Hacker News Reader

Comment by sorokod | Hacker News Reader

In what way are they "crazy talented" if they dont author the lyrics or the music? Is it meant cynically to describe the situation where the performer is just packaging for someone else's talant?

View on HN

They kind of say: "look good, sound good."

Having worked in this industry myself, is it definitely a talent to have good stage presence, good presence in front of a videocamera, photogenic and modeling skills. Not to mention charisma when dealing with radio and TV interviews, fanbase, etc.

It's also a talent to sing well, to sing consistently, to be able to channel inflection and emotion on command in a studio or on a stage.

There is more to being a pop star than the songwriting.

(Note I'm saying all this while still holding huge respect and value for the songwriters and producers themselves. I'm a total music fan.)

But that was always the case. I have the (perhaps incorrect) impression that over time, pop performers perform someone else's materials more and more.

It wasn't really always the case. If you scroll back, so to speak, a generation or so, the further and further you get, the less necessary it was to win the trifecta of being Attractive, A Dancer, and a Live Performer. Let alone songwriter. There's only so many people that are all 4 and you know all of them by name.

You could be VERY plain looking, and unable to dance at all, and chart in in 1965.

Fred Astaire's original audition allegedly was noted as: "can act, can sing, can dance a little."

Attraction followed from fame, rather than the other way around.

I would argue that it has waxed and waned. 50s most music was written by a composer. Have a songwriter behind a big name like Frank Sinatra. 60s has a surge of bands producing their own music in a smallish crew (Beatles, Beach Boys). But then arena rock was tightly controlled by the industry, but then Nirvana and grunge got big.

That's a really interesting point. Do you think that pattern applies to other genres too?

Yep. And to go to the extreme like Milli Vanilli, when they’re performing they’re not even the one’s actually singing!

I think it was meant in the way that performers need to be talented in singing, performance, charisma and dancing. Stuff like that. Singing well isn't easy, doing all of these things is way harder still.

Disclaimer: I have perfect pitch since I was a kid, can hold a note when singing, made a lot of music as a kid (guitar and electronic), had some singing lessons and yet I'm at best a fun karaoke singer to listen to when you're drunk.

Being able to dance, sing, and play an instrument at the level expected by 10s of thousands of people, each paying hundreds of dollars per ticket is pretty damn talented. To be able to keep up that level of performance, basically every day, for almost a year, while sleeping in a bus and eating on road is crazy levels of talent.

> Is it meant cynically to describe the situation where the performer is just packaging for someone else's talant?

Without comment on the state of pop music, you don't actually mean to suggest that performance isn't a talent of it's own? How are you going to and sell that idea to Yo-Yo Ma?

Maybe singing, dancing, playing instruments, overall performing, or even producing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com