Kelly is naturally pretty and that's why she's easy to love, her singing is always a treat!
2006-12-14 05:22:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Celeste P 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
So true, before mtv people sold records based on talent, not on the ability to look good or shake waht your mother gave ya!
What a shame for bands like heart and chicago and aretha, the list goes on and on. There are some talented people that never go anywhere because they don't have the look or they can't dance, it's always been an issue and it always will be for as long as videos exist.
Then there's the whole live show thing, the bands used to sing and play everything live and rock for 2-3 hours, now you get pre-programmed vocals and music and a 1-2 hour show. And the live shows of the 80's live bands were amazing and usually better than the cd.
What a shame that my kids are a product of a generation where the cd and video is better than the artist.
2006-12-14 13:28:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by claimusic 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Just because you don't like a genre doesn't mean that the people that sing in that genre have no talent. I know what people you are talking about and if you have the ability to set aside personal opinion and listen to their voices with pure objectivity, you will notice that the reason you don't like them is not because of their lack of talent. They are good vocalists. Maybe they don't play an instrument the way Ani Difranco does or maybe they don't write songs the way Bob Dylan or Neil Young does, but they do have talent. However, there are scores of people out there with at least as much pure musical talent as the most popular artists but receive no recognition. This you can point to a product of the 80's: MTV... Music isn't about visuals, it's about emotions. When you set something to video, you can either enhance it or you can detract from it. The amount of money that is generated for both the artists and the labels by creating videos has made it a necessity for pop artists to have videos and nobody wants to watch an unattractive person in a video. Unfortunate as it may be, it's the truth. Therefore, you can't blame the artist, you must blame the label. However, it isn't the label who decides who likes to watch what or what is going to bring in the money, so you have to look at the consumer. If the American consumer was more concerned with lyrics and intricate guitar work, you'd have a different group that would be considered "pop(ular)", but you don't.
2006-12-14 13:35:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Justin H 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
How is Shakira "using sex" to sell her music? Her signature dance is called BELLY DANCING, and is part of her Lebanese heritage. She wears more revealing tops, WHEN she belly-dances, to show off her moves. This is done in professional ballroom all the time - if you watch Dancing With the Stars, So You Think You Can Dance, etc, the ladies always wear gowns that reveal their moves. If they did not do this, you would not be able to see what they are doing. Shakira dresses this way only when she belly-dances. When she sings rock, she wears tee-shirts and pants. When she sings ballads, she wears gowns.
She has been around a long time. In fact, she had her first recording contract with Sony when she was 13. She is also a humanitarian - a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF and the founder of the Pies Descalzos foundation in her home country Colombia. She has an IQ of 140 and it shows in her interviews and t.v. appearances.
Speaking of IQ: Miss Kelly Pickler (whose voice is seriously lacking, IMO) made it through American Idol by presenting herself as a "country bumpkin" blonde idiot. So I ask you: what is worse? Expressing your beauty, sensuality, AND intelligence? Or making your living by shouting "WHAT'S A BALLSY?" onstage?
2006-12-14 22:41:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Heidi 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
i dont care for kelly pickler, give me some classic rock any day now thats talent! but i do agree with you it seems to be all about looks all glitz and glam no substance. Unfortunatly thats what sells today for some reason. But it gains the populairity by having much music or mtv play their vids constantly and it seems to be all that they play so it boosts sales. As far as Beyonce i think she is a really talented signer but has recently used sex to keep up her hype and Brooke hogan just plain sux she's no better than Paris hilton (how the f*** did she get a record deal she's the worst of them all!!)
2006-12-14 13:24:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by So Happy!! 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because record labels know that sex sells so you only have to be pretty to get a record deal. The producers can doctor up your voice in the studio and make you sound spectacular. But Beyonce can really sing though, you must have missed her singing the National Anthem a few years ago at the Super Bowl and she has even sang acapella before on one of Destiny's Childs albums.
2006-12-14 13:23:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by duvaldiva.com 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's quite simple, really. Glitz sells. The "music business" has been, for the past 40-50 years, just that... a business. However, in the past, the major record companies have been helmed by the old guard of recording A&R talent who, in addition to keeping the company books in the black, also had a knack for finding good, solid talent.
Unfortunately, most of the major record companies today are owned by much larger corporations, most of whom have little regard for what you would take as "real" talent. Their ideal motive is to move as many units (CD's, DVD's) as possible in as quick a time as it takes people to notice that the artists are subpar, then they'll move on to the "next big thing".
And since talent development is being pushed aside in favor of raw dollar amounts, it's becoming a vicious cycle, wherein most talent scouts at record companies are afraid to take a chance on unproven, different kinds of talent, lest they lose their jobs. A few of them will step over the line (for example, Norah Jones), but most of them have taken on the ideology of, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."
Sorry if this is long-winded, but it's the best explaination I can think of. I've read Bruce Haring's "Off The Charts" many times, and I can recommend that as a solid, if somewhat dated and stodgy, read how this all came to be. It's one of those books that, upon finishing it, I gave up on even thinking about becoming an entertainer.
2006-12-14 13:37:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by musbiz000 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
I like 80's music and 90's music and I also like some of today's female singers! Shakira has a beautiful voice and can dance better than any other female, she has a lot of talent!!
2006-12-14 15:25:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by ♥Stranger In Maine™♥ (Thriller) 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
To quote a Creed song: "Sex sells and the whole world is buying."
I happen to dislike all three of the girls you mentioned. But Kelly Pickler is great, and so is Carrie Underwood. I'd buy both their albums if I had the money.
2006-12-14 13:44:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by SassySours 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
You need to get off the radio man and broaden you're view. That's all you are going to get is that manufactured trash! there are some amazing female vocalist out there!!! Cat Power, Nico Case, Holly Golightly, Jenny Wilson, The list goes on and on. Try listening to women who actually write their own music and dare i say..play a instrument. Kill you're Radio, don't be happy with the status quo.
2006-12-14 13:25:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Okay I will agree 80's music was and will always be the best...............to you and me. We had our share of video vixens need I say her name..........................? The one who started all the I dont need talent just looks and a body. Hint: Material Girl. For now its what is in. Eventually the masses will get fed up with no talent and go back to the days of skinny ties, parachute pants and synthesizers. Until those days come back go get Ebn Ozn's Feeling Cavalier on CD. Party on dude..............
2006-12-14 13:30:52
·
answer #11
·
answered by powerliftingrules 5
·
0⤊
1⤋