Why do so many performing 'artists' lack talent and skill?

Question

In the music biz, it's like the labels are looking for people who suck. 'Suck' is the new standard. For every Stevie Wonder you've got 10,000 tone-deaf models.

Same thing with film acting. For every Meryl Streep, you've got 10,000 sorry excuses for thespians.

What's going on? Is corporate America TRYING to destroy the arts, or is it somehow more profitable to do business with no-talent hacks?

Answer 1

talent is relative
and opinions are like rear ends everyone has one and they all stink

Answer 2

It's just as bad here in the UK. The quickest way to fame and fortune is to appear on a talent show. Ironically that route to fame would have been looked down upon in the days when an artist 'paid their dues'. The tragedy of it all is that there are many talented performers around the world whole will never be given the chance to share their talent, because the airwaves are congested with cheap, disposable, no talents. I think that the thousand-fold increase in multimedia created a demand for more and more people to get up on stage and provide some, any, sort of entertainment for the untold TV channels and websites out there. And these days it is the most physically appealing, ie: most marketable people in the line who will be given the chance to make the corporates some money first. If any reasonably attractive person wants to be in entertainment I think they could. Maybe Warhol predicted 2007...

Answer 3

I don't find your statement to be true. There are a lot of talented and amazing people who are performing artists. Perhaps you are focusing on those who don't meet your standards or perhaps you don't recognize the talent that you see. It is easy to find some "flaw" in anyone or anything. Meryl Streep is a very high standard, genius is rare, but solid talent is not.

Answer 4

I think that after this whole craze of reality tv and programs (people getting famous from myspace, the real world, etc), people are now more interested in seeing normal people get out there and attempt to show talent. Such as American Idol. I guess people like this whole feeling of thinking that normal people can be famous with no talent at all. Maybe it gives them hope to become famous? I think you're right though, the standards should be a lot higher for talent.

Answer 5

Money. An attractive woman who can match pitch and lip sync will move more records because of sex appeal. In the time it takes a company to find one and market one virtuoso, they can put out 50 tone deaf models.

It dissapoints me too.
That's why i live 80s rock and shun most modern music. They are not trying to destroy the arts. They are trying to make money. However, one is a side effect of the other.

Answer 6

Who sets the rules?

One who may suck for you may be the new Stevie Wonder for me.

I don't think that you are right. There always have been more and less talented performers. The good ones will still be known in twenty years, the bad ones won't

Answer 7

Actually, it's as simple as a considerable decline in standards for what people consider to be 'art.'

Personally, I think that the mere concept of William Hung getting recording contracts symbolizes exactly how wretched the state of entertainment has become.

Answer 8

It's much simpler for a committee to churn out 10,000 Spice Girls than for nature to produce one Jimi Hendrix.

Answer 9

Maybe if the public stops paying to see these movies or stop buting the music, then the talentless people you're talking about will stop getting contracts. It's us, not them.

Answer 10

Probably the people that make the "big bucks" are the producers and recording studios, they think, "Why throw pearls to swine if we can make just as much money by throwing garbage to them and we don't have to make it good garbage."