The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Can Mary J Blige Really Sing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blueboy369

Blueboy369

JUB Addict
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,142
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
New York
Hello Boys,
Mary J Blige is one of the leaders in the music industry. She is loved by millions of fans and deserves all of her awards & success. I've noticed that, at times, her voice is not always on key. In live performances she comes across pitchy and scratchy. Her "riffs" are not that impressive either. I feel like everyone knows this but we forgive her because she's Mary.

Blueboy.
 
There are many aspects to singing, and I think it's a shame the modern standard for being able to "sing" consists only of the ability to stay on key and on time. There are other factors that make someone a singer, such as the ability to emote and to know how to sing songs so that an audience will relate to it somewhow, or be affected by it. One must also pick material that not only will relate to her, but to others as well.

Mary's got a great voice definitely, but what makes her special is that she has the other factors aside from staying on pitch and in time. She delivers songs with her own personal renditions, emoting on each one. She clearly picks songs that are sure to bear some sort of importance to others, and not only herself. (i.e. "No More Drama") All these factors considered, yes, Mary can definitely sing.
 
She can definetely sing...i think sometimes people forget that singing is their job, touring and doing performance after performance does put strain and wear on the vocals and so at times they are not always on due to that....then theres also the technical aspect of it, them not being able to hear themselves during the performance. but Maty can definetely sing and she proved that on Grammy night:)
 
Listen to Mary's "Beautiful Ones," you'll witness Mary's greatness. Sometimes she's off-tune, but she's raw and her good days far outnumber her bad days. ;)
 
Oh my god I almost cried at her Grammy performance this past Sunday! You can just feel her soul pour out onto the stage every time that woman performs. Love her!

 
I heard that she did drugs a few years ago and it caused her vocal technique to slip. Her singing isn't quite as good as her prime years during the mid-90s
 
martyj said:
I think it's a shame the modern standard for being able to "sing" consists only of the ability to stay on key and on time.
Click to expand...


Okay...sure, everyone has their off days, but staying on pitch is one of the basic elements of singing! It's like saying it's a shame that a baseball player is expected to be able to throw a ball. I'm not sure why you consider it a "modern standard" but as far as I know being on pitch has always been part of the definition of singing.
 
Perhaps as a general definition, but singing is an art of using the human voice to create music. There are occassions when being completely off key and off time, and various sounds that may be deemed unpleasant, can be used in music to create a statement, granted that it can't be heard in contemporary music. (i.e. Christina Aguilera felt she was "pitchy" on her first and only vocal take on "Beautiful;" Linda Perry said that was perfect, as Aguilera's vocal imperfection adds to the message and theme of the song.) And yes, staying in pitch can be one of the main elements of the universally acknowledged criteria of singing, but my argument is that that aspect alone should not make one a singer, as there are other aspects to consider. Otherwise, we might as well save singers the trouble and have computers, robots, and vocoders do the work for them.

And the comparison to sports is not really fair, considering sports is full of technicalities whereas in the arts, anything goes. Granted, more mainstream music built up certain criteria singers have to meet in order to create marketable work, but as an art, singing has no rules. Even spoken word can be defined as singing by some on occassion. But as an art, it still has to have intention, message, emotion, or a combination of some. At least to me, that's what makes one an artist. A more fair comparison would be pitch is to singing what a paintbrush is to a painter. Yes, it's a more common tool used in painting, but the painter could experiment with painting with paper, his fingers, etc. and still be a painter.

Mary J. Blige sings with emotion, intent, and message, so regardless of whether or not she can stay on pitch, the girl can sing.
 
The thing about Mary J. is that she's rebuilt herself from scratch over the past few years. And it's tied her to the depths of her soul. So yes, she can sing. Yes, she deserves praise for her accomplishments. But no, I don't think she deserved some of the Grammy's she got. I've already posted this before, but it's a political thing now in almost every awards thing.

Dixie Chicks--Had a bad year with the Bush quote but was proven right. GRAMMY
John Mayer--Waits on the World to Change and does lots of charity stuff. GRAMMY
Mary J.--Picks up the pieces and impresses the world with her bravery and transformation. GRAMMY.
Gnarles Barkley--Army reference? Hmm...GRAMMY

It's basic politics.

What did Christina, Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, and Shakira do in the world lately? Not very much on the level of their competition. They didn't get it. Yeah. they got an award here and there...but they weren't the awards that the Grammy aired on TV...cause they weren't important that year...cause they didn't have a chance to show that the music industry rewards those that do society good.

This isn't to say that the artists aren't talented. But seriously...ALL The artists nominated are talented. Some definitely are greater than others...but sometimes it comes down to who's got the greatest contributions to society???

This is my opinion.

I love all the artists I've mentioned. Don't have anything against them or their talents. I just think that awards shows are rigged...basically. And I don't like it.


But as for the topic...again. She can sing...mehbe not on key or pitch...but she can sing with the soul she's tied herself to in order to make it through rough times. Go Mary J.

Congrats
 
I think the roughness of Mary's voice is partly why those that love her, love her. She's not Mariah Carey. For two reasons...she's not a technically perfect singer. Making sure she hits this note or that note perfectly. And two, she puts soul and feeling into her performances--she's real, raw, and gritty.

She's not for everybody, but for those that love her, those are the reasons why.

I prefer Mary to someone like Mariah who basically just stands there and sings. She's gotten better over the years, for instance her most recent Grammy performance of Fly Like A Bird, but to me she's always been so devoid of soul.
 
Remember how Mary upstageed that AI guy in American Idol 5? Like wow!
 
^I remember his fans were SOOOO pissed about that. That performance was great though.
 
There have been (many) times when I have overlooked the fact that someone was a little off but made up for it with emotion. I personally have never heard someone off pitch that added to a performance.

And, I am certainly not saying that singing in the right key is the only thing that makes a good singer. But, I think it should be expected that someone who makes a career as a singer should be able to generally sing on pitch and have a pleasant voice. Everything on top of that is what separates the good singers from the amazing ones.

my argument is that that aspect alone should not make one a singer, as there are other aspects to consider. Otherwise, we might as well save singers the trouble and have computers, robots, and vocoders do the work for them.
Click to expand...

This, I have to 100% disagree with. It's not the expectation of pitch that is leading to more vocal enhancement in the studio; it's the forgiving of lack of pitch. It's easy for a record exec to say, "She's really marketable. She can't hold a tune, but we can fix that in the studio". Now, as it's becoming more and more acceptable to lip-synch during a "live" concert it's even more commonplace to have recording artists who can do little more than carry a tune.
 
I suppose it depends on exactly what kind of music you're making, but mainstream pop generates more starlets that are praised as singers merely for being able to be in pitch. Therefore, we as an audience have come to expect singers to do what other singers before them have done and gained recognition for. But where's the artistry, emotion, etc.? Seriously, if people like (and NOT just) Paris Hilton can get a record deal these days and sound in pitch (thanks to seamless studio work) without doing much else, that's where I start to question where creativity has gone with music.

The whole ordeal with studio enhancement is mainly due to the producers' side of the job, to sell a popstar. Selling a pretty face with someone else's or a heavily enhanced vocals of his/her own, that's been done before. It's the age of TV (and computers), it's about creating a sure product that people are familiar with enough to buy. But that's another story.

All I'm saying is nobody's experimenting with the human voice anymore to call it art, it's all become marketting strategies, recycling, and playing it safe. I'm dying to see someone contribute to a performance by singing off-pitch, and emitting sounds different from what we expect to hear. After all, that's partly how gospel, jazz, blues, swing, rock, and rap have all come to be. If there are a billion colors we can get from mixing paint in different ways, why can't we do that with voices? Hey, we could be surprised.

I might be getting a bit carried away, I apologize for that.
 
My 2 cents -

Being on tune is important to music. Expressing emotion is important to music. Having both is what seperates a great singer from a good singer. As good as Mary J Blige can be at times, sometimes her pitch can take away from the performance. However, when she sings reasonably in tune, she can make great music.

Example: Billie Holiday, one of the most recognized jazz singers of all time. She was reknowned for her emotion in her singing, and she was usually not too out of tune.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top