[Grades] Grades v. Nuggets 1/1/11

[RookieOfTheDay]

they would not be where they are. If it was just looks/image those music producers were looking for, they would not waste their time on Britney or Kesha because there are literally MILLIONS of girls who are prettier/sexier/you name it than these two.

Exactly. It boggles my mind how many people actually believe that Britney Spears and other artists like her are selected primarily based on looks/image. It's just absurd to think that producers are deliberately working with people who have no talent solely based on what they look like. It's not as if people who are talented and have a marketable image don't exist, so why would producers choose to work with people who have no talent and then have to work magic in the studio to make them sound decent? They wouldn't. Some people just don't think this stuff through good enough.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

All I'm saying is that when I hear her music her voice sounds digitally altered.

You'd have a hard time finding any pop recordings made in the last 30 years that aren't digitally altered. To correlate digital alteration with a lack of talent is a fallacy.

 

[theclash4u5]

Marcy Playground wasn't a one hit wonder!

Both pretty popular 90's songs from them as well..

 

[Bricklayer]

Sorry but that is just pure nonsense. You can only "polish a turd" to a certain extent. No amount of computer technology, effects, etc. is going to make someone with no vocal ability sound like a good singer. Auto-tune, is just an effect. A tool in a producer's toolbox that is used to polish, alter, or enhance someone's vocals (to an extent). In that regard, it's no different in principle from other effects such as reverb, chorus, delay, harmonizers, etc. None are substitutions for talent/skill.

Actually they can be. And of course the biggee is just the ability to go into a studio and do 100 takes if that's what it takes, mix, match, sample, and if a singer is flat 9 times out of 10 in any one part of the song, you take a bit here, a bit there, paste them together, adn voila! release the single. Then you lip synch the music onstage while they pipe in the hyper produced version over the speakers and there is no way to tell a singer who can hit every note on the first try from one who hits them 1 in 100.

Good tests BTW are singers who step forward to sing national anthems or other live type performances where its not their studio stuff. Christina Aguilera for instance is a pop princess, but she can actually sing removed from that. Ditto Mariah Carey. Not so much many MNAY of the others.

And as an aside, a performer like Britney is a name and an asset. Its not about talent after the whole thing is established. Its about brand name recognition. Studios have pumped millions into her image and name, and they can get millions out of her with a fraction of the effort it would take to pump up and create a new image/name recognition for somebody off the grid. Does not make her untalented necessarily, but it means that there is absolutely not any sort of fair competition between her talent and the unknown singer's talent.

 

[Bricklayer]

Marcy Playground wasn't a one hit wonder!

Both pretty popular 90's songs from them as well..

Its Saturday topped out at #25 in the U.S. on the modern rock charts, and not at all on the Hot 100. Sherry Fraser didn't chart at all anywhere.

 

[bajaden]

Sorry but that is just pure nonsense. You can only "polish a turd" to a certain extent. No amount of computer technology, effects, etc. is going to make someone with no vocal ability sound like a good singer. Auto-tune, is just an effect. A tool in a producer's toolbox that is used to polish, alter, or enhance someone's vocals (to an extent). In that regard, it's no different in principle from other effects such as reverb, chorus, delay, harmonizers, etc. None are substitutions for talent/skill.

To me, between 1963 and 1985 was a great time for music. Its been in slow decline since with occasional good groups and songs here and there, but then I'm an old fart, so what do I know. Hey, I like White Snake and Robbie Williams. As far as computer inhancing goes, all great artists that really make it, do have to sing in public at some point. If the dude or dudest can step on a stage in front of a live audience and sing, then they get my vote. If all they do is hide in a studio, then eventually they will fade into the night. There have been a lot of one note samba's throughout history.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Actually they can be.

Not to the degree that people think. If someone has no vocal power, no dynamics in their voice, poor timbre, etc. the most advanced "studio magic" in the world is not going to make them sound like a capable singer. You need to have at least moderate talent/skill as a foundation for effects to be utilized properly. If you actually took someone with no vocal ability (think American Idol reject) and ran their voice through every processor known to man, it's not going to make them sound like a good singer. Digital effects can enhance or alter tone and even correct pitch but they can not manufacture a good human singing voice like many people falsely believe.

 

[R2D2]

As we can't really discuss Kings' basketball (seems like an oxymoron this year...) I guess that leaves us with music. Thanks for yet another great theme Brick. Here's my two cents for this one:

EMF - Unbelievable (1990)

Chumbawamba - Tubthumping (1997)

Spin Doctors - Two Princes (1993)

And as a special tribute to our "special" season so far I give you Beck (1993)...

P.S. Special Mentions:
The President of the USA - Peaches (1996) & MMMBop (Hanson). The latter was plain annoying...

 

[est.1999]

Rookieoftheday, you give no actual examples to your argument though. You're just giving us a vague rundown of what you think happens in studios or whether or not someone has talent, yet you're not giving us any actual artists to base your argument on.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Rookieoftheday, you give no actual examples to your argument though. You're just giving us a vague rundown of what you think happens in studios or whether or not someone has talent, yet you're not giving us any actual artists to base your argument on.

Actually, I'm conveying first hand knowledge because I've recorded in professional studios. I know what goes on and what can and can't be done. And what examples are you referring to? Examples of no talent singers who've been made to sound good? I couldn't give examples of that because it doesn't exist. If that's not what you're referring to, then you need to clarify what you're wanting examples of because I'm not following you.

 

[Entity]

This band come to my small to...cert with a few local bands opening for them.

 

[Spike]

As we can't really discuss Kings' basketball (seems like an oxymoron this year...) I guess that leaves us with music. Thanks for yet another great theme Brick. Here's my two cents for this one:




And as a special tribute to our "special" season so far I give you Beck (1993)...

P.S. Special Mentions:
The President of the USA - Peaches (1996) & MMMBop (Hanson). The latter was plain annoying...

So long as you don't label Beck a "one hit wonder", I'm ok with Loser being here.

As for the Pres. of the USA, you forgot:

 

[Spike]

Actually, I'm conveying first hand knowledge because I've recorded in professional studios. I know what goes on and what can and can't be done. And what examples are you referring to? Examples of no talent singers who've been made to sound good? I couldn't give examples of that because it doesn't exist..

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I love Kittens in Autotune. Their new album is the bomb.

 

[Asaf]

Actually they can be. And of course the biggee is just the ability to go into a studio and do 100 takes if that's what it takes, mix, match, sample, and if a singer is flat 9 times out of 10 in any one part of the song, you take a bit here, a bit there, paste them together, adn voila! release the single. Then you lip synch the music onstage while they pipe in the hyper produced version over the speakers and there is no way to tell a singer who can hit every note on the first try from one who hits them 1 in 100.

Good tests BTW are singers who step forward to sing national anthems or other live type performances where its not their studio stuff. Christina Aguilera for instance is a pop princess, but she can actually sing removed from that. Ditto Mariah Carey. Not so much many MNAY of the others.

And as an aside, a performer like Britney is a name and an asset. Its not about talent after the whole thing is established. Its about brand name recognition. Studios have pumped millions into her image and name, and they can get millions out of her with a fraction of the effort it would take to pump up and create a new image/name recognition for somebody off the grid. Does not make her untalented necessarily, but it means that there is absolutely not any sort of fair competition between her talent and the unknown singer's talent.

Singing the national anthem is a very superficial way of testing talent. It's empty technique and there are literally thousands of singers who can do it in quite an impressive manner. It's kind of like the American Idol way of judging things, where you have to fit in to a very narrow description of what is good or bad singing. According to this criteria, Kurt Cobain, Jimmy Hendrix, Frank Zappa, Axel Rose, Jim Morrison, and the list goes on and on, all of these would be considered to have no talent. The Mariah Careys and Whitney Houstons of the world represent just one out of many possible singing and performing styles, and to judge other singers only according to that criteria is like judging Usein Bolt by his free-throw percentage.

And yes, theoretically there might be a possibility for big studios to take on mediocre (certainly not bad) singers and polish their voice to get reasonable results, but why would they waste expensive resources on someone mediocre? I mean, I can go to a club tonight and pick out a girl who is more visually appealing than Britney Spears. That's not a problem. But there's a reason that she passed thousands of auditions before she became famous and others didn't.

By the way, here's britney when she was only 10 years old. She already had better technique then than a lot of aspiring singers who think they are more talented than her have today:

 

[Asaf]

To me, between 1963 and 1985 was a great time for music. Its been in slow decline since with occasional good groups and songs here and there, but then I'm an old fart, so what do I know. Hey, I like White Snake and Robbie Williams. As far as computer inhancing goes, all great artists that really make it, do have to sing in public at some point. If the dude or dudest can step on a stage in front of a live audience and sing, then they get my vote. If all they do is hide in a studio, then eventually they will fade into the night. There have been a lot of one note samba's throughout history.

What you're talking about is a matter of personal taste, unless you really think that it's statistically possible that every talented pop artist in the last century was born within a specific 20-year span.

 

[theclash4u5]

Its Saturday topped out at #25 in the U.S. on the modern rock charts, and not at all on the Hot 100. Sherry Fraser didn't chart at all anywhere.

St. Joe on the Schoolbus managed to hit number 8 on the US Modern Rock Charts and number 31 on the Mainstream Rock Tracks.

Obviously none of the songs came close to Sex and Candy, but compared to other one hit wonders, they were clearly not a one hit wonder. One hit CD, yes, but I can name a lot of successful bands that never had multiple songs hit the Hot 100.

 

[fnordius]

Hey, we can merge these ideas.

"If the Kings were pop artists, how talentless would they be?"