DS Forums

 
 

Do you write off an artist if they made their mark on a talent show?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-01-2017, 09:38
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
It just gets silly when this forum starts making comparisons like that but playing devils advocates apart from' Dark Side' or 'Revolver' the other albums only got significant over many years.
so neil youngs harvest, joni mitchels blue and david bowies low were the other albums

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_(Neil_Young_album)

harvest was a number 1 album, and the best selling album the year it came out (1972). please explain why you think it only became significant over many years, and how it could be the biggest selling album in a year without being significant


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_(Joni_Mitchell_album)

blue reached number 3 in the uk charts and was a critical and commercial success and her previous albums were also successful. neil young and joni mitchel were two of the most popular artists in the early 70s and late 60s. please explain why you think it only became significatn over many years, and how it was so successful upon release, without being significant


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_(David_Bowie_album)

low was released whilst bowie was one of the most well known and biggest selling artists and reached number 2 in the charts. whilst reviews were mixed, it was stated at the time of release to be one of his finest records of his career. please explain why you think it only became significant over many years, and why it was so successful upon release, without being significant
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-01-2017, 10:07
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
interesting....

tbh i think unique has a valid point.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:23
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
i'll use whatever terms i like. the words are defined in the dictionary. i don't need to define them, neither do you

regardless of that i've left it up to you to use your own thoughts of why you consider them musically significant, yet again you've failed to state why. that leaves me thinking you know fine that they don't have much if any musical significance

as you raised the subject, please tell me

i did, yet you choose to argue about it. why?
It's a discussion thread, perfect place to have an argument!

The argument is about this statement.
'i can't think of a single act in history who has went on from a TV talent show to become an act who has made a record of musical significance'

I have suggested that musical significance isn't relevant to the original discussion, but you introduced it.

I'm saying that there are artists who have appeared on talent shows who have made good music which might be musically significant - but there isn't always agreement on what is musically significant.


i've stated my reasons for doing so. why do you have an issue with it?
As above. Where else to have an argument? Arguments are fine in good faith and without malice, right?


why not refer to people by their full names? mentioning lambert only is usually going to make people think of adam lambert who is perhaps the more well known one seeing as he toured with some blokes murdering the music of a once respected band. when you refer to someone as "queen bey" or similar, it just makes me think i'm privvy to a schoolyard conversation between 13 year old girls
Full name was in earlier post.


the long and short of it is there are few if any records of musical significance that's came directly as a result of artists finding success in a tv talent show. someone who was on a show years before finding fame, who didn't do particularly well on the show and eventually forgotten about, doesn't really count as people aren't buying the records as a result of them appearing on the show

most of the acts appearing on those shows are simply singing songs that other people have written and recorded for them. typically the acts spend weeks singing cover versions of songs that are usually chosen for them from a preselected sanctioned list, and in regards to the likes of x factor they then get the last 2 or 3 finalists to record their vocals on a prerecorded track that's usually a cover version or at least a track the act had no say in choosing, and the "winning" act's version is released. it's not exactly a good start to an artists career in regards to creative decisions. the artist usually then goes on to sing on an album that again is put together for them by management, again to which the artist has limited input other than recording vocals. typically the acts are marketed by creating music videos where the acts are wearing revealing clothing or have half naked girls in the videos. the core audience aren't buying the records for reasons of artistic integrity. the acts are basically singing puppets for blokes in studios to use as a front for the music they create. you can typically remove any act and replace with another and release the same song and on the basis the acts are similar in the looks states, the records would sell similar quantities, so it's more the song and writer and backroom studio people who are making the track a success than the tv show act
I'm not disputing much of this at all. The majority of 'talent' isn't particularly great on these shows but there are a few exceptions, enough for me not to dismiss such artists out of hand.

I also don't necessarily believe that an artist has to write all their own music to be a great artist. I prefer original work myself but most artists who write music will have learned the skill from performing covers and the works of others anyway.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 12:24
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
interesting....

tbh i think unique has a valid point.
I wouldn't disagree.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:09
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_(David_Bowie_album)

low was released whilst bowie was one of the most well known and biggest selling artists and reached number 2 in the charts. whilst reviews were mixed, it was stated at the time of release to be one of his finest records of his career. please explain why you think it only became significant over many years, and why it was so successful upon release, without being significant
Let's be reasonable here. Yes, 'Low' was a commercially successful album (so have many recordings by talent show artists as well, it happens) , but it received mixed reviews on release. I know as an Eno fan having to defend the change in direction to some anxious Bowie fans. The clear musical significance of 'Low' became clearer with the release of 'Heroes' and 'The Lodger' and it was then seen as the first of the Berlin Trilogy. The musical shift with the creative influence of Eno, who takes a systems thinking approach to musical creation, was obvious, even though nearly all the songs are attributed to Bowie.

As the Wikipedia article suggests it wasn't until 2000 and later that you get 'Low' appearing on the list of best UK albums ever etc.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:23
robo2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,219
While we're at it, what's your favourite album/single released by a talent show contestant?

Some of the biggest selling singles include Will Young's 'Evergreen', Gareth Gates' 'Unchained Melody', James Arthur's 'Impossible', Alexandra Burke's 'Hallelujah' and Ella Henderson's 'Ghost'. Not to mention Calum Scott with 'Dancing on My Own'.

Leona Lewis' album Spirit has sold over 3m copies and is one of the biggest selling albums in the UK of the century.
most of them are utter shit cover versions of good songs, why would you want to listen to subpar versions of those?
robo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:23
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
Let's be reasonable here. Yes, 'Low' was a commercially successful album (so have many recordings by talent show artists as well, it happens) , but it received mixed reviews on release. I know as an Eno fan having to defend the change in direction to some anxious Bowie fans. The clear musical significance of 'Low' became clearer with the release of 'Heroes' and 'The Lodger' and it was then seen as the first of the Berlin Trilogy. The musical shift with the creative influence of Eno, who takes a systems thinking approach to musical creation, was obvious, even though nearly all the songs are attributed to Bowie.

As the Wikipedia article suggests it wasn't until 2000 and later that you get 'Low' appearing on the list of best UK albums ever etc.
the original comment made by SOMEONE ELSE was "It just gets silly when this forum starts making comparisons like that but playing devils advocates apart from' Dark Side' or 'Revolver' the other albums only got significant over many years."

but it's simply not factually true. so why are you trying to argue about it?
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:34
robo2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,219
lets be honest here, none of the x-factor singers are artists, being an artist means being the main creator of your musical output - something as far as i am aware none of the x-factor singers have done
robo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:36
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
It's a discussion thread, perfect place to have an argument!
why?

why argue about it?

the op asked http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...09&postcount=1

"
Do you write off an artist if they made their mark on a talent show?
Just a thought I had as to what people's attitudes were towards acts on The X Factor/Britain's Got Talent/The Voice and the material they release. No matter how much you liked the song/material would you refuse to go out of your way to buy it because it was the material of a talent show contestant? I wouldn't, personally but then I've been a fan of The X Factor/Britain's Got Talent since I was young. "

and i answered. why did you feel the need to argue about it?

The argument is about this statement.
'i can't think of a single act in history who has went on from a TV talent show to become an act who has made a record of musical significance'
why though?


I have suggested that musical significance isn't relevant to the original discussion, but you introduced it.
you are the one who started arguing about my perfectly valid statement


I'm saying that there are artists who have appeared on talent shows who have made good music which might be musically significant - but there isn't always agreement on what is musically significant.
and? so what. who cares?






As above. Where else to have an argument? Arguments are fine in good faith and without malice, right?
that's simply your opinion. there is no need to argue about it. why are you arguing about it?





Full name was in earlier post.
and?




I'm not disputing much of this at all. The majority of 'talent' isn't particularly great on these shows but there are a few exceptions, enough for me not to dismiss such artists out of hand.
you've listed 3 exceptions. out of all the tv talent shows in this centuary across the world, how many contestants on the shows have their been, how many winners? roughly speaking from the UK alone theres what 10 main acts on the xfactor or whatever each year for the last 15 years, so thats 150 main acts and 15 winners, and you've listed 3 acts from that period, 2 of which were from 2 seperate US shows, so on the basis they've been around the same length that's another 150 main acts from each of those shows, so that's 3 acts out of 450 in 15 or so years. of course those shows may not have been on for so long but of course there are additional shows like the voice, "got talent", idol, etc etc etc, so god knows how many contestants in the UK and US alone this centuary and you've listed 3 of them

note my original statement

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...8&postcount=15

"typically yes" - so allowing for exceptions


I also don't necessarily believe that an artist has to write all their own music to be a great artist. I prefer original work myself but most artists who write music will have learned the skill from performing covers and the works of others anyway.
great artists don't need to write, but NONE of the artists who have appeared on those talent shows this centuary are who i would consider "great". do you consider girls aloud to be "great artists"? could you actually name from memory all the members of that band, both first and last names?
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:49
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
the original comment made by SOMEONE ELSE was "It just gets silly when this forum starts making comparisons like that but playing devils advocates apart from' Dark Side' or 'Revolver' the other albums only got significant over many years."

but it's simply not factually true. so why are you trying to argue about it?
It doesn't matter it was posted by someone else, this is a public board.

It is true in relation to 'Low' - read the Wikipedia article you posted.

And who is arguing now?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 13:56
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
why?

why argue about it?


great artists don't need to write, but NONE of the artists who have appeared on those talent shows this centuary are who i would consider "great". do you consider girls aloud to be "great artists"? could you actually name from memory all the members of that band, both first and last names?
Who's arguing? I think others can work that out?

The members of GA were Cheryl Cole, Nadine Coyle (from my part of the world) , Nicola Roberts (great solo album 'Cinderellas Eyes' worth a listen), Sarah `Harding and Kimberly Walsh. They are actually pretty well known.

Do I consider GA great artists? No, I think of them as part of a phenomenon associated with talent show TV and pop music. A lot of their early singles were pretty good, no matter how they were produced. And I have a few of them.

I think TV talent shows have had an influence on pop music this century and it shouldn't be ignored. I find the debate about whether real or great artists would or should not appear on tv talent shows tedious though.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 14:27
Hassaan13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,564
While we're on the subject of talent shows, what performance on any of these talent shows really stands out to you, and really impressed you?
Hassaan13 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 15:13
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,642
As is so often the case, the discussion turns to argumentative posting and references to dictionary definitions (which may or may not be wholly relevant when placed in the context of these discussions).

No one defines musically significant because it's a term that is highly debatable i.e. individuals will normally make their case for whatever they claim is 'musically significant' but (as always!) it comes back to a relationship with high sales. I don't believe that high sales is an accurate measure of anything other than units shifted.

"Singing is a very common talent. Songwriting less so." -- All singers aren't equal. Some make such a din that they could only be described as vocalists. There are plenty of artists who can sing a bit, write material so captivating that no one will ever bother to cover it and strum a guitar semi-convincingly whilst doing so. This doesn't make them a bigger talent than someone who can sing exceptionally. Singing is underrated because people want to associate it with talent shows and talent shows have to be written off as the arena of the talentless, unintelligent and uninspired to keep apologists for shoddy 'complete' artists happy. The emphasis has moved so much to "do they write their material" that pop artists are appropriating writing credits for cred.

"New original music is what should be encouraged and supported". -- People will support music they like. All new recordings are original by default. Some people will want to listen to music that fits into styles they enjoy and not only music that's seen to be breaking down genre barriers, incorporating disparate influences or whatever. One man's clever is another's cacophonous racket. I support old music. There's a great deal of it (!!) and a great deal of it I like and I find wonderful new things every time I dig. (I listen to current music too but if nothing new was ever recorded again I'd never be done investigating things from the 20th Century).

"the long and short of it is there are few if any records of musical significance that's came directly as a result of artists finding success in a tv talent show."
This will be helped along by the fact that the talent shows raison d'etre is entertainment and viewing figures and not championing the most talented contestants. People want to talk about Honey G because she's what? Ironic? Funny? Not because she's any good. The most talented entrants end up sidelined quite often.

"most of the acts appearing on those shows are simply singing songs that other people have written and recorded for them."
Pretty much the situation for some of the best records ever made. Great singer/s + great session players + great song-writers + great arrangers often equals: great record! Every lyric needs a singer.

Of course, many of the people who find some success on these shows end up stunted by it because their careers are controlled by the label they end up signed to who want to make a quick buck rather than develop them as a artist.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 16:14
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
lets be honest here, none of the x-factor singers are artists, being an artist means being the main creator of your musical output - something as far as i am aware none of the x-factor singers have done
You might want to note the comments quoted.


No one defines musically significant because it's a term that is highly debatable i.e. individuals will normally make their case for whatever they claim is 'musically significant' but (as always!) it comes back to a relationship with high sales. I don't believe that high sales is an accurate measure of anything other than units shifted.
Difficult term, often related to sales but then one considers albums like 'Nico and the Velvet Underground', 'Loveless' and 'Pinkerton' and their influence. So not always related to sales. You are right.

..

"Singing is a very common talent. Songwriting less so." -- All singers aren't equal. Some make such a din that they could only be described as vocalists. There are plenty of artists who can sing a bit, write material so captivating that no one will ever bother to cover it and strum a guitar semi-convincingly whilst doing so. This doesn't make them a bigger talent than someone who can sing exceptionally. Singing is underrated because people want to associate it with talent shows and talent shows have to be written off as the arena of the talentless, unintelligent and uninspired to keep apologists for shoddy 'complete' artists happy. The emphasis has moved so much to "do they write their material" that pop artists are appropriating writing credits for cred.

"New original music is what should be encouraged and supported". -- People will support music they like. All new recordings are original by default. Some people will want to listen to music that fits into styles they enjoy and not only music that's seen to be breaking down genre barriers, incorporating disparate influences or whatever. One man's clever is another's cacophonous racket. I support old music. There's a great deal of it (!!) and a great deal of it I like and I find wonderful new things every time I dig. (I listen to current music too but if nothing new was ever recorded again I'd never be done investigating things from the 20th Century).

"the long and short of it is there are few if any records of musical significance that's came directly as a result of artists finding success in a tv talent show."
This will be helped along by the fact that the talent shows raison d'etre is entertainment and viewing figures and not championing the most talented contestants. People want to talk about Honey G because she's what? Ironic? Funny? Not because she's any good. The most talented entrants end up sidelined quite often.

"most of the acts appearing on those shows are simply singing songs that other people have written and recorded for them."
Pretty much the situation for some of the best records ever made. Great singer/s + great session players + great song-writers + great arrangers often equals: great record! Every lyric needs a singer.

Of course, many of the people who find some success on these shows end up stunted by it because their careers are controlled by the label they end up signed to who want to make a quick buck rather than develop them as a artist.
I won't cut this up because I agree with a lot of it. There is a relationship between TV and pop music and one of the consequences of the endless TV talent shows is probably less live non-competitive music TV formats which is not a great thing.

There are a lot of negative feelings about TV talent shows, the public humiliation of the early rounds and the karaoke singing. On the other hand pop music is also a performance art and talent shows can help performance skills in front of a huge audience.

Little Mix did a great performance of En Vogue's 'Don't Let Go' and I thought here was an example of 4 good singers who actually sounded good together and in what other circumstances could they have been brought together? And they have gone on to very good if not great things.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 16:15
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 717
so neil youngs harvest, joni mitchels blue and david bowies low were the other albums

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvest_(Neil_Young_album)

harvest was a number 1 album, and the best selling album the year it came out (1972). please explain why you think it only became significant over many years, and how it could be the biggest selling album in a year without being significant


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_(Joni_Mitchell_album)

blue reached number 3 in the uk charts and was a critical and commercial success and her previous albums were also successful. neil young and joni mitchel were two of the most popular artists in the early 70s and late 60s. please explain why you think it only became significatn over many years, and how it was so successful upon release, without being significant


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_(David_Bowie_album)

low was released whilst bowie was one of the most well known and biggest selling artists and reached number 2 in the charts. whilst reviews were mixed, it was stated at the time of release to be one of his finest records of his career. please explain why you think it only became significant over many years, and why it was so successful upon release, without being significant
I don't care enough about this discussion to argue with you about it,oh relevation recent talent shows contestants haven't done anything that compares to five of the most critically acclaimed albums of the 60s-70s. So bloody what It's a silly comparison

And as Scrilla said we all! Have different ideas of what significant means to us and being as I was 1 in 1972 ,I was probably being generous
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 16:21
Blondie X
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Kent but ex Sarf London
Posts: 26,526
Well said Scrilla. No wonder the music forum is quiet these days when every innocent question ends up as a pissing contest and most FMs just walk away
Blondie X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 16:22
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 717
Well said Scrilla. No wonder the music forum is quiet these days when every innocent question ends up as a pissing contest and most FMs just walk away
Precisely
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 09:45
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
Who's arguing? I think others can work that out?
it's clearly you as you are the one who started the argument by arguing with my first post on the thread and then continuing by arguing in reply to my other posts


The members of GA were Cheryl Cole, Nadine Coyle (from my part of the world) , Nicola Roberts (great solo album 'Cinderellas Eyes' worth a listen), Sarah `Harding and Kimberly Walsh. They are actually pretty well known.

Do I consider GA great artists? No, I think of them as part of a phenomenon associated with talent show TV and pop music. A lot of their early singles were pretty good, no matter how they were produced. And I have a few of them.
so out of the 3 acts you've named who were successful as a direct result of appearing on a tv talent show, you've confirmed that at least one out of 3 is not a great artist in your opinion. the other 2 acts were from american shows, so that means you haven't been able to list a single act from a UK tv talent show this centuary who you consider "great", yet you continue to argue with me for making that very point?


I think TV talent shows have had an influence on pop music this century and it shouldn't be ignored. I find the debate about whether real or great artists would or should not appear on tv talent shows tedious though.
why argue about it if you think it's tedious? don't you have anything better to do with your life?

there is no dispute those shows have had an influence, but the main point i'm making is that those shows have not resulted in the creation of any records of musical significance

look how many shows there are, how many acts appearing on the shows across the world over the last 15 years, and look at how few acts you've managed to name

the most notable acts of the last 15 years are the novelty acts like the cheeky girls and chico or susan boyle. simon cowel is the most famous person as a result of those shows
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 09:49
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
I don't care enough about this discussion to argue with you about it,
really? sounds like nonsense to me considering this is not your first reply to me

it sounds to me you were wrong, you know you were wrong and you simply can't answer the questions posed at you




oh relevation recent talent shows contestants haven't done anything that compares to five of the most critically acclaimed albums of the 60s-70s. So bloody what It's a silly comparison
why is it silly?

i never restricted my question to any period at all. i simply asked someone to name records of musical significance that came from tv talent shows, and you jumped in with a reply that was factual nonsense


And as Scrilla said we all! Have different ideas of what significant means to us and being as I was 1 in 1972 ,I was probably being generous
regardless of someones idea what it means, the words are defined by the dictionary. regardless of that i simply asked the person to state a reply and never gave any definition and left them to use their own opinion to reply. that question was again not directed at you. so basically you are just arguing for the sake of it
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:04
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
As is so often the case, the discussion turns to argumentative posting and references to dictionary definitions (which may or may not be wholly relevant when placed in the context of these discussions).
and take this thread as an example of people starting an arguement and then saying they don't want to argue

in regards to definitions, the person starting the argument was left to their own ideas of what they thought, and it was them who asked about definition


No one defines musically significant because it's a term that is highly debatable i.e. individuals will normally make their case for whatever they claim is 'musically significant' but (as always!) it comes back to a relationship with high sales. I don't believe that high sales is an accurate measure of anything other than units shifted.
and yet the person raising the question of how it is defined was left to make their own decision and answer as they saw fit, yet still struggled to do so. there was absolutely no arguement over how that person choose their idea of the meaning


"the long and short of it is there are few if any records of musical significance that's came directly as a result of artists finding success in a tv talent show."
This will be helped along by the fact that the talent shows raison d'etre is entertainment and viewing figures and not championing the most talented contestants. People want to talk about Honey G because she's what? Ironic? Funny? Not because she's any good. The most talented entrants end up sidelined quite often.
and that's one of the points i've been making, and that's why typically i write those acts off. they aren't likely to result in making any new interesting music. it's typically the novelty acts that become popular, and others may end up working in musical theatre doing musical jukeboxes and pantomines, not writing masterpeices


"most of the acts appearing on those shows are simply singing songs that other people have written and recorded for them."
Pretty much the situation for some of the best records ever made. Great singer/s + great session players + great song-writers + great arrangers often equals: great record! Every lyric needs a singer.
yes. but who is saying the records made as a result of those shows have great sessions players and great writers, nevermind great singers and arrangers? that's one of the big differences

as an example, try and name 10 great songs from winners of those talent shows of the last 10 years



Of course, many of the people who find some success on these shows end up stunted by it because their careers are controlled by the label they end up signed to who want to make a quick buck rather than develop them as a artist.
which is another reason why many will write off those acts, as they aren't picked to make great music. they are picked to sell posters and calenders and lunch boxes along with records. if they do pick the "fat one" or the "weird one" they are usually chucking money down the drain in merchandising, so it would be little surprise if the end results were manupulated so the act with the most commercial appeal wins

now some people may enjoy all of that, but i'd rather listen to some new music made by someone who's spent their time working on making some great songs instead of weeks of singing covers and doing dance lessons. i don't watch those shows but i understand that whilst artists go through "boot camp" or whatever they call it, the lessons are more to do with looks and dancing and behavoir rather than anything to do with learning to play an instrument and write songs, so the end result is they are just going to come out acting like acts that came before, safe and santised for prime time tv. so it's no wonder people will write them off
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:09
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
It doesn't matter it was posted by someone else, this is a public board.

It is true in relation to 'Low' - read the Wikipedia article you posted.

And who is arguing now?
it's not true regarding low. try actually bothering to read the wiki article and you will see you are wrong

and again, this is another argumentative post from yourself. and just look back at this thread and you will see you started the arguing
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:09
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
it's clearly you as you are the one who started the argument by arguing with my first post on the thread and then continuing by arguing in reply to my other posts



so out of the 3 acts you've named who were successful as a direct result of appearing on a tv talent show, you've confirmed that at least one out of 3 is not a great artist in your opinion. the other 2 acts were from american shows, so that means you haven't been able to list a single act from a UK tv talent show this centuary who you consider "great", yet you continue to argue with me for making that very point?


why argue about it if you think it's tedious? don't you have anything better to do with your life?

there is no dispute those shows have had an influence, but the main point i'm making is that those shows have not resulted in the creation of any records of musical significance

look how many shows there are, how many acts appearing on the shows across the world over the last 15 years, and look at how few acts you've managed to name

the most notable acts of the last 15 years are the novelty acts like the cheeky girls and chico or susan boyle. simon cowel is the most famous person as a result of those shows
You haven't defined musical significance so your re-statement is meaningless.

This has never been an argument about great artists or even great music, that's your take.

In fact read the Scrilla post #63 which articulates all the relevant points better than you or I can.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:17
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
it's not true regarding low. try actually bothering to read the wiki article and you will see you are wrong

and again, this is another argumentative post from yourself. and just look back at this thread and you will see you started the arguing
A direct quote from the Wikipedia article

" Though it was initially met with mixed critical reviews, Low has since become widely acclaimed as one of Bowie's best and most influential works. Pitchfork placed it at number 1 in its list of the Top 100 Albums of the 1970s,[7] while Q placed it at number 14 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever.[8] In 2013, NME listed the album as the 14th greatest of all time.[9] It was also listed as one of Rolling Stone magazine's 500 greatest albums of all time.[10]"

Ref 7 is from 2012
Ref 8 is from 2007
Ref 9 is from 2016
Ref 10 is from 2007

The album has gained in recognition over time. That's what it says' what is there to argue with in that?

A simple it's not true, isn't enough.

That's worth an argument.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:21
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
You haven't defined musical significance so your re-statement is meaningless.
nonsense. i don't need to define it. the words are defined in the dictionary, so the statement is far from meaningless. see the dictionary if you don't understand the meaning

regardless of that, you were free to use whatever definition you saw fit


This has never been an argument about great artists or even great music, that's your take.
wrong. that's your take based on what YOU think

regardless of what the argument is about, the simple fact is you started it and you have continued with it


In fact read the Scrilla post #63 which articulates all the relevant points better than you or I can.
that's simple an opinion, not a fact
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:26
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
A direct quote from the Wikipedia article

" Though it was initially met with mixed critical reviews, Low has since become widely acclaimed as one of Bowie's best and most influential works. Pitchfork placed it at number 1 in its list of the Top 100 Albums of the 1970s,[7] while Q placed it at number 14 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever.[8] In 2013, NME listed the album as the 14th greatest of all time.[9] It was also listed as one of Rolling Stone magazine's 500 greatest albums of all time.[10]"

Ref 7 is from 2012
Ref 8 is from 2007
Ref 9 is from 2016
Ref 10 is from 2007

The album has gained in recognition over time. That's what it says' what is there to argue with in that?

A simple it's not true, isn't enough.

That's worth an argumen
t.
so basically you just want to argue, regardless of how wrong you are?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_(David_Bowie_album)

read the part from "reception" onwards

in particular "concluded that "once Mr. Bowie's fans overcome their initial shock at his latest change in direction, they may realize that he's made one of the finest disks of his career".[44]"

so you and that other poster are wrong. the album was considered significant from the outset and was a commercial success. it hasn't taken years for it's signicicance to be noticed, not that that has anything whatsoever to do with my original point that there is a lack of records of musical significance that came from tv talent shows. that is true regardless of time. so arguing that the examples of significant records i originally mentioned had only become significant in later years is a moot point. it's entirely irrelevant
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56.