The Americana and roots music authority
When the songs were prettier than the singers
Remember when the songs were prettier than the singers? Could Roy Orbison or Aretha Frankin make it in this new world of pretty people with manufactured biographies and voices? I'm not saying they're ugly, not by a long shot. But they don't look like the willowy women and chisel-jawed men I see everywhere today in music. John Conally, George Jones, K.T. Oslin, people who look real, like me, but with voices of angels.
Where does talent rank, now that perfect voices can be created, not just in the studio but corrected instantly in a live performance? Now that image seems to mean everything? Who buys the apple or orange with a blemish, when the other looks so perfect?
Views: 267
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Charley Dunlap on -
Well, there is Susan Boyle...
Of course, everyone looked a little shabbier then, before plastic surgery, before constant media coverage, before T-shirts that announced to everyone who you are, and before so damned many people in the world. Of course, there are pockets of realness all around, you just have to look past the few we all know — Neil Young, Dylan, etc — find them and hone in. Howe Gelb is another, but there are loads of young singer-songwriters that put passion over perfection and are only known to pockets of students here and there.
-
Permalink Reply by Lucky Mud on -
Yeah, Boyle....but back in the day there was Kate Smith. There was Jimmy Durante (and if you've ever heard his version of I'll Be Seeing You, released during the dark days of WWTwo, it'll make you weep). Like Boyle, like Durante, get past the visual and listen to the song, the lyrics. With Durante, let yourself imagine a world at war, life-long friends fighting their way through Europe, through the Pacific. Not knowing where they are, but pretty sure they're dead on some battlefield. Knowing you'll never see them again.
"I'll be looking at the moon....but I'll be seeing you."
Boyle's a good example. I wouldn't trade her for a dozen Taylor Swifts. Substance, versus flash and filigree.
You made my point. Thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Lowen on -
I think, fortunately or unfortunately, Susan Boyle also became popular because of her looks. She wouldn't have been so popular if she wasn't so...well, homely. Of course, she's also very quirky and charismatic, which helps, but her looks got her in the limelight just like the picture perfect pop-stars of today.
I have to believe (or else I'd quit) that there are still people who need to hear real music by real people about real things. A perfect voice doesn't equal a connection to a listener, and the pop music of today is primarily background music that people just put on so they can feel like they fit in.
A "perfect" voice can't be created by a machine...Of course, I'm a guy that thinks Bob Dylan is the greatest singer of all time -Which he is - but try convincing people of that.
-
Permalink Reply by New American Farmers on -
Do we like Neil Young because of his looks?
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Wilner on -
Yes. Central casting. It doesn't hurt that he's ridiculously gifted, too. Remember the story of Ian Stewart, booted from the Stones as a performer because he didn't fit the image ,tho invaluable as a roadie.
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle Belanger on -
Looks have played a roll in showb'ness ever since the world began. No question, there are some manufactured personas that dominate some commercial radio stations today, but plenty of great stuff gets through to large numbers of people. Some of the greats of today that are plenty pleasant to look at but not picture perfect fashion model types include Buddy Miller, Lucinda Williams, Delbert McClinton, Marsha Ball, Gillian Welch...I could go on. I guess it depends on what you mean by "make it". I personally see the pretty boys and girls with their pitch correction as a small part of a huge sea that is the music business today. The business has changed in so many ways since the early sixties. Home recording technology and social networking play at least as big a role in who is selling records these days. The need for a "record contract" with a giant company is pretty much history. Of the people I know, I'd say most of them aren't the ones buying records based primarily on what someone looks like. But then, I hang out with a bunch of unusual people because I am one. As for "rank", for me, talent needs to be balanced with skill and then it is a matter of styles and sounds I like. Looks can sweeten the package, but they are certainly not the most important thing. I'm thinking I'm in the unlikely position of being in the majority on this one. Go figure. One thing that's for sure, though- talent alone is not a sure fire recipe for success or fame, and it never has been.
-
Permalink Reply by ron victor on
-
alot of the top female country singers of today are nothing that great to look at i mean
on a scale of 1 to 10:
taylor swift- maybe a 6?
chick from sugarland- about the same
chick from lady antebellum- maybe a 2 is stretching it
miranda lambert- maybe a 3
conversely i think all of the above can actually sing- although i dislike very much the sugarland singers voice (very happy that her name escapes me by the way)
-
Permalink Reply by Lucky Mud on
-
To the New American Farmers
No. With Neil Young, it's his voice. Besides, he was (literally)grandfathered in.
-
Permalink Reply by New American Farmers on
-
Voice, songs, guitar work, charisma. Neil has it all. Cheers.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Daugherty on
-
Heh Heh. Neil Young is one of my all time favorite songwriters/musicians. He is definitely not GQ, and some find his voice less than perfect, but I think what we get in the entire package is perfect.
I wish bands/singers from today weren't so concerned with looks, but in a way, they have to, and it's our fault. "We" demand bigger, better, more flashy and weird. So instead of a few guys with guitars up on stage jamming out, we have overdressed, oversexed clowns putting on a "show" that is much more than just music.
Maybe that is the evolution of music, maybe "we" collectively want to be entertained on several different levels...but I sure don't! My favorite bands, past or present, are probably the kind that DON'T have all the bright lights, the bands that don't "dance" around like idiots. They stand up there and play darn good music!
But nowadays. machines CAN sound as good as humans, and they even have robots that can move and dance and sing like real humans (Youtube link). It won't be long before people are paying to go see robots dance and sing. There was one case I read about earlier this year that hundreds of people were fooled by a robot (they thought it was a human)!
It's a sad world in my book. I would much rather not even know what the singer(s) look like, because for me, it is all about the music (and most musicians worth their salt know it doesn't matter what they look like)
-
Permalink Reply by Lucky Mud on
-
Jason,
A friend of mine is from Nashville, and one of the greatest bass players I've ever heard (a hell of a guitar player, too). He was approached by a BIG NAME mega rock and roll band to tour with them. He auditioned, and they were disappointed. Not by his skill but by the fact that he just 'stood there.' They told him to jump around while he played, and he said, "I don't do that."
So, they got another bass player.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Johnson on -
I've noticed that and also notice it's not just good looking but in the case of women in the U.S. they often, how do I say this gracefully, make them look like high priced street walkers. You don't see that with Canadian artists, at least I don't. I'm sure it's the business side that promotes sales based on sex but I only care what you look like with my headphones on and eyes closed. When I see a lot of skin and or suggestion poses on album art my first thought is the music must be weak.
© 2012 Created by No Depression.
Badges | ND Terms Of Use | ND Privacy Policy | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
