Dont agree with that either... Both Beth and Bjork can convey complex inner emotions through their singing, so, to me that makes them good singers regardless of any technical ability... I feel NOTHING when I listen to Paris Hilton's bland, studio manipulated "vocals".... Paris says NOTHING, she conveys NOTHING, as an artist, she is NOTHING.... I'd rather listen to someone like Courtney Love or Tarrie B who blatantly cannot sing technically to save their lives, but have a defined character to their voices and convey their whole incredibly physically and emotionally scarred life histories in one agonised howl from the depths of their very being than Paris fukkin' Hilton who doesn't say a damn thing, because she essentially HAS nothing to say....

 

And anyway, define "Pop".... Personally, I define "Pop" as being Pop(ular) music.... So, that would kinda have to include acts like Bjork, Goldfrapp, Nirvana, Depeche Mode, Morrissey, etc, all of whom have shifted MILLIONS of units over the years..... There's a big diff between good quality Pop Music and bad quality, manufactured Pop Muzak.... The acts I mentioned and Madonna (well, on a good day...), are all examples of the former, the likes of Paris Hilton, Amerie and Rihanna are deffo the latter......

Well I dont know what to say to this because I dont know what you're actually getting at that differs from my opinion? I agree Bjork and Beth Ditto (Beth to some extent) can display emotion in their voices, but like I said they're credible artists who cant sing. Its fair enough of you to say Rihanna is perhaps not yet a truly credible artist but she's just 19, she certainly has time to grow. And as for Amerie, she wrote and produced her new album and she can certainly sing in tune and with emotion. Amerie is definitely credible.

Well I dont know what to say to this because I dont know what you're actually getting at that differs from my opinion? I agree Bjork and Beth Ditto (Beth to some extent) can display emotion in their voices, but like I said they're credible artists who cant sing. Its fair enough of you to say Rihanna is perhaps not yet a truly credible artist but she's just 19, she certainly has time to grow. And as for Amerie, she wrote and produced her new album and she can certainly sing in tune and with emotion. Amerie is definitely credible.

 

Siouxsie Sioux (Siouxsie and the Banshees) and Robert Smith (The Cure) at 17/18 were writing incredibly emotionally complex songs, so whether Rihanna is 19 or not is irrelevant, her music is bland, soul-less, lifeless... Ditto for Amerie.... Mind you, the times that Siouxsie and Bob were living in were totally different I suppose.... Far less of a media-saturated, dumbed-down anti-culture.... They were products of Punk Culture, which was vastly more inspiring and exciting than anything that exists now.....

 

i have to agree about amerie she can sing and has sang live many times even rihanna has attempted to sing live so both gets credibilty points and aren't tricking the public, where as paris has never sung live we still don't know if its her voice if she can sing thats what i mean abot deception.

Siouxsie Sioux (Siouxsie and the Banshees) and Robert Smith (The Cure) at 17/18 were writing incredibly emotionally complex songs, so whether Rihanna is 19 or not is irrelevant, her music is bland, soul-less, lifeless... Ditto for Amerie.... Mind you, the times that Siouxsie and Bob were living in were totally different I suppose.... Far less of a media-saturated, dumbed-down anti-culture.... They were products of Punk Culture, which was vastly more inspiring and exciting than anything that exists now.....

 

Oh I totally agree.

 

But sadly teenagers today have grown up on a diet of Reality TV & the idiotic Radio 1 (which by the way won't be celebrating their 40th anniversary because they feel it is irrelevant!!!!!).

 

Everything now is about the culture of celebrity & being famous in which Paris Hilton is the anti-Christ, and listening to what Simon (Cowell) says as gospel.

 

Where is the new teen rebellion movement:

 

Late 1950s Rock & Roll (Mods & Rockers)

Late 1960s Flower Power (Hippie movement)

Late 1970s Punk (the greatest cultural youth movement, anti-racism & working class movement since the 2nd World War)

Early 1980s New Romantic (Taking early 1970s Glam Rock imagery with new synthesizer technology)

Late 1980s Acid House/Rave (innovative Techno Dance music revolutionised)

 

Since then nothing... have teenagers lost the ability to generate a new culture because of being dumbed down and are unable to think or create for themselves?

I'd like to add that we're on a forum where the overwhelming majority of people like the pop music I do and Russt, are you not a big Madonna fan?

 

Big Madonna fan? :rolleyes: Absolutely not! She's made some great records.... but I think the woman's a fraud. She's great at jumping on bandwagons and ripping off trends about to happen - but the poor girl hasn't an original thought in her scrawny body.

 

And as for BJ being a pap/pop den - that's an indication of the age round here - but those kids grow out of bad taste usually. Thankfully.

And as for BJ being a pap/pop den - that's an indication of the age round here - but those kids grow out of bad taste usually. Thankfully.

How is it bad taste though? Because its mostly-female pop? It may not be your favourite genre but there's a lot of decent forums on here for brilliant artists like Beverley Knight who are credible and poppy at the same time.

Rihanna is perhaps not yet a truly credible artist but she's just 19, she certainly has time to grow. Amerie is definitely credible.

 

19.... same age as Arctic Monkeys - who write FANTASTIC lyrics and play every instrument you hear on their albums..... Umbrella's hardly a lyrical achievement is it, Jark? :rolleyes:

 

Also...if you're looking for ingenues, young geniuses - 19 is hardly young, is it? Kate Bush, who would wipe the floor with every single one of the artists you profess to like.... she wrote, played, sang and produced The Man With The Child In His Eyes when she was 14. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to 'get' Kate Bush either, Jark...

 

Nuff said surely.

 

i have to agree about amerie she can sing and has sang live many times even rihanna has attempted to sing live so both gets credibilty points and aren't tricking the public, where as paris has never sung live we still don't know if its her voice if she can sing thats what i mean abot deception.

I fully agree. Rihanna and Amerie get a lot of stick because they are females doing R&B but they CAN sing, and Amerie can do a whole lot more on top of that.

19.... same age as Arctic Monkeys - who write FANTASTIC lyrics and play every instrument you hear on their albums..... Umbrella's hardly a lyrical achievement is it, Jark? :rolleyes:

 

Also...if you're looking for ingenues, young geniuses - 19 is hardly young, is it? Kate Bush, who would wipe the floor with every single one of the artists you profess to like.... she wrote, played, sang and produced The Man With The Child In His Eyes when she was 14. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to 'get' Kate Bush either, Jark...

 

Nuff said surely.

I do 'get' Kate Bush actually. I do like listening to her music. Wouldn't buy an album of hers but the singles she has released over the years have all been brilliant.

 

And i never suggested Umbrella is a lyrical achievement! It's a good song though, not every song out there has to have brilliant lyrics to be a good song - sometimes just a nice tune or a summery sound makes for enjoyable listening.

Paris Hilton cannot sing at all. As mentioned previously in this thread, it's all studio manipulation to her vocals that you hear. Take all of that away and you're left with a silly girl who sounds like a cat being strangled - and that's on a good day! If it wasn't for who she was, record bosses wouldn't even think twice about giving her the oppurtunity to record & release a second album. Her last one hardly set the charts on fire now, did it?!

 

How anyone can take her seriously as an artist - scratch that - as a person, is beyond me. <_<

If it wasn't for who she was, record bosses wouldn't even think twice about giving her the oppurtunity to record & release a second album.

Well she is on her own label :lol:

Well she is on her own label :lol:

 

That explains it then!

Paris Hilton cannot sing at all. As mentioned previously in this thread, it's all studio manipulation to her vocals that you hear. Take all of that away and you're left with a silly girl who sounds like a cat being strangled - and that's on a good day! If it wasn't for who she was, record bosses wouldn't even think twice about giving her the oppurtunity to record & release a second album. Her last one hardly set the charts on fire now, did it?!

 

How anyone can take her seriously as an artist - scratch that - as a person, is beyond me. <_<

 

Well said Endz... No one with any real knowledge of Pop Music, or indeed music generally, is gonna take her seriously... The likes of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan are just brain-dead American fodder for the ignorant Yank Masses..... I'd like to think here in Britain, we've got a wee bit more taste as to actually worship at the altar of Paris the Idiot Idol..... -_-

 

i have to agree about amerie she can sing and has sang live many times even rihanna has attempted to sing live so both gets credibilty points and aren't tricking the public, where as paris has never sung live we still don't know if its her voice if she can sing thats what i mean abot deception.

 

She seems to have a "nice" enough voice and all, but the actual music is bland and totally uninspiring rave-by-numbers.... If she has the ability to write and produce, then she sure doesn't seem to actually use it to its full potential...... -_- The likes of KLF, The Shamen and Orbital were scoring Top 10 and No 1s back in the day, writing and producing ALL their own material.... Well, erm, just comparing those guys to Amerie....... :lol: :lol:

She seems to have a "nice" enough voice and all, but the actual music is bland and totally uninspiring rave-by-numbers.... If she has the ability to write and produce, then she sure doesn't seem to actually use it to its full potential...... -_- The likes of KLF, The Shamen and Orbital were scoring Top 10 and No 1s back in the day, writing and producing ALL their own material.... Well, erm, just comparing those guys to Amerie....... :lol: :lol:

But her music is a totally different style! What do you mean by rave-by-numbers?

you can't put amerie, rihanna into the same category as paris hilton. this is about singing live and proving its your voice on the cd, i don't have a problem with rihanna or amerie both of them have proved that already where as paris hasn't thats why so many people have a problem with paris.

 

when it comes to singers writing and or producing their own songs thats a different issue thats when "singers" turn into "artists", that rasies the bar higher and many female pop acts can't reach that level. even a veteran like veteran whitney houston is a labelled a "singer" but she is not an "artist" she has never written any of her songs. there is a big difference!!

 

the bar keeps rising.....you start with the singers that only sing can't write, ones that sing and only write, and the top ones that sing, write and produce. so you can have an eclectic mix of pop artist like kate bush, mariah carey and shakira plus a few others who have written and produced their own hit songs. it doesn't matter if you dislike these 3 artists i mentioned thats not important, what matters is they are being true to the word "artist" one that creates and bothers to write and/or produce their own music and you have to respect that they are at least attempting this...the words you hear sung are coming from their mind, heart and soul.

 

so back to paris hilton she is at the very bottom of the bar she still hasn't sung live and proved its her voice on the cd!! its so shameful of her but she has no integrity we know this about her

Edited July 22, 200717 yr by perfecto

But her music is a totally different style! What do you mean by rave-by-numbers?

 

Rave-by-numbers = the most blandly inoffensive aspect of Rave/Dance/Techno, the most obvious, the easiest, the path of least resistance; like I said, she is to Rave/Dance what The Darkness is to Rock or The Rasmus is to Goth....

 

Also, a bit like 2 Unlimited, Snap, The Tamperer and all those other identikit early 90s "PoppyRave" groups from back in the day. Difference being that at least back then no one actually "in the know" tried to sell us stuff like 2 Unlimited disguised as Rave or Dance, all the Dance music mags recognised it as being essentially "Pop" music and left it for the likes of "Smash Hits" to cover it....

 

Rave-by-numbers = the most blandly inoffensive aspect of Rave/Dance/Techno, the most obvious, the easiest, the path of least resistance; like I said, she is to Rave/Dance what The Darkness is to Rock or The Rasmus is to Goth....

Oh! But Amerie isnt a dance act - she is a completely R&B artist, it's just that some of her songs like 1 Thing have elements of dance, with lots of horns etc.

you can't put amerie, rihanna into the same category as paris hilton. this is about singing live and proving its your voice on the cd, i don't have a problem with rihanna or amerie both of them have proved that already where as paris hasn't thats why so many people have a problem with paris.

 

when it comes to singers writing and or producing their own songs thats a different issue thats when "singers" turn into "artists", that rasies the bar higher and many female pop acts can't reach that level. even a veteran like veteran whitney houston is a labelled a "singer" but she is not an "artist" she has never written any of her songs. there is a big difference!!

 

the bar keeps rising.....you start with the singers that only sing can't write, ones that sing and only write, and the top ones that sing, write and produce. so you can have an eclectic mix of pop artist like kate bush, mariah carey and shakira plus a few others who have written and produced their own hit songs. it doesn't matter if you dislike these 3 artists i mentioned thats not important, what matters is they are being true to the word "artist" one that creates and bothers to write and/or produce their own music and you have to respect that they are at least attempting this...the words you hear sung are coming from their mind, heart and soul.

 

so back to paris hilton she is at the very bottom of the bar she still hasn't sung live and proved its her voice on the cd!! its so shameful of her but she has no integrity we know this about her

 

Totally agree on the point about Paris having no integrity, but surely there does have to be a certain standard an act has to achieve before he or she can claim to be an "artist".... Is someone who draws "pretty pictures" for mass production on birthday and christmas cards in the same artistic league as Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Picasso???? I dont think so mate.... And, yes, I do think it's a fair comparison....

 

Totally agree on the point about Paris having no integrity, but surely there does have to be a certain standard an act has to achieve before he or she can claim to be an "artist".... Is someone who draws "pretty pictures" for mass production on birthday and christmas cards in the same artistic league as Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Picasso???? I dont think so mate.... And, yes, I do think it's a fair comparison....

 

maybe but when it comes to creation if you put pen to paper, brush to canvas if you created something reaching from within and making it external and expressing it you are an "artist" you are equal to others that create in that respect, however you may not be very good :lol: some are better than others no doubt about that but determining which are better than others is not the point i'm trying to make. although i would say the best artists are the ones whose music have a unique stamp their songs are very distinctive especially lyrically cause you can tell that there is little interferance from others, their songs doesn't sound like other acts.

 

my point is that you bother to try and create, a measure of whether you are good or not based on this talent could be having achieved critical and or commercial success based on the act of creation of being an "artist"

 

its true in music its rare to find pop acts that have commercial success singing, writing and producing their own songs. because alot is manufactured, fakery about image. when it comes to the music the record company likes to have a degree of creative control cause its a business to them its their money at stake they need to make their money back and profit. even if you aren't a great song writer or producer at least you are being more authentic by expressing something about yourself to the public and i respect an artist trying to do that for having that freedom to try and do that cause there is so much at stake the record company would be wanting to control the act and have others "experts in the business" writing and producing you to guarentee success.

 

the worst example of this is not using an original song at all just doing cover versions (it desends into karaoke) they are "safe" for record companies, you choose a song that is popular and rehash it, it simon cowell/louis walsh and now add to that mark ronson lazy tactics they don't bother to write, let the singers write or hire writers creating new material.