Almost all pop stars can sing well on a technical level, it's pretty essential when your main job is touring the world singing every night. Especially when your chosen genre demands slick, flawless vocals. I wonder why people would think, that with an entire world of talent to choose from, record companies would spend millions engineering the careers of people who can't sing?!
Nah. I don't care for the music Christina Aguilara, Mariah Carey or any other of those divas put out but they can all sing. Miley Cyrus' music sucks but I've heard her actually perform folk music (a Dylan cover) and she too can sing. Conversely, Perry's hit singles are catchy but the girl herself struggles to hit the notes when she isn't being auto tuned.
Oh, I'm not brutal, just honest. If you're good enough to where a few tips will help you get better, I'll say so. If you're really bad, then it's best you know, because other people are likely telling you that you're great, so they can spare your feelings, and while I'm not going to actively tear you down, I'm going to be straightforward about it. Yeah, singing without having any talent is rare. Most record companies don't make that mistake. As for Katy and those high notes, high notes are a bitch to pull off. I can go from a low note to a high note pretty smoothly, but it's not good on my vocal chords, and excessive singing like that is going to take its toll on anyone.
Because with record companies, it doesn't matter if you can sing, it is how many units you move. It has always been that way. If your music doesn't sell enough (used to be after the first two albums), then the recording company drops you. If you are selling enough, they will continue to pour a certain amount of money into your career. Record companies don't care if you can sing, all they want to know is if you can sell music. To get specific about Katy Perry, her record company and other sponsors are not afraid to pour money into her career because the girl produces hits. If that ever stops, it won't matter a lick if she can or can't sing.
If she couldn't sing the record company would be paying her to write songs for somebody who could. Pop stars need not only to be able to shift records, but more importantly these days they need to be able to sell concert tickets, which you cannot do if you cannot perform live. And pop singers cannot get away with poor or out of tune vocals in the same way a rock band might. This is not the 80s anymore, people expect live concerts to be live. I'm not saying she's all time legendary talent or anything, but to suggest she can't sing is ludicrous.
Her songwriting is actually what I don't care for. It's serviceable pop with memorable hooks ( damn her!!!!) but there's no depth or growth evident.
No, if her music didn't sell the record company would be paying her to write for others. If her music sold well enough, the record company would let her keep recording them regardless of whether or not she could sing. It's generally true these days that most pop stars make most of their money from live performances, but the question at hand concerned whether or not a record company would keep a recording artist under contract if that artist couldn't sing. And as an aside, although I don't know this for a fact, I'd bet Perry is one of the few current recording artists who still make significant money from selling their recorded music. What pisses off concertgoers is an artist who sounds considerably worse live than on their recordings. As long as our recording artist who can't sing sounds no worse live than on recordings, fans are probably going to be satisfied. See above. Also, if an artist ever comes along whose off key, out of tune singing sells, the record company will keep that artist putting out product and that artist's fans will show up at concerts. Don't know if you're referencing my posts, but for the record, I haven't made a comment about Perry's singing pro or con.
That's a good observation. Her singing is okay, not bad but not great, but if she branches out her songwriting then it might be interesting.
Except for the fact that she's extremely pretty, in a world where visuals and sex appeal are at least as important as talent in marketing pop music...and have been since at least the 1950s. While there have been exceptions, a record company is as, if not more, likely to put out a pop record by an incredibly telegenic (but mediocre) singer as one with perfect pitch who happens to be plain.
Folk is pretty hot right now... Mumford & Sons, Of Monsters And Men, The Lumineers, Passenger to name a few more recent (pop)folk bands...
Like I said before, she needs to discover her inner Marvin Gaye circa the time he recorded What Going On.
Congrats, as bad as Katy Perry's music is, you've managed to rattle off four bands that are an order of magnitude worse!
That should be interesting. I wonder how it will sound. She's had some good songs (albeit overplayed).
Who said folk singers had to be gifted vocalists anyway? Let her do what she wants. It can't be any less worthwhile to me than anything she's done prior
I don't listen to pop anymore, Madonna, Lady fucking Gaga, Shakira, Rihanna, Pitbull, Chris Brown, LL Cool J, Vanilla Ice, Taio Cruz, ABBA, Justin Bieber, Radiohead, The Strokes, Blur, Dannii Minogue the whole industry is one giant joke, its the same 3 chords over and over again, some of the grooves, beats and melodies are exactly the same, they are so lazy these days they don't even bother changing the notes. The industry get some half naked teenager to shake their ass on the stage and bang the record company got another hit. Madonna is one of the most notorious sometimes she just rearranges other people's lyrics in cut and paste fashion and call it her own song, and you get painfully unapologetic lip-synching from other like Depeche Mode, Janet Jackson, 50 Cent, R Kelly. I blame the public for putting up with this crap. People like Madonna are the reason we need music critics ripping into these fools, to kill pop and kill the X-factor-Bla Madonna has a history of trying to horn in on credit for work she did not do or deserve credit for. This has been written about in several publications. It is discussed in the Andrew Morton biography about her titled "Madonna."An award winning songwriting partner of Andrew Lloyd Webber complained of her trying to horn in on credit for his song by trying to change a few lyrics. Critic :" So what does Madonna have to say? Unfortunately, not a damn thing.The new age navel gazing is far more obtrusive here than on her last two albums, and it's much more confusing and befuddled" One of my favorites was 90s number KLF featuring country girl singer Tammy Wynette, it had anarcho sex pistols feel, it had drugs, it had African gospel, it had rap youth culture, and it was simple and stupid and a big F-You to the industry, they were one of the few rip off acts to ever make sense before the age of internet and utorrentnapster hipsters. I imagine Katty might be able to play some simple Blues or Country or Folk there is not so much to making that simple stuff. The age of creativity and real music is truly over.
That reads like "old man yells at cloud" in regards to music. We have a lot of great musicians now from Gaga to One Republic to Adele to The Script and more. While all might not be to your taste, they're undeniably talented. Sure, there are some bad ones out there, but that's always been the case.