Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Kylie Minogue=Best Band Ever???

Page: 1 2(3)4

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:07 / 08.10.03

Why we should all turn off out brains when it comes to dealing with popular culture? Could it be because when one actually does start analysing popular culture, certain kneejerk reactions to it begin to look a little shaky?

Dissecting popular culture is what people *do* on Barbelith, Radiator - perhaps you haven't noticed previously that it doesn't tend to matter whether the culture in general fits into some established idea of credible high art or not (we have a Comics forum, y'know?). Don't try to shut down the discussion just because you're unwilling or enable to actually engage with it.

08:25 / 08.10.03

I'd second Flyboy on that. It's ridiculous to sanction Kylie or any other area of culture as not worthy of discussion - what, should we all discuss opera then, or something else completely irrelavant to our lives? I'm not the biggest fan of her music either but I think this thread proves we can have a fascinating discussion from exchanging opinions - see the stuff on autuers vs populism above for a start.

Oh and I listened to "Slow" from Flux's blog last night. Not my cup of tea, really, but not bad at all.

And

10:55 / 08.10.03

arent kylies voice in the original take and her voice on the finished record quite different sounds?

Does the exact same thing on Strawberry Fields Forever mean it isn't art? I doubt you'd make that claim.

anyone trying to divine artistic genius from her will be sorely dissapointed.

Only those who approach music from a rockist perspective. For many, music is more about the final track than how little production stands between the players and the record. Spinning Around is not diminished by production any more than a '60s Phil Spector track or something off Magical Mystery Tour. There's a shedload of double standards happening.

Let's consider for a moment Terry Gilliam and the film 12 Monkeys.

• Gilliam didn't conceive it.
• He didn't write it.
• He didn't design it.
• He didn't score it.
• He didn't act in it.
• He didn't build the sets for it.
• He didn't make the costumes for it.
• He didn't light it.
• He didn't shoot it.
• He didn't edit it.
• He didn't produce it.

And yet it says on the DVD that it's "a Terry Gilliam film." We'd probably all agree with that, and his name is frequently tossed around as a cinematic genius. How is this any different to Kylie? So we get back to this:

maybe my earlier post should have read in terms of the product, the face of the corportation is not the genius responsible.

Would we make this claim about 12 Monkeys with corporation = filmmakers? No, but we do it with abandon in music. Why?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:08 / 08.10.03

[Actually, that whole thing of putting the director's name above the title is considered moderately obnoxious by almost everyone who isn't a director. It was Frank Capra who started the whole thing, back when directors and studios had a completely different relationship. And you do get the coporation's name/logo.]

14:48 / 08.10.03

thin, reedy voice. bad hair. some of the very very worst tracks ever to piss all over the british charts, oh to be a cultish american kylie fan and never actually have to have her noise clogging up your radio, tv show, ears.

bad bad pop, a broken glass opinionless and static, only works as an electroclash personality because she was always the Ramsey most likely to do whatever was asked of her for fame. they love that faustian deep surface stuff, best achieved by utterly surrendering the self and intelligence to the spurt and pish of pop. not like she was using them much i suppose. some kind of bliss? what kind?

the best one was the one with the cave, where he killed her right up.

this thread should really be all about cathy dennis, putting in the hours.

and there's something dark about the way the manics thought that she would fit little baby nothing better than Traci 'Jack' Lords. even back then, kylie was so willing, so empty. so so so undignified. yr lack of ego offends male mentality, said the man.

and an e-z listening version of motorcycle emptiness on a mobile advert. i think rock and roll has died for me. but i'm digressing now so

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:56 / 08.10.03

oh to be a cultish american kylie fan and never actually have to have her noise clogging up your radio, tv show, ears.

It's much more fun to be in the UK and be able to hear something like 'Love At First Sight' whenever you like. Remember that summer when it was all over the radio? Euphoric rush GO!

15:10 / 08.10.03

To those who are getting defensive about being called "rockists": this has nothing to do with the exact kinda music you listen to. It's about being dependent on the "expressive auteur/genius" model that forms the core of the rock music master narrative. Death to the Rock Music Master Narrative!

"[The developmental tendencies of art under present conditions of production] brush aside a number of outmoded concepts, such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery — concepts whose uncontrolled (and at present almost uncontrollable) application would lead to a processing of data in the Fascist sense." -- Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Matthew Fluxington

15:25 / 08.10.03

"Can't Get You Out Of My Head," "Love At First Sight," and "Come Into My World" were all really big mainstream hits in the US.

Jebni = otm

16:26 / 08.10.03

To those who are getting defensive about being called "rockists": this has nothing to do with the exact kinda music you listen to.

i know that.
i read the primer i was given.
and now, with that and all the information i already had at my disposal, i am still unsure of what makes me a rockist in your eyes. or anyones.

16:35 / 08.10.03

arent kylies voice in the original take and her voice on the finished record quite different sounds?

Does the exact same thing on Strawberry Fields Forever mean it isn't art? I doubt you'd make that claim.

well, i think maybe i wasnt clear enough.
i dont think that the finished article is not art.
i am wondering whether the singing voice being very heavily altered before it is acceptable shows a lack in the vooice. to my mind, kylies voice is usually full of effects befoe it is heard on record. maddona is worse for fixing her vocal with machines, but i think the singing budgie herself is at least a little guilty.

its not that she is just using effects, she uses technology to make her voice sound good; to make it sound like someone who can sing really well, as opposed to okay.

that, althoug in itself it may be art, detracts from the talent of the singer.

"OOOH! that was so rockist! imagine wanting credit for singing to be based on ACTUAL singing! next he'll be telling us we cant credit pierce brosnan with all the stunts some other guy did!"

Murray Hamhandler

16:45 / 08.10.03

By "transititonal pahse", I take it you just hit thirty?

Well, 26, but who's counting? If the assertion is that I'm an old man in comparison to yerself, then guilty as charged.

Matthew Fluxington

17:05 / 08.10.03

So, using technology to change the sound of the voice is a bad thing to you? What about the legions of rock artists over the years who have hid their voices behind reverb to a) mask their technical flaws as singers or b) to achieve a specific effect to suit the song?

What about when a guy like Thom Yorke uses digital effects to warp his voice, as on the song "Kid A"?

If singers are musicians, why is it so wrong for them to use effects and tools to make their voices sound they way that they want? Do you think that when guitarists use effects pedals, it is entirely to cover up their lack of technical guitar playing skill?

Like LLBIMG is suggesting, there are some pretty big double standards in the rockist argument.

17:22 / 08.10.03

And yet it says on the DVD that it's "a Terry Gilliam film." We'd probably all agree with that, and his name is frequently tossed around as a cinematic genius. How is this any different to Kylie?

way to assume yourself out of a point.
i dont think it should be a 'whoever film' unless the person in question is an auteur.

the difference is that directing requires genius more than dancing and singing. and even choosing songs given to you. its more of a creative process.

the album being a kylie album is fine. just dont tell me she is as much of an artist as giliam, or even phil spector, and expect me to agree.

17:29 / 08.10.03

So, using technology to change the sound of the voice is a bad thing to you?

no.

What about the loads of rock artists over the years who have hid their voices behind reverb to a) mask their technical flaws as singers

they are not good singers, i would claim that they are less (as artists) for it.

or b) to achieve a specific effect to suit the song?

well, thats an entirely different thing. so, even though i dont like thom yorkes output these days, i think him using them as he does is a lot like when guitarists use effects pedals, and NOT entirely to cover up their lack of technical guitar playing skill. or in kylies case, vocal ability.

there is a difference in using effects to get a sound that is impossible to acieve, or to get just the right tone, and using technology to make your voice acceptable.
it doesnt mean she is a bad person, or that i dont respect her, or that i wouldnt shag her, but it does mean i dont rate her as a Great Singer.

Matthew Fluxington

17:30 / 08.10.03

You're being way too literal, Toksik. This wasn't about saying that Kylie is better or worse, it's about comparing the structure and process.

17:31 / 08.10.03

Like LLBIMG is suggesting, there are some pretty big double standards in the rockist argument.

are you calling me rockist to taunt me now?
you are still to demonstrate how i am one.
any of you.

17:33 / 08.10.03

she is an artist, yeah?

and her art is what?

her singing and her dancing?

and i was explaining why i think her singing is weak enough to not be considered art.

Matthew Fluxington

17:36 / 08.10.03

But Toksik, lots of technically proficient singers use reverb and other effects to make their voices sound better. This happens all the time. It's extremely common.

Now that you're getting into all of this nonsense about technical virtuousity and how that makes someone good or bad, you're bringing this to a whole other area of very questionable and limiting ideas about music.

I think that the sound of Kylie's voice is really great, by the way. Her phrasing is part of why I like her a lot.

Matthew Fluxington

17:39 / 08.10.03

and i was explaining why i think her singing is weak enough to not be considered art.

Feh. Sez you.

So, because they don't have technically strong singing voices, are Bob Dylan, Stephen Malkmus, and Kurt Cobain not artists as well? Does this mean that a technically flawless singer like Celine Dion is a greater artist than Kylie? Or a better artist than Yoko Ono? Or Jandek? Or Ozzy Osbourne? Or Joe Strummer? Or Diamanda Galas?

18:13 / 08.10.03

and i was explaining why i think her singing is weak enough to not be considered art.

Feh. Sez you.

uh huh.
thats why i said why I THINK, not why THE GOSPEL TRUTH IS.

So, because they don't have technically strong singing voices, are Bob Dylan, Stephen Malkmus, and Kurt Cobain not artists as well? Does this mean that a technically flawless singer like Celine Dion is a greater artist than Kylie? Or a better artist than Yoko Ono? Or Jandek? Or Ozzy Osbourne? Or Joe Strummer? Or Diamanda Galas?

well, i would argue that many of those named are artists for reasons other than just the perfection of their voice. and i would argue that ozzy is just a lucky stiff. one of my favourite lucky stiffs, but still.
as for celine dion, she has demonstrated her lack of artistic skill (in my opinion) several times. she(unlike kylie even) always sings the same few songs over and over again, with different angles. and she cant dance for shit; she always does that same tired "standing there like it means a lot" pose.

18:20 / 08.10.03

to my mind, kylies voice is usually full of effects befoe it is heard on record

I've seen Kylie live, where she doesn't use recordings. The girl can sing. Whereas I can cite any number of massive rock icons who can't, just as Flux does above. It's a double standard, where any random criteria is a slam on pop artists but somehow excused for rock artists. What's the real difference between Kylie and Elvis?

i dont think it should be a 'whoever film' unless the person in question is an auteur.

By "we" of course I am talking about the way our culture approaches film, and even in the auteur discussion we are still largely dealing with people who are still only personally responsible for a very small amount of the finished product. It is interesting that you say this, and then proceed to:

the difference is that directing requires genius more than dancing and singing.

...which is a baseless, bullshit comment as far as I can tell. But this is the best bit:

i think [Thom Yorke] using [vocal modulation] as he does is a lot like when guitarists use effects pedals, and NOT entirely to cover up their lack of technical guitar playing skill. or in kylies case, vocal ability.

This is rockism in a nutshell, because technically Yorke has shit for range and can't weather the examinations that Kylie can a capella. You'd probably be better off comparing Neil Hannon to Posh Spice if you want to make your point with a straight face.

18:41 / 08.10.03

okay.
so i have revealed that i know little about yorke.
i have only one radiohead album, and i listen to it rarely.
but the point stands; he is not hiding behind that, as many singers do.

and kylie live was apparently great, and she can really sing.
well, i cant argue with that.

but baseless bullshit?
fuck off.
is jennifer lopez (alegedly one of the beter pop dancers) a genius?

an auteur is responsible (if i recall my classes correctly) for the entire creative process of the film. sure, there will be camera operators and sound experts, and even best boy grips, but their decisions, opinions, and creative input will be far less infuential to the finished film.
they might if they are lucky have some input, but they will not be in charge of whether that input is used.
they are basically a glorified roadie when working with that kind of perosn.

18:44 / 08.10.03

What's the real difference between Kylie and Elvis?

how about you just tell me what you think i think it is.
what are you trying to say?

Old brown-eye is back

19:44 / 08.10.03

"What's the real difference between Kylie and Elvis?"

Nothing at all - far, far fewer great singles maybe. And her arse isn't as nice.

20:26 / 08.10.03

i have only one radiohead album, and i listen to it rarely. but the point stands; he is not hiding behind that, as many singers do.

How does the point stand if you agree Yorke isn't a proficient singer? This is one of the double standards; weak rock vocalists are "authentic" or "punk" and weak pop vocalists are talentless stooges. And does "talent" affect art? Is Celine Dion a better "artist" than Bob Dylan because she's a far better vocalist?

but baseless bullshit? fuck off.

You want to unpack "directing requires genius more than dancing and singing?"

an auteur is responsible ... for the entire creative process of the film.

How often does this pan out in practice? Which major films have a single creator responsible for the script, cinematography, lighting, costuming, design, scoring, effects work and direction of a film? I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but the music:film comparison is a good one because it illustrates the pop bias. How is Kylie different to Spielberg? How is knowing what programmer works best for a certain song any different than knowing what cinematographer will achieve the required look? Why do we slam the one but credit the other for overseeing an army of session creatives to create product?

they might if they are lucky have some input, but they will not be in charge of whether that input is used. they are basically a glorified roadie when working with that kind of perosn.

So why do we not expand this paradigm to someone like Madonna, interpreting her producers and session players as glorified roadies? Another double standard?

21:01 / 08.10.03

weak rock vocalists are "authentic" or "punk" and weak pop vocalists are talentless stooges.

i never said that.
i said that singing wasnt kylie's main talent, and not her art.

i have been told i am just plaoin wrong on the lack of singing skill, so i will shut up until i go and see her live. if you'll let me.
but honestly, i dont think that crap rock vocalists are instantly authentic. i do think that having a perfect voice is less important to some punk bands. isnt it obvious, when the type of pop we are discussing is dependant on a smooth sound that a good voice is a lmost a required entry qualification?

You want to unpack "directing requires genius more than dancing and singing?"

i dont really want to go into the mechanics of being a feature director (as i understand them) here, but i have enough experience personally to believe that it requires a more gymnastic mind than singing and dancing to a similar standard of repute. and yes, i mean experience of both arenas.

Which major films have a single creator responsible for the script, cinematography, lighting, costuming, design, scoring, effects work and direction of a film?

not many. and thats not a point we disagree on, i feel. auteurs are rare, as are acts like fugazi.

How is Kylie different to Spielberg?

well, she has gone from bad to good, and he has gone from good to terrible. wouldnt a more accurate comparison be kylie to arnie, or kylie to bruce willis? they started out with little or no control over their careers, puppets to be sure, and now have a degree of power due to the public becoming more familiar with their face.

Why do we slam the one but credit the other for overseeing an army of session creatives to create product?

i dont.

So why do we not expand this paradigm to someone like Madonna, interpreting her producers and session players as glorified roadies? Another double standard?

well, as far as i am aware madonna takes less of a role in the music than the traditional auteur would in their cinematographers work.
but then, you are not talking about auteurs any more, are you?
her session players? i agree with that assesment. roadies who can play.

21:04 / 08.10.03

as far as i am aware madonna takes less of a role in the music than the traditional auteur would in their cinematographers work

Just curious, but how can you determine this from the writing credits on her record sleeves?

21:06 / 08.10.03

There is also fact that, looking at it from a stereotypical gay man's point of view, Kylie is an icon. She may have been a pop tart once but she has been smart enough to manoeuvre herself into a place where she transcends the pop music world and slots into a well defined niche in popular culture. That her voice is serviceable and the music she engineers to potentiate it is often simply marvellous (and nobody has mentioned her best: "Confide in Me", yet) is less of an achievement, I feel, than the fact that her gold pants and her pretty boy amours sell papers and are talked about at the water cooler. Like the other members of that very Holy Trinity, she has propelled her little antipodean butt into Cherville and Madonnaland, though she is still a minnow in comparison to those giants.

That nobody's saying "Oh, I can take her or leave her..." but "Yes, yes, YES!" or "Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish" is a testament to her (merely cultural) status.

And nobody has mentioned her cutting edge portrayal of Charlene, Erinsborough's girlie mechanic, during the dark and troubled Eighties.

22:42 / 08.10.03

Just curious, but how can you determine this from the writing credits on her record sleeves?

well, i dont. i get it from the interviews with various people she has worked with, like orbit. that, and the information she herself gives us combine to from a fuller picture than just liner notes.

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

09:54 / 09.10.03

I think, regarding the issue of perfect vs imperfect vocalists, that too perfect a singing voice makes someone sound like a Fame Academy android. Imperfections in a singers voice tend to endear me to them.

There's still no excuse for being out and out shite, like.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:08 / 09.10.03

"Fame Academy android" would appear to be a fairly meaningless term in the light of Alex Parks' landslide victory: for better or for worse, the British public chose a singer closer to Chris Martin in sound than to Kylie...

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

10:18 / 09.10.03

I thought she was as bad as the rest, the one show I saw. And being "closer to Chris Martin in sound" is hardly good in any case, hmmmm?

You know exactly the point I was making.

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:28 / 09.10.03

I didn't say it was good, I said "for better or for worse". Please read my posts, it will make this discussion much easier.

I'm afraid I'm still unsure exactly what your point was when invoking Fame Academy. Maybe you could unpack it for me?

I'm Rick Jones, bitch

10:30 / 09.10.03

I'm sorry. I will take more care when I "red" your posts in future.

The point I was making was that most "polished" pop singers sound homogenised, whereas an "imperfect" voice is often more distinguished and endearing.

Tryphena Absent

10:45 / 09.10.03

You're kidding me right? The guy from Muse sounds far more polished than Alex Parks. His voice is very strong but always perfect, her voice is in the warbling women vein (Kate Bush, Beth Orton, blah blah) and let's face it, as a general rule they're all over the place.

Page: 1 2(3)4