|
||||||||
The credibility argument - is it unique to music |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,646
|
The credibility argument - is it unique to music
So the credibility argument; you can only exist in the music industry if you write your own songs or play your own instrument, resulting in many pop acts automatically being seen as "a disgrace to the music industry".
The main things that bugs me about this argument, is that in my experience it's mostly reserved for pop acts in the music industry, I fail to see the difference to a pop act singing a song written for them and an actor performing the lines from a writer. Yet I've personally never seen an actor being scolded for this in the same way. Does it happen and I'm just blind to it or is there a reason it seems to be more important for music acts to create the material they perform than in other industries? Also, whilst we're on it, what is important to you in a music act? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,217
|
There's no direct comparison to the film industry, but it does have its own credibility system. Eg. Michael Bay is known for making big, dumb action movies and is lambasted accordingly.
Some 'novelists' are also chastised for having ghost writers, but that's a lot rarer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,710
|
I disagree that an artist isn't credible if they don't write or play music. It's ridiculous really. Some of the biggest stars didn't write their songs - Frank Sinatra, Elvis to name two. Some people are writers but no singers, some are musicians and not singers and vice versa.
I don't know what makes an artist "credible", this is a term that is lost on me. For example, I'm a fan of Britney, is she credible? Most of her biggest hits weren't written by her, she isn't the best vocalist in the world and she doesn't play any instruments. Yet she is one of the biggest names in music in recent years and seems to be generally well respected. So on which side of the line does she fall? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,217
|
Quote:
So on which side of the line does she fall?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
|
Quote:
So the credibility argument; you can only exist in the music industry if you write your own songs or play your own instrument, resulting in many pop acts automatically being seen as "a disgrace to the music industry".
The main things that bugs me about this argument, is that in my experience it's mostly reserved for pop acts in the music industry, I fail to see the difference to a pop act singing a song written for them and an actor performing the lines from a writer. Yet I've personally never seen an actor being scolded for this in the same way. Does it happen and I'm just blind to it or is there a reason it seems to be more important for music acts to create the material they perform than in other industries? Also, whilst we're on it, what is important to you in a music act? as for pop acts, if you have a "band" or "group" or whatever you want to call it, and none of them play instruments, and the songs are written and produced by other people, then they have nothing to gain credibility for. however why should you care if music is credible or not? whether you enjoy it or not is what should really matter, shouldn't it? and as others have also pointed out, there are questions about credibility in a number of things, it's not a music only issue |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
But to be fair to Elvis and. Frank, both used their voices as their musical instruments and they were good voices.
There is no reason an interpretative or expressive artist like Presley or Sinatra can't be considered a 'credible' musician. Is the credibility thing not more about authenticity than authorship? Some artists are seen as manufactured as opposed to those that are seen as original and therefore authentic. A good example of that is the emergence of Hip Hop which started with some Bronx teenagers in the early 70s but first appeared in the mean stream through The Sugarhill Gang with 'Rappers Delight' (1979) but no one in the Bronx had heard of the Sugarhill Gang, they seemed to be manufactured by the industry. People know a lot more examples like that. Some punters here often mention some artists miming or using auto tune so they presumably think that is a judgment about the artists credibility. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,789
|
It's all ridiculous.
There is no such thing as "credibility". It's something made up by people who think they're cool just so they can act superior and all-mighty. It's the equivalent of two men arguing over penis size, "Well mine is bigger than yours!". For music credibility it's like "I can write songs and you can't". |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
When I hear the word credibility in music, I don't think it's just about writing or not writing your own music and lyrics. There are lots of artists who do write their own songs but who are not seen as credible because critics feel their music is too commercial or geared too much towards the charts or not artistic and expressive enough. There is a certain snobbery among music critics who feel they have the right to dictate what is seen as good music and bad music, which I think is silly because taste in music is so subjective.
The same thing does exist in films though. There are people who as seen as serious actors because they do dramas or indie type of films, whereas there are others who aren't seen as serious because they do commercial fare such as action films or comedies. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
Well put it this way. Led Zeppelin are held in higher esteem than Britney Spears and Beyonce... and for the right reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 14,046
|
Quote:
So the credibility argument; you can only exist in the music industry if you write your own songs or play your own instrument, resulting in many pop acts automatically being seen as "a disgrace to the music industry".
Acts like 1D are not credible because they couldn't carry a tune to save their lives and they have the nerve to call themselves "singers". They aren't credible because it is performing by numbers and nothing more. Great singers are credible not only because they showcase the songs they sing, but because they enhance them and make them believable. Again taking a group like 1D, there isn't a single song they sing that wouldn't be improved by giving it to people with talent - THAT is why they and people like them lack any and all credibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
Quote:
Well put it this way. Led Zeppelin are held in higher esteem than Britney Spears and Beyonce... and for the right reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,710
|
Quote:
It's all ridiculous.
There is no such thing as "credibility". It's something made up by people who think they're cool just so they can act superior and all-mighty. Quote:
Well put it this way. Led Zeppelin are held in higher esteem than Britney Spears and Beyonce... and for the right reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 53,841
|
Quote:
I'm inclined to agree.
Well then the question would be, why? I'm sure many would laugh in my face at even asking the question but, in following on from the post above mine, people are into different things. I personally have no interest in led Zeppelin. I don't know how much they contribute to their output but I'm going to assume thy are considered credible because they are rock. I don't see many pop singers getting credit for being serious artists too often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 53,841
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 31,966
|
I don't really like or ever use the word credibility, it's a very dull word, but I don't think it's as black and white as writing your own songs or not. It's about being able to express yourself and creative freedom, well it is for me anyway.
There's something inspirational and encouraging about seeing or hearing a piece of work someone has created, knowing they've unleashed their creative juices, challenged themselves and are brave enough to show the world a little piece of themselves. It sort of sends a powerful message that it's okay to be yourself and have your voice heard and that people are actually wanting to hear what YOU have to say. I also like songs that aren't written by the performer(s) but there can be a lack of connection with it because sometimes I wonder 'Do they really believe in it or are they doing it because it's just a job?' If they don't believe in it or feel it then neither do I. Which is a bit wishy-washy but then music is all about emotions and feelings I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,436
|
Quote:
I'm inclined to agree.
Well then the question would be, why? I'm sure many would laugh in my face at even asking the question but, in following on from the post above mine, people are into different things. I personally have no interest in led Zeppelin. I don't know how much they contribute to their output but I'm going to assume thy are considered credible because they are rock. I don't see many pop singers getting credit for being serious artists too often. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,373
|
Any act must be talented in some way, be it either a great musician/songwriter/singer/performer. If they can't do at least one of those things i'd say they don't have any credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
Quote:
I'm inclined to agree.
Well then the question would be, why? I'm sure many would laugh in my face at even asking the question but, in following on from the post above mine, people are into different things. I personally have no interest in led Zeppelin. I don't know how much they contribute to their output but I'm going to assume thy are considered credible because they are rock. I don't see many pop singers getting credit for being serious artists too often. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
I should add that music has evolved so much in just thirty years that the younger generation would probably struggle to get their heads round the idea of the praise to some bloke on a guitar. With the impressive technology we have now, music can now be perfected without someone having to truly master some craft on an instrument. That wasn't the case during the 60s/70s, what was even more impressive was a bands ability to be on the same wavelength as the others. The chemistry on a live stage between Bonham, Page, Plant and Jones is something that can not be simply taught or bought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,710
|
Quote:
The fact you think it's merely because they're rock artists makes you ignorant. It's very simple, forget their monster record sales, but look at it solely from musicianship. You have four musicians... not celebrities, not media/tv personalities in any shape or form. First you come to their ability, Bonham is widely regarded as the greatest drummer of all time, as is Page when it comes to the guitar. They made music which sounded ahead of their time and even now it still sounds fresh. Wind back to the late 60s, an era of Beatlemania, but there was nothing that sounded like Led Zeppelin when they arrived... they are looked at as music pioneers. Hard rock and heavy metal very much evolves from Led Zeppelin. There's so many things about each individual of the band that puts them above anyone else... but it all stems from the fact that they were purely musicians. Technically gifted players, songwriters and a habit of taking the music industry and strangling it with the sound of instruments. Each member didn't just master his own craft to become the best in the world at what he does... but they would go beyond it, mastering the art of songwriting being just one of them.
Going back to Britney, she worked on her craft from a very young age. In her case it was dancing and vocals (her diminishing ability in this area is another subject) and being an all round stage entertainer. That's different to being a writer or playing an instrument, but is it any less valid? I wouldn't say so. It's just different. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
Quote:
I wasn't just talking about them I was talking about music genres in general. Don't insult me, I didn't come in here for a fight.
Going back to Britney, she worked on her craft from a very young age. In her case it was dancing and vocals (her diminishing ability in this area is another subject) and being an all round stage entertainer. That's different to being a writer or playing an instrument, but is it any less valid? I wouldn't say so. It's just different. Some pisshead down at my local has a habit of getting up to sing and dance... And it's pretty entertaining in truth. Britney Spears isn't exploited for any talent other than a good looking lass thrown onto a stage to make money whilst someone else pulls the strings behind her. Page and Bonham are thrown onto a stage because they're the best at what they do... Playing the drums and guitar, there was no one that could do it as good as them. There's no avoiding it. Britney Spears is less credible than the Pages and Gilmours of the industry. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,789
|
Quote:
Some pisshead down at my local has a habit of getting up to sing and dance... And it's pretty entertaining in truth. Britney Spears isn't exploited for any talent other than a good looking lass thrown onto a stage to make money whilst someone else pulls the strings behind her. Page and Bonham are thrown onto a stage because they're the best at what they do... Playing the drums and guitar, there was no one that could do it as good as them.
There's no avoiding it. Britney Spears is less credible than the Pages and Gilmours of the industry. |
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
The fact you think it's merely because they're rock artists makes you ignorant. It's very simple, forget their monster record sales, but look at it solely from musicianship. You have four musicians... not celebrities, not media/tv personalities in any shape or form. First you come to their ability, Bonham is widely regarded as the greatest drummer of all time, as is Page when it comes to the guitar. They made music which sounded ahead of their time and even now it still sounds fresh. Wind back to the late 60s, an era of Beatlemania, but there was nothing that sounded like Led Zeppelin when they arrived... they are looked at as music pioneers. Hard rock and heavy metal very much evolves from Led Zeppelin. There's so many things about each individual of the band that puts them above anyone else... but it all stems from the fact that they were purely musicians. Technically gifted players, songwriters and a habit of taking the music industry and strangling it with the sound of instruments. Each member didn't just master his own craft to become the best in the world at what he does... but they would go beyond it, mastering the art of songwriting being just one of them.
They wrote and performed some amazing songs and actually worked across genres; rock, r n'b, blues, folk, country. I don't think Zeppelin liked being labelled. They avoided singles where possible and produced 2/3 albums which are still considered influential in the development of popular music not just rock music. Admittedly we are talking about one of the rock god bands and they were guilty of some excessive behaviour. |
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
|
Quote:
I'm inclined to agree.
Well then the question would be, why? I'm sure many would laugh in my face at even asking the question but, in following on from the post above mine, people are into different things. I personally have no interest in led Zeppelin. I don't know how much they contribute to their output but I'm going to assume thy are considered credible because they are rock. I don't see many pop singers getting credit for being serious artists too often. And then there's Abba, U2, Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, Madonna, Kate Bush, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen, etc... I think they are all considered serious artists to one degree or another and yes, they all wrote their own stuff, they've all sold lots of records and have been regulars in the charts. Pop music is a serious art form believe it or not and it's not just a matter of taste, some artists are more significant than others, |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,230
|
Quote:
How so? How does that make them more "credible"?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:56.



