DS Forums

 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 10:24
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
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
Only wrong in your opinion.

I have cited evidence that supports my opinion. You have only cited Wikipedia which is not a reliable source as it is publicly editable.

Opinions differ, just as critics did at the time of 'Low's release. They differ much less now.

What's wrong with a difference of opinion?

And I think I pointed out first how irrelevant this was to the discussion but you introduced it, not me.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 10:40
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 717

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
As was yours but the silly thing is I agree with you that those albums were significant but I just think your point is irrelevant to this discussion
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:41
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
Only wrong in your opinion.
wrong again. i've left my opinions out of this and used facts instead. wikipedia shows you are wrong


I have cited evidence that supports my opinion. You have only cited Wikipedia which is not a reliable source as it is publicly editable.
so you are in denial that the album was a commercial success and was critically acclaimed upon release?

why not do some research and check for yourself if you don't believe wikipedia?

this thread is about tv talent show acts, not about the time when a david bowie album was considered to be significant


Opinions differ, just as critics did at the time of 'Low's release. They differ much less now.
if you know that opinions differed at the time of release you would surely know that some of the opinions at the time were that the album was considered to be positive/good/significant




What's wrong with a difference of opinion?

And I think I pointed out first how irrelevant this was to the discussion but you introduced it, not me.
if it's irrelevant, why keep on making so many posts about it?

initially i simply said that none of the tv talent show acts had made an album that compares to 5 albums i listed, to which someone else then made an irrelevant point that those albums weren't considered significant until "years later", however that's simply not true as all the albums were acclaimed upon release and were commercially succesful. not that that particular point is of any relevance to my original point nor to the OP's thread

so why are you continuing to bang on and on about the time an album was considered significant when you know for yourself it was commercially successful upon release and had positive reviews, and makes no difference whatsoever to the main point of this thread? why don't you google up and read about it if it fascinates you, or start another thread about it?
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:41
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
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

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
Interesting comment when one considers the number of grammatical and punctuation mistakes in the sentences above.

Low, I know, but I couldn't resist it.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:44
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
no it wasn't. read back again. that was only part of what i was saying. the main part being those albums were critically acclaimed at the time of release, as well as being popular. the albums didn't review badly and slump upon release, only to be rediscovered as a classic in later years

examples of albums in that category may be pauls boutique or hear my dear which weren't highly successful or rated upon original release, but as time elapsed they were later considered classics. that's not the case with any of the albums i mentioned, not that it matters as the time those albums were considered significant was irrelevant to my initial point being that no tv talent show act has made a record with the significance of any of the records i mentioned
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:45
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
Interesting comment when one considers the number of grammatical and punctuation mistakes in the sentences above.

Low, I know, but I couldn't resist it.
when someone's reply is simply about spelling and punctuation it's a clear sign they don't have anything better to say
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:49
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274

if it's irrelevant, why keep on making so many posts about it?

initially i simply said that none of the tv talent show acts had made an album that compares to 5 albums i listed, to which someone else then made an irrelevant point that those albums weren't considered significant until "years later", however that's simply not true as all the albums were acclaimed upon release and were commercially succesful. not that that particular point is of any relevance to my original point nor to the OP's thread

so why are you continuing to bang on and on about the time an album was considered significant when you know for yourself it was commercially successful upon release and had positive reviews, and makes no difference whatsoever to the main point of this thread? why don't you google up and read about it if it fascinates you, or start another thread about it?
Because you acknowledged yourself, even quoted from Wikipedia, that one of those albums 'Low' had mixed reviews at release, some positive, some negative, some not sure. The settled view on 'Low' came later, that's all. That's the only dispute, why you want to go on arguing is your choice.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:58
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 717
no it wasn't. read back again. that was only part of what i was saying. the main part being those albums were critically acclaimed at the time of release, as well as being popular. the albums didn't review badly and slump upon release, only to be rediscovered as a classic in later years

examples of albums in that category may be pauls boutique or hear my dear which weren't highly successful or rated upon original release, but as time elapsed they were later considered classics. that's not the case with any of the albums i mentioned, not that it matters as the time those albums were considered significant was irrelevant to my initial point being that no tv talent show act has made a record with the significance of any of the records i mentioned
ok but again I still say so what. You could argue no new act in the last 20 years talent show or otherwise has done that, its a silly comparison. Its like a poster hinted at before Its like saying all movies are terrible now as they aren't as good as Citizen Kane. I have never seen Citizen Kane I haven't listened to 'Low' so everything I like must suck because it doesn't compare to some great thing from a long time ago. Its daft.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:17
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
when someone's reply is simply about spelling and punctuation it's a clear sign they don't have anything better to say
It also might be a genuine reaction to someone lecturing me on the use of the English language.

Do you understand how language is open to interpretation?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:21
Soupietwist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
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.
I'd say Alex Burke did a cover of Buckley's interpretation of Hallelujah. I can't imagine her version would have existed without Buckley's version first.

I'm not going to argue about what is 'subjective' your already having fun with another poster on those matters

My personal take remains I've yet to see anyone from a UK based modern talent show (can't speak for this Nashville show) create anything great.
Soupietwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 11:40
Rocketpop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 809
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?
The Monkee's were a TV band. The show was the product and for it's time it was a very good show, very entertaining and clearly the four members had great chemistry. At first the music was a by-product of the show. Later on when the show stopped and the band continued with more creative control the sales slumped.

So I'd say The Monkee's were a great product, sometime new and original at the time, and they had a handful of great singles. The show is still fun to watch even now.

I'm don't think One Direction's product is as good. I'm not convinced they has released music as memorable as "Clarksville" and the two "Believer" songs. The Monkee's were quite unique, 1D are just a boyband in the era of Boybands and I think they'll be mostly forgotten about in a few years time.
Rocketpop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:22
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
ok but again I still say so what. You could argue no new act in the last 20 years talent show or otherwise has done that, its a silly comparison. Its like a poster hinted at before Its like saying all movies are terrible now as they aren't as good as Citizen Kane. I have never seen Citizen Kane I haven't listened to 'Low' so everything I like must suck because it doesn't compare to some great thing from a long time ago. Its daft.
One needs to make some sort of meaningful comparison, as I suggested 1D with The Monkees or New Kids on the Block or The Spice Girls or Adele perhaps?

Citizen Kane is worth a watch even though it is from 1941. A box 0ffice failure with mixed reviews which later became recognised as one of the greatest movies ever made. Sound familiar?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:33
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
I'd say Alex Burke did a cover of Buckley's interpretation of Hallelujah. I can't imagine her version would have existed without Buckley's version first.

I'm not going to argue about what is 'subjective' your already having fun with another poster on those matters

My personal take remains I've yet to see anyone from a UK based modern talent show (can't speak for this Nashville show) create anything great.
Better convo this though. lol

I don't think you are giving Alexandra enough credit there. It's a good version, Buckley's is better, fair enough.

I think there is a skepticism about whether a tv talent show artist could ever produce 'great' music. That is hinted at or assumed by the OP. And it is generally true. I just feel there are a few exceptions and that's maybe all there will be. I don't see it as a quantitative thing.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 12:43
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
The Monkee's were a TV band. The show was the product and for it's time it was a very good show, very entertaining and clearly the four members had great chemistry. At first the music was a by-product of the show. Later on when the show stopped and the band continued with more creative control the sales slumped.

So I'd say The Monkee's were a great product, sometime new and original at the time, and they had a handful of great singles. The show is still fun to watch even now.

I'm don't think One Direction's product is as good. I'm not convinced they has released music as memorable as "Clarksville" and the two "Believer" songs. The Monkee's were quite unique, 1D are just a boyband in the era of Boybands and I think they'll be mostly forgotten about in a few years time.
The Monkees were entirely manufactured but part of an incredible creative process. And look what it produced.

Was Girls Aloud gestation that different? And some of GA's music may well stand the test of time. It's still being played today. Those are just my thoughts on it.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:24
Soupietwist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781

I don't think you are giving Alexandra enough credit there. It's a good version, Buckley's is better, fair enough.
I think that's part of my issue. Buckley took Cohen's song and crafted something new and quite beautiful. Alex Burke's version is just the Buckley version overblown, a quick cash-in. Could the people responsible for that version actually make it from the Cohen original like Buckley did? Would they ever want to spend the time?

I could be wrong here, but I also believe Alex herself doesn't like the song? Which if that is the case why sing/release it? It goes back to those straight jacket contracts these's artists signed too, where they seem to have very little creative control.
Soupietwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:42
Rocketpop
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 809
The Monkees were entirely manufactured but part of an incredible creative process. And look what it produced.

Was Girls Aloud gestation that different? And some of GA's music may well stand the test of time. It's still being played today. Those are just my thoughts on it.
The Monkee's were a fictitious band on a TV show who got into all sorts of surreal and wacky capers every episode - the closest comparison would probably be Josie and the Pussycats.

The interesting thing about the Monkee's is in reality the 4 actors actually were frustrated by there lack of input into the music the show was creating for them. Credit to them for trying to continue the brand after the show had stopped (admittedly with rather 'mixed' results, and members quitting returning at various points).
Rocketpop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 14:05
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
I think that's part of my issue. Buckley took Cohen's song and crafted something new and quite beautiful. Alex Burke's version is just the Buckley version overblown, a quick cash-in. Could the people responsible for that version actually make it from the Cohen original like Buckley did? Would they ever want to spend the time?

I could be wrong here, but I also believe Alex herself doesn't like the song? Which if that is the case why sing/release it? It goes back to those straight jacket contracts these's artists signed too, where they seem to have very little creative control.
Creative control only matters if you think it is essential to the quality of the output. And yes, most of my fav artists do just that, write their own stuff. But i think Alex does a great job even if she wasn't completely in love with the song. Little Mix did the same with 'Cannonball' even though they didn't like it.

I guess you probably put great stock by creative control but I see music as a performance and expressive art form where the singer can express and impress in performance.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 14:10
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
The Monkee's were a fictitious band on a TV show who got into all sorts of surreal and wacky capers every episode - the closest comparison would probably be Josie and the Pussycats.

The interesting thing about the Monkee's is in reality the 4 actors actually were frustrated by there lack of input into the music the show was creating for them. Credit to them for trying to continue the brand after the show had stopped (admittedly with rather 'mixed' results, and members quitting returning at various points).
Would S Club 7 not be a better comparison?

A lot of this is hindsight as well. The Monkees music was great because Neil Diamond and John Stewart wrote some of it and they were great songwriters. To return to the main point, whilst some would have written off a manufactured band who didn't even play on their own records, they produced 'I'm a Believer' and 'Daydream Believer'... classics or what?

The Monkees probably set a template for later 'manufactured' artists anyway, so we're influential whatever?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:59
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
Because you acknowledged yourself, even quoted from Wikipedia, that one of those albums 'Low' had mixed reviews at release, some positive, some negative, some not sure. The settled view on 'Low' came later, that's all. That's the only dispute, why you want to go on arguing is your choice.
so you admit that low was acknowledged as being of musical significance from the start, based on the reviews that were good and the commercial sucess, and have therefore been arguing unnecessary and off topic for no good reason?
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:00
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
It also might be a genuine reaction to someone lecturing me on the use of the English language.

Do you understand how language is open to interpretation?
i haven't given you a lecture on the english language. if you could actually spend more time reading rather than typing you would see that i clearly refused to give you any help in understanding the english language
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:04
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,030
ok but again I still say so what. You could argue no new act in the last 20 years talent show or otherwise has done that, its a silly comparison
it's far from a silly comparison, but we have never got to the stage of arguing as such as there has been a lack of people putting forward the names of any records from tv talent shows to compare to, and you will see a lack of arguements in response to the few records that have been named



. Its like a poster hinted at before Its like saying all movies are terrible now as they aren't as good as Citizen Kane. I have never seen Citizen Kane I haven't listened to 'Low' so everything I like must suck because it doesn't compare to some great thing from a long time ago. Its daft.
it's not at all. as people were simply asked to name albums they considered musically significant and there was no need to enter into any further discussion on them as the point had already been made that few records of musical significance, if any, have came from tv talent shows
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:25
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
so you admit that low was acknowledged as being of musical significance from the start, based on the reviews that were good and the commercial sucess, and have therefore been arguing unnecessary and off topic for no good reason?
Read the quote again. You clearly don't understand what I am saying. I am not agreeing with you. Is that clear.

Mixed reviews at time of release...agreement between critics later...i.e.... agreed critical recognition LATER...get it? Which was central to your disagreement with the other poster, that is that agreed recognition only came after a number of years. The same could be said for Harvest which also received mixed reviews on release. In contrast, 'Blue' and 'Dark Side' received almost universal acclaim from release.

All of which is tangential to the main discussion.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:42
LeonalewisJfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,030
Why not just name the thread'Are you a music snob, yes or no', thats exactly what this thread is asking.

It makes no sense to me why anyone wouldn't judge an artist on their music, and instead to judge them on their beginnings. I'm not such a shallow person and I choose to listen to music I like, instead of trying to be edgy.
LeonalewisJfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:06
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
Why not just name the thread'Are you a music snob, yes or no', thats exactly what this thread is asking.

It makes no sense to me why anyone wouldn't judge an artist on their music, and instead to judge them on their beginnings. I'm not such a shallow person and I choose to listen to music I like, instead of trying to be edgy.
It's a fair point. I said much in the same in post #4 but there has been some deviation after that!
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 18:32
ItsNick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,179
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.
Do I right them off if they make their mark on a talent show? If I'm being honest I do to a certain extent because I know that the record companies will tell them what to sing, how to sing it, what to wear, what not to wear, how to style their hair etc etc etc. You then end up with a band or singer who looks like every other band or singer, they all dress the same, they all sound the same, they all talk in the same way 'innit' because that's what the record companies think will sell. They're not aloud to be experimental with their music. It's just all very very samey. Yes I know music has always been like this but NEVER have artists have been so controlled to the extent they are now.

I remember Morten Harket being interviewed when A-ha made a bit of a comeback and he said he couldn't believe how much the music scene had changed since the mid 80s. He said the control that record companies had over artists these days was unbelievable compared to when they first got together in 83/84. Back in those days record companies would give the artists a bit of freedom to experiment which probably or partly explains the vast variety of music that was around then compared to now.
ItsNick is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49.