Why are many popstars average singers?

[Prismatic 4,789]

1 minute ago, 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.

Give any of Katy's song  to Gaga and I don't think it'll have the same result because these producers/writers made the music that's the best fit for the artist with their voice. 

[Quark 7,085]

10 minutes ago, Metamorphosis said:

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.

Yes. The reality is that it factor do play a big role in being successful. That is why record labels keep signing these kind of people. But imagine if record labels only signed artist with both the it factor and the talent (once again like Gaga) music would be so much better. By saying that they don't need great vocal abilities you are basically saying that you are comfortable with the poor version of something that could be much greater.

[Quark 7,085]

3 minutes ago, Prismatic said:

Give any of Katy's song  to Gaga and I don't think it'll have the same result because these producers/writers made the music that's the best fit for the artist with their voice. 

Obviously it won't be the same result. But in the case of Gaga she doesn't need any molding because she has her own talents and vision. She just makes music that she likes.

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

2 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Yes. The reality is that it factor do play a big role in being success. That is why record labels keep signing these kind of people. But imagine if record labels only signed artist with both the it factor and the talent (once again like Gaga) music would be so much better. By saying that they don't need great vocal abilities you are basically saying that would are comfortable with the poor version of something that could be much greater.

I mean, I agree but that would be very hard to do. Most serious musicians like Gaga don't make pop music because its so basic and repetitive. Most serious musicians steer clear of anything to do with pop music unless its for a single to sell their record. I just hate how people hate on popstars because it takes an incredible amount of hard work to stay relevant in the field since its always changing. Not every musician can handle that. But I undertsand what you mean as well.

[Quark 7,085]

7 minutes ago, Bebe said:

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.

They are not part of the genre, but they once were part of the genre. Is just that in more recent times record labels goes more for the looks, easy listening, and spectacle than for the talent or creativity.

[Quark 7,085]

7 minutes ago, Metamorphosis said:

I mean, I agree but that would be very hard to do. Most serious musicians like Gaga don't make pop music because its so basic and repetitive. Most serious musicians steer clear of anything to do with pop music unless its for a single to sell their record. I just hate how people hate on popstars because it takes an incredible amount of hard work to stay relevant in the field since its always changing. Not every musician can handle that. But I undertsand what you mean as well.

Yes some popstars do work very hard in making a show. But people don't like the fact that they only mostly focus on the showmanship and spectacle and not on the music. People don't hate on circuses or Vegas stage shows because that is what they are and they don't pretend to be something else. But when a popstar, who is supposed to be based on music, only focuses on the spectacle, then it becomes obvious for the public that they don't much musical ability and they respond with disapproval.

[Bebe 16,807]

1 minute ago, Enigma said:

They are not part of the genre, but they once were part of the genre. Is just that in more recent times record labels goes more for the looks, easy listening, and spectacle than for the talent or creativity.

But in fairness, it's also what the people are looking for. Artists like Britney Spears blew up, her appeal clearly wasn't on her huge vocal range but on her distinct nasally voice. It's clear that today's trends are more towards catchy, simple music. It's geared to the music of Taylor Swift or Katy Perry.

The answer isn't just record labels signing vocal talent, they do but they don't tend to rise to the top. Record labels, like any other company are trying to find a 'product' that consumers want. In today's climate people want catchy hooks and simple melodies.

People complained that heavy guitar riffs and the guttural, raw vocals rock music wasn't of quality, that they stopped making music like they did in the old days. Now it's the auto-tuned vocals with the emotion stripped out that is complained about.

What you want is a shift in what is the 'popular' genre. I agree with that, but the answer to the question you proposed in OP is that the genre of pop doesn't require amazing vocals.

[Jesse Pinkman 4,660]

2 minutes ago, Enigma said:

Yes some popstars do work very hard in making a show. But people don't like the fact that they only mostly focus on the showmanship and spectacle and not on the music. People don't hate on circuses or Vegas stage shows because that is what they are and they don't pretend to be something else. But when a popstar, who is supposed to be based on music, only focuses on the spectacle, then it becomes obvious for the public that they don't much musical ability and th they respond with disapproval.

Its more than a show.. Its keeping your appearance in top shape, marketing yourself, constantly recording, etc. Pop music can be very draining. Look at Britney. Many people don't know that she can (or could), sing and play the piano. She actually wanted to become an Adult Contemporary artist, but her label changed the way she sang and forced her into a being a popstar.

That probably was part of her meltdown. Sure it may be a Vegas act, if you will, but its still one hell of an industry that can eat you alive. That's why I respect Madonna and other legendary pop musicians for sticking it out and actually providing amazing musical moments to the genre.

[mmm 879]

Because todays music is made for children and what do children know about talent and vocals? I never listened to music as a young person or was a fan of a singer, I just listened to whatever my family listened to.

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

Who? Who does she sing to?

What? What is she trying to say?

When? When does she sing?

Where? Where does she sing?

But above all else,

Why? Why does she sing?

[Bebe 16,807]

I think the question you are really asking is "Why do people now respond better to simple hooks and a two dimensional image rather than great musicianship or raw vocal talent?"

The answer to that is more complex, and I'm sure many people would find it refreshing to see an artist with more depth and a more obvious striking talent to reach success.

I often say acts like Katy Perry bore me, I just can't figure out what her great 'talent' is. I can't see what differentiates her from a pretty girl at my local karaoke bar with little vocal talent. She doesn't appeal to me for the exact reasons you point out, but it's also the reason I don't usually connect with many pop artists.

I prefer artists like Amy Winehouse who can stand up and deliver the most brilliant performance you have ever seen. Her voice was so unique and there was such nuance and emotion in the way she sang. Her voice was the talent that differentiated her from the rest.

I can appreciate Britney in her Heyday or artists like Janet Jackson who are incredible performers and dancers. I can see that great talent that differentiates them from the rest.

I just can't appreciate the likes of Katy or Taylor. Obviously many people do love these artists and can see something that I cannot. They find their music to be very catchy. These artists wouldn't be successful singing soul music or jazz, but within the genre of pop music they have a vast audience. In that genre catchy hooks and a flawless image is more highly valued than great musicianship or raw talent.

 

Would I personally like the musical landscape to evolve and for the public to value more than a catchy hook? Yeah sure. But it's not part of the genre that's currently popular.

I can't fault death metal for featuring growling and screaming vocals, even though it's not my thing, it's part of the genre. I can't fault pop music for featuring bland, emotionless vocals, even though it's not my thing, it's part of the genre. You know what I mean?

All you can really do is search for artists that satisfy what you like musically, you can't worry about what everyone else likes. If an artist I like is really popular, fantastic. If an artist I like hasn't had much mainstream success then cool.

[Quark 7,085]

22 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I think the question you are really asking is "Why do people now respond better to simple hooks and a two dimensional image rather than great musicianship or raw vocal talent?"

The answer to that is more complex, and I'm sure many people would find it refreshing to see an artist with more depth and a more obvious striking talent to reach success.

I often say acts like Katy Perry bore me, I just can't figure out what her great 'talent' is. I can't see what differentiates her from a pretty girl at my local karaoke bar with little vocal talent. She doesn't appeal to me for the exact reasons you point out, but it's also the reason I don't usually connect with many pop artists.

I prefer artists like Amy Winehouse who can stand up and deliver the most brilliant performance you have ever seen. Her voice was so unique and there was such nuance and emotion in the way she sang. Her voice was the talent that differentiated her from the rest.

I can appreciate Britney in her Heyday or artists like Janet Jackson who are incredible performers and dancers. I can see that great talent that differentiates them from the rest.

I just can't appreciate the likes of Katy or Taylor. Obviously many people do love these artists and can see something that I cannot. They find their music to be very catchy. These artists wouldn't be successful singing soul music or jazz, but within the genre of pop music they have a vast audience. In that genre catchy hooks and a flawless image is more highly valued than great musicianship or raw talent.

 

Would I personally like the musical landscape to evolve and for the public to value more than a catchy hook? Yeah sure. But it's not part of the genre that's currently popular.

I can't fault death metal for featuring growling and screaming vocals, even though it's not my thing, it's part of the genre. I can't fault pop music for featuring bland, emotionless vocals, even though it's not my thing, it's part of the genre. You know what I mean?

All you can really do is search for artists that satisfy what you like musically, you can't worry about what everyone else likes. If an artist I like is really popular, fantastic. If an artist I like hasn't had much mainstream success then cool.

You have very good points here. If people didn't buy this kind of simple products, then record labels wouldn't be trying sign these type of artists. I think that in general, people just value looks and spectacle more.

[weed 70,946]

I'm not trying to be shady but it's like why is Adele 10x more successful than Susan Boyle? Both British, both great singers, both make ballads, but Adele has the image and the relatability. 

[Quark 7,085]

9 minutes ago, neptugne said:

I'm not trying to be shady but it's like why is Adele 10x more successful than Susan Boyle? Both British, both great singers, both make ballads, but Adele has the image and the relatability. 

It also comes down to who the labels decide to promote the most. The more the artists are promoted the more people will know them, and the higher the chances people will like and buy their music.

[Yanko 9,860]

are you new to pop culture?  pop music?