved it by bringing up recorded music, which is what we are talking about here, recorded music that is popular today. Simply compare the recorded music that is popular today and compare it with the recorded music that was popular 50 years ago, that's all I have done. But if you don't want to talk about recorded music, then realize that the music of Bach was not recorded in his day, but still managed to survive and become timeless.
Elvis will live on for many more years. He brought something worthwhile that changed things and those things last. Blink 182, Britney Spears, et al do not bring anything even close.
And, I don't consider myself "irrelevant", and I cannot imagine anyone who does, but I am certainly narrow-minded and am for sure a "SQUARE", which is a virtue to me.
:wave
Quote from: the creature on January 22, 2008, 05:33:26 PM
Actually, there is no problem at all with my argument. You actually proved it by bringing up recorded music, which is what we are talking about here, recorded music that is popular today. Simply compare the recorded music that is popular today and compare it with the recorded music that was popular 50 years ago, that's all I have done. But if you don't want to talk about recorded music, than realized that the music of Bach was not recorded in his day, but still managed to survive and become timeless.
Elvis will live on for many more years. He brought something worthwhile that changed things and those things last. Blink 182, Britney Spears, et al do not bring anything even close.
And, I don't consider myself "irrelevant", and I cannot imagine anyone who does, but I am certainly narrow-minded and am for sure a "SQUARE", which is a virtue to me.
:wave
Thanks for clarifying your speculations .
I'm not sure what the point is by bringing in Bach into it. He's one of those extremely rare geniuses in a class all by himself (but definitely a product of his time). Perhaps only the Beatles in pop music can compare. And don't forget Bach wasn't exactly adored while he was alive. We are lucky that many of his manuscripts survived.
And on the topic of speculations: Consider that there may be some unknown musical genius right now toiling away with a computer, but won't be discovered until after you and I both are dead and gone. And it will be because every little wannabee and every old rock'n'roll legend now has access to the media and clogs up the system. I still think your complaint about the seeming lack of creativity is that the form "Pop Music" has been perfected with room only for tinkering and variations on the theme. They can't reinvent the wheel.
Young people are being creative in totally other ways than recorded music but you and I just don't know about it.
Cheers
Quote from: bearsville0 on January 22, 2008, 06:07:55 PM
Thanks for clarifying your speculations .
I'm not sure what the point is by bringing in Bach into it. He's one of those extremely rare geniuses in a class all by himself (but definitely a product of his time). Perhaps only the Beatles in pop music can compare. And don't forget Bach wasn't exactly adored while he was alive. We are lucky that many of his manuscripts survived.
And on the topic of speculations: Consider that there may be some unknown musical genius right now toiling away with a computer, but won't be discovered until after you and I both are dead and gone. And it will be because every little wannabee and every old rock'n'roll legend now has access to the media and clogs up the system. I still think your complaint about the seeming lack of creativity is that the form "Pop Music" has been perfected with room only for tinkering and variations on the theme. They can't reinvent the wheel.
Young people are being creative in totally other ways than music but you and I just don't know about it.
Cheers
Yes, they are speculations, but they are well thought out and sincere, just as yours and everyone else's likely are.
True, Bach wasn't as appreciated in his day, but his music has lived on. My main point with him was that his music has and will live on, but the flavor-of-the-week, MTV bobble-head clones of the day will not. They cannot because they bring nothing of real and lasting value to the table. They only bring anthems for the current generation to sing to while they are young, and then provide the background music for their memories later on in life. Not much more is being offered though.
And you are correct, there is very likely someone right now who is great, maybe the greatest of his generation, but he'll not be noticed due to the endless sea of mediocrity that is pop music today. And that's too bad. You seem to be thinking that I feel that there are no good musicians alive today. That is not the case, and I've admitted that in this thread. My only point is that they are not in pop music and you will find nothing of real and lasting value on the charts. The fact that record sales are high doesn't mean that anything good is out there. Many people will eat hot dogs their whole life simply because they are unaware of the steakhouse across town. If the masses really ever got hold of some good music, and took the time to understand and appreciate it, things would change. But that takes work and effort, and sadly most folks only want something to tap their toes to while they drive to work.
:wave
Quote from: the creature on January 22, 2008, 07:03:26 PM
If the masses really ever got hold of some good music, and took the time to understand and appreciate it, things would change. But that takes work and effort, and sadly most folks only want something to tap their toes to while they drive to work.
That's because the masses are narrow minded, not like us. :winkin:
Very interesting thread, and I've been mulling over this all day. A few more thoughts to add, none of which involve Celine Dion.....
Years ago, I read a psychology journal article which attempted to explain why older people tend to prefer the music of their youth. As I recall, it went something like this: As in all learning experiences, neural pathways are created when new information is inputted. The younger the brain, the more capacity we have to create these neural networks. Repeated exposure to similar types of music at a young age will create stable neural pathways, and will continue to stimulate the neurons, with feelings of recognition, comfort, and pleasure when we hear familiar music. Our musical tastes are developed as a result of constant stimulation of the same neural pathways. As we get older, the brain becomes less malleable, and we lose some capacity to create new neural pathways. We become less tolerant of music that demands new neural connections as opposed to familiar music that will continue to reinforce older, established pathways. So, to us older people, older music is "better" than new music, and new music that is structurally consistent with the music we grew up with is "better" than music we're not familiar with. I suppose that this is why some genres such as, say, bebop or east indian music sounds dissonant to people who aren't familiar with it. In my view, this is a generational phenomenon - we all believe that "our" music is superior to the music our kids are listening to. I'm sure in 30 years there'll be many nostalgic dads extolling the virtues of Finger Eleven and System of a Down while belittling their kids' musical tastes.
Quote from: stubby on January 22, 2008, 07:17:48 PM
Very interesting thread, and I've been mulling over this all day. A few more thoughts to add, none of which involve Celine Dion.....
Years ago, I read a psychology journal article which attempted to explain why older people tend to prefer the music of their youth. As I recall, it went something like this: As in all learning experiences, neural pathways are created when new information is inputted. The younger the brain, the more capacity we have to create these neural networks. Repeated exposure to similar types of music at a young age will create stable neural pathways, and will continue to stimulate the neurons, with feelings of recognition, comfort, and pleasure when we hear familiar music. Our musical tastes are developed as a result of constant stimulation of the same neural pathways. As we get older, the brain becomes less malleable, and we lose some capacity to create new neural pathways. We become less tolerant of music that demands new neural connections as opposed to familiar music that will continue to reinforce older, established pathways. So, to us older people, older music is "better" than new music, and new music that is structurally consistent with the music we grew up with is "better" than music we're not familiar with. I suppose that this is why some genres such as, say, bebop or east indian music sounds dissonant to people who aren't familiar with it. In my view, this is a generational phenomenon - we all believe that "our" music is superior to the music our kids are listening to. I'm sure in 30 years there'll be many nostalgic dads extolling the virtues of Finger Eleven and System of a Down while belittling their kids' musical tastes.
Makes sense to me. :thumb Imprinting.
Quoteit doesn't compare to what it became in the 60s. Just take a look at the footage of Woodstock. Nudity, fighting, people having sex in front of everyone else, drugs being comsumed by almost everyone in attendance, etc. Now, I've also seen plenty of footage from Evlis' concerts, and I've never seen the same scene as Woodstock. That is my point about the downward spiral of rock music and the culture it created. You won't see those things at a nice jazz club, or at an opera or symphony.
Ok so the 50's are pure then the downward spiral starts and you have nudity and drugs in the 60's and we jump forward to the present where people are eating each other and doing lines off corpses at the Hannah Montana concert :rolleye:
First of all those 'bad' things you listed we're not caused by the music and you don't see that at most pop concerts. Yeh, of course drugs are at some rock festivals.
I also think music from the 50's is mostly feel-good shallow entertainment; pretty fluffy compared to alot of artist from the 60's like Dylan, Joni, Nick Drake, etc. IMO, there's been alot more creativity since the 50's. 50's rock sounds like white blues to me, in fact Elvis' first single was written by a delta blues musician.
jeremy -- Please note two things: 1) I never called the 50s pure and 2) I never stated that rock music caused those things to happen.
As you were.....
Pop music of previous eras is always bathed in a rosy glow of nostalgia when people look back on it years later. The "flavor-of-the-week, MTV bobble-head clones" have their analogs in every era of the past you'd care to name. The '50s may have been the era of Elvis, but it was also the era of Fabian, Bobby Vee and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window". In the '60s, there was just as much swill as there was great music. In the '70s, if you were close to a large metropolitan centre with a good FM station, you could listen to what we now call classic rock. If you lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere, like me, you had to make do with all sorts of horrible dreck, like the Osmonds, or "Candyman" by Sammy Davis Jr., or "Playground in My Mind" by Clint Holmes, or "How Do You Do?" by Mouth and MacNeil, etc. ad nauseam.
Every era has its popular dreck. And equally, in every era, there's someone great working away in obscurity who will be recognized at some later date.
To summarily dismiss all the music of the present day is just a sign that we're getting old and becoming narrow-minded old coots who are just as bad as the people who mocked our music 35 years ago. Too bad, but it's a fact of life.
Quote from: Tycho on January 22, 2008, 08:07:56 PM
Pop music of previous eras is always bathed in a rosy glow of nostalgia when people look back on it years later. The "flavor-of-the-week, MTV bobble-head clones" have their analogs in every era of the past you'd care to name. The '50s may have been the era of Elvis, but it was also the era of Fabian, Bobby Vee and "How Much is that Doggie in the Window". In the '60s, there was just as much swill as there was great music. In the '70s, if you were close to a large metropolitan centre with a good FM station, you could listen to what we now call classic rock. If you lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere, like me, you had to make do with all sorts of horrible dreck, like the Osmonds, or "Candyman" by Sammy Davis Jr., or "Playground in My Mind" by Clint Holmes, or "How Do You Do?" by Mouth and MacNeil, etc. ad nauseam.
Every era has its popular dreck. And equally, in every era, there's someone great working away in obscurity who will be recognized at some later date.
To summarily dismiss all the music of the present day is just a sign that we're getting old and becoming narrow-minded old coots who are just as bad as the people who mocked our music 35 years ago. Too bad, but it's a fact of life.
Good job Tycho, those are the points I was trying to make.
Quote from: the creature on January 22, 2008, 08:01:59 PM
jeremy -- Please note two things: 1) I never called the 50s pure and 2) I never stated that rock music caused those things to happen.
QuoteThat is my point about the downward spiral of rock music and the culture it created.
technically no, I guess :rolleye:
I'd like to make a statement and it's not directed at anyone in particular, but it's something that I've noticed that goes on here.
If you do not like someone's point of view, why not just come out and say so. Just be honest and say, "I do not like that". Nothing more really need be said. But instead, many times I see word-twisting and insinuations made of things that really are not there. I don't understand this. Make a statement based on what was posted or make no statement at all.
I've also noticed around here that anytime anything that remotely resembles a healthy, spirited debate pops up, it's not even 2 full pages before personal jabs start getting thrown in. I wonder how people who do this get along with others in "real" life? Do they sock it to someone they work with by giving them a personal slam if they disagree with a proposal on the job? Can some folk not disagree and say, "Well, I disagree, and that's that"?
Lastly, why does is even matter if people agree? At the end of the day everyone here has beliefs that they hold for a reason on a vast number of issues. It's very unlikely that anything anyone posts here is going to change that. I can only speak for myself, but I really don't care if anyone agrees with me. I don't choose my beliefs about things based on how many pals it will get me.
Am I out of line here, or has anyone else noticed a hint of PWS here? (panty wad syndrome)
Just checking.
:wave
I've never noticed any such thing Creach! :roll
Quote from: the creature on January 22, 2008, 11:20:19 PM
I'd like to make a statement and it's not directed at anyone in particular, but it's something that I've noticed that goes on here.
If you do not like someone's point of view, why not just come out and say so. Just be honest and say, "I do not like that". Nothing more really need be said. But instead, many times I see word-twisting and insinuations made of things that really are not there. I don't understand this. Make a statement based on what was posted or make no statement at all.
I've also noticed around here that anytime anything that remotely resembles a healthy, spirited debate pops up, it's not even 2 full pages before personal jabs start getting thrown in. I wonder how people who do this get along with others in "real" life? Do they sock it to someone they work with by giving them a personal slam if they disagree with a proposal on the job? Can some folk not disagree and say, "Well, I disagree, and that's that"?
Lastly, why does is even matter if people agree? At the end of the day everyone here has beliefs that they hold for a reason on a vast number of issues. It's very unlikely that anything anyone posts here is going to change that. I can only speak for myself, but I really don't care if anyone agrees with me. I don't choose my beliefs about things based on how many pals it will get me.
Am I out of line here, or has anyone else noticed a hint of PWS here? (panty wad syndrome)
Just checking.
:wave
no creature I haven't noticed any personal jabs here besides the possibility that Celine Dion fans and rap fans are feeling maligned.
I have a problem with the notion of "beliefs" when we are really talking about speculations. There are facts (of which we usually have few) and the rest is hypothesis. I can't just say "I don't like that" when it goes against the probable facts. You haven't given us any reliable data to consider your proposals about pop music. I do in fact hope we can influence each other to change our minds as needed, that's what "debate" is supposed to mean, not "if you don't agree, I don't care."
If you were feeling attacked by my calling you "square" well, that was a joke because nobody could really take what you say about Woodstock seriously. Relax please, you are a narrow minded, square old fart and we've all gotten used to it. :smile:
Quote from: bluesman67 on January 22, 2008, 08:09:06 AM
...I had heard once at college, in a music class that I took as an elective, that most people form their taste for music by the time they are 26-28 years old. I don't know how accurate that is, but there could be some truth to it. If it is true, maybe it becomes very hard for anyone in their 30's or older to warm up to anything that is different...
Quote from: stubby on January 22, 2008, 07:17:48 PM
... I read a psychology journal article which attempted to explain why older people tend to prefer the music of their youth. As I recall, it went something like this: As in all learning experiences, neural pathways are created when new information is inputted. The younger the brain, the more capacity we have to create these neural networks. Repeated exposure to similar types of music at a young age will create stable neural pathways, and will continue to stimulate the neurons, with feelings of recognition, comfort, and pleasure when we hear familiar music. Our musical tastes are developed as a result of constant stimulation of the same neural pathways. As we get older, the brain becomes less malleable, and we lose some capacity to create new neural pathways. We become less tolerant of music that demands new neural connections as opposed to familiar music that will continue to reinforce older, established pathways. So, to us older people, older music is "better" than new music, and new music that is structurally consistent with the music we grew up with is "better" than music we're not familiar with. I suppose that this is why some genres such as, say, bebop or east indian music sounds dissonant to people who aren't familiar with it. In my view, this is a generational phenomenon - we all believe that "our" music is superior to the music our kids are listening to. I'm sure in 30 years there'll be many nostalgic dads extolling the virtues of Finger Eleven and System of a Down while belittling their kids' musical tastes.
I am with you Stubby, I get your drift. I'm drinking the Coolaide. ...oops, that was another thread.
Everyone trying to defend a generation of music and compare it to the popular music of the 21st Century. Puh-leez, our group here can't even define what good music is. The beauty of good music is that anyone can appreciate it, whether they know a damn thing about music or not...whether they can play an instrument or not. Good music doesn't necessarily have to be written by a genius or played by exceptionally talented musicians. It just needs to sound good to the person listening to it for it to be good music. There is a lot of good music that they write on a TV show my kids watch, The Backyardigens. No musical genius, no exceptional musical talent, just a few songs that make us happy.
I have great appreciation for talent and genius when it is there, but it doesn't have to be there for the music to be good.
Cheers to all good music. :cheers
Quote from: bearsville0 on January 23, 2008, 06:18:36 AM
no creature I haven't noticed any personal jabs here besides the possibility that Celine Dion fans and rap fans are feeling maligned.
I have a problem with the notion of "beliefs" when we are really talking about speculations. There are facts (of which we usually have few) and the rest is hypothesis. I can't just say "I don't like that" when it goes against the probable facts. You haven't given us any reliable data to consider your proposals about pop music. I do in fact hope we can influence each other to change our minds as needed, that's what "debate" is supposed to mean, not "if you don't agree, I don't care."
If you were feeling attacked by my calling you "square" well, that was a joke because nobody could really take what you say about Woodstock seriously. Relax please, you are a narrow minded, square old fart and we've all gotten used to it. :smile:
Fair enough, and I wasn't really talking about this thread, becuase this one hasn't gotten personal....yet.
And, just to be clear, when I say "I dont' care if anyone agrees with me", that doesn't mean that I don't care about others' feelings, it only means that agreement isn't the most important thing to me. I can debate someone and if we still end up not agreeing that doesn't bother me.
Anyway, pop music sucks.
:tongue:
I think Stubby is on the mark about Mz. D (frankly I find the physical movements as overblown as the singing - like magnifying all of the worst parts of Streisand).
I am amazed no one has mentioned "Pop Diva" J LO, from the Paual Abdul school, of "create it in the mix" vocalists (you know like Madonna).
Much as I detest C. Dione, Whitney, Norah (the bore), D. Krall (seems to sleepwalk through all emotions), and the like. It is true that they at least have some technical abiliity.
So that raises the question. Which is worse? someone who has the gift of a voice and chooses to squander, it via bad tatste or crass commercialism, or the Paula Abdul/J Lo's of the world who have no voice to begin with.
I always found Zeppelin unlistenable due to the presence of Plant, screaming like a banshee. Still find it amazing that that sound got over.
Just don't get what all the fuss is about Avril.
QuoteJust don't get what all the fuss is about Avril.
I don't think Avril is performing for the over-21 crowd. And that's fine. Kids are entitled to their own music that the oldsters can't get into. If that weren't the case, being a kid would be a lot less fun. (Remember?)
Yes. I remember listening to Quiet Riot, Come On Feel The Noise, and Twisted Sister, We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore. They were fun songs and my parents hated them.
:nanadance
Quote from: bluesman67 on January 24, 2008, 09:06:10 PM
Yes. I remember listening to Quiet Riot, Come On Feel The Noise, and Twisted Sister, We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore. They were fun songs and my parents hated them.
:nanadance
Your parents are smart people then.
Yes, they were!
Let's not forget that there is wide range of music that qualifies as "pop" and that makes it into the public's attention. I love a well crafted pop song and among my favories are "sugar, sugar" and so many great tunes by the Monkees. In the 80s we had some excellent pop tunes from Cyndi Lauper and Madonna etc etc. The Kinks from the 60s had some fun stuff.
The kind I puke at is the Barry Manilows, Celine Dions (all for adults, right?) Striesand etc. And the early teen stuff that squarks about puppy love --the Osmonds and their contemporary protoges like The Cheetah Girls and anything found on a Mary-Kate and Ashley movie (my daughter has watched them).
Quote from: tubeornot2b on January 24, 2008, 04:49:46 PM
Just don't get what all the fuss is about Avril.
Gotta love her. She's Canadian and the anti-Brittany. Her songs may suck but she does write them and actually plays guitar.
QuoteHer songs may suck but she does write them and actually plays guitar.
"Co-write" would be more accurate. Her biggest hits have been collaborations with hardened pro songwriters like the Matrix team on her first album or Chantal Kreviazuk on her second. I just had a look at the credits for her latest album, and all the songs are collabs (though I don't recognize the writers).
What I give her credit for is actually singing in her real voice. I've been on music boards where people who should know better complain that they saw her on TV and she was off-pitch. Well, that's because what you're hearing is really her, for good or ill. It's astonishing how many people don't realize that almost all of the manufactured pop stars of our era routinely use autotune or backing tapes when they perform live. You might as well be watching karaoke, or a movie, or a robot.
There aren't a whole lot of pop singers out there who can stay perfectly on pitch. (And of course ever since Dylan, staying on pitch hasn't been a requirement in folk or "serious" rock.) Celine, of course, is one. Another is the great Neko Case.
Quote from: ducktrapper on January 25, 2008, 07:06:58 AM
Gotta love her. She's Canadian and the anti-Brittany. Her songs may suck but she does write them and actually plays guitar.
Oh well, at least she writes songs and actually plays the guitar. :whistling:
Co-writes? What does that mean? She sharpens the pencils when they get dull?
Quote from: the creature on January 25, 2008, 09:54:18 AM
Co-writes? What does that mean? She sharpens the pencils when they get dull?
I heard one of her songs a few years ago but can't remember the title. Standard pop music marketed for young teens. After a minute of listening to her it was pretty clear that the lyrics were
not likely written by a ghostwriter. That is, unless the ghostwriter was about 13 years of age.
Then again, when I was a teen I listened to a lot of silly heavy-metal. It sounds so cheesy to hear it today. With each passing year it seems that "Spinal Tap" becomes more and more relevant.
Quote from: the creature on January 25, 2008, 09:54:18 AM
Co-writes? What does that mean? She sharpens the pencils when they get dull?
:roll
Nice one creature
No bytes on the which is worse question? I thought that the good voice/bad taste vs. Bad voice to begin with question might generate some interest.
thought I'd drop my 2 cents in. Celine I find has a good voice but in learning English for the pop market she adopted a lot of pop inflections that I don't like. I've heard her sing in French and there are no inflections and quite nice.
and..rap is crap imho.
Rob
Not exactly a pop singer, but Geddy Lee gets my vote.
Geddy Lee....good pick, topographic. One of the few singers who can actually cause physical pain when listened to. Those Toronto bands....'nuff said.
Isn't anyone going to pick on Jennifer Love Hewitt and Lindsay Lohan? Are they so far down the talent scale as to be be deemed too insignificant to ridicule? Are they so unspeakably amateurish, so abysmally devoid of any redeeming musical value, that no one here can condescend to even utter their names in a musical context? If no one is willing to stand up and decry this pair's stupefying foray into the music industry, then I will.
QuoteIsn't anyone going to pick on Jennifer Love Hewitt and Lindsay Lohan? Are they so far down the talent scale as to be be deemed too insignificant to ridicule? Are they so unspeakably amateurish, so abysmally devoid of any redeeming musical value, that no one here can condescend to even utter their names in a musical context?
Answer: yes!
I don't know if this counts but I have paid good money to NOT here Stairway to heaven and Hotel Ca.