But thanks for playing.

And not ONE of those poeple you posted can sing worth a damn. Adele certainly CAN, she's not my cup of tea stylistically, but she is like a beacon in the darkness, along with Josh Groban. Kimberly Locke is very good, but she never caught fire. Amy Winehouse was as well, but unfortunately, her drugs problem ruined what could have been a promising career. But those videos you posted, theyr'e voices just aren't PRETTY. I don't know how to describe the singing style, it has a thin whiney quality, that Christina Perri.. she sounds like she's trying to imitate alanis Morisette, but at least she can carry a tune for the most part. Where is the next Aretha Franklin? Diana Ross? Natalie Cole? Karen Carpenter? Anne Murray? Dusty Sprinfgield? Ann Wilson? Pat Benatar? Deborah Harry? Olivia Newton John? Mama Cass? Lulu? Patti Labelle? Tina Turner? You think Adele would have gotten a record deal if she begun in the United States? Hell no, she's far too fat. Because american record companies want models, not singers... someone they can highly sexualize. It's ok if someone has a sexualized image, but why does EVERYONE have to be that way? This started with Martha Wash being replaced by a french model on "Strike It Up", and now that they can't LEGALLY do that any more, they just pick a hair model and cover her in autotune. The soaps do the same thing, another reason why THEY are dying. It's all style over substance.

Edited August 28, 201312 yr by alphanguy74

If even just 1/3 of today's music was a good as THIS, there would be no problem.

Artists from another era can and still do produce good music, exampled lately by Cher... and of course, the new song by Agnetha:

Edited August 28, 201312 yr by alphanguy74

I feel like if any song you like had come out today you would hate it just because it came out today.

There is no problem. I think you need to just go clutch onto your records from the 70s. Today's music obviously isn't for you. That doesn't mean artists today cant sing and don't have talent. They just don't appeal to you

There is no problem. I think you need to just go clutch onto your records from the 70s. Today's music obviously isn't for you. That doesn't mean artists today cant sing and don't have talent. They just don't appeal to you

If they need autotune to be on pitch, then NO... they can't sing.

I feel like if any song you like had come out today you would hate it just because it came out today.

Not true... I just posted two that HAVE come out today that I really like. Also, Cee lo Green is fantabulous.

Edited August 29, 201312 yr by alphanguy74

I was done when this fool said Pink couldn't sing.

If they need autotune to be on pitch, then NO... they can't sing.

right, bc everyone that comes out today uses autotone

Edited August 29, 201312 yr by Cheap21

I was done when this fool said Pink couldn't sing.

That Sara Chick and Pink... I;m hard pressed to tell them apart, same phrasing, same vocal style, same inflection... they are just the SAME, She sounds like someone who's singing that is sleepy or depressed, or BOTH, there's no clarity to the voice, no real power, no tenderness, no sensititvity, no sense of interpretation, NOTHING.

I don't know why people are surprised by Miley's image change, she did sing a song called 'cant be tamed' a few years ago.. so you knew it was coming. Hopefully, this is just for show.. but time will tell. The reason it got more attention was because of the fact that it was a train-wreck performance, it was a former child star/singer, and the song was catchy.

For all the talk about Gaga copying Madonna, she obviously isn't copying the one trait Madonna made a trademark.. reinvention. I was hoping Gaga would have come out looking completely normal and wowing the audience with a great song.. no such luck. It was a decent song, but I wasn't shocked/blown away by the performance. Now Miley's performance, I was thinking 'hmm.. interesting'. Though I'm wondering if there is any flack/outcry for Robin Thicke, who looked like a dirty old man up there. Miley is 21, and she is just acting her age.. but he's 36/37 years old.

Willie Hantz (BB14 headbutter/brother of Russell Hantz from Survivor) was very offended by that, so he's in your corner.

I was actually more offended by him than by her. The racial stuff was inappropriate, but the rest was generic, stale sex kitten. He looked like a creeper.

And not ONE of those poeple you posted can sing worth a damn. Adele certainly CAN, she's not my cup of tea stylistically, but she is like a beacon in the darkness, along with Josh Groban. Kimberly Locke is very good, but she never caught fire. Amy Winehouse was as well, but unfortunately, her drugs problem ruined what could have been a promising career. But those videos you posted, theyr'e voices just aren't PRETTY. I don't know how to describe the singing style, it has a thin whiney quality, that Christina Perri.. she sounds like she's trying to imitate alanis Morisette, but at least she can carry a tune for the most part. Where is the next Aretha Franklin? Diana Ross? Natalie Cole? Karen Carpenter? Anne Murray? Dusty Sprinfgield? Ann Wilson? Pat Benatar? Deborah Harry? Olivia Newton John? Mama Cass? Lulu? Patti Labelle? Tina Turner? You think Adele would have gotten a record deal if she begun in the United States? Hell no, she's far too fat. Because american record companies want models, not singers... someone they can highly sexualize. It's ok if someone has a sexualized image, but why does EVERYONE have to be that way? This started with Martha Wash being replaced by a french model on "Strike It Up", and now that they can't LEGALLY do that any more, they just pick a hair model and cover her in autotune. The soaps do the same thing, another reason why THEY are dying. It's all style over substance.

Whether or not someone can sing is purely subjective and a matter of personal taste. It is a fact, however, that Pink and Justin Timberlake have each sold millions upon millions of albums over the last 15 years, so there are plenty enough people who think they can sing. And why are you looking for "the next" Aretha Franklin? She's still alive, and even when she dies, her records will still be here. No one needs to replace her or even try, so what's the point? No is trying to be "the next" anyone anymore.

You keep saying "everyone" this and "all" that, which makes no sense to me whatsoever because you've shown over and over again in this thread that your knowledge of current music is extremely limited and lacks of any kind of depth beyond who the most visible performers of today are. If the opposite were true, you'd actually talk about people who aren't Top 40 artists.

That Sara Chick and Pink... I;m hard pressed to tell them apart, same phrasing, same vocal style, same inflection... they are just the SAME, She sounds like someone who's singing that is sleepy or depressed, or BOTH, there's no clarity to the voice, no real power, no tenderness, no sensititvity, no sense of interpretation, NOTHING.

P!nk and Sarah Barielles are no more interchangeable than all those random 60s girl groups you love so much.

P!nk and Sarah Barielles are no more interchangeable than all those random 60s girl groups you love so much.

Perhaps... but at that time in history, the music scene was not competely inundated with that style of vocalist (when it comes to females) You DID have girl groups, but you also had Dusty Springfield, Petula Clark, Barbra Striesand, Eydie Gorme, Connie Francis, Brenda Lee, Dionne Warwick, and tons of others, each with completely different and distinct sounds. None of them even sound remotely like each other. And it's not because the music is new that I don't like it. I was a kid in the 70's and teenager in the early 80's... but have great love for a huge amount of music from the fifties all the way up through around 1992 or so. That's when it all went downhill. 88-92 was a REALLY great period, you had new acts with immense talent like Taylor Dane, Roxette, En Vogue, Soul II Soul, Lisa Lisa, C&C music Factory, Lisa Stansfield, etc....

Edited August 29, 201312 yr by alphanguy74

I think there are plenty of talented artists out there mayne today's music just isn't for you?

And P! Nk can sing.....

Robin Thicke is only 36/37?? I thought he was like 43. I need to Google his brother Brendan who did the voice of Dennis the Menace when I was a kid. We used to watch that [!@#$%^&*] every day after school. "Oh Mr. WILLLL-sonnn...?" I find Miley's Play-doh face obnoxious to look at and the wagging tongue just makes it even worse.

It boils down to simple lack of diversity, something everyone on this board carries on incessantly about when it comes to soaps, but lack of diversity in music seems to be the best thing since sliced bread. At one time, in the top 40, you could see and instrumental, a hippie rock song, a big ballad by a female singer, and people as oppposite as Frank Sinatra and Miriam Makeba all in the same week. Here's a perfect example, the #1 songs of 2012. 6 of these songs are sung by high, thin, reedy female voices augmented by autotune (And one, Kelly Clarkson, Doesn't NEED Autotune)

And now, 1974, Country rock, Soul, retro style britpop, Movie themes, Instrumental, tear jerker bubblegum, campy pop, folk, hard rock, comedy/novelty, disco, tender love ballads, rockabilly.

You just can't deny when you compare both year's number one hits, that there was FAR more diversity in style and singer. And that is what is missing, and why sales are plummeting, there ins't something for everyone anymore... it's all geared to 12-20 year old hipsters to the TOTAL exclusion of everyone else. And the female vocalists in the 2012 video all sing in a similar vocal range, and are all covered in autotune EXCEPT Adele... and in the 1974 video there is Striesand, Roberta Flack, Olivia Newton John, Cher, Helen Reddy, and Dionne Warwick, all of which are completely POLAR OPPOSITES of each other in style, voice, and vocal phrasing and interpretation.

Edited August 29, 201312 yr by alphanguy74