Were past singers just vocally untalented or were they...?

Question

I hear American songs from the 60's-80's, and I think, "If the singers entered American Idol, they wouldn't pass the auditions..."

With a few exceptions, (Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, etc.) most of the artistes from these era are not what the people of today would consider vocally talented. But they were popular nonetheless. Most of their music are also not catchy, and lack an instantly recognisable tune... Can someone explain?

Answer 1

How old are you? Seriously.

The reason why some people made it big in the 60's was they could sing or they had the hook that was just right at the time. Bob Dylan might not be the best singer, but his words are magic and he took the folk route to success. The Beach Boys would be nothing if California's surf craze and hot rodding didn't capture the nation. Hendrix stunned the world with his guitar; who cares if his singing wasn't the best?

Then there are the groups who harmonized perfectly (The Mommas & The Papas; Simon & Garfunkle; The Byrds; Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; Diana Ross & the Supreams, The Ronnetts, The Temptations, and just about every Motown group ever). The harmonizers just proved that you don't need range if you have the right partners.

In the 70's you had disco and the counter-disco movements-Country Rock, (pure) Rock, and Punk. Disco was more about the beat and having fun. Pure rock was more about the music and less about the singers. Country Rock was more of a progression of the hippie lifestyle. Punk was about raw power and shock value.

In the 80's we had some descent singers, too bad we couldn't give them descent songs to sing. Rap also began to take shape in the 80's but they spoke the words and didn't really sing. Annie Lenox, Pat Bennatar, and Sade can still vocally kick the hell out of any American Idol singer.

Answer 2

I can explain. You are either *#@#$%^$& or you are totally kidding with this. I've been a professional musician probably for more years than you have been alive. I've had to play pop music from the early 1900's to the the most current hits. Believe me it wasn't all great stuff, but there were outstanding songs AND SINGERS from every decade.

I find exactly the OPPOSITE of what you say is true! Generally speaking the current music is not nearly as catchy or instantly recognizable as it has been. Generally, modern "singers" whine or rap much more than they "sing". American Idol is certainly not the sole criterion, and thank God for that.

In any case, the matter of which of us is correct will be known in the future. Let's see how many of today's hits are still being played in 10 years, or even 5 years. Do you know how many George Gershwin, Hoagy Carmichael, Cole Porter, Chuck Berry, McCartney/Lennon, etc. songs are recorded EVERY year? That should tell you something

Answer 3

The idea of what constitutes good singing has changed over time. Probably what you're perceiving as "talent" (or lack of talent) was actually that the people you are talking about sing in a different musical style from the one you prefer. But talent is not attached to any one musical style; it has more to do with the ability to perform the style you are doing well.

As far as the music, again, it was popular because that's what the people of those eras were willing to buy. The producers and artists sang songs that people bought then. Believe me, there are plenty of unoriginal songs being sung today, too. But that's what makes money for the people who sing them.

(And, by the way, I don't necessarily think that everyone on the radio today is all that great, either. But in a lot of cases the way they perform has been structured by the record companies and the artists to sell the most records possible.)

Answer 4

One could argue that a number of artists out today aren't exactly "vocally talented" either. It's hard to compare artists who performed 20-40+ years ago to artists today when the music styles were very different. Artists whose voices wouldn't appeal to the youth of today were very relevant in the times they appeared and reflected the music industry's desire to have lots of young artists producing records that were selling to the masses. Vocal quality varies in today's artists as well, so it's not just people from the past who had voices that didn't appeal to everyone.

I wouldn't declare the majority of artists as people who sang songs that were not catchy and not recognizable. Music from different eras appeals to different people (with some, like me, who like music from practically every era), so it's hard to say that a song isn't recognizable when it is unfamiliar to the listener. If you had grown up when the Drifters were huge hit-makers, you would find much of their music "instantly recognizable" today, whereas someone may have the same issues about Beyonce's appeal 20 years from now.


I think what qualifies a song as appealing is simply a matter of taste.

Answer 5

It depends on whats popular not who's really talented. How many people out there really think Linsay Lohan, Hillary Duff, Justin Timberlake and all of those people who are all over the tabloids are that talented? They are popular not talented. And some of the music from the 60's to the 80's are timeless. How many of us instantly know classic songs just from the first few rifts.

Answer 6

Yeah. I agree. Some of the music is OKAY, most of it is horrible though. But I bet years from now, when our children's children's children listen to the music we like, they'll think the same exact thing your thinking now.

Answer 7

Can you imagine Mick Jagger on american idol. Reminds me of a question...later

Answer 8

i agree with knightweilder....and i also think you might be smoking meth