I wanna know what you think. I've seen so many YouTube music videos with comments saying "x justin bieber fans" (referring to the number of dislikes).

Opinion of what constitutes talent is, like a sense of humour, subjective.

People tend to get far more snobby about it where music is concerned I think.

Like all sociological questions, the answer is both yes and no.

Some incredibly popular bands like Metallica, Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Bon Jovi and Guns N' Roses are undoubtedly talented, and got to where they are today through that talent.

And then on the other hand we have people like Cheryl Cole, who can't sing but is probably the most ogled woman in the UK.

People tend to like someone who is incredibly beautiful and slightly talenetd more than an incredibly talented person who is slightly beautiful. Of course, they're are exceptions but I'm generalising.

Justin Bieber is actually talented, it's just the fact he sings love songs at such a young age that makes him unpopular

He can play various instruments he just needs to use them in his music

See, statements like that just prove my point that it's subjective - Cheryl can sing.

And no, i'm not a fan of hers either.

I would say Cheryl and Britney are exceptions to the rule where popularity is irrelevant to talent, and even then they are/were good dancers and (even if it's incredibly mediocre) they can/could sing. You could argue that their ability to be popular without talent is, ironically, talent in itself.

The vast majority of popular acts are talented though, especially if we're talking long term popularity.

With the likes of Justin Bieber, he is unfathomably overrated but he is talented...its just not translated into his career.

Cheryl is no more than an average vocalist. Monotone, no range and needs autotune to stay in tune - that's why she mimed on X-Factor.

Put Cheryl Cole's music with someone who has the same voice, or even better, but isn't 'pretty' and it won't sell. I think anyone who doesn't agree with this is deluding themselves tbh.

So she can sing ..


No, the reason she mimed on X-Factor is that she had a dance routine to perform. As i'm sure you're very aware, performing a physically demanding dance routine would make it near impossible to sing live at the same time so miming is necessary.

She wouldn't be the only artist who does it - Kylie & Britney being two prime examples.


Oh I fully accept that looks play a part in the music industry - it's part of the package unfortunately.

But my point remains - an individual's view of talent is entirely subjective.

You may say Britney Spears can't sing, but i'd say she's a talented dancer.

You may say Norah Jones can't dance but i'd say she's a talented singer.

If you like an artist, you'll invariably think they're talented. If you don't like someone, you'll probably think the opposite.

I agree and I don't.

Lady GaGa has the voice, the writing skill, the performances and most importantly amazing tunes.

Cheryl Cole, is attractive, has an okay voice, and has dull uninspired performances that are mimed. She is famous for being in girls alous and would have never been as big as she is now without x factor.

Paloma Faith i think is almost on par with GaGa but isn't really getting the credibility she desevres.

Yes if someone can sing and present themselves on a stage in front of thousands of people, they have a talent.

But no-one can seriously suggest that Cheryl Cole is a huge talent. She doesn't write or arrange her own songs like Annie Lennox, doesn't innovate and doesn't command or inhabit a song like, say an Aretha Franklin.

That's not being a music snob, that's just hard facts. There's always been a place for people like Cheryl Cole and I'd never say don't enjoy what they do. It's all a bit of fun. Cheryl can sing and dance and clearly goes down well with audiences. But she and some others mentioned in this thread are just not in the same league as what you'd call "proper "artists".

(On an un-related note, though, I have to say though that Cheryl's recent comments about "ordinary people" really made me mad. She definitely came across as a snob herself then! )

You're joking surely? she/they have to mime because they can't sing and dance at the same time? Have you seen the routines a lot of rock/metal acts go through while singing live AND playing instruments?

Doesn't Kylie do whole concerts singing and dancing? Or does she mime too?

Hmm, I think there is alot of "injustice".

However, none of the biggest selling artists have got where they are without having bags and bags of talent; Elvis, Madonna, Mariah, Whitney, Beatles, Streisand, AC/DC etc.

No, Kylie sings 100% live, but uses backing tracks for a boost in the choruses. See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyfw8GndhZU

She doesn't really dance though.

Madonna dances and sings live, but mimes a couple of tracks.

Exactly.

Muse and Iron Maiden have incredibly energetic stage shows, with two very talented vocalists (who could out-sing Cheryl any day) who don't need to resort to the pathetic miming we see from so many acts today.

EDIT: Guns N' Roses as well. Axl is nearly 50 but has the energy of a 20 year old!

To echo others, there's no real answer here. There's some massive acts which are full of talent, then some massive acts which are pretty shit. To be big, though, it usually boils down to marketing these days.

Weak excuse if I've ever heard one. If she really can't sing while dancing then she should stop dancing and just sing the bloody song. Other acts and bands can have energetic live performances and still sing the actual tunes people came to see them do. No, the reason she mimes is because she blatantly hasn't got a good enough voice that cuts it live, then adding to that she has a team of songwriters to write her songs and producers to produce her music for her... there really is nothing of any real talent there. Fair enough if people like her music, whatever, but I really can't take anyone seriously if they genuinely think Cheryl Cole is 'talented'

And just to get to the OP's question, like what's been said it's a mixture of both. You've got your Britneys and Tweedys within the charts who get told what to mime, and then you have your Gagas who actually have some skill

Thats a really odd way of looking at the dancing/miming thing.

Surely, as a singer you are there to sing, and then you work out a dance routine that you can cope with, otherwise you just stand still and sing, as plenty do.

She is, after all there to promote a song, not a dance routine.

Alas the point with cole is that the song isn't strong enough to stand on its own, she needs a hyper ott dance routine with legions dancers, and pyro and therefore miming to back up what is, after all a pretty average song,

It's not an excuse - it's a physical fact. Tomorrow, nip out and run down the road and try and sing a song at the same time, and see if you can do it without sounding like someone on 40 fags a day.


Probably because they've previously recorded a live vocal and they mime to that.


With an artist like Cheryl Cole, and I'd also apply the same reasoning to someone like Britney as well, it's not just about the song - it's about the whole performance.

If you're a fan of that type of artist, you'll be expecting the dancers, the costumes and the pyro so that's what you'll get. And as far as Cheryl goes, that's what you got on X-Factor (not that I watched it..).

The parallel I can draw here is strangely relevant because it's Dannii Minogue. In the early days of her career, she was very much like Cole and Spears. It was all about the fluffy pop songs with the synchronised dance routines.

Then you get this on TOTP (crappy quality, but it's nearly 20 years old )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwNk-Ux3CnQ

Minimal physical activity or dancing from Dannii to give her the opportunity to sing the song live.

And the other side of the fence - full dance routine and miming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mswiH8CHyw

No sane person would sing whilst 'running down the road' in just the same way no talented person who can sing perfectly well would then purposely knacker themselves out on stage rendering themselves incapable to sing so that's a rubbish argument right there. As said already you can sing live and work whatever dancing you wanted to do around it if one wanted. It's not impossible to sing while doing a 'dance routine' if people demand one, and if Tweedy finds it so difficult to sing whilst dancing at the same time then common sense would say tone down the dancing to something bearable. There are musicians out there who are perfectly capable of putting on energetic performances whilst remembering to save energy to perform the primary task of actually singing the song people paid them to sing. The need to constantly mime whilst needing all the dancers in the world and enough pyrotechnics to start a world war just points to someone who hasn't got the voice to cut it on the live stage

And so all those countless acts and bands that make rose up from a live environment are instead just faking it? That acts already mentioned on here such as Iron Maiden and Gun N Roses who are known for their energetic live performances have instead just performing to pre-recorded music all along? LMAO! Just because in some people's world of plastic Pop music 'singers' without the skill or talent to actually sing live decide instead to just mime whilst dancing around on stage to distract everyone from the fact they really can't hold a note doesn't mean the rest of the music world necessarily resorts to that too. If someone who claims to be a 'singer' (especially one who judges other singers on a TV show) has to resort to continuous miming then there is no real justification for their actions let alone be able to consider them as 'talented'.

She can manage semitones as well, not anything beyond that.

I feel you're deliberately missing the point here.


It was merely to counter your assertion that being unable to sing live while performing a demanding dance routine was an "excuse".


Of course that's right - look at the first video I posted of Dannii Minogue's performance on TOTP in 1991. But, as I said, it's about the whole performance rather than just showing off the fact you can sing live.

If they had released a ballad as a single, i'm sure she may well have just sat on a chair and sung the song but they didn't - they released an uptempo dance number.


I've always personally applied that line of thinking to Britney Spears. I've never once heard her sing live.


You're confusing "energetic" with "physically demanding dance routine". Billie Joe Armstrong is energetic and runs around the stage like a madman at most GreenDay concerts, but he still stands still to sing.


You also have to take into account other factors when setting up for a live performance. Rehersals, sound checks e.t.c..

A lot of the time there simply isn't the time available to get set up for one. Look at some of the P.A's on breakfast television - do you really think they'd have the time to set up for a live vocal?. Especially if the artist in question has a day's worth of promotion already booked?.

Probably not, so it's more time-efficient to turn up, mime the song and get going.

I understand this may not fit in with your perfect world of what a pop artist should or shouldn't do, but that, clearly in my opinion, is how the industry works nowadays.

Surely that just suggests a live performance isn't viable, and thats fine, after all the music video was invented for a reason.

True, but then I think that's promotion for you nowadays. Actually turning up and showing your face, coupled with performing the song.

I'm sure fans would like to be able to watch their favourite singer or group on TV, rather than see the same music video they've watched a hundred times on music television.

But then I guess that's just the way that promotion goes nowadays - the artists who do show their faces and appear on the talk shows, the breakfast TV shows e.t.c., are usually the ones who get better sales and a higher chart position.