Worst Pop singer?

[jeremy3220]

oh well, guess we'll all miss out on her wisdom.

[Caleb]

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"?

[whiskeyjack]

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!   Fair enough! 

[Caleb]

Good post, jack. 

It is my opinion, and I'm probably going to be in the minority here (but I'm used to that  ), 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.   

[bearsville0]

Good post, jack. 

It is my opinion, and I'm probably going to be in the minority here (but I'm used to that  ), 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.   

Getting Old? I think you've probably always had those opinions.  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.

[bearsville0]

" 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?

[jeremy3220]

It is my opinion, and I'm probably going to be in the minority here (but I'm used to that  ), 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.

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.

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.

[bluesman67]

Getting Old? I think you've probably always had those opinions.  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.

[ducktrapper]

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.   

[Denis]

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!!!

[Tycho]

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.

[DaveyO]

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

[Mr_LV19E]

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.

[ducktrapper]

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. 

Btw according to the rules of the American Musicians Union, singers aren't. Musicians, that is.   

[Caleb]

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. 

[Caleb]

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.   

[whiskeyjack]

I 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?   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.

Gee guys, I just wanted to rag on Shakira.

Well, see?  Now look what you've done!!  .  '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!! 
_________________________

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 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. 

(I'm banking on your sense of humor Mr LV? )

And yes, I am an old fart.  I consider it a virtue.   

[whiskeyjack]

I'm willing to venture a guess that Avril will never have a Britney-style meltdown.

Man, I sure hope not. 

I think she's too smart.

I don't think it's that.  I think mental disease has sense enough to avoid her altogether.

[Mr_LV19E]

(I'm banking on your sense of humor Mr LV? )

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.
              

             

[bearsville0]

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.