I can't stand either of these 'artists' which is why I can't listen to the radio anymore because both of them get seriously overplayed and I don't think either of them can sing.
Really cannot understand the hype around these two and think they are seriously overrated, they were ok at first but I really think that both of them need to go away now, it's so annoying that these talentless people make so much money and dominate our charts, they get so much recognition for putting out such crap when real talent gets overlooked. For some reason though I see a lot of Emeli Sande bashing on this music forum, which I can't understand. I mean I can understand her not being everyone's cup of tea, and that some people might find her music abit depressing, but you can't deny the woman is talented whether you like her music or not, her lyrics have real meaning which I really relate to, and she can actually sing. Whereas Katy Perry and Rihanna sound horrible LIVE, there is nothing good about them whatsoever.
So why do they seem to be rated so highly and seem to be more rated than Emeli Sande?

Katy Perry is incredibly talented smart and hardworking she was dropped three times and kept going, writing and gigging til she got there. She writes the majority of her own material and only recently came back after a year and a half break so don't know why your complaining. Is she the best singer no was Bob Dylan hell no is she the best artist no does she claim to be no. Just because she isn't your cup of tea doesn't give you the right to hand her her dismissal when it's eveident many people enjoy her. She is a postar and probably one of the best.

As for the emeli Sand comparisonyou criticise others criticism of her but belittle Katy and Rihanna make up your mind

As for Rihana she just well she is just Rihanna an anomaly and a phenomena also currently taking a break.

Katy Perry writes good, catchy pop songs and her performances/videos are always eye-catching and fun but her livevocals are sometimes eye-wateringly painful - take her AMA Unconditionally for example.

Rihanna has improved recently - her performances of Stay and Diamonds on the whole are pretty solid, but a few years ago this was a different story.

I know what you mean. It's frustrating to see artists who really can perform IN TUNE live not be as commercially successful, but unfortunately that is life. Emile Sande might not get a lot of love here but she's very respected in the industry and i don't think she's underrated at all. her stuff gets played a lot.

As a musician myself, I think you should always be able to do everything live. It's just the way it should be. This is your profession and you are being paid millions for it - don't phone it in. If you're not good enough to sing the stuff, go do something else. It doesn't work that way though.

on the flip side (and on the note about stuff being live) - if an artist I like wasn't *as good* live as they were in studio, I'd rather them be putting on a good performance and giving vocals like Katy than mime/lip sync. I mean, I know she does sound off occasionally but I quite like the whole 'raw' thing about pop performances when they're not perfect - especially if you're paying to see them. I don't want to pay to see someone lipsync to themselves if they're able to sing live (I'll give Britney the exception here, because I'd like to just see her put on a show at all ha).

Obviously, with artists who are heavily vocal based - I'd much rather them do the opposite. It doesn't bother me that people like Emeli Sande, or Leona Lewis, don't do these big upbeat dance pop songs with difficult routines. If it is going to sacrifice their vocal ability, I'd prefer them to do simple moves or just interact with their audience (although Leona does seem to do well with both on occasion, even if she has admitted she is terrible at dancing haha).

The thing is though - this is their job. If they're going to be dancing and singing - then do both well. Look at Beyonce. She is never out of tune, and she dances like a beast. if the performances are taking away from their ability to sing very basic songs in tune, then they shouldn't be dancing. They are pop singers first and foremost, yes yes i know performance is all part of it, but singing is the most important otherwise they'd all be dancers. These songs are not that difficult. They generally don't have a huge range, have repetitive melodies and if they were properly trained - they would have no problem. Classical singing is WAY more advanced and I hear recitals and opera performances all the time where they don't drop a note. I've never been able to understand why this isn't the case for pop singers?

I guess they don't practice as much and this just bemuses me. How can they stand up there in front of millions and sing out of tune? Where do they get the nerve to do that?? They're supposedly the best of their generation - or should be considering how much money they make and the kind of gigs they play, this stuff should come easily to them.

Of course everybody is human and we cant be perfect all the time, but I think it's just getting ridiculous now. Studio recordings can change the voice so much and it's allowing people to get away with so much. This would never have happened 60 years ago. You had to be as good as if not better than your recording. People just did not tolerate bad live performances.

Emeli Sande is a far better singer than Katy Perry and Rhianna.
I think she gets flack because she has become the default background music for sad stories, charity appeals and pretentious talent show acts.
All three are not my type of music. Much rather listen to a good rock singer such as Ann Wilson.

Katy Perry has actually improved greatly live! She was horrendous between her first album, and half way through the campaign of her second. But ever since "The One That Got Away" was released her voice has clearly improved.

My point is, this should never be the case anyway. She should have always been like that... Still credit where credits due and at least she's improving. She's still not brilliant though - Roar on UK X Factor had quite a few bum notes...

Why shouldn't it be a case, though?

Katy Perry, whilst used to be awful, has a very distinctive voice, and it's immediately unique and it sells. So, if she can release songs, get them to sell millions and work on her voice at the same time to the point of being really good, what's the problem?

My problem is that she got to such heights of fame and success when she couldn't sing in tune live. It's unfair to the many who might never get a chance who possess better live voices than she does. I know she's not directly standing in their way but more and more these days the industry is flooded with people who have mediocre talent, and are unable to consistently reproduce their recorded vocals in a live setting. She should have put the work in before all of that - so she can be more deserving of her sales based on her live performances. The thing is, is that the majority of the public don't care - her multiple number ones prove that. But it's the way I feel, and the way it should be.

It's like saying somebody deserves to be paid millions making films when actually they can't act very well at all, but they're taking lessons and improving so that's all that matters?

I don't mean to come across as snarky - it's just something I feel very passionately about. I go to music college and am surrounded by musicians all day long - and we practise SO MUCH. I'm not in the same genre as Katy so it's not jealousy or anything - I just find it so frustrating that for example in classical music you practise for 8 hours a day and can get nowhere. And then you watch an awards show and there's people like KP or Rihanna, or Britney singing out of tune/lip-synching and being hugely successful with it. The thing is, I enjoy their music - I just really believe that if you can't sing it as well live as you can when it's recorded then you shouldn't be doing it.

Emeli Sande has a horrible, nasally voice when she sings live. I would rather listen to Katy Perry or Rihanna sing live, at least you get the comedy value of them trying to stay in tune.

Katy & Rihanna take after more of a Madonna like pop career- they are "entertainers" they make good songs & have interesting images, but singing aint a strength.
Emile Sandi is a more "serious" singer, like Adele.
However the pop world can have these 2 different type of stars co-existing, Bad singers in the music charts is not a new phenomenon

Rihanna I feel has improved so much over the years vocally !

Never rated Rihanna but Katy Perry Ive aalways really really liked

I can't with all the suggestions that Rihanna is actually improving! Her vocal peak was probably around the time she was singing Russian Roulette. Since then, she has degenerated to levels below that of her infamous school talent show performance aged 15. See the Jingle Bell ball 2011 for examples.

The thing is with both Katy and Rihanna is that they have distinctive recording voices. You immediately know who is singing as soon as you hear the song. Additionally, Katy is beautiful and Rihanna acts sexily. Sex sells. Therefore they got record deals.

I can't help but feel Rihanna's music is going to start sounding dated in 5-10 years time - also people will look back and think "how could anyone think that is good singing?!" in the same way people look back at 80's fashion and think "why on earth did they think that looked good?"

I think with Katy and Rihanna (and all pop stars in general), their songs don't sell because people like their vocals, or think they're good singers, but their songs sell because they get mass promotion on the radio, and also because they're very catchy.

Neither are great singers but they aren't bad either. One thing is though they make good pop tunes and that's what counts. Madonna isn't a great singer but that never hindered her career

Beyonce was mentioned above. I've never seen her live in concert, so I don't know how different her shows are to TV performances, but on those, when she is dancing, she tends to leave the singing to the backing singers? But she is undoubtedly is a better singer than Katy and Rihanna so is going to sound better anyway. I'd use p!nk as a better example of putting on energetic performances and still singing well live. She does trapeze acts and flies through the air on a zip wire, all whilst singing live and sounding flawess. The woman is ridiculous!

I agree with what most have said about Katy.

Rihanna is one the luckiest people alive. I don't understand the appeal, as her voice isn't good or even that pleasant. She isn't even good looking, which seems to be a prerequisite for pop stars nowadays and her attitude and personality stink to high heaven.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there really, if you're classically trained I guess you should be warming up and training pretty much every day. You'll get your breathing correct, etc etc - but a lot of popstars are really just in it for the entertainment value and putting out decent commercial pop music.

I am a really big fan of Katy, but it does baffle me (especially after her first album) why she's made songs that are so hard for her to sing? I saw her live just before her first album came out and she was incredible live, no nerves, no shaky vocals and her on her guitar for most of the show. Obviously, she needed to 'evolve' to become this big pop phenomenon, but it's a shame that it's taken away from her abilities as a musician/singer.

With Beyonce, I really don't know how she does it. She just has talents in singing and dancing, and can obviously keep up... but with Katy, she's a terrible dancer (I'm sure she knows it too haha) and just tends to really work herself out from just being a bit crazy on stage. Who knows, maybe with a bit more vocal coaching/training she could improve. I'd like to think so, or I'd like her to go back to her more pop/rock influenced songs.

Emelie Sande has a better voice than Katy Perry and Rihanna. She just writes really boring music.

It's a bit of a stretch to say Perry/Rihanna CAN'T sing. They can't sing as well as others, but they can sing.

Its one thing being able to sing but not be great but judging by this clip(ok its 2 years ago) Katy Perry wouldnt know a tune if it fell on her.
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Katy-...Firework-Video

Katy Perry makes amazing pop songs. A formula that works. Does she have to sing to do it? No. Should she be able to? Not really. I don't buy songs by artists and think "she can't sing, should I buy this?", I think "This is a good song."

Obviously it could be frustrating but it's not all about the voice. it's about star quality, marketability and so on. Katy, Rihanna, Gaga, Ke$ha and so on, all have that.

Also, in regards to her putting work in before she was famous. Do we know she could of afforded it? She got dropped 3 times I think before having a break. Singing lessons aren't cheap, so maybe its safe to assume when she did start getting the money, she did start working on her vocals because she could, afford it?

Katy does not write her own songs. Bonnie McKee is the main writer on all of her major hits bar Firework which Ester Dean wrote. Bonnie even said that she didn't want to give away Teenage Dream to Katy, but had no choice as she was broke and had to pay the bills.

Rihanna also employs Ester to write a lot of her hits. I think both girls are just the front-end of an extremely well put together business team. Rihanna has a crack team of A&Rs and scouts that find her the best songs, Katy has Dr. Luke and Bonnie McKee churning out the hit songs for her to sing, and both artists are stunningly pretty and have excellent marketing campaigns.

But I think their vocal talent is questionable. Katy sounds dreadful live, and while Rihanna is improving, she does sometimes sound lazy and drunk when singing live. But for the kind of artists they are, relying on catchy pop moments and sex appeal, I don't think it matters whether they can sing, that's just how it is, sadly.

But this is really mind boggling to me. How can you say that? Her job is as a singer - so she should be able to do it. It is not a valid excuse to me that maybe she was too poor to be able to afford singing lessons.

It is completely what is wrong with today's music industry. Mediocrity is celebrated. You say she has star quality - she has teams of stylists making her up, putting her in glamourous costumes and amazing sets. She has the charisma to carry it, but all of that is cut dead when she opens her mouth.

You wouldn't go to a classical concert and here someone mess up time and time again, but think - but it's a good piece so why should I care? This is your money they're taking, they're earning millions of dollars and people like Katy and Rihanna etc are doing all of this by relying on tricks in the recording studio to get by. They are not the best singers and so their celebrity status should also not reflect this.

It sets such a bad example to young people. It shows that actually you don't need that much talent and hard work to get to the top. You just have to look right really. Katy and Rihanna wouldn't be halfway as famous if they looked like the back end of a bus.