Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Couldn't write a song and barely played an instrument, and somewhat mismanaged his career, but yes he had an impact.
GOAT Pop singer?
- Thread starter Nadalgaenger
- Start date
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
see thread title
mightyrick
Legend
Elvis was never in this discussion. Elvis is known as the "King of Rock and Roll".
All of you in the thread are purely trolling at this point. It's ridiculous. All of the classic goalpost moving, tangents, and unrelated garbage. Jeezus, at least make it more subtle.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Exactly. If we use song writing and musicianship as our criteria, then professional song writers and studio musicians will rank higher than anyone else.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Oh wow, I just read the thread title. This only has to do with the best singer.
Ok, Elvis is out. Carry on.
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
One can and one does diverge from a mere title. If we reduce Elvis to a voice, he becomes even more insignificant.
NonP
Legend
Lots of amateurs here. Walk into a random music club or blues joint and chances are you'll find at least one or two toiling journeymen who to semi-trained ears can sing or jam better than most of the bigger names mentioned so far. What sets the best of 'em apart is not whether they can hit a certain note or play a difficult part, but rather what they can do with it.
Plus y'all will save yourselves a lot of time and trouble if you clarify exactly what you're talking about. Let's run through the standard categories, with pop broadly defined as anything other than classical and post-bop jazz.
If we're talking who's had the greatest impact, not just in the world of music but on popular culture at large, Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles and MJ are in a class by themselves.
In terms of the usual criteria like singing, songwriting, instrumental prowess, etc., Prince reigns supreme followed by Stevie who due to a(n almost) congenital condition cannot hope to match his successor in showmanship.
If we're going beyond that mortal framework for what for lack of a better term could be described as ineffable genius, the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan and James Brown are each other's closest rivals.
If we're to extend that definition to singing, Elvis actually isn't such a bad choice, but he's no Aretha, who herself probably takes a back seat to Sinatra and Billie. And I've never fully warmed to the Chairman so I'll take Lady Day.
Finally ROTFL at Taylor Swift having surpassed Michael friggin' Jackson. Even as a fan and admirer of both I honestly can't name a single TayTay album that I'd take over Dangerous, and that's one of the weaker MJ records. No pop superstar's output has been as dark and paranoid as MJ's, but I guarantee you that nobody except probably the Beatles and maybe Elvis continues to stir a greater share of the global audience today, yes despite the renewed child rape controversy that will dog him to the end of time. Again it's not just about the notes or the numbers.
Plus y'all will save yourselves a lot of time and trouble if you clarify exactly what you're talking about. Let's run through the standard categories, with pop broadly defined as anything other than classical and post-bop jazz.
If we're talking who's had the greatest impact, not just in the world of music but on popular culture at large, Sinatra, Elvis, the Beatles and MJ are in a class by themselves.
In terms of the usual criteria like singing, songwriting, instrumental prowess, etc., Prince reigns supreme followed by Stevie who due to a(n almost) congenital condition cannot hope to match his successor in showmanship.
If we're going beyond that mortal framework for what for lack of a better term could be described as ineffable genius, the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan and James Brown are each other's closest rivals.
If we're to extend that definition to singing, Elvis actually isn't such a bad choice, but he's no Aretha, who herself probably takes a back seat to Sinatra and Billie. And I've never fully warmed to the Chairman so I'll take Lady Day.
Finally ROTFL at Taylor Swift having surpassed Michael friggin' Jackson. Even as a fan and admirer of both I honestly can't name a single TayTay album that I'd take over Dangerous, and that's one of the weaker MJ records. No pop superstar's output has been as dark and paranoid as MJ's, but I guarantee you that nobody except probably the Beatles and maybe Elvis continues to stir a greater share of the global audience today, yes despite the renewed child rape controversy that will dog him to the end of time. Again it's not just about the notes or the numbers.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I have never asked you this outright, but are you of Asian heritage? Because you once mentioned Michael Jordan as a pop phenomenon from sports comparable to MJ. Unless you've lived in Asia or have Asian heritage, you cannot understand what it means for a popstar (or any other celebrity) from America to achieve legendary status in Asia. With the exception of Japan, it's probably harder for an American celeb rather than one from the UK because lots of Asian nations (including the one I am from ) have a frankly hilarious nostalgia for the BE in spite of the many ways in which it plundered them and have a snobbish view of America as a materialistic and hollow society (older societies tend to look at America with suspicion). So...when somebody like Michael Jackson becomes so popular that a right wing populist politician proudly brings him over to the city of Mumbai, you know what his impact is.
I can also explain the Taylor Swift phenomenon (as to why it and basically any non-Marvel/DC American product seem to achieve less global and specifically Asian appeal today). When the Iron Curtain collapsed, there was intense curiosity about America and MJ was one of the first American cultural products to be embraced in this wave of American curiosity. Titanic was probably the peak of this phenomenon. Since around the noughties, the Boomers and Gen Xers seem to have fulfilled this curiosity (and to be honest, older millennials like me have also sorted out our likes and dislikes of American music, movies etc) and are disinterested in new pop products, preferring the comfort of nostalgia instead. It's Zoomers who are the biggest fans of Swift (or Bieber or Katy Perry). My 15 year old cousin paid top dollar to attend a Bieber show couple of years back (where he lipsynced as usual, ha ha). But that's a particular kind of Zoomer who moves in upwardly mobile circles. MJ or Jordan's soccer-like appeal somehow has not translated to Swift. I don't know why that is and whether that is also the experience in the US. There was something aspirational about MJ; every kid wanted to dance like him. I don't think even the Zoomer Swift fans aspire to be like Swift.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Michael Jackson and not even the Beatles were that popular in these parts - possibly because MJ's rise also coincided with cable TV and tape recorders, Walkman etc. The Beatles' tunes were lifted for some movie's songs here but MJ? He was a phenomenon and probably is even today
https://scroll.in/reel/841172/tiger-shroff-is-only-the-latest-fan-of-michael-jacksons-killer-moves
He is the original king of pop. Among women may be Madonna.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Yup. Also, Michael Jackson shattered the Fourth Wall, much like our Tamil superstars or Amitabh Bachchan. Like I said, he made kids want to dance like him, with similar shades to boot. Beatles were popular for similar reasons as Swift may be with the Zoomers today - because their music was catchy. I am NOT reducing the impact and influence of THE Beatles on music, just drawing a distinction between the kind of following Beatles attracted in Asia and the sort MJ did. MJ inspired a personality cult I have never seen for another popstar since.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Agree. Lol look at the guys like Prabhudeva or Javed Jaffrey who made a career out of dancing like him.
The Beatles were influential too but more for the likes of RDB to nick some tunes lol or for the more elitist guys who had access to western music of those times. With the advent of cable TV by late 80's, early 90's - everyone watched MJ on TV. Everyone knew songs like Thriller even if they didn't catch a word lol. I guess that's how a lot of American stuff started influencing Asia - news channels, tv shows (which were hitherto either completely local or borrowed from British shows), even food - pizza, lays etc. It's sheer timing and of course MJ's own appeal.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Then I guess you'd want to look at this like you might look at a basic model of rhetoric.
In the pop music argument structure you'll have the performer or artist; the audience; and the music itself.
If I'm trying to determine the greatest "pop artist" of all time, is it based on the "charisma" of the performer? Is is based on the performer's popularity and cultural impact (which has much to do with the audience; for example a classically trained African musician might not be all that interested in Taylor Swift), or are we only looking at the quality of the music itself (therefore we'd analyze all the parts of musicianship)?
What I'm guessing will happen is, first we'll determine who is the best. Then we'll emphasize the part of the triumvirate that supports or initial prejudice.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I checked and, yes, Bruno Mars too achieved a measure of appeal in Asia (while in no way comparable to MJ). His Unorthodox Jukebox album went double platinum in Philippines and no.2 on the South Korean albums chart. It's a similar mix of singing and dancing woven around funk grooves. And he too has a warm and likable image irrespective of what kind of person he might really be.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I think in POP, it has mostly to do with the former two and sod all with the latter. If you wanted to be ASSURED of quality, you would attend a classical or jazz concert. Why would you punt on a pop star? You do because the risk-reward equation looks better. Higher upside in terms of enjoyment for much less effort (in terms of concentrating hard while listening for hours).
r2473
G.O.A.T.
To engage in the 3rd prong, you’d need to be a “competent judge” with the requisite knowledge for such analysis. At least if you engage in an “absolute” analysis.
But most people are able to do this in a relative sense. Such that I can say Mozart was a better musician than Sureshs. I don’t need to know anything about music to make this claim. But if a trained musician asks me why this is true (notice the audience here), I couldn’t answer competently.
Last edited:
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
NonP
Legend
Well I spent most of my early youth in the (Far) East. Make of that what you will.
But yes, having lived in Asia does give you a better idea of what life is like outside the West. You might recall moi observing that Diana was a largely British phenomenon that spread to the rest of Europe and North America, which would've been a surprise to many Westerners back then (case in point: who really remembers Diana now?). But then in that very post (and elsewhere) I've expressed my own shock at being corrected by an old roomie from Ghana who said many people in Africa don't know what POTUS or the pope even looks like while almost everyone knows who MJ (the gloved one though His Airness has a sizable following himself) or Madonna is. In short you're probably not as worldly as you think and chances are you're not even aware of your own parochialism due to bias, inexperience, etc. (Think of all the posters here who accuse anyone who disagrees with 'em on cultural matters with the tiresome you-must-be-from-xxx canard.)
Also I suspect the BE nostalgia you speak of is more of a generational thing. My own dad certainly referenced it a lot (mainly to knock the Brits for their unearned snobbery), but I'm not sure I ever heard such pro-British/anti-American sentiments from my friends and classmates. And you happen to be hail from India where remnants of the BE loom large, which no doubt plays a factor, too.
Swift is big here among the Zoomers as well but nowhere near as big as MJ was in his Thriller heyday. Of course I'm somewhat biased here as I'm an older millennial like you, and I doubt anyone could reach half of Jackson's popularity ever again, but TayTay is probably not even the biggest star of her own generation (vs. Beyonce and maybe Kanye) which makes this TS-MJ comparison even more of a nonstarter.
Maybe I missed something but who's RDB?
By traditional measures of musicianship pop clearly is inferior to classical or jazz, but it's a mistake to think the greatest pop stars were lesser musicians than, say, John Tavener (as opposed to the Renaissance composer John Taverner, without the 1st "r") because they couldn't tell you a lick about Bachian counterpoint or begin to play an intermediate-level Beethoven sonata. In fact I'd take "Pale Blue Eyes," "Monkey Man," "Billie Jean," or "Israelites" (to name a few personal faves off the top of my head) over anything by Tavener whom I find pretentious and New Agey AF. That's because what makes the best of pop, or what you might call its art, is not based on technical prowess or theoretical expertise but, again, what is made out of those 3 or 4 chords that looks so simple on paper but somehow becomes magic in the right hands.
As an illustration let's look at this fine analysis of Gaga's "Bad Romance" by Owen Pallett:
Explaining the Genius of Lady Gaga—Using Music Theory
Our mission: to dissect chart-topping pop singles and weigh their trembling flesh on the scales of Western music theory. Today I am typing about the un ...
www.slate.com
It's one of the few genuine theoretical breakdowns in pop music criticism and I enjoyed reading it shortly after it was published, but it's hard to imagine anyone becoming a Gaga convert upon learning about her use of a raised seventh which wouldn't be out of place in Tchaikovsky's celebrated dirges. As Pallett himself points out the tritone is one of the tried-and-true formulas in Western music and one could (as her dimmer detractors do) well hold that against her, but I doubt most uninitiated listeners would bother with such trivia when faced with the deliriousness extravagance of Gaga's masterpiece (presented here without the MV for more "objective" appreciation):
Now I'm not such a fan of the silly lyrics which probably is why "Alejandro" remains my fave Gaga song - I do think LG surpassed Madonna as a lyricist a long time ago but she's no Joni or Dolly quite yet - but as a pure pop single "Bad Romance" is up there with anything by anyone which has less to do with the particulars of its construction than with its brute power and exuberance plus, yes, the sheer magnetism of its star.
Speaking of who let's move on to Dolly's "Jolene," another classic of a female lover's angst and insecurity:
Again if you tried to explain the appeal of this perennial pleaser using music theory you'd most likely fall short as it's based on the same simple chord progression for both the verse and the chorus except for this extra B-D# in 2/4 in the latter, but the song somehow never feels monotonous or repetitive. And the audience has agreed as it's arguably Dolly's signature song. What does that say about Parton vs. any of the decent music majors who could surely beat her on those usual midterms and finals in their sleep?
Or what about the fact that Billie never had big pipes even in her prime or that none of the Beatles (including self-admittedly Paul to this day) could read music? You get the idea.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
R D Burman, a famous composer (or music director as we say here) in Bollywood back in the 70s. RDB didn't LIFT so much off the Beatles though he did borrow the hippie aesthetic (and even there, I think Doors and others that bloomed in the summer of love were bigger inspirations). But an older pair of composers Shankar-Jaikishan directly lifted the melody of I Wanna Hold Your Hand.
RD Burman did copy a lot, including this lift of Procol Harum's Whiter Shade of Pale. I have to sheepishly admit I find this lift quite artful, a nice reinterpretation which I would have gladly accepted as a great cover had he only given PH their credit.
By traditional measures of musicianship pop clearly is inferior to classical or jazz, but it's a mistake to think the greatest pop stars were lesser musicians than, say, John Tavener (as opposed to the Renaissance composer John Taverner, without the 1st "r") because they couldn't tell you a lick about Bachian counterpoint or begin to play an intermediate-level Beethoven sonata. In fact I'd take "Pale Blue Eyes," "Monkey Man," "Billie Jean," or "Israelites" (to name a few personal faves off the top of my head) over anything by Tavener whom I find pretentious and New Agey AF. That's because what makes the best of pop, or what you might call its art, is not based on technical prowess or theoretical expertise but, again, what is made out of those 3 or 4 chords that looks so simple on paper but somehow becomes magic in the right hands.
As an illustration let's look at this fine analysis of Gaga's "Bad Romance" by Owen Pallett:
Explaining the Genius of Lady Gaga—Using Music Theory
Our mission: to dissect chart-topping pop singles and weigh their trembling flesh on the scales of Western music theory. Today I am typing about the un ...www.slate.com
It's one of the few genuine theoretical breakdowns in pop music criticism and I enjoyed reading it shortly after it was published, but it's hard to imagine anyone becoming a Gaga convert upon learning about her use of a raised seventh which wouldn't be out of place in Tchaikovsky's celebrated dirges. As Pallett himself points out the tritone is one of the tried-and-true formulas in Western music and one could (as her dimmer detractors do) well hold that against her, but I doubt most uninitiated listeners would bother with such trivia when faced with the deliriousness extravagance of Gaga's masterpiece (presented here without the MV for more "objective" appreciation):
Now I'm not such a fan of the silly lyrics which probably is why "Alejandro" remains my fave Gaga song - I do think LG surpassed Madonna as a lyricist a long time ago but she's no Joni or Dolly quite yet - but as a pure pop single "Bad Romance" is up there with anything by anyone which has less to do with the particulars of its construction than with its brute power and exuberance plus, yes, the sheer magnetism of its star.
Speaking of who let's move on to Dolly's "Jolene," another classic of a female lover's angst and insecurity:
Again if you tried to explain the appeal of this perennial pleaser using music theory you'd most likely fall short as it's based on the same simple chord progression for both the verse and the chorus except for this extra B-D# in 2/4 in the latter, but the song somehow never feels monotonous or repetitive. And the audience has agreed as it's arguably Dolly's signature song. What does that say about Parton vs. any of the decent music majors who could surely beat her on those usual midterms and finals in their sleep?
Or what about the fact that Billie never had big pipes even in her prime or that none of the Beatles (including self-admittedly Paul to this day) could read music? You get the idea.
A very informative post, as always, which I will assimilate in detail later. But let me just clarify here that I am not arguing that pop musicians are always and without exception less talented than their classical or jazz peers. I can see why my earlier post may have given that impression so I am sorry for any confusion on that front.
My argument was more about the nature of the appreciation and I argue that pop appreciation is always very emotional, instinctive and unconscious as opposed to the studied and careful appreciation of classical. Jazz is somewhat in the middle but increasingly approaches classical levels of refinement. That is, the pop music aficionado is not particularly interested in who as between say Lady Gaga and Adele is the better singer or the better songwriter (if at all there is a way to determine who writes pop songs better) but in who appeals to them more. Whether this be on account of 'traditional' parameters like the voice or the hooks used in the songs or on account of the charisma or personality of the artist. That is actually why pop can encompass BOTH Lady Gaga and Bieber (or Britney/Mariah). In classical, it is more predictable as to which performances of a given composition fare better. Particularly when it comes to vocals, the voice type alone is a strong determinant of who should be selected to sing which parts. Maybe I am off base here as a primarily rock/pop listener but classical is the closest you have in the music world to B2B: predictably high and reliable standard of delivery to informed consumers (ok, there are those who go just to be seen in that august company but even they have no choice but to remain well behaved during the performance). Jazz used to be wilder in the days of Billie and Louis Armstrong but these days, you can get a good feel of what to expect by looking at the musicians, the instruments, the size of the ensemble (trio/quartet/sextet) and the genres they tend to play in. As I mentioned in my response to r2473, there is an unpredictability to pop music which perhaps attracts fans more than any other reason. You could find a lifelong love in just three minutes of bliss. And even if it's bad, you get to turn it off in the same amount of time. With classical/jazz, you know exactly what you're getting and perhaps that is seen as not so exciting by some people.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Yes, that's part of it. But my primary argument, which I have now elaborated in my response to NonP, is that pop appreciation itself is very emotional and therefore divorced from a meticulous evaluation of the musical quality of a work. It doesn't matter how good or bad the music is as long as the listener relates/connects to it.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Agree. I only went into the musical analysis part because others posters were. It’s not how I would evaluate the quality of a pop musician either.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Per my understanding, pop is still regarded as 'simple' - true or not, I am not a judge but connoisseurs of music, whether warranted or not will not consider pop music to stand alongside some of the greatest rock ballads. Why this is so, I can't tell. Consider Madonna - I used to like her music when I was growing up and experimenting with various kinds - her music was catchy, intense and easy to grasp. It needed a much more training on my part to begin appreciating the nuances of Led Zep or Floyd.
You will understand where I am coming from - being trained in Carnatic and having grown up listening to music from here (bollywood and the like), there is more emphasis on 'melody' and naturally for the uninitiated to western music (other than classical), pop would be a natural appeal including, gasp, Britney Spears. I would assume that the catchy nature of the music is what appeals in pop. I don't listen to any of the modern stuff that has been coming out and don't know if they are appealing enough.
As for bollywood music directors, most of them lifted tunes unless they were based on classical notes - perhaps the likes of Naushad, KV Mahadevan. The rest copied A LOT. RDB did lift music from the Beatles but moreso from Abba I think.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I think ACCESSIBILITY does not necessarily imply simple in terms of construction, is the point @NonP is making. Accessibility translates more via the ability to write catchy hooks. But it is possible to write catchy parts while still making unusual or sophisticated compositional decisions. I could fill up a whole thread with examples of this from Ilaiyaraja's music. I had written a blog article on how he uses scale modulation in the second interlude of Perai Sollava, which you will agree isn't even among his more ambitious songs and is pretty run of the mill by his standards.
https://rothrocks.wordpress.com/2020/03/10/ilayaraja-and-scale-modulation/
On similar lines, I would argue Pink Floyd's classic phase (Meddle through to Wall) may require effort more for how 'serious' it is. With exceptions like Money or Young Lust, the songs are not very groovy or catchy and demand attention. But the construction of many of these songs isn't particularly complex. I would argue a lot of classic Stevie Wonder is more complex than what Pink Floyd were doing in this phase (at least leaving aside Echoes which again isn't as complex as its length may suggest). Take a song like Too High, the groove is red hot but the melody-chord juxtaposition is not very intuitive and not so easy to sing along to (especially if you try to sing WITHOUT a backing track).
Steely Dan's Kid Charlemagne is a great example too, the guitar solo seemingly has a million changes but driven by a strong sense of groove so that it is deceptively catchy.
Now I cannot comment in general on Madonna because I am not very well versed with her work. It's possible that some songs are 'just' simple and catchy while others are catchy but, as I described above, are more complex than they appear to be. What the Perai Sollava example tells us is we cannot judge complexity by ear and on the surface. We have to break down the nuts and bolts and then we come to know whether it is actually complex or not. A counter example I would give is MSV/TKR's Yenge Nimmadhi. It isn't actually as complex as the blaring violins (supposedly a 100 of them) may suggest.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Wesley Willis
Rock on Chicago, rock on London,
Pontiac, we build excitement!
Rock on Chicago, rock on London,
Pontiac, we build excitement!
homogenization
New User
Freddie Mercury.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Nice article there! I have to confess that I haven't listened to as much of the maestro and this was a song I wasn't too familiar with. (I never liked Janaki's voice having been influenced by the likes of Lata, Asha, Suseela and Leela more). I am more familiar with Raja's popular ones though and a lot of BGM. I always found his music more appealing than ARR's whi infact has descended into using electronics way more than what is needed IMO - the good music barely lasted a decade or thereabouts. Raja's spans decades. I guess his body of work is simply more diverse to me.
When I meant catchy, I didn't necessarily mean simple - it was just something that struck a chord because it was melodious - you echo the same sentiments in the article. We are used to melody and therefore catchy songs being mostly melodious, we get hooked to them. Here I am not alluding to catchy lyrics like "Ice Ice baby" etc which were also super popular. A lot Raja's works are complex yet very catchy - take Thalapathi's songs. Fantastic songs all around and extremely catchy especially the magic he produces with the violins.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
- deleted post -
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Ooh, you send me.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Hooks can be lyrical, rhythmic, melodic, harmonic what not.
As you mentioned, Ice Ice Baby is essentially a lyrical catchphrase. Sometimes, they may use just scat or gibberish phrases that are catchy.
Billie Jean is a classic rhythmic hook.
Harmonic, hmm, ABBA's SOS comes to mind. Adele's Rolling In The Deep too. But ABBA's is a longer progression and it is interesting that they had the confidence to lead with it.
A good melodic hook would be Whitney Houston's version of I Will Always Love You.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Tell me why
chrischris
G.O.A.T.
Prince.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
@weelie
Nope, not just jazz. His primary genres: classic (traditional) pop, easy listening, swing (big band) and other jazz styles.
FatHead250
Professional
GOAT pop singer who cant even sing?? you have me rolling..
Relevant video: just listen how perfect Michael's (the GOAT's) vocals are, and how Britney (a produced star) just whispers.
Although there is a probablilty he was partly singing to a rerecorded version of this song to fit his older voice but i'm sure there are live vocals in here. Anyway, there are a lot of examples of his lvie singing proving how if not a super GOAT singer he is after puberty, but certainly among the best ever. His songs are perfect and iconcial though, added up with his influence, and thats what make him the goat
Last edited:
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Who's trolling here?
Rock & Roll of the 50s and 60s entailed a variety of influences but, in general, much of it was pretty pop-y. Much more so than the rock of the late 60s onward. Even the early Beatles was more pop than their later rock compositions.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
True dat. But I cringe at the thought of classifying his music or the music of Queen as pop. While R&R might have been pop, the rock of the late 60s, 70s, 80s, etc was a genre apart from pop.
chrischris
G.O.A.T.
Good one
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Who is it?
Lead singers don't necessarily have the greatest vocal range or possess the greatest number of vocal tricks in their bag. (But some do). They typically have more distinctive (often, powerful) voices and possess a ton of charisma / stage presence.
It's often about production value or creating & cultivating a style and image. Can't even sing? Not true. Ppl do love to exaggerate. While not the absolute best singer or dancer, Britney's a very capable singer & dancer who knew how to create & package an image and capitalize on the things that she could do well.
Guess we really need to define the criteria for GOAT-ness for this category.
Faulty premise. Being the best pop (& rock) singer is not necessarily about who is technically the best vocalist. Backing singers are often technically better vocalists than lead singers.
Lead singers don't necessarily have the greatest vocal range or possess the greatest number of vocal tricks in their bag. (But some do). They typically have more distinctive (often, powerful) voices and possess a ton of charisma / stage presence.
It's often about production value or creating & cultivating a style and image. Can't even sing? Not true. Ppl do love to exaggerate. While not the absolute best singer or dancer, Britney's a very capable singer & dancer who knew how to create & package an image and capitalize on the things that she could do well.
Guess we really need to define the criteria for GOAT-ness for this category.
Last edited:
FatHead250
Professional
Of course she became at least capable of singing or dancing through a lot of repetitions. Okay, maybe i exaggarated. But the main difference is the following. Britney was doing musicals, casts and commercials. No singing or dancing. And then she was picked up by a producer who saw a pretty girl and knew she would become popular. So she didn't get to the scene through her singing or dancing or any of that. Just like many other made popstars she was produced.
Michael on the other hand became popular exclusively because of his dancing and singing skills in the group. Joe Jackson's group wouldnt become more than local famous without Michael singing in it. Later he stood out as a solo artist, was helped by a producer of course, and acquired all this fame and mastered his skills even more. So that's just the main difference that i see. He is also a very capable songwriter in his later years. Edit: actaully i just googled it and it seems that he actually wrote and developed all of his most famous songs himself! never knew that. Then you can say i guess he was a self-made artist right after he cut ties with the group.
And anyway, even if talking about girls. I like Ariana Grande more. Again she can sing and her influence is huge
Last edited:
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I partly agree with the both of you. Again, pop music isn't about which singer or artist is technically better. That said, it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that Britney's success had a lot to do with things that were not connected in any way to her musical talent. It wasn't even singing + dancing like it was for Michael. It was all about her image paired to catchy songs.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
@Dolgopolov85 @Vcore89 @Poisoned Slice
No need to convince me that MJ has more inherent musical and dancing talent than Britney. That wasn't my point.
Agree that Ariana Grande has an outstanding voice and is an incredible talent. Christina Aguilera is another singer who has amazing vocal skills. She had auditioned for MMC in the early 1990s alongside Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake & Jessica Simpson. Christina wowwed the other kids and pretty much blew the competition away. Jessica Simpson was so overwhelmed by having to follow Christina A, that she blew the final stages of her audition and never made it on to the MMC.
But, as talented as she is, Christina tends to show off and throw way too many flashy vocal tricks into her music. Ariana Grande's performances, otoh, comes off more effortless. She shows greater restraint with performances rather than throwing every thing, including the kitchen sink, into it. If Christina A could include that same restraint in her music, her performances would be better for it.
However, as immensely talented as Ariana G is, I've got to wonder how much of her past & current music will stand the test of time. How much of it will ppl recall 30 or 40 years from now. I wonder the same thing about the music of Justin Timberlake. Also an outstanding voice and a great talent. But so much of his music does not seem be timeless or to have much staying power.
Even tho Ariana & Justin may be greater talents, more of Britney's music is iconic and will probably still be known in 40+ years.
Even Katy Perry, who seems to have somewhat even less vocal talent than Britney, has released some music that may endure longer than the music of Ariana, Justin T, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, or Janet Jackson.
The Beatles music is still well known more than 50 years after they released it. The music of MJ, Madonna, Cindy Lauper, Diana Ross, Whitney Houston, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Aretha Franklin & others will undoubtedly stick around for a long time as well.
No need to convince me that MJ has more inherent musical and dancing talent than Britney. That wasn't my point.
Agree that Ariana Grande has an outstanding voice and is an incredible talent. Christina Aguilera is another singer who has amazing vocal skills. She had auditioned for MMC in the early 1990s alongside Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake & Jessica Simpson. Christina wowwed the other kids and pretty much blew the competition away. Jessica Simpson was so overwhelmed by having to follow Christina A, that she blew the final stages of her audition and never made it on to the MMC.
But, as talented as she is, Christina tends to show off and throw way too many flashy vocal tricks into her music. Ariana Grande's performances, otoh, comes off more effortless. She shows greater restraint with performances rather than throwing every thing, including the kitchen sink, into it. If Christina A could include that same restraint in her music, her performances would be better for it.
However, as immensely talented as Ariana G is, I've got to wonder how much of her past & current music will stand the test of time. How much of it will ppl recall 30 or 40 years from now. I wonder the same thing about the music of Justin Timberlake. Also an outstanding voice and a great talent. But so much of his music does not seem be timeless or to have much staying power.
Even tho Ariana & Justin may be greater talents, more of Britney's music is iconic and will probably still be known in 40+ years.
Even Katy Perry, who seems to have somewhat even less vocal talent than Britney, has released some music that may endure longer than the music of Ariana, Justin T, Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber, or Janet Jackson.
The Beatles music is still well known more than 50 years after they released it. The music of MJ, Madonna, Cindy Lauper, Diana Ross, Whitney Houston, Shania Twain, Celine Dion, Aretha Franklin & others will undoubtedly stick around for a long time as well.
Last edited:
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
@FatHead250
At this point, the music of Gwen Stefani (No Doubt) appears that it will have greater longevity than the music of Ariana, Justin T, Justin B and Janet J. However, Gwen's music encompasses both the rock and pop genres.
Hayley Williams (Paramore) is another who impresses me. But her music is more rock and, perhaps, pop rock or power pop. Unlike many of the pop singers mentioned in this thread, Hayley W is also accomplished as a songwriter.
At this point, the music of Gwen Stefani (No Doubt) appears that it will have greater longevity than the music of Ariana, Justin T, Justin B and Janet J. However, Gwen's music encompasses both the rock and pop genres.
Hayley Williams (Paramore) is another who impresses me. But her music is more rock and, perhaps, pop rock or power pop. Unlike many of the pop singers mentioned in this thread, Hayley W is also accomplished as a songwriter.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
I have some difficulties w MJ after what happened.
I’ll settle for The Weekend! He has a similar voice to MJ.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
It took roar to make me appreciate Katy Perry. Good song. Manny Pacquiao used it as one of his entrance themes and it just fit perfectly. Got laughed at but I doubt he cared.
How to be sexy without being over the top about it. A special gift.
How to be sexy without being over the top about it. A special gift.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
No love for Mariah Carey?
Aretha Franklin, Diana Ross... is that pop? Isn’t that soul music? I love soul as well.
Pop is not about having the greatest voice of all time. It’s catchy and easy. That’s why I think Britney is very much one of the best in the pop genre. Madonna also in that category. Not a great voice but very catchy and it’s pop. I agree Christina is a bit too much all though her voice incredible.
This is a great pop song. She has also been doing soul, but this is pop. And she can sing without exaggerating it.
And of course Taylor Swift. I also like her country music stuff. Taylor is maybe the pop musician of today I listen to the most in that genre. Also Janet Jackson both me and my husband like so we listen to that in the car. The Weekend too. Whitney Huston! I love huge ballads done by divas! But that my husband not so into. Whitney and Mariah covers my ballade need. Not into Celine Dion, but been thinking I should really give her a chance after some influencer I like put Celine in a new perspective for me(yeah I know that sounded pathetic, I don’t care, I like ballads)
George Michael! Is also a great pop artist! But I like to sing along sometimes and it’s difficult to sing songs men singing cause we have different voices and I can’t reach the notes.
Then we have Rnb, and I like 90s rnb, not interrupted w some lame rap crap. Some of it is probably pop too. Toni Braxton (she can sing ballads like a diva too!) for example I never get tired of.
Last edited:
