Most Overrated Music Artist - Page 3

MikeAW · 01-26-2002, 04:23 PM

Rain, I find it a little hard to believe that even the hardest of hearts, could not get caught up in the infectious beats, and deny her competency and ability to sing and dance, a good Pop song by Madonna or anyone else!

I could understand a person being able not succumbing to her feminine wiles, but one can't deny her Talent!

If you can, fine and good. But you're missing out on some good music in this world, and all in the name of being a little too much above it all.

Rain · 01-26-2002, 04:33 PM

Well, Mike, in actual fact I do own one Madonna album, which I enjoy immensely, that being Erotica. How ironic, eh? considering it was released during her most blatantly sexual period.

I also enjoy a good lavish Hollywood musical immensely. Seeing Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor dancing about and singing in Singin' in the Rain gives me enormous pleasure.

But again, it's not quite the same thing as the craftsmanship found in some of the work of those you have characterized as overrated.

Certainly Madonnna has made an enormous impact on the world of entertainment, as has Gene Kelly in his day, but that's not the same as having an impact on music.

I will also go on record giving Madonna kudos for what she has done with her label Maverick Records. To give the artists on that label autonomy to do the kind of thing they want to do is certainly a breath of fresh air.

Tom Ryan · 01-26-2002, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Eric Clapton.

He hasn't produced ANY good music since his days with John Mayall, and the Yardbirds. When he left the Yardbirds, supposedly, for their psuedo-pop direction, that was the last time he made any real decision to make music, and the music he actually loved to make.

Unfortunately, he has been rewarded by ga-ga Fans who think he is, ahem, "God", and started to actually believe his own press notices. Cream and Blind Faith were whistle stops on the way to insecurity and drug addiction...unhappiness. But this is the stuff Music Legends are made from.

His lowest moment, artistically, was the highest success in his entire career...the constantly teary eyed, "Tears In Heaven" Melancolia tours...wherein he actually had the nerve to sing the blues in Armani suits, and the Public rewarded him with even more Worship and Star Status...if that is possible. But then he knew he could get away with it!

Today he stands, a mere mediocre guitar technician singing/playing the same old song, affluent beyond his wildest dreams, artistically beyond reproach, and a prisoner in an artistic jail of his own making...the very antithesis of what he started out to be.

Sacrificing your principles and being what your fans want you to be, carries a heavy burden, but you can be rich selling it in the Marketplace...where everything is for sale.

This is one of the biggest loads of garbage I've heard in a long time. Are you a musician? Have you ever actually PLAYED the blues? If you had, perhaps you'd realize that the blues is in the soul, it's in the heart, it's transcribed by the fingers. You could be wearing full drag and still play the blues with SOUL.

I find it particularly crass that you mock Clapton's pain over the loss of his son by implying that he wrote the song for money and fame. Clapton doesn't need those things. He was frigging set up for life just based on the things he did in the 60's. The reason Tears In Heaven and the unplugged album struck such a chord with the public is simply that the song and album are some of the best ever created. He reached deep inside and drew out his essence, laid it out on TELEVISION (that takes guts) and was loved for it.

It's pretty interesting that you ignore the sheer reverence the music community actually has for Clapton, also. I mean real musicians, not just people who sit in their garages listening to CDs. There's a reason Clapton and B.B. King are such good friends, there's a reason Clapton was friends with Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and many many others. They all recognize him for the enormous talent that he is.

Today, Clapton is slowing down. But he's experimenting, and trying to make music he loves. He's not in as much of an upswing as the glory days in the late 60's and 70's, or the early 90's, but he's still making great music, imo. If you don't like it, that's not a reason to insult his integrity and personal life.

-Tom

Rain · 01-26-2002, 05:05 PM

Quote:

I find it particularly crass that you mock Clapton's pain over the loss of his son by implying that he wrote the song for money and fame. Clapton doesn't need those things.

I have to admit that I also found it rather in poor taste that he cleaned up big time on that song, given the subject matter. If he already had enough money, why didn't he donate the proceeds to a children's charity or something?

However, I don't think that a musician's talent should be judged based on how he conducts his personal affairs.

Tom Ryan · 01-26-2002, 07:18 PM

Ok, this was not something Clapton was expecting to benefit from. The Unplugged concert was a gamble. Who would want to hear Clapton play acoustic? He was just there to play music. It was incidental that the album went diamond and won a ton of Grammys. As for the profits, I don't know where they went. He may have given quite a bit to charity; it wouldn't be surprising considering how generous he's been even recently selling off a lot of his prized guitars to set up a center to help people get off drugs. But I don't know what he actually did with it.

In any event, it isn't the role of the musician or the actor or the author to play the fairy godmother and give everything to charity. I think most celebrities do give to charity, but the ones who don't aren't scoffed it because they've earned that money. It's theirs to give away or to keep. I know if I ever become rich I'll give plenty to charity, but I will not sit in judgment on those who don't.

-Tom

RicP · 01-26-2002, 08:11 PM

MikeAW said:

Quote:

But you're missing out on some good music in this world, and all in the name of being a little too much above it all.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Tom Ryan · 01-26-2002, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

That's concise. I like that

.

-Tom

Chas_Michael · 01-26-2002, 08:50 PM

MUHTALICKA THEY SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Colin Jacobson · 01-26-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

However, the thread is about *personal* disagreements with critics.

Yes, it is. But you had said:

Quote:

astute marketing, but can you *honestly* say that her *songs* are your favourites? Thought not.

As such, you had decided for me and other Maddy fans that we didn't like her tunes. That went way beyond "personal disagreements"...

And who likes PSB but not Madonna? I thought that was illegal...

Kirk Gunn · 01-27-2002, 08:39 AM

Comment on "Tears in Heaven":

Clapton mentions during the Unplugged MTV interview that he wrote this song for the movie Rush, just before his son died. He wrote "The Circus Came to Town" to grieve for his son, and it is an incredibly powerful song (the last thing he did with his son was a trip to the circus).

This song was performed during the Unplugged concert, but not put on the album or video (to my knowledge). I have a VHS copy, but it's pretty shabby.

Nathan A · 01-27-2002, 10:13 AM

sorry i spelled jimi hendrix wrong...just goes to show how little i care for his playing.

i just don't understand how when you ask ANY average person who the best guitar player is, they quickly answer with "jimi hendrix!" and "santana!". they might as well say "i don't know anything about guitars! but those two are the only one's i've heard of so i'll say them!"

ask any guitar player and you'll get a different answer- except some will still say hendrix. i don't get it.