| reply to biggbrother
Re: Clueless... That being said the point of discussion was moonpuppy's "suck" comment. Since we are talking about entertainment what is considered entertaining is of course subjective. The current influx of pop music has been wearing thin on a lot of people and this is due to there being way too much of it on the airwaves. Mariah Carey fits squarely into this niche, which is probably the source of moonpuppy's disdain. I was merely trying to paint a broader picture.
Sure they are entertainers. So I think just about any "they suck" comment you hear is taken for granted as opinion. You might like Mariah's voice talents, but what about other artists? Maybe The Ramones are considered too pedestrian for your tastes, however punk fans might get what they were doing and love them for it. Maybe Brian Eno is considered to be too ambiguous or boring, however for fans of minimalist and ambient music he's great. BTW I am in no way assuming your tastes. Just giving example on how one man's garbage is another man's gold.
Keep in mind for many just being an entertainer isn't enough to be called a musician or even an artist in the music field. Milli Vanilli was ostracised for just being entertainers. To a lesser extent Mandy Moore came across the same problems. Maybe you can say they didn't sing and Mariah does. However they are still entertainers. So where do you draw the line? I think these lines are drawn by each individual, however most times people are swayed by public opinion. Which brings me back to how the popularity of performers like Mariah and Britney aren't as well earned as one might think.
This is going to sound like circular reasoning, but Mariah Carey is popular because Mariah Carey is popular. She didn't rise to stardom. She was placed there. Does this make her a bad singer? No. Does it aggravate people who are looking for more diverse talent than pop-stars? Definitely. |
