DS Forums

 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2017, 10:43
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
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

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

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
In what dictionary would you find the phrase 'musically significant'? You might find the phrase in a book like Roger Scruton's 'Understanding Music' but he will set out exactly what he means, which is related to metaphor and music.

I would expect musical significance to be something to do with the aesthetics of music or musicology, perhaps. But this conversation seems to be about subjective evaluation of music (what are great artists or great records) what is the objective standard we can point too?

I know what I think makes 'Low' a great album. I would say it's a lot to do with the creative methodologies employed in its creation. Someone else may think it's just a set of great tunes. You won't get agreement.

I think Girls Aloud's 'Sound of the Underground' is a great record because it modulates between minor and major chords with a strong rock beat, it hints at a dark side of female human nature, it sounded 'edgy' at the time and may have shook up the kind of girl group music of the time ..I like 'Biology' because it has a great series of melodic lines/hooks and the song isn't structured in the normal verse-chorus fashion plus it has a sexy, clever lyric.
Again people won't agree on this, so you have a meaningless argument about it.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-01-2017, 10:53
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
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
That actually doesn't prove any such point. It refers to the Bowie fans, it says may realise that Bowie has made one of his finest records...that took time in practice. And I presume musically significance reaches beyond the fans, that a record needs objective critical recognition....which came later.

Sorry but you don't win on that one by simply saying someone is wrong.
I love the childish way you retort.

See my comments above on why I think a couple of GA records are great.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 11:04
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
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.
I wonder if you thought the 'discussion' would develop like this?

What did you expect?

I would simply restate my view that I wouldn't rule out buying or streaming the works of artists who have appeared on Tv talents shows.

I don't buy much of their works but I have got some of them. Some of which I have mentioned earlier.

(I also have an extensive collection of Eno CDs, downloads and apps).
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 11:36
Hassaan13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,564
I wonder if you thought the 'discussion' would develop like this?

What did you expect?

I would simply restate my view that I wouldn't rule out buying or streaming the works of artists who have appeared on Tv talents shows.

I don't buy much of their works but I have got some of them. Some of which I have mentioned earlier.

(I also have an extensive collection of Eno CDs, downloads and apps).
Well, I thought it'd go in a totally different direction to be honest. Discussion about these acts on these shows. Although I don't have much control over it.
Hassaan13 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:06
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
That actually doesn't prove any such point. It refers to the Bowie fans, it says may realise that Bowie has made one of his finest records...that took time in practice. And I presume musically significance reaches beyond the fans, that a record needs objective critical recognition....which came later.

Sorry but you don't win on that one by simply saying someone is wrong.
I love the childish way you retort.

See my comments above on why I think a couple of GA records are great.
it's not a competition to "win". you are simply wrong because you post things that aren't factually true

contrary to what someone else said, no matter how irrelevant it is to the OP's psot, the album low by david bowie has been considered of musical significance since around the time of it's initial release, as demonstrated by it's commercial success in light of mixed reviews, as well as it's critical acclaim

the long and short of it is you are wrong yet again because you are spending too much time posting and not enough time reading
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:19
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
In what dictionary would you find the phrase 'musically significant'? You might find the phrase in a book like Roger Scruton's 'Understanding Music' but he will set out exactly what he means, which is related to metaphor and music.
you will find the words in pretty much any standard english dictionary. you have to use the english lessons you were taught at school in order to understand how to interpret a string of words. this isn't an engligh language form and i'm not hear to teach you how to understand the english language


I would expect musical significance to be something to do with the aesthetics of music or musicology, perhaps.
so you do have an understanding of the meaning of what was said, rightly or wrongly, yet you still haven't bothered to reply to the original question with a suitable answer. yet you've posted a considerable amount of text since then




But this conversation seems to be about subjective evaluation of music (what are great artists or great records) what is the objective standard we can point too?
that's your interpretation of things even though i've pointed out several times now that you have been free since the beginning to use your own interpretation, yet you still fail to provide an answer in the context of the question


I know what I think makes 'Low' a great album. I would say it's a lot to do with the creative methodologies employed in its creation. Someone else may think it's just a set of great tunes. You won't get agreement.
who cares? no-one has asked that on this thread

the album low was originally mentioned in regards to the music created by the acts the OP was referring to, in that the acts the OP refers to have not created any records of musical significance like the examples i've given. in reply you and others have went off on a tangent about when you consider the work to be considered significant, even though all the records i mentioned had sold well from the start as well as being critically acclaimed from the start. none of them bombed upon release and then found critical acclaim years later upon rereview


I think Girls Aloud's 'Sound of the Underground' is a great record because it modulates between minor and major chords with a strong rock beat, it hints at a dark side of female human nature, it sounded 'edgy' at the time and may have shook up the kind of girl group music of the time ..I like 'Biology' because it has a great series of melodic lines/hooks and the song isn't structured in the normal verse-chorus fashion plus it has a sexy, clever lyric.
Again people won't agree on this, so you have a meaningless argument about it.
well i would agree with you that your arguements are all meaningless

however the point i was making is that out of all the years of these TV talent shows across the world this century, and all the contestants and all the winners, even using your own terms and opinions you've not been able to list many records that even you personally consider to be of musical significance, and that basically supports what i've been saying from the start. if this was not true, you would have been able to list a whole bunch of records quite easily from memory, just as i was able to list a bunch of examples quite easily from memory

basically you are arguing over next to nothing. in fact it even appears that whilst you are arguing, the long and short of it appears to be that you don't consider there to be a huge amount of records of musical significance to come from those shows, and if you were paying attention to my first words you would see that i don't simply write off everything in one stroke, but state quite clearly from the start that typically i will write them off and state my reasons for doing so

so as i said before, perhaps spend more time reading than replying and you may not be wrong so often in future
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 19:03
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 716
ok two things and i am out. 1 ok I don't know enough about 70s music shoot me, I thought that many David Bowie albums weren't appreciated straight away and gained critical acclaim over the years. I give you that but based on your post...

2. I have one, now after seeing what you regard as significance surely One Direction - Up All Night is very significant.

according top wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Direction
Critically commended for its appeal to the teenage audience,[45][46][47] One Direction's first studio album, Up All Night, was released globally in early 2012. It became the UK's fastest-selling debut album of 2011,[48] and topped the charts in sixteen countries.[49] The album bowed atop the Billboard 200 chart, making One Direction the first British group in US chart history to enter at number one with their debut album.[50] They were inducted into the Guinness World Records as a result.[51] Up All Night also became the first album by a boy band to sell 500,000 digital copies in the U.S. and, by August 2012, had sold over 3 million copies worldwide.[52][53]

Whether anyone will be listening to it in 40 year time is another argument but you chose to use 70s albums as examples so hardly like for like is it.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 19:56
Rocketpop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 809
ok two things and i am out. 1 ok I don't know enough about 70s music shoot me, I thought that many David Bowie albums weren't appreciated straight away and gained critical acclaim over the years. I give you that but based on your post...

2. I have one, now after seeing what you regard as significance surely One Direction - Up All Night is very significant.

according top wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Direction
Critically commended for its appeal to the teenage audience,[45][46][47] One Direction's first studio album, Up All Night, was released globally in early 2012. It became the UK's fastest-selling debut album of 2011,[48] and topped the charts in sixteen countries.[49] The album bowed atop the Billboard 200 chart, making One Direction the first British group in US chart history to enter at number one with their debut album.[50] They were inducted into the Guinness World Records as a result.[51] Up All Night also became the first album by a boy band to sell 500,000 digital copies in the U.S. and, by August 2012, had sold over 3 million copies worldwide.[52][53]

Whether anyone will be listening to it in 40 year time is another argument but you chose to use 70s albums as examples so hardly like for like is it.
It's stuff like this that is why this forum is a joke. It's all about sales and chart positions that's all people care about. Go and actually listen to 'Low' then listen to this One Direction album instead of spamming wiki stats. If after that you still feel the need to make the same case afterwards then God help us all. Or you can go to a movie forum and explain (with wiki stats) how transformers is more significant than citizen Kane or go to the litary forum and 'prove' 50 shades is better than Moby-dick.
Rocketpop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 19:57
daziechain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 8,256
I haven't been to Butlins, I think Haven are more popular these days, but I can safely say that Beyonce, Christina Aguilera, Usher, Alanis Morrisette, Miranda Lambert, Carrie Underwood and Jennifer Hudson haven't played there recently. I think between them they have produced some 'significant music' and all of them have been involved in talent shows.

U2 were helped by winning a talent show in Limerick run by the Evening Press in 1978, not televised but how many rock groups got their first break in a Battle of the Bands competition?
Muse and Coldplay for a start ... usually against each other
The talent show tag doesn't bother me at all ... if a person or group or song is good then that's all that matters.
daziechain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 20:18
Soupietwist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
I rely on what is in the public domain (YouTube, Wikipedia, google, online articles, BBC) and the writing credits. I've read books on Girls Aloud and Little Mix (!), watched TV progs on Rebecca Ferguson and GA. How do you back up your claims?
From a feature on the radio several months back. It was about the people behind the hits (the hitmakers) several interviews with some of the leading writers. One that is worth a mention here as it relates to one of the songs on your list (Will Young) Eg White the songwriter was telling a fun story about how his partner is better at telling knowing which one of his songs will be hits. He wrote "leave right now" and didn't really think much of it, but his partner insisted it was good - so he passed it onto Simon Fuller with some other songs intended for Ronan Keating - Fuller took it to the surprise of Eg, then he found out it was going to Will Young and he lost interest again as he presumed it was just going to be an album track by an artist who was falling out of fashion. Obviously we know it turned out to be the first single, was huge and gave Will's career an injection. So yeah to me that says Will had no say in the song and it wasn't even written for him.

Also in the same feature there was a interesting part about where someone (I think It may have been Sia) explained the difference between writting for Adele (very hands on) over Rihanna (you just speak to her team). There was also a part where they talked about relity stars and how they rarely contrabute anything because the contacts they have signed are so restrictive.
Soupietwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 21:22
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
it's not a competition to "win". you are simply wrong because you post things that aren't factually true

contrary to what someone else said, no matter how irrelevant it is to the OP's psot, the album low by david bowie has been considered of musical significance since around the time of it's initial release, as demonstrated by it's commercial success in light of mixed reviews, as well as it's critical acclaim

the long and short of it is you are wrong yet again because you are spending too much time posting and not enough time reading
Sorry but I'm sticking by my opinion that 'Low' was alienating amongst Bowie fans and divided critical opinion at its time of release, it's reputation has grown through time, particularly this century. Where there is much more agreement about its 'Low's value.

Here's an article backing that view.
http://www.post-punk.com/david-bowie-low/

This is a record I have bought on a number of occasions, dissected musically, learned to play large parts of it, used it in my own music (along with parts of 'Heroes').

You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to not define what musically significant means to you as it doesn't have a dictionary meaning that I can find.

And I'm entitled to mine.

So ok?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 21:31
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
you will find the words in pretty much any standard english dictionary. you have to use the english lessons you were taught at school in order to understand how to interpret a string of words. this isn't an engligh language form and i'm not hear to teach you how to understand the english language
Musically significant has a raft of meanings as others have pointed out, so why do you go on about dictionaries?

I simply wanted your definition of 'musically significant' as it is the phrase you introduced.
I have my understanding what is yours?

.....

so as i said before, perhaps spend more time reading than replying and you may not be wrong so often in future
I read every word of what has been written and I respond accordingly when there is something worth responding too.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 21:36
Pitman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 16,515
Muse and Coldplay for a start ... usually against each other
The talent show tag doesn't bother me at all ... if a person or group or song is good then that's all that matters.
I hate Muse and Coldplay
Pitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 21:49
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
From a feature on the radio several months back. It was about the people behind the hits (the hitmakers) several interviews with some of the leading writers. One that is worth a mention here as it relates to one of the songs on your list (Will Young) Eg White the songwriter was telling a fun story about how his partner is better at telling knowing which one of his songs will be hits. He wrote "leave right now" and didn't really think much of it, but his partner insisted it was good - so he passed it onto Simon Fuller with some other songs intended for Ronan Keating - Fuller took it to the surprise of Eg, then he found out it was going to Will Young and he lost interest again as he presumed it was just going to be an album track by an artist who was falling out of fashion. Obviously we know it turned out to be the first single, was huge and gave Will's career an injection. So yeah to me that says Will had no say in the song and it wasn't even written for him.

Also in the same feature there was a interesting part about where someone (I think It may have been Sia) explained the difference between writting for Adele (very hands on) over Rihanna (you just speak to her team). There was also a part where they talked about relity stars and how they rarely contrabute anything because the contacts they have signed are so restrictive.
It is a slightly different point which as I see it is around how authorship is related to the quality of music. You won't always know exactly the process that has lead to any particular piece of music or song being written and produced but you will have a view on whether you like a piece or not.

For some the knowledge of how some music was created enhances their appreciation but at one level, it's about whether you like what you hear or not, irrespective of the creative process. Simply put because you are songwriter writing for others doesn't stop you from being creative or putting your heart into something, so there is no real reason why an artist from a talent show won't produce some good music, as Scrilla in an earlier post points out this happens in music production all the time.

What you are saying is of course interesting, I am interested in the background to the production process as much as the next poster. I am also interested in musical aesthetics and cultural theory, which doesn't get much discussion here. I appreciate the idea that a prolonged tv series has its own production values and needs to be entertainment. However, if year after year it fails to deliver an artist or artists who make some music that people want to hear, it's not going to last.

I repeat that my simple view, which I think a few though not all agree with, is that I would not dismiss out of hand the music of an artist who has appeared on a tv talent show. And I haven't.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 21:53
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
I hate Muse and Coldplay
That's ok, I like some music by both.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 23:10
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 716
It's stuff like this that is why this forum is a joke. It's all about sales and chart positions that's all people care about. Go and actually listen to 'Low' then listen to this One Direction album instead of spamming wiki stats. If after that you still feel the need to make the same case afterwards then God help us all. Or you can go to a movie forum and explain (with wiki stats) how transformers is more significant than citizen Kane or go to the litary forum and 'prove' 50 shades is better than Moby-dick.
No you have just proved why this forum is a joke,I reply re someone elses point and then I end up arguing with somebody else. I used stats as that was what Unique used as his definition of significance by saying Neil Young was the biggest selling album of its year so it must be significant. We are talking about significant here not if its any good.

If you can be significant but not be well known or a big seller then that would defeat Uniques argument so thank you Rocketpop, if you think that's the case.

Im just fighting fire with fire here personally i think this is way of topic now.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 23:42
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
It's stuff like this that is why this forum is a joke. It's all about sales and chart positions that's all people care about. Go and actually listen to 'Low' then listen to this One Direction album instead of spamming wiki stats. If after that you still feel the need to make the same case afterwards then God help us all. Or you can go to a movie forum and explain (with wiki stats) how transformers is more significant than citizen Kane or go to the litary forum and 'prove' 50 shades is better than Moby-dick.
There is a lot of numbers mentioned on DS right enough. Most of the posts here are about popular music and sales are a measure of popularity, so that's understandable. Quality is more difficult to define because there is a subjective aspect to it.

I watched The Monkees tv prog in the 60s/70s, I loved their music at the time. I had some idea of the 'manufactured' nature of their gestation and I have bought their records off and on up to the latest 'Good Times' album (which is great!). I suspect the impact of 1D on modern audiences isn't a million miles away from that of The Monkees. A couple of 1D singles are pop gems and may well still be being played 10, 20, 30 years from now. Who knows?
Are The Monkees great artists? Is their music any good? Yeah, for some of us they are.
Would it not be better to compare 1D or GA to an artist like The Monkees than Bowie's 'Low" album?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 08:20
Johnny_Cash
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 572
Kacey Musgraves, a product of the talent show Nashville Star, her album Same Trailer Different Park is considered significant. Miranda Lambert has released 3 albums that are considered significant. Because they aren't significant in one persons world, it doesn't mean they aren't significant in the wider world.

http://www.treblezine.com/28464-10-e...ountry-albums/
http://www.billboard.com/photos/6436...-half-decade/9
Johnny_Cash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 08:26
Soupietwist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
It is a slightly different point which as I see it is around how authorship is related to the quality of music. You won't always know exactly the process that has lead to any particular piece of music or song being written and produced but you will have a view on whether you like a piece or not.

For some the knowledge of how some music was created enhances their appreciation but at one level, it's about whether you like what you hear or not, irrespective of the creative process. Simply put because you are songwriter writing for others doesn't stop you from being creative or putting your heart into something, so there is no real reason why an artist from a talent show won't produce some good music, as Scrilla in an earlier post points out this happens in music production all the time.

What you are saying is of course interesting, I am interested in the background to the production process as much as the next poster. I am also interested in musical aesthetics and cultural theory, which doesn't get much discussion here. I appreciate the idea that a prolonged tv series has its own production values and needs to be entertainment. However, if year after year it fails to deliver an artist or artists who make some music that people want to hear, it's not going to last.

I repeat that my simple view, which I think a few though not all agree with, is that I would not dismiss out of hand the music of an artist who has appeared on a tv talent show. And I haven't.
I do see your point. But for me a lot of the music that is produced by the acts would still exist. 'Leave Right Now' would most probably still be out there, maybe a huge single for someone else, or maybe a album track for someone else managed by Fuller.

So in essence yeah it is possible for an act to record a great song, however actually create a great song - I'm not sure there is much evidence of this.
Soupietwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:04
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
ok two things and i am out. 1 ok I don't know enough about 70s music shoot me, I thought that many David Bowie albums weren't appreciated straight away and gained critical acclaim over the years. I give you that but based on your post...
the main reason bowie is so famous now is because he was so famous and critically acclaimed and commercially successful in the 70s, his artistic peak period. he was actually a bit more commercially successful in the 80s due to let's dance which was a huge hit, but he got bored of what came with that album and went in a completly different direction, leading to his 90s and later work which is quite dividing in regards to how it was received

in regards to the top 100 all time lists, as far as i recall they only really started in such a way towards the 90s when there were quite a few "serious" music publications


2. I have one, now after seeing what you regard as significance surely One Direction - Up All Night is very significant.

according top wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Direction
Critically commended for its appeal to the teenage audience,[45][46][47] One Direction's first studio album, Up All Night, was released globally in early 2012. It became the UK's fastest-selling debut album of 2011,[48] and topped the charts in sixteen countries.[49] The album bowed atop the Billboard 200 chart, making One Direction the first British group in US chart history to enter at number one with their debut album.[50] They were inducted into the Guinness World Records as a result.[51] Up All Night also became the first album by a boy band to sell 500,000 digital copies in the U.S. and, by August 2012, had sold over 3 million copies worldwide.[52][53]

Whether anyone will be listening to it in 40 year time is another argument but you chose to use 70s albums as examples so hardly like for like is it.

and with this you are pretty much proving my point again, by only listing one album. there's no need to go further in regards to asking what "musical significance" it has. all you've really detailed is sales and commercial success information, and nothing to do with the actual music, which i'm guessing was recorded and written by a team of writers and producers and studio blokes, after then stylists took over and worked with photographers and music video producers to promote the band to an audience who's main demographic would be teenage girls, and the look and image of the band being one of the most important aspects of their success

and it's for those reasons that many people will write off artists because they've been on talent shows, as the focus isn't on creating good music but looks and image and commercial success, and that's why your reasoning for that band being significant is based on sales figures
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:08
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
I do see your point. But for me a lot of the music that is produced by the acts would still exist. 'Leave Right Now' would most probably still be out there, maybe a huge single for someone else, or maybe a album track for someone else managed by Fuller.

So in essence yeah it is possible for an act to record a great song, however actually create a great song - I'm not sure there is much evidence of this.
Yeah, just like many great performers outside tv talent shows who haven't written much of their own material.

As for tv talent show artists, the background to Leona Lewis's 'Bleeding Love' suggests that Ryan Tedder believed in the song so much he recrafted it to suit Leona's voice. So, Leona had an affect on the creative process and that idea outside of tv talent shows that many songs are written with the artists in mind is quite prevalent as you know.

Alexandra Burke did a great recording of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' imho. Ella Henderson helped write "Ghost' and Little Mix "Shout out to my Ex" (quite personal that one) - both extremely good pop songs imho. Girls Aloud's 'Sound of the Underground'...is a whole story in itself having been written with a different girl group in mind and in fact. That doesn't stop it from being a great pop song imho and, if anything, indicating that the songs coming from tv talent shows could be a bit edgy.

Are any of these artists or their music great or just very good...it's all a bit subjective.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:09
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,735
........... instead of bemoaning why this forum is a joke, why not go and start a 'proper' thread instead?

issues like the ones raised here were always going to stimulate strong debate, and within reason its a lot better then just sitting around all agreeing with eachother. i really dont know what some people want here...
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:10
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
Sorry but I'm sticking by my opinion that 'Low' was alienating amongst Bowie fans and divided critical opinion at its time of release, it's reputation has grown through time, particularly this century. Where there is much more agreement about its 'Low's value.

Here's an article backing that view.
http://www.post-punk.com/david-bowie-low/

This is a record I have bought on a number of occasions, dissected musically, learned to play large parts of it, used it in my own music (along with parts of 'Heroes').

You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to not define what musically significant means to you as it doesn't have a dictionary meaning that I can find.

And I'm entitled to mine.

So ok?
regardless of this, you are still wrong if you continue to take the stance that the album low was not considered musically significant until years later

critics were divided, as some fans may have been, but the album is on record as having been hailed as one of his best works, as wikipedia points out, and was a commercial success, as wikipedia points out. what more do you need as evidence that the album was considered musically significant before "years later"?

one other posters states a one direction album is musically significant simply based on sales around the time of it's initial release. the same poster who made the original comment about the album not being considered musically significant until years later - to which they have now retracted

so unless you can provide complete and utter proof, which you will never be able to do, that the album was not considered musically significant until years later, a point that's irrelevant to the main topic posted by the OP, you simply aren't going to be able to prove your irrelevant point
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:15
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
Musically significant has a raft of meanings as others have pointed out, so why do you go on about dictionaries?
clearly you have some issues in understanding the english language as i explained this before. the dictionary will provide you with definitions of words, including the words being referrred to. you will then need to use your english language skills to understand how a string of words together should be understood, or seek help from an english teacher perhaps


I simply wanted your definition of 'musically significant' as it is the phrase you introduced.
I have my understanding what is yours?
if you have an understanding of what it means, why argue so much about the meaning rather than simply answering the question based on your understanding, as that's all i asked you to do

as i've pointed out before, i'm not here to provide english language lessons or explain the meanings of words that are already defined in dictionaries




I read every word of what has been written and I respond accordingly when there is something worth responding too.
as far as i can see you tend to respond more to things that aren't worth responding too. i see a lack of responses of any real value as you typically avoid answering questions posed to you and waffle on about other things instead that are completely off topic, such as the time that a david bowie album from the mid 70s was considered to be musically relevant. WTF does that have to do with what the OP has asked, and how many posts have you made that refer to this?
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:20
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
No you have just proved why this forum is a joke,I reply re someone elses point and then I end up arguing with somebody else. I used stats as that was what Unique used as his definition of significance by saying Neil Young was the biggest selling album of its year so it must be significant. We are talking about significant here not if its any good.
that's not true at all. what you have done here is confirmed you have read and misunderstood what i have said


If you can be significant but not be well known or a big seller then that would defeat Uniques argument so thank you Rocketpop, if you think that's the case.
it's not my argument. it's your misinterpretation of things because it appears you haven't spent sufficient time reading and understanding what was posted



Im just fighting fire with fire here personally i think this is way of topic now.
why "fighting"?

all you are doing is pointing out that you are wrong because you've not understood what was said
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49.