|
|
Post by maddie509 on Nov 2, 2012 18:14:52 GMT -5
Also, I am sure the % of fans that actually go to concerts is small compared to those that buy the music and listen on the radio. You don't need to sing live. It does not matter for Pop. I guess that is what is so disconcerting in today's world. Michael Jackson, The King of Pop, could actually sing live. I guess that is why I had so much respect for him, he was a brilliant live singer since he was a little kid. IMO, someone is not a truly great singer unless they can sing great live as recordings can be manipulated. Wasn't Elvis considered pop back in the day? He could also sing great live. And both he and Michael, like Adam, could sing many genres. I never intimated that artists did not need the biz, promotion etc. and I wasn't talking about someone being a better songwriter over singer. I was talking about pure vocal talent. My point was simply that I believe before autotune that phenomenal live singing seemed to be valued more. Now ANYONE can be a superstar with little or no pure singing talent.
I believe your original comment to my post was "I am still trying to understand how someone who cannot sing live can be so mega successful", which I tried to give my poor 2 cents, and in no way or anywhere did I indicate that you "intimated that artists did not need the biz, promotion etc.". My point was "Even if you're the best singer in the world, there's a good chance no one will ever hear you", many elements of the biz have to come together to achieve any level of success, especially mega success.
And, I don't think ANYONE can be a superstar! There're actually very few true Superstars currently in the music scene, IMO, and autotune is not what makes them mega successful and gets them where they are now! But, you can certainly disagree with me on that, it's what this board is for and the whole point of having a lively dialogue. 
|
|
|
|
Post by evamaria on Nov 3, 2012 1:17:25 GMT -5
Definitely! The best singers were never guaranteed success. The difference, though, is that pre-autotune, you had to be able to sing to some degree in order to be a singer. You no longer need that; Rhianna, Perry, Swift, Kesha can't sing, live or dead.
btw I'm not saying that pop is worthless, or that all human involvement has disappeared. Many pop songs are beautifully written and produced by human beings. I'd love to see all this lead to the creation of virtual bands, virtual singers. Gorillaz, one of my favorite bands, is a virtual band.
|
|
|
|
Post by maddie509 on Nov 3, 2012 2:22:30 GMT -5
Definitely! The best singers were never guaranteed success. The difference, though, is that pre-autotune, you had to be able to sing to some degree in order to be a singer. You no longer need that; Rhianna, Perry, Swift, Kesha can't sing, live or dead. btw I'm not saying that pop is worthless, or that all human involvement has disappeared. Many pop songs are beautifully written and produced by human beings. I'd love to see all this lead to the creation of virtual bands, virtual singers. Gorillaz, one of my favorite bands, is a virtual band.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion in regards to Rihanna, Katy Perry and company's singing ability, as much as many people (including me) are to theirs about Madonna's singing, but after 30 long years in the biz, she's still the Queen of Pop and she's done it with all her might & wisdom and everything else except the superior vocal talent that she isn't blessed with (she's no better singer than Katy or Rihanna, IMO).
What I said in your above quote was to make a point that many elements of the biz need to come together to achieve any level of success, especially mega commercial success! Now, I see the topic has been somehow shifted away and expanded to superior vocal appreciation VS current Pop scene dominated by "singers" who cannot sing, live or dead! and how autotune has killed the music. These are all very interesting and subjective topics, I think I'll save them for another time...off to bed, night all! |
|
|
|
Post by evamaria on Nov 3, 2012 10:30:05 GMT -5
pre-autotune, you had to be able to sing to some degree in order to be a singer. You no longer need that; Rhianna, Perry, Swift, Kesha can't sing, live or dead [/size]. [/b] btw I'm not saying that pop is worthless, or that all human involvement has disappeared. Many pop songs are beautifully written and produced by human beings. I'd love to see all this lead to the creation of virtual bands, virtual singers. Gorillaz, one of my favorite bands, is a virtual band. [/quote] I most definitely did not write or imply that autotune "has killed the music." I said that "many pop songs are beautifully written and produced by human beings." They're just no longer sung by real human beings, as the singer is no longer necessary. You can have an excellent song with an autotuned (ie, virtual) singer--most hits by Rhianna, Swift, Kesha, Perry, Britney are excellent songs with virtual singers. I also said that Gorillaz, a band I love, is an openly virtual band. Live singer involvement is the only thing that has changed over time. That doesn't mean pop sucks (it does not) or that music is dead (it's not). Imagine giving Mozart complete virtual control over his music and presentation for Magic Flute. He wouldn't have to worry about the musicians or the singers. He would be able to create something that matched the perfection of his imagination. It would be gorgeous. I love modern technology. I don't believe it's killing anything. |
|
|
|
Post by maddie509 on Nov 3, 2012 11:48:21 GMT -5
I most definitely did not write or imply that autotune "has killed the music." I said that "many pop songs are beautifully written and produced by human beings." They're just no longer sung by real human beings, as the singer is no longer necessary.
Nor did I say you did. There're more than one person involved in this ongoing lively discussion; interesting and subjective point of views were presented by other posters as well, which they're fully entitled to and I respect.
Your take on autotune is rather interesting but is not what I was talking about or the original discussion was about, nonetheless, interesting.
Now, off to the studio again....
|
|
|
|
Post by evamaria on Nov 3, 2012 15:53:59 GMT -5
Nor did I say you did. There're more than one person involved in this ongoing lively discussion; interesting and subjective point of views were presented by other posters as well, which they're fully entitled to and I respect. Your take on autotune is rather interesting but is not what I was talking about or the original discussion was about, nonetheless, interesting. Now, off to the studio again.... [/size][/font][/quote] I thought you were referring to me, as the sole quoted text on the post was mine. Sorry if I misunderstood. Enjoy studio |
|
|
|
Post by maddie509 on Nov 3, 2012 16:23:38 GMT -5
Nor did I say you did. There're more than one person involved in this ongoing lively discussion; interesting and subjective point of views were presented by other posters as well, which they're fully entitled to and I respect. Your take on autotune is rather interesting but is not what I was talking about or the original discussion was about, nonetheless, interesting. Now, off to the studio again.... [/quote] I thought you were referring to me, as the sole quoted text on the post was mine. Sorry if I misunderstood. Enjoy studio [/quote] No, don't be sorry I could've worded with more clarity. Thanks, studio time was great, actually just got back...gonna take the kids to a movie later. Enjoy your weekend as well. [/size][/font] |
|
|
|
Post by maddie509 on Nov 5, 2012 16:33:04 GMT -5
These are numbers related so I'm copying them from the daily news thread over here for easy bookkeeping and tracking, big thanks to belle and blueberry!!
An update on radio play in Finland. I checked only regular programming playlists Nov 1 - Nov 3 (>3pm) for the six most important stations. The first two only play hits and appeal most to young adults, the others have more varied contents and have more listeners in over 35-year-olds. (A survey about listeners quoted in the numbers thread yesterday.)
YleX - no Adam at all (!)
NRJ - TPx7, WWFMx1, Aftermathx1
Nova - TPx11, WWFMx2
Voice - TPx5, Aftermathx3, BTIKMx3, WWFMx2, IIHYx1
Aalto - TPx13 (!!!), WWFMx2
YleXtrem - TPx2, Aftermathx1
[img src="![]() i770.photobucket.com/albums/xx348/Quu3/Adam%20Smilys/Other%20Smileys/clap.gif"] [/IMG] [img src=" ![]() i770.photobucket.com/albums/xx348/Quu3/Adam%20Smilys/Other%20Smileys/clap.gif"][/IMG] for Aalto and Nova! ...also Voice for the variety! [img src=" ![]() i770.photobucket.com/albums/xx348/Quu3/Adam%20Smilys/Other%20Smileys/clap.gif"][/IMG] [img src=" ![]() i770.photobucket.com/albums/xx348/Quu3/Adam%20Smilys/Other%20Smileys/clap.gif"][/IMG] And of course this is nice to see (again?) Radio Nova TOP20 (TP nr 1) www.radionova.fi/musiikki/listat/radio-nova-top-20/National Airplay Chart on commercial radio (TP nr 10) www.radionova.fi/musiikki/listat/suomen-suosituimmat/Link to Official Album Sales Chart (last week42 TP nr 11, now week43 nr 24)www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/albumit/2012/43[/size][/quote] [/IMG] www.radionova.fi/musiikki/listat/suomen-suosituimmat/[/size][/quote][/size][/font]
|
|
|
|
Post by rihannsu on Nov 8, 2012 19:07:21 GMT -5
There is a thread at Pulse to request updates on songs that are below the chart threshold on various radio charts. I had a request for any updates on Adam and this was posted last night.
11/4 update
This is his only current on Hot AC:
65 63 LAMBERT, ADAM Trespassing 44 56 -12 0.375
|
|
|
|
Post by Jablea on Nov 8, 2012 19:18:15 GMT -5
There is a thread at Pulse to request updates on songs that are below the chart threshold on various radio charts. I had a request for any updates on Adam and this was posted last night. 11/4 update This is his only current on Hot AC: 65 63 LAMBERT, ADAM Trespassing 44 56 -12 0.375 I'm seeing the -12 in my area. KCIX out of Boise dropped him from the mediabase play list so he hasn't been played here in over a week and they were an early add. |
|
