Why are many popstars average singers?

[Quark 7,085]

12 minutes ago, Bebe said:

A huge booming voice just isn't part of the genre....

I mean, it would be like Opera singers or Jazz singers looking at Rock singers like "What's with the grunting and technique here?? These people can't sing like us!"

Pop vocals are generally very simple which makes them easy to sing along too. There are instances where singers/performers can make a good song with limited vocal ability, in some instances it's not about how big your voice is but how you use it.

Lily Allen for example is not a strong singer, but she uses her voice well and has very clever and witty lyrics that she writes herself. Lorde is not a Whitney type, but she has an interesting voice and uses great harmonies and writes like poetry. A great voice just isn't necessary in the genre of Pop.

Even looking at Gaga's earlier work, it can hardly be compared vocally to C2C and her recent performances. Gaga didn't need to have a huge voice in her early pop stuff because it's not part of the genre, it's not what people look for or expect from a pop track.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Metamorphosis said:

Exactly. I'm tired of people bashing popstars for vocal abilities as if that's a huge part of the genre. Good popstars require great production, catchy lyrics, a great image, and performance skills.

Popstars should be judged by their abilities to perform, write, and their marketing capabilities. Madonna isn't the best vocalist, but look at the areas in whicv  she makes up for it. Of course you should be able to hold some notes, but not everyone is a Gaga, Beyoncé, Mariah, or Adele. That's what makes them one of a kind. 

Just because they are popstars it doesn't mean that is ok to lack vocal abilities. This is the reason why most people hate on popstars.

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

8 minutes ago, Enigma said:

 

Just because they are popstars it doesn't mean that is ok to lack vocal abilities. This is the reason why most people hate on popstars.

Okay, but why aren't you bashing all of the amazing vocalists who can't dance or put on a good show to save their lives?

People hate on pop music because its the cool thing to do. But the reality is that some of the most talented musicians don't have what it takes to be an amazing popstar.

Pop music is much more than vocals. I'm not saying that its okay to not know how to sing at all, but its unfair to judge a popstar for not being a vocalist when much of the music requires very little singing. Its only a fraction of what it takes to be a successful in that genre.

[FrozenKookie 2,638]

But why are your threads below average?

[Quark 7,085]

Just now, Metamorphosis said:

Okay, but why aren't you bashing all of the amazing vocalists who can't dance or put on a good show to save their lives?

People hate on pop music because its the cool thing to do. But the reality is that some of the most talented musicians don't have what it taked to be an amazing popstar. Pop music is much more than vocals. I'm not saying that its okay to not know how to sing at all, but its unfair to judge a popstar for not being a vocalist when much of the music requires very little singing. Its only a fraction of what it takes to be a successful in that genre.

Because at the end of the day this is all about music. If you don't have any musical qualities then why are you a music artist? Pop stars are more like circus acts. They are all show and no substance. And don't get me wrong, circus acts are entertaining as are some of the things popstars do. But at the end of the day this is all based on music. The whole dancing and spectacle would be totally fine if they also had the musical abilities.

[Dorothy Gale 7,575]

Tbh, pop stars only need average vocals. 

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

6 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Because at the end of the day this is all about music. If you don't have any musical qualities then why are you a music artist? Pop stars are more like circus acts. They are all show and no substance. And don't get me wrong, circus acts are entertaining as are some of the things popstars do. But at the end of the day this is all based on music. The whole dancing and spectacle would be totally fine if they also had the musical abilities.

Just because you can't sing doesn't mean you have no musical capabilities.

Look at Diane Warren. She claims she can't sing to save her life. But the girl knows how to write one hell of a song. Not every popstar shoud be respected of course. However, some of the best popstars know how to play several instruments, produce, and can write a beautiful pop matserpiece.

Then they conceptualize an excellent video/album concept, execute their appearances and interviews very well, and slay a world tour with spectacular dancing and production. But they can't sing that well. Despite their vocal abilities, if that's not an artist, then idk what is.

[Quark 7,085]

1 minute ago, Metamorphosis said:

Just because you can't sing doesn't mean you have no musical capabilities.

Look at Diane Warren. She claims she can't sing to save her life. But the girl knows how to write one hell of a song. Not every popstar shoud be respected of course. However, some of the best popstars know how to play several instruments, produce, and can write a beautiful pop matserpiece. Then come up with an excellent video concept, and slay a world tour with spectacular dancing and production. But they can't sing that well. Despite their vocal abilities, if that's not an artist, then idk what is.

Diane doesn't pretend to be something that she is not though. She is a musical artist because she has great songwriting abilities. And some popstars do have many musical talents accompanying the spectacle (Gaga is the best example). But many popstars do not. They just have the looks and the promotion behind them.

[Quark 7,085]

3 minutes ago, AntiPotCrusader said:

Tbh, pop stars only need average vocals. 

Is not that they don't need great vocals, is that they should have great vocals.

[RAMROD 104,202]

Well, many of the CEO of recording labels are business men or women, so when they sign a talent, they will see if they are valuable or not, can they be sell to the public, what kind of image and marketing they need, etc etc etc, they have little care about if they can sing well or average, for them, technology can fix that!

[Bebe 16,807]

1 minute ago, Enigma said:

 

Just because they are popstars it doesn't mean that is ok to lack vocal abilities. This is the reason why most people hate on popstars.

But it's just a completely different genre and the songs/albums have a completely different intention.

I could critique pop music by pointing out a lack of emotional or political depth

Where are the sorts of songs like this in the pop music world? What pop songs out there today make you feel like this?

The beauty of her voice and the elegant poetry of the lyrics is in complete contrast with the haunting, horrifying and stomach turning reality of what she is singing about. What modern pop song today evokes such a conflicting and powerful reaction?


Where is the anti-establishment sentiments, visceral emotion and irony of punk bands like The Sex Pistols?

Where are the howls of anger and unnerving lyrics from artists like Public Enemy?

Such critique would fall flat on it's face, as I suggest this critique over vocals does, because it completely ignores the intention of the genre. 

Pop doesn't need to make you 'feel' anything transcendent or powerful, Pop doesn't need to be complex and remarkable. The point of Pop is to be catchy, it's to make you dance, it's to be a 'bop' and it's light-hearted and at times humerous. 

Pop music is closer to jingles from commercials than anything revolutionary. That's not the purpose of pop music.

It's certainly great to admire and appreciate the talent of great singers, but there is no point expecting it within this genre. It would be like expecting great guitar riffs in EDM music or bass drops within Opera.

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

1 minute ago, Enigma said:

Diane doesn't pretend to be something that she is not though. She is a musical artist because she has great songwriting abilities. And some popstars do have many musical talents accompanying the spectacle (Gaga is the best example). But many popstars do not. They just have the looks and the promotion behind them.

That's true as well. But how many of them actuay last a long time? All of the successful popstars with great longevity have gotten there with hard work and talent. Rihanna and Selena Gomez are examples of a couple of exceptions. But look at Rihanna's career, and Selena probably won't be around that long unless she develops herself more. But as I said, pop music is much more than singing. Even the best musicians can't be successful because they have no "it" factor.

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

3 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Is not that they don't need great vocals, is that they should have great vocals.

You're completely missing the point I keep making. Just because you can sing doesn't mean you can be a popstar.... Pop music requires very little singing..

[JustPokeHerFace 2,564]

Because being marketable doesn't have a correlation with talent. The same goes with writing (the fact that 50 Shades of Grey is the best selling book series of the decade  ). 

[Quark 7,085]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

But it's just a completely different genre and the songs/albums have a completely different intention.

I could critique pop music by pointing out a lack of emotional or political depth

Where are the sorts of songs like this in the pop music world? What pop songs out there today make you feel like this?

The beauty of her voice and the elegant poetry of the lyrics is in complete contrast with the haunting, horrifying and stomach turning reality of what she is singing about. What modern pop song today evokes such a conflicting and powerful reaction?


Where is the anti-establishment sentiments, visceral emotion and irony of punk bands like The Sex Pistols?

Where are the howls of anger and unnerving lyrics from artists like Public Enemy?

Such critique would fall flat on it's face, as I suggest this critique over vocals does, because it completely ignores the intention of the genre. 

Pop doesn't need to make you 'feel' anything transcendent or powerful, Pop doesn't need to be complex and remarkable. The point of Pop is to be catchy, it's to make you dance, it's to be a 'bop' and it's light-hearted and at times humerous. 

Pop music is closer to jingles from commercials than anything revolutionary. That's not the purpose of pop music.

It's certainly great to admire and appreciate the talent of great singers, but there is no point expecting it within this genre. It would be like expecting great guitar riffs in EDM music or bass drops within Opera.

I get all your points. But once again, it is obvious that pop sells as it is. But this is not about pop needing to be something else but rather about what pop could be. Pop could be so much better is artists were better singers and if they were more creative. Some pop songs are just meant to be a "bop" like you said, but even those "bops" could be so much better in the hands of better artists.

[Bebe 16,807]

Just now, Enigma said:

I get all your points. But once again, it is obvious that pop sells as it is. But this is not about pop needing to be something else but rather about what pop could be. Pop could be so much better is artists were better singers and if they were more creative. Some pop songs are just meant to be a "bop" like you said, but even those "bops" could be so much better in the hands of better artists.

Well I would suggest what you want is for trends to move towards different genres that highlight the vocal talent and creativity. I'm not really a huge fan of pop music generally so I agree with that, it's just clear to me that in this particular genre the qualities you are looking for are not part of the genre.