Her success is literally down to the Semisonic singer writing a good song for her to sing
what song is that? isn't that the case with just loads of people though
``"We didn't try to make it open-ended so it could apply to 'anybody.' We tried to make it as personal as possible. She may not have had a melodic hook or a specific lyrical idea, but she always knew what she wanted to say. She definitely had a master plan."``
she doesn't write all of her own stuff. She sings with a backing track an all.
his list of writing credits is staggering, he pretty much is R&B.
He also gives no fucks enough to turn up to the grammys like this:
Could be anyone singing those songs, they just got lucky.
If The-Dream did those singles and those videos he'd prob be some kind of Psy-esq Gangnam Style phenomenon thrughout the world.
just made me lol thinking about it.
I just think it's insane the way that people go totally batshit crazy over Beyonce - what is it they find so special about her? I mean, look how many people it took to write this mess of a song:
I don't mind Beyonce's music, but I can see the logic behind the praise someone like Lady Gaga gets a lot more, despite not enjoying her music *at all*.
'cause of her voice, style and so on. Different people would perform them differently and they'd probably be worse songs for it. That's part of what being a 'popstar' is about.
same thing really.
There's a difference between having a song produced for you and one written for you (Beyonce's seem to be both).
she's gorgeous though and i like her attitude but her music suuuuuucks
lady gaga is a tryhard
also probably best not to say bad things about countdown if you want to be taken seriously
That's nothing. It took eleven people to write this one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Just_Wanna_Love_U_%28Give_It_2_Me%29
It's called sampling, you buffoon.
Other than that it just sounds like 4 different songs stuck together.
so "Her success is literally down to the Semisonic singer writing a good song for her to sing" actually means "her success after her already pretty massive success is literally down to..."
Which is still wrong.
She's probably just a lot more talented than you'd like to admit.
So I say again, she's probably just a lot more talented than you'd like to admit.
Regarding that song: it's not particularly great. Rolling in the Deep is far better. Her fame on the back of that song was about her performance of it at The Brits or wherever. So it's very much about her making it the event it was.
that's literally the bizarrest, creepiest thing i've ever seen on here that wasn't posted by daddyorchips.
the fact that you even found that thread ffs...
Stop being a flange.
writes songs for Oli Murs
I'm pretty sure she has worked very hard and continues to work very hard to make the most of every opportunity that has been presented to her.
Having good fortune is one thing. Being prepared to take advantage of it when it arrives is another thing entirely.
i want to go drinking with her
means you should probably stop publicly complaining about paying tax on your massive income.
i'll do my best.
Person B says no, she's talented.
That makes sense.
It broke me. Adele can stay.
The odds of being such a gifted singer are small.
The odds of being such a gifted singer who gets noticed by labels and people powerful enough to give her a chance to work at huge success are smaller.
The odds of being such a gifted singer who gets noticed by labels and people powerful enough to give her a chance to work at huge success and of that work paying off to such a massive degree are smaller still.
It's daft to accuse her of being lucky pejoratively. It's probably even weirder to leap to her defence on that level.
we're all pretty unfathomably lucky really
I worked really fucking hard at existing and evolving.
I'm not sure she is a gifted singer. Her talent is one of performance.
Look almost EVERYONE can sing. Almost EVERYONE can play guitar like a guitar god. Most people don't put the hours in, that's all.
I don't think charisma is really something you learn but maybe I'm wrong on that score, but it's pretty much the only thing you can class as a talent. For most people talent is their way of not feeling guilty about wasting their lives watching TV/on the internet/etc. when they could have spent that time learning stuff. (10,000 hours and all that.)
Obviously all of use who have time to spout bullshit on this message board are lucky in the same way Adele is lucky. As in, we weren't born in some third world warzone where we had to fight just to keep alive and everything here would seem like trivial nonsense.
(Come at me, etc.)
just like adele's heart in the hit single 'someone like you'
Has she lost weight?
looks buff though
It's time to post my ABSOLUTE FAVORITE NPR story ever. I post this EVERYWHERE since I first heard the story on Planet Money:
Okay, that's a seriously disturbing read.
It just seems weird that vocal coach / producer is there to tell her how to sing the song so exactly? I guess the wording isn't so clear but it sounds like she doesn't even get to try sing it the way she wants, but it's entirely directed.
And also just the sheer money involved. I'd always thought a lot of the songs were commissioned based on songwriters sending stuff in, I suppose more like people writing stories to send into magazines. The amount everyone has to spend on something that feels like it really shouldn't be that hard.
This is what producers do - try it like this, try it like that etc.
I'm maybe putting more on it than is said, but it seems written from one of those "pwoper moosic for pwoper bands" angles.
But in the episode related to it, they point out one very interesting thing: how many people think of "Man Down" when they think of Rihanna? Not very many, because - at least stateside - that song was a flop. All of that money, all of that manpower, all that hard work... for a hill of beans.
That's the gamble, and the amount of hard cash involved is a little disheartening. There's nothing technically wrong with it; I consider myself to be a lover of pop music, and as such, I understand that pop music is just made a different way. It just feels a bit... homogenized?
then say the other singles made back the money.
In a 2012 music roundup podcast by the NYTimes they were saying how apparently Kendrick Lamar's album sold as much as Rihanna's but obviously cost a fraction of the outlay and how that might be scaring the labels.
I wonder if they are re-assessing this sort of expenditure.
Wouldn't it be lovely if the success story that comes out of Good Kid, m.A.A.d. city is that it made executives realize that the money they throw at pop music isn't worth it sometimes, and maybe they should start trying to hone the talents of the artist, rather than have them be little more than a marionette made flesh?
Bringing a bunch of people to the table can have the opposite effect – everyone pulls in different influences and ideas.
What I meant to say, it takes the music and hollows it out. It makes it feel overly processed in the worst ways.
One can only hope that having all of those different minds in the same room would broaden the horizons of the music. Even if the song they analyzed for the story turned out like crap.
Well I read around a bit more and that looks to be the album where she has fewest/zero writing credits on so I presume the others could have been done differently.
It wouldn't seem so weird if that was her first album, but it's her fourth. She was already popular, wasn't she? I just don't really get the point of spending so much to control such a degree to a singer's performance. By that time in her career I'd have thought she'd already know how to approach a song.
I don't know about "pwoper moosic for pwoper bands" hyperbole, though. It's not like there's only ridiculously processed highly controlled music and four lads in matching clothes banging stuff out in a studio.
Dunno, I can't comment much more as, Umbrella aside, I've never heard anything by Rihanna that I found remotely appealing, unlike, say, Adele or Beyoncé. I'm sure it's the same process for everyone but it just seems like it can't be squeezing out $15,000 of extra profit per song to have that person telling her exactly how to sing it like a director at a musical. I'm probably being naive though.
But the fact that they use the term "songwriting camps" seems incredibly deliberate, meaning that it's a regular occurrence.
I imagine they do the same for big label acts in all kinds of genres out there. I thought Xenomania was essentially the same sort of thing but was a company in its own rights.
I don't find the idea too surprising, although the costs and scale does seem quite nuts. But by the time you're through with the article you just feel like you've just seen Michael Bay make a film adaptation of your favourite book.
House Of Leaves does not need anything blowing up.
I definitely understand what you mean. It feels kinda dirty.
ie hiring 'teams' to go to a camp, i think, though i could be wrong, that it's more common for a producer to write a song and then sell it to a label, or in some cases a specific producer will just have a personal relationship with the pop star and they'll go to the label with it together.
my guess would be that it's cheaper to hire groups of people like this who will get paid once and not again, whereas if you get the-dream to write your song you'll probably have to give him a cut of the profits. but doing it that way is like security in case the album turns out to be incredibly lucrative for the label, with the offset being the dip in quality.
Thanks for participating
Soz and all that.
She may have not walked into the studio with either a hook or a specific idea, but that's not to say the other guy came up with both either. Could be a co-write, collaborative song, as the credit suggests.
It's not particularly unique in "serious" music either. Bat For Lashes co-wrote Laura in pretty much similar circumstances. You can also be sure that a fair amount of producers have similar uncredited roles - Chris Thomas was interviewed in something or other recently and his apparent input into some pretty classic albums seem to consist of similar methods, i.e. a band can walk into a studio with an ok song or a crumb of an idea and are pushed and cajoled into writing a better one.
I liked them, weirdly.
All About Chemistry is like a great 80s pop record that's too naff to constantly admit to liking, but it has a certain something in a Hall and Oates kind of way.
but her voice goes right through me. I don't like it.
But then I don't really like any overblown female vocalists. I don't think I do anyway.
surely no one doesn't like shirley.
she can seriously fucking cunt off
While meaning precisely fuck all
Rolling In The Deep
Set Fire To The Rain
It's just like my life!
sick of her ass
which is that the really high bit in the chorus is likes nails down a fucking blackboard
Report this thread