Jump to content

O.T.: Rihanna rips Tommy Lee and Gene Simmons


3shiftgtr

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Reuters 3/26/12:

 

Pop princess Rihanna responded to allegations by Tommy Lee (of 80's hair metal band Motley Crue) and Gene Simmons (bassist of Kiss and star of Bravo's hit reality show "Gene Simmons Family Jewels") of lip synch-ing to her songs in concert. In a brief statement she said:

 

"Who are these ass clowns? A guy with helmet hair and a drummer/slut that made a pron film with Pamela Anderplastic? Really? Do you see my butt? Seriously...can you see it? Take a pitcher cuz it is awesome. And I look AMAZING on camera. I have single handedly delivered a doubling in Kleenex sales to early teen boys. I can sing and I can dance and I'm pretty and I work HARD. And I got a team of producers and writers that know what they are doing. Those 2 old Viagra shareholder's problem is that they can't bone people my age anymore cuz no one my age would get near those 2 wrinkle sacks. So they dream of a lip synch they'll NEVER get. I'm sending them a complimentary box of Kleenex and my last couple of videos. Enjoy fellas, I gotta show to do."

 

Simmons and Lee were found commenting via alts at Harmony Central's Backstage With The Band internet Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Reuters 3/26/12:


Pop princess Rihanna responded to allegations by Tommy Lee (of 80's hair metal band Motley Crue) and Gene Simmons (bassist of Kiss and star of Bravo's hit reality show "Gene Simmons Family Jewels") of lip synch-ing to her songs in concert. In a brief statement she said:


"Who are these ass clowns? A guy with helmet hair and a drummer/slut that made a pron film with Pamela Anderplastic? Really? Do you see my butt? Seriously...can you see it? Take a pitcher cuz it is awesome. And I look AMAZING on camera. I have single handedly delivered a doubling in Kleenex sales to early teen boys. I can sing and I can dance and I'm pretty and I work HARD. And I got a team of producers and writers that know what they are doing. Those 2 old Viagra shareholder's problem is that they can't bone people my age anymore cuz no one my age would get near those 2 wrinkle sacks. So they dream of a lip synch they'll NEVER get. I'm sending them a complimentary box of Kleenex and my last couple of videos. Enjoy fellas, I gotta show to do."


Simmons and Lee were found commenting via alts at Harmony Central's Backstage With The Band internet Forum.

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

As an aside, it's funny how the term "Protools" has become a ubiquitous word used to describe pitch and timing correction.

 

 

I meant it just as in the recording software, which is fairly ubiquitious these days. But yeah, I understand the guy I was responding too probably meant the pitch and timing correction capabilities.

 

Of which I'm sure both KISS and Motley Crue have used numerous times. It's just a time and money saver: you've recorded a vocal line and it's all good except for maybe one note which is flat. Do you spend time and money doing another take, risk still not getting it any better, maybe wearing out the singer's voice in the process? Or do you just take a few seconds and "fix" the bad note? C'mon. Does anyone really think even the BEST singers aren't doing that in the studio these days?

 

And didn't "cheating" and "deception" begin the minute there was multi-tracking and individual lines and even notes could be "punched in" to "fix" a vocal part? Don't most people probably believe that vocal recordings are made in one continuous take?

 

But yet all of THAT is somehow "acceptible" but singing along with a vocal track on stage is not? Why? Can anyone give me any legitimate reason why the former is acceptible and not considered "fake" or "deception" other than we've just all become accustomed to "that's how things are done" over the last 50+ years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

And didn't "cheating" and "deception" begin the minute there was multi-tracking and individual lines and even notes could be "punched in" to "fix" a vocal part?

 

 

The HUGE difference is that punching in way back when still meant you had to sing/play the correct pitch/note....unlike letting the software fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The HUGE difference is that punching in way back when still meant you had to sing/play the correct pitch/note....unlike letting the software fix it.

 

 

Whatever. NOT huge. The only difference is YOU see one as acceptible and the other not because YOU grew up with one being the industry standard and the other not and the difference in what the technology made possible. ANYBODY can hit the right note given enough tries at it.... Seriously? You don't think people in the 70s wouldn't have been "letting the software fix it" if they could? Of course they would have. You don't think singers in the 1930s wouldn't have "punched in" or "let the software fix it" if they could? Of course they would have. Don't give me this BS that somehow earlier generations were superior simply because they didn't have certain technology. I just don't buy it.

 

Trust me---there were plenty of people who believed "punching in" was a "cheat" and a "deception" compared to the "REAL" way THEY had to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

ANYBODY can hit the right note given enough tries at it.... Seriously? You don't think people in the 70s wouldn't have been "letting the software fix it" if they could? Of course they would have. You don't think singers in the 1930s wouldn't have "punched in" or "let the software fix it" if they could? Of course they would have. Don't give me this BS that somehow earlier generations were superior simply because they didn't have certain technology. I just don't buy it.

 

 

Boy, do I disagree with this. If the technology didn't exist, you'd have to work on your vocal technique or get replaced by someone with a better ear, even if they didn't have the hot bod that seems to be the priority now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Boy, do I disagree with this. If the technology didn't exist, you'd have to work on your vocal technique or get replaced by someone with a better ear, even if they didn't have the hot bod that seems to be the priority now.

 

 

Yeah, but the point is that most people---regardless of their skill level--are going to take the easy way out and let the technology that exists do that work. I don't believe people in the past were any better people with any better motivations or with any better talent.

 

If you want to argue that the lack of technology forced earlier generations to develop their skills to a higher degree? OK, I'll buy that. But that puts the onus on the technology and not on the performer.

 

And I'd counter that by arguing that the same talent/skill level then just finds other outlets. Again, everything was much more specialized back in the day. Largely because it HAD to be. Had Rihanna lived 50 years ago, she might have spent her entire life developing her singing abilities and become a highly skilled singer. But she lives in 2012 where technology allows her to not have to spend that same effort on singing, so now she's got more time to spend working on her dancing, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yep, it was survival of the fittest in years past. Now, you can be kind of there and still make it.

 

 

You don't think it's survival of the fittest NOW? You don't think there's a million people wishing they could do what Rihanna does and are trying to, but they just can't pull it off? You don't think she's worked her ass off to be where she is while so many others didn't make it?

 

Don't you watch these TV singing contests and can see right away who has "it" and who doesn't? And that "it" isn't always just about the voice or the look or the attitude or the style, but about the combination of ALL that?

 

Don't you think that has ALWAYS been the case? That yes, while there has always been the occassional Ella Fitzgerald whose talent is just so undeniable that they were going to find a place in this business just on shear musical/vocal talent alone, that there has always been many more Doris Days or Patti Pages or Billie Holidays who were successful based on a that unique "it" combination of voice, look, attitude, style and uniqueness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Yeah, but the point is that most people---regardless of their skill level--are going to take the easy way out and let the technology that exists do that work.

 

 

. . . and to the extent that is true, we are all the poorer for it. Both listeners and performers.

 

And I don't necessarily agree with your specialists assertion. Depending on the era, many of them sang, acted, and danced . . . in addition to being pretty easy to look at.

 

You know the RKO screen test evaluation of Fred Astaire, don't you? "Can't sing, can't act. Can dance a little."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...