|
|
Post by Still Becoming on Nov 12, 2007 18:06:59 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
"That makes you the opposite then - a waste of time."
Ahm, the opposite of a time-waster would be someone who uses time wisely, but I understand how you missed that.
Look, I'm not saying that you don't have a valid point about the need for some true innovation in music. What I am saying though is 1) your point could have been made succinctly and in tandem with a REAL review of the CD in question and 2) it seems you have a lot to say about music and you should say it, but this is not the right forum. Do it on your OWN website, start a a newsletter, shout it from the rooftops, but stop mooching off of Amazon because this is how you end up wasting the time of people simply looking for helpful reviews.
Now I've graced you with too much of my time, but hopefully you finally get the point. Hopefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Nov 12, 2007 18:07:50 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
"Ahm, the opposite of a time-waster would be someone who uses time wisely, but I understand how you missed that."
Ha - got me on that one, I suppose. Hey, that's what jet-lag will do to you.
Anyway, accusing me of "mooching" off Amazon is a bit rich, don't you think? Isn't this site for voicing our opinions? And isn't The Curmudgeon's opinion, that yet ANOTHER one-shot reality knock-off is a VERY bad thing for the industry? Don't you think we should be saying no to this sort of thing? This cheap, manipuliative drivel dressed up as "entertainment" robbing gullible fools into parting with their money? Exploiting semi-talented cruise singers, convincing them they'll be megastars but in reality giving them a six month career before the soul crushing comedown?
Hey - nothing against Paul Potts. I'm sure he's a nice guy, I'm sure he's a good singer - but he's not a genuine star, nor does he deserve to be a number one recording artist, and in no way does qualify as real music, yet it outsold every other act in Britain, which will lead to yet more of this same lazy, uninspired stuff. So hell YEAH I'm going to voice my opinion on that. And in today's modern age, how does one do that?
I won't start a newsletter (because I don't live in 1986), I won't shout it from the rooftops (because I'd look like a maniac) and using the likes of Amazon as a podium makes people COME to my website, where we share our own views on stuff like this.
See how that works?
|
|
|
|
Post by GEN Malaise on Nov 15, 2007 0:15:08 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
Are you giving the album one star or reality TV one star?
I find a lot of your reviews amusing as hell, but I'm not sold on this one. For instance, in your review of "Electric" you took an opportunity to rail against how empty and shallow the recording industry has become by putting out such a horrible and vapid album, devoid of all real talent and origionality.
It would of been a bad album regardless of the state of the music industry, though. It sucked on it's own "merits".
This album was made by the unholy reality TV machine but, in and of itself, is it truly that bad? You've admitted the guy can sing, but brings nothing new to the music so that makes it "meh" to use internet jargon, not the one-star abomination that so much pop music is in and of itself.
Say this album was put out independantly, like how some musicians sell their own stuff after a show they do, totally unconnected with the reality TV monster. Is it a 1-star album?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Nov 16, 2007 1:09:10 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
Hmmmm.... good point, Gen.
Well, let's see - it's absolutley unoriginal, it's all been done better before, there is no depth or personality on there, and it was churned out in a week.
So I'd say it's already a 2 star album (and that's without even listening to it - I'd heard enough on the God awful TV show). Bland, copy-cat music is already bad enough, and that's WITHOUT taking into consideration the reality TV "monster." But that's not a very nice nickname for Paul Potts, is it?
The one-star decision stands.
|
|
|
|
Post by B Bork on Dec 15, 2007 8:54:53 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
trashcanman: "Artistry = creativity, creativity = originality"
I completely disagree with the above and the overall perception of mass produced material. My musical interest are rather narrow (opera produced from about 1750-1825) which is a pretty obscure period with the exception of a few monolithic composers like Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and Rossini. I've discovered, through the purchasing of opera by many lesser known composers like Paisiello, Cimarosa, Mayr, Galuppi, Weigl, Mosca, Martin y Soler, Salieri and many others that originality of the purest kind is pure illusion. The genius of the first tier composers that I mentioned above depended greatly on the abilities and innovations of the "lesser" second tier artists that came before them. Simply put, the Mozart's, Beethoven's and Rossini's of the world did what everyone else was doing at the time, innovated further, and did a better job than their contemporaries. It's amazing how comparative their work is when one takes the opportunity to look further into the compositions of others from the same period.
A good example, Mozart's opera Don Giovanni. A few months before Mozart's premiered, another composer by the name of Gazzaniga produced his own Don Giovanni which Mozart attended. It becomes obvious that elements of the composition impressed Mozart enough to influence his own output. The declamatory overture with it's jarring horn calls summoning the spirit of the dead. The descending minor key scaling of the introduzione signifying the death of the Comendatore; the comical duetto between Giovanni and his man servant in front of the Comendatore's statue; the turbulent finale when Giovanni is pulled down to hell along with the seemingly out of place post-hell denouement.
Mozart had no interest in being a singular, isolated artist apart from the world of his contemporaries, nor did he want to sacrifice his creativity to common devices if such things didn't serve his compositions. He composed with a "top 40" audience in mind (at least within the strata that could afford opera) and managed to transcend the genre through his own creativity and thus, as you said, originality but not with 100%... or even 50% creative purity. Mozart would not exist without the composers who came before him or his immediate peers for that matter, many of whom were incredibly popular (leaps and bounds more so than Mozart) throughout the European continent and beyond.
Over time, most of the musical output of top 40 artists will recede into obscurity while those with the most ingenuity, talent, charisma, resources, drive, creativity, etc will rise above the rest as examples of their times and as quality music. Others will rise up along side them too. Those un-heard-of's in their lifetime but, through the quality of their work, will transcend nothingness and enter the space artisitic acclaim.
Another good example that good music isn't isolated to obscure artists:
Bach
Mozart
Rossini
Bach was unknown in his life time; his two sons became far more successful and well known than the father ever did until after he died and his music began to disseminate from his place of output to influence countless other generations after him. Mozart, during his lifetime, was of moderate success. He wasn't a failure but also wasn't insanely popular either. He, of course, is among the top three classical composers of all time now (along with Bach and Beethoven). Rossini had a meteoric rise to popularity, displacing many other composers of his time in the process (like Mayr, and Mosca for example). He took Italy, Paris and London by storm, leaving his style imprint wherever he went. Of course, his best opera's are still incredibly popular today, probably just as much so as when they where first premiered.
I don't think quality music is dependent on "originality" because the concept of such a thing is mired in multiple other factors that aren't always unique to that individual. I've never perscribed to the fountainhead idea that good art and ideas flow freely from a pure source... they always have their progenitors in history (in many cases, the "top 40" of history), never in singularity.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Dec 16, 2007 11:56:22 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
Hang on, there's a world of difference between classical musicians honing and perfecting a genre to some dummy from a reality show singing a song (EXACTLY) the same way as it is on record - a record that was only famous to the mouthbreathing public - like Paul Potts - because it was used at the end of the World Cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Melnicoe on Dec 16, 2007 11:57:14 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
Hmm. Interesting that you would classify as "real music" David Bowie - Hunky Dory, Prince - Gold Experience (both actually reviewed by me on here), Weezer - Pinkerton, Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness, Ryan Adams - Gold, Elton John - Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, when the subject of your review was an album of opera and crossover. Have you actually listened to the Potts album or is your supercilious nonsense the product of a a bad drug trip while listening to pop pap? Not that David Bowie hasn't done some interesting stuff, but that, of course, is not what we are talking about here. The fact that Potts' fame has arisen from a TV game show cannot be the basis for judging his talent or his album. Others have certainly added more cogent thoughts to the discussion of Mr. Potts. Certainly, Potts possibly may be a one-trick pony, but that remains to be seen, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Dec 18, 2007 1:20:27 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
If you'd bothered to read through the rest of the comments on here (it's a chore, I know - so many of the same dull, "OMG hesreally tallentttted" comments) but I freely admit that of COURSE I haven't listened to this album. Why would I need to? Honestly - it's a an album knocked up in two WEEKS consisting of spot the difference soundalike garbage - THAT much is obvious for the cover of the Nessun Dorma song that started this whole dreary affair.
It's reality show music - do you think the people that wanted this album wanted challenging music? Do you think they wanted the songs covered here to be ANY different from The Songs They Know? Of course not.
Oh, and bright, white new teeth aside, I don't think Paul Potts has anything to surprise us with anymore, do you? The next series of Britain's Got Talent will be out soon, and that may be the only time you will see him on TV again.
|
|
|
|
Post by trashcanman on Dec 20, 2007 23:50:27 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
A very good post, Mr. Bork, and true. But I'm referring to modern music here which, while built on the work of their predecessors, never stops innovating. Did The Ramones and Bob Marley inspire The Clash? Of course, but who put the two sounds together and added a ton of other ingredients to the mix? Did Zeppelin rip off old American blues artists wholesale? God yes, but they built an entirely new sound around their work and as they grew as musicians Zeppelin never stopped experimenting until they sounded like no other band before or since. And Primus...'nuff said.
There IS originality out there, don't doubt that, it just isn't on the pop charts anymore. Creativity and innovation don't just mean nobody ever did ANYTHING that you're doing before, it just means that you never stop building on, adding to, or experimenting with the original stuff that inspires. Any moron can copy and reproduce a style exactly as it exists. Seperate yourself form the predecessors in some way, ANY way. Reality television karaoke contests where the winner sings only what they're told or allowed to exactly as they're told or allowed to is the furthest thing from either creativity or originality.
|
|
|
|
Post by BBork on Dec 22, 2007 23:47:46 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
In response to your first paragraph: We're saying the same thing here so I agree with you 100%. For me, one of the joys of studying music is determining the similarities and differences that various artists have with each other and those that came before and after. I do object to the differentiation of modern and non-modern as I see this evolutionary effect present in all times of history in all things (hence my examples and yours too).
In response to your second paragraph: Hmmm... it's harder for me to address current trends in music and your statement that originality isn't on the pop charts anymore as I do not engage myself like I used to with such music (the ravages of 28 years of age... I guess). In some respects I do understand what your saying. That was one of the reasons I turned to classical opera when I realized it as something new and full of genuine quality. I believe that, in many cases but not all, cultural revolution and change is for the young so being past my involved youthful prime, I can't say I participate in current musical originality.
As for reality television karaoke contests, it's the aftermath that matters to me. What can that winner do with his or her's own talent and ability? Will they succeed? Will they merely reproduce the works of others? Will they be able to write their own material? That's what I would consider the final matter on these characters.
At any rate, history does manage to separate the quality from the crap... it just takes a 100 or more years to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaine Hayward on Dec 30, 2007 20:48:44 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
I very much agree, but we differ on only one point. Paul Potts is not a good singer. Anyone with an ear who listens to real opera knows that, as i'm sure you do Mr Bork. He has no technique and not much above average in terms of voice. He is totally unmusical, to boot. It is a plastic album by a plastic singer. I downloaded a few tracks off limewire. I could barely discern the difference between Potts' effort and any crummy Russell Watson CD. Plastic singers with plastic songs and plastic arrangements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Guy on Jan 2, 2008 22:26:00 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
Curmudgeon, Potts just appeals to grannies, gays, "gurls" and philistines.
That's about it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Guy on Mar 27, 2008 0:54:36 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
I agree, Kaine. I wonder why so many people are out to defend this very ordinary album? It isn't as if Potts sings anything interesting or novel on it.
It is, as you suggested, merely a sub-Russell Watson album from a very ordinary popera wannabe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anna Marissa on Mar 27, 2008 0:55:18 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
I heard him on NPR (National Public Radio here in the former colonies) He's... an average singer. Kind of blah. And he claims that Pavarotti mentored him(!!!)
Granted,I like Yael Naim (who got props thanks to the MacBook Air ad),but she has genuine talent. She didn't win a talent contest. In fact, her debut album flopped big time. She works hard.
I find Paul Potts boring and pretentious. Of course,NPR was fawning over him as a "cellphone seller to tenor."
|
|
|
|
Post by Seraphim777 on Jul 4, 2008 16:10:17 GMT 2
ORIGINAL COMMENT FROM AMAZON.COM
OMG you love pop trash that does the exact same thing you complain about. They all do it for the money. I mean, Elton John does not do opera, nor should he try.
Yes......it brings opera to the masses. You haven't! What do you do except moan and whine?
|
|
