Tim at
In the Blog of Madness got me thinking about what passes for an "artist" these days. Sony had to pay radio stations to play J. Lo.'s latest "hit." Not surprising considering what little talent her type typically has. They don't write the song or play an instrument. When they sing the song, the wonders of modern computers actually make it sound like they are singing in tune. When her type performs, 50/50 if they will actually sing the song or just move their lips. What has the music industry devolved into?
I can just imagine when a J.Lo.-type needs a new song, she goes through a catalog of pre-written songs. These songs seem to be written my mostly the same small number of people who are probably paid well enough to stay in the background. Then she listens to the song, recorded by some actually talented person, so that she can get how the song goes (as I'm sure she doesn't read music). Then she mangles it in some studio, having the computers clean it up. Make pointless music video. Show up for some publicity. End of song process. I see so many of them as little more than trained monkeys. Singing when they are told to sing, smiling when told to smile.
It's no wonder that there are all kinds of illicit payments going on. Why would anybody looking for talent or a good song play this stuff by choice?
Which is why I'm sure that they've become "artists." They certainly didn't do much else, so give them some sort of a generic description.
Which is not to say that I think everyone on the radio falls into this category. Sure, there are plenty of Brittanys and J.Lo types, but there are certainly people who seem to actually have some sort of talent, writing songs, playing instruments. I've heard good things about both Avril and Vanessa Carlton.
The next time you look through the liner notes for some album, just see if the writing credits and the instrumental credits have anything to do with the "artist" in question.