I watched a movie about him - he seemed to me like he could actually sing, and play too; he has a natural ear for music. The saddest thing I think is that somebody like that could be a real talent, instead of a product, but he's young. Nobody listening to the early Beatles would have seen the White Album coming. I think this vocal production is more like airbrushing a picture than anything - you can do a lot with it, but it's not infinite. The basic structure has to be there. At least that was the impression I got from the article.
Can't compare music to film. A preeminent joy of music is the spontaneity and how it grows from the first note. Music is much more akin to live theater.
I think there is very little difference between the young pop stars of today (ie, Bieber) vs. the pop stars of the past (ie, Sean Cassidy). Whereas the modern Bieber has way more technology at his service to prop up (what may or may not be) lacking music talent, the Biebers also have way more exposure via the monster that the media is today vs. back in Cassidy's day. The Biebers almost have to be more heavily armored from having their faults and lack of actual music ability exposed because of all the ways they could get tripped up. Look at what happened to Ashlee Simpson.
If it turns out that Bieber actually does have talent, I guess we'll see it in forty years. But when the high production shields are going up on a young musician, they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt and deserve to be, in fact, doubted as having any music value. Anybody that wants to be a studio Frankenstein monster at the outset of their career shouldn't be expecting any type of respect until a long history of proving themselves (ie, Miles Davis).
I don't get Pitbull. Not sure I've heard someone with less flow since Onyx.
Sooner or later somebody's going to discover the ancient velum document that gives the world's first written description of polyphony, and the title of that document will be the same as the title of this thread.
Maybe. False dichotomy though. From the fact that what is new might be/often is misjudged because people are used to what is old it does not follow that the new thing is not wrong or bad.
I guess for me as a follower of electronic music, much of which is created through the painstaking assembly of electronically generated sonic illusions it does not bother me that greatly if the sound of a record is being created by cutting and pasting or by manipulation of tone; the main concern for me is still whether I like the end result. What it does affect is the degree to which I am likely/willing to admire the singer involved as a singer or musician (rather than a source of sounds and images). I also think it's relevant to ask whether it is being done with any love for the music, or whether it's purely cynical. In that regard there's also no contradiction in (hypothetically) liking the musical result and thinking the singer untalented.
I also think it's relevant to ask whether it is being done with any love for the music, or whether it's purely cynical.
I guess for me as a follower of electronic music, much of which is created through the painstaking assembly of electronically generated sonic illusions it does not bother me that greatly if the sound of a record is being created by cutting and pasting or by manipulation of tone
I don't think that we are particularly focusing on the using of electronic techniques. The larger problem of the article is that these forms of micro-editing are used to substitute for a lack of engagement with the work being recorded. Bieber, the alleged artist, is not truly presenting his interpretation of the song. Breaking down the song into parts and reassembling them, he has surrendered this critical aspect of artistry.
Steve Reich's "Come Out" was similarly constructed. The source material, from an interview after a riot, was more striking. However, no one suggests that the person being interviewed is the musicians, and that it was Reich who was composing a piece of music from extra-musical sources.
Sooner or later somebody's going to discover the ancient velum document that gives the world's first written description of polyphony, and the title of that document will be the same as the title of this thread.
Maybe. False dichotomy though. From the fact that what is new might be/often is misjudged because people are used to what is old it does not follow that the new thing is not wrong or bad.
Good point.
I also think it's relevant to ask whether it is being done with any love for the music, or whether it's purely cynical.
Also a good point. I guess I just didn't feel that the people int this article, or that other one we were all talking about about the big songwriter behind the scenes for some of these same "singers", were really cynical; I thought it was cool that talented musical people like producers, engineers, songwriters and vocal producers could make lots of money without having to be a public figure.
Comments
Another argument could be:
Many millions of teenagers can't be wrong.
- So even if you an I can't spot his talent, he has got to have something.
Craig
I think there is very little difference between the young pop stars of today (ie, Bieber) vs. the pop stars of the past (ie, Sean Cassidy). Whereas the modern Bieber has way more technology at his service to prop up (what may or may not be) lacking music talent, the Biebers also have way more exposure via the monster that the media is today vs. back in Cassidy's day. The Biebers almost have to be more heavily armored from having their faults and lack of actual music ability exposed because of all the ways they could get tripped up. Look at what happened to Ashlee Simpson.
If it turns out that Bieber actually does have talent, I guess we'll see it in forty years. But when the high production shields are going up on a young musician, they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt and deserve to be, in fact, doubted as having any music value. Anybody that wants to be a studio Frankenstein monster at the outset of their career shouldn't be expecting any type of respect until a long history of proving themselves (ie, Miles Davis).
I don't get Pitbull. Not sure I've heard someone with less flow since Onyx.
It's not what's wrong, it's just what's new.
Maybe. False dichotomy though. From the fact that what is new might be/often is misjudged because people are used to what is old it does not follow that the new thing is not wrong or bad.
I guess for me as a follower of electronic music, much of which is created through the painstaking assembly of electronically generated sonic illusions it does not bother me that greatly if the sound of a record is being created by cutting and pasting or by manipulation of tone; the main concern for me is still whether I like the end result. What it does affect is the degree to which I am likely/willing to admire the singer involved as a singer or musician (rather than a source of sounds and images). I also think it's relevant to ask whether it is being done with any love for the music, or whether it's purely cynical. In that regard there's also no contradiction in (hypothetically) liking the musical result and thinking the singer untalented.
I also think it's relevant to ask whether it is being done with any love for the music, or whether it's purely cynical.
Steve Reich's "Come Out" was similarly constructed. The source material, from an interview after a riot, was more striking. However, no one suggests that the person being interviewed is the musicians, and that it was Reich who was composing a piece of music from extra-musical sources.
Jacob of Li
Good point.
Also a good point. I guess I just didn't feel that the people int this article, or that other one we were all talking about about the big songwriter behind the scenes for some of these same "singers", were really cynical; I thought it was cool that talented musical people like producers, engineers, songwriters and vocal producers could make lots of money without having to be a public figure.
At Nerefid:
For myself I'll just stick with Callahan. "Go ahead. Make my day."