Why Adele?

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

On 11/25/2015, 8:44:07, RAMROD said:

 

I am not rude but your opinion is false. You just have to face the fact people connect better with simplicity. Just be happy for Adele.

when he pulls out too fast

[Tropico 4,145]

Less is truly more, I suppose.

 

Adele has a nice voice and to the untrained ear, there's nothing wrong with it. She writes songs with meaning. And she doesn't try hard (which as you pointed out is a negative trait but it's also a positive to many people). 

[comrade 33]

6 hours ago, Nino said:

They've used her image as the anti-popstar to market her, hence it's a gimmick. Anything with a marketing budget has a gimmick. That's how marketing works, differentiating yourself from the competitors. 

how? how have they used that? can you even identify this gimmick you're babbling about? adele being adele is not a trick.

although not even sure why you're talking her marketing team, because i'm talking about her.

she comes off genuine, and doesn't rely on gimmicks. that's likable about her.

[Riot Poof 2,236]

14 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Finding exact examples can be difficult. I just know its been done before. But here's what I can think of, in my OCD chronological order. Some you may have heard of, others have been strictly British phenomenons, some got big sales, others not. The album I've put beside them is their most successful. Here are a list of female artists who have made albums based on break ups or ballads or both:

Whitney Houston - Whitney Houston

Mariah Carey - Music Box

Alanis Morrisette - Jagged Little Pill

Natalie Merchant - Tigerlily

Norah Jones - Come Away With Me

Katie Melua - Call Off The Search (almost all her albums are good too, check them out)

Amy Winehouse - Back To Black (Frank is also brilliant, she'd still be huge if she hadn't died)

Leona Lewis - Spirit

Rumer - Seasons Of My Soul (this was released just 3 months before 21 and its cover is even very similar!)

Christina Perri - lovestrong.

Lana Del Rey - Born To Die

Emeli Sande - Our Version Of Events

Jessie Ware - Devotion

 

These albums all involve big voices, ballads and/or break up themes. They incoporate a lot of piano. They are all about the voice and emotion carrying the song and don't rely on any gimmicks to sell the music. All the same things Adele does. Some of them got massive success, others not so much. But the successes tell you that this kind of music is not novel, it has been done before and connected before. So, why do we make Adele out to be the only one who's not relying on gimmicks or the only one making "real music?" All of these artists I listed don't sell albums anymore, one of them is still on their debut and two of them are dead. Out of the live ones...why did the public stop buying their music? Why did some of them release one successful album and then gradually fade out? If this is the kind of music that the public's asking for, why did the sales from these artists similar to Adele just...stop? If the public wants Adele-esque music, these artists are still going, so why do they not have any interest for them now? If you want to listen to Adele-esque music in between her album breaks, there's a whole lot of other artists who can keep you occupied until she returns. So, why did they not go to them? Like I said, Adele has only won success for herself. We don't want her type of music in general, we just want it from her. In a gender parallel move, Sam Smith got a lot of success recently and some even called him the male Adele. Let's face it, that's what 21 would have sounded like if it were by a man. But I think it was just the fact it was a guy being Adele-eque that brought him that attention. I somehow doubt he'll keep this momentum up. 

Thank you for doing this! It really put things into perspective.

@ everyone else: Here's some food for thought. 

[Jay.P 2,331]

Because the public loves "mature" music that is extremely relatable. no one could've guessed "Hello" is about self reflection and not love. It's also because of 21 that 25 is selling so much.

[Schwerk 6,987]

She has a great voice, writes relatable songs about love and loss and has a very honest, sweet, blunt girl next door personality that she feels comfortable sharing with the world. The industry didn't try to present her as something other than herself right from the start and she doesn't really change that much.

Everything about her is comforting, she's easy to love, which doesn't make her less talented but maybe a bit boring to some. 

 

[Benji 20,113]

9 hours ago, UmbriaWitch said:

Why Gaga and not the other pop girls?

I used Gaga as an example to show just how happy it's Adele who is getting this attention over practically everyone. I love Gaga to bits but when Gaga was "big" it just caused her to have a massive fall. At least Adele's descent will be nicer and she probably won't give as much as half of a sh*t as Gaga did 

[StrawberryBlond 14,102]

8 hours ago, comrade said:

how? how have they used that? can you even identify this gimmick you're babbling about? adele being adele is not a trick.

although not even sure why you're talking her marketing team, because i'm talking about her.

she comes off genuine, and doesn't rely on gimmicks. that's likable about her.

It's obvious. The "gimmick less" artist is a big money spinner. Back in 2002, Avril Lavigne was marketed as the "anti Britney." She even called herself this a few times. All the other alternative/RnB acts getting launched between 2001-2003 (Alicia Keys, Vanessa Carlton, Norah Jones, etc) were also marketed on this premise. It was alluded to across the board. In articles, in interviews, across all media, it was hammered home that these were girls who could sing, play instruments, write their own songs, they were non-manufactured and "real." Unlike the pop puppet acts who didn't have any talent at the time. This a major reason why they sold so well. Timing is crucial - to show up after all the generic pop that was being successful, made them look even more brilliant than they actually were. Now, I'm not denying the talents of these women, because I actually like almost all of them. But they were certainly marketed on a very judgemental premise. Not their fault, but their label's fault. It also made their fans take on this judgemental attitude. Even I did at the time when I was a big Avril fan. The idea was that we were so much better than the people who listened to the generic stuff. Looking back on it now, it was so mean. One thing that I really can't stand about a lot of Adele fans is that they seem to think that by liking her, it makes them highly intellectual, musically educated and of a much higher class than those who don't.

But please note that I don't really appreciate the use of the word "gimmick" to define an artist, especially because a lot of people called Gaga this. An artist can use gimmicks in their work but they are not in themselves a gimmick. It's such a dehumanising way to talk about a human being.

[comrade 33]

21 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

It's obvious. The "gimmick less" artist is a big money spinner. Back in 2002, Avril Lavigne was marketed as the "anti Britney." She even called herself this a few times. All the other alternative/RnB acts getting launched between 2001-2003 (Alicia Keys, Vanessa Carlton, Norah Jones, etc) were also marketed on this premise. It was alluded to across the board. In articles, in interviews, across all media, it was hammered home that these were girls who could sing, play instruments, write their own songs, they were non-manufactured and "real." Unlike the pop puppet acts who didn't have any talent at the time. This a major reason why they sold so well. Timing is crucial - to show up after all the generic pop that was being successful, made them look even more brilliant than they actually were. Now, I'm not denying the talents of these women, because I actually like almost all of them. But they were certainly marketed on a very judgemental premise. Not their fault, but their label's fault. It also made their fans take on this judgemental attitude. Even I did at the time when I was a big Avril fan. The idea was that we were so much better than the people who listened to the generic stuff. Looking back on it now, it was so mean. One thing that I really can't stand about a lot of Adele fans is that they seem to think that by liking her, it makes them highly intellectual, musically educated and of a much higher class than those who don't.

But please note that I don't really appreciate the use of the word "gimmick" to define an artist, especially because a lot of people called Gaga this. An artist can use gimmicks in their work but they are not in themselves a gimmick. It's such a dehumanising way to talk about a human being.

dunno what you're babbling about but i think it's obvious by now that people appreciate artists more when they stay true to themselves, stay genuine and focus on the music, and do not wrap themselves up in meat dresses to gain attention.

[StrawberryBlond 14,102]

4 minutes ago, comrade said:

dunno what you're babbling about but i think it's obvious by now that people appreciate artists more when they stay true to themselves, stay genuine and focus on the music, and do not wrap themselves up in meat dresses to gain attention.

What I'm "babbling on about" is not a unique view - it's been said many times, including in respected music publications. There are a lot of artists who stay "true to themselves" but never gain success. Why not? There are artists who become true to themselves later on but are rewarded with even less success than when they were generic. Why's that? Because the public are fickle, grow bored easily and they tend to only really like one artist in a genre at any one time. If everyone truly wanted to hear Adele's brand of music and nothing else, the charts wouldn't still be full of Rihanna's, Ariana's, Justin's, 1D's and so on. They claim not to want the generic top 40 stuff, but the generic top 40 stuff is still popular, so...I think some people are fibbing. We just really want Adele's music right now but no one else who's similar. I mean, in 2011-2012, dance music still ruled the charts, just with Adele's music thrown in. In fact, 2011-2012 was when dance was going through its peak years. If people thought Adele was such a breath of fresh air and a break from all that crap, why did this crap keep on selling just as much as her songs? She was just lucky she got launched at this time. It could have been anyone else in her position.

[comrade 33]

43 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

What I'm "babbling on about" is not a unique view - it's been said many times, including in respected music publications. There are a lot of artists who stay "true to themselves" but never gain success. Why not? There are artists who become true to themselves later on but are rewarded with even less success than when they were generic. Why's that? Because the public are fickle, grow bored easily and they tend to only really like one artist in a genre at any one time. If everyone truly wanted to hear Adele's brand of music and nothing else, the charts wouldn't still be full of Rihanna's, Ariana's, Justin's, 1D's and so on. They claim not to want the generic top 40 stuff, but the generic top 40 stuff is still popular, so...I think some people are fibbing. We just really want Adele's music right now but no one else who's similar. I mean, in 2011-2012, dance music still ruled the charts, just with Adele's music thrown in. In fact, 2011-2012 was when dance was going through its peak years. If people thought Adele was such a breath of fresh air and a break from all that crap, why did this crap keep on selling just as much as her songs? She was just lucky she got launched at this time. It could have been anyone else in her position.

okay so you need to learn to be concise because your actual point just drowns in that tsunami of redundant text

people like different kinds of music yeah. but it's obvious more people appreciate artists like adele as no one else is selling like she is.

"it could have been anyone else".. utter nonsense that is easy to churn out, impossible to prove

[StrawberryBlond 14,102]

37 minutes ago, comrade said:

okay so you need to learn to be concise because your actual point just drowns in that tsunami of redundant text

people like different kinds of music yeah. but it's obvious more people appreciate artists like adele as no one else is selling like she is.

"it could have been anyone else".. utter nonsense that is easy to churn out, impossible to prove

You can't be concise if there's a lot to say! Everything I said was relevant. I really dislike it when people try to say my point is irrelevant because there's a lot to read and they can't be bothered typing long responses. It's a myth that short and sweet is the best way to go. Sometimes, you have to say a lot to get the point through. And you have to give examples so people understand where you're coming from. My point was not drowned out at all, you just didn't want to listen to it. If all I'd said was "artists like Adele have been launched on this same gimmick before," you'd probably be saying to me to prove it and show examples. Which is what I did. But you're saying it's too much.

It's not obvious that more people like artists like her at all. If they did, a lot more artists like Adele would be selling. But she's the only one of her type who is. The like her, not the genre in general. How many other neo-soul artists have made it big since Adele? Sam Smith and...Sam Smith and...Sam Smith. If the world supposedly likes this new type of music so much, where is it on the charts?

Try to disprove that it could have been anyone in her position either. She was also very lucky to have a team with a big budget to launch her as well. There were artists who made albums like hers around the time of 21 but they didn't have the promotional push she did to make the world care. The artists who get successful are 9 times out of 10 the ones with a very supportive team behind them, giving them lots of money to promote. That's why they get so famous and successful, not because they're the best. Doesn't mean they're not talented, but it can mean that others even more talented get left out the cold because their label didn't push them the same way.

[Fiona Apple 13,006]

Because she deserves it. She is an AMAZING songwriter and the tone of her voice is the best in the industry lol

[Essence 155]

Lol. She actually sounds very trained. Her breath control, vibrato, and endurance are really great. 

 

The only way her "technique" falters is in the way she takes care of her voice, as evidenced by her need for vocal surgery a few years ago. But her actual technique is pretty amazing and most musical people can understand that...

[Fame IV 4,426]

Some people live closed on this forum. To answer to some members:

the name 'Lady Gaga' is just as famous and popular as Adele. If you ask my grandmother if she already heard of Lady Gaga, yes, she knows that name. I don't think because Gaga has had an album that sold less than the others she isn't 'big' anymore. Gaga is one of the biggest popstars now. Just as Adele.