Home Music Lane

It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

RE: What?

> As I stated before, the artist isn't really the problem. It's how the art itself is being promoted. And I think it's sickening.

Could you give an example? I suspect you are confusing publicity, specifically unsolicited publicity, with promotion. Now, it may be that some publicists believe that any publicity is good publicity, but I would hope we could agree that a person's life is at stake here. I would be curious as to what promotion exactly it is you would be referring to.

> I don't like the sheer phoniness...

Please explain exactly what it is about Amy Winehouse's music you find to be phony? Her work is considered to be largely autobiographical, and, as I have noted elsewhere, she writes or co-writes most of her material, nearly all of it, actually. What's phony about someone writing about their own life and experience & feelings & thoughts?

> Like that six-year-old on Brit Got Talent, who ultimately lost to Paul Potts.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Amy Winehouse.

> The problem is the pitch correction turns the music into garbage.

Disagree; like any tool, it can turn the music into garbage, but that's in the eye of the beholder. Right?

> It's destroying the essence of the art. I really don't know how good or bad a lot of these artists really are. It's like I wouldn't be able to judge cyclists who use training wheels, paint artists who use paint-by-number, or swimmers who use kickboards...

Maybe you'd be better off worrying a little less about judging the artists until you can determine whether or not you like the music? As you noted elsewhere, you're now down on artists you previously touted with great vigor here, while you have stopped bashing artists you had problems with previously. Yet you also said, not that long ago, that too much emphasis on chops distorts an evaluation of the creativity (actually, you were agreeing with a point I made in a thread where I was countering an attack on John Coltrane).

> I have not heard one performer or performance that used any sort of prefabrication (aside from the Monkees), that has impressed me.

Would you consider bringing in session musicians to replace band members--such as what was done with the Monkees--to be a form of prefabrication? I'm not talking about players playing instruments not included in the bands' lineups, I'm talking about players being replaced because labels or producers did not have faith in the abilities of the band members. That would include the Beatles, though Ringo being replaced on one single track in 1962 is, I would submit, rather trivial; however, it would also include many records that Jimmy Page worked on in the mid-60s, including, allegedly, early Kinks singles, and others, though I can't recall any other names off the top of my head. However, I have read in a few places that that sort of thing was considered to be standard practice. And I've seen that levied at the Who, as well, though I don't know whether or not that's valid.

> Although I admit I was duped into believing Renee Olstead, Celine Dion, and Michael Buble were fabulous singers, before realizing they were all pitch corrected...

I'd suggest that perhaps what actually happened was that you convinced yrself of their abilities based on you actually liking their music, which ultimately should mean more, I would hope, than what anyone thinks of their abilities. We've spent years going around & around on stuff like this, and I think a large part of it has to do with evaluating music based on the abilities of the performers without regard for the music itself. Way too much emphasis is placed on ability, far too little on creativity, a point which you agreed in the aforementioned Coltrane thread.

> What's happening is the art is cheapening, being produced in a phony and maybe even fraudulent manner, and people are being duped into believing it's great, mainly because they perceive consensus saying so.

People can be brainwashed, sure, but ultimately I think usually they like what they like. Meanwhile...fraudulent? That's a BS charge. What's being represented that's not true and could be actionable in a court of law? Am I missing something here? If pitch correction is fraudulent, then so is just about any other effect placed on any other recordable entity. Reverb, in this context, produces a 'fraudulent' result. So does a distortion pedal, noise gates, flangers, aural exciters, double-tracking, octave pedals...and on and on. Is punching in phony and fraudulent also because we're supposed to believe that everyone gets everything correct in one take?

> And the media and peers are expecting us to accept it as an "alternative" rather than call it for what it actually is- a decline.

I don't know where you're going with this.

> With pitch correction, I think I'm hearing the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. With no nuance. With no dynamics. With no soul. With no originality. With no complexity.

Sounds like something I remember hearing about the evils of multi-tracking, since it provided people leeway in the realm of the discipline required to get it right in one track.

> When the media compares a modern pitch-corrected vocalist to Billie Holiday, they're painting a huge target on both the music and the performer. For some people have gotten so sick of this con job. It insults their intelligence. It insults my intelligence.

Okay, so when was the last time you listened to Lady In Satin? I'm the one saying the Billie Holiday comparisons are not only ludicrous, but lazy. The only true comparison lies in the area of substance abuse. Winehouse's jazz phrasing evoking a Billie Holiday reference makes no sense when her voice just doesn't sound like Billie Holiday's at all.

> > "Bash away, sez me."

> As if I shouldn't...

I meant that sincerely. But keep it to her music, that's all. I still don't see much here that has to do with her songs; it's all about pitch correction.

> I think when it comes to songwriting, a good yardstick is simply how much the music is covered by other artists.

I don't think that's a good yardstick at all. For one thing, it doesn't take into consideration the wide disparity in licensing fees to cover this artist's work, as opposed to that artist's work. For another, there are some intangible factors that aren't always readily apparent. I'll try to make this point by comparing the number of covers of Beatles songs vs. the number of covers of Beach Boys songs. The problem is I don't have numbers, but I'll go by memory by way of anecdote: there were a million Beatles covers, more than 1,000 of 'Yesterday' alone by the mid- or late-70s, I do believe, and very few Beach Boys covers. I think there have been fewer Beatles covers in recent years, but I think that may have to do with their publishing interests charging more for the license. Regardless, both were hugely popular, and though of course the Beatles were more popular, wouldn't it seem odd that there weren't many Beach Boys covers? Well, until a friend pointed out what now seems to me to be completely obvious, it never occurred to me: so few attempted Beach Boys covers because so many, at least the popular ones, were so difficult to actually perform. But that doesn't make sense, because they sounded so simple, perhaps simpler even than the Beatles' music. Well...they weren't. Sure, examples to the contrary such as David Lee Roth's cover immediately spring to mind, but that's the exception & not the rule. What now seems obvious to me, was something that had never occurred to me before: and music, as art, is full of hidden truths that make it difficult for me to understand why you seem to view music as you do.

That's why I have suggested that you view it in terms of the market, as opposed to in terms of art. Pitch correction is no more the enemy than any other technology, though it can seem annoying in elevating lesser talents over greater ones. Yet you were one of the few who acknowledged hearing that Barbara Streisand sang flat! Ultimately what matters is the music, not whether or not someone can sing on key perfectly. And if someone who writes like Amy Winehouse has her records adjusted so that her pitch seems better than it is, I'll accept that. In a sea of poor pop music, I'll take this one artist whose music I do enjoy, whether their pitch is better than Barbara Streisand's or not.

I don't see it as that much of a big deal, especially since the hordes of others is easy enough to ignore...at least for me.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • RE: What? - J 02/13/0810:24:42 02/13/08 (1)
    • RE: What? - Todd Krieger 20:25:58 02/13/08 (0)

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.