and if I want to hear someone sing, I much rather listen to someone who *can* sing and does not need some software to digitally correct stuff in order to make it listenable. If you suck at singing, step aside and try to do something else.

If I want to hear someone sing, Ill listen to Freddy Mercury of queen, or my girl friend!

 Reply

My issue was with the fact the people feel this is insulting to a genre of music that already has so little discernable talent that it's laughable. When you listen to half of these pop or hiphop stars "singing" live, you can hear just how untalented they actually are, and no level of auto-tuning is helping them.

 Reply

Well said, but you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just img srcing Lady Gaga.

;)

 Reply

Or you know like he said...Graduation.

It's a fantastic album. You don't have to like it.

 Reply

Anyway my point is, I like the way the album sounds, he did a good job with it and he doesnt pretend that he's a vocalist, so whatever. I'll enjoy it because he sounds good, not because he's omfg the greatest singer ever.

It's like money...I really dont care where it came from or how it was made, it's fucking money. If I dont enjoy it, someone else will.

On the opposite end, you have Regina Spector. I know she can sing, she shows it from time to time, but her shit is GAWN OWFUL!

 Reply

Love the obvious lack of skill in any of those steps.

 Reply

As far as I'm concerned, if you or your group don't write the songs and don't play the instruments, you're nothing but a song-and-dance routine.

 Reply

@SirNirian:
It's called "brain-itch" tunes. Basically, someone figured out that if you make a tune that's repetetive enough that you can't forget it, a whole generation of kids who think they're listening to something new will buy it up in droves. And it doesn't matter that they'll eventually get sick of thse tunes, because you already have their money, and you have a dozen other groomed routines lined up to take their place when people stop caring about them anymore.

@Xjep:
I've got six albums by The Doors that say otherwise. Sure that's not every album that's been released under that name, but anything that was recorded after Morrison died doesn't really count (and even then they put existing recordings of him reciting his own poetry to music for at least one album).

_Some_ bands and solo acts do write all their own stuff. Most don't, but they're straight-up and honest about the ones that they didn't write, and it's a safe bet that the only reason they're putting it on their album is because they liked it when someone else recorded it first. We call those "covers". That's allowed. But when the most that the solo act or entire band contributed to their _entire_catalogue_ was the "thank yous" section, we call those "posers". You know, just this side of Milli Vanilli.

 Reply

Regardless, Sinatra may not have written a note or a word of his songs, but _he_ had final approval on everything he sang. These days, dime-a-dozen pop acts are more of a management thing. A shrewd manager can find a marketable youngster, set them up with a string of "brain-itch" songs, and turn out a pop star that'll keep him/her in the money until the next one comes along. The pop star generally has no ability to survive the business side of things without a manager to take care of damn near everything but the pop star is entirely replaceable. Maybe not at the height of fame, but certainly after a few other new stars have eclipsed the old ones. If you were to name a pop star who has been able to keep a career going for 30 years, I'd ask you what specific reason you had for picking Madonna.

 Reply