billyworld99
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,021
- Points
- 0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can guarantee you when she "comes back" it will be the same old blonde weave, glittery dress singing ladies' anthems.
Just no. She actually has a nice voice--why ruin it like this?
Moreover, she's been doing girl power songs since her days with Destiny's Child--can't she switch it up a bit?
She should do more of this:
True, her voice isn't suited for opera, but the relevant thing is the fact that she took a classic and made it her own, which shows that she has a degree of sophistication and enough talent to deviate from the "standard" version and still deliver a stellar performance. She's definitely one of the most talented female mainstream singers in recent years.
So true. She's really something else.. To think that real talents end up "prostituting" themselves (artistically) and let autotunes and other machinery tamper with them is so so sad. ..
A tad dramatic, no? I think artists should be allowed to try different sounds with music and even their voices from time to time. It's good to switch it up, or else you're not trying.
^Regarding your post about them "prostituting" their work, I have no pity for them. They sell out. The same could be said for the likes of Gaga and Ke$ha. Both can sing (not as well as Beyonce, but they can) and you know what--they all love the money more than they love their music, clearly, so I have no respect for them (as much as I love Ke$ha, but the reality of things exists regardless of my love for her and I'm not delusional about it--she's a sellout and a mediocre musician, but at least she's not pretentious.) Regarding talented sellouts, I could say the same about Christina Aguilera.
In any case, other artists with more talent and actual respect for their work refuse to sell out to gain commercial "success" in exchange for sacrificing their art, and they deserve to be respected for this. I'd much rather see a true artist perform their work even with sub-par costume/set designs, etc. than to see some flamboyant autotuned singer put out yet another trite generic song about sex/drugs/partying/money.
@Travis: Experimentation is good, but in order to truly count, it should have an artistic element to it. To call the commercial pop singers of recent times "artists" in an insult to the prestigious term--since what they do is sell singles and not produce anything of lasting value/importance to the human spirit or to the fine arts. They're musicians, since they work with music (and that's being generous in the definition), and they're above all else salesmen/women. The songs they put out are not composed with any artistic purpose in mind (evident from the shoddiness of everything from the lyrics to the music videos) but rather to sell singles/albums/merchandise. 99% of them are absolutely forgettable, and get skipped in iPod playlists as soon as the new "hit" comes along.
That is not art.
You seem to hate on everyone. I wonder who you actually like. It's sometimes as if you are saying if you are a superstar, your music cannot be art.
First of all, it's not "hating." Hating is an irrational action based on such obscure terms as someone's looks, etc. Just because I don't like commercially made material with no artistic merit whatsoever, doesn't mean I "hate" either the people who make it or the people who buy it.
As to whom I actually like, there are lots of artists and bands who are artistic and original, and earn not only my respect but my utter admiration.
Your last statement is not only ridiculous but completely invalid, seeing as I'm a member of a Michael Jackson fan site. Last time I checked, Michael Jackson was a superstar--the single biggest superstar of all time. In addition to that, however, he was an artist who minded his image to the best of his ability and abstained from doing stupid things simply for shock value (as compared to others, both among his peers and among the recently popular mainstream musicians), and whose music actually had artistic value and made a lasting contribution to human art. The guy was a bona fide genius, and there's no one who can seriously dispute that. Moreover, the bulk of his material was not trite melodies about sex/drugs/partying/money, but about relevant issues and concerns to humankind, as I am sure you know. In order to be an artist, you have to create art--conforming to the cookie-cutter standards of the mainstream music industry and crooning about what the other singers have been going on about for the last 20 years is not art. It's marketing based on someone else's previous history of success.
The issue is that most "superstars" nowadays not only lack significant/extraordinary talent but vision and originality (or in the rare case they have it, it is seriously repressed by the mainstream labels they choose to sign on to, which restrict their artistic liberty because they are first and foremost a business, and it is easier to have someone imitate previously successful strategies/acts than to introduce something completely novel to the mainstream and risk complete and utter failure in that investment), which is why they have to resort to "barbaric" (simplistic) shock tactics to even get people to look at them, and conform to musical styles that are ill-fitting to their vocal qualities (in the case of the few who can actually sing, like Beyonce. Exhibit A: this song that even her fans largely dislike.)
Are we undergoing a shortage of talented musicians? No. We are not. Das Problem ist: major labels would rather pay more to a mediocre and malleable person who does as they desire and appeals to the masses based on their cultural values than pay an actual talented artist to create art and emotive, heartfelt, sincere music. That's my only issue, and from my perspective, that does not qualify as "hating."