Todays vs. Yesterdays Musicians

[crazyfun1]

How come standards and the "bar" were higher with yesterdays singers? They actually sung and didn't sing to a tape, because they had talent and really sung and didn't have a lot to hide.

Today we seem to accept anything that comes flying our way where "talent" is concerned. Most of todays musicians are cheap immitations of the real thing.

Award shows anymore, are just a baul of laughs, and can't be taken seriously, because most of whom are awarded, have zero talent. It's also usually the artists who stink, who win all of the awards, and the real talent doesn't win anything, but the REAL talent prevails in the end, regardless of rigged award ceremonies.

Artists of yesterday actually sang, had class to them. Todays artists are trashy and don't amount to much, and won't be remembered for much, accept for ONE HIT. It wasn't so much about what female artist can show more midrif. It was more focused on VOCAL TALENT.

When record labels start signing quality artists to them, more people will start to like what todays industry have to offer, which right now, doesn't amount to much at all.

When do we as music fans/critics start to dump the bad artists and replace them with good ones who will stick around? That's up to us as fans to let them know, and NOT support the bad ones.

[Crushcrushchris]

As much as I can agree with this, I'd have to say that fans like what they like. I guess the music business changed, eh?

It's more of a market now than it was before. I think that talent is actually being credited in today's market (Norah Jones, Alicia Keys, etc.). Also, talent isn't everything just as image isn't everything.

There are also a lot of artists who are very talented, but they just don't get the same results as others do probably because of lack of promotion and funds. Comes with the territory.

[Ragin]

I guess it depends on what you mean by yesterday.

The Monkees certainly are an example of not much talent but were tremendously popular. Even further back you had Fabulous Fabian, we've also had Tiny Tim, and a host of others. It did seem that the majority of pop music had good melodies with good vocals. Back then many artists did not write their own songs, and so the focus was on finding someone with good vocal capabilities to showcase the songs of good writers. Later the emphasis was put on songwriting with Bob Dylan, Paul Simon and many others. I really think with Bob Dylan began the era of the song writing becoming more important than the singing.

Personally, I think you need a healthy mix. If all you care about are lyrics and deep meaning, go read some poetry and forget about music. If all you care about is musicianship or vocals, go to the orchestra or opera.

I think we have artists today that personify that healthy mix, some of them even are very popular.

[crazyfun1]

c670769 said:

I guess it depends on what you mean by yesterday.

The Bee Gees, The Carpenters, The Temptations, groups like that..sorry all the THE groups popped into my head 1st.

[Ragin]

crazyfun1 said:

The Bee Gees, The Carpenters, The Temptations, groups like that..sorry all the THE groups popped into my head 1st.

Well my examples certainly cover that area. There were plenty of relatively untalented groups making it big back then.

[crazyfun1]

c670769 said:

If all you care about is musicianship or vocals, go to the orchestra or opera.

I have a good background in music..all around. The one thing I was taught and learned, is that musicianship is built on vocals, instrumentation and writing ability. I think the majority of artists today, forget that, and to me, it's extremely obvious.

[Ragin]

crazyfun1 said:

I have a good background in music..all around. The one thing I was taught and learned, is that musicianship is built on vocals, instrumentation and writing ability. I think the majority of artists today, forget that, and to me, it's extremely obvious.

They don't forget that. The record companies simply aren't interested in spending the money and the time to let them develop and record a truly great record. Studio time is decreasing all the time. Gone are the days where selling 3 million records would only get you to break even because of the time spent in the recording studio. A few artists such as the Dave Mathews Band, Matchbox Twenty, Dido etc have managed to put out quality recordings, but there is no longer an effort on the part of the record labels to put quality into the recordings of the flash in the pan type artists. They no longer give them the best musicians or the best songs.

[jond7699]

It all depends on how you would describe talent. Many stars of "yesterday" had absolutely no talent at all. The same can be said about stars of "today". But I much prefer the music of "today" over "yesterday" I am not a fan of The Beatles or Elivs but I am a huge fan of Mariah and Korn. It all depends on how you relate to the music. Sure some artists really can't sing (a la Brit) and some never prove they can (a la Beyonce). But there are a lot of artist today who have alot of credibility. MB20 , Dido , Sarah Mclchlan , Radiohead (although their new music sucks imo) , Outkast etc.

That's my 2 cents

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

It's all about speed and making the quick buck and good looking artists are probably more likely to catch on than non-good looking artists. So they use that and aim it at the biggest music buyer, teens.

As for my opinion, I think I prefer today's musicians, regardless of the meaning of yesterday. If I went back to yesterday, there would be less music for me to enjoy but with today, I can enjoy the CDs and artists I love now as well as music from yesterday. Besides, most artists are still around today anyway. I would like to clarify that when I say I like today's musicians more, I'm not saying I like the singers and bands that are on the pop chart. If you limit this survey to the charts only, then I'd say I liked yesterday's music more.

[Bob]

i kinda agree.

my theory? production has taken frontstage. and that stands to reason because it is often the producers who have incredible talent these days. while lots of the artists themselves can't sing and/or lack other talents, the production is generally top notch. these artists are so succesful because of that; strip them of the Neptunes and watch them flounder.

true talent is often overlooked-- the awards shows are the saddest example. the academy and others should realize that just because an artist (im avoiding naming names) has good production and their song was a huge hit, doesn't mean they should be nominated. maybe producer awards should be taken more seriously! the only time real talent gets big attention is when its coupled with good production.

[halo19]

I honestly don't think it's completely worse... I mean, there is underground that exists for those who hate the mainstream so much (which much of what I listen to is). But it's not just talent that matters, it's how they put a song together that counts. It doesn't matter how Christina is capable of singing, that screeching is unnecessary. Whereas, artists like Joss Stone can sing and use their voice right..

The problem is that everyone goes style over substance. There is some good stuff around tho... However, I'd say that bands like The White Stripes, A Perfect Circle, OutKast, et. al. were very talented and had originality, as well as much other stuff I like... However, another thing is that if someone doesn't like anything at all that is out, they're probably "too old" or something to be getting into current music.