Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Worst Pop singer?  (Read 4390 times)
bearsville0
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2008, 10:45:42 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.



Logged

If it sounds good, it is good.

bearsville0
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2008, 10:52:19 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.   

creature! You are so SQUARE!!!!!

BTW, by definition, doesn't "old fart" mean "irrelevant and narrow minded."  Hardly a virtue.
Logged

If it sounds good, it is good.

tuffythepug
Global Moderator
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5341



« Reply #42 on: January 22, 2008, 10:57:01 PM »

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.


Logged
Caleb
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3714




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: January 22, 2008, 11:33:26 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. 
 
Logged
bearsville0
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2008, 12:07:55 AM »

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. 
 

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
Logged

If it sounds good, it is good.

Caleb
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3714




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2008, 01:03:26 AM »

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. 

 
Logged
bearsville0
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: January 23, 2008, 01:10:24 AM »

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.
Logged

If it sounds good, it is good.

stubby
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: January 23, 2008, 01:17:48 AM »

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.   
Logged
bearsville0
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: January 23, 2008, 01:24:57 AM »

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.    Imprinting.
Logged

If it sounds good, it is good.

jeremy3220
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4598




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: January 23, 2008, 01:43:20 AM »

Quote
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.

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.
Logged

Caleb
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3714




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2008, 02:01:59 AM »

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..... 
Logged
Tycho
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2816




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2008, 02:07:56 AM »

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.
Logged

D-03RE
D-03-12

...and several other guitars.
bearsville0
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: January 23, 2008, 02:34:41 AM »

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. 
Logged

If it sounds good, it is good.

jeremy3220
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4598




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: January 23, 2008, 04:33:12 AM »

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. 

Quote
That is my point about the downward spiral of rock music and the culture it created.

technically no, I guess  rolleye
Logged

Caleb
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3714




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: January 23, 2008, 05:20:19 AM »

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.

 
Logged
ducktrapper
Donuts?
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10999




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2008, 11:41:18 AM »

I've never noticed any such thing Creach!   
Logged
bearsville0
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1749




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2008, 12:18:36 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.

 

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.
Logged

If it sounds good, it is good.

bluesman67
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3166




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: January 23, 2008, 02:14:43 PM »

...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...

... 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. 
Logged

bluesman67
HOGTOP CHARLOTTE

www.reverbnation.com/hogtopcharlotte
Caleb
Gold Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3714




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2008, 03:57:54 PM »

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.
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. 
 
Logged
tubeornot2b
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 662




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: January 24, 2008, 10:49:46 PM »

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.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: