Quote:
Originally Posted by jjsoviet /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's good initially, but her music has no substance nor lasting value whatsoever. I'd pick Tom Jones than her, to be honest.
|
but can't you apply that to half of the popular music out there today? think of the rock bands that you roll your eyes to, the electronic music that you do the same to... it all boils down to what you like and don't like.
the point is that music isn't supposed to have substance. if it was, then we would all be listening to famous composers. music is supposed to make you feel good, or be catchy; be something that you link arms with others and dance to.
as for pop, the majority strikes the lowest common denominator everywhere, but here, people who are cute and cannot sing get hired by major corporations (all the time, many debuts every year) to sing songs written by clever melody makers, have their voices clipped, compressed - anything to make them sound far from reality.
though fewer songs in asia are about sex, sex sells waaaaaaay more simply because the 'artists' who lack any singing ability are hired because they will look good in a nearly naked photo shoot, or on stage in spotty bits of clothing.
lady gaga may have no substance, but that is par for the course. of something is popular (in any non-composer genre), it isn't usually because of their talent (which they may have); it is because the lowest common denominator has been struck within a mass of people.