Are modern pop "singers" just glorified strippers?

"singing" and "music" seem to just be a pretense at this point. They're literally just soft-core strippers. Sex-appeal has gone from a side-attraction to the main purpose of pop-music.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eBAHqRnSgRw
youtube.com/watch?v=yIEPSgf-ZKE
youtube.com/watch?v=wfN4PVaOU5Q
youtube.com/watch?v=_HkEkbIhwv0
youtube.com/watch?v=3bxf2X4zP5k&list=RD3bxf2X4zP5k
youtube.com/watch?v=T2gdbQpESNY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Welcome to 1968, babe

Look in your heart. You know it to be true.

Its the industry s promotion of image over talent. Now, looks are more important then vocal talent. If you can't carry a tune we'll just use autotune to fix the vocals.

Pretty much.

I know a number of dudes who don't give a shit how stupid the songs are as long as the eye candy is shaking that ass onstage.

maybe kpop but not really here although that would certainly be nice.

I like one of her new songs well enough

youtube.com/watch?v=eBAHqRnSgRw

>but not really here

Have you been under a rock for the last few years?

What does this have to do with 1968? Music has always had a sexual dimension. Sex is arguably at the root of a lot of human psychology. It's just that modern pop music is just sexual titillation with a sing-song in the background. That was rare in the past, now it dominates the top40.

This is true of some male-pop singers too.

isn't it great?

>89
Nice

K-pop fills the void in Korean mens' lives left by the government banning porn

In the West porn is easily accessible. Furthermore, most of our pop singers are kind of disgusting (Miley) and offputting compared to porn stars.

No one has a Western pop star as their waifu. They're just shock jocks now.

>No one has a Western pop star as their waifu

Excuse me

Hey, I'm here.

My bad. I just re-read your first post and totally got it fucked up intitially. You are correct all the way.

The point
.
.
.
Your head

This shit has been going on since the invention of modern pop music and pop idol culture in the 1960s.

did they really ban porn in korea? holy shit this explains a lot

>K-pop fills the void in Korean mens' lives left by the government banning porn
This pretty much sums up the entire country's entertainment industry

>mainsteam female pop singers calling themselves 'feminist'

Not even close to what is going on these last few years.

yes

I feel like back in the day if someone wanted music, they'd buy a record. If they wanted titillation, they'd buy a porn mag, go to a strip club, or try and meet girls. The music industry gradually melded titillation into their products to the point where now it's almost 75% titillation, 25% music.

It's like a peanut butter cup of sex and music, with a rich sexy centre and a coating of sing-song.

It only seems that way because you're a kid with no historical perspective. If anything it's much more incremental and tame now than it was then. It was still subversive and controversial in the '60s.

Yep and as soon as it's a guy doing that kind of music they hate it. So much irony. Lack of music education has made a few generations of musical illiterates.

>Yep and as soon as it's a guy doing that kind of music they hate it.
Like who?

I bet I know who you're gonna say and they both had albums last year.

I agree that it started in the 1960s with the Beatles. The Beatles weren't just selling music, they were selling an image: a cadre of four young mop-top men in tight trousers who sang about "love you do" and hand-holding. The difference is that gradually the musical dimension has become slimmer and slimmer and now you hardly have any substance.

The sexy young rock-stars of the 60s were also great musicians. The music execs gradually realised that "talent" and "musical literacy" and "genius" weren't a necessary ingredient in the pop-star pie.

If you could get a shirt-less fabio to dance and sing lovey-dovey nonsense with an air of badboy-ness that was enough to sell millions of records. It wasn't anywhere near this bad in the 1960s. It's went from 10% sex appeal, 90% music to 90% sex appeal 10% music between the 1960 and 2010.

I like to imagine all the female pop singers getting suppressed behind the scenes, with threats like getting raped or even murdered every time they choose to resist dressing up like a slut for photoshoots, performance, press or whatever.

That's actually fairly common in Korea. Less so in the west, but it happens here as well. No one's forced to sign up to become a pop-star. They understand what it entails. Not that I don't have sympathy for people who become a slave to their recording contracts, but they signed up to it entirely of their own accord.

You mean all those sweet tight bodied thick thighs girls are getting fucked by old men and I'm not able to watch it?

FUCK

the third one looks like the OGN interviewer

Why do you think Western pop stars always go completely mental after they expire but Idols stay cute?

Faceless old men, at that.

youtube.com/watch?v=yIEPSgf-ZKE

kys

at least now you can know how tits are faggot

youtube.com/watch?v=wfN4PVaOU5Q

Riahanna is easily one of the worst things in the universe. I saw an interview she did in 2012, and I swear, she sounded mentally retarded. It comes through in her "music".

I like to imagine that all the cute tight bodied thick thighs girls get sexually assaulted frequently behind the scenes, maybe the manager or the CEO occasionally drop a slap on those tight ass cheeks when they try to protest. And then he laughs it off while slut shaming them.

youtube.com/watch?v=_HkEkbIhwv0
Seriously, I think she has a learning disability. There's no way a person can be this stupid. It's not her background, it's just her. She's an exceptionally small-minded person.

She only has a career because some American record producer scouted her out and sent her on a plane to hollywood to basically be a singing stripper.

I can guarantee that i'm a hell of a lot older than you are. There were no female singers dressed like strippers, bent over at the front of the stage shaking their asses, rubbing their crotches and doing shit like sucking the dick on an inflatable doll.

Not even close.

>rubbing their crotches
I've only seen Iggy do that and it was just at the beginning to get infamous as far as I know

Yeah, there are people who want to equivocate for some reason, when clearly the two things aren't equivalent at all. The music industry has taken a nose-dive and it relies on a sort of depraved sexual excitement that was very rare before the 1990s. I agree that everything is a process. We didn't arrive here overnight. The music industry got gradually and gradually more cheap and lazy.

agreed. I'm 55. This was as racy as it got aside from maybe the production of "Hair"

have you never seen Miley? what rock have you been under?

oh well she's ugly as fuck so she doesnt count

He's just giving a specific example, it's the general degradation of popular music. The crotch-rubbing is just an example of countless things.

I'm a very liberal person btw. I just think music should be about music. If people want porn, they should just get porn. As soon as some old hollywood exec's nihilistic sex fantasies start to overtake the creation of complex and interesting music, I'll be up in arms.

It's a sort of imposed dumbing down of society, turning us into brainless consumer drones. It's pathetic. Humanity is so much better than this.

I wouldn't mind if Azalea, Minaj, or whoever were strippers. I do mind that they're "artists". These people's cheap and idiotic crap shouldn't be put up with as "entertainment".

Stuff like that is pretty funny to me looking at all this because a lot of female musicians, like Grace Slick there, were damn good looking and sexy without seeming like a tramp.

That's what a lot of these current pop "divas" or whatever the hell they are calling themselves seem to not understand.

You picked probably the worst picture for this topic. She has incredible vocal range and a lot of talent (although her music is just shitty pop). She's also not particularly provocative in her shows outside of the tight clothes she wears.

nah, it's just at that standards for what's provocative changed.

really, it's just as sexy and provocative to us as elvis and them were at that time.

...

Fuck off. He's 100% correct.

>shaking their asses
THE HORROR

I'm judging her genre. Maybe if it weren't for the genre she makes music in, she would be a great singer. She's using her supposedly incredible vocal range to make trite crap.

i'd like to 89 with taylor swift ;^]

That's not what I'm arguing m8. I'm saying the music has gotten worse. I understand perfectly what's provocative has changed, but it's wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

Fact is, we're reaching the point of peak open sexuality. Society will naturally start slowly trending toward preferring modesty again once the shock/novelty of the current state of affairs wears thin and it no longer is considered fashionable to do so, and then eventually it will swing back in the other direction again.

I doubt this, and I don't mind sexual openness. I think that's great actually. The problem is bad music. Image over substance. The arts have so much substance to them that we should be enjoying, but instead we have people waving their asses like baboons dumbing it all down.

If these pop-stars all became strippers tomorrow, I would see that as their right. I don't see it as their right to shit up the things I like. They should fuck off from music.

Radio was not a visual medium. Videos didn't exist. Only place you would see artists was on the regular Television shows like American Bandstand and Soul Train. Or variety shows like the Smothers Brothers or Ed Sullivan. Anyone who had hit records had bonafied talent or they wouldn't have got the break to recording contract in the first place. The same can not be said for the manufactured pop stars being marketed today.

>Humanity is so much better than this.
lol no

>buhu fixing the vocal tracks of a poor singer is a bit less arduous then it used to be
Yeah that's some real insight, not at all youtube comment tier.

>Anyone who had hit records had bonafied talent or they wouldn't have got the break to recording contract in the first place. The same can not be said for the manufactured pop stars being marketed today.

Dude look at kpop general. It's just a place for people to post "singers" to fap to.

You can find a lot of bikini pics of 40's/50's "pop starlets," usually published in celebrity magazines back then. I mean, look at how they marketed Doris Day way back in during World War II:

in korea theyre a substitute for porn because porn is illegal

Her vocals are good but nothing phenomenal. She can't put power to all of that range. She has a limited power range which is why she may never reach full diva status. She's no Christina.

What are you on about. This is Sup Forums, the ultimate ocean of piss. You can't have standards here, go back to re/ddit.

Give me one example of a "fixed" vocal track from the 50's, 60's, or 70's. An the arthritic vocal manipulation the Beatles did on their later albums do not fall in this category. It didn't happen back then. Lord help Cass Elliot if she had been born after 1985. She had a tremendous voice but the "image over talent" industry today would never have accepted her. Nor would the "no fatty's" mindset of the younger generations.

They did some cool doubling stuff which can make the ~5 cent pitchyness and vibrato sound awesome. Many mistake this for autotune but it's not even close. If you suck, the effect sucks.

This happened only after they had proven themselves with real talent.

Piss off.

With autotune you don't have to make any real effort to sing in key.
Try seeing which of the current pop types can hit it like this.
youtube.com/watch?v=3bxf2X4zP5k&list=RD3bxf2X4zP5k

And this mostly doesn't apply to the Beatles but def the 70s and 80s

Production techniques were more limited back then. They couldn't just take a girl with absolute garbage vocals and make it sound passable; they had to have competent material to begin with.

Which artist did this?

Boston. Ozzie.

Keep in mind your conversing with someone who was alive in the period we are discussing.

Are you telling me Boston and Ozzie were marketed to be sexy and they manupulated their vocals to market them?

Literally hundreds of artists. And not on the verses, usually the chorus.

Horrible singing through autotune still sounds like shit. And if you insist on being hipster there are older ways of pretending that some random hot girl is a singer:

youtube.com/watch?v=T2gdbQpESNY

Of course. They had record labels interested in making money. It's not really manipulation having someone sing something as well as they can twice and pushing one of the tracks louder than the other.

They would also cut the best take of the chorus and use that each time it comes around, rather than have to get it perfect three or four times. Billy Joel it's pretty obvious on some songs but hundreds did this aswell.

Layering vocal tracks.

I was watching a documentary on the making of Paranoid and they played Ozzy's vocal tracks. He (and the band) was smart enough to know what he couldn't do and stayed in what his voice could handle.

I've never heard Brad Delp's vocal isolated tracks but it seems that Scholz was going for a more "bigger" sound on the vocals.

Yep this is exactly it. I'm not knocking these guys at all. They're the real deal.

She does tend to oversexualize her image, but she's probably one of the few pop artists that can actually sing well live and in studio.

You can almost be sure record scout that first saw Boston performing live didn't sign them to a contract because he thought he could make more marketable with audio trickery. They were not a handsome band. They did write very catchy rock songs though.

>Lord help Cass Elliot if she had been born after 1985
>who is adele

Their hits would still make hits today I think.

Have you seen Cass Elliot. She was twice the size of Adele. And Adele gets flack for her size. Can you imagine the ridicule she would have to undergo if she were twice her size?

What a new and original thought.

what is this obsession with originality. Nothing is original and the greatest artists steal because all the best parts have been done but it's how you use them and combine them that make it unique or fresh. Music is timeless but people die.

>people die
plebs

Ah yeah, that trick was used quite a bit back in the 80s. The thing back then is that no one really took the singer seriously unless she was also a keyboardist or something. If she was there to get the party started and get the crowd moving, all was fine. Anything pretentious attitudes towards actual singing ability were considered a funny joke.

Why would you complain about the only good thing in pop music

No really. Whatever the fuck you listen to that you think is so unique has undoubtedly been done a hundred times before a thousand different ways but the music is ultimately still the same. It's all grooves and trickery.

i'm pretty sure he was making a joke there dude

This. People were selling an image since the Jazz Age. The length of the skirts were the only things that have changed. Sex sold, no matter the decade.

Now to the atonal scales. There you can be unique and completely unappealing.

>the crowd
Well if we're talking live singing I'm not sure there's usually pitch correction involved . From what I've understood you can't do the nice and almost invisible type of autotune in real time so it's either going T-Pain or actually singing.

Sometimes they use it because they're playing to a track and the pitch correction can be automated in the daw timeline but the singer must stay within 2- cents before it goes bad fast. Often they just blast the track with a slightly lower lead vocal in the choruses to give the doubled feel with power. Either way it's crap. They need to employ real talent. Hell they have the budget.

>20 cents maybe 30*

But it wasn't image that wasn't backed by real vocal talent. Today the same cannot be said.

Back then they used to layer all kinds of reverb and shit over the vocals if the singer was weak. Try to give it a "Sci Fi" kind of sound since New Wave and Post Punk was all around for quite a while.

I honestly think they're playing off of people calling it crap to make it more popular when the plebs come out to defend their fav singer or whatever. Costs half as much as real talent and people like us only add to it's prevalence. Any press is good press