What Happened to Talent?

[Point Conception]

This was back when people needed talent. Today they stick any pretty in slutty clothes, put a microphone in her hands and process the audio to the point where you can't tell if she sings or not... And she might not be.

 

[marcusl]

I Googled Autotune a while back and came across some YouTube videos of famous modern singers with apparently good voices, followed by videos of them caught singing in a casual setting (away from a studio) showing that they can’t carry a tune at all. It’s pretty disgraceful.

 

[symbolipoint]

people needed talent. Today they stick any pretty in slutty clothes, put a microphone in her hands and process the audio to the point where you can't tell if she sings or not... And she might not be.

Some of us can yet sense on our own how fine or not that it is. Talent, if that's what is to be appreciated and valued, really does count.

addition: I will not say here online what performers or performances which/who are popular are without talent.

 

[Hornbein]

I Googled Autotune a while back and came across some YouTube videos of famous modern singers with apparently good voices, followed by videos of them caught singing in a casual setting (away from a studio) showing that they can’t carry a tune at all. It’s pretty disgraceful.

I checked up on this and with the selection of five popular power singers I got I preferred the nonAutotuned singing.

I have seen a vid of Famous Singer lipsyncing while dancing that sounded like she couldn't sing. But she wasn't trying, just moving the lips and concentrating on dance.

 

[Hornbein]

Music video creators have only a finite amount of effort to expend. Most of it goes into visual. In the old days radio and albums were what was happening so nearly 100% of your effort went into sound. So you would expect the old stuff to sound better. And it does.

I watch a lot of Kpop and about 95% of their effort goes into the visual. Usually to me the music is worse than nothing. As you might expect.

I live in east Asia and dance is much more important than in the West. Traditionally it was religious. Nowadays there are dozens of popular dance groups from South Korea, Japan, and China. How many popular dance groups are there in the West? Zero, as far as I know. I get the impression that Westerns think it is immoral or in bad taste or something like that. So I've learned not to share it with them. I think it is weird that China is less straitlaced than the USA but that's how it is.

 

[256bits]

Music video creators have only a finite amount of effort to expend

Entertainment is just that.
The industry itself is one of promotion rather than actual skill.
Whether a performance becomes successful is related to the amount of dopamine it instills in the brain.
And, most actors can't act. Nowadays the action figure is in a tight figure enhancing costume rules.

it is weird that China is less straitlaced than the USA

A throwback, still, to the ideology of the settlers who came to NA. People bring their culture, or what they think their culture should be, and attempt to impose it upon others. Example --> modesty --> Ed Sullivan Show --> Elvis Priestly and his swinging hips on live TV, Jim Morrison and the Doors with language and lyrics.
Times change, generationally.

 

[weirdoguy]

Today they stick any pretty in slutty clothes

Well, some people genuinly like artists in slutty clothes. I do. I also like electronic music and processed vocals. And to make something good out of it requires talent. A lot. And I rarely like someone who only sings power ballads with 5 octaves and stands still on stage. If one does like that, that's ok, but they shouldn't act like they are better because of that. And I see a lot of mature people who does that, "todays music sucks". Music is made for people to enjoy, if someone enjoys that sucky music, than it's ok. I can't fathom why one would waste their time e.g. making 50 minutes long youtube videos about how pop or electronic music should not exist. For me they are like those crackpots who figth their whole life to overthrow physics.

There are artists like:
- Grimes, who's mainly a music producer and she couldn't afford for real singers to sing on her songs, so she decided to sing herself, even though she's not a good singer. She pitched up her voice, and that became her hallmark
- Charlie XCX, who could sing very well, but she's more into songwriting and producing music, so she doesn't take care of her voice and use autotune
- Lana del Rey, who considers herself mainly songwriter, not a singer. And she's not that good live, everyone knows that, but her music is still worth atending her concerts.
- Britney, Madonna, ...

And I'll take all of them over whatever music you like. Because their music resonates with me and makes me feel good.

Btw, since I got jacked I like wearing slutty clothes too

 

[BWV]

This was back when people needed talent. Today they stick any pretty in slutty clothes, put a microphone in her hands and process the audio to the point where you can't tell if she sings or not... And she might not be.

Cowboy chords, stuck in one key the entire song, folksy tunes, plodding rhythm and a bunch of drugged-out hippies, what happened to sophisticated harmony and key changes?

 

[Bandersnatch]

Is this another one of these threads wherein everything was better when I was young and impressionable?

 

[Point Conception]

Not at all . And there is nothing whatsoever in the well thought out replies above to suggest that is the case? On the contrary: While talent can be subjective, and that's fine. The question is suppose to be evaluation of talent objectively. And some have answered that technically. So: Is this an irrelevant reply ? * And objectivity is something expected and is seen in the replies above from those with a science background...

 

[Ken Fabian]

I suspect biased sample selection that is not representative. There is no shortage of talented people who have good pitch and the industry usually chooses out of them, but yes, sometimes people are entertaining and popular without it and use such tricks. It is my impression auto tune is not that widely used outside of recording studios, where the high cost of another recording take for minor pitch mistakes makes it worth it.

 

[sharps4590]

Who is the greater talent, a Bach, Handel, Tchaikovsky, Mendelsshon or Chet Atkins, Christopher Parkening, Joe Pass or perhaps Tommy Dorsey, Harry James, Tex Benneke or Ziggy Elman? Then there's Cole Porter, Johnny Mercer, George and Ira Gershwin as well as Rodgers & Hammerstein, Jerome Kern and Irving Berlin.

All are incredible but, taste enters into the equation regardless the genre'. I can admire and respect the talent and skill of Rise Stevens doing Carmen....but I don't care for it.

Not long ago I was playing around on my guitar between church services and a friend recognized I was playing "I Wanna Be Around", a Tony Bennet hit from decades ago. She asked me why I liked Big Band/Swing/Pop so much when that ordinarily isn't a style of music popular in my area. The answer I gave is the same one I always give, 'because it puts a smile on my face'. I love country music from an earlier era as well and over 20+ years spent many a Friday and Saturday night on a bandstand as well as the occasional week long club gig playing dance music. There's a lot of talent in what is called country music today but I don't care for much of it.

What a person likes or thinks is talent ia 'a matter of taste and there's no accounting for taste'. That's my view from the Ozark hills.

 

[DaveC426913]

You have to be careful what you're comparing.

The topic is ostensibly about 'what happened to talent?' but arguably, it's more 'what happened to the importance of talent in large, widely-broadcast musical venues?'

The way we view entertainment, and therefore the way the industry creates and presents it, changes all the time, as does technology.

If what you seek is specifically musical talent, don't assume that's going to be reflected accurately in the giant concerts you're used to of yore. Perhaps seek smaller venues. Hard to say.

The point is: entertainment changes. There is a lot more now than just the talent of a single star or duo. Yes, that means that aspect may suffer. But it hasn't gone away , it's just moved to a different stage.

 

[BWV]

This is what is happening to talent now, took 45 seconds on Suno to generate this

 

[DaveC426913]

This is what is happening to talent now, took 45 seconds on Suno to generate this

Hmph.
AI doesn't even know you must have two verses before the first chorus.
And nobody even lost their pickup.

Amateur...

 

[BWV]

Hmph.
AI doesn't even know you must have two verses before the first chorus.
And nobody even lost their pickup.

Amateur...

Well maybe I should upgrade to the paid version

 

[Point Conception]

Well, some people genuinly like artists in slutty clothes. I do.

Sure , join the club. These days song talent has so much competition even from non song performance

 

[russ_watters]

Is this another one of these threads wherein everything was better when I was young and impressionable?

Yup. When in reality virtually nothing has changed. Manufactured boy-bands of the '90s-now? Terrible. That never would have flown in the '60s!

Everything today is sex and sex and sex and sex! Rock was more sophisticated in the '70s!

Lester Bangs is right: Rock and Roll is over.

Uh huh.

 

[russ_watters]

Music is made for people to enjoy, if someone enjoys that sucky music, than it's ok. I can't fathom why one would waste their time e.g. making 50 minutes long youtube videos about how pop or electronic music should not exist. For me they are like those crackpots who figth their whole life to overthrow physics.

No, you're wrong, sales is only the measuring stick for the quality of paintings, not music. Talent and skill are the only valid measuring sticks for musicians. Er, except impressionism, that's garbage no matter how much the paintings sell for.
\s

I live just outside Philadelphia, home of a world-class symphony orchestra that I see in concert a few times a year (and the Barnes museum of impressionist art). Their skill and talent is off-the-charts. But sorry, Brittney Spears is a better artist (or, rather, she and her team are better artists).

Not at all . And there is nothing whatsoever in the well thought out replies above to suggest that is the case? On the contrary: While talent can be subjective, and that's fine. The question is suppose to be evaluation of talent objectively. And some have answered that technically. So: Is this an irrelevant reply ? * And objectivity is something expected and is seen in the replies above from those with a science background...

Per my above, I agree that skill/talent is reasonably objectively identifiable (though not 100% exact). But never in the history of the world has that been the sole or even most important determining factor in what makes for a successful artist.

 

[russ_watters]

I live just outside Philadelphia, home of a world-class symphony orchestra that I see in concert a few times a year...

Bit of an aside, but a story: the Philadelphia Orchestra scored the original Fantasia. It was re-recorded for re-release in 1985. My parents took me to see it - I was 9ish. A Mickey Mouse cartoon movie? Count me in! OMG was I pissed off (and as my mother tells it now, she wasn't thrilled with it either). Awful. Just awful. I tried to re-watch it last year and still couldn't get through it. OK at best. And I'm a trumpet player who's played basically every genre of music that a trumpet can be played in. I appreciate it, but I didn't like it.

BTW, I downloaded the sheet music for K-Pop Demon Hunters' "Golden" on trumpet last month to mess around with. Good song for trumpet. Definitely worthy of that Golden Globe and pending Grammy.