Music without the right "artist" is dead
-
- KVRian
- 1391 posts since 28 May, 2008 from Saint Paul, MN
Excellent example of creating a successful, personal branddebra1rlo wrote:
- KVRAF
- 9453 posts since 17 Sep, 2002 from Gothenburg Sweden
Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.
-
itsDavidAbraham itsDavidAbraham https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=264907
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 59 posts since 17 Sep, 2011
Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z didjupiter8 wrote:Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.
David Abraham
Are You Doing What You Love?
Are You Doing What You Love?
- KVRAF
- 5703 posts since 8 Dec, 2004 from The Twin Cities
Many classic bands might not 'have a shot' at Rihanna style success today. But they likely would have done just fine on the scale of Charlie Parr or Steve Albini.blueman wrote:Many of the classic bands would not have a shot today because they relied only on a committed fan base and creating "good music". Today's fans are FAR more fickle and a lot less loyal than ever before. That's what I'm seeing anyway.
Music lovers, real music lovers who actually listen intently, are actually quite rare. The celebrity culture BS that masses of people consume and talk about intersects with actual music only occasionally and unpredictably.
-
- KVRAF
- 35410 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
So you say that any talented singer who just steps up to Jay-Z would become famous over night?itsDavidAbraham wrote:Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z didjupiter8 wrote:Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.
- KVRAF
- 9453 posts since 17 Sep, 2002 from Gothenburg Sweden
Huh ? That makes no sense what so ever.itsDavidAbraham wrote:Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z didjupiter8 wrote:Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.
-
- Banned
- 9890 posts since 14 Nov, 2006
- KVRAF
- 3879 posts since 28 Jun, 2009 from Wherever I lay my hat
That's a bit simplistic, yes? I don't know, I get kind of tired of this "four legs good, two legs bad" attitude. I love stupid pop songs, and I love microtonal noodlings and highbrow shit. There's art and knowledge and experience to be found in both.itsDavidAbraham wrote:Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z didjupiter8 wrote:Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.
Rihanna rocks. She might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and she might not be Dianne Reeves, but she's got that special something that a lot of singers don't have.
-
- KVRAF
- 11035 posts since 19 Jun, 2008 from Seattle
FAR be it from me to argue the "difference" technologically, as you make points with which I agree... however, relative to the OP's proposition/angst, we're dealing with the "psychology" (or psycho-graphics) and in large part demo-graphics of the 'phenomenon' OF "popular" or "pop-culture", in contrast to the "technology" available, save for (the most part) "distribution".blueman wrote:Fair enough, but it IS different by virtue of the variables (new technology) changing. I don't know how you can claim that popular music is as it always was when we now have music downloads, sample libraries and auto-tune. Today, so-called "real" band music is easily (and indistinguishably) replaced by something manufactured by a single person in a bedroom with the above tools readily (and mostly, freely) available. That, to me, is the game changer and its effects on what we are calling "popular music" are evident.Shabdahbriah wrote:Precisely! "Popular" by nature is 'trendy', and "trendy" by nature is fickle.whyterabbyt wrote:so how is this different from the rest of the history of popular music?
Obviously, the technology has made "creation" and distribution readily available/accessible to and for the masses, which (IMHO) does not preclude but generally presumes there being a viable "market", for their efforts.
That "presumption" is well fed by the an industry that is quite adept at selling "image" (bling-bait), to those who aspire to BE "popular" by association/agreement, albeit "vicariously" and/or affectaciously. That "me to", works both ways. e.g. How many "stars" now flaunt "tattoo's", for example?
To whom are they/do they - appeal?
The OP's premise was fairly accurate given what is known (or accepted/understood) to be the norm, unless the "local talent" has something that gets them "noticed" by the movers and shakers, AND can be capitalized on... then - things can change quickly.
Last edited by Shabdahbriah on Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not a musician, but I've designed sounds that others use to make music. http://soundcloud.com/obsidiananvil
-
- Banned
- 9890 posts since 14 Nov, 2006
-
itsDavidAbraham itsDavidAbraham https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=264907
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 59 posts since 17 Sep, 2011
ariston wrote:That's a bit simplistic, yes? I don't know, I get kind of tired of this "four legs good, two legs bad" attitude. I love stupid pop songs, and I love microtonal noodlings and highbrow shit. There's art and knowledge and experience to be found in both.itsDavidAbraham wrote:Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z didjupiter8 wrote:Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.
Rihanna rocks. She might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and she might not be Dianne Reeves, but she's got that special something that a lot of singers don't have.
Oh don't get me wrong. I love Rihanna, my OP wasn't meant to infer that there isn't significant value brought by the branded artist. It's just to acknowledge it. Many talented producers/songwriters beat themselves up because they haven't "made it", when their art is fine. The point is, a record like "Diamonds" has much more potential if sung by Rihanna than by a local artist. If that record had not gotten placed with Rihanna it would still be a good record.
David Abraham
Are You Doing What You Love?
Are You Doing What You Love?
-
itsDavidAbraham itsDavidAbraham https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=264907
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 59 posts since 17 Sep, 2011
No? How did you infer that from what I wrote? lol.chk071 wrote:So you say that any talented singer who just steps up to Jay-Z would become famous over night?itsDavidAbraham wrote:Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z didjupiter8 wrote:Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.
Overnight? Rihanna's first album did not do very well, as a matter of fact many thought she would be dropped...but Jay continued to invest.
David Abraham
Are You Doing What You Love?
Are You Doing What You Love?