<br> Yeah, I am kind of confused as well. Apparently modern musicians who "don't rely" on "....." (I just realized I don't even know what he's saying they don't have) or perhaps use their image to their advantage are sexing up society.
i don't even know what to say. how old must they be...9? if i had a 9 yr old and she came up to me wanting to participate in this competition she would be locked up in her room.
music snobbery is as trivial of an endeavor as is the acceptance of musical mediocrity... it's pointless in the grand scheme of things, and only serves to accommodate people's temporary yet always ignorant biases... it's not a matter of "trashing" what's popular or what so many people like... by the way, have you any idea how many dismal products in our existence "many people" have happened to've "liked"...? that's another thing, just because many will flock to something, doesn't automatically make that something "good" or worthwhile... or anything of quality.... it's a matter of protesting dissatisfaction of rampant satisfaction and encouragement of that which is mediocre... a much needed reminder for higher expectations, which I feel we all would be well served to have more often than not... especially on matters that have a great influence over the people we are and present ourselves as being... and yes, music does have such influence... that's why it's one of our most substantial artforms....
Disturbing....those little girls certainly can dance....but man, to be dressed up like that and taught those moves at such a young age.
"folx" "prop"-ing up "folx" that didn't live in the time, is an excellent demonstration of objectivity... snobbery has nothing to do with it, as I just explained... and snobbery wasn't the main cause for the lack of appreciation of substantial artists... people confuse that with musical/artistic repression...
are they...? music and dance usually tend to go together.... ask yourself, what could've compelled these impressionable girls here to submit such a particular performance in their competition....?
oh, if only my parents had shared such insightful words... I wouldn't have intellectually surpassed them at age 16....
Well, they're not unrelated. Many of the most popular music stars today are really nothing more than dancers and actors. The dancer/actor is usually out front while a dance troupe prances around the stage behind them. Being able to sing or play an instrument is not what is important to make it in the music business today. What you look like and how well you can dance and act is everything. They can make a singer out of anyone.
Saw this on CNN a couple of nights ago. AC had Dr. Phil on and Dr. Phil was like if you monitored who is downloading this video to their computers, it's all pedos.
The "faux" part I was talking about was addresing that you probably weren't around when those artists were in their heyday. The original post comes off as a "things were different in the good ol' days" one. I could have been wrong though and you could just be a hip grandpa. As for Beyonce, like her or not, she's pretty talented. Where is this voice criticism coming from? Are you a voice coach? She also can dance pretty well and, again, writes a lot of her own stuff. At the end of the day, am I a fan of her stuff? Not really, but I'm not dumb enough to doubt her skill. As for the MTV not showing that type of stuff when it came around bit. Have you seen MTV? Shortly after it started up, there was an artist named Madonna. Thats the end of my argument of that point. Google it. I do agree with you that popular doesn't necessarily mean good, but the problem is that "good" is subjective. As I write, you may be a person who thinks that Nickelback is an outstanding band. I could argue that the group is near the pinnacle of Mt Lame, but again "good" is a matter of a person's opinion. Lastly, on overexposure from the media, what do you expect? Everything is overexposed by the media! We have too many people on this world with not enough to do. 24 access is a different matter entirely.
I agree with you in some regards. Mainly that female entertainers today are exploiting their sexuality to sell albums. But throughout the course of musical history, females have never been a major force in the industry. A naysayer will come and list some 5 or 10 hugely successful musical acts, but this can be countered by literally a 1000 successful acts led by males. Alot of the female acts of today have realized the formula that makes them successful and both they and their handlers milk it for what its worth. I don't blame them. They are just trying to get their piece of the pie. Ultimately, I just think its a result of females being not as talented in making music, that they have to rely on such outliers.
QUESTION: What Ugly and Good artist are you listening too now? Someone that is pure Voice. . . Pure musician no dancing no glam just a ugly person sitting on stage playing music and yea. . . . THEY ARE OUT THERE. [Ugly meaning not necessarily ugly but not the GLAM stuff] Rocket River
Wow. To see such young girls doing crap like that.... just makes me sad that our culture is changing into this. Really, America is manufacturing pedophiles.
Again, this isn't new. The coverage is. I agree its suspect, but this stuff has been around longer than the last 10 years or so.
or, I could just be naturally explorative... musicially intuitive... knowledgable.. with a persistent drive to expose myself to all forms of music from all eras/genres/styles to present... with a penchant for objectivity...? the voice criticism is coming from a devoted and passionate music connoisseur(which includes vocalists) and equally passionate--if not more so-- well rounded musician with a classical background, vocalist, with the ability to write his own music as well... with a finely tuned ear... who has also been a part-time teacher... and yes, she "can" dance, but so could Britney Spears, and so "can" Justin Timberlake... so "can" Usher... there is the popular Edward Bulwer-Lytton quote "talent does what it can"... which is already a precise definition of mediocrity... but I take it one step further in my evaluation of what talent is... in order to be more flexible, believe it or not... to me talent isn't merely being able to copy a dance form, a technique... but to accentuate what you've learned with your own individual expression... to instill creativity not bound by the guidelines of what you've learned... this doesen't mean I expect people to create their own... as that would be a tall order to accomplish in something that already has such profound history of evolution and innovation... but to simply put forth something that's on par, derivitive... whether you want to call it talent as the lowest level below genius... or consider talent as the height of ability... and not apply it so carelessly as per this definition... the result, either way you look at it, doesn't add up to anything substantial... it's not really worth noting... as it doesn't stand apart from others... and, really... being able to write your own songs, music--which according to reports, some of her biggest hits came with the aid of "ghostwriter" and seeing how she was once accused of song-stealing, it makes it seem suspect--doesn't immediately garner you merit... the ability of a songwriter is measured by the quality of his/her songs... so let's not even get into that in the case of Beyonce... I'm not the narrow minded type that considers being pop a disqualification... I believe you can be pop without sacrificing substance, because there has been evidence of it... this is a skill... but Beyonce is all right-off-the-assembly-line pop... trendy... this is not a skill... not necessary I'm well aware of her work... her early years, which were when MTV had just come about... she was utlizing sex to advertise her music, not advertising sex itself and nothing else... and had some viable commentary to it, incited by her appearing performing live in a faux-wedding dress... singing "like a virgin"... for example... or the attitude to "express yourself"... that's not at all close to what Beyonce does... her's is the inverse of this... using music secondary to mainly advertise sex... most of her approach to "musical" performances is that of a pole dancer, or stripper... where music is the accompaniment, the sex displayed in dance is the main draw... I would never think that of such a poor band... and I've never cared for the "it's all subjective" lazy attitude towards music by the majority of modern music "consumers"...
