hobbes wrote:

QUOTE:
While I wouldn't go as far as calling Kylie a genius, Bryantop's argument does seem to rest on one that most people realise is crap at the age of about 12 or 13.

What? That pop is crap by default? That's not what I'm saying.

I'm just saying that Kylie is another in a line of mass produced stars with precious little talent. That's my opinion. Apparently that makes me a cretin, an OLDTHINKER and a sexist.

edit: Just to come back to hobbes suggesting that I'm a pop-hater of some kind. Overload by the Sugababes is probably one of my favourite songs this decade. But you won't hear me talking up the Sugababes as geniuses of pop. The reality of pop these days is that the artists are very much removed from the actual creation of music. Which is shit.

Take the 80s. Duran Duran, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, etc. These were people who could play instruments, write their own tunes or had genuine singing skill. But they were also difficult buggers to manage. So the record companies went out and manufactured their own stars. Kylie was one of the first of that lot. Plucked straight from the set of Neighbours and shoved onto TOTP with Jason Donovan. It was a bit of a turning point. OK, so there was the likes of The Monkees long before, but the late 80s/early 90s heralded the beginning of the wholesale separation of the pop artist from pop music.

A good post by Wingco, though Britpop was already under way by the time that Loaded was first published (May 1994). 'Girls And Boys' came out that March, 'Supersonic' a few weeks later.

There are thousands of worse musical acts in the world than Kylie Minogue, but it's really, really pushing it to describe her as a "pop genius". She's displayed large amounts of career-related savvy over the years, but her own actual talent only extends as far as knowing which people to hire for various duties. She doesn't create the videos herself, she doesn't come up with the melodies. Nor, if we're being brutally honest, are most of her records particularly good.

No harm to her, but there's no point in building her up into something that she's patently not.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

QUOTE:
linus wrote:

QUOTE:
We live in a world where 20,000 people are willing to pay $200 to see Madonna live while 200 people show up to watch Broadcast at $15.

Oh come on. What does that prove?

That Madonna's fanbase contains loads of people who could accidentally drop $200 down the toilet without noticing the loss.

wingco wrote:

QUOTE:
Thing is, delicatemoth, there is loads of experimental, avant-rock. Difference between it and MBV is that none of it pierced the mainstream, as MBV, albeit fleetingly, did.

Indeed -- that Disco Inferno album from 1994 ended up selling something like 700 copies. Doesn't mean it wasn't any good (though I couldn't get into it personally), but if almost nobody on the face of the earth hears it, then you can't really argue for it to be counted as part of the communal pop experience.

Bryantop wrote:

QUOTE:
The reality of pop these days is that the artists are very much removed from the actual creation of music. Which is shit.

Take the 80s. Duran Duran, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, etc. These were people who could play instruments, write their own tunes or had genuine singing skill. But they were also difficult buggers to manage. So the record companies went out and manufactured their own stars. Kylie was one of the first of that lot. Plucked straight from the set of Neighbours and shoved onto TOTP with Jason Donovan. It was a bit of a turning point. OK, so there was the likes of The Monkees long before, but the late 80s/early 90s heralded the beginning of the wholesale separation of the pop artist from pop music.

It doesn't really matter who penned each track, as long as the end result is something good. Elvis Presley didn't write too much of his own stuff (and a lot of his appearances in songwriting credits were for financial reasons, as a result of Tom Parker putting pressure on whoever actually did write the tune), but most of it is absolutely blinding.

But I have trouble swallowing the idea of Kylie Minogue as as some kind of artistic godhead, especially when most of the songs concerned are pretty forgettable.

As Danny Baker used to say: "Something terrible always happens to music when you reach 26."

REuurghhh...me come out of cave...me see Grunt invent wheel...Grunt then bang stick on rock..me realise the dream is lost...Grunt sell out already...

You're all miles off.

It was when my band failed to make it to a gig at Barrow Working Mens Club because our practice space was ran by a crazy man.

Bryantop wrote:

QUOTE:
hobbes wrote:

QUOTE:
While I wouldn't go as far as calling Kylie a genius, Bryantop's argument does seem to rest on one that most people realise is crap at the age of about 12 or 13.

What? That pop is crap by default? That's not what I'm saying.

I'm just saying that Kylie is another in a line of mass produced stars with precious little talent. That's my opinion. Apparently that makes me a cretin, an OLDTHINKER and a sexist.

edit: Just to come back to hobbes suggesting that I'm a pop-hater of some kind. Overload by the Sugababes is probably one of my favourite songs this decade. But you won't hear me talking up the Sugababes as geniuses of pop. The reality of pop these days is that the artists are very much removed from the actual creation of music. Which is shit.

Take the 80s. Duran Duran, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, etc. These were people who could play instruments, write their own tunes or had genuine singing skill. But they were also difficult buggers to manage. So the record companies went out and manufactured their own stars. Kylie was one of the first of that lot. Plucked straight from the set of Neighbours and shoved onto TOTP with Jason Donovan. It was a bit of a turning point. OK, so there was the likes of The Monkees long before, but the late 80s/early 90s heralded the beginning of the wholesale separation of the pop artist from pop music.

Half of Michael Jackson's classic songs were written by other people, and Whitney Houston has never written a song of any note in her life (apart from the rare and dubious co-writing credit). Kylie Minogue also has the odd co-writing credit, including the Tricky-covered "Slow". If you're using songwriting as some sort of gauge of good pop vs bad pop, and using Jacko and Whitney to back it up, you're up shit creek without a paddle.

And you're also stuck in 1988. Kylie escaped the Stock Aitken Waterman machine in 1992, and has been in control of her career ever since. She decides which songwriters to work with, she decides which producers to work with, she decides which choreographers to work with, she decides which fashion designers to work with, she decides which video directors to work with. She is in complete control of her entire presence as a pop entity. Nobody, ultimately, is pulling the strings except Kylie Minogue.

QUOTE:
she decides which songwriters to work with, she decides which producers to work with, she decides which choreographers to work with, she decides which fashion designers to work with, she decides which video directors to work with. She is in complete control of her entire presence as a pop entity

That's slightly disingenuous, because since her massive success with Stock, Aitken and Waterman, I would imagine she's had only the best songwriters, producers, choreographers, fashion designers and video directors knocking at her door, so the chances of her picking a lemon are much reduced.

We'll only know exactly how much of a 'genius' she is when we're privy to the entire process of putting a Kylie Minogue album together, and get to see who brings what to the table. I would say the chances of such a warts and all expose seeing the light of day are pretty remote, though.

Mumpo wrote:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
he decides which songwriters to work with, she decides which producers to work with, she decides which choreographers to work with, she decides which fashion designers to work with, she decides which video directors to work with. She is in complete control of her entire presence as a pop entity

That's slightly disingenuous, because since her massive success with Stock, Aitken and Waterman, I would imagine she's had only the best songwriters, producers, choreographers, fashion designers and video directors knocking at her door, so the chances of her picking a lemon are much reduced.

We'll only know exactly how much of a 'genius' she is when we're privy to the entire process of putting a Kylie Minogue album together, and get to see who brings what to the table. I would say the chances of such a warts and all expose seeing th elight of day are pretty remote, though.

Well, likewise, you can only take it on faith that rock's supposed DIY auteurs don't get a little help. Or a lot.

Exactly; this is all silly. For example, Joy Division were a good band, but let's face it, they were only able to become great, as recording artists at least, with the aid of Martin Hannett. Does that make their records less good, somehow? Why is it a problem that a recording is something that's created by a team? A recording is always that.

QUOTE:
Well, likewise, you can only take it on faith that rock's supposed DIY auteurs don't get a little help. Or a lot

Absolutely. Though I haven't been arguing that point.

Mumpo wrote:

QUOTE:


That's slightly disingenuous, because since her massive success with Stock, Aitken and Waterman, I would imagine she's had only the best songwriters, producers, choreographers, fashion designers and video directors knocking at her door, so the chances of her picking a lemon are much reduced.

A pointless interjection, but that reminded me of this from Holy Moly (and I completely agree with the opinion expressed in it);

QUOTE:
After turning Kylie from Britain's sexiest pop-pixie into what appears to be Britain's ropiest dinner lady we are hearing rumours that her stylist Will Baker is finally FINALLY being given the boot.

Ah, that's it, right there. It was when pop stars started empolying sylists, those shock troops of Neo-liberal Timberlakeism.