The Song Fight Bulletin Board

should we make a post in the Side Fight forum about this Maxim style Women of Songfight! thing or what?

I think if all they've got to offer music is their sexuality, then it's bad. If it compliments the music, that's aiight.

Reïst wrote:I think if all they've got to offer music is their sexuality, then it's bad. If it compliments the music, that's aiight.

Oh really? What are we supposed to listen to while having sex or dancing seductively in a bar. The one song that that one person did and then that other song that other person did..and hope that other song about sex by that other person fits in with those other two songs?

I'm not going to argue that the same amount of effort goes into that type of music... or that it doesn't, I'm just saying that there is use for such types of music and sexuality and it doesn't necessarily equate to lack of talent.

I love Cake but I'm screwing to Lords of Acid. (Although once I had a sexual encounter while listening to They Might Be Giants...)

Hoblit, are you intentionally trying to miss our points?

I'm going to use Brittney Spears as a glaring example of my disdain- (substitute any number of other 'it' girls/boys) Brittney has no musical talent. Zero. She can dance, sure, and some would say (well, before she went completely batshit crazy, anyway) that she's sexy. I thought she was kinda sexy myself. However, she doesn't play any instruments, doesn't write her own music, and she sings like a retarded 10 year old. The only reason her voice is reasonably in tune to the music is through the power of studio magic. So why? Why did she get famous and make millions? Because she's hot. No other reason. I'm not saying everyone should think the same way I do, but *I* think someone who is catapulted into stardom in music *strictly* because of their looks doesn't deserve that stardom. You ask "What are we supposed to listen to while having sex or dancing seductively in a bar", but how does this even relate to the discussion at hand? There are lots of very talented musicians making 'sexy' music, and who happen to also *be* sexy, but that's not what we're (at least EoA, Reist, and myself) are talking about.

Märk wrote:Hoblit, are you intentionally trying to miss our points?

1.I'm going to use Brittney Spears as a glaring example of my disdain- (substitute any number of other 'it' girls/boys) Brittney has no musical talent. Zero. She can dance...

2. You ask "What are we supposed to listen to while having sex or dancing seductively in a bar", but how does this even relate to the discussion at hand? There are lots of very talented musicians making 'sexy' music, and who happen to also *be* sexy, but that's not what we're (at least EoA, Reist, and myself) are talking about.

No, I'm not missing your points, I'm disagreeing with them. I MIGHT be guilty of playing devils advocate here but only because everybody SEEMS to be quick to discounting musical genres based on their own taste. I understand that somebody may not like the end result, but to equate it to having no talent or its place within a musical genre is a bit much. (IMO)

1. Britney Spears is a perfect example of what we are talking about. Ya'll equate that she has no talent because she doesn't play an instrument and doesn't sing as well as you think she should. In your own statement you state that she has no musical talent, I disagree... she can sing. BUT outside of that she is also an entertainer and THAT IS why she is famous. I disagree with ya'll about her having no talent. She's been working hard in entertainment for a long long time. Probably more than most of US.

A. And let me remind ya'll that even some of our own singing talents are saved or enhanced by 'studio magic'. (that is NOT directed at anybody specifically) I think we should humbly remember that.

2. This ONLY relates to the discussion at hand because the conversation evolved. I'd be hard pressed to try to tie it directly into the original question.

QotD: I don't really like Tori Amos' music. But I love to watch her wiggle around on a piano bench.

Hobs, I don't think we're on the same page. I'll try and make myself more clear (I'm not great at communicating through text) - this is what I'm trying to say. If all someone has to offer music is sex, then it's just sex. Not music. If there's something in their music that has valuable musical qualities, then their music's cool with me. Not necessarily the people who sing the music - if they don't write the music and they can't sing live, I don't see the value in them being a performer.

Reïst wrote:Hobs, I don't think we're on the same page. I'll try and make myself more clear (I'm not great at communicating through text) - this is what I'm trying to say. If all someone has to offer music is sex, then it's just sex. Not music. If there's something in their music that has valuable musical qualities, then their music's cool with me. Not necessarily the people who sing the music - if they don't write the music and they can't sing live, I don't see the value in them being a performer.

Its cool dude. We just disagree on what we consider a value or talent. I DO see value in a performer who doesn't or cant' sing live and doesn't write their own music. I wouldn't typically word it that way but for the sake of this conversation and to illustrate our point of contention, I'll match it up.

Its all good mah man, we don't always have to come to the same conclusions about things. We all have our opinions and I respect where you are coming from.

It's cool.

fuck you both, I want sex & music!