I love this clip

I
If you think that an ugly woman can make it as a performing musician, then i think you're being very naiive. It's like me or you being a solo drummer trying to make it, the general record-buying public just aren't interested. It would be great if everyone was more like the people on here, and appriciated music for the actual musical talent and creativity rather than what they look like and how much money their hotel chain owner daddy has but the fact is that 90% of the music buying public are NOT. As i've said talent is marketable, but sex is a hell of a lot morseo and that means more money for the record companies.

Me being navie, now there's a new criticism.

Do you know that many of the major television networks in the states are trying to get this woman on their shows? What does it mean to make it? Your idea of making it will be very different than the next guys idea of making it. Working as a musician for many is making it. Here in NY I go see top ranked talent in small dives with 50 people watching them. Have they made it? Charlie Parker was one fo 'those guys.' Too bad he never made it.

A wealth of creative potential is squandered because people cannot think out of the box, and then they claim as naive those that can.
 
Me being navie, now there's a new criticism.

Do you know that many of the major television networks in the states are trying to get this woman on their shows? What does it mean to make it? Your idea of making it will be very different than the next guys idea of making it. Working as a musician for many is making it. Here in NY I go see top ranked talent in small dives with 50 people watching them. Have they made it? Charlie Parker was one fo 'those guys.' Too bad he never made it.

A wealth of creative potential is squandered because people cannot think out of the box, and then they claim as naive those that can.

I think you are being naiive. Just because one woman has been signed from coming on BGT who isn't the best looking, you think that somehow that signals a change in the entire music industry from being shallow and sex driven, to being proper talent making real music, regardless of looks? I don't think so.

I think you don't quite see where i'm coming from here, I would absolutely love it if the music industry was about proper people making proper music. I'm on the same side as you here. The difference is that i'm being a bit more realistic. All i'm saying is that the music industry is heavily comerciallised, I'm insulted quite frankly that you think value music for anything but creativity and originality and talent, I would love to see the current music industry stop being about sex and be about music for a change but the fact is that's it's gonna take a lot more to change the minds of the 95% of people who don't care about proper music. That's why i think you're being naiive.
 
Yeah guys, but charisma will trump looks every time. Janis Joplin was the prime example of that.
 
The female judge, Amanda?, put it best. It was a privilege to hear her sing. Where has she been hiding, and Razor you took the words out of my mouth, as I watched the clip before reading any of the posts, one cannot tell a book by its cover. Todays lesson has been taught. There will be a quiz every day for the rest of your life. Don't fail.
 
Yeah guys, but charisma will trump looks every time. Janis Joplin was the prime example of that.

Great point. I kept thinking of Janis too while reading this thread. KD Lang is another amazing talent that comes to mind.

A lot of blame seems to get heaped on the music industry and certainly some of it is deserved, but I tend to look more at the public that is actually spending the money. If they didn't speak with those dollars then maybe the industry wouldn't be what it is. I don't have the power to control everything the music industry does but I do control where my money is spent and I'm careful to support what I consider to be good artists.

Maybe it's kind of like the papparazzi that everyone loves to hate. They get portrayed as parasites feeding off of invading celebrity's privacy, but would they be doing that if millions of people weren't wasting their money on ridiculous tabloids?
 
I think you are being naiive. Just because one woman has been signed from coming on BGT who isn't the best looking, you think that somehow that signals a change in the entire music industry from being shallow and sex driven, to being proper talent making real music, regardless of looks? I don't think so..

No, I am not being naive. You seem not to be able to comprehend that you are stating the obvious. The whole reason why this is an issue is because of the way the industry is and the way historically woman have been treated in the industry. You also don't seem to understand that you are not thinking out of the contraints of your own value system.

Great point. I kept thinking of Janis too while reading this thread. KD Lang is another amazing talent that comes to mind.

A lot of blame seems to get heaped on the music industry and certainly some of it is deserved, but I tend to look more at the public that is actually spending the money. If they didn't speak with those dollars then maybe the industry wouldn't be what it is. I don't have the power to control everything the music industry does but I do control where my money is spent and I'm careful to support what I consider to be good artists.

Maybe it's kind of like the papparazzi that everyone loves to hate. They get portrayed as parasites feeding off of invading celebrity's privacy, but would they be doing that if millions of people weren't wasting their money on ridiculous tabloids?

I was thinking of KD as well, and there are a whole host of woman in the lesbain community who would fit that bill, and woman buy the product. In the days of Holly Near and Meg Christian, the idea of a woman in music was still a bit taboo never mind a lesbian. What about a person with a disabiltiy, a person with autism, Parkinson's?

So is it the pubilc or is it the media, or is it the industry. It's a great question. It reminds me of the line in The American President where the asst, Michael J. Fox, says that people drink sand in the desert because nobody is offering them water, and The prez, Michael Douglas, says "they drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

I think you need to have creative marketing. It would be nice if the the industry were socially responsible. Why in this day and age have we not cultivated the value that enterprises need to have a sense of social responsibilty? From where I am standing, that seems to be a given.
 
Last edited:
look more at the public that is actually spending the money. If they didn't speak with those dollars then maybe the industry wouldn't be what it is. I don't have the power to control everything the music industry does but I do control where my money is spent and I'm careful to support what I consider to be good artists.

Maybe it's kind of like the papparazzi that everyone loves to hate. They get portrayed as parasites feeding off of invading celebrity's privacy, but would they be doing that if millions of people weren't wasting their money on ridiculous tabloids?


Good comment. The issue really is "whats coming at the public ?" Is everything thats out there really within your reach?

And the "what" is controlled by powerful vested interests who are singularily interested in getting the biggest bang for their buck.

Ideally one would want to live in a system ( applies to any system actually-our schools, universities, science research, music, art, finance... etc etc ) that has a filtration mechanism that encourages the quality to rise to the top. And encourages the new, the unfamiliar, the uncomfortable..
Now thats a progressive,creative setting.

But when opportunism grabs at the possibilities and manipulates the system, squeezing out and killing everything thats not a sure bet, then everything gets messed up as we saw recently on Wall Street.

Sure there are exceptions to every theory and for every 20 Paris Hiltons there will be a Norah Jones.
Nevertheless, our avenues to discover 'new music' are also largely controlled by the same people who produced Paris Hilton in all likelihood. The digital medium circumvents that to some extent, but not entirely.

Your point about paparazzism is a good one too, but with an ethical twist to it. There is profit to be made by the exploitation of all basic human instincts.

Fear, Greed, Lust, Jealousy, Aspiration, Voyeurism, ...the list goes on.

To what extent is it a legitimate business proposition is the question here.

There will always be manipulators. Do we need better controllers to 'watch-dog' the manipulators or does that becomes censorship and a 1st amendment issue?....

...sorry, this post is twisting out of control so I'll stop.


..
 
Last edited:
No, I am not being naive. You seem not to be able to comprehend that you are stating the obvious. The whole reason why this is an issue is because of the way the industry is and the way historically woman have been treated in the industry. You also don't seem to understand that you are not thinking out of the contraints of your own value system.

I really don't get it, you seem to have absolutely no grasp of reality whatsoever, yet you seem to think it's me who is being closed-minded? I'd love it if there was no prejudice or discrimination in the world. I'd think it was great if pain and wars didn't exists. I'd be over the moon if the next party to get into no 10 was someone other than labour or tories. But guess what? The 60's are over, man. Martin Luther King Jr is dead. Prejudice is still very much alive and it's going to be with us as long as we're all still humans on this earth. If you seriously think that some stupid TV show is going to change 95% of people's opinions of women being nothing more than sex objects then fine but don't accuse me of having a closed mind because i think you're the one with the problem in your thinking here, "dude".
 
In my opinion:

This is just a bad try to copy or remake the Paul Potts sensation two years ago - who brought everyone to tears.

Even the judges are the same - and the same surprise in their faces, when singing starts.

Very lame - the singing is really not very special - historical moments can't be reproduced - as ugly as someone might look...lol.
 
In my opinion:

This is just a bad try to copy or remake the Paul Potts sensation two years ago - who brought everyone to tears.

Even the judges are the same - and the same surprise in their faces, when singing starts.

Very lame - the singing is really not very special - historical moments can't be reproduced - as ugly as someone might look...lol.

Ah, your a cynical man Bernhard - but I wholeheartedly agree. It's also very amusing to read all these personal revalations; everyone's suddenly realising it's wrong to judge a book by it's cover. I'm sure they're back doing it ten minutes later.
 
In my opinion:

This is just a bad try to copy or remake the Paul Potts sensation two years ago - who brought everyone to tears.

Even the judges are the same - and the same surprise in their faces, when singing starts.

Very lame - the singing is really not very special - historical moments can't be reproduced - as ugly as someone might look...lol.

The moment was marketed, yes, that is the idea. The clip is art in itself from that perspective, one part truth, one part manipulation. Everything from the viewing of the audience and Simon's facial expressions to the way the choice of song and now the way the story is told is controlled. How do we know any of it is true? Does it matter?

There are parts in this video that you just can't script lke when she innocently walks off the stage after singing and then gets called back and kind of climbs back to her spot with those large horse like steps not missing a breadth. The fact that she doesn't collapse when she gets this roaring ovation is also classic. she maintains her poise. It is her moment. she bring th audience in to it and takes them with her. .

I think that the singing is special in the sense that she is an unadulterated talent. It is just a unique natural voice. Very akin to the Alan Lomax idea where he went into the back woods of America and found these pure, uncultivated talents and brought them back for Folkways records. They are going to continue to market her that way, as a small town girl who took care of her aging mother, never had a date nor was ever kissed and was not ever given a chance, and people can really relate to that no matter what she looks like, esp in these days of political and economic curruption. In that sense, creative marketing can be very affective and be an art in itself.

The story is not unique. the same thing happened here in NY after 9/11 where there was a fireman, don't remember his name, and he wanted to be a singer. He sang at the 9/11 memorial and it launched his career. He really wan't anything special either.
 
Last edited:
Everything from the viewing of the audience and Simon's facial expressions to the way the choice of song and now the way the story is told is controlled. How do we know any of it is true? Does it matter?

There are parts in this video that you just can't script .

Again, Deltadrummer, i'm not sure if you saw the original clip with Paul Potts:

it's really a copy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEo5bjnJViA

Bernhard
 
Well, it's not really a copy; but the formula for these shows is pretty well-scripted. You have the person with no talent who thinks they have talent, the person who needs to be molded, and the person who just blows everyone away. The thing I liked about Susan Boyle was that of all the people I've heard on these shows, even the winners and Paul Potts, she was the first person that ever sang in pitch. :) (besides the lower range, which could have just been from singing in pubilc. The adrenaline raises the range of the voice. See all the maketing and not one person who had the knowledge of the human voice to tell her that. )
 
I dislike these types of shows and I never watch them! They are seeded and scripted for the amusement of the audience. To me it is a far cry from the billing of "Reality TV".
 
I dislike these types of shows and I never watch them! They are seeded and scripted for the amusement of the audience. To me it is a far cry from the billing of "Reality TV".

I think we would be remiss to not say that these shows offer people the promise of instant success. But the idea of being a drumer or an opera singer for example, and not wanting to put in the years of training, sacrifice and study that it requires to really cultivate the art seems a bit short-sided. It's like those studetns who want to study drums but don't want to buy a book, to do any exercises and don't want listen to what anyone else says. They don't understand why you just can't make them sound like David Silveria or Brann Dailor. "Sorry, I forgot my magic wand today." :)
 
Back
Top