Members Vito Corleone Posted December 21, 2015 Members Posted December 21, 2015 Every successful artist is. She has a great voice that resonates with people and whatever push was behind her by the record company hit just right, she feels "real", she has a personality that is real and disarming, Amy Winehouse sort of set the stage for her, and, let's face it, she's really good. Every successful artist needs to be in the right place at the right time. History is littered with very talented people who never got public acclaim, were thrown under the bus by their record company, or had a potentially financially successful career torpedoed in some other way. Exactly. I think she's a really good singer and talent, but she's not the most amazing thing I've ever heard in my life or any such. Nobody is ever "that" good, but there are always phenoms in the business. SOMEBODY has to be 'Adele' right now. Might as well be her. More power to her.
Members tbry Posted December 21, 2015 Members Posted December 21, 2015 That's great. If you like it, you like it. But I just never got how Hootie and the Blowfish could outsell "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Abbey Road". I just don't see them in the same league as The Beatles or The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin or Bruce Springsteen etc. etc. all of whom they outsold. They just seem like the odd men out on that list to me. They were a huge phenomenon and I just didn't get it. Still don't actually. Maybe its as simple as an advance in consumerism at the time it came out...easier to buy more in 1994 than in late 60's or early 70's....that would be my guess...or more people really liked Hootie better. Thats possible, no?
Members Folder Posted December 21, 2015 Members Posted December 21, 2015 Has financial success EVER had to do with who you think is in the same league? Does Britney Spears deserve to be more successful than hundreds of thousands of singers who can sing better than her? We can play this game all day. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is probably one of the greatest singers of all time, so should issue statements like "Bruce Springsteen isn't in the same league as him and doesn't deserve it"? Or since Djivan Gasparyan is a considerably greater talent than any of the Beatles musically, they don't hold a candle to him and should not be as successful? Should we look at the Miles Davis band and say, "They can mop the floor with the Stones, Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin, Springsteen, The Who, Floyd, whatever, none of whom are in the same league as them, so they should be more successful"? I mean, the whole f**king argument gets stupid and leads to resentment and fogeyism. I wholeheartedly agree with you Ken. A lot of my favorite music is unpopular but we are discussing why certain artists like Adele can break through and become immensely popular. We are also talking about popular music not Jazz or World music. Could the Miles Davis band mop the floor with Stones, Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin, Springsteen, The Who, Floyd etc.. ? Probably so but they didn't make pop music per se so it would be expected that they wouldn't be on the same list as those other bands.
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 21, 2015 Members Posted December 21, 2015 Maybe its as simple as an advance in consumerism at the time it came out...easier to buy more in 1994 than in late 60's or early 70's....that would be my guess...or more people really liked Hootie better. Thats possible, no? Well, definately the 90s was a period of huge sales. Single albums released during that time often sold better than the catalogs of entire bands sold in the 60s and 70s. It's not really fair to compare sales figures from across decades as any measure of how "good" any album or act was. If you look at this list of best-selling albums of all time, you'll notice that outside of the 'classic' albums that continue to sell year after year and have accumulated their sales that way, most of the "big" albums come from that late 80s-early 2000s period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums. Hootie's album was the right one at the right time in being able to have elements of that 'grunge' sound but connect it with songs with a broader appeal across genres and age groups. Your mom might have hated Pearl Jam but thought Hootie had some "nice songs".
Members Folder Posted December 21, 2015 Members Posted December 21, 2015 Well, definately the 90s was a period of huge sales. Single albums released during that time often sold better than the catalogs of entire bands sold in the 60s and 70s. It's not really fair to compare sales figures from across decades as any measure of how "good" any album or act was. If you look at this list of best-selling albums of all time, you'll notice that outside of the 'classic' albums that continue to sell year after year and have accumulated their sales that way, most of the "big" albums come from that late 80s-early 2000s period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums. Hootie's album was the right one at the right time in being able to have elements of that 'grunge' sound but connect it with songs with a broader appeal across genres and age groups. Your mom might have hated Pearl Jam but thought Hootie had some "nice songs". Yeah and you also have to consider that Napster started in 1999 and CD sales started really declining in the 2000s so if the Internet didn't exist then that list would probably have a lot more newer artists on it. Here is the official RIAA list: http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-100-albums I want to say that I was not trying to knock Hootie and the Blowfish's success or their music. I was just saying I didn't really get why it happened. In my mind there were plenty of other bands doing similar stuff during the early nineties that were as good or much better. But something obviously clicked with the public when they first came out. I actually liked the stuff I heard from their second album a lot more but it only sold 2 million verses 16 million for their debut.
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 21, 2015 Members Posted December 21, 2015 The RIAA list is going to just be US sales. The one I linked is supposed to be worldwide sales, although a lot of that is just estimates, I suppose. But the 90s were definately a golden period for recorded music. A lot of those sales for older albums like Eagles Greatest Hits were due to people buying up CD copies in the 90s. Which makes the 20 million for "Come On Over" (39 million worldwide) or the 16 million for "Cracked Rear View" even more astouding as those albums would have sold the vast majority of their copies in probably a 1-2 year period.
Members Ernest Buckley Posted December 22, 2015 Members Posted December 22, 2015 A lot of my favorite music is unpopular but we are discussing why certain artists like Adele can break through and become immensely popular. As talented as she is, there is a part of me that truly believes a lot of her success comes from the fact that she is a big girl and breaks the mold (literally) of the 2015 pop diva. Considering most of us are overweight, theres something comforting about Adele in that she sort of "represents" most of us… call me crazy but if she lost 50 lbs. and started to look like Taylor Swift, she would lose some of that mojo…
Members UstadKhanAli Posted December 22, 2015 Members Posted December 22, 2015 I want to say that I was not trying to knock Hootie and the Blowfish's success or their music. I was just saying I didn't really get why it happened. In my mind there were plenty of other bands doing similar stuff during the early nineties that were as good or much better. But something obviously clicked with the public when they first came out. I actually liked the stuff I heard from their second album a lot more but it only sold 2 million verses 16 million for their debut. I didn't get that either.
Members UstadKhanAli Posted December 22, 2015 Members Posted December 22, 2015 As talented as she is, there is a part of me that truly believes a lot of her success comes from the fact that she is a big girl and breaks the mold (literally) of the 2015 pop diva. Considering most of us are overweight, theres something comforting about Adele in that she sort of "represents" most of us… call me crazy but if she lost 50 lbs. and started to look like Taylor Swift, she would lose some of that mojo… It looks like she already lost a lot of weight. I like how she's up front about everything and blunt and real, and people relate to her on that level and, who knows, maybe what you are suggesting as well.
Members Ernest Buckley Posted December 24, 2015 Members Posted December 24, 2015 It looks like she already lost a lot of weight. I like how she's up front about everything and blunt and real, and people relate to her on that level and, who knows, maybe what you are suggesting as well. Yeah, I enjoy her candidness as well. Her RS interview was interesting and she seems very level headed considering her success, especially when you compare it to some of the less talented and less successful solo artists right now… Bieber, Grande, etc… Its just refreshing to experience an artist that seems really grounded and yet can take the stage and do things others only wish they could. The other thing I find really interesting is that any conversation about Adele seems to have pages and pages of comments. Even over at GS, there is a thread there about her first single "Hello" off of 25 that is now 20 pages deep. Fascinating….
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 24, 2015 Members Posted December 24, 2015 As talented as she is, there is a part of me that truly believes a lot of her success comes from the fact that she is a big girl and breaks the mold (literally) of the 2015 pop diva. Considering most of us are overweight, theres something comforting about Adele in that she sort of "represents" most of us… call me crazy but if she lost 50 lbs. and started to look like Taylor Swift, she would lose some of that mojo… I think that with such "phenom" types, that EVERYTHING factors into it. Change up one thing about the performer/music and maybe the whole thing never happens. I think it's usually THAT fragile and therefore unpredictable. It's never "just the voice" or just the songs or just the look. It's ALL of it. Which is also why it's almost never sustainable at such a high level. I have no problem whatsoever predicting that this is probably Adele's peak. While she'll likely still be making records and having a nice career for as long as she wants to, she'll never have a moment like this again. Regardless of how good her next albums are. But, of course, if the labels follow their typical MO, they'll rush out and sign another dozen or so plus-size girls with big voices and give them similar material and then sit around scratching their heads wondering why none of them have even a fraction of the success Adele has had.
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 24, 2015 Members Posted December 24, 2015 Politically? Anyone has asked or cared about her politics?
Members Anderton Posted December 27, 2015 Members Posted December 27, 2015 Well I'm late to the party...finally saw Adele on a Saturday Night Live repeat. I understand completely why she's taken off...as the old saying goes, "it's the singer, not the song." She didn't use pitch correction, she's got great pipes, and I think she really believes what she's singing. On top of that, she seems genuinely grateful and happy to be able to perform in front of people. She just doesn't come across as your basic 21st-century self-absorbed attention whore. In a way, she's a throwback to the days when artists had to get along on whatever talent they had, not artifice. After years of being subjected to musicians who are anything but genuine, she comes across as real. The song almost becomes irrelevant at that point because people are relating to her as a person. It's not necessarily the kind of music I'd listen to (and I thought the mastering on the Skyfall theme she did was dreadful), but that doesn't keep me from giving her props and appreciating what she does. If she causes a revival of interest in musicians who actually have significant vocal instruments, so much the better.
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 27, 2015 Members Posted December 27, 2015 Well I'm late to the party...finally saw Adele on a Saturday Night Live repeat. I understand completely why she's taken off...as the old saying goes, "it's the singer, not the song." I guess. Adele's very good, but so are a lot of others who won't see her level of success. While I suppose it's nice that her success is tied more directly to her singing abilities than to other things, I still can't help but see it all as similarly shallow. What I mean by that is Adele gives people a reason to pretend they care about "real" music and "real" singers. They feel smart about themselves because having an Adele CD in their collection makes them feel like they know something about music. But, at the end of the day, I think most of her fans are just as shallow as those who like Britney Spears. A few years from now they'll all be gone and Adele will probably take a gig judging a TV singing contest show and parents will feel good telling their kids that Adele's opinion matters more than the other judges because she can REALLY sing! Or so someone told them back in the day, anyway. If she causes a revival of interest in musicians who actually have significant vocal instruments, so much the better. I'm always supportive of that. I feel the same way about the singing contest shows in that regard. Glad to see she's moving product. Glad SOMEONE is. Hopefully it turns out to help out the industry in the long run. But, sadly, I can't help but feel that being an Adele fan is just the latest "thing" for people to impress themselves and their friends with. Kind of like how having a Keurig machine in your kitchen tells the world you appreciate finer coffee.
Members Ernest Buckley Posted December 27, 2015 Members Posted December 27, 2015 I guess. Adele's very good, but so are a lot of others who won't see her level of success. Just trying to think who in recent memory (say the last 10 years) who has a voice like hers? I can`t think of any. Amy Winehouse had a unique voice but it fit into a specific genre. Lady Gaga has a decent voice but nothing close to Adele. Ariana Grande actually has a lot of potential but I think she's way too immature to realize that potential. Christina Aguilera also has a tremendous set of pipes but most of her songs limit what she does. Besides those singers, who else even comes close? What I mean by that is Adele gives people a reason to pretend they care about "real" music and "real" singers. They feel smart about themselves because having an Adele CD in their collection makes them feel like they know something about music. But, at the end of the day, I think most of her fans are just as shallow as those who like Britney Spears. I`m scratching my head over this comment. Adeles voice carries a tremendous amount of emotion with just one note. Spears could never do that and never will. To even compare the two shows a lack of vocal knowledge. No offense. I can't help but feel that being an Adele fan is just the latest "thing" for people to impress themselves and their friends with. Kind of like how having a Keurig machine in your kitchen tells the world you appreciate finer coffee.
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 27, 2015 Members Posted December 27, 2015 I`m scratching my head over this comment. Adeles voice carries a tremendous amount of emotion with just one note. Spears could never do that and never will. To even compare the two shows a lack of vocal knowledge. No offense. You completely missed my point. Maybe I just worded it poorly? I'll try again. Sure---Adele's a better singer than Britney. By miles and miles. No question. Us musicians all know that instinctively. Where we miss the mark is in trying to convince ourselves that all this success of hers is all about some new found appreciation among the general public for vocal talent. That she will somehow usher in a new era of skilled vocalists and musicians selling mega CDs. Sorry, but it won't. For the average Adele fan? They don't really care about great singing. Or know it. To the degree they THINK they do when it comes to Adele? It's really just a gimmick. She's a Craft Beer. Sure---those of us who really appreciate beer are glad to see more good beers on tap, but MOST of the people buying them? You could pour them Coors and they wouldn't know the difference. But they think ordering a "Craft" beer makes them a connoisseur. Don't get me wrong. I think Adele is very talented and I enjoy her music. And I applaud her success and wish her more. And, as a musician, I'm VERY much more happy to see her at the top of the charts than Britney Spears. But do I think her success means anything more substantial in the long run? No, I don't. Sorry to be so cynical about it, but that's just my take on it.
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 27, 2015 Members Posted December 27, 2015 Just trying to think who in recent memory (say the last 10 years) who has a voice like hers? I can`t think of any. No, you probably CAN'T think of any off hand. That's my point. You really think any of these vocalists are going to rocket to the top of the charts now that Adele has shown the masses what "good singing" really is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kiEopqyhqQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPDD3AjRdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV9FnxuQRhw
Members tbry Posted December 28, 2015 Members Posted December 28, 2015 No, you probably CAN'T think of any off hand. That's my point. You really think any of these vocalists are going to rocket to the top of the charts now that Adele has shown the masses what "good singing" really is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kiEopqyhqQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPDD3AjRdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV9FnxuQRhw Sorry, I don't really know you, so don't take this personally, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make even after you tried to explain it. No, none of these singers you put up are going to rocket to the top, though they are all fine singers...they just aren't Adele. The productions and presentations are good but not Adele good. I don't sit around and wait for Adele songs to come out but when I hear her sing she is better and that is why she is at the top right now and if she wants can stay there...she may have peaked, IDK but she is unique as are the artists you put up but they are not Adele unique. BTW I have no real talent as most of you on this forum do have, I just like music and once in a while I can play 4 chords and sing around the fire so take my non expert opinion with some salt...
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 28, 2015 Members Posted December 28, 2015 Sorry, I don't really know you, so don't take this personally, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make even after you tried to explain it. No, none of these singers you put up are going to rocket to the top, though they are all fine singers...they just aren't Adele. The productions and presentations are good but not Adele good. I don't sit around and wait for Adele songs to come out but when I hear her sing she is better and that is why she is at the top right now and if she wants can stay there...she may have peaked, IDK but she is unique as are the artists you put up but they are not Adele unique. And if I posted a video of Adele from a similar point in her career and you had no idea who she was you'd probably be shrugging your shoulders as well. My point is that Adele is very good, but most of the world loves her for great singing because they've been told to. She's the singer to love because she's so good. They know this because Rolling Stone and CNN and E! and everyone else has told them. She's connects to people because of her voice---which is a marvelous thing for those of us who understand good singing---but from a selling CDs/marketing standpoint, it's really not much different that whatever it is Britney Spears or anybody else uses to connect to people. Most of the world doesn't know great singing from average singing as long as they love the song and it connects to them. Adele is the right voice with the right songs and the right image at the right time. Put that together with top notch production and promotion and there you go. I'm glad she's on top but she's not going to usher in some new wave of public awareness or concern for great singers. Sorry to break to everyone but in 5 years time we can all meet back here and debate whether Adele is as good as she used to be and why hasn't her new album sold like the last one and wonder who the next Adele will be and continue on about the poor state of the music business and the poor taste of the general public.
Members Anderton Posted December 28, 2015 Members Posted December 28, 2015 What I mean by that is Adele gives people a reason to pretend they care about "real" music and "real" singers. They feel smart about themselves because having an Adele CD in their collection makes them feel like they know something about music. I don't know about that...I think you're overthinking it. I bet most people who bought her CD weren't evaluating her voice, rather, they could relate to it because of how it was presented. There are many singers who can connect with their voices; they don't even have to be particularly good (e.g., David Byrne). But she's the whole package of connection. It's just her, not dwarfed by some huge light show that minimizes her presence, with the voice mixed up high to catch the nuances while she's looking into the crowd, not at it. When people used to ask me how to be successful onstage, I told them it was simple - just make sure you're enjoying yourself, and the audience will pick up on that and enjoy themselves. Based on what I saw on SNL, she's truly grateful and happy to be up there singing for people. Either that, or she can fake it so well she should stop this singing thing and take up a career in acting. It doesn't look like singing is a hobby for her. She means it, and people like that. That's what makes me think "good for her" even though I highly doubt I'll buy her CD. She's giving people what they want, but I think the reason for her success is that she didn't calculate it. She is who she is, and that's what people wanted. As to whether one person (or group) can usher in a new age in music, the odds are certainly against it but Frank Sinatra did, Elvis did, and the Beatles did. What happened in each of those cases was they opened the door to other people who worked in the same genre, and because there was an audience for that genre, they had success. These things always run their course eventually, at which point something else does...or does not...appear.
Members Vito Corleone Posted December 28, 2015 Members Posted December 28, 2015 I don't know about that...I think you're overthinking it. I bet most people who bought her CD weren't evaluating her voice, rather, they could relate to it because of how it was presented. Well, that's my point. Yes, she connects with her voice and most of her fans will tell you they love her voice, but that's simply what is working for her. Yes, that gets us all excited as musicians because we naturally love to see an artist connecting with their voice or instrument rather than just a sexy image, inane lyric or a dope beat, but at the end of the day I don't think it's really going to change anything. As far as her ushering in a new age of music goes? Anything is possible, but my guess is to doubt she will because she's not really doing anything new. She's certainly not Elvis or the Beatles in that regard. A big part of her appeal is being a bit of a "throwback" and while throwbacks are sometimes refreshing, they don't really do much to move things forward.
Members Anderton Posted December 28, 2015 Members Posted December 28, 2015 A big part of her appeal is being a bit of a "throwback" and while throwbacks are sometimes refreshing, they don't really do much to move things forward. True. We live in times when people want the artistic equivalent of "comfort food." Movies are all about extensions of franchises - in the case of Bond and Star Wars, dating back around 50 years and 40 years ago, respectively. Guitarists want their tubes and analog stomp boxes instead of multieffects...and so on. So Adele is more a product of that trend than in instigator of it...as you said earlier, right person in the right place at the right time.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.