Author | Message |
Real Music? I c alot of yall talkin bout bring back the real music. and i c prince talkin bout bring back the real musician the real music. someone please explain to me 'real music'. cuz i wanna kno what YALL think it is. and don't give me and artists name either. like don't say this person is real music that person is real music, don't do that. just like break it down for me.
to me music is music, and it either sucks or it don't. but IMO i don't think you have to be able to play an instrument (although i do think it helps) to do real music and b a real musician. musicians r singers (the good ones only), song writers, instrumentalists and producers. i mean think about it did Aretha play an instrument other than her voice? what about James, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes and all that good stuff. hardly none of them played any instrument...unless u count their voice. so what is real music? i mean i'll b the first to tell u i don't like everything thats out now. and yall'r r right bout this few of these people are gonna b around in 5 yrs....and even fewer of them can actually sing. realy sing. but its still music and like i said it either sucks or it don't. so what makes it 'real'? is it that they can sing? can write? can produce? aren't pre packaged milli vanilli bullshit wit the voice tampered wit? what? Yesterday is dead...tomorrow hasnt arrived yet....i have just ONE day...
...And i'm gonna be groovy in it! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moonwalkbjrain said: i mean think about it did Aretha play an instrument other than her voice?
You've never heard Aretha play piano? You don't know what you're missing. Marvin played some piano. James "messed around" with the organ. tA Tribal Disorder http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think they mean music played with traditional instruments instead of similar sounds you can get from keyboards.
Personally I couldn't care less if a sound I like comes from a bass or a fork against a glass of water. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theAudience said: Moonwalkbjrain said: i mean think about it did Aretha play an instrument other than her voice?
You've never heard Aretha play piano? You don't know what you're missing. Marvin played some piano. James "messed around" with the organ. tA Tribal Disorder http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm o for real? wow i've never had the pleasure of hearing that b4....this still doesn't answer the main question tho..... Yesterday is dead...tomorrow hasnt arrived yet....i have just ONE day...
...And i'm gonna be groovy in it! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Moonwalkbjrain said: I c alot of yall talkin bout bring back the real music. and i c prince talkin bout bring back the real musician the real music. someone please explain to me 'real music'. cuz i wanna kno what YALL think it is. and don't give me and artists name either. like don't say this person is real music that person is real music, don't do that. just like break it down for me.
to me music is music, and it either sucks or it don't. but IMO i don't think you have to be able to play an instrument (although i do think it helps) to do real music and b a real musician. musicians r singers (the good ones only), song writers, instrumentalists and producers. i mean think about it did Aretha play an instrument other than her voice? what about James, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes and all that good stuff. hardly none of them played any instrument...unless u count their voice. so what is real music? i mean i'll b the first to tell u i don't like everything thats out now. and yall'r r right bout this few of these people are gonna b around in 5 yrs....and even fewer of them can actually sing. realy sing. but its still music and like i said it either sucks or it don't. so what makes it 'real'? is it that they can sing? can write? can produce? aren't pre packaged milli vanilli bullshit wit the voice tampered wit? what? Since theAudience gotcha on the Aretha and JB discrepencies, I'll take this end of it: with the advancement of studio recording technology a lot of performers' inadequacies are covered up in the recording studio. This means that during live gigs they wouldn't be able to cut it. And if you're a recording artist/performer who can't legitimately prove your mettle then how is anyone supposed to respect you? You're SUPPOSED to have some type of musical skill, even if it's just singing alone - which IS a skill. Technology should help you in the advancement of your music (think of Stevie's use technology in the early '70s), it shouldn't cover up your musical deficiencies. Our standards used to be higher. The music industry's standards use to be higher. And with the advent of video, it could probably legitimately be argued that it's done more harm than good. All you really have to do is have a flashy video that kids like and you'll go platinum, regardless of any talent you may not possess. The ultimate test is taking it to the stage. Spears has been caught faking piano playing during a gig (I think it was HBO someone said), and from what I'm hearing she seems to lip sync all the time, etc. This is a microcosm of what's commonplace nowadays as compared to the "good ol' days." William Hung's fame wouldn't exist if the musical climate held the same standards as it used to (no, not even for laughs). If it's wrong to want recording artists to have actual musical talent, I don't want to be right. And having said that, I still like "Toxic." That is all. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I still like Britney's Slave 4 U, no matter what Prince says.
And Play by Jennifer Lopez. And some A-Teen songs. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: Moonwalkbjrain said: I c alot of yall talkin bout bring back the real music. and i c prince talkin bout bring back the real musician the real music. someone please explain to me 'real music'. cuz i wanna kno what YALL think it is. and don't give me and artists name either. like don't say this person is real music that person is real music, don't do that. just like break it down for me.
to me music is music, and it either sucks or it don't. but IMO i don't think you have to be able to play an instrument (although i do think it helps) to do real music and b a real musician. musicians r singers (the good ones only), song writers, instrumentalists and producers. i mean think about it did Aretha play an instrument other than her voice? what about James, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes and all that good stuff. hardly none of them played any instrument...unless u count their voice. so what is real music? i mean i'll b the first to tell u i don't like everything thats out now. and yall'r r right bout this few of these people are gonna b around in 5 yrs....and even fewer of them can actually sing. realy sing. but its still music and like i said it either sucks or it don't. so what makes it 'real'? is it that they can sing? can write? can produce? aren't pre packaged milli vanilli bullshit wit the voice tampered wit? what? Since theAudience gotcha on the Aretha and JB discrepencies, I'll take this end of it: with the advancement of studio recording technology a lot of performers' inadequacies are covered up in the recording studio. This means that during live gigs they wouldn't be able to cut it. And if you're a recording artist/performer who can't legitimately prove your mettle then how is anyone supposed to respect you? You're SUPPOSED to have some type of musical skill, even if it's just singing alone - which IS a skill. Technology should help you in the advancement of your music (think of Stevie's use technology in the early '70s), it shouldn't cover up your musical deficiencies. Our standards used to be higher. The music industry's standards use to be higher. And with the advent of video, it could probably legitimately be argued that it's done more harm than good. All you really have to do is have a flashy video that kids like and you'll go platinum, regardless of any talent you may not possess. The ultimate test is taking it to the stage. Spears has been caught faking piano playing during a gig (I think it was HBO someone said), and from what I'm hearing she seems to lip sync all the time, etc. This is a microcosm of what's commonplace nowadays as compared to the "good ol' days." William Hung's fame wouldn't exist if the musical climate held the same standards as it used to (no, not even for laughs). If it's wrong to want recording artists to have actual musical talent, I don't want to be right. And having said that, I still like "Toxic." That is all. lol on the toxic thing. i like her too...she got some real catchy nice to dance 2 ones.. whoa so she wasn't really playin piano? dayuuum! thanks 4 really breakin that down to me...i feel what u sayin on the live thing and the videos...yea its just like the song goes video killed the radio star....yea i think its most definately wrong to lip sync and to cover up ur non singin abilities by abusin technology. Yesterday is dead...tomorrow hasnt arrived yet....i have just ONE day...
...And i'm gonna be groovy in it! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
gooeythehamster said: And some A-Teen songs. did they do the la la song? it wasnt as catchy as kylies la la song .... ps)hi gooey | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thanks for the "super"-assist Supernova.
Since I already wrote this, which echoes many of your well written sentiments, i'll post it anyway. Actually I was thinking of a reasonable answer to your question Moonwalkbjrain, but your Aretha Franklin comment knee-jerked me into responding to that immediately. This is just my opinion but I believe what people are feeling is a difference in what you get via major media outlets (radio,tv) then versus now. Of course you would have to have been there then to even make the comparison. That being said, a difference in age may be one of the reasons why this question comes up here periodically. In any case, back in the day, it seems that the focus was more on the ability to technically sing, play and perform (at a certain standard) well crafted material. At some point in time, image appears to have superceded the aforementioned skill set. This is what I feel many listeners are picking up on. It's almost as if all you have to do now is look weird, holler some outrageous lyrics over a drum machine beat and you're in like Flynn. Is this a generalization? Of course it is. Is this good or bad? Coming from a musician's point of view, quite a bit of it does not appeal to me. But every generation has their own musical styles and I won't sit here and condemn it all. There's quite a bit out there that I like. At the very least, you'd have to say that there's a different set of rules being followed. tA Tribal Disorder http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: Moonwalkbjrain said: I c alot of yall talkin bout bring back the real music. and i c prince talkin bout bring back the real musician the real music. someone please explain to me 'real music'. cuz i wanna kno what YALL think it is. and don't give me and artists name either. like don't say this person is real music that person is real music, don't do that. just like break it down for me.
to me music is music, and it either sucks or it don't. but IMO i don't think you have to be able to play an instrument (although i do think it helps) to do real music and b a real musician. musicians r singers (the good ones only), song writers, instrumentalists and producers. i mean think about it did Aretha play an instrument other than her voice? what about James, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes and all that good stuff. hardly none of them played any instrument...unless u count their voice. so what is real music? i mean i'll b the first to tell u i don't like everything thats out now. and yall'r r right bout this few of these people are gonna b around in 5 yrs....and even fewer of them can actually sing. realy sing. but its still music and like i said it either sucks or it don't. so what makes it 'real'? is it that they can sing? can write? can produce? aren't pre packaged milli vanilli bullshit wit the voice tampered wit? what? Since theAudience gotcha on the Aretha and JB discrepencies, I'll take this end of it: with the advancement of studio recording technology a lot of performers' inadequacies are covered up in the recording studio. This means that during live gigs they wouldn't be able to cut it. And if you're a recording artist/performer who can't legitimately prove your mettle then how is anyone supposed to respect you? You're SUPPOSED to have some type of musical skill, even if it's just singing alone - which IS a skill. Technology should help you in the advancement of your music (think of Stevie's use technology in the early '70s), it shouldn't cover up your musical deficiencies. Our standards used to be higher. The music industry's standards use to be higher. And with the advent of video, it could probably legitimately be argued that it's done more harm than good. All you really have to do is have a flashy video that kids like and you'll go platinum, regardless of any talent you may not possess. The ultimate test is taking it to the stage. Spears has been caught faking piano playing during a gig (I think it was HBO someone said), and from what I'm hearing she seems to lip sync all the time, etc. This is a microcosm of what's commonplace nowadays as compared to the "good ol' days." William Hung's fame wouldn't exist if the musical climate held the same standards as it used to (no, not even for laughs). If it's wrong to want recording artists to have actual musical talent, I don't want to be right. And having said that, I still like "Toxic." That is all. I have to hand it to you Supernova....you took the words right out of my mouth. You expressed exactly what I wanted to say but could not think of a way to do it. And you worded it so wonderfully and intelligently that no one could dare argue with you. You are truly bad in my book. By the way.....some of your one-liners really crack me up. Andy is a four letter word. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: And having said that, I still like "Toxic."
. [This message was edited Fri Aug 6 2:05:58 2004 by CalhounSq] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CalhounSq said: Supernova said: And having said that, I still like "Toxic."
Stick with that Target commerial extraordinaire who sings thru his nose - Lenny Krapitz. "Toxic" swings and you know this! Gracias, Andy. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Christopher said: ps)hi gooey
Hey sweets? How was the honeymoon? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
theAudience said: Moonwalkbjrain said: i mean think about it did Aretha play an instrument other than her voice?
You've never heard Aretha play piano? You don't know what you're missing. Marvin played some piano. James "messed around" with the organ. tA Tribal Disorder http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm Marvin was also a drummer. Bringing Together Five Decades of R&B/Funk/Soul/Dance
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/ | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
intha916 said: Marvin was also a drummer.
True. In my rush to respond I left that point out. tA Tribal Disorder http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: Our standards used to be higher. The music industry's standards use to be higher.
Yes sir. And I like Toxic too. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |