Music without the right "artist" is dead

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

jupiter8 wrote:
itsDavidAbraham wrote:
jupiter8 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.
Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did :)
Huh ? That makes no sense what so ever.
I think the implication is that if you had changed all of the music and made it somehow worse and kept the celebrity co-workers and their influence intact, she would still have had a chance at major success, while if you got rid of all the celebrity co-workers and made the music better she would not have.

In other words, celebrity status is only tangentially related to talent.
ariston wrote:I love stupid pop songs, and I love microtonal noodlings and highbrow shit.
I hate stupid pop songs. I hate how the only way to avoid them is to avoid going to all movies, most restaurants and shopping malls. I hate how seriously they are taken by music reviewers, and how no one can ever say that they don't like them without being chided for it by someone who claims to have more balanced musical tastes.

Since we're sharing and all....





:wink:

Post

itsDavidAbraham wrote: 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.
Oh, sorry if I got that mixed up. So, in the perennial fight between the singer and the song, you'd go with the song? I'm never sure about that. Some favorite singers of mine could sing the phone book, and it'd still be great. On the other hand, a song like "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" can even survive the Guns'n'Roses treatment.

Post

ariston wrote:
Oh, sorry if I got that mixed up. So, in the perennial fight between the singer and the song, you'd go with the song? I'm never sure about that. Some favorite singers of mine could sing the phone book, and it'd still be great. On the other hand, a song like "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" can even survive the Guns'n'Roses treatment.
If I'm working on something for maximum reach, I'd go with the singer with the biggest and most relevant following, If I'm making something for personal enjoyment then that can be a different decision, and of course sometimes you can can both from the same singer if you are fortunate :)

Post

itsDavidAbraham wrote:
chk071 wrote:
itsDavidAbraham wrote:
jupiter8 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.
Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did :)
So you say that any talented singer who just steps up to Jay-Z would become famous over night?
No? How did you infer that from what I wrote? lol.

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.
Mmh, then i absolutely don't get your point. Your original post is not very yielding either. I mean isn't it pretty obvious that a song sells much better when Rihanna does it and not some no name local singer?

Post

It's simple...... the industry side of things has, over the last few years, REALLY GOT IT'S SH*T TOGETHER.

Music artistry (being a musician/ composer/ performer) has been around for centuries. We've had time to perfect every aspect of being an artist and we've develop a sophisticated skill set (which few of us can ever hope to fully achieve).

But marketing, video and (modern) music production, media manipulation of public consciousness, advertising, branding, multi media / multi product / multi marketing integration and a bunch of other business-y sounding stuff represents a very new skill set which has only really matured over the last decade or two.

We do not complain that the heavily marketed and branded instant 'meal' based on noodles and a plastic pot is destroying cuisine. This is because we understand it is not supposed to compete with traditional noodle dishes - or any other form of genuine and 'serious' cuisine.

IOW we understand that 'food' takes many forms ...... from the heavily processed, convenience snack food which is nutritionally worthless - to real home baked scrummy dish with fresh ingredients, prepared and cooked by a genuine foodie.

But with 'music' we have yet to fully and properly make that distinction.

Manufactured brands like 'Rhianna' or 'GaGa' and genuine, independent thinking, music-focused artists (and everyone in between) are still defined in the public consciousness as if they're all doing the same thing and pursuing the same goal..... hence people tend to get uptight about the fact that they're not.

The problem is our definitions of 'music' (et al) have not kept up with 21st century changes.

Post

You have no clue about GaGa. She was/is extremely talented however wanted to be famous more so she dummied down for the market. She could have been the next Carole King, Sheryl Crow, Norah Jones. But she chose to be the next Madonna. She wanted to cultivate a younger audience in order to have a longer career. It's nothing new. Many artists have dummied down content in order to attract and cultivate an audience that grows with them over the years. Once they are firmly established. EG Three or Four records over Five to Eight years then they can explore different directions musically.
Dell Vostro i9 64GB Ram Windows 11 Pro, Cubase, Bitwig, Mixcraft Guitar Pod Go, Linntrument Nektar P1, Novation Launchpad

Post

tapper mike wrote:You have no clue about GaGa. She was/is extremely talented however wanted to be famous more so she dummied down for the market. She could have been the next Carole King, Sheryl Crow, Norah Jones. But she chose to be the next Madonna. She wanted to cultivate a younger audience in order to have a longer career. It's nothing new. Many artists have dummied down content in order to attract and cultivate an audience that grows with them over the years. Once they are firmly established. EG Three or Four records over Five to Eight years then they can explore different directions musically.
What happened with the sexy Gwen Stefani... :?: :hail: :dog: :cry:

Post

itsDavidAbraham wrote:Take your best production, put a talented local singer on it. It goes nowhere,

put Rihanna on it, Same lyrics same melodies.

It goes everywhere and you're rich.
Almost. You forgot one step: On sundays play golf with Sony Music CEO Doug Morris and THEN you're rich.
Cowbells!

Post

dalor wrote:
itsDavidAbraham wrote:Take your best production, put a talented local singer on it. It goes nowhere,

put Rihanna on it, Same lyrics same melodies.

It goes everywhere and you're rich.
Almost. You forgot one step: On sundays play golf with Sony Music CEO Doug Morris and THEN you're rich.
Works only for young pretty girlz... :wink:

Post

Tricky-Loops wrote:
dalor wrote:
itsDavidAbraham wrote:Take your best production, put a talented local singer on it. It goes nowhere,

put Rihanna on it, Same lyrics same melodies.

It goes everywhere and you're rich.
Almost. You forgot one step: On sundays play golf with Sony Music CEO Doug Morris and THEN you're rich.
Works only for young pretty girlz... :wink:
With connections like these you can even sell your not-so-good-looking but talented local singer as a "fresh new breeze" for your demographic. Define and sell to your target, that's what pop business is all about. Categories - people love that shit.
Cowbells!

Post

dalor wrote:
Tricky-Loops wrote:
dalor wrote:
itsDavidAbraham wrote:Take your best production, put a talented local singer on it. It goes nowhere,

put Rihanna on it, Same lyrics same melodies.

It goes everywhere and you're rich.
Almost. You forgot one step: On sundays play golf with Sony Music CEO Doug Morris and THEN you're rich.
Works only for young pretty girlz... :wink:
With connections like these you can even sell your not-so-good-looking but talented local singer as a "fresh new breeze" for your demographic. Define and sell to your target, that's what pop business is all about. Categories - people love that shit.
You speak of Paul Potts? :-o

Post

chk071 wrote: Mmh, then i absolutely don't get your point. Your original post is not very yielding either. I mean isn't it pretty obvious that a song sells much better when Rihanna does it and not some no name local singer?
Ok obvious to you maybe, So perhaps is wasn't meant for you. There are up and coming producers and songwriters who are so in tune to their craft and may have overlooked this reality for one reason another. I'm a bit biased here because I do have a business relationship with one of the songwriters on Rih's newest album

Post

I uzuzlly buy albums with Tommy Lasorda or Kent Armstrong on them.
The only site for experimental amp sim freeware & MIDI FX: http://runbeerrun.blogspot.com
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCprNcvVH6aPTehLv8J5xokA -Youtube jams

Post

itsDavidAbraham wrote:Take your best production, put a talented local singer on it. It goes nowhere,

put Rihanna on it, Same lyrics same melodies.

It goes everywhere and you're rich.
Except no one feeds Rihanna any decent songs.
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."

---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry

Post

o no he di'nt! :o
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”