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....
I totally forgot about Broadway - fabulous point!!
Good artists have taken voice lessons and dance lessons and know how to breathe through the jumps and such.
Tiger
I didn't say it was a measure of talent. I said it was a good objective measure of entertainment value. I'm a very talented software developer (these days), but I doubt you'd be entertained watching me work.
I think your concern, though, is unfounded - you're confusing lists showing how good folks are at entertaining, with lists showing how good folks are at the technical execution of specific tasks.
No, sorry - that's a cop-out. Everything is equivocal. The point is that sales of records shows something important: It reveals the width and breadth of how something is well-regarded. Your alternative seems to be just imposing whatever primacy that you personally want to be supreme. That makes no rational sense.
They're buying the albums because she is truly entertaining. Again, I point you back to the example I gave of watching me write software... you're not going to be a fan of that. (There is room for an audience of about five in my office, though.
)The point is that nothing is objectively "over" mixed. That's your own personal bias showing through. Popular artists who have lots of fans who utilize these techniques in their artistic expressions do so at precisely the proper amount - the amount dictated by their artistic perspective. The point is that your imposition of external standards for how much mixing or synthesizing is "over" is unjustified.
That's why I wrote "imho" after that sentence. The point was that each of us have our own preferences in that regard, and neither is correct or incorrect.
And I don't need perfect pitch or perfect vocal mechanics to enjoy music. Heck, I like Bob Dylan and even Bruce Springsteen. It isn't about being a perfect singer. It simply isn't.
I think you're being overly harsh in your assessment of a reasonable amount of growth and experimentation on the part of very young artists.
)The three are completely different from each other, though there may be some overlap. I can tell you that anyone who isn't a good entertainer will not be successful in the business.
I didn't say it was a measure of talent. I said it was a good objective measure of entertainment value. I'm a very talented software developer (these days), but I doubt you'd be entertained watching me work.
I think your concern, though, is unfounded - you're confusing lists showing how good folks are at entertaining, with lists showing how good folks are at the technical execution of specific tasks.
No, sorry - that's a cop-out. Everything is equivocal. The point is that sales of records shows something important: It reveals the width and breadth of how something is well-regarded. Your alternative seems to be just imposing whatever primacy that you personally want to be supreme. That makes no rational sense.
They're buying the albums because she is truly entertaining. Again, I point you back to the example I gave of watching me write software... you're not going to be a fan of that. (There is room for an audience of about five in my office, though.
The point is that nothing is objectively "over" mixed. That's your own personal bias showing through. Popular artists who have lots of fans who utilize these techniques in their artistic expressions do so at precisely the proper amount - the amount dictated by their artistic perspective. The point is that your imposition of external standards for how much mixing or synthesizing is "over" is unjustified.
It's art, not science.
That's why I wrote "imho" after that sentence. The point was that each of us have our own preferences in that regard, and neither is correct or incorrect.
And I don't need perfect pitch or perfect vocal mechanics to enjoy music. Heck, I like Bob Dylan and even Bruce Springsteen. It isn't about being a perfect singer. It simply isn't.
I think you're being overly harsh in your assessment of a reasonable amount of growth and experimentation on the part of very young artists.
Who are your favorite artists? Let me take some baseless pot-shots at them. (Keeping in mind that I might not have my heart in it, since I really don't care much about Spears or Cyrus.
The three are completely different from each other, though there may be some overlap. I can tell you that anyone who isn't a good entertainer will not be successful in the business.
My point was that you were confusing what those lists tell us. They do tell us something important, as I indicated: It reveals the width and breadth of how something is well-regarded.
And again I think you missed the point, that people buy albums because they want entertainment.
No, they're exactly on-target, for what they measure, and for something that is, indeed, rather important.
Or perhaps because they aren't worth the marketing investment. There is no way to know, especially if they haven't tried to be more popular. Indeed, not trying is a great way to dodge the reality of limited entertainment appeal.
Ah - here's where the rubber hits the road: You cannot say that anyone who fits into your "may not sell as many records" and "they don't overmarket" category is necessarily a better entertainer.
Sales is perhaps the only one that can be measured objectively. Practically everything else is basically opinion, either with regard to the appraisal itself, or the significance of the appraisal.
Thanks for the insights... very interesting.
My point was that you were confusing what those lists tell us. They do tell us something important, as I indicated: It reveals the width and breadth of how something is well-regarded.
And again I think you missed the point, that people buy albums because they want entertainment.
No, they're exactly on-target, for what they measure, and for something that is, indeed, rather important.
Or perhaps because they aren't worth the marketing investment. There is no way to know, especially if they haven't tried to be more popular. Indeed, not trying is a great way to dodge the reality of limited entertainment appeal.
Ah - here's where the rubber hits the road: You cannot say that anyone who fits into your "may not sell as many records" and "they don't overmarket" category is necessarily a better entertainer.
Sales is perhaps the only one that can be measured objectively. Practically everything else is basically opinion, either with regard to the appraisal itself, or the significance of the appraisal.
Oh, and still waiting for that list of your favorite artists so I can take some pot-shots at them.
This is how I would categorize Miley. I'm not interested in the circus that the music world has become, but I realize that I'm not the average person. Most artists are trying to pay the bills, by selling as many records as they can, to as many people as possible, in as many ways as possible. In this respect, Miley is a successful entertainer.
You clearly instinctively feel that there is some relationship between an objective measure and a subjective appraisal of "all-around talent".. Indeed, there is, and that fact that you don't recognize that sales figures do provide that indicates, afaic, that you're ignoring some important variables. And note that, in this case, for the first time, you've switched from talking about vocal talent to "all-around talent" and in doing so I believe you've finally gone over off-the-rails with this line of reasoning: If you really are including talent of all types, then you have to factor in the talents for entertaining, for producing, for engineering, for marketing, etc. In that regard, i.e., with regard to what is truly "all-around talent", sales figures do indicate who is and is not the best. (QED)... but I believe that what is at the top isn't necessarily the highest level of all-around talent.
That's really the whole point.
What you're saying is that you personally prefer what they offer. The blurring of the lines between what is and is not your personal preference, and what is and is not "best", is dangerous. It is a very small leap from imposing one's own personal preferences regarding, say, entertainment, as the paragon of what is and is not best, "overall", and imposing one's own personal preferences regarding something more important, and that is a pretty nasty societal problem.... but (paraphrasing Alton Brown: that's another thread).
The Grammy Awards is the industry honoring its own. They surely have the right to do so, but it is just an expression of some specific slice on a collective personal preference. I could get a bunch of software developers together and they could take a look at each others' code, and give out awards... but most reasonable people would project that what really matters isn't what software developers think of each others' code but rather what customers think. While music is a bit different from software development, it isn't as different as you might think. The difference is evident in the fact that there are Grammy Awards, i.e., where internally-driven assessments (what the artists think of themselves) matters, along with the assessment of society-as-a-whole (which brings us back to sales figures). Indeed, you can think of the Grammy's as solace given artists. However, it isn't the most important measure.
Okay here are the promised pot-shots.
) Her music is excessive sentimental; going back to my culinary analogies, it's like a chef that uses too much basil. For me, she's the prototypical example of an instrument on legs. 
IMO he should run like the wind. Saying her best friend dresses better and is more fun (to the press!) is just wrong. What a slam.
I noted earlier that i wo na Dora award for sound design a peer nominated award -- here's how i won it..
I voted for myself, and then the 3 people i felt did worse than I did
I suspect that i just got the most votes for being worst !!!
Peer nominations are no more a gauge of quality as any other subjective measure.
You clearly instinctively feel that there is some relationship between an objective measure and a subjective appraisal of "all-around talent".. Indeed, there is, and that fact that you don't recognize that sales figures do provide that indicates, afaic, that you're ignoring some important variables. And note that, in this case, for the first time, you've switched from talking about vocal talent to "all-around talent" and in doing so I believe you've finally gone over off-the-rails with this line of reasoning: If you really are including talent of all types, then you have to factor in the talents for entertaining, for producing, for engineering, for marketing, etc. In that regard, i.e., with regard to what is truly "all-around talent", sales figures do indicate who is and is not the best. (QED)
And of course in that regard music is a collaborative effort, with each person playing their proper role. As it has always been. The idea, that I think you may hold to, that music must be a solitary singular talent, has no basis in reality. While there are solo artists, of course, that is just one small facet of the discipline, not its entirety.
That's really the whole point.
What you're saying is that you personally prefer what they offer. The blurring of the lines between what is and is not your personal preference, and what is and is not "best", is dangerous. It is a very small leap from imposing one's own personal preferences regarding, say, entertainment, as the paragon of what is and is not best, "overall", and imposing one's own personal preferences regarding something more important, and that is a pretty nasty societal problem.... but (paraphrasing Alton Brown: that's another thread).
The Grammy Awards is the industry honoring its own. They surely have the right to do so, but it is just an expression of some specific slice on a collective personal preference. I could get a bunch of software developers together and they could take a look at each others' code, and give out awards... but most reasonable people would project that what really matters isn't what software developers think of each others' code but rather what customers think. While music is a bit different from software development, it isn't as different as you might think. The difference is evident in the fact that there are Grammy Awards, i.e., where internally-driven assessments (what the artists think of themselves) matters, along with the assessment of society-as-a-whole (which brings us back to sales figures). Indeed, you can think of the Grammy's as solace given artists. However, it isn't the most important measure.
Indeed, the really important measure is something elusive in the present. We'll have to be long-dead before it will be apparent what is and is not really important today.
Okay here are the promised pot-shots.
Celine Dion? Really. How banal (her music, not your liking her.
(You get the idea.)
