JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Brian was right about the INXS Competitors

Mani,
Perhaps this IS a case that no actual human lives up to the talent expectations of some people. It's certainly possible that both you and I and Bob are all 100% correct simultaneously. What that would require is that the best talent out there just doesn't live up to what you or Bob would consider good enough.

On a given night on the road, I see 35 artists perform (on average). at those shows, there are generally 0-2 that rise to the level of the talent on that show. It's not always just about vocal talent or a well written song, but also stage presence and that intangible "it" factor. Some folks literally have that "it" factor before they even open their mouths and sing. It's not as simple as attractiveness either. But it's an inherent charisma that just exists without always being easy to describe.

I think it is FAR easier to sound great on a CD than to actually be a great live artist. I also think that being a great live artist is what holds back most indie artists from becoming commercial successes. Some of my all time favorite recorded indie artists fall flat live. It's one reason I emphasize having folks come out and play at Roadtrip shows because I am hesitant to endorse artists only based on their CD's anymore. Sometimes artists are far superior live than on a recording as well. In fact, I find that to be common at roadtrip shows. I see someone who does rise to the very top of their peers on a given night, but their CD leaves me totally cold after the fact and doesn't rise up to their live performance.

I am guessing in the cases of some of these artists on these shows, they've demonstrated some ability in all the factors simultaneously. They can hit the peaks live, they can hit the peaks in recorded work, they can write at least some outstanding songs and most likely they are reasonably likable or at least tolerable in person. It's not easy to find someone to meet all those factors simultaneously, and perhaps you know a given person who surpasses them in one or more categories, but may, upon closer inspection, fall short in others.

As for using the word "great" too much, I think you guys are giving way too much power to that word. I looked up the definition, and the strongest word in the 11+ definitions that was used was "remarkable" which doesn't sound all that overwhelming. If someone is even in the top 10% of their field, that's remarkable. But the 11th listed definition I think sums up how most people view use of that word

Great: 11 -- used as a generalized term of approval <had a great time> <it was just great>

So, I wouldn't get too worked up over someone's description of general approval. You may define "great" differently, but from a real world use of it, general approval is acceptable use.

So perhaps Bob and you are correct. Perhaps these artists aren't really that outstanding, but perhaps the problem is that no one, under this type of microscope, really ever IS going to be consistently outstanding. Fame and superstar success covers up a lot of ills. The emperor sometimes really has no clothes, but fame doesn't allow the mass to acknowledge that. I see a lot of artists in a real world setting without many preconceived ideas of who they are or how good they should be (or how good others think they are already). It's one thing I learned early in our awards process (which has been a HUGE learning experience the last 7 years). Often if I know who artists are, I will be biased to rate them better than they are if they have tons of success or support behind them. That's why we don't really give screeners any background on the artists they are listening to. Each year as we're checking the rejected CD's one more time before permanently eliminating them (we give CD's as much possible chance as we can) we'll often see who these folks are and be amazed they were eliminated... but knowing the they failed in the process in advance, allows us to listen a bit more open mindedly to realize that sometimes the famous folks just aren't as good as the unknown. We're equally surprised to find that sometimes the famous folks really ARE better than the rest of the field (as happened with some relatively famous folks doing well last year).

I suspect for some folks (maybe even for Bob or you) there's a bit of a built in bristle about the contestants on these shows that would add deeper scrutiny of their talents than if these same folks were singing in a local bar. Or maybe there really are some amazing pockets of talent in the neighborhood around you guys that people just haven't yet discovered that would turn the industry on it's ear. I think perhaps my theory is more likely, but I am looking forward to seeing these superior talents in person if you guys can give me some of their names and locations.

Any human, placed under a scrutinizing microscope by skeptical people will always come up short in some respects. Politicians rarely please 2/3rds or more of the people with 1/3 or more generally thinking they're total idiots with no right to be in charge. Any given genre of music is hated by a large number of people, so artists in that genre will always been seen negatively. So it's reasonable to think that there are people who will automatically dislike anyone on a TV show contest regardless of their talent. Humans will always be exposed for being flawed if someone is looking close enough. I think that's what in the end makes people more interesting. I also think when people work to remove these noticeable flaws to the extreme, that we get the typical "Pop" star and so then folks criticize them for being too plastic and predicatable. Ironic.

Brian