Hacker News Reader

Comment by hammock | Hacker News Reader

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.)

View on HN

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com