As long as the music is great, I ain't got no complaints.

Damn, we are talking about music here, not about something like Janet Jackson.

I always thought Janet could sing. It's a light tone at best, but some of those high notes on the earlier records don't get hit by girls that can't sing. I wonder what her range as a vocalist is at this point, when the studio isn't assisting her.

As long as the music is great, I ain't got no complaints.

MJPNFORLIFE said:

Welcome to the org.

I agree with everything but that bolded/underlined part. There are several genres of music that don't have singers. Classical, techno/house, and instrumental being three of them. Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach didn't need singers and their bodies of work are still amazing after hundreds of years. I can listen to a Paul Oakenfold song whether there's a vocalist on the track or not because he's just soo damn good. They have instrumental tracks on lots of albums and CD singles just so you can hear what a cool beat the song has . Prince's whole album, N.E.W.S., is instrumental and it's actually very nice...love Track 3 .

For me, a great vocalist should be able to sing without beats and/or instrumentals (a capella)...and still sound great (something that not many can actually do well), but they still need lyrics to sing. The singer may be able to offer something great to the song that the lyricist was unable to do (ie. good vocal abilities); but, I don't believe that singer is any better than the lyrics at the end of the day. I think Carole King is a waay better lyricist than actual singer, but that hasn't kept her from selling albums over the years.

Even if the singer is an outstanding vocalist, they can't always save a song that has bad lyrics. A bad song would be a bad song no matter how great the vocalist is. I've heard some lyrically great songs that were destroyed by the singer...just watch 'American Idol' in the auditions shows to see where I'm coming from. I never hate the song after hearing it be butchered, but I do have thoughts of beating the crap out of the singer who just tortured and viciously murdered a great song. This is probably the main reason why I can never go to karaoke night; it would just be too much for me to handle.

Sometimes, good vocalists can save the song, but if the lyrics and the vocals are bad, than you have only the beat left to rely on and great beats have saved many a lyrically and vocally terrible song for me. All these elements work together, but I don't believe they are all equal to each other in the end. Personally, I tend to concentrate on lyrics after I've heard the singer's voice. The lyrics are what I stay focused on more than the singer after the initial listening, but everyone hears and interprets music in their own ways. There is no right or wrong on personal opinion .

You mentioned Whitney, Celine, and Tina and I agree with your opinion. I do believe that it is a talent when a vocalist is able to take a lyrically deep song that was written by someone else and evoke the emotions described in those lyrics as if they had written the words themselves. That's a real talent that I can respect; and, that is what most of the great vocalists have been able to do soo well (unfortunately not all vocalist can do that even if they have great vocal abilities). Dolly Parton may have written and sang "I Will Always Love You" first, but Whitney 'owned' that song. Many people didn't even know that Dolly had originally written and recorded it years before Whitney's version. Personally, I enjoy both versions equally because they sound totally different from each other. I've always had a strange fascination with Dolly Parton for some reason....probably because I absolutely adore her movie 'A Smokey Mountain Christmas'.

In the end, I'd rather see an artist put their own feelings on paper and share them with the listening public as apposed to singing someone else's feelings. It's like choosing to read a biography over an autobiography. I'd much rather read that person tell me their life story than have someone else's interpretation. That's something that some people find important and others don't really care about, so to each his/her own in that respect. Personally, I prefer autobiographies.

Honestly, I've seen soo many songs be re-made and covered and end up sounding either better and worse than the original version and the only thing that usually changes during a cover is the person singing it, so that's probably why the singer rarely takes precedence in the song making process for me. I love the lyrics to 'Nothing Compares 2 U', but absolutely hate Sinead O Connor's version of the song...always have. I don't think she's a terrible singer; I just don't think she's a great singer, but that's just me. I respect her for interpreting it in her own way, but her interpretation of the song does absolutely nothing for me, but still shot up the charts during it's time so apparently lots of people really enjoyed it.
Oh, well, different strokes for different folks as they say. Just my

exenn said:

Of course she can sing!
The whole "Janet can't sing" claim is bullshit. There's a lightness in her vocal weight that I find endearing. She also has the best harmonies to ever grace soundboard. No one harmonizes like her!