Ghent Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 ahh so now it's just about marketing. not about looks, talent, or songwriting...just marketing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ghent said: ahh so now it's just about marketing. not about looks, talent, or songwriting...just marketing yes, easily. a large part of it is marketing. but that includes looks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 But Adele doesn't have the looks. I mean she has a certain beauty about her to me personally, but compared to her contemporaries she's a fat ugly slob. I can't tell you how many times I've had to defend Adele's looks in real life lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I dont think her personality is that charming either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Value Man Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 58 minutes ago, Ghent said: So how do you explain all of the songs Bob Dylan wrote that other artists made popular. Songs people don't even know he wrote. Even Adele has made a Bob Dylan song famous. How does this prove that songwriting isn't 99% of it? In those situations the song was amazing to begin with, it flew under the radar, someone took an amazing song, put a modern spin on it, reintroduced it, and it got its day. Alien Ant Farm scored the hit with the Michael Jackson song and that was basically their only hit ever. Because they could write their own stuff they had to make hits out of other people's songs. What you wrote doesn't prove at all that it is in the performance. I suspect there are many songs out there where you could acquire the rights and reintroduce it and it would do well, really doesn't matter who is performing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Olidamus said: How does this prove that songwriting isn't 99% of it? In those situations the song was amazing to begin with, it flew under the radar, someone took an amazing song, put a modern spin on it, reintroduced it, and it got its day. Alien Ant Farm scored the hit with the Michael Jackson song and that was basically their only hit ever. Because they could write their own stuff they had to make hits out of other people's songs. What you wrote doesn't prove at all that it is in the performance. I suspect there are many songs out there where you could acquire the rights and reintroduce it and it would do well, really doesn't matter who is performing it. I'm not trying to prove that it's the performance. That's your little straw man you set up to escape saying that you could replace Matt Skiba successfully (hahhahhahahha). If I was to provide an argument in your pivot attempt, I would say that it usually requires a healthy mix of looks/charisma, talent, marketing, and luck to make it big in the music industry. No one aspect outweighs another because it varies so greatly from case to case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, Ghent said: ahh so now it's just about marketing. not about looks, talent, or songwriting...just marketing No mate, I didn't say that. And do yourself a favor: stop keep on going from white to black over, and over, and over again when you debate something to overexagerate other's opinions. Is useless. To answer that suggestion: Is just about it all. It was explained weeks ago. Is about the look? yes. The talent? yes. The songwriting? yes. I said some time ago that if you don't have the good stuff, nobody will go and push you (except for some shitty acts we all know). But the money, contacts and the marketing? Of course too. Condition sine qua non if you want to put that look, talent and songwriting on the market. That's how it works. It's really fascinating and naive to me to see how many of you are still believeing in the industry as a thing that finds talent because the sake of it. And when I see that, I always keep on asking myself: does this people go to pubs, bars, shows and that kind of places in which you can see amazing talents being totally anonimous? And if so, do you think they are anonimous because they are worse than the talents that are toping the sale lists? No. Absolutely not. I would like to hear the people wh ohas a band here and has been or is trying to get higher with it I'm 100% sure, they have been in touch with this side of the game. Adele has a background as a musician, so she has her own credit to be respected. She may be on a commercial way, but hey, who can blame her for choosing that? And that's why I said earlier that you both have thrown some not adequate examples to illustrate this discussion. But the Dylan cover and its 'success' is, aside fro her nice rendition as performer, a matter of timing, promotion and stuff like that. To say hat she made it famous is a little bit of an exageration: the song was there, is nice, was covered for other artists before her and was pretty well known. In fact, have a look on the amount of artists that covered that song before her. I mean she went for a easy one here, which does not take credit off of her rendition, again I say. Oh, and I still think she's cute as hell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post daveyjones Posted February 21, 2017 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 my, somehow we're off on the hyperbole express here... i think an intelligent statement would be: being a popular and successful musician depends on many co-mingling factors. it is a complex, nonlinear system that is in many ways totally unpredictable. and yet there are defining probabilities. we could attempt to list these factors: - talent as a songwriter - talent as a performer - luck (i.e. being the right thing in the right place at the right time) - professional assistance (management, label, etc) - marketing - physical appearance - Q factor (if you haven't hear this term, look it up) for any given artist, the gradient of these co-mingling factors will be somewhat unique. an artist may have more talent as a songwriter (sometimes this happens when the artist's works are covered to greater acclaim by other artists). they might owe their success to their amazing stage show and live performance persona. they might simply be very media / promotion savvy. they may have been the wrong act at the right time. or the right act at the wrong time. they might be dead sexy and able to sing the words of their producer convincingly. they might draw a sizable audience due to sheer technical virtuosity. they might have a career that crosses generational lines, leading to an unexpected longevity. to generalize is to run the risk of overstating the case in one way or another. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Exactly. Thank you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, daveyjones said: my, somehow we're off on the hyperbole express here... i think an intelligent statement would be: being a popular and successful musician depends on many co-mingling factors. it is a complex, nonlinear system that is in many ways totally unpredictable. and yet there are defining probabilities. we could attempt to list these factors: - talent as a songwriter - talent as a performer - luck (i.e. being the right thing in the right place at the right time) - professional assistance (management, label, etc) - marketing - physical appearance - Q factor (if you haven't hear this term, look it up) for any given artist, the gradient of these co-mingling factors will be somewhat unique. an artist may have more talent as a songwriter (sometimes this happens when the artist's works are covered to greater acclaim by other artists). they might owe their success to their amazing stage show and live performance persona. they might simply be very media / promotion savvy. they may have been the wrong act at the right time. or the right act at the wrong time. they might be dead sexy and able to sing the words of their producer convincingly. they might draw a sizable audience due to sheer technical virtuosity. they might have a career that crosses generational lines, leading to an unexpected longevity. to generalize is to run the risk of overstating the case in one way or another. This is what I believe as well, which is quite different than "99% OF ALL MUSIC SUCCESS IS SONG WRITINGGGG YOU ALL SUCK AT DEBATING LOL LMAO" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osgod Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Wtf. What a debate...priceless. So one question @Olidamus: It wouldn't make a difference for you to watch a Blink 182 cover band which plays their songs perfectly? Would that be the same thing for you as seeing the "real band" perform because 99% is "just songwriting" anyways...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Value Man Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, ...and then said: Wtf. What a debate...priceless. So one question @Olidamus: It wouldn't make a difference for you to watch a Blink 182 cover band which plays their songs perfectly? Would that be the same thing for you as seeing the "real band" perform because 99% is "just songwriting" anyways...? It would be best to watch the "recording artist" perform the song. Because they recorded it. So seeing someone else do it, wouldn't be as good. But that could be just about anyone who can sing/play etc. Your point doesn't make performance important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoltan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Ghent said: But Adele doesn't have the looks. I mean she has a certain beauty about her to me personally, but compared to her contemporaries she's a fat ugly slob. I can't tell you how many times I've had to defend Adele's looks in real life lol. in her case it's not the looks. she was discovered as the contrast of the average popstar, and the hype was built around this from the very first step. she became an idol in an era when the media tried to give confidence to the fat women. ("plus sized models" on the magazine covers, melissa mccarthy, rebel wilson, adele and all these big girls were there to open a new market. clothing companies obviously profited a lot. and they shook up the music and film industry for a few years.) as long as people can connect to them they stay in business. then when the trend goes down, the marketing team will back out, and - talent or not - they wil never be that succesful again. so, yeah, good looking artists can be marketed easily, but sometimes the world tries to find a new form of beauty, tries to set a trend, and "alternative beauties" (oversized women, goth women, etc) will be a thing for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Value Man Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 57 minutes ago, Ghent said: I'm not trying to prove that it's the performance. That's your little straw man you set up to escape saying that you could replace Matt Skiba successfully (hahhahhahahha). If I was to provide an argument in your pivot attempt, I would say that it usually requires a healthy mix of looks/charisma, talent, marketing, and luck to make it big in the music industry. No one aspect outweighs another because it varies so greatly from case to case. I never said I could replace Skiba. That is YOUR little strawman. In fact I said just the opposite, I said I can do about 1% of what Skiba can do (perform) I couldn't do the other 99% (songwriting). I made that VERY VERY VERY CLEAR!! My point was and has always been that performance means nothing, many can do it, and songwriting is everything, I have provide like a zillion examples of this and for some weird reason, you don't want to believe it. I think it just your Oliver derangement syndrome. I have to be wrong in your mind. Its weirdo. But yes, I could basically perform (1% of it) as good as Skiba and after a youtube vid I just watched of his live performance on iheart, wow, that was not good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osgod Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Olidamus said: It would be best to watch the "recording artist" perform the song. Because they recorded it. So seeing someone else do it, wouldn't be as good. But that could be just about anyone who can sing/play etc. Your point doesn't make performance important. What? So watching the recording artist perform a song is better than a cover band but that doesn't make performance important...lol. That doesn't make sense at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Value Man Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, ...and then said: What? So watching the recording artist perform a song is better than a cover band but that doesn't make performance important...lol. That doesn't make sense at all... But this doesn't change the fact that good performers are a dime a dozen and it is much easier to learn guitar/ sing than it is to write a hit song. Just because I want the person who recorded the song to perform it for me doesn't change any of that. If I want a certain nurse to take care of me because she greets me with a smile, does that make her as valuable as the doctor performing the surgery? Sorry, the answer is no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osgod Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 Yeah I agree, it's easier to learn playing an instrument than writing a hit song but that's not the point. Like debated before it's about the whole package. People wanna watch a live performance of a band because they wanna see these specific "famous" people performing their songs. Matt might not have the best stage presence with Blink but he is a household name in the industry and is famous among punk rock fans. If you put a complete no-name on stage it wouldn't work, doesn't matter how good he or she is. According to you, an awesome Blink cover band would be as successful as the original selling out shows which is simply nonsense. Or to bring an other example: Why do. you think certain actors get paid millions of dollars for a movie when there are highly talented independent actors out there unemployed or working for a few bucks...? It has a lot to do with star cult...big names sell tickets, in music, film,... And your example with the nurse...don't think I have ever seen a more ridiculous example being made in a discussion...just lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Value Man Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 You aren't getting it; just because people want to see a recording artist perform the songs doesn't make performance more valuable. The nurse analogy is perfect because we are evaluating skill not preference here. A songwriter has more skill, holds more value, is far more rare, is far more important. You can hand the songs off to just about any performer. The actor analogy is the same, great actor, shit script=bad movie, ok actor great script= Great movie that makes actor famous........ Napoleon Dynamite Of course people want to see the actor they know in a movie, but as Mike Myers found out, you are only as good as the last script. Writing is everything!!!! This is so damn basic and it confounds me that people aren't getting very basic stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Low Value Boy Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 14 hours ago, daveyjones said: my, somehow we're off on the hyperbole express here... i think an intelligent statement would be: being a popular and successful musician depends on many co-mingling factors. it is a complex, nonlinear system that is in many ways totally unpredictable. and yet there are defining probabilities. we could attempt to list these factors: - talent as a songwriter - talent as a performer - luck (i.e. being the right thing in the right place at the right time) - professional assistance (management, label, etc) - marketing - physical appearance - Q factor (if you haven't hear this term, look it up) for any given artist, the gradient of these co-mingling factors will be somewhat unique. an artist may have more talent as a songwriter (sometimes this happens when the artist's works are covered to greater acclaim by other artists). they might owe their success to their amazing stage show and live performance persona. they might simply be very media / promotion savvy. they may have been the wrong act at the right time. or the right act at the wrong time. they might be dead sexy and able to sing the words of their producer convincingly. they might draw a sizable audience due to sheer technical virtuosity. they might have a career that crosses generational lines, leading to an unexpected longevity. to generalize is to run the risk of overstating the case in one way or another. THIS. Also like how Oliver hasn't responded to it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Kyle_ Posted February 22, 2017 Report Share Posted February 22, 2017 It's not an odd coincidence that 99% of every pop star or singer is attractive. There are occasional anomalies like Meat Loaf or Susan Boyle. But fuckability is a huge part of it. I don't get why this is debated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.