|
Post by dulcinea on Jul 6, 2004 13:01:32 GMT -5
Oh and she ain't reality, Madonna earned her title the hard way. Now there is POP and there is pop pap! Oh the cry of the old left - that spill over of working class cuture that now only (and in some aspects sadly ) exists in the world of Rock and Roll - unless you too, have spent, ooh, at least a few months driving around in a "van" playing pubs and clubs you haven't won your spurs "lad". Why? Granted most "reality" stars, along with many other artists, discovered and groomed by the professional managers (that is most performers) seem to have little conviction in what they do - but I doubt that their route is, absolutely or necessarily the cause.
|
|
Lovebomb
Punter
That Special Something
Posts: 371
|
Post by Lovebomb on Jul 6, 2004 13:15:27 GMT -5
The reason I have a problem with Rachel, and others like her - is that I have the impression that the important factor for the artist here, is being famous, to have celebrity, rather than producing music. It is perfectly possible to take a pride in and produce music to dust or bop to with conviction. Ms Stevens, for me, appears to lack that conviction. You're right in some ways but Rachel Stevens isn't a producer of music, making music isn't her art, she's a performer, the face of the given song. Whether she's good at it is what the debate is and from what I gather most people think she isn't. Like I've mentioned elsewhere though I thought the same too until her recent performances and her video where in my opinion are more charismatic than most her peers at the moment (including some of the veterans of pop). To me they're the most entertaining and enjoyable of the year which at the end of the day is the sole aim of what they're trying to achieve, to entertain, make you want to watch and enjoy. A total success and if she continues along that route then I can't wait. And like I also mentioned elsewhere, in terms of personality the only difference I can see between her and many of the other popstars going at the moment is she doesn't have a publicity machine telling us how much personality she has.
|
|
Lovebomb
Punter
That Special Something
Posts: 371
|
Post by Lovebomb on Jul 6, 2004 13:19:02 GMT -5
And Madonna, her sole aim was to be famous!!!
And don't tell me if she was starting out now she wouldn't be auditioning on all these reality shows, because she would.
|
|
Dudie
Punter
What's not to like?
Posts: 685
|
Post by Dudie on Jul 6, 2004 13:22:58 GMT -5
And Madonna, her sole aim was to be famous!!! And don't tell me if she was starting out now she wouldn't be auditioning on all these reality shows, because she would. So so true.
|
|
|
Post by PushTheBuena on Jul 6, 2004 17:29:59 GMT -5
I think people are being a bit harsh on old Stevens. No, she's not particularly charismatic, and yes, she has a severe personality deficiency. But couldn't the same be said of Kylie (waits for inevitable one-word 'no' posts).
Has Kylie ever said anything interesting in any interview ever? The first things your average punter would associate with the word 'Kylie' is arse, short and gayers. She's so boring the public has to latch onto her physicality and fanbase to identify her.
HOWEVER, she has lasted for over a decade and built herself up as an icon- solely because she is continually given great song after great song. So far, Stevens has produced two fantastic pop songs, and her success/longievity (sp?) will rely totally on whether 19 continue to give her such songs. It doesn't matter that she's boring- so is Emma Bunton, so is Louise. Those kind of artists last purely because they're given strong singles that the public like- and that will determine whether or not Stevens will last.
Besides, of course she has no personality- she spent most of the years everyone else is finding out who the fuck they are arsing around in a cheesy pop group. I have faith she'll get more interesting as she gets older- I could be wrong, but we'll see.
To sum up- yes she's boring, but as long as she's given good material to project images onto, like Kylie, it really doesn't matter. Personally, I think they should play -as they have with Some Girls- with the general perception of her as a fame hungry, materialistic shopaholic little Jewish princess. It would be fun.
As for the 'real music' debate- kindly piss off. Why bother coming onto popjustice? You will just loath and be loathed. Music is music- I personally don't give two shits about how it evolved, who wrote it, or what niche it is supposed to fill- if it engages me, it's good, if it doesn't, it's wank. Simple!
Jesus H that was long.
|
|
|
Post by dulcinea on Jul 7, 2004 3:38:03 GMT -5
You're right in some ways but Rachel Stevens isn't a producer of music, making music isn't her art, she's a performer, the face of the given song. This is the crux of it for me. The reason I don't like Rachel and many other acts, is precisely that the music is solely a platform to promote a performer. The music is secondary, as are the vocals. So Britney mimes her tour, so that the "spectacle", is more effective. I am not fond of either musical theatre or dance as entertainment, therefore I do not enjoy these performances either. This is not how Pop has to be, and I do not appreciate it. Most (though not all) of these performers are female and the main requirements for the job are the ability to dance, sing a bit and look good. I suppose it is a step up from doing all the above whilst standing behind a male "star" but to be the vehicle for music marketers and "hits by numbers" production teams is hardly the apotheosis of musical aspiration. And although Rachel may not have people telling us how much personalty she has, she appears to have an interesting publicity machine. I take not a great deal of interest, but in the last two weeks I have seen a newspaper article covering her and her millionaire boyfriend, and a magazine front page trailing an article of how she is glad to be single - not evidence of a personality I grant you, but at least of an (almost)endearingly old fashioned interpretation of the "single" state.
|
|
si
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
What's a ballsy?
Posts: 219
|
Post by si on Jul 7, 2004 4:42:15 GMT -5
Don't you mean she knows how to decide there aren't any and record new ones? Si, I'm a relative newbie and have no idea about the Nuts thing (what was that anyway?). However, I stand firm about Jenny Frost. Her artistic potential is boundless, as we shall see in due course. Nuts was... I don't really know. I think someone (Jen? Tally?) was about to be banned and lots of PJers showed their support by having pictures of nuts (as in, and bolts) in their avatars. It was just silly, like a secret gang. Then PJ.com threatened to delete everyone with a nuts signature. Looking for a thread about it... No, can't see it on the old board. Was it on the old board? Anyway, was just a secret code. Because I can't believe you're properly hyping Frost.
|
|
Storm
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
Play
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Storm on Jul 7, 2004 4:52:13 GMT -5
What's so strange about supporting Frost. She was the one in Atomic Kitten with all the pizzazz. Sure, AK were largely crap, but I do think that out of the group, she can become a new British icon.
|
|
si
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
What's a ballsy?
Posts: 219
|
Post by si on Jul 7, 2004 5:11:30 GMT -5
I find it strange for two reasons:
One. The girl cannot sing.
Two. Her personality type is The Bitch. But with her, it's not in a fun way. She just comes across as being really horrible.
Talentless Jenny (as she is known here) used to be my favourite kitten, so please don't think I'm dissing her for the sake of it. I've just slowly come to the conclusion that she's a nasty piece of work.
I still like her pink pants though.
|
|
Lovebomb
Punter
That Special Something
Posts: 371
|
Post by Lovebomb on Jul 7, 2004 6:12:43 GMT -5
This is the crux of it for me. The reason I don't like Rachel and many other acts, is precisely that the music is solely a platform to promote a performer. The music is secondary, as are the vocals. Hmmmm interesting point of view. Though I'm not sure about the music being secondary and being solely a platform to promote a performer. It's more of a two way street because when it comes down to it, it's the music that sells and can continue to sell when the performer has long gone. Don't forget the same people who represent those who perform the music represent the people who make it too. Take Simon Fuller for example he represents both Rachel Stevens and Cathy Dennis and which of those two do we think is raking him in the cash? Maybe it is financially motivated and some might think that's a bad reason but it's in everyones best interest for the music to be good because it's the music and not the performer that has the potential to bring in the most revenue. Well the miming debate is a different argument altogether but as for the 'spectacle', we only truly enjoy it if we enjoy the music. The 'spectacle' is just one way of presenting the songs. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't but that's all down to opinion. So does the music come secondary to the performer, I'd say no. Though granted it all comes secondary to making money but that the way the world turns. But they're not aspiring to be musicians, they are performers, there's a world of difference, two totally different professions (though a musician can be a performer too). It's like what models are to fashion designers and actors are to script writers. The sole purpose of these performers you talk about is to get on stage and entertain, there is nothing else. Some fail and some succeed.
|
|
Lovebomb
Punter
That Special Something
Posts: 371
|
Post by Lovebomb on Jul 7, 2004 6:24:14 GMT -5
ITwo. Her personality type is The Bitch. But with her, it's not in a fun way. She just comes across as being really horrible. I've always thought is she as bad as everyone seems to think or is she just the victim of being taken on as the symbol of everything that was negative about Atomic Kitten because she jumped on board just as AK went crap. Kinda all the anger, the hatred, the disappointment of what Atomic Kitten became was all built up and focused on one thing. And that thing was Jenny.
|
|
si
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
What's a ballsy?
Posts: 219
|
Post by si on Jul 7, 2004 7:34:35 GMT -5
Perhaps, but as I said, I used to really like Jenny.
I was a Precious fan.
I was with Jenny all the way when she joined Atomic Kitten.
So it can't just be displaced anger?
Edit: I notice you just brush past the Can't Sing issue!
|
|
Storm
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
Play
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Storm on Jul 7, 2004 8:14:34 GMT -5
Can't sing?? I agree she has a unique vocal tone, but that's why she's so great. She had the most distinctive voice in Atomic Kitten
|
|
si
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
What's a ballsy?
Posts: 219
|
Post by si on Jul 7, 2004 8:16:49 GMT -5
Yeah, can't sing. Unique stretches the meaning of the word. Honestly, when we took Boyfriend's niece to seem, she was shockingly bad. I was wincing every time she had a solo. Awful, awful, awful.
|
|
flufff
Punter
Guess what Jamie?!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 836
|
Post by flufff on Jul 7, 2004 8:38:14 GMT -5
It's the lack of personality that bugs me. It didn't concern me until recently and I don't equate being loud or having drink and drug problems with personality, and being pretty and being able to do fun dance routines are all very worthy things in a popstar. Her lack of vocal ability and reliance on miming is frustrating, although I do think that miming itself doesn't interfere with the quality of the music, only the performance.
The person who said that she was great in S Club because she didn't have to have personality was right. Her early forays as a solo artist were alright, because it was interesting to see her as a solo artist and we were distracted by the tales of her splits and renification with Jeremy Edwards.
That is no longer enough and seeing her on This Morning last week give the worst interview in the world was frightening. She's been a celeb for years and should have got the hang of the solo interview yet she couldn't string a whole sentence together. It was one word and short phrase answers that didn't tell us anything. It was incredibly awkward and she didn't notice, but sat their smiling waiting for someone else to speak.
|
|
Storm
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
Play
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by Storm on Jul 7, 2004 8:40:29 GMT -5
I can't believe it. She's such a strong singer. I refuse to believe she was that bad.
Anyway, madonna isn' t the greatest singer. I think she could become a pop icon in the same way.
|
|
Mike
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
?No quiero otro, no hay igual!
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by Mike on Jul 7, 2004 9:12:22 GMT -5
I completely agree. I believe that Jenny has been restricting herself so as not to highlight the shortcomings of her bandmates in Atomic Kitten. Now she is free of them, the sky's the limit as to what she can achieve, both artistically and vocally. Watch your back Christina!
|
|
Dudie
Punter
What's not to like?
Posts: 685
|
Post by Dudie on Jul 7, 2004 10:31:34 GMT -5
I completely agree. I believe that Jenny has been restricting herself so as not to highlight the shortcomings of her bandmates in Atomic Kitten. Now she is free of them, the sky's the limit as to what she can achieve, both artistically and vocally. Watch your back Christina! Yeah right.
|
|
Scruffy
Punter
Whys you gots to be such a playa hater?
Posts: 1,690
|
Post by Scruffy on Jul 7, 2004 11:53:07 GMT -5
This thread could also have been called Why Is DrBastard So Obsessed With People He Supposedly Doesn't Like?
|
|
|
Post by jester1436 on Jul 7, 2004 13:06:45 GMT -5
This thread could also have been called Why Is DrBastard So Obsessed With People He Supposedly Doesn't Like? This did make me giggle. I like Rachel. I liked her vocals on the S Club albums and I liked her on the show when it was shown here. She's a pleasant pop star. She's not earth shattering, but not every star should be. There needs to be a balance. Also, I'm American, so I don't have to sit through interviews and mimed performances. Not yet anyway! Music is music. The whole concept of real music is a sham, because manufactured music has always been marketed. And guess what.... even "real" music is a manufactured product aimed at the hardcore "real" fans. Oooh!
|
|
|
Post by drbastard on Jul 8, 2004 7:32:02 GMT -5
fuck all this silliness about what makes real music. The fact is Rachel is sh*t and her singing on that song is the real letdown. If it were handed to say, Britney or even Billie, I could probably like it. The video as well is really cheesy. Why the hell does Rachel throw bottles of water at people? What the hell is that all about? No wonder the UK is fast losing the US in terms of pop music genius. They have Britney and the amazing Toxic, we have Rachel bloody Stevens throwing bottles of water at women. If only the bottles were full of acid and they burst over her as she threw them.
A much better video idea you have to agree.
Oh and I am obsessed with attacking crap popstars. I can't help it. It makes me feel all manly.
|
|
|
Post by drbastard on Jul 8, 2004 7:36:19 GMT -5
And everytime I see Jenny Frost I smell fish and chips for some reason. Frying smells that make me dizzy with nausea.
And it has been brought to my attention that Rachel's dancers look as though they have piles while the camera cuts quickly to disguise the fact Rachel can't even dance right.
I demand my pop idols sing and dance well when the time requires it.
|
|
|
Post by dulcinea on Jul 8, 2004 11:17:19 GMT -5
But they're not aspiring to be musicians, they are performers, there's a world of difference, two totally different professions (though a musician can be a performer too). It's like what models are to fashion designers and actors are to script writers. The sole purpose of these performers you talk about is to get on stage and entertain, there is nothing else. Some fail and some succeed. Also an interesting viewpoint. With this last bit I entirely agree. The singer/performer is there to create an image, to sell the product. The music they are used for, consists of (sometimes) a basically good melody, but the arrangements are always very tedious to my ear. They are designed to support a weak voice - not just in terms of the instrument, but also for musical ability. The current standardised production is complex in some ways but boring and my biggest objection is they all sound the same - give or take. Even more irritatingly, the songs themselves are not always very good and rely on the appeal of the performer to sell them. So, yes, the music is what sells, but that has to be compromised to cope with the artist (and I am using that word rather loosely in this thread). When we get to a live perfomance - these acts become hopeless. If I want to hear a perfect rendition of the song, however bland the arrangement, I'll listen to the CD - its cheaper and usually more comfortable. When I go to a live performance I want to hear an artist react to the audience, modify and change the music, in whatever way suits them at the time. That makes for an exciting, interesting performance by a muscian. An inadequate vocal performance, or the tape, mangled through a venue PA is not compensated for by a live rendition of the video for me. Hence my comments earlier. It appears that currently a great many more record companies are putting out Pop music - it has become very popular again, (sorry) and is presumably perceived as being where the money is. Unfortunately, this rush to find the "next big thing" is causing a great many inept people to be releasing records - hence the likes of Rachel Stevens being inflicted on us. However, she is not alone in this category for me - but this thread is about her and lists do not belong here.
|
|
Scruffy
Punter
Whys you gots to be such a playa hater?
Posts: 1,690
|
Post by Scruffy on Jul 8, 2004 12:40:22 GMT -5
I see your point in alot of ways but maybe the reason there are so many people like Rachel is the kind that can do everything, ie sing dance, put on full shows eg Madonna aren't really in much supply?
|
|
Lovebomb
Punter
That Special Something
Posts: 371
|
Post by Lovebomb on Jul 8, 2004 15:47:56 GMT -5
Also an interesting viewpoint. With this last bit I entirely agree. The singer/performer is there to create an image, to sell the product. The music they are used for, consists of (sometimes) a basically good melody, but the arrangements are always very tedious to my ear. They are designed to support a weak voice - not just in terms of the instrument, but also for musical ability. The current standardised production is complex in some ways but boring and my biggest objection is they all sound the same - give or take. Even more irritatingly, the songs themselves are not always very good and rely on the appeal of the performer to sell them. So, yes, the music is what sells, but that has to be compromised to cope with the artist (and I am using that word rather loosely in this thread). Oh I agree, like I said it's a two way street but it still doesn't mean that good tracks can't be made within those confines and that it comes secondary. The image and the act is obviously important and the music might be made to suit it but when it comes to it the survival of the act and the image they portray does depend on the quality songs they're singing. Maybe they are simple, unoriginal and unsophiscated and are just nice and catchy but that goes back to my original comments of different things fullfill different needs and like I said my best mates kids love Rachel and Hilary Duff (and at the end of the day they're the audience they're being aimed at). They might have weak voices and the music might not be groundbreaking but they have an accesibility that more mature and sophisticated acts don't have. These kind of acts have their place, their continued existance proves that (like I said whether each specific one succeeds or fails at delivering is another thing). Well if I wanted that I wouldn't go and see Rachel Stevens or Britney Spears I go and see an act that promised and delevered that, a live vocalist. The same way if I wanted to go and see a pretty girl, dancing, great sets, sparkle, pizazz and great pop tunes and not care about whether they were sung live or not as long as the whole show was good I wouldn't go and see Pavarotti. Different performances and performers offer and promise different things and like I've said if they fail they fail and if they succeed they succeed (which is what the argument about Rachel is). When people go 'When I go and see someone I want this...', it's like me going 'When I go out to eat I want a filling three course meal, made from the finest fresh ingredients that will leave me totally satisfied' and then whinging because McDonalds don't have it. But she's not being inflicted on anyone, if you don't like you don't buy, you switch over and you don't go to their concerts. I agree about the hunt for the next big thing means inept people release records but the only way you're gonna find out it is by trying. Most fail but those that do fall by the wayside. No-one knows until you give it a go, like I keep saying some fail, some succeed That's why I don't take issue with any acts right to a place in the industry. I might not care for their music, care for their personality, their actions or whatever but they all have a right to be there. However inept I might think they might be if they haven't fallen by the wayside there's a reason and that reason is someone out there likes them, they obviously bring a bit of pleasure to someone the same way the acts I like do for me. Who am I to begrudge them that? As far as I'm concerned, if one person gets enjoyment from it, it has a place (and that is why I'll never make a record company exec.) And when it comes to Rachel we can argue the technicalities till the cows come home but as far as I'm concerned I like her and like her current song, her performances and her video. Their/her aim is to entertain and I'm being entertained and enjoying every minute of it. She succeeded in my eyes, though granted she hasn't in others but shouldn't that be the only argument.
|
|
|
Post by Smudge on Jul 11, 2004 14:31:18 GMT -5
My beef with Rachel is that the only talent she has is one which allows her to cast an unlimited amount of boredom on to everything she got her mits on.
Some Girls, minus Rachel is potentially The Shit. With Rachel, it's a good song spoiled by a crap artist. Jez Edwards was once quite cool. When he started going out with Rachel, he was the most boring celebrity boyfriend on the planet.
"Funkydory"= an expression used by the very boring to describe something very, very boring.
Rachel Stevens= boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring dull boring boring boring boring boring boring BORING.
|
|
|
Post by jester1436 on Jul 12, 2004 12:11:19 GMT -5
My beef with Rachel is that the only talent she has is one which allows her to cast an unlimited amount of boredom on to everything she got her mits on. Some Girls, minus Rachel is potentially The Shit. With Rachel, it's a good song spoiled by a crap artist. Jez Edwards was once quite cool. When he started going out with Rachel, he was the most boring celebrity boyfriend on the planet. "Funkydory"= an expression used by the very boring to describe something very, very boring. Rachel Stevens= boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring boring dull boring boring boring boring boring boring BORING. What absolute utter bollocks. If she was that "BORING" people wouldn't be mouthing off about her at every opportunity. No one gives a flying shit about the boring folks, but everyone has an intense opinion on Rachel, be it passionate hatred to extreme fandom and all the place fitting in between.
|
|
Mike
Punter
Popjustice Almighty
?No quiero otro, no hay igual!
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by Mike on Jul 12, 2004 14:01:45 GMT -5
What absolute utter bollocks. If she was that "BORING" people wouldn't be mouthing off about her at every opportunity. No one gives a flying shit about the boring folks, but everyone has an intense opinion on Rachel, be it passionate hatred to extreme fandom and all the place fitting in between. Er, no. The only 'passionate hatred' I've seen on this thread has been from Dr B, who doesn't count by virtue of the simple fact that he hates almost everyone. As far as I can see, there are those who like her, and those who think she is, well, boring. Which scarcely amounts to hatred. My problem is really that most of the Rachel apologists come up with arguments like 'there are worse popstars' which isn't terribly compelling in my book. It's the Geri Halliwell mantra 'but she's entertaining' which is very seldom accompanied by examples of why she is so.
|
|
Lovebomb
Punter
That Special Something
Posts: 371
|
Post by Lovebomb on Jul 12, 2004 16:29:54 GMT -5
Mr Jester has a point though.
Everyone goes on about how boring she is but then seem so interested in her. It's like 'Rachel is so boring and here is my analysis of why I'm so uninterested in her and don't worry if you miss it this time because I'll say it in every single other Rachel thread going.'.
It's like Rachel's boringness is the subject that everyone seems most interested in at the moment.
Infact the 'well there's worse popstars around' reaction is the strongest argument for the Rachel is boring stance.
|
|
|
Post by MilkMonitor on Jul 12, 2004 17:32:43 GMT -5
Okay, so we have established that calling Rachel boring and then talking about her is a tad hypocritical.
But that does not make her interesting. She isn't. She will never, ever become as iconic as Madonna or even Britney. No way. Madonna hasn't got the best voice, but she is interesting and controversial. Madonna wears cone-shaped bra. Britney gets married on a whim then ends it after two days. Madonna writes a book about sex. Britney gets engaged to an alleged love-cheat. Rachel Stevens dances with ribbons and goes out with a good looking but not remarkably handsome C list actor.
Really, can anyone honestly say they can see Rachel being seen in the same way as Madonna is? She just isn't interesting enough, period. I don't see how anyone can genuinely think otherwise.
Rachel is a popstar, not an icon. She sings good tunes and keeps the FHM demographic happy. It's the 'oh you will be loved the world over, darling' attitude that sees Pop Idol contestants crash and burn; they're hyped up to be more than they really are and they start to believe it. What's wrong with just being a good popstar? Why do we have to pretend that they can conquer the pop world like the Beatles, Spice Girls and on a smaller scale, Take That?
I don't see why people are having a go at Rachel for not actually making and producing the music she releases either. Why is this a big deal? She is merely the object they use to sell the song; a record company puppet if you're nasty/an indie fuckhead. But that's not a bad thing at all. Rachel will sell the song a bit more than Richard X would if he sang it and danced to it on stage. Although that would be brilliant to watch, possibly.
|
|