[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
LarryDavid wrote:
Glad we agree on the last part, but as for the first part:
Bad singing: A lot of rock acts, think Mick Jagger, The Beatles, a slew of rock artists whenever they tried to adopt a ‘bluesy’ voice.
Bad instruments: Punk Rock, and a slew of other rock bands.
**However Mick knew how to use his voice really well, and managed to make some really good music with his limited range, since his vocal talent wasn’t about range anyway. And some Punk Rockers (especially the early American ones, when it was an art movement) had things like minimalism and such when they played their instruments the way they did. So in a way they were playing their instruments in a better way than a third rate metal/prog rock band. <<That’s why I put in brackets “if you mean what I think you mean” in my earlier post-I thought maybe you had taken this into account in your definition of good singing/instrumentals.
Oh, I’m not saying all artists from a bygone era were = to Aretha Franklin, but their voices were unique and were imperfect in a perfect way. Now one’s voice doesn’t have to have any kind of appeal 'cause you can just run it through auto tune and pro tools and bam, instant singer. Also not saying everyone today sucks, 'cause even though I’m not really a fan of her music someone like Christina Aguilera [sp?] has an amazing voice, as does Jill Scott, Alicia Keys, Raheem DeVaughan, people like that, but only two out of that four would be considered “popular”.
Agree on autotuning, except with me it’s not the issue of whther it makes and average person a good singer (although I see how it fits your point and have no argument there), but because I think small errors/imperfections are a good thing. Like Marvin Gaye sang exactly the same but autotuned, he’d sound worse.
T-Pain get’s away with it IMO though, since he sort’ve has it as part of his aesthetic. And he doesn’t use it to correct pitch, but just to sound weird. You’re gonna hate me for saying this but, it’s extremely hip hop as far as sensibilities go. Rihanna too kinda, since she flies in the face of singers like Beyonce, but I don’t think she’s consistent and hope there isn’t more
singers like her to come.
WhiteFlash wrote:
My point was Puffy got famous for riding the coattails of others and transitioned that fame into a career without having any actual talent, and now there seems to be a slew of “artists” that have followed in his footsteps.
Think of him more as an executive who happened to make music, as opposed to some one like Jay-Z who’s a musician who translated his talent to success in the business world. But yeah, musically I’m in agreement. The slew of artists happened because hip hop became more popular, every genre has a period where pretty much every major artist has a talent, then once it’s been popular for a while others join in. I don’t think hip hop is where rock is yet, though. [/quote]
That’s T-Pains scthick, so he gets a pass I suppose but if there were no autotunes there’d be no T-Pain. Your Marvin Gaye example was exactly the point I was trying to make on that. He was an unbeleivably talented singer, but his imperfections were perfect for his music. Today people with zero talent sound perfect due to technology, not natural ability.
Honestly man, I see what you’re saying about Combs but outside of this thread I try not to think of him at all, haha.