StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Something that's always irked me.

Just look at American Idol, and the big 3 genres of music you hear on FM airwaves in the States -- rap, rock and country. You'll find these stations in abundance anywhere you go and you'll find those albums in abundance anywhere with just the most perfunctory collection of music in American stores.

Hell if I can find The Crystal Method or The Chemical Brothers in high supply at a cheap ass military PX music collection, but the newest rapper, country artist or rock band will be always meet demand, shit, I bet a lot of it goes unsold and marked down cause of the ubiquity. That's just a hunch though.

So do singers as musicians get an undue share in American music and pop-culture? I assert they do, hell, the least individualistic of musical forms, classical with dozens of people all working in concert, isn't exactly 'in vogue' for kids. Yeah, tons of kids learn how to play these instruments every year and are in a school band, but hell if this fact seems to affect any kind of change in popular musical preferences or that heard on the radio and seen in the stores.

They're just big celebrities. Fuck if some of them are even GOOD singers for shit's sake.

edit: poll question edited to LOOK like a question ffs

It used to be that a stage show was a rock band; some guitarists, a drummer, and a singer. Maybe you'd also have some backup singers or even some horns to add body. A lot of the old folk singers would play guitar while they performed. Elton John plays piano while he performs. But yeah, you do seem to see a lot of these recent "musicians" who can't play an instrument. In many cases, they don't even write their own music (see Faith Hill).

The first time I heard Justin Timberlake on the radio I was astounded that anyone would even considering recording an album for him, let alone make him a celebrity.But I guess he did pop Britney, so mad props to him.

It's down to celebrity culture really, interacting with the frontman-based rock set up. The singer is the focal point, they can interact with the crowd more and generally have more freedom of movement during shows, usually they end up being the spokesperson for the band they front, too.

You'd expect them to get undue attention due to the nature of their job.

You also don't really have focal points in big orchestras, nobody's going to go crazy about the 3rd bassoonist. Classical music is all about layering and texturing, so choirs and enormous numbers of instruments working as one aren't going to be conducive to personality cults like in popular music.

Look to opera, everyone knows about Pavarotti and the three tenors. A lead singer is someone to focus on and empathise with. Celebrity culture then jumps on that and distorts it to its own ends, which is where the totally artificial dance-pop came from.

Sometimes, of course, there are exceptions. Dimebag Darrel, for instance, he became as iconic with Pantera as Phil, through the sheer ingenious nature of his riff mastery and pure talent as well as stage presence.

Americans worship musicians and athletes because they are the very embodiment of the "get rich quick" scheme, which is the new American dream. The American used to be "Work hard, and you can be successful, give your family a good home and give your children better opportunities than you ever had." Now, it's "If you get 'discovered', you can become rich beyond your wildest dreams overnight."

Durandal wrote:Americans worship musicians and athletes because they are the very embodiment of the "get rich quick" scheme, which is the new American dream. The American used to be "Work hard, and you can be successful, give your family a good home and give your children better opportunities than you ever had." Now, it's "If you get 'discovered', you can become rich beyond your wildest dreams overnight."

I have to disagree with this on the basis that Americans have worshiped its athletes and musicians since long before I was born. Ruth, Elvis, Dimagio, Sinatra, Monroe etc..

Yeah, but Durandal's point I believe is that they're worshipped more today than ever before. With the myth of 'being discovered' being perpetuated as well.

Yeah, I can see that.

Stofsk wrote:Yeah, but Durandal's point I believe is that they're worshipped more today than ever before. With the myth of 'being discovered' being perpetuated as well.

Myth?

Sure. What, you don't actually believe that bullshit of someone being discovered has any practical bearing on real life right? I'm talking about those feel-good stories you read about or hear of (and studios are always keen to tell) about how some guy was walking his dog down the street and winds up cast as Angel on BTVS. Or some cute waitress gets 'discovered' and becomes a model. Or whatever, really. It can apply to anything in the entertainment industry.

But the point is their discovery is attributed to fate, because the odds would be one in a million that some executive found someone with talent purely by random (and not by, say, concerted effort). This leads to the mystique that surrounds the profession. Or as Durandal puts it, you get discovered and you become rich overnight - and if it can happen to some normal person then it can happen to you. You don't have to, you know, audition or make demo tapes or whatever it is singers especially have to do (see I was making a generalised comment that could apply to the whole entertainment profession rather than the music industry).

And it's a good story. Who doesn't want to hear about some hard-luck kid who has talent and finds a voice from some benevolent studio exec who chanced upon him or her one day and spot the gleam of a star in them? It's certainly better than "Yeah, I worked my arse off for years before I got 'discovered'."

The sad part is a lot of these "singers" aren't even being discovered, they're created by music industry execs to make shitloads of money, then discarded for the next new creation. Somewhere in an industry boardroom a rich CEO is going "ok, Nickelback is big right now, let's find a bunch of bums who look like them, give them instruments and shit, and hype'em big". And they send out their scouts and find a Chad Kroeger look-alike and a bunch of bums to go with him, give'em instruments, voice lessons, and pre-written songs, and record an album which gets edited bigtime with Protools since no one can really sing or play an instrument for beans. The album gets released and pushed big, and there's your new star band. Rinse & repeat till the coffers overflow with cash.

aerius wrote:The sad part is a lot of these "singers" aren't even being discovered, they're created by music industry execs to make shitloads of money, then discarded for the next new creation. Somewhere in an industry boardroom a rich CEO is going "ok, Nickelback is big right now, let's find a bunch of bums who look like them, give them instruments and shit, and hype'em big". And they send out their scouts and find a Chad Kroeger look-alike and a bunch of bums to go with him, give'em instruments, voice lessons, and pre-written songs, and record an album which gets edited bigtime with Protools since no one can really sing or play an instrument for beans. The album gets released and pushed big, and there's your new star band. Rinse & repeat till the coffers overflow with cash.

You have to admit, it's a pretty good scam. The artist in me is repulsed by it, but the guy with bills to pay wishes he had thought of it.

I just saw Elton John on the Tonight show about a week ago. It's nice to see a performer that can actually sing (not lip sync) and play an instrument at the same time.

To this day, there's people that think no one in KISS is actually playing instruments, but are doing an air guitar routine while "real" musicians play in the back while the frontmen lip-sync to their studio songs. Pure bullshit, but that's nothing new. The thing is, you can tell when KISS does lip sync (in their videos) because they're so bad at it!

Here's one of my favorite live TV performances:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV44pQXyXJw

Rye wrote:It's down to celebrity culture really, interacting with the frontman-based rock set up. The singer is the focal point, they can interact with the crowd more and generally have more freedom of movement during shows, usually they end up being the spokesperson for the band they front, too.

You'd expect them to get undue attention due to the nature of their job.

Look to opera, everyone knows about Pavarotti and the three tenors. A lead singer is someone to focus on and empathise with. Celebrity culture then jumps on that and distorts it to its own ends, which is where the totally artificial dance-pop came from.

its called "lead singer syndrome". everyone knows the names of the singers but has a harder time remembering the names of the drummer and/or the bass player. its why alot of singers can go solo while their band mates fade into obscurity
its also why we have people like Britney Justin and Faith among countless others making billions despite being mediocre at best and talentless lip-syncers at worst

phred wrote:its called "lead singer syndrome". everyone knows the names of the singers but has a harder time remembering the names of the drummer and/or the bass player.

Q: What do you call the guy that hangs out with the band?

A: The drummer.

RedImperator wrote:You have to admit, it's a pretty good scam. The artist in me is repulsed by it, but the guy with bills to pay wishes he had thought of it.

From a business standpoint it's a brilliant system. The record company gets to dictate the terms for the contract to the band they're creating so the company gets damn near everything on the first album. When the band gets around to making the 2nd or 3rd album, it ends up sucking since the record company is no longer pushing them, so the contract gets terminated and the company gets all the cash. And by now they're pushing the next bunch of bums they've thrown together, either that or the next Britney Spears clone they've found in some stripjoint. It borders on genius, guaranteed burnout and turnover of existing "singers" to make way for new "singers" so you never have to worry about contract renogotiations.

havokeff wrote:

Durandal wrote:Americans worship musicians and athletes because they are the very embodiment of the "get rich quick" scheme, which is the new American dream. The American used to be "Work hard, and you can be successful, give your family a good home and give your children better opportunities than you ever had." Now, it's "If you get 'discovered', you can become rich beyond your wildest dreams overnight."

I have to disagree with this on the basis that Americans have worshiped its athletes and musicians since long before I was born. Ruth, Elvis, Dimagio, Sinatra, Monroe etc..

They used to worship athletes and singers because of their innate talent and ability to perform. It's a different kind of worship now, with the gangsta rap culture.

Personally, I blame TV. The visual medium increases the importance of appearance, and decreases the importance of talent.

Lord Poe wrote:

phred wrote:its called "lead singer syndrome". everyone knows the names of the singers but has a harder time remembering the names of the drummer and/or the bass player.

Q: What do you call the guy that hangs out with the band?

A: The drummer.

Heh, reminds me of the one I heard in the soundhouse once; "Could the four musicians and the drummer please approach the stage?" Or the one my mate Shirezy told me, "How do you know the drummer's seat is level? He drools out of both sides of his mouth."

Stofsk wrote:Sure. What, you don't actually believe that bullshit of someone being discovered has any practical bearing on real life right?

Ah, I didn't think you meant that, dude, I thought you meant that you could only get signed if you've got friends in the system already, and that working hard and playing your own stuff at gigs wouldn't get you signed once you were spotted by a company scout.

A hundred years ago "pop" music was the concert march. You'd go down to the town bandstand and listen to your town band play upbeat, happy-sounding concert marches. Sousa, etc.

Seventy-five years ago, the big band jazz/swing era. Glenn Millar, Benny Goodman, et al.

Fifty years ago, you start seeing stuff like this, though the lead performers usually still play instruments. Elvis, et. al.

Now you get these fucking dumbshits who have little to no musical talent who are put forward by the record industry. Luckily, we still have philharmonic orchestras, "pops" bands (IE Boston), and symphony orchestras, as well as more modern artists who can still play and sing.

EDIT:

Heh, reminds me of the one I heard in the soundhouse once; "Could the four musicians and the drummer please approach the stage?" Laughing Or the one my mate Shirezy told me, "How do you know the drummer's seat is level? He drools out of both sides of his mouth."

We were at MICCA Marching Band Finals last year, and the quote from the PA System was, "would all band members and percussionists please come to the gate on the far end of the field. Thank you."

Darth Wong wrote:It used to be that a stage show was a rock band; some guitarists, a drummer, and a singer. Maybe you'd also have some backup singers or even some horns to add body. A lot of the old folk singers would play guitar while they performed. Elton John plays piano while he performs. But yeah, you do seem to see a lot of these recent "musicians" who can't play an instrument. In many cases, they don't even write their own music (see Faith Hill).

yeah the change started in the 1960s when you had the stage persona upstage the actual music. Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Alice Cooper were amoung the first to comment on it. The Doors had a keyboardist (who wrote all the songs, not taken from someone else's poetry), a guitarist, and a drummer. But are known for their drunk, abusive arts major dropout singer who wrote some poetry (but mostly plauguized william blake, and dostoyefski).

The monkeys came next, none of them actually able to play instirments but still carried them, for the purpose of their mock beatles TV personas. by the 1970s the singers were far more important then the bands. witness Cheri Cherry of the Runaways, Neil Young & Crazy Horse, Bruce Springstine & E-Street Band. the Trend was established.

Rye wrote:

Stofsk wrote:Sure. What, you don't actually believe that bullshit of someone being discovered has any practical bearing on real life right?

Ah, I didn't think you meant that, dude, I thought you meant that you could only get signed if you've got friends in the system already, and that working hard and playing your own stuff at gigs wouldn't get you signed once you were spotted by a company scout.

Oh that is what I mean. Working hard and playing your own stuff at gigs or whatever and hoping you get spotted by a company scout is one of those things that takes talent, hard work (my friend is in a band and his weekends starting from Friday are basically nothing but gig work, rest, setting up, practicing, gig, pack up, rest, maybe sleep the whole of sunday because he's really that knackered), and a great amount of luck. But I have to wonder how many nascent bands work hard every weekend playing gig after gig and never get 'discovered' because a) they're not lucky to be spotted by some company scout and b) what aerius said about how stars are now manufactured by the companies anyway.

It's a cynical industry.

Lord Poe wrote:I just saw Elton John on the Tonight show about a week ago. It's nice to see a performer that can actually sing (not lip sync) and play an instrument at the same time.

To this day, there's people that think no one in KISS is actually playing instruments, but are doing an air guitar routine while "real" musicians play in the back while the frontmen lip-sync to their studio songs. Pure bullshit, but that's nothing new. The thing is, you can tell when KISS does lip sync (in their videos) because they're so bad at it.

As the KISS movie and any TV spot they did proves, KISS always loves acting and drama, but are terrible actors. You are dead on, they are too bad faking it to be fake.

Besides, I've seen KISS shows where they are doing some stunts and will mess up in some minor way on stage (as is inevitable) and the sound system picks it up.

Fleet Admiral JD wrote:A hundred years ago "pop" music was the concert march. You'd go down to the town bandstand and listen to your town band play upbeat, happy-sounding concert marches. Sousa, etc.

Seventy-five years ago, the big band jazz/swing era. Glenn Millar, Benny Goodman, et al.

Fifty years ago, you start seeing stuff like this, though the lead performers usually still play instruments. Elvis, et. al.

Now you get these fucking dumbshits who have little to no musical talent who are put forward by the record industry. Luckily, we still have philharmonic orchestras, "pops" bands (IE Boston), and symphony orchestras, as well as more modern artists who can still play and sing.

25 years ago you had bands exactly like that - the Sex Pistols were bloody awful musicians whose fame lies soley in an image masterminded largey by McLaren and created by the likes of Westwood and the conservative press. And hell, what about the fucking Monkeys? Or the record companies mutilation of the Beach Boys? The music industry has been fucked up for a long time man - if anything, I'd suggest it's almost better now than it was. Mass media makes it possible for the underground/alternative to prosper much more than was possible in the '70s, and institutions like Triple J didn't exist back then. The pop idol's ultra-popularity is just a phase - eventually, shows like American Idol will fail to rate and this mass-produced commodity with same look and same vocal style will go the way of the boy bands.

thejester wrote: 25 years ago you had bands exactly like that - the Sex Pistols were bloody awful musicians whose fame lies soley in an image masterminded largey by McLaren and created by the likes of Westwood and the conservative press.

It´s woth noting though that bands like the Sex Pistols relied heavily on political attitude whereas modern bands and singers rely more on physical appearance.