Miley Cyrus on ABC

[scrapbookworm]

Is it just me, or is her singing absolutely awful? Like she is trying to make every single line sound different than usual? It doesn't even sound like her.

 

[pipersmom]

It's not just you. She was on GMA this morning with Bret Michaels (she's re-done Every Rose) and it was horrible. I have nothing against her, or her singing, but she slaughtered the song..I felt sorry for Bret..

 

[AshleyW]

I'd be really mad if I paid money to see this concert in person. She sounds AWFUL.

 

[EMom]

I think she sounds like a braying jack............uh, donkey. But that's just because my hearing works.

 

[charming23]

Thanks heavens it is not just me who thought that her singing was bad. I had turned on ABC a few minutes before Wife Swap and she was singing (I use the term loosely) "The Climb" and it sounded awful. It was like she was trying to scream and sing at the same time.

And what was she wearing? It looked like a tee with black underwear.

 

[krcit]

I feel bad forfeeling this way b/c she's just a kid but I can't stand her. My Facebook status is actually about wanting to punch her I just think besides not really having much talent, that she comes across as such a know it all brat. Yuck.

 

[EMom]

I feel bad forfeeling this way b/c she's just a kid but I can't stand her. My Facebook status is actually about wanting to punch her I just think besides not really having much talent, that she comes across as such a know it all brat. Yuck.

She's been duped into thinking she's got the voice of the decade. And she truly believes it, IMHO. I don't think she realizes she is craptastic. Now she wants to be an actress and thinks she's Meryl Streep, for crying out loud. Lord, someone give this girl a REALITY CHECK for her birthday.

 

[bicker]

Popular music is a matter of personal preference. The objective is not to produce pure sound or perfect pitch, except for singers who happen to be singing for fanst that may be looking for that. As much as you perhaps don't like Cyrus, I'm sure that many of her fans probably don't like your favorite artist. It's just the way things are.

 

[maxiesmom]

A lot of artists do not sound anything in person like they do on their recordings. If you don't like Miley, change the channel. Not hard.

FWIW I think she was doing so much dancing around that she had a hard time getting enough breath to sing like she usually does. I challenge any of you to run around and sing for 2 hours. It ain't easy!

 

[Tiger926]

A lot of artists do not sound anything in person like they do on their recordings. If you don't like Miley, change the channel. Not hard.

FWIW I think she was doing so much dancing around that she had a hard time getting enough breath to sing like she usually does. I challenge any of you to run around and sing for 2 hours. It ain't easy!

Nope, the good artists sound pretty much the same live as on recordings. Good artists don't oversynthesize and mix their tunes because they don't have to. Good artists have taken voice lessons and dance lessons and know how to breathe through the jumps and such. Miley Cyrus isn't even in this league, but she doesn't have to be. She does have a bit of a voice to work with, and so they can mix her voice and make it sound so much better than it is.

Miley is not a good singer, but as pointed out, it's not about singing anymore, and hasn't been for years. It's about entertaining - Britney Spears proved this. She can't sing, nor act, yet she can shake it, and they can mix her voice to sound like she can sing, so Voila! An entertainer is born.

There aren't many good singers left these days, but the face of music changed years ago, and people want entertainment and not real music, thus Miley will probably be around for many more years. Her new nasty image pretty much ensures that.

Tiger

 

[scrapbookworm]

A lot of artists do not sound anything in person like they do on their recordings. If you don't like Miley, change the channel. Not hard.

FWIW I think she was doing so much dancing around that she had a hard time getting enough breath to sing like she usually does. I challenge any of you to run around and sing for 2 hours. It ain't easy!

FWIW, I have seen her in person. Knoxville, TN. November 2007. It was a good concert.

My DD and her friend were watching it last night. I'm an adult- I don't usually just listen to Miley Cyrus on my own . They like Miley Cyrus. I just thought that she sounded awful last night. That's just my opinion. Sure, I could have 'changed the channel', but that would have been rude to the two girls who were enjoying it.

 

[Frantasmic]

Don't industry people call them studio artists: those who need a lot of mixing? Also, isn't there a new device called perfect pitch or something like that that makes just about anyone sound good in the studio.

It was evident at last year's CMAs or wherever Taylor Swift won a bazillion awards. She sang live and really wasn't very good. Lady Antebellum followed her and the difference in natural talent was quite apparent.

 

[bicker]

A lot of artists do not sound anything in person like they do on their recordings. ... FWIW I think she was doing so much dancing around that she had a hard time getting enough breath to sing like she usually does. I challenge any of you to run around and sing for 2 hours. It ain't easy!

Nope, the good artists sound pretty much the same live as on recordings.

No, maxiesmom was correct. There's a difference between a singer and a musical artist. A singer is just an instrument on legs; a musical artist creates a performance, and unlike just-singing, which is pretty-much the same regardless of the medium (sound recording, versus video recording, versus live performance), musical performance will naturally vary based on the medium.

A great example of this is P!nk, who's been touring the world with a show during which she does quite a bit of trapeze work. The creation of a show, telling her stories through both music and movement, is what makes the live performance remarkable. The fact that her singing isn't as perfect, singing while swinging up in the air, as it is on the CD is immaterial to how much of an accomplishment and how fantastic the live performance is.

Good artists don't oversynthesize and mix their tunes because they don't have to.

No... some good artists, who are nothing but singers, don't "over" synthesize. Other good artists don't close themselves off to the possibilities of the recording medium. As in painting, some good painters limit themselves to certain forms of expression through the medium, while other good painters see the possibilities afforded them by the entire range of forms available. Realists and Impressionists had different perspectives on the paining medium; that doesn't mean one is better than the other. They both have their place.

And the artists that deserve the greatest accolades are the artists who do the best job affecting the senses or emotions of their audience. Art was never about perfect execution of the mechanics - something I suppose a computer could determine - but rather the impact art has on humans - something computers cannot (yet) come to appreciate.

 

[Tiger926]

No, maxiesmom was correct. There's a difference between a singer and a musical artist. A singer is just an instrument on legs; a musical artist creates a performance, and unlike just-singing, which is pretty-much the same regardless of the medium (sound recording, versus video recording, versus live performance), musical performance will naturally vary based on the medium.

A great example of this is P!nk, who's been touring the world with a show during which she does quite a bit of trapeze work. The creation of a show, telling her stories through both music and movement, is what makes the live performance remarkable. The fact that her singing isn't as perfect, singing while swinging up in the air, as it is on the CD is immaterial to how much of an accomplishment and how fantastic the live performance is.

No... some good artists, who are nothing but singers, don't "over" synthesize. Other good artists don't close themselves off to the possibilities of the recording medium. As in painting, some good painters limit themselves to certain forms of expression through the medium, while other good painters see the possibilities afforded them by the entire range of forms available. Realists and Impressionists had different perspectives on the paining medium; that doesn't mean one is better than the other. They both have their place.

And the artists that deserve the greatest accolades are the artists who do the best job affecting the senses or emotions of their audience. Art was never about perfect execution of the mechanics - something I suppose a computer could determine - but rather the impact art has on humans - something computers cannot (yet) come to appreciate.

But, we are all saying the same thing. Pink does have a good voice, and so she can sing live, or mix her music a bit, and there isn't that much of a difference. If she sounds a bit out of breath, it's no big deal as she really is talented in all forms. She is an artist - someone who combines both music and dance into an art. Her mechanics don't have to perfect - I never said they had to be. She can use computers, but she can also not use computers as she has the strength in her voice to do so.

Miley, IMHO, is not one of these - she is an entertainer who has to mix and systhesize in order to hide the fact that she is not that great of a singer. I am discussing those who overuse and go to extremes, such as Miley or Britney.Their mechanics are lacking, IMHO, so they have no choice but to overmix their music. They have to create a total package, so they must rely on computers to enhance their voices. They honestly have no choice as their talent isn't as strong as say someone like Pink who can sing, write music, dance and combine all of that into an artistic story.

So, basically it comes down to the fact that we could argue the use of the word "entertainer" forever...

Tiger

 

[bicker]

But, we are all saying the same thing.

Agreement is good!

Miley, IMHO, is not one of these

Disagreement is good too!

I don't really know Cyrus' stuff that well; what I do know is that it is a matter of personal preference, and that objective declarations of what is good or bad, in this context, are simply not defensible. Breakout has sold 1.5 million copies; there aren't 1.5 million idiots out there. They are simply people who have a different set of preferences from you.

Pink does have a good voice, and so she can sing live, or mix her music a bit, and there isn't that much of a difference.

A good amount of P!nk's vocal performance is "over" synthesized (to use your terminology) on recordings. It's standard practice. It is part of the artistry being presented.

I am discussing those who overuse and go to extremes

Let's also discuss those who are too conservative, and ignore what these techniques could do to improve their expression of their artistry. Indeed, most of the time when I skip a track on my Zune's Smart DJ playlist it is because some under-produced bit of vocally "perfect" boredom slipped in.

They have to create a total package

Folks who don't create a total package are not worth listening to imho.

So, basically it comes down to the fact that we could argue the use of the word "entertainer" forever...

I would hope not. You've hit on the core of the issue -- it isn't at all about vocal mechanics, but rather about how entertaining something is. That's surely going to vary from person to person. There is no objective right or wrong; no objective better or worse. Indeed, once you veer into the realm of objective measures, numbers of units sold is as good of an objective measure as any - people putting their money whether their mouths are - and in that regard, Cyrus ranks pretty high.

 

[Tiger926]

Agreement is good!

Disagreement is good too!

I don't really know Cyrus' stuff that well; what I do know is that it is a matter of personal preference, and that objective declarations of what is good or bad, in this context, are simply not defensible. Breakout has sold 1.5 million copies; there aren't 1.5 million idiots out there. They are simply people who have a different set of preferences from you.

A good amount of P!nk's vocal performance is "over" synthesized (to use your terminology) on recordings. It's standard practice. It is part of the artistry being presented.

Let's also discuss those who are too conservative, and ignore what these techniques could do to improve their expression of their artistry. Indeed, most of the time when I skip a track on my Zune's Smart DJ playlist it is because some under-produced bit of vocally "perfect" boredom slipped in.

Folks who don't create a total package are not worth listening to imho.

I would hope not. You've hit on the core of the issue -- it isn't at all about vocal mechanics, but rather about how entertaining something is. That's surely going to vary from person to person. There is no objective right or wrong; no objective better or worse. Indeed, once you veer into the realm of objective measures, numbers of units sold is as good of an objective measure as any - people putting their money whether their mouths are - and in that regard, Cyrus ranks pretty high.

I disagree that number of units sold is a good objective measure of talent. I don't agree with that at all, whereas many industry lists are based soley on this variable. Customers buy records for a ton of reasons. Lots of parents buy Miley/Hannah albums for their kids irregardless of whether she is truly talented or not. The kid demographic adds hugely to Miley's sales, and I'm pretty sure they ren't basing those sales on talent.

I have never actually heard Pink sing live in concert, but have heard her sing live on TV, but again, it could be overmixed, but it doesn't sound like it. I do think she has more vocal talent than Miley or Britney, just based on her lyrics and her voice. But again, I've not heard her in concert to accurately assess that.

I also disagree that not having a total package is not worthy to listen to either - I don't need acrobats and skimpy costumes in order to enjoy music. I enjoy the music and what the lyrics are saying, that's it. Britney and Miley have to create a false total package by constantly changing their images as their raw talent is not in abundance. They must heavily rely upon computers and huge productions in order to sell records, whereas other artists do not have to do this to make sales. They can choose to do it for some albums, and not for others. I've been saying this about Madonna for years - she's a business genius in terms of marketing, but her vocals aren't that great. Yet, she's sold millions of albums.

So, how should musicians be categorized: entertainer, singer or artist? Combination of all? That answer will vary for all of us.

Based on my definition, Miley is an entertainer - she isn't strong vocally (as evidenced by live performances) and she relies heavily on mixing and changing images to make sales. It works for her as it's making her money. How long it will work, remains to be seen?

Tiger

 

[scrapbookworm]

How many times do they record and rerecord a song until it is 'perfect'? Any given singer- not just Miley. When a singer is live on stage, yes I know it will sound different. If they miss the pitch or the lyrics, there is no rewind and redo button. Some singers can change the pitch or even the lyrics a little, some singers can improvise, and still sound great. I don't know if she was going for something different, but something sounded awful last night. Also, she did several high pitched like screams that seemed so out of place. It sounded like bad karaoke.

My DD has just about moved on from Miley Cyrus. She hasn't been listening to her music much, but she wanted to watch the show. Now, she mostly listens to Miranda Cosgrove. But, that's a whole 'nother topic.

 

[cm8]

Nope, the good artists sound pretty much the same live as on recordings. Good artists don't oversynthesize and mix their tunes because they don't have to. Good artists have taken voice lessons and dance lessons and know how to breathe through the jumps and such. Miley Cyrus isn't even in this league, but she doesn't have to be. She does have a bit of a voice to work with, and so they can mix her voice and make it sound so much better than it is.

Miley is not a good singer, but as pointed out, it's not about singing anymore, and hasn't been for years. It's about entertaining - Britney Spears proved this. She can't sing, nor act, yet she can shake it, and they can mix her voice to sound like she can sing, so Voila! An entertainer is born.

There aren't many good singers left these days, but the face of music changed years ago, and people want entertainment and not real music, thus Miley will probably be around for many more years. Her new nasty image pretty much ensures that.

Tiger

, I totally agree with you!

 

[Ppufi]

A lot of artists do not sound anything in person like they do on their recordings. If you don't like Miley, change the channel. Not hard.

FWIW I think she was doing so much dancing around that she had a hard time getting enough breath to sing like she usually does. I challenge any of you to run around and sing for 2 hours. It ain't easy!

Try being in a musical. Broadway actors sound great onstage, and they are moving around and performing every night.

IMO, Miley can't sing. Plus, concerts like this are run-through before the actual performance. Her out-of-breath singing would've been apparant in rehearsal. Of course, maybe everyone knows she wouldn't have been any better stationary....

 

[EMom]

All I know is....I prefer to listen to the actual voice (provided the singer has talent and a pleasant voice) rather than being subjected to various versions of HAL's girlfriend on a daily basis. Listening to a computer sing just doesn't cut it for me.