move over Chubby

[mcbrion]

the rankings are NOT based just number one weeks on charts - it is a combination of a LOT of factors like sales (which in today's world means downloads from music service apps) - radio airplay - etc etc etc....

I also think we all have bias when we think of the who's who in the music industry - for instance Aretha was quite the diva - but imho she never achieved the super stardom of a Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley - Thriller is the number one selling album of all time - she never reached those kinds of accolades - Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon stayed on the charts 950 weeks - that is in the top 100 for over 18 YEARS!!! most songs can't make 18 weeks! no song or album by Aretha surpassed 8 weeks... there are different measures - the reason why a Madonna makes the best list is because number of number one songs - only The Beatles Rihanna and Mariah Carey have more - why is The Weeknd number one is just like asking how the hell did Rihanna get NINETEEN number one songs? The Beatles only have 20!

Just for the record, I never said "number one weeks on the chart." I would never use a "chart" as an indication of anything. Milli Vanilli won Best New Artist Grammy in 1990. They are now candidates for typically asinine internet articles that ask the most trivial question, "Where Are They Now?" just to get someone to click on their page.

What I DID say is that popularity is no indicator of quality, and on that point, we agree. And again, Billboard's rankings are arbitrary, because they change them yearly. So, no surprise then, That The Weeknd ranked high on this year's chart. Or that Madonna is "#2" on Billboard's top artists (which also changes yearly). I doubt, however, that The Weeknd will have anything as enduring as Aretha Franklin's "Respect," which even 50+ years later, is acknowledged as one of the greatest songs of the last century. Everyone has their moment in the spotlight, I suppose. But lets not confuse it with "Greatness." Ahmet Ertegun (the founder of Atlantic Records) once said he had only met three geniuses in his life. I forget who #3 was, but the other two were Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin

I don't think any of the world's greatest artists would ever deny that, say, Aretha Franklin was a singularity, even among the superstars of their respective eras. Despite her not making #1 songs. (After all, nobody Black had that many #1 songs in the '60s or 70s). By that standard, Ray Charles would also not be considered a "legend."

but if you asked the (remaining) Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Tina Turner or nearly anyone who actually had great chops (as singers/songwriters) of their assessment, the uniformity of agreement on "who's who" over the Ages is far more evident. People who actually know what makes music great are the authorities, not the average listener who thinks its great because he/she likes it. I can recall plenty of songs I liked, that upon more critical assessment, many year later, I can see were junk. Nothing wrong with liking junk in any genre.

 

[DepravedMuscleFTL]

^ agree completely - no better illustrated than JHUD - who has been overshadowed by no nothings - she only placed 7th by the judges and all of America in Idol - she has always taken a backseat to the likes of a Rihanna and a Beyonce - but when she was judged by true proffesionals she reigned supreme and walked away with an Oscar and left Beyonce in her dust - what is worthy of airplay isn't necessarily indicative of talent - there is no way that Rihanna Beyonce and their 10 best friends combined can touch this - and yet Jen has never had a song go to number one....

 

[mcbrion]

^^^^

Well, with Aretha personally picking Hudson for Aretha's biographical movie, can't argue with that!

That said, after many years of listening to JH, I find she doesn't do "delicacy" very often in her songs, and reaches for a more "operatic" style of singing. I like it just fine, but it contrasts glaringly with say, Whitney Houston, who could sing as softly as anyone could wish and still keep her tonal quality breathtakingly steady, losing neither power, expressiveness or sheer gorgeousness of tone readily apparent. I wish I could hear JH do that more often.

But yes, it's no surprise to me that people watching "musical judging contests" don't understand what makes a voice "great." The whole clapping-in-the-middle-of-the-singer's song is an '80s phenomenon, right about the time people were less conspicuously perceptive about singers/music. I can't imagine people clapping in the middle of a Broadway number by ANYONE. EVER. There's the sophisticates and then there's those who are not. The singing contests strike as more oriented towards those "the (unwashed) masses", although clearly there have been a few "one-for-the-Ages" singers coming out of all this. But when you listen to everyone who's entered sing a song, there was so much ornamentation going on (and the crowd applauding that one high note at the bridge of the song (ugh!), that that cut short my interest, especially when it came down to any ol' Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane and Spot voting - and FREQUENTLY voting the best singers off the competition, a la Hudson.

 

[mcbrion]

The whole musical contest thing has gone back to the days of Star Search, where signs were flashed offstage, saying "APPLAUD." It's very artificial and superficial. That's why lists, charts and the like don't influence me. I used to be in the business and sometimes the music business is more about the "business" than it is about the "music" as evidenced in the parody '70s song, "Stuck In The Middle With You" about a superficial Hollywood-based music industry cocktail party where the singer is panicking about how to escape all these superficial butthead music executives.