Y'know, in some ways I think Katy Perry is more like Madonna was than Lady Gaga

[Jim Schnobrich]

But those singers he mentioned sank or swam based on their own genuine vocal abilities. Some people love them, some people can't stand them, but they make that decision based on reality rather than on electronic trickery. Dylan didn't fuck with his voice in the studio to try and sound like Sinatra.

My opinion is that good singers don't fake it. If you don't have good pitch, then either develop some, or sell your voice on its other qualities (or the quality of your material) and either succeed or fail honestly.

Hell, Tom Waits is one of my favorite singers, and he'd get laughed out of most karaoke bars. He wouldn't even be one of the bad singers they bring on the first round of American Idol for everyone to laugh at. But he succeeded with personality, uniqueness, and good songwriting.

I think we're really discussing two separate things. Whereas it seems that you are concerned with the authenticity and validity of a performer in and of himself, my concern is with the recording itself. Like I said, I don't have any qualms or feel cheated in anyway by a musician utilizing technology to achieve his ideal representation of a song. Bear in mind, I'm not talking about pitch correction used to achieve the "cher effect". I'm talking about using it to touch up and add polish to a vocal that's already 95% there. To me it's not any more of a cheat for a singer to use pitch correction to fix a few missed notes than it is for the same singer to "punch in" every line (a technique that has been used since the glorious 60s). Anything other than the whole song sung in a single take without any mistakes is already illusory. Even something as simple as cutting two takes together to make a single vocal is studio trickery.

[Danimal]

I think we're really discussing two separate things. Whereas it seems that you are concerned with the authenticity and validity of a performer in and of himself, my concern is with the recording itself. Like I said, I don't have any qualms or feel cheated in anyway by a musician utilizing technology to achieve his ideal representation of a song. Bear in mind, I'm not talking about pitch correction used to achieve the "cher effect". I'm talking about using it to touch up and add polish to a vocal that's already 95% there. To me it's not any more of a cheat for a singer to use pitch correction to fix a few missed notes than it is for the same singer to "punch in" every line (a technique that has been used since the glorious 60s). Anything other than the whole song sung in a single take without any mistakes is already illusory. Even something as simple as cutting two takes together to make a single vocal is studio trickery.

I agree that what matters is the finished product. Obviously, a great many people get hung up on questions of authenticity, as seen in the recent Lana Del Rey thing, but it's hard not to argue that all sorts of aesthetics have always mattered more in music than much else.

For example, if we look at things honestly, how much do the lyrics really matter in a song? Chris Rock points out in a standup routine that people will excuse all sorts of sexist and degrading stuff in music if "you can dance to it." Or to take a different approach, while you hear a lot of talk about 21 being an emotional breakup album, the music succeeds because of Adele's singing ability and the production, not her ability as a songwriter. I would argue that "Rolling in the Deep," definitely her most recognizable song, has come pretty clunky lyrics, but she sounds amazing singing them.

On the other hand, Katy Perry largely succeeds by presenting an entire package, of which, I would argue, her actual music is only a component of. While I prefer not to comment on her attractiveness, much of her success, I believe, is directly attributable to her deliberate presentation as sexy and playful, something which her music adds to, but is probably not the primary focus. I don't think this is all that different from how much attention Adele got for writing a breakup album, which probably helped a lot of people listening to her music feel like they were sharing some sort of empathic connection with her. In both cases, there's some great marketing at work.

[RobStaeger]

Obviously this of course falls into the realm of personal preference, but I've never thought her voice was all that great. Average at best. I do think she's made some songs that definitely fall under catchy, but I credit very little of this to her vocal ability.

I don't think she's amazing or anything, either. She sounds good, that's all -- not a horrible singer if not for autotune, as some have expressed. But just good. The only time I've heard it unadorned was in that acoustic track Ziggy posted, and she sounds fine there, from the portion I listened to.

I was responding to Ziggy's post that he's heard better singers at campfires and at bars. So have I. But Perry's voice wouldn't be out of place there, either. It's good enough to sing in those arenas.

But good's not good enough for a blockbuster hit record.

[RobStaeger]

More than anything, though, I don't give a damn who's a superstar and who gets a number one hit. Because my tastes have long ago diverged from the mainstream, and don't listen to any of it. It's all fine with me, because I just don't listen to it.