NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Entertainment - Movies / TV / Books => Topic started by: on January 23, 2006, 08:46:34 am
-
Granted, it's cool if one can say he/she has won or been nominated for a Grammy, but it isn't exactly an exclusive club for the best of the best.
If you would have come to me before The Black Eyed Peas album came out and showed me the lyric, "my humps, my humps, my lovely lady lumps," 8O and then told me the album where the song with these lyrics came from would receive multiple award nominations, 8O I would have spit whatever I was drinking into your face and then suggested in a calm and polite manner that you return to the maximum security facility from which you escaped and let the nice nurses give you your realism medication.
If you would have told me that Gwen Stefani's relentlessly overrated, vile solo album with a cover from the musical Fiddler on the Roof on it (which everyone "bumps" to like it's innovative and brilliant) would get multiple Grammy nominations, I would ask you if you lived in a padded room with a roomate who was into The Black Eyed Peas.
Many of the Grammy nominations are so adolescent, they may as well have been written in crayon. :drunk:
So, if you're someone like Vanessa Carlton, would you be happy just to be nominated for a Grammy, or would you be embarassed that you are being grouped with the "clever" lady lump people, and the woman who keeps spelling the word :dances: bananas :dances: over and over again and calls it a song? :?:
(I know they wouldn't necessarily be in the same category, but you get my point)
-
I love you.
And I agree.
-
I always joke (seriously) about how I'd be insulted if I were nominated for a Grammy.
I also joke (jokingly--haha) that my music's so bad I'm SURE to be a success!!
:lol:
-
I think Gwen is very talented...her tour was amazing. I've seen the Black Eyed Peas about 3 times & if you see them live in person & not just on tv, you would see why they get nominated & win grammys. But it does suck for other talented singers/songwriters who deserve to win them like Vanessa Carlton to so I don't know what to say.
-
I think Gwen is very talented...her tour was amazing. I've seen the Black Eyed Peas about 3 times & if you see them live in person & not just on tv, you would see why they get nominated & win grammys. But it does suck for other talented singers/songwriters who deserve to win them like Vanessa Carlton to so I don't know what to say.
I never said Gwen wasn't talented. She's proven with No Doubt that she is a talented song writer, but her solo album was pitiful.
And unless Gwen and TBEP sang completely different lyrics at those live shows, then they would still suck. I would think they did indeed put on fun, energetic shows, but nothing can change the fact that those songs are terrible.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with liking either of their albums. :) Everyone is free to have their own tastes. But it would be hard to argue that those albums with those songs and those lyrics were OBJECTIVELY good.
The point that I am making is that the Grammys are supposed to be given to the year's BEST in music. Not to the most popular names or profitable albums. It isn't like this is a new phenomenom or anything. The Grammys have always catered to the most popular stuff no matter what its actual quality is.
This is why the question of whether a talented artist like Vanessa would be honored just to be nominated for a Grammy because of its prestige, or would she be more embarassed to be grouped with all the other crap that gets nominated intrigues me.
-
And unless Gwen and TBEP sang completely different lyrics at those live shows, then they would still suck. I would think they did indeed put on fun, energetic shows, but nothing can change the fact that those songs are terrible.
Unless you've experienced seeing them live, I don't think you can pre-judge that the songs will still suck. I respect your opinion & I didn't like them either until the second time I saw the BEP's at Wango Tango.. they were VERY fun & energetic. I've never seen an act have the audience participate as much as they had us participate except for The Backstreet Boys. I understand that it's the lyrics issue, but what happened to liking music that you can just have fun & dance to at shows? I didn't understand why they always got nominated for things either, but seeing them 3 times definitely changed that.
The point that I am making is that the Grammys are supposed to be given to the year's BEST in music. Not to the most popular names or profitable albums. It isn't like this is a new phenomenom or anything. The Grammys have always catered to the most popular stuff no matter what its actual quality is.
Who says the most popular names can't be this years best in music? Just because you don't agree that they shouldn't have been nominated because of their lyrics, doesn't necessarily mean other people have the same opinion. I think it depends on the group itself, concerts, their fans, etc. That's what i'm getting at about the live shows. But I do respect your opinion.
-
I often end up in mini arguments like this when I'm talking about music or film, or any kind of art for that matter. I have a hard time conveying the difference between objectivity and subjectivity to others.
I never said something can't be popular AND good. What I'm trying to say is that not everyting that is popular necessarily is good. And just because you like something doesn't make it good.
I really like the movie Killer Clowns From Outer Space (cracks me up) and I don't much care for Gone With the Wind. But I wouldn't say that KCFOS is better than GWTW! :) On the contrary, KCFOS is a HORRIBLE movie.
The Grammys aren't supposed to be voting on TBEP or Gwen's dexterity for involving fans at their shows; they are supposed to be voting strictly on the quality of the songs on their albums.
And there's no way you can tell me that there wasn't five songs or albums better than TBEP or Gwen in the categories which they got nominated this year. I'm tone deaf so I never critique music, but even if their music was flawless, an A+, their lyrics on those albums were F's. That averages out to a C. Is that the best this year had to offer?
There is a difference between liking something and critically analyzing its quality. Normally for me, liking would be all that mattered, but this is not the Viewer's Choice Awards. The Grammys are supposed to be objective, but they are not and they never have been. I didn't expect this to be called into question, I just wanted to know how people felt about the dubious honor. Would they embrace it because of its prestige, or be embarassed to be grouped with the people who actually wrote the lyrics to My Humps etc.[/i]
-
The Grammies have always been an industry-wide self-congratulatory joke. With a few rare exceptions, if the album doesn't sell, it will not be recognized. What that translates into is "That artist put out a brilliant album, but as it didn't sell, it did not lubricate the gears of the biz, and did NOT help to keep me, a music biz type, in good supply of drugs and hookers. That is bad."
I remember when Pearl Jam won a Grammy, and Eddie Vedder seemed confused, saying something along the lines of "Uh....I don't know what this means.....", and walked off stage.
I love that guy.
Dan/NS
-
The Grammies have always been an industry-wide self-congratulatory joke. With a few rare exceptions, if the album doesn't sell, it will not be recognized. What that translates into is "That artist put out a brilliant album, but as it didn't sell, it did not lubricate the gears of the biz, and did NOT help to keep me, a music biz type, in good supply of drugs and hookers. That is bad."
I remember when Pearl Jam won a Grammy, and Eddie Vedder seemed confused, saying something along the lines of "Uh....I don't know what this means.....", and walked off stage.
I love that guy.
Dan/NS
he said
"I have no idea what this means. I don't think this means anything."
heh
;)
-
And just because you like something doesn't make it good.
You practically just used my words... "Just because you don't agree that they shouldn't have been nominated because of their lyrics, doesn't necessarily mean other people have the same opinion" and it doesn't mean it's not "good" to other people.
And there's no way you can tell me that there wasn't five songs or albums better than TBEP or Gwen in the categories which they got nominated this year. I'm tone deaf so I never critique music, but even if their music was flawless, an A+, their lyrics on those albums were F's. That averages out to a C. Is that the best this year had to offer?
Maybe they thought the song & the quality was good, even if you don't think it was. Don't get me wrong, there are a ton of other amazing artists, I listen to a lot of independent stuff, so I know what everyone is getting at about this. BUT obviously the BEP's & Gwen's MUSIC had an impact on a larger amount of people, or they wouldn't have even been nominated. Not to say that other singers/songwriters' music didn't have an impact on people.. just saying their music had a larger impact, even if you & a few others don't agree.
I didn't expect this to be called into question, I just wanted to know how people felt about the dubious honor. Would they embrace it because of its prestige, or be embarassed to be grouped with the people who actually wrote the lyrics to My Humps etc.[/i]
I'm sorry to question you, but if you don't wanna be questioned, don't single out artists like you did.. maybe that's why you get into mini-arguements, because fans of theirs will stick up for them. I'm not just gonna sit back while a couple of my favorite acts are getting put down like this. Everyone is aloud to have opinions & I just happen to like them & am not afraid to say mine, even when I know the majority of people here are going to agree with you. I haven't argued on this board in ages, so obviously I believe strongly in this & I'm just gonna agree to disagree.
-
The Grammies have always been an industry-wide self-congratulatory joke. With a few rare exceptions, if the album doesn't sell, it will not be recognized. What that translates into is "That artist put out a brilliant album, but as it didn't sell, it did not lubricate the gears of the biz, and did NOT help to keep me, a music biz type, in good supply of drugs and hookers. That is bad."
I remember when Pearl Jam won a Grammy, and Eddie Vedder seemed confused, saying something along the lines of "Uh....I don't know what this means.....", and walked off stage.
I love that guy.
Dan/NS
he said
"I have no idea what this means. I don't think this means anything."
heh
;)
I like him even more now.
Dan/NS
PS Great to hear from you, Ms.Terror.
-
You practically just used my words... "Just because you don't agree that they shouldn't have been nominated because of their lyrics, doesn't necessarily mean other people have the same opinion" and it doesn't mean it's not "good" to other people.
Subjectivity- the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, personal opinion that is never right or wrong
Objectivity- an unbiased assessment of something based on facts, has nothing to do with whether ANYONE likes or dislikes the product in question, personal opinion is not taken into account
This discussion would go on forever because I am unable to convey the difference of these two words to you. This is my fault. I know you think you get it, but you're really aren't interpreting the meanings properly and I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than I already have. I'm sorry. Trust me, it's more frustrating for me, because I know exactly where you're coming from and I can't figure out how to communicate my point to you. :(
BUT obviously the BEP's & Gwen's MUSIC had an impact on a larger amount of people, or they wouldn't have even been nominated. Not to say that other singers/songwriters' music didn't have an impact on people.. just saying their music had a larger impact, even if you & a few others don't agree.
Their music had an impact on a larger amount of people because it was dumbed down for the masses and had a bigger marketing machine behind it than other stuff. At one time, TBEP were underground. They wrote very edgy lyrics with a great deal of social commentary, but they couldn't sell albums or get Grammy recognition despite their critical acclaim. So they decided to sell out and sign with a big record label, completely change their songs from social commentaries to simple, relatable stuff, and hire some attractive white girl to shake her ass in their videos and sing every once in a while.
Now TBEP sell tons of records and get nominated for Grammys even though critics who don't get their paychecks from the same corporations that own record labels go off on tirades everytime TBEP are mentioned because the critics know TBEP threw away their integrity for fame. (critics from the kinds of mags you would find at Barnes & Noble like Rolling Stone etc. don't count, because they are owned by the same companies that own record labels and they are pretty much all in collusion)
Subjectively- I don't know what you think of TBEP underground stuff, and you like their new stuff
Objectively-(where neither my opinion or yours matter) TBEP underground = good, TBEP now = bad
This is what I've come to understand by reading/listening to experts who have the kind of frame of reference to come to an objective conclusion.
I'm sorry to question you, but if you don't wanna be questioned, don't single out artists like you did.. maybe that's why you get into mini-arguements, because fans of theirs will stick up for them. I'm not just gonna sit back while a couple of my favorite acts are getting put down like this. Everyone is aloud to have opinions & I just happen to like them & am not afraid to say mine, even when I know the majority of people here are going to agree with you. I haven't argued on this board in ages, so obviously I believe strongly in this & I'm just gonna agree to disagree.
Don't get me wrong, I like these mini-arguements and I LOVE the fact that you are willing to defend your opinion and stick up for your artists. Even though we completely disagree, or rather I can't convey to you the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, I still respect the hell out of you for standing up for what you believe.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
I love you.
And I agree.
i second that
-
Don't get me wrong, I like these mini-arguements and I LOVE the fact that you are willing to defend your opinion and stick up for your artists. Even though we completely disagree, or rather I can't convey to you the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, I still respect the hell out of you for standing up for what you believe.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Thank you.
-
Gwen Stefani makes me ears bleed.
-
Gwen Stefani makes me ears bleed.
lol
-
Gwen Stefani makes me ears bleed.
:roflmao:
my goodness! - i like No Doubt pre Rock Steady
as long as we're making radical statements about popular people we dislike...
...Nelly, Kanye West, Nickelback, Linken Park make my skull bleed because when I hear their music it makes me repeatedly smash my head against a brick wall.
-
I like No Doubt pre-Return to Saturn.
Honestly her solo music just makes me want to start screaming and tearing out my hair. It's horrid.
-
I like No Doubt pre-Return to Saturn.
Honestly her solo music just makes me want to start screaming and tearing out my hair. It's horrid.
I am in complete compliance with you on solo Gwen.
Everyone I know has the same opinion as you about No Doubt. I must be the only one who likes Return to Saturn. "Bathwater," "Six Feet Under," "New," I like all those songs. I didn't get turned off until I heard "Waiting Room," "Hey Baby," etc. on Rock Steady. That's when it started to sound like she was writing for an audience instead of for herself. Her sincerity seemed lacking.
Tolstoy said this about art: "As soon as the [audience] feels that the artist is infected by his own emotion, or creates for himself and not merely to act on others, this mental condition of the artist infects the audience; and coontrariwise, as soon as the [audience] feels that the artist is not creating for his own satisfaction--does not himself feel what he wishes to express--but is doing it for the audience, resistance immediately springs up and the most individual and the newest feelings and the cleverest technique not only fail to produce any infection but actually repel."
This also kind of relates to our discussion :) regarding whether Michelle Branch should compramise her musical ambitions and adhere to her label in order to get the big sales numbers they crave. You seemed to feel that any Michelle music is good enough for you, as long as you get something that isn't totally off-the-wall bad, whereas I want to hear exactly what she wants to create. I guess when I hear music that is forced, or written more for an audience rather than for and from the artists own heart, I get that resistance thing about which Tolstoy writes.
-
Gwen Stefani makes me ears bleed.
And a second from the floor! :x
-
I just read an interview with Kanye West from before the Grammy Noms were announced. The reporter asked Kanye what he thought his chances were and he replied with something along the lines of--I thought I had a really good shot this year. I thought I could even get album of the year, but then I heard that new System of a Down album and all my hopes went away. That thing is brilliant, it's gonna get all the awards. It's just my luck that my album comes out the same year as a breakthrough like that album. :lol:
I wonder if Kanye was surprised when SOAD didn't even get nominated for any big awards? I sure wasn't. Kanye, a writter and producer, was assessing SOAD based on quality...
...but everybody knows the Grammys don't give a shit about quality!! :lol:
-
It's official now, not only are the Grammys not given to deserving artists, they appear to be carefully given to only the worst performers possible. If an artist with actual talent ever wins a grammy, he/she/they should go up there and say they're sorry to a bunch of people instead of thank you.
If Vanessa wins for best pop vocal next year (of course, she won't 'cause she's too good for that, but play along anyway) this is how her speech should go:
"I just want to appologize to my fans for making music that somehow got me grouped with the likes of Kelly Clarkson and Mariah Carey. Mom, Dad, I'm sorry that I've let you down, you raised me better than this. I don't really know where I went wrong. I thought I was making good music, but now I've won this award, so I guess I must suck. Stephan, please don't leave me; I swear this is just an anomoly. I'm sorry I've let all of you down, but I promise that my next album will be edgy and provacative and beatiful and there will be no chance of me returing to this dreaded platform to accept this symbol of commercialism."
Pretty soon, someone with some actual talent and integrity is bound to win one of these things and make a huge spectacle about how ridiculous the music industry's top awards show is. I'm waiting. :)
-
So your saying all these artists who won are the worst performers possible?? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Green Day
U2
John Legend
Stevie Wonder
Bruce Springsteen
Aretha Franklin
etc.
all those AMAZING performers who won didn't deserve to win? I get that your saying artists like Vanessa deserve to be nominated, but don't say they don't give Grammys away to deserving artists cuz half the people who won & performed have been around for a while & made an impact on a ton of people.
And Kelly is amazing... it's totally cool if you don't like her, but I wouldn't put her in the same category as Mariah who not a lot of people like. It's rare finding someone who doesn't like her & I think she deserved it. Take it from someone who has seen her live...she worked hard for it. I bet even Vanessa would be happy for her.
-
abbottANDcostello: I think you are out of line....Vanessa is a great artist, if she was nominated for Harmonium then it would be a different thing, but she wasn't....so get over it....Kelly Clarkson is a wonderful artist and singer as well as the others.
-
Kelly Clarkson is the bomb.
Mariah used to be the bomb, but now she doesn't actually SING and I hate her personality...but LOTS of people obviously like her. Her freakin' album was the number one album of 2005.
-
I understand that many of the people who won were really good singers or good performers, but that doesn't mean their music/songs were good.And I think that is what appeared the most, if the artist is a good singer or a good performer than all that is necessary is to team them up with any mediocre songs and you've got a hit...The grammy shows that image and popularity overcome musical quality, I dont think I saw any winners who were original and visionary. Its very clear how everything is based on marketing-airlplay-sales, I'm not saying that they are always wrong, but overall its just another award to promote the industry and sell more.
-
I understand that many of the people who won were really good singers or good performers, but that doesn't mean their music/songs were good.And I think that is what appeared the most, if the artist is a good singer or a good performer than all that is necessary is to team them up with any mediocre songs and you've got a hit...The grammy shows that image and popularity overcome musical quality, I dont think I saw any winners who were original and visionary.
That does mean their music & songs were good too. I mean, obviously cuz look how people have responded to them. I think at least all the people I listed were very "original & visionary". I mean have you've seen all of their videos & what not? It's not just about their performance, look at John Legend's video...not something you always see & same with Green Day's & U2's videos. Their known for their originality.
And Kelly Clarkson just keeps having hit after hit & her songs are far from mediocre, so of course she would win, just like Green Day, etc.
-
abbottANDcostello, honestly, V would never do such a speech.
And Kelly Clarskon, like Laura and Shannon said it before, is an awesome singer and performer!
I can't let you critisize her like that. You're allowed not to like her, of course, but there's no need to bash her!
And Mariah used to be amazing, now she's just okay for me (and that comes from a used-to-be die-hard fan!)
So they both won and they deserved it:
- Kelly released a brilliant album,
- Mariah's cd was actually #1 in 2005
If you're pissed with their awards, just deal with it ;)
ps: I hate U2 but did not critisize the fact they won several Grammies.
-
lol.
Whew!!! :lol:
First of all, I am just joking around. Good performers get Grammys all the time, but there are soooooo many problems with the system that it's fun to poke fun at them. I mean, The Rolling Stones didn't get even get nominated for a Grammy until 1982! And, ever since the Jethro Tull incident, the Grammys have gone way out of their way to be "hip." This is how a number of ridiculously undeserving artists get nominated.
Now, even though I know I'm just going to dig a deeper hole for myself, I will defend my position on Kelly Clarkson. I think a couple of you got on me by saying that just because I don't like her doesn't mean she sucks, but I never said I didn't like her. If anything is the case here, you all are unable to see that she's all smoke and mirrors because you do like her. Clarkson has a good singing voice, but so does the girl I saw in a high school play a few years ago. Millions of girls in the world have good singing voices. What separates Clarkson from any other girl with an impressive voice? I'm very open minded and if someone can explain to me why Clarkson deserves more accolade than simply having a decent voice, my ears will be receptive.
Clarkson sounds exactly like everything else on pop radio. What makes her stand out? A couple of times this past summer, one of her songs would come on and I thought for sure it was Avril Lavigne until I heard Clarkson's voice. I later read that Avril actually wrote at least one of Clarkson's songs for her, so this makes sense now, but if Clarkson was more than just a pretty voice she should have been able to stylize her music so that it doesn't sound so ordinary.
Some of you assumed I didn't like her and that's why I bashed her, but to tell you the truth, I don't like or dislike her. She's too ordinary for me to develop a personal opinion at all. I do, however, recognize the difference between her and an artist who has their own distinctive style or creates their own material or could survive in the music industry on merit even if they didn't have a flawless marketing machine working for them. Just like you guys put words in my mouth and said I shouldn't bash her just because I don't like her, I would suggest that you not inflate the amount of credible talent she possesses just because you like her.
Okay. All of you die hard Clarkson fans can come at me with your rebuttals now, but nothing too hurtful, I cry easily. :lol:
-
Mariah used to be the bomb, but now she doesn't actually SING and I hate her personality...but LOTS of people obviously like her. Her freakin' album was the number one album of 2005.
Jurassic Park 2 was one of the top films sales-wise when it came out. Citizen Kane was a huge failure at the box office. People are manipulated by marketing. The amount of people who buy an album or see a film or whatever, has nothing to do with the actual quality of the art.
I don't mean to pick on you personally, but so many people have this same philosophy as you and it's a huge pet peeve of mine. Just because a ton of people listen to or buy or like an album doesn't have hardly anything to do with whether it's good OR bad. It just means it's popular. There is a tremendous deal more that goes into what makes something popular other than its actual artistic quality.
Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out, but you put the ball on the tee for me. If you want to insult me and say I smell like poo-poo and pee-pee and stuff like that, I'll understand. :lol: :lol:
-
I think at least all the people I listed were very "original & visionary". I mean have you've seen all of their videos & what not? It's not just about their performance, look at John Legend's video...not something you always see & same with Green Day's & U2's videos. Their known for their originality.
And Kelly Clarkson just keeps having hit after hit & her songs are far from mediocre, so of course she would win, just like Green Day, etc.
Last time I checked, this wasn't the MTV Video Awards or the Viewer's Choice Awards. And, although Green Day is talented, they are definately not original. All they did was commercialize punk. They became highly influential (unfortunately...their copy cats are all awful), but they aren't original. Original is the Sex Pistols, The Ramones, and The Clash. Innovative is Black Flag and the Dead Kennedys. Green Day is...rich.
-
I understand that many of the people who won were really good singers or good performers, but that doesn't mean their music/songs were good.And I think that is what appeared the most, if the artist is a good singer or a good performer than all that is necessary is to team them up with any mediocre songs and you've got a hit...The grammy shows that image and popularity overcome musical quality, I dont think I saw any winners who were original and visionary. Its very clear how everything is based on marketing-airlplay-sales, I'm not saying that they are always wrong, but overall its just another award to promote the industry and sell more.
Thank you. :thumbsup:
Hang around and help me out here. I'm getting hit from all sides.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Clarkson has a good singing voice
[...]
I'm very open minded and if someone can explain to me why Clarkson deserves more accolade than simply having a decent voice, my ears will be receptive.
[...]
Clarkson sounds exactly like everything else on pop radio.
[...]
if Clarkson was more than just a pretty voice she should have been able to stylize her music so that it doesn't sound so ordinary.:
Wow, all I can say is 8O 8O 8O 8O
If Kelly only has a "decent voice", well, 80% of today's female artists sing like sh**!!
-
Clarkson has a good singing voice
[...]
I'm very open minded and if someone can explain to me why Clarkson deserves more accolade than simply having a decent voice, my ears will be receptive.
[...]
Clarkson sounds exactly like everything else on pop radio.
[...]
if Clarkson was more than just a pretty voice she should have been able to stylize her music so that it doesn't sound so ordinary.:
Wow, all I can say is 8O 8O 8O 8O
If Kelly only has a "decent voice", well, 80% of today's female artists sing like sh**!!
Hey, I said her voice was "pretty" and "good" too! :lol:
My point is that there is more to being a good singer than having a very technically gifted voice. Technically speaking, Bob Dylan had a shitty voice. He wouldn't have made it past the first cut on American Idol. The dancer, the I'm so hip guy, and the pseudo-intellectual guy would have made fun of him, but he's still one of the greatest singers of all time because of his style.
Take her marketing machine away and all Clarkson has is--how's this--a very good :wink: voice. That alone doesn't make her a good artist. If someone can make a rational arguement to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear it.
It's kind of like if some guy could throw a baseball 120 mph but he had absolutely no control. No one could argue that guy didn't have a great arm, but he would never make it to the Major Leagues because he couldn't throw strikes. And, unlike in the music industry, marketing couldn't help him. Clarkson got lucky. She had the 120 mph fastball, and in her profession, if one is marketed effectively, that's all you need.
As soon as Clarkson starts writing beautiful, poetic, deep, and/or politically, socially, or culturally meaningful songs, or she comes up with her own sound instead of standing on the shoulders of others, then I'll be right there to give her some due props.
Until then, she's only as talented as the millions of other people in this world who have great voices. Eventually, she'll be gone and another girl with a "very good voice" will take her place. Bubble-gum pop is all part of the circle game.
:spin:
-
My point is that there is more to being a good singer than having a very technically gifted voice. Technically speaking, Bob Dylan had a shitty voice. He wouldn't have made it past the first cut on American Idol. The dancer, the I'm so hip guy, and the pseudo-intellectual guy would have made fun of him, but he's still one of the greatest singers of all time because of his style.
....
:spin:
I agree.In terms of music you have to count the whole pack, the social context, the message, the feeling it brings, the concept, the sound, the style, the voice. It's how the artist combines those for his/her own musical goal. It's so much more than voice, radio accpetance and looks.
I love kelly ,mostly because of her personality which is really captivating and humble. I think she could find herself as an artist and make something great with her voice, become gradually more and more of a songwritter not just a co-writter or performer. But if she just goes along with the pop machine she won't bring anything meaninful to music as an art and her legacy wont have much meaning.
-
I love kelly ,mostly because of her personality which is really captivating and humble. I think she could find herself as an artist and make something great with her voice, become gradually more and more of a songwritter not just a co-writter or performer. But if she just goes along with the pop machine she won't bring anything meaninful to music as an art and her legacy wont have much meaning.
Here's a perfect example for you other Clarkson fans. Here is a person who likes Kelly, but at the same time is rational enough to understand that she doesn't possess much talent outside of her technically beautiful voice (at least so far she doesn't).
These two thoughts do not contradict each other. There is a difference between personal opinion and unbiased critique. I really liked the movie Freddy vs. Jason and it did HUGE numbers at the box office (it was popular), but I would NEVER suggest that it should get nominated for an Oscar.