h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pop music is most commonly criticised for being a bunch of singers performing other people's songs - the assumption being that they are less valuable than an artist or band that write their own songs and play instruments.

However, there are two ways of opposing this argument.

1. Not every songwriter wishes to perform his or her own material. A brilliant songwriter is not necessarily a brilliant performer themselves.

Sammy Caan
Cole Porter
George and Ira Gershwin
Glenn Miller
Andrew Lloyd-Webber
Tim Rice...

Or else, the songwriter might play in the band, but get someone to front it. Benny and Bjorn from Abba often sang on their records, but it was Frida and Agneta that everyone focussed on, for example. So, these front-people, whether they be a manufactured boyband, girlband, boy-girl band, solo singer, duo - whatever - they are helping to provide a voice for a songwriter.

2. It is in no way true that a singer performing someone else's material and not playing an instrument is talentless. Very, VERY few people are multi-talented; the majority of bandmembers are not, in truth, great musicians. As John Lennon once said: 'Ringo wasn't the best drummer in the World. He wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles', but that doesn't stop him from being regarded as someone who made a massive contribution to popular music.

Dean Martin
Billie Holliday
Frank Sinatra
Tony Bennett
Diana Ross
Diane Warwick
Elvis Presley...

None of them were famous for playing instruments or writing their own songs as a matter of course.

Sure, David Bowie, Kate Bush, Kris Kristofferson, Barry Manilow and many more have the ability to sing, dance, compose and play instruments, and for that they should be commended. But that doesn't mean that entertainers who just do one thing should be marginalised. Just as a band that "play" their instruments and write very simplistic songs isn't autonmatically better than this year's teen sensation. One of them might be mediocre at everything, the other might be great at just singing.

Jimster

Hear, hear.

If the manufactured artists weren't any good, no-one would buy their records however much money was used for promotion.
At least if there are some manufactured groups appealling to the masses who then watch e.g. TOTP to see them, they will then be exposed to some of the other good stuff around and maybe get to appreciate a wider variety of styles etc.

We can't all like everything.

Being old enough I remember when people tended to be either a Beatles or a Stones fan - nothing to do with which one was 'better' - it's all a matter of what appeals.

The most obvious... Bob Dylan. Great writer, dodgy singer.

... and the other extreme, singers like Linda Ronstadt who are cover-only, but get some good studio musicians and do some memorable cuts. This opinion, BTW, gets me roundly heckled by my music purist buddies. Bonnie Raitt comes to mind also, but I'm not sure if she writes songs. Doesn't matter, anybody who looks that good and plays and sings like that will sell me some music.

I agree about Bob Dylan. I find the best way to listen to his songs without being exposed to THAT voice is simply to play The Byrds versions.

Had to laugh: "If the manufactured artists weren't any good, no-one would buy their records..." Record sales are falling and have been for years. The record companies blame the likes of Napster for producing illegal copies of their records, and thus depriving them of income. However, I believe the real problem is that the record labels are producing rubbish. Lots of rubbish. I can't think of any redeeming feature of bands like Westlife or their ilk. The record companies seem to share the same view of the public that the television companies have, i.e. we are all 14 years old, with no sense or taste and with a 30 second attention span. Where are real artists like Milla Vanilli when you need them???