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

[Mexwero]

On 5/27/2021 at 11:57 AM, 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. 

Demi Lovato is another one. Christina did previously prove she can do so much with doing so little. This song right here!!! She was pretty much a back up singer, but was the STAR of this track without doing too much. 

 

[BUWYGF]

It's absolutely true. Being a great vocalist doesn't guarantee success, and also, being an amazing dance doesn't guarantee success either. 

 

Psychologically, people fall for people with CHARISMA. It's something Simon Cowell rebranded and calls it the "x factor". This is nothing but charisma that one radiates. Some people are more charismatic than others and this shows. 

It's in their smile, in their gesticulation, in the way they talk to others, the words they choose to use, whether their eyes smile along with their mouth. 

Talent without charisma usually falls flat simply because we fail to connect to people we find uncharismatic, they simply don't attract us. 

Mariah is an amazing vocalist, but she's also a very nice person and when she smiles she radiates (something observable significantly at the beginning of her career when she was a young artist breaking through).

Britney is an amazing performer but she wouldn't be as successful if it weren't for her amazing smile and kindness. She always had that bubbly face when smiling, and she was always a kind, southern gal. People connected to this.

Ariana is also an amazing vocalist, but it wouldn't mean a thing without her baby-ish behavior which is her natural persona. People connect to it.

And so on, and so on. This is basically why we see os many extremely talented stars flopping, they fail to connect to us. We don't see ourselves in them. We need our stars to either be our mirror, or a reflection of what we truly wish to become. We idealise this. 

[2K16NEY]

True!

I’ve always thought Selena’s music catalogue was impressive. She makes good pop music - I feel bad she feels like she should retire because of all the criticism on her whisper vocals but her music far exceeds that of Demi and Miley imo.

[jordeezy river red]

For studio singing, great vocals are not required. For live singing, great vocals are required. You need both (balance) to be a top tier pop act. 

[Invitation]

To me, a singer's tone is the most important in the song.

Sometimes, it's also about the singer's taste level. Salina can't sing for sure, but she has great taste level when it comes to picking her music.

[Urbanney]

I agree. I don’t really care about vocals unless they’re distractingly bad. I’m very rarely impressed by voices either because it’s just not a priority for me in music. I find vocalists that belt a lot very obnoxious and annoying.

[corpsetranger]

I highly disagree, being a great vocalist does make you a better artist than normal (I think you meant average) singers if the art in question is singing. Being a great piano player does make you a better artist than average piano players if we're talking piano. The voice is an instrument as well, I don't see why we'd judge by different rules. 

Now if you said that being a great vocalist doesn't make you a better entertainer than normal singers, than I would unhesitantly agree with you. We're on Exhale and the truth is that here very few people actually care about singing. They want to be entertained, they want a great show. Judging by the replies in this thread, I'd hazard a guess that exhalers don't even recognize a great vocalist. Contrary to what appears to be a consensus on here, Christina Aguilera and Demi Lovato are not great vocalists. Both of them are women who have the raw talent but refuse to learn how to sing properly (in Xtina's case I'd say that it's a conscious decision on her part to use an unhealthy vocal technique, as I've always got the impression she wants to stand out). They both oversing, they're both straining their voices. I wouldn't call Ariana Grande a great vocalist either, but at least she's been putting in the work over the last couple of years and you can hear an improvement. Regarding the normal singers, I hope you're aware of the fact that you've predominantly mentioned sub-par singers so far. Britney? Taylor? Selena? All of them struggle to sing, their voices are weak and they don't even pretend otherwise. Case in point, they're not marketed as vocalists. 

However, as I've previously stated, pop fans generally don't even pay attention to such trivial details. As longs as it sounds good, it's deemed as irrelevant whether a song came to life organically or artifically. Pop music (and every other mainstream musical genre to a certain extent, but pop music is in the forefront) is not so much about artistry, as it is about selling a product. Let me not be missuderstood, I'm not claiming they're necessarily mutually exclusive, i.e. you can sell art. It's just that more often than not pop stars are normal singer who don't sell art, but recycled sounds, recycled images, to put it simply, recycled ideas. And they do so due to their targeted audience's indifference to how authentic the work of art they are being sold actually is. Pop fans seek a certain type of entertaiment, they want props and costumes, smoke and mirrors. In the context where the music becomes the pretext of a sellar performance, its overall authenticity is truly not that important. The focus shifts to the performer since it's on them to sell the product. The performer could be a normal singer (their voice can be polished in the recording studio, after all), but it's mandatory for them to be a certain type of person. To enthrall the masses is a talent in itself – a tough pill to swallow for the pretentious, I know. However, different strokes for different folks. Some might go to a Céline Dion (whom some might consider a boring entertainer) concert and find pleasure in her vocal performance, not obligatorily in the songs she performs. Music wise, she is the better artist. 

Anyway, my point is: being a great vocalist doesn't make you a better entertainer than normal singers. 

[lustwecantcontrol]

On 5/27/2021 at 2:27 PM, FemmeFataleBrit said:

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

 

Lmao I died reading this! Celine’s music used to be good, but post 1999 you’re 100% correct! 
 

Honestly I feel this way about Beyoncé, she’s technically talented but her music does nothing for me and honestly a lot of her albums are mediocre minus a few good singles!  Same goes for Christina and Gaga I recognize that they sing well I just don’t like their voices/music! 

[ExXL]

True but it does make you a better singer. 

Just like being great at playing piano makes you a good pianist .

[ExXL]

4 hours ago, Invitation said:

To me, a singer's tone is the most important in the song.

Sometimes, it's also about the singer's taste level. Salina can't sing for sure, but she has great taste level when it comes to picking her music.

I totally agree , can't stand her voice personally, it sounds very flat and non Melodic to my ears , but she chooses songs that usually are not difficult to sing so she gets away with it somehow , can't deny that when I hear Sinead O'Connor or Whitney Houston or Sade I do feel something , even Britney might not be the greatest vocalist she made a style of her own and she can definitely sing in her own style and that's what makes her herself , with selena it's really bland and neutral ....