Adam Lambert on the AMA's

Maybe it's my exposure to japanese rockers, but I honestly don't get the hoopla over all this. He kissed a male bandmate. So what? Why is everyone talking about it like he killed a puppy or something? The fake bj I can kind of understand, we tend to be a wee bit prudish over here, but the kiss? I think people need to lighten up a bit.

M.R.J. Le Blanc said:

The fake bj I can kind of understand, we tend to be a wee bit prudish over here, but the kiss?

Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's exactly what I thought was so weird. I personally didn't care about either of those things, but I could see why the fake bj would weird people out. But I've been hearing a lot more about the kiss.

The prosecution would like to counter with examples of the following:

blacbird said:

This probably says more about you than it does about musicians

The Defense wishes to present the following pieces of evidence:

Louis Armstrong - those cheeks, the expressions he made while playing - his voice, that's hardly quality singing there
Frank Sinatra - ol' blue eyes? His way with women and his drinking and mob connections certainly also contributed to his notoriety.
John Lennon/Paul McCartney/George Harrison/Ringo Starr - aw, those long haired adorable rebels

.....

Click to expand...

I could go on, but I need to go to bed. This is the thing Celia is trying to say. People who become famous do so because of more than just their talent. They may have crazy talent, and they may be loved for that talent, but if they have no personality, no hook, they don't get fame - they get a small but loyal following. People talk about Susan Boyle, but what people seem to overlook is the reason she got this degree of fame is because that voice came out of that body. If she'd been a gorgeous young twenty something, yeah people would have applauded, but not in the way the middle aged Scottish woman who'd never been kissed was applauded. In fact, if I'm honest, her voice is good. But I've heard many musical theatre students do just as well if not better. Why her and not them? She has a hook. She inspired people that it doesn't matter what you look like or how old you are, you can follow your dreams. That's why America especially adores her.

Talent is and always will be important to me. But even I can admit the most talented famous people had other things that audiences loved AS WELL.

Celia Cyanide said:

That seems to be how you interpreted what I said. I didn't mean it as a slam against the artists. I guess so many seemed to take it that way because they believe that when an artist gets attention for something else, they assume it must be because they aren't talented. This is not so. This is probably what many assumed about Elvis when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and the in studio audience saw his "offensive" dancing.

Click to expand...

There's an old Aerosmith song by the title, "Let the Music Do the Talking" and for the vast majority of artists it's the music that speaks for them. Not pouring money in videos and not showing their ass at some award program or a super-elaborate live show.

No one questions Stevie Wonder's contribution to music or his impact. But what's his best video? Can anyone even remember one? Has he ever snatched a mic from another artist or made a scene at the Grammys? When he plays live does he take the stage like Kiss or just sit down behind a keyboard and start playing and singing?

I don't have any gripe with spectacle. If Peter Gabriel, Prince, Madonna or Pink Floyd were to just stroll onstage, plug in a guitar and run through the catalog for an hour or two, I'd feel cheated. On the other hand, great production values can be a cover for lousy music.

I've interviewed enough musicians to know most of them don't give a shit about videos, winning awards and constantly trying to figure out new ways to shock and awe the fans. Miles Davis embodied that near-obsessive dedication to being a musician, not an entertainer.

Davis confused and pissed off audiences when he would come on stage, turn his back to them, start playing a song, do his set and walk off without saying a word. He wouldn't even introduce the songs or the musicians playing it. He felt it was unnecessary and had nothing to do with the playing.

Yes, me too. In fact, I used to work in a club like that. But seeing as I'm referring to artists that become very famous, it really has very little to do with this. Perhaps the word "successful" is a bit wrong. But in a thread about an American Idol contestant, I was referring to mainstream success. Many of my favorite bands are not famous.

Click to expand...

I don't consider most of the American Idol winners as artists. They're entertainers who won a talent show. How many of them write their own songs, play an instrument or can even sing without the studio wizardry of Pro Tools?

As an avid lover of jazz, being "successful" has nothing to do with how many girls think you're cute or how many thousands of albums you sell or times your hit gets downloaded. It makes no sense to me that kids should think Justin Timberlake sings soulfully while remembering Isaac Hayes only for "Chocolate Salty Balls" on South Park.

For the true music lover the artistry is not in what you see but in what you hear.

nighttimer said:

There's an old Aerosmith song by the title, "Let the Music Do the Talking" and for the vast majority of artists it's the music that speaks for them. Not pouring money in videos and not showing their ass at some award program or a super-elaborate live show.

No one questions Stevie Wonder's contribution to music or his impact. But what's his best video? Can anyone even remember one? Has he ever snatched a mic from another artist or made a scene at the Grammys? When he plays live does he take the stage like Kiss or just sit down behind a keyboard and start playing and singing?

I don't have any gripe with spectacle. If Peter Gabriel, Prince, Madonna or Pink Floyd were to just stroll onstage, plug in a guitar and run through the catalog for an hour or two, I'd feel cheated. On the other hand, great production values can be a cover for lousy music.

I've interviewed enough musicians to know most of them don't give a shit about videos, winning awards and constantly trying to figure out new ways to shock and awe the fans. Miles Davis embodied that near-obsessive dedication to being a musician, not an entertainer.

Davis confused and pissed off audiences when he would come on stage, turn his back to them, start playing a song, do his set and walk off without saying a word. He wouldn't even introduce the songs or the musicians playing it. He felt it was unnecessary and had nothing to do with the playing.





I don't consider most of the American Idol winners as artists. They're entertainers who won a talent show. How many of them write their own songs, play an instrument or can even sing without the studio wizardry of Pro Tools?

As an avid lover of jazz, being "successful" has nothing to do with how many girls think you're cute or how many thousands of albums you sell or times your hit gets downloaded. It makes no sense to me that kids should think Justin Timberlake sings soulfully while remembering Isaac Hayes only for "Chocolate Salty Balls" on South Park.

For the true music lover the artistry is not in what you see but in what you hear.

Click to expand...

This rocks

nighttimer said:

I've interviewed enough musicians to know most of them don't give a shit about videos, winning awards and constantly trying to figure out new ways to shock and awe the fans.

Click to expand...

With this, you seem to be completely misunderstanding my point. I'm not stupid, and I understand musicians' motivation to make music. It's just very different than the public's motivation to buy music.

nighttimer said:

For the true music lover the artistry is not in what you see but in what you hear.

Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining this to me, but again, I'm not stupid, and I am a true music lover. Thank you.

So instead of Adam Lambert, Good Morning, America had Chris Brown in his stead.

Celia Cyanide said:

With this, you seem to be completely misunderstanding my point. I'm not stupid, and I understand musicians' motivation to make music. It's just very different than the public's motivation to buy music.

Thanks for explaining this to me, but again, I'm not stupid, and I am a true music lover. Thank you.

Click to expand...

I am honestly sorry if I offended you, Celia Cyanide. I don't think you're stupid. To the contrary, I consider you one of the smarter participants in P&CE who adds insight and perspective that would otherwise be absent.

Like you, I am a lifelong music lover. I sincerely apologize if in my enthusiasm to discuss my affinity for music with a kindred spirit I came off as condescending and didactic.

Now might be a good time for some Miles.

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RjwVwASlVn4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

BenPanced said:

So instead of Adam Lambert, Good Morning, America had Chris Brown in his stead.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just . . . wow.

nighttimer said:

Like you, I am a lifelong music lover. I sincerely apologize if in my enthusiasm to discuss my affinity for music with a kindred spirit I came off as condescending and didactic.

Click to expand...

And I apologize if I sounded butthurt!

My point is that musicians do not become famous for reasons that are as pure as we would like to believe they are. They do not get X number of fans because X number people people heard their music without hearing or seeing anything else about them and X number of people liked it. Artists may attract attention because their appearance, what they say in interviews, or some sort of percieved coolness. I don't know enough about the history of every single artist you listed to explain why they're famous, but if the Beatles couldn't do it, I don't believe anyone else could.

I honestly don't know why it has been such a controversial point in this thread.

BenPanced said:

So instead of Adam Lambert, Good Morning, America had Chris Brown in his stead.

Click to expand...

GMA said that the Chris Brown interview was taped before the Adam Lambert performance. Then they saw the Lambert performance and said no.

Still, which is more outrageous and is guaranteed to have BICs during that interview segment?

I assumed therefore it had to be the performative aesthetic aspect, because, he is a very good singer - objectively he just is, he has excellent training, hits notes without straining, and sings well.

Click to expand...

Lambert's Mad World cover is damn good, I'll give him that. And I like some of the other recordings I've seen of him--all random performances from YouTube, nothing to do with American Idol. So based on those alone I'd like to see what his album is like. So far, though, I don't like the 2012 theme song which I realize isn't really "his." I'm not sure if I like the one from the AMAs, either, having only heard it a few times. It might grow on me.

GMA said that the Chris Brown interview was taped before the Adam Lambert performance. Then they saw the Lambert performance and said no.

Click to expand...

Ha! Even still ... the irony is too much ...