TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
He was absolutely horrible...terrible singing, typical lyrical content, and sloppy guitar playing with an absolutely disgusting guitar tone that sounds like an 80's Crate combo amp.
Ah yes, scores of slender people can win Grammys, but if a couple of overweight people do in a 4- or 5-year span, it's because of that.It's quite clear.
If Lizzo were thin, she wouldn't be receiving the accolades she does. She's like the new Adele.
Baby how you feelin'?
I wasn't aware of 'bad guy' until recently, it's but got 1.1 million listens on Spotify so clearly it's a hit.
I mean yeah it's catchy and a fun bass groove, but....Song of the Year?
I'm confused too!
Exactly! That's 1.1 BILLION listens.1.1 with a B not an M, which makes it even more crazy.
Modern music is measured by multi-faceted marketing. Not talent.
Most artists either steal each other's music or have someone else produce it for them. However, the most important factor is how many other products can this person (insert artist) sell? Can the pretty face or sex appeal sell clothing? Check! Can they sell Apple products? Check! Can they sell makeup? Check! Can they sell movies? Check! Can they sell (insert commercial product here)? Check!
And in the end - can they sell out a show? You get the gist of the game. The good news is that talented artists are starting to emerge on a local level that many of us can access on a face to face level. You just have to keep in mind that you can't gauge what you see on TV as a pathway to success. The Grammy's are as much of a business as they are a metric for musical achievement and talent.
Not to change the subject, but how about Poppy and her culty bipolar sunshine pop death metal?
She’s actually been around for awhile, formerly under the thumb of a svengali doing creepy breathy ASMR pop, and now is seemingly eclipsed by Billie, hence her ‘new’ direction. I wonder if Babymetal’s lawyers have called.
...but Adele has been successful in spite of her physical appearance because she has tremendous voice. I don't love her music per se, but she is undoubtedly a great singer. Lizzo, not.It's quite clear.
If Lizzo were thin, she wouldn't be receiving the accolades she does. She's like the new Adele.
Baby how you feelin'?
Aerosmith was hard to watch 30 years ago.Yep. She's a kid and kids like kids who make music. Unfortunately, it takes the legitimacy away from the awards. Used to be great songwriting and timeless songs were the rage. I watched but couldn't stomach much of the performers. Even the Aerosmith/Run DMC thing was hard to watch. I liked the Prince tribute but it was overdone IMHO. Cameras panning every which a way and not focusing on any one thing. Way too much focus on theatrics.
Doesn't roughly half the content on TBL entail some form of old people not understanding new music or why most people still don't make music that sounds like it came out in 1965-75? Hell, I'm old, and have a harder time understanding why people like Joe Bonamassa than Billie Eilish.When I watched the show last night and she won, I just knew there would be a thread here about her. Same as it ever was.![]()
That's most of pop music, to my ears.I don't get this Billy thing either, but the love for Lizzo has be baffled. I watched a few of her performances including on SNL; I thought it was a mixture of badly executed melodic rap complimented by mediocre vocal performance by a person with a good-but-not-great voice imparting largely vapid content. Some of its pretty creative in terms of genre blending, and her band is pretty solid. There is definitely some humor, not the kind I appreciate, but I guess that can be mildly entertaining... but in 2 out of 4 clips I watched she referred to females as b!tch3s and "Hose". No Thanks.
That's hardly a modern phenomenon. Crap is popular in every decade. We just tolerate the crap from our own youth, a lot more.Modern music is measured by multi-faceted marketing. Not talent.
That's hardly a modern phenomenon. Crap is popular in every decade. We just tolerate the crap from our own youth, a lot more.
The sad irony here is when they get big, a lot of em still end up greatly supplementing their income from that stuff.When Napster and P2P downloading reared its head, the record companies and artists took a hit to the pocketbooks. Musicians didn't have to rely on how Pepsi, Old Spice, Levi's, and Burger King ads as a primary source of income.
That's why you see modern artists all over stuff outside of their native realm.
Pretty much, but hey, different strokes, right? I mean, if it was all about technique and such, prog rock and fusion would still be big. But it ain't.Y'all are looking at this the wrong way.
You too can be a superstar just jacking around on soundcloud.
Whisper-sing over done-so-many-times-it's-hardwired-in-our-DNA chord changes? It can still happen.
Spew woke lyrics over bleh R&B? Take some flute lessons and just maybe.
My poly-ethnic slap-grass career beckons!!!
...but Adele has been successful in spite of her physical appearance because she has tremendous voice. I don't love her music per se, but she is undoubtedly a great singer. Lizzo, not.
As one with a dadbod but not really hung up on body image issues, I don't see the development of promoting artists that actually look like most people actually look is a bad thing. I find it shocking that it's still a novel concept to a lot of people.Adele's physical appearance and her backstory (being done wrong by a man, etc) are major reasons why she got so popular; "in spite of her physical appearance" doesn't apply because her physical appearance was a major reason why she resonated with fans and people with similar experiences.
Lizzo is the same way. No one would have a clue who she was if she didn't look or act like Lizzo.