|
||
|
Title: Talent talent... Post by xaisies on Nov 16th, 2001, 2:13pm Just a random thought. I happen to have this 5 year free subsciption to Rolling Stone. Yes it's a junk corporate magazine. But the most recent one got me thinking... On the cover is Brittany Spears. Why does she sell records? Because she wears underwear. Only. Brittany sure as hell can't sing NEARLY as well as, oh for example, Sarah Slean. And certainly can't write in the same league... It angers me in a way. Sex sells... and the fact that Spears can't hold a candle to Slean's talent... arg. My point in all this is simply this: I am glad to have found music that is [/i]good[i] and not just "flavor of the month" popular. So it goes. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by Hejira on Nov 16th, 2001, 11:04pm You know, I'm no Britney fan, but I really see no point in comparing the two. They're both doing two completely different things. Britney is something else. She's like Titanic while someone like Sarah Slean is more like a Sweet Hereafter. Someone like Britney also gets the front covers of magazines like Rolling Stone, but she's over-exposed. Part of the charm of an artist like Sarah is that it's a more intimate experience. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by BananaPie on Nov 17th, 2001, 5:51am It's true, this is a case of "sex sells" and we are a nation of over-sexed freaks. (present company excluded, of course) ;) I kinda feel the same in that, it is like comparing apples and oranges. Although I much prefer a yummy red, delicious SLEAN apple, ocassionally I find myself noshing on a juicy, yet bitter, messy Spears orange. Never as satisfying, but an entirely different taste experience. I do find it rather pathetic when I see Britney do interviews where she pretends not to know that she is viewed as a sex symbol and claims to be "just a big dork"...then, the video plays and she's bumping and grinding and rubbing and singing. "I'm a slaaaaaaave for you"....sure....just a reference to the dancing, right? Uh huh. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by BananaPie on Nov 17th, 2001, 5:54am xaisies~> By the way, I love your quote. Too funny! |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by xaisies on Nov 17th, 2001, 9:55am I don't know if agree with the "apples and oranges" issue. They are two different styles but the fact is- popular nusic is popular music. Granted Sarah offers a more intimate and less... what's the term... I'll borrow from Banana here-- oversexed. But my point in comparing the two was this- how many BAD performers like Sarah Slean are out there? I'm going to go so far as none. But almost by nature of the style people who play things along the lines of Sarah Slean are somehow "deeper". Okay I'm generalizing too much. But here's another example. Leonard Cohen. Now the guy can't sing... but... his lyrics are deep and meaningful. Flowing and poetic. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by BananaPie on Nov 17th, 2001, 1:59pm What you said about "How many bad performers are there out there that are like Sarah? I'm going to go so far as none" I must disagree...although, I respect your opinion completely. I spend much time on the internet searching for music, which is how I discovered Sarah. Over and over I have discovered web sites, like CDBaby.com, and have typed into the search box to find artists like Sarah Slean or Tori Amos. There are lots of artists out there who want to be able to convey the same passion and depth that Sarah, for example, is able to so eloquently. Many of them, in my opinion, do not succeed. There is so much music out there and in every genre I have visited, there is stuff that just doesn't quite hit the mark. It is very rare that I find an artist with that perfect mix of a great voice, lyrics that really hit home and pure talent. You are absolutely right, though, in that we have something special in Sarah's music. I have a feeling there is so much more greatness to come. :) |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by xaisies on Nov 17th, 2001, 3:01pm There was supposed to be a "not" in there. *kicks himself*. I really hate it when I do that. NOT going to go so far as to say none as i too have found more than a few that try but do not succeed. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by BananaPie on Nov 18th, 2001, 2:24am AHA! It's all coming together now...;) We're on the same page. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by crimsun on Nov 20th, 2001, 1:18am Actually, I'm of the opinion that Ms. Slean is an incredible musician *and* a quietly sensual artist, but well, that stems from becoming attached to her artistry. :P Seriously, however, I can see the anti-corporate rant -- I don't particularly care for Rolling Stone myself -- but opinions, even trash ;), have some effect. Even if it is the undeniable one of "sex sells." As for Sarah's music, well, I'll continue to find it quietly appealing in both aesthetic and visceral senses, as I'm sure most here will agree. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by Nikolita on Nov 25th, 2001, 9:55am You have a very valid point, Sarah Slean is a VERY talented musician . . . Its not often that you find an artist whose music is so emotionally moving. In the case of Britney Spears, I think we can hardly call her a musician . . . she sings other people's lyrics to songs that are meant to appeal to the "teen-bopper" high-school girls that are looking for a catchy tune and a fast beat. Britney Spears is merely a singer with sex appeal, and unfortunately thats what sells. |
||
|
Title: Re: Talent talent... Post by farmer on Jan 13th, 2002, 2:10pm just wait.... i don't think it will be much longer till Sarah is blistering through the Canadian Media. After all, radio stations have to play 1/3 Canadian Music (i think?) so I think they would jump at the chance to play her after her new album is released. Britney sells because her record label promotes her so much. The world is run by the media. If they promote something, it will sell no matter what. |
||
|
|