Is Amy Winehouse talented?

[geo]

Quote:Hey, I think Pat Boone had a huge career...a tiny bit before my time, but from what I have read, he was a huge star.The Amy Winehouse question really highlights the divide between people who believe there is such a thing as great music that only a few can achieve......and those that believe that banging 1 chord on an out-of-tune guitar with emotion is equally as good as Beethoven's 5th Symphony in every possible way... and those who may have talent but are so wrapped up in their success that it destroys any chance they have of acheiving either of the first two lofty goals.I think you missed one... Geo

[onoffon]

Quote:There are a ton of instrumental virtuosos out there whose musical communication skills are confined to, at best, the stage they perform on.Ultimately, those musicians who display instrumental virtuosity AND communicate with their audiences transcend others. As performers, we all hope to achieve that connectivity and still stay true to our artistic souls, at least in theory. Some simply don't care - they just want to achieve fame and fortune.Mediocrity is easy to understand. It somehow makes that level seem within our grasp. People who display genius are on another plane - it's so far removed from what the average person can reach. When Salieri was faced with his own mediocrity compared to the genius of Mozart: "I will speak for you, Father. I speak for all mediocrities in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint. Mediocrities everywhere... I absolve you... I absolve you... I absolve you... I absolve you... I absolve you all."

[tedsingingfox]

I realize I'm getting in on this WAY late in the game, AND that I don't have much time to reply.BUT... as someone who had only heard about her troubles via the media, and had only seen two pictures of her (and both times, had NO CLUE who she was) prior to catching her Grammy performance...Yes. She is. She was early Barbra Striesand-esque in appearance, and the voice was somewhere between Bette Midler and Billie Holiday. The performance was VERY much modeled after early Bette, and it seemed clear to me that she was in on the joke. Did Billie Holiday sing on pitch? Does Macy Grey sing on pitch? But no one disputes their talents.AND, let's not forget that she wrote both of those songs she performed herself.Yes. She is. Plain and simple. Whether you like her or not, she is. And while I didn't get to vote this year (I let my membership dues go unpaid), and I doubt I'd have voted for her for best album, she would have gotten at least one or two of my votes. Smart, catchy tunes from a unique perspective deserve the success and attention they get, no matter the source.Ted

[dcandco]

There are tons of people that can sing it better and maybe even perform it better. But they didn't and she did. Amy is refreshingly familiar, with an inovative aproach. The first time I heard "Rehab" (from a jukebox in a bar) it made me stop and find out who it was. I didn't have to analize it, I just liked it. And apparently millions of others did too. To be a technically skilled musician is a good thing, but without the emotion it's not music. Amy's got emotion, honesty, and personality. And people just like her.Dave

[ggalen]

Quote:[quote author=onoffon board=general thread=1202747795 post=1202874630]Also, these types of questions..."Is so and so talented?" "Does so and so deserve to win a Grammy?" always seem to be kind of underhanded...because the answer to the question always seems to be implied..."no they're not...I'm 100 times more talented and my music is just amazing and yet nobody wants to sign me/buy my music "mattoMatt,I thought I started off this thread making it clear that, to me, she's not particularly talented, but I was wondering what other people thought.

[onoffon]

Quote:Do they deserve Grammies just because they can play 250 notes per minute?Of course not...You know, a true artist recognizes when to use 250 notes per minute and one, long, sustained note over sixteen bars, when it's appropriate for the good of the composition, not just because they can do it. It's so funny how when I say 'instrumental virtuosity', all anyone can see is blazing John McLaughlin solos. There's a LOT more to virtuosity than blazing speed.When Grammys were first awarded, they were given for musical excellence. They were not the American Music Awards or the People's Choice Awards - they were given for extreme talent at the highest levels.That went out the door decades ago and, for the most part, are now given for money earned, chart position, and/or who produced it. Of course, they do get it right occasionally - i.e. Herbie Hancock, Steely Dan, and Santana. But, you get the feeling those are almost lifetime achievement awards rather than individual Grammys.One more thing in reference to Ms. Whinehaus - I don't listen to Christina Aguilera or Mariah Carey either, but I recognize that both of them can really sing and they have incredible vocal ranges.Okay - I'm finished with this. Whip me all you want for being an elitist...

[matto]

Quote:When Salieri was faced with his own mediocrity compared to the genius of Mozart: "I will speak for you, Father. I speak for all mediocrities in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint. Mediocrities everywhere... I absolve you... I absolve you... I absolve you... I absolve you... I absolve you all." I'm sure you know that Salieri never said any of that, that whole speech was the product of a screenwriter's vivid imagination...makes for a great Hollywood movie of course.Probably an elitist, that screenwriter...

[Mark Kaufman]

I'm going to take a chance here and answer the original question before reading all the responses...There are three conflicting ideas going on all at once...Amy Winehouse's talent, why the Grammys do what they do, and what it takes to do well in American Idol.Amy Winehouse is a singular new talent. She has her own sound, and it appeals to a huge mass of people, and she's selling millions. She's THAT good, for sure. Like all artists she has shortcomings...but what she has to offer sounds great, and it was just the right moment for her.The Grammies...who REALLY knows why they do what they do? As soon as you think you understand what they like, they surprise you again. They are fickle.American Idol...they really look for a particular sort of vocal gymnast. The young Whitney Houston would have done well...it's not a matter of genre, but they have to be capable of soaring power vocals. Some of the top selling recording artists of our time would fail utterly before the AI judges. Amy Winehouse would fall down on American Idol...but her record sales indicate what she is: appreciated, enjoyed, desired.EDIT:Okay, now I've read the thread... I think many of us still need to open our minds to what can make someone successful. Although it is easy to pick on Amy Winehouse and pinpoint her deficiencies, it is not so easy to identify the magic. When I first heard Winehouse it was the song "You Know I'm No Good". I had no idea who she was, but I thought "wow, this is killer...who is that?" Now, if it's all production and backing musicians, if she's just a by-product of all that...then why pick her? Some of us are failing to identify the raw materials that made her famous. It was her. Also note she is now weighing in on the "ala" factor in our listings. Listen and learn, I say.

[mewman]

I've enjoyed reading this thread and decided it was time to throw my two cents worth in. Is Amy Winehouse talented? Of course she is! The only question worth answering is do you like her or not. I've accompanied my share of singers after twenty five years of playing out and can say with no reservations that there are tons of untalented singers out there, that's for sure! I went to YouTube and checked out her stuff and really enjoyed it, personally. She's got this old beat/jazz/blues kind of vibe(a bit like Ricky Lee Jones) thing happening that floats my boat...if you catch my drift. She's young, she's cute, she's relaxed in her delivery and she can hold the form together, knows when to come in on the bridge (extra points) and can remember the lyrics even when she's wasted, which is more than I can say for the singer I accompanied last Saturday night. Come on guys, cut her a break. She's probably toasted half the time because of all the folks around her trying to get a piece of her to take home for a relic. I remember reading somewhere that when Bonny and Clyde were gunned down that there was no blood left in the street because everyone soaked up as much as they could with their handkerchiefs thinking they would absorb some of the power the two had.

[edteja]

The issue of the Grammy's confuses the discussion of talent. How can you realistically consider "voting" for who is most talented. Especially when they don't necessarily award it for the artist's best work (Carlos Santana comes readily to mind--getting the award for his worst album ever) And there are talents like Mrs. Smith--she had to be talented to sing so badly. It ain't what I would want, but it is definitely a talent. If you don't think so, try it. And the lady sold records! Her version of Yellow Submarine got more air play than I'll probably ever get. I can dig that. Novelty sells. But the thing I never could understand is how rap got to be considered music. I like a fair amount of it, but it don't got no melody, kids. It is closer to Richard Burton reading Dylan Thomas. Mr.s Smith was TRYING to hit actual notes, and was doing (butchering) songs. Yes, I know that argument is over and done with and my side lost big time, but it is something I will NEVER come to understand. Still, some of the folks doing it are extremely talented. It just doesn't happen to be musical talent.