kirby2725
Gold Member
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 555
|
Post by kirby2725 on Nov 23, 2010 2:13:06 GMT -5
Honestly - a Beyoncé or Gaga performance would've been all they needed for a huge viewer jump.
|
|
esoteric76
5x Platinum Member
https://mixcloud.com/djmusikdawg
Joined: July 2006
Posts: 5,953
|
Post by esoteric76 on Nov 23, 2010 11:57:43 GMT -5
I totally don't understand why Katy and Taylor don't improve their vocal game. Like, what would be lost, honestly? They both seem to have something to work with to at least put on competent live performances, but they just seem...ambivalent to the idea. My take is that they are to a degree but either don't care or can't really improve much. Their fanbases sure don't seem to care. At this point they have learned not to listen to critics, as long as they sell, everything is good for them and their label. They're just not great vocalists. They write great songs and have a commercial image, but you'll have to look elsewhere for the killer vocals.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Nov 23, 2010 12:00:29 GMT -5
My take is that they are to a degree but either don't care or can't really improve much. Their fanbases sure don't seem to care. At this point they have learned not to listen to critics, as long as they sell, everything is good for them and their label. They're just not great vocalists. They write great songs and have a commercial image, but you'll have to look elsewhere for the killer vocals. They could at least bother to sound decent or good live. That's should at least be something a singer could do.
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Nov 23, 2010 14:19:44 GMT -5
I totally don't understand why Katy and Taylor don't improve their vocal game. Like, what would be lost, honestly? They both seem to have something to work with to at least put on competent live performances, but they just seem...ambivalent to the idea. Rihanna's vocals, while still definitely shaky, have nevertheless improved, and probably will continue to as she works on it. I just don't get it. I mean, I guess people are drinking the Taylor Kool Aid and praising performances like this enough for her to think that maybe she doesn't have to, but everyone has called out Katy's poor Firework performances since day one. This sounds like a rant, but I'm genuinely curious. Taylor has never been a great singer, but to say she has not improved would be a complete lie. Compared to Grammys and that godawful christmas song she sang,her vocals have improved hugely. I see a lot of you have a problem with her being so successful...that is a shame. Performance at the AMA-s was not fantastic, but it was good enough. "Back To December" sounded really beautiful...sure she had troubles fitting "Apologize" into the song, but i don`t even see a problem with that part. Many people were quick to give a pass on Pink and her bad final note, what was done supposedly deliberately. The way i saw it, Taylor wanted to sound angry and emotional singing that part- how was this different? If music critics all rated her among the best acts, i have no reason to disagree. Sure these guys have been in this business long enough to know what they are talking about. No matter what Taylor Swift does...for fans of Mariah, Carrie she will always sound flat, because her voice is not very rich. For fans of Taylor she will always sound like the girl, who could be your best friend. Maybe flawed, but always honest, raw, relatable. The girl who inspires people to dream big, reach for the stars... So long story short- she has improved her vocal game. It`s just your blind hatred and prejudice that keeps your from being objective. You know what...that is fine...just say how much you hate or dislike her. All clear. No need to beat around the bush.
|
|
TheJLoSpot
Bubbling Under
Joined: April 2009
Posts: 13
|
Post by TheJLoSpot on Nov 23, 2010 14:57:49 GMT -5
USHER should have got Artist of the year in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by out of reach on Nov 23, 2010 15:21:10 GMT -5
I totally don't understand why Katy and Taylor don't improve their vocal game. Like, what would be lost, honestly? They both seem to have something to work with to at least put on competent live performances, but they just seem...ambivalent to the idea. Rihanna's vocals, while still definitely shaky, have nevertheless improved, and probably will continue to as she works on it. I just don't get it. I mean, I guess people are drinking the Taylor Kool Aid and praising performances like this enough for her to think that maybe she doesn't have to, but everyone has called out Katy's poor Firework performances since day one. This sounds like a rant, but I'm genuinely curious. I didn't take that thought as Taylor hate. I certainly prefer her as a top artist than people like Kesha or Katy. However, here is the problem. When someone is called singer reaches a pinnacle, you expect them to be able to deliver vocally in a compentant manner, and maybe there is a double standard. Guys like Springsteen are horrific singers but people don't complain about them. The more disturbing part is that she is in the fore front of the auto tune controversy. Many wonder how popular she would be if it didn't exist. She would not be able to deliver vocals for her radio songs. I will agree with you that there has been improvement but honestly i'm not sure if she started using live auto tune. This isn't hate but an honest opinion that reflects what many people are thinking.
|
|
dbhmr
Diamond Member
>
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 23,463
|
Post by dbhmr on Nov 23, 2010 15:45:54 GMT -5
I totally don't understand why Katy and Taylor don't improve their vocal game. Like, what would be lost, honestly? They both seem to have something to work with to at least put on competent live performances, but they just seem...ambivalent to the idea. Rihanna's vocals, while still definitely shaky, have nevertheless improved, and probably will continue to as she works on it. I just don't get it. I mean, I guess people are drinking the Taylor Kool Aid and praising performances like this enough for her to think that maybe she doesn't have to, but everyone has called out Katy's poor Firework performances since day one. This sounds like a rant, but I'm genuinely curious. Taylor has never been a great singer, but to say she has not improved would be a complete lie. Compared to Grammys and that godawful christmas song she sang,her vocals have improved hugely. I see a lot of you have a problem with her being so successful...that is a shame. Performance at the AMA-s was not fantastic, but it was good enough. "Back To December" sounded really beautiful...sure she had troubles fitting "Apologize" into the song, but i don`t even see a problem with that part. Many people were quick to give a pass on Pink and her bad final note, what was done supposedly deliberately. The way i saw it, Taylor wanted to sound angry and emotional singing that part- how was this different? If music critics all rated her among the best acts, i have no reason to disagree. Sure these guys have been in this business long enough to know what they are talking about. No matter what Taylor Swift does...for fans of Mariah, Carrie she will always sound flat, because her voice is not very rich. For fans of Taylor she will always sound like the girl, who could be your best friend. Maybe flawed, but always honest, raw, relatable. The girl who inspires people to dream big, reach for the stars... So long story short- she has improved her vocal game. It`s just your blind hatred and prejudice that keeps your from being objective. You know what...that is fine...just say how much you hate or dislike her. All clear. No need to beat around the bush. Sigh. Yes, she's improved, but you hit the nail on the head (albeit generously) of what my post was getting at: you said she was "good enough." Taylor swift is one of the biggest stars of the music industry today. She just opened with more than a million copies sold. Since when does any of that equate to "good enough" being...good enough? Why doesn't she want to be great? It may not be a question of "want," but seeing as she has improved a bit, it seems like she has potential. But if she were really working at her vocal abilities, it seems like we would see far more improvement, unless this is as good as her voice will ever get, which I harbor some doubts of. Elsewhere I mentioned P!nk's bum note at the end of her performance, so it was not gone unnoticed by me. But Taylor had more than one. And you shouldn't rely on critics to tell you what to feel, because they don't necessarily have experience with music or singing or playing an instrument--they have experience in writing. EW, for example, said Taylor "nailed it" and that is objectively not true. Nailed it would be by and large pitch-perfect, and you seem to acknowledge that wasn't the case. Your explanation as to why you overlook the flaws in her voice does answer some of my questions. It would frustrate me to love an artist who couldn't deliver live in some form, but that's me. And absolutely nothing about my post says or implies I have a problem with her success, so I'm not sure where you pulled that out of. I had, and continue to have, a question about why so many people--fans and critics alike--feel the need to celebrate sub-par live performances when she appears to have all the means in the world to improve (more than she has).
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Nov 23, 2010 15:53:46 GMT -5
I can't even express how much I agree with that post, dbhmr.
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Nov 23, 2010 16:01:09 GMT -5
Taylor has never been a great singer, but to say she has not improved would be a complete lie. Compared to Grammys and that godawful christmas song she sang,her vocals have improved hugely. I see a lot of you have a problem with her being so successful...that is a shame. Performance at the AMA-s was not fantastic, but it was good enough. "Back To December" sounded really beautiful...sure she had troubles fitting "Apologize" into the song, but i don`t even see a problem with that part. Many people were quick to give a pass on Pink and her bad final note, what was done supposedly deliberately. The way i saw it, Taylor wanted to sound angry and emotional singing that part- how was this different? If music critics all rated her among the best acts, i have no reason to disagree. Sure these guys have been in this business long enough to know what they are talking about. No matter what Taylor Swift does...for fans of Mariah, Carrie she will always sound flat, because her voice is not very rich. For fans of Taylor she will always sound like the girl, who could be your best friend. Maybe flawed, but always honest, raw, relatable. The girl who inspires people to dream big, reach for the stars... So long story short- she has improved her vocal game. It`s just your blind hatred and prejudice that keeps your from being objective. You know what...that is fine...just say how much you hate or dislike her. All clear. No need to beat around the bush. Sigh. Yes, she's improved, but you hit the nail on the head (albeit generously) of what my post was getting at: you said she was "good enough." Taylor swift is one of the biggest stars of the music industry today. She just opened with more than a million copies sold. Since when does any of that equate to "good enough" being...good enough? Why doesn't she want to be great? It may not be a question of "want," but seeing as she has improved a bit, it seems like she has potential. But if she were really working at her vocal abilities, it seems like we would see far more improvement, unless this is as good as her voice will ever get, which I harbor some doubts of. Elsewhere I mentioned P!nk's bum note at the end of her performance, so it was not gone unnoticed by me. But Taylor had more than one. And you shouldn't rely on critics to tell you what to feel, because they don't necessarily have experience with music or singing or playing an instrument--they have experience in writing. EW, for example, said Taylor "nailed it" and that is objectively not true. Nailed it would be by and large pitch-perfect, and you seem to acknowledge that wasn't the case. Your explanation as to why you overlook the flaws in her voice does answer some of my questions. It would frustrate me to love an artist who couldn't deliver live in some form, but that's me. And absolutely nothing about my post says or implies I have a problem with her success, so I'm not sure where you pulled that out of. I had, and continue to have, a question about why so many people--fans and critics alike--feel the need to celebrate sub-par live performances when she appears to have all the means in the world to improve (more than she has). I think that`s the thing. She does not feel she has to change, her fans do not want her to change. Is there not enough glass-breaking belting voices in the industry? She works with what she has got, and found a way to make it work. Not for everybody...but fans sure seem to be happy. Why fix something that is not broken? I don´t think her singing will ever be word class technically. It is just not happening. So she goes for emotional and raw. Nothing wrong with that. As stated earlier...not all legends of music have been great singers. But they found their little something.
|
|
|
Post by F.A.M.O.U.S. on Nov 23, 2010 16:02:11 GMT -5
so did chris brown 100% win that award? so i missed these awards. anyone that can help me: favorite soundtrack, fav male rap/hip hop artitst, and fav rap/hip hop albm no he did not its all random twitter speculation with noithing remotely legitmate giving it any credibility. Did u not see my post???? ITS REAL, dont discredit it if ur a gaga fan u should understand and know how wrong it is because theres no way she would of lost to justin fanvoted or not same with chris brown and usher. team breezy worked our ass off and its an injustice
|
|
|
Post by F.A.M.O.U.S. on Nov 23, 2010 16:05:28 GMT -5
I just cant! I dont like lady gaga but she has more twitter followers than justin so i knew something was wrong with him winning that! Gaga may have more twitter followers but Bieber's fanbase is more rabid, which is why he wins pretty much every fan-voted award he's up for. I'll use another example, Alicia and Sade have a bigger built-in fan base than Rihanna but I highly doubt Alicia and Sade fans spent their time voting endlessly just so they can win an AMA. That's why Rihanna won over them. OK that might explain gaga and justin HOWEVER Team Breezy is much more rabid than usher fans who you never even hear of about much. I could even understand Trey Songz over him because just like Team Brezy, his fans are very dedicated in stuff like this. The proof is already right there for the world to see that abc RIGGED the show to the people who showed up which is common to many award shows so it shouldnt even be that hard to beleive.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Nov 23, 2010 16:06:30 GMT -5
Sigh. Yes, she's improved, but you hit the nail on the head (albeit generously) of what my post was getting at: you said she was "good enough." Taylor swift is one of the biggest stars of the music industry today. She just opened with more than a million copies sold. Since when does any of that equate to "good enough" being...good enough? Why doesn't she want to be great? It may not be a question of "want," but seeing as she has improved a bit, it seems like she has potential. But if she were really working at her vocal abilities, it seems like we would see far more improvement, unless this is as good as her voice will ever get, which I harbor some doubts of. Elsewhere I mentioned P!nk's bum note at the end of her performance, so it was not gone unnoticed by me. But Taylor had more than one. And you shouldn't rely on critics to tell you what to feel, because they don't necessarily have experience with music or singing or playing an instrument--they have experience in writing. EW, for example, said Taylor "nailed it" and that is objectively not true. Nailed it would be by and large pitch-perfect, and you seem to acknowledge that wasn't the case. Your explanation as to why you overlook the flaws in her voice does answer some of my questions. It would frustrate me to love an artist who couldn't deliver live in some form, but that's me. And absolutely nothing about my post says or implies I have a problem with her success, so I'm not sure where you pulled that out of. I had, and continue to have, a question about why so many people--fans and critics alike--feel the need to celebrate sub-par live performances when she appears to have all the means in the world to improve (more than she has). I think that`s the thing. She does not feel she has to change, her fans do not want her to change. Is there not enough glass-breaking belting voices in the industry? She works with what she has got, and found a way to make it work. Not for everybody...but fans sure seem to be happy. Why fix something that is not broken? I don´t think her singing will ever be word class technically. It is just not happening. So she goes for emotional and raw. Nothing wrong with that. As stated earlier...not all legends of music have been great singers. But they found their little something. She doesn't need to have a glass-breaking belting voice. And actually, no, there aren't enough in the business. I personally don't hear any rawness or much emotion in her singing, but the point is that she should be able to give a performance while staying on key for its entirety. It isn't her singing style. It's the fact that she's constantly flat and delivering off key performances.
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Nov 23, 2010 16:12:40 GMT -5
I didn't take that thought as Taylor hate. I certainly prefer her as a top artist than people like Kesha or Katy. However, here is the problem. When someone is called singer reaches a pinnacle, you expect them to be able to deliver vocally in a compentant manner, and maybe there is a double standard. Guys like Springsteen are horrific singers but people don't complain about them. T he more disturbing part is that she is in the fore front of the auto tune controversy. Many wonder how popular she would be if it didn't exist. She would not be able to deliver vocals for her radio songs. I will agree with you that there has been improvement but honestly i'm not sure if she started using live auto tune. This isn't hate but an honest opinion that reflects what many people are thinking. On the record...yes. It is obvious she used it on "Speak Now". But as far as her live performances go...i don`t think she ever used it. Never been to her concert. Maybe she uses it there. Kesha sure uses it regularly- people seem to be ok with it.
|
|
|
Post by out of reach on Nov 23, 2010 16:18:19 GMT -5
Well yes, of course for her CD. Most pop artists do. She may have used it in the AMAs but it's hard to tell, it doesn't help with bum notes or singing on key, only smoothes out pitchiness, and funky sounds, I believe.
As far as Kesha goes, nobody takes her seriously as a vocalist, so it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Nov 23, 2010 16:19:24 GMT -5
I think that`s the thing. She does not feel she has to change, her fans do not want her to change. Is there not enough glass-breaking belting voices in the industry? She works with what she has got, and found a way to make it work. Not for everybody...but fans sure seem to be happy. Why fix something that is not broken? I don´t think her singing will ever be word class technically. It is just not happening. So she goes for emotional and raw. Nothing wrong with that. As stated earlier...not all legends of music have been great singers. But they found their little something. She doesn't need to have a glass-breaking belting voice. And actually, no, there aren't enough in the business. I personally don't hear any rawness or much emotion in her singing, but the point is that she should be able to give a performance while staying on key for its entirety. It isn't her singing style. It's the fact that she's constantly flat and delivering off key performances. People hear what they wanna hear. That is all i`m gonna say. I thought she was fine, your deep knowledge of music told you she was off. So lets leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Nov 23, 2010 16:20:44 GMT -5
I'm just going to say that you don't need to have a deep knowledge of music to hear that she was off. And I'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Nov 23, 2010 16:43:39 GMT -5
I'm just going to say that you don't need to have a deep knowledge of music to hear that she was off. And I'll leave it at that. but yet those reviewers managed to see/hear that she was more on than off with or without their deep knowledge of music.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Nov 23, 2010 16:45:03 GMT -5
I'm just going to say that you don't need to have a deep knowledge of music to hear that she was off. And I'll leave it at that. but yet those reviewers managed to see/hear that she was more on than off with or without their deep knowledge of music. I thought you were done. ??? And you guys are putting far too much emphasis on what the reviewers said. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Nov 23, 2010 16:49:51 GMT -5
That was just too ignorant argument. You do not voice the absolute truth. Had you put IMO there, i`d have been fine. Ok..enough of this bs.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Nov 23, 2010 16:52:05 GMT -5
And yet none of your posts contain the phrase 'IMO' in them. I guess everything you posted was you voicing the absolute truth. See how ignorant of an argument that was? I shouldn't have to 'IMO' when it's obvious.
|
|
|
Post by passionformusic on Nov 23, 2010 17:16:09 GMT -5
And yet none of your posts contain the phrase 'IMO' in them. I guess everything you posted was you voicing the absolute truth. See how ignorant of an argument that was? I shouldn't have to 'IMO' when it's obvious. Only thing that is clear here is you disliking her, hence giving subjective value to your so-called obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Nov 23, 2010 17:21:24 GMT -5
And yet none of your posts contain the phrase 'IMO' in them. I guess everything you posted was you voicing the absolute truth. See how ignorant of an argument that was? I shouldn't have to 'IMO' when it's obvious. Only thing that is clear here is you disliking her, hence giving subjective value to your so-called obvious. I don't dislike her or her music. I just don't care too much for either. And even if I did dislike her, I still have the ability to critique and view people objectively without a bias. I'm sorry if you don't agree with the things I'm saying, but that's just how it is. Apparently, if you haven anything negative to say about Taylor, it means you're a hater. :kanyeshrug:
|
|
|
Post by jj99$ - - LeLe on Nov 23, 2010 18:36:43 GMT -5
at the kanyeshrug
|
|
Sure Thing
Platinum Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by Sure Thing on Nov 23, 2010 21:46:01 GMT -5
This thread is hilarious.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2010 1:08:20 GMT -5
All I'm going to say is this:
The AMAs this year were a complete dud. The best performances to me were Rihanna, Pink, Train... and that's pretty much it. Worst? Pretty much the rest of them. The winners were as predictable as can be. Best part of the night? Justin Bieber's super-awkward acceptance speeches (minus his Artist of the Year win -- that was very classy, in my opinion).
|
|