Being a great vocalist doesn't make you a better artist than ''normal'' singers

[Look But Don't Touch]

I feel like it's obvious but people often forget about it. Who cares about great vocalists' abilities when their music sucks? You can enjoy their voices obviously, you can like their songs but don't say they are better than someone only because they can sing higher. 

Personally I prefer performances with amazing dance like Britney was doing in early 2000s and I truly don't care about playback. Standing and singing can be nice and interesting obvi but it's not my favorite. Maybe because I'm young  

There're voices like Beyonces, Mariahs etc. that are obviously powerful and great but there are voices like Britneys - unique style, perfect for hits etc. And guess what, I like Britney's voice much more. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Midnight

[redacted statement]

I don't really care about dance either. Performances and music videos are cool and all, but they're worthless to me after viewing them once or twice. I do care about playback, though. If a performance has 0 live vocals, I won't bother watching it.  When it comes to powerhouse vocals, I agree. I've never been one to care about vocal ability. Unique and recognizable vocals > powerhouse vocals. Obviously, I can enjoy powerhouse vocals, and I'll give credit where credit is due, but that isn't the be-all and end-all for me. 

[Look But Don't Touch]

@Midnight feature it

[Haha-Hehe-Haha-Ho]

This is why I cannot stand Xtina (sorry). Like girl, we know you can wail beautifully - we done heard you wail on the last 30 songs you wailed away on. But there she goes, screaming on the main chorus, yelling all over the background, and practically hollering her head off by the time the final chord progression rolls around. Like, please stop. You're not more of an artist or more talented because you have a pretty way of screeching. It's quite the opposite, the fact that you can't just carry a song without relying on your vocal loopdy loops just makes you more one dimensional if anything. 

[PokemonSpears]

8 minutes ago, Haha-Hehe-Haha-Ho said:

This is why I cannot stand Xtina (sorry). Like girl, we know you can wail beautifully - we done heard you wail on the last 30 songs you wailed away on. But there she goes, screaming on the main chorus, yelling all over the background, and practically hollering her head off by the time the final chord progression rolls around. Like, please stop. You're not more of an artist or more talented because you have a pretty way of screeching. It's quite the opposite, the fact that you can't just carry a song without relying on your vocal loopdy loops just makes you more one dimensional if anything. 

what I don't like about Xtina or Beyoncé, at least the performances I've watched, is that they never really sing the song in full. At least the choruses, it's like they're allergic to choruses, which to me it's the best part of a song and what I'm waiting for them to sing. If they're not going to sing that part, and only scream "ooh"'s and "aaah"'s or just leave the backup singers do that part, or even worse, just let the music play, I'd rather them just do playback.

I don't have anything against playback either, maybe because I grew up watching only tv performances (the first concert I attended was in 2017). At least here in Mexico, most of the times it wasn't even an option. It's like, artists were forced to do playback, because tv studios were not prepared to have a live band or live vocals, due to acoustics and all this stuff. Very few shows, even to this day, are suitable for fully live performances. Besides, most record labels preferred the artists to do playback so the song would sound exactly as people would hear it on the radio or the album. 

There are singers that are horrible at doing playback, like Shakira. But Britney, at least in the beginning of her career, she was really good, it's like, she didn't just move her lips, she did all the mannerisms to look as if she was indeed performing every single word. And her songs and her voice on the record are so good, that I don't mind hearing it. In fact, it actually almost bothers me when she sings live and it doesn't sound like the record (that applies for any artist), whether it's because they skip words, they sing in a different key, forget the lyrics, they do like a different arrangement, etc. It bothers me, because my brain already knows a song, and if it doesn't come up exactly as I know it, it's like

 

But for the OP, yeah, you definitely need more than a voice. Look how many talent shows there have been. Many telented people with great voices, and where they are? You need more than that, you need great songs, you need stage presence, you need the looks (whether we like it or not) you need charisma, etc

[Popcornie]

24 minutes ago, Haha-Hehe-Haha-Ho said:

This is why I cannot stand Xtina (sorry). Like girl, we know you can wail beautifully - we done heard you wail on the last 30 songs you wailed away on. But there she goes, screaming on the main chorus, yelling all over the background, and practically hollering her head off by the time the final chord progression rolls around. Like, please stop. You're not more of an artist or more talented because you have a pretty way of screeching. It's quite the opposite, the fact that you can't just carry a song without relying on your vocal loopdy loops just makes you more one dimensional if anything. 

We her fans love that tho. That is what makes her special. Theres a lot of songs on liberation tho whereshe doesnt oversing at all! But i personally love when she "oversings" 

[Popcornie]

U dont have to be a good vocalist to be a good artist but having good vocals does make u a better artist than if u cant sing well. 

[aleomg]

Mariah Carey says hello with her 19 #1 hits. 

Jk I do think you don’t have to be a powerhouse vocalist as long as you have charisma, attitude and other skills.

During Madonna’s early years, she wasn’t known for being a great singer. She gained a lot of success because of her forward-thinking artistry and dance skills.

A lot of successful artists are not the most talented singers and the other way around. It all depends on how you’re being marketed and stay true to your craft. 

And by successful I mean having their own strong fan base who will basically ride or die for them. And that’s something not everyone can achieve these days. 

[Stefani]

While I agree to an extent, I cannot tolerate a lot of the new "singers" these days who clearly have no talent and rely on whispering/mumbling on a track. It's lazy and shows just how far the music industry has fallen. 

[Look But Don't Touch]

What I mean is to be a good artist you don't need only a good voice. You need charisma, stage presence, hits etc. There's tons of amazing vocalists that are... boring and their careers don't even exist. I mean, cool, you can sing really good but that's not enough. Your voice can be amazing but your music can be trash, not creative etc. at the same time. And I know that some people hate that but it is what it is. The fact that you can sing so powerful doesn't make you a better artist than for example Britney. 

I hate all of these TikTok kids that want to be singers so bad but they have 0 talent. Talent isn't only about singing voice. It's about ability to make great songs, to be creative, dancing, charisma etc. 

[FemmeFataleBrit]

I mean, Céline Dion is a 10 singer but a 2 artist. 
 

 

[Haha-Hehe-Haha-Ho]

1 hour ago, PokemonSpears said:

There are singers that are horrible at doing playback, like Shakira. But Britney, at least in the beginning of her career, she was really good, it's like, she didn't just move her lips, she did all the mannerisms to look as if she was indeed performing every single word. And her songs and her voice on the record are so good, that I don't mind hearing it. In fact, it actually almost bothers me when she sings live and it doesn't sound like the record (that applies for any artist), whether it's because they skip words, they sing in a different key, forget the lyrics, they do like a different arrangement, etc. It bothers me, because my brain already knows a song, and if it doesn't come up exactly as I know it, it's like

Omg I totally know what you mean. It makes it extra frustrating when certain artists shade Britney or others for using playback or brag about how they only do live vocals, but then when it comes to actually performing their song, they don't actually do the track justice. It's almost like they know they can't replicate their sound on the offical track in a live setting so they go out of their way to make sure their live rendition is so purposefully different that it cannot be compared. I mean, it's understandable that they may not be able to recreate what they did in a controlled studio environment on-demand in a live show (even if it's just because of audio issues, like you mentioned) but at the end of the day what they're doing is not artistically superior to just straight up lip syncing in my opinion.

[Haha-Hehe-Haha-Ho]

1 hour ago, Popcornie said:

We her fans love that tho. That is what makes her special. Theres a lot of songs on liberation tho whereshe doesnt oversing at all! But i personally love when she "oversings" 

Fair enough, but I think the fact that her oversinging is a turn on for some (you) and a huge turn off for others (me) is proof in itself that conventional singing ability alone is not inherently a positive in terms of someone's artistry. If it was, then we'd all unanimously agree that Xtina was a better artist than Britney, which clearly we don't.

[princessmimi]

Agree and Christina Aguilera is the perfect example of that!

She may sing better than Britney but Britney has WAY better music.

[Look But Don't Touch]

I think The Weeknd and Ariana's performance with Save Your Tears they did today is a perfect example of this. They obviously sing good but they are doing nothing, just standing and it's extremely boring. Britney on VMAs 2007 was more entertaining 

[Bigno]

Artistry has very little to do with power vocals or great dancing. It's an intangible and there are tons of examples. Why Christina never really became huge and Britney did? Why, as someone already mentioned, there are hundreds of talent show winners with impressive voices and people forget them? Because the story of needing powerhouse vocals is one of the biggest lies of the industry. Example, Paul McCartney is far from having an extraordinary voice, yet he is such an artist no one could even argue with that, even if you dislike his music. Britney was very creative and had an eye to put into tangibles the intangibles of aspects like ***iness mixed with vulnerability. Even an immediate comparison of not at all powerhouse vocalists, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift. None of them have amazing voices. They have polished their technique, but no Mariah there. Yet, I think that Katy is a better vocalist than Taylor. Taylor can't do much with her voice and yet she has blossomed into an interesting artist, way more than Katy. Why? Because as obsessed as both of those can be with fame, I think Taylor really loves songwriting and Katy seemed to just want to get hits. 

So yeah, it's is a vision, a way of making the ethereal tangible, not reaching 8 notes. Does it hurt to have a powerhouse voice? Certainly not, but it's not what makes someone a true artist. 

[Circuit]

You've put into words what I've always thought!

Beyonce has it all but the music. All of her songs have aged really bad for me.

I've always wanted to get into Mariah as well, but I can't because her songs don't do anything for me.

Like yeah, they have the talent and starpower. But it doesn't make them any more interesting

[mythology]

Beyonce and Gaga can sing better than our fave

[Blackout2006]

I agree honestly!

[mean little lips]

100! It's pretty irrelevant