Time and again on various threads here I see artists refered to as manufactured. That they are puppets of the record companies, managers ec..

what exactly IS manufactured? for example on the aaliyah thread more than a few viewed her as manufactured. i dont agree at all. to me manufactured is like those 90s boy bands who got together through a third party and was told what to say, how to dress, how to be, what to sing and had no involvement in their finished product. aaliyah, toward the end wasnt like this at all.

so yea. what do you guys view as being manufactured because sometimes i REALLY do not get how some people can be regarded that way.

Moonwalkbjrain said:

Manufactured to me is you're a product of someone else's creation, not yours. You've pretty much summed it up, I'd say.

so then how is it decided whethere someone is or is not manufactured? i mean, who are we to say totally what is part of someone's own personal vision and what isnt
(thinking of rihanna in this case)

My attempt to describe it, this is generalised and can vary from artist to artist.

Contrived music done by groups with singing talent only. Take the Backstreet Boys and NYSC, Blue, Liberty X etc, all their music is what I call machine pumped as its pumped background beats and a drum machine with them singing contrived lyrics, dressing in happening clothes and the rest. This music has no credibility as they are singers and not musicians or artists. They don't generally play instruments in their songs (There are exceptions). And all the songs are generally written by people other than the singers. Theefore the record label does everything and the singers just go in and add vocals. This type of music goes back to the 50s and groups like Fabian, Frankie Avalon, Billy Fury, the Monkees, The Sweet, The Osmonds, Bay City Rollers Lief Garrett, Boney M, Bros, NKOTB, Milli Vanilli, Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears and various idol winners all fall into the category.
The music is really saccharine and generally has no lasting value beyond the period it was released. The songs often hit the top of the charts and then quickly fall, having short lives and many of the 'artists' have little memorability (Who remembers the Vengaboys? - they were huge 10 years ago). Many of the songs follow trends rather than start them, and the companies promoting them have a great publicity machine behind them. Often they may last only 2 or 3 years with mass popularity and then fade off, this may not end their careers altogether (Both the Monkees and Bay City Rollers, continued in the music industry for decades, releasing albums to little notice). The Spice Girls had two massive albums and their third barely charted.
To sum up, manufactured music is any music with marginally talented performers that have very little input beyond singing and looking good for the publicity their music produces. Its often trend following music designed and made by others for a mass audience. A good book called Bubblegum (Authors escape me, but they were British) came out a few years ago describing this music in decades.

Huggiebear said:

!!!

Alej said:

Read it all honey, and my explanations, I said it was a generalisation, but really syncopated beats and some warbling on about how they are a babe magnet and got the right moves is hardly credible music like Shoskatovich's number 7 or the Four seasons by Vivaldi is it?

Huggiebear said:

I can agree with this statement because nowadays, females, especially black female recording artists seems to only get a record deal if they look like Beyonce. As for the males, they're looking for someone that can imitate MJ. It's what's hip for the moment, and you lose yourself.

Moonwalkbjrain said:

I think that despite the fact Rhianna is not a very good singer, and her music is tailored for her to sing without her imput, her image supersedes it, and that is more than likely created for her. However,her image and music to me seems to have more originality than lets say, Beyonce. These two are the hippest chicks for the moment. To add, I like artists such as Sade because she doesn't follow trends. She is timeless. It is evident on her new CD.
[Edited 12/9/09 16:23pm]

Huggiebear said:

It's pop music It's not trying to be anything else other than that

Alej said:

Exactly. Music shouldn't try to be anything it's not. It shouldn't have to be "deep" or "complex" to be considered music either. I don't care if it's manufactured or not, if I like it, I like it, and that's all the justification I need to listen to it. I'm pretty sure you agree, too.

Anyone saying that "manufactured" stuff is bullshit needs to take a good hard look at the music they listen to, and realize that a good half of it is manufactured, without you even realizing it.

The difference between Whiteny Houston and Nona Hendryx

BenaimanBawkah said:

Act II

So why do we say bands like Bon Jovi, Journey, Styx etc..are manufactured bands?? they all write,play, sing live, etc..

Now manufactured is simply that there was an idea behind it day one, but that doesnt lessen the talent of being able to sing or even write or play. Girls Aloud are manufactured but i will take them anyday over a pop group that isnt, just as much talent and just as good vocally. Every single AI artist is manufactured but i will listen to Katharine Mcphee just as much as the new Joss Stone.

But in this respect, you can also say that someone like Robin Thicke, is manufacturing himself to sell now, hes doing a total 180 working with the hip producers of the day, and rappers etc... to get himself heard as opposed to not being heard like the last record.

Alej said:

True and thats why people buy it. Its the simple fact these people hit in the first place, rather than the fact they and everyone else probably knew they had 15 minutes of fame (Props to Andy Warhol) and a limited shelf life from the outset.