So as part of Britney's live show she does an s&m routine including walking dudes around on a leash? Spectacle in lieu of talent is the new normal?



Is Tyson Beckford this desperate? SMDH.

But can she saw a guitar in half (and this was in the early 1980s)?

Do I really need to explain this for the umteenth time?

It is a GIVEN that entertainment contains a certain amount of spectacle and always has, no one disputes that.

However, can anybody seriously argue that the level of form over substance has remained the same throughout entertainment history?

Like I said, spectacle IN LIEU OF talent is the new normal and I stand by that statement.

Talent can't be proven, it's an opinion

MickyDolenz said:

Talent can't be proven, it's an opinion

And???


That was MY opinion....deal with it.

babynoz said:

And???

Your question makes no sense. Apparently this is entertainment to someone or they wouldn't pay to see it.

MickyDolenz said:

babynoz said:

And???

Your question makes no sense. Apparently this is entertainment to someone or they wouldn't pay to see it.

And who determines what makes sense? You, Mr know it all?

Posting a reply just so you can play captain obvious is pretty pointless. You either agree with the premise or you don't.

The premise of the thread is that much of what we see today contains more gimmickry and spectacle IN LIEU OF the artists being able to carry a tune. Call me crazy but I still think someone who calls themselves a "singer" should actually be able to do that in addition to leading a man around on a damn leash.

People pay for med school and have to see autopsies so by your logic paying for it makes it entertainment.

babynoz said:

The premise of the thread is that much of what we see today contains more gimmickry and spectacle IN LIEU OF the artists being able to carry a tune. Call me crazy but I still think someone who calls themselves a "singer" should actually be able to do that in addition to leading a man around on a damn leash.

People pay for med school and have to see autopsies so by your logic paying for it makes it entertainment.

How do you know that the people going to see her think she can't carry a tune, just because you don't? School & a concert are 2 different things, so I don't understand the point.

MickyDolenz said:

babynoz said:

The premise of the thread is that much of what we see today contains more gimmickry and spectacle IN LIEU OF the artists being able to carry a tune. Call me crazy but I still think someone who calls themselves a "singer" should actually be able to do that in addition to leading a man around on a damn leash.

People pay for med school and have to see autopsies so by your logic paying for it makes it entertainment.

How do you know that the people going to see her think she can't carry a tune, just because you don't? School & a concert are 2 different things, so I don't understand the point.

Nah, what you don't understand is the definition of a RHETORICAL QUESTION. Look it up.

A Rhetorical Question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.


Get over yourself already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...l_question

it's nothing compared to a show like pink floyds the wall from 1980

unique said:

it's nothing compared to a show like pink floyds the wall from 1980

There's no comparison whatsoever for the simple fact that those muthafuckas could throw down.

Or are you gonna tell me that Britney Spears is on Hendrix level?

babynoz said:

Get over yourself already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...l_question

You're the one being hostile. I only posted a Plasmatics video and then you post a KCool eyes.

[Edited 5/29/15 22:02pm]

MickyDolenz said:

babynoz said:

Get over yourself already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...l_question

You're the one being hostile.

Yes I am being hostile, because you're being stupid.

Other than the news items posted every thread on here is somebody's opinion, genius.

If you didn't understand why not simply ask for an explanation rather than declaring yourself as the thread judge.

Again, get the fuck over yourself.

NorthC said:

I was thinking about Jimi burning his guitar too. People found that as shocking in 1967 as Babynoz finds Britney's SM act shocking. And people were saying that rock & roll isn't real music back then too. I think we've reached the point where nothing is shocking anymore. I'm with Mickey on this one. Yes, if someone pays for it and enjoys it, it's entertainment. I don't care for Britney's music, so I don't care what she does on stage either.

That's fine but you missed the point because you made an assumption instead of reading what I actually wrote.

I never said anything about being shocked, that's your assumption. The observation I'm making is that the Britneys far outnumber the Hendrix level of entertainer now. Something that I find tiresome and unfortunate.

I don't agree that anything people pay for and enjoy is entertainment either .....many people pay for and enjoy child pornography for example.

[Edited 5/30/15 6:10am]

NorthC said:

And as for rhetorical questions: Didn't Prince make an album called Dirty Mind with songs about incest and giving head and then go on tour where he pretended to have oral sex with Lisa during Head?

Again, my point was not that nobody ever did anything over the top silly in the past. Are you assuming that I think it was any better when Prince did it? I don't. I didn't appreciate stupid stunts back then any more than I do now.

Once again, I'm talking about these types of things being present to a much greater degree in entertainment now. Nobody is trying to censor people's right to have access to nonsense.

If you want use Prince as an example I would say that IF what you described was ALL that Prince was capable of at the time he wouldn't have lasted very long.

babynoz said:

phunkdaddy said:

babynoz said:

Yes I am being hostile, because you're being stupid.

Other than the news items posted every thread on here is somebody's opinion, genius.

If you didn't understand why not simply ask for an explanation rather than declaring yourself as the thread judge.

Again, get the fuck over yourself.

No words. Some folks have waaaay too much time on their hands.

I know, I know...apologies to Mickey.

It was really just a simple observation though. Are gimmicks and spectacle in lieu of talent becoming the new normal? Form over substance seems more commonplace now. Just my opinion.

We have a whole lot more Britneys and Iggys today than we do Jimis or Princes IMO. That's all I was saying.

It's fine to disagree but that's no reason to say the question didn't make sense. It's no worse than any other opinion on this forum.

u gotta have sumptin to begin with if u gonna do all other crap

MickyDolenz said:

But can she saw a guitar in half (and this was in the early 1980s)?

WHEN R THEY GOING TO DO A BIOPIC ON THIS ONE??? maybe courtney could put this together

babynoz said:

luvsexy4all said:

babynoz said:

phunkdaddy said:

babynoz said: No words. Some folks have waaaay too much time on their hands.

I know, I know...apologies to Mickey.

It was really just a simple observation though. Are gimmicks and spectacle in lieu of talent becoming the new normal? Form over substance seems more commonplace now. Just my opinion.

We have a whole lot more Britneys and Iggys today than we do Jimis or Princes IMO. That's all I was saying.

It's fine to disagree but that's no reason to say the question didn't make sense. It's no worse than any other opinion on this forum.

Yeah, I'm with Mickey on this one. Clearly this is what is passing for entertainment as someone
is paying to see its performance. Just like the Romans used to watch people fight to the death as
a form of entertainment, the public's taste for highbrow and lowbrow entertainment changes.

And Prince and Jimi had their own gimmicks, too.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

luvsexy4all said:

u gotta have sumptin to begin with if u gonna do all other crap

Maybe that was babynoz point.

babynoz said:

phunkdaddy said:

babynoz said: No words. Some folks have waaaay too much time on their hands.

I know, I know...apologies to Mickey.

It was really just a simple observation though. Are gimmicks and spectacle in lieu of talent becoming the new normal? Form over substance seems more commonplace now. Just my opinion.

We have a whole lot more Britneys and Iggys today than we do Jimis or Princes IMO. That's all I was saying.

It's fine to disagree but that's no reason to say the question didn't make sense. It's no worse than any other opinion on this forum.

what if some folks find brittney more entertaining than prince or jimi? basically you dont like it so you cant imagine why anyone else would.

lowkey said:

babynoz said:

I know, I know...apologies to Mickey.

It was really just a simple observation though. Are gimmicks and spectacle in lieu of talent becoming the new normal? Form over substance seems more commonplace now. Just my opinion.

We have a whole lot more Britneys and Iggys today than we do Jimis or Princes IMO. That's all I was saying.

It's fine to disagree but that's no reason to say the question didn't make sense. It's no worse than any other opinion on this forum.

what if some folks find brittney more entertaining than prince or jimi? basically you dont like it so you cant imagine why anyone else would.

Again, how is that different than any other opinion posted here? See the Janet Jackson thread for example. There's also a whole thread listing people who the OP says can't sing.

Is there a list of who can have an opinion and who can't? Please provide the list and I'll do my best to follow orders of what topic I can choose to discuss.

smoothcriminal12 said:

I'm trying to figure out what the problem is with the performance. What specifically bothers you?

If you don't have a problem with a guy crawling around on a leash and similar gimmicks that's fine. However if I do have a problem with it why can't I say so? I already explained why I find it tiresome and unfortunate.

babynoz said: