Whitney Houston: what do you think about her? She sings

[babylonsister]

like an angel, but not lately. I just watched a video, and she rocks. Her Super Bowl performance is classic and brought a tear to my eye. Now I read she's the butt of a joke in her family. That sucks.

[idlisambar]

1. great singer

one of the best ever. Never should have done that reality show.

[babylonsister]

4. That's interesting, because I haven't seen the reality show,

only heard about it. :shrug: Do tell!

[madrchsod]

8. you really don`t want to watch

the show. she has big time brain damage

[ronnykmarshall]

57. It's like a train wreck.

But I will agree that Whitney has one of the best voices around.

I love to hear her sing.

[Viking12]

2. She usually has some good blow....

but it's hard to hang with her, you know....Bobby and all, if you know what I mean...

[mr_hat]

3. Bears singlular responsibility for the absurd and unmusical >

trend which dictates that where one note would suffice, a dozen aren't enough.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. LOL! Perfectly said!!

[jobycom]

22. LOL But she didn't start that. Patti LaBelle was doing it before

When Houston first came out, she didn't do that, either. But as she got famous, she had to show off, and then her singing went downhill.

[blondeatlast]

37. YES. she couldn't learn well enough from those she knew well--the greats

like Aretha, her aunt Dionne, her mom Cissy.

She had to do it HER way. Barf.

[Jade Fox]

47. That is a tradition in Black gospel singing....

Wether or not you like it, Houston by no means started it.

[jobycom]

60. That's right. Thanks.

She got carried away at times with it, I thought, but she got better at it in her later, post-pop stuff. Not that I'm an afficianado of her career, I just heard bits and pieces of her later stuff at times.

[ldf]

63. my thoughts exactly

since when did singing become warbling?

i always want to say "can you please try singing it AS IT IS WRITTEN, or at least some reasonable facsimilie?"

one of the least appealing trends in the last couple of decades.

[madrchsod]

5. that`s what drugs do to some people

she used to sing like an angel. it is truly sad just how far she has fallen...

[Skittles]

6. cannot stand her singing

her screaming gives me a headache

[Floogeldy]

7. Her Aunt was better.

;)

[madrchsod]

11. back in the day

i used to have all her albums..

[Floogeldy]

13. For that, I admire you.

:)

[blondeatlast]

38. Her aunt is sadlu underappreciated, IMHO. nt

[jobycom]

54. Alright, my memory is bad. Dinah Washington?

was that her aunt? Great singer, if so.

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. Fake, talentless fucking hack. Always has been, always will be.

Totally corporate made, over-processed, uninteresting shit.

One of the first great "musician" scams foisted on the American people. Her success led to the overabundance of pure shit, of style over substance, of "a singer is rated on her looks; the voice we can fix up and make into whatever we want in post" in the pop music world.

Fuck her. There is no hell deep enough for her, and for the evil criminal scum who brought her to fame.

[babylonsister]

14. No fuckin' way! She sings like a ....singer! Pox on Rabrrrrrr!

I kid.

[Rabrrrrrr]

15. POX on me, foul villain?

:P

[babylonsister]

18. No pox but the ole Whitney was great, voice like an angel,

regardless of her handlers. The good ole days for Whitney.
Rabrrrrrrrrr rocks!

[Rabrrrrrr]

41. Voice like a warbly angel with an overstretched larynx

:uck:

[jobycom]

56. Have you ever listened to her?

She became more and more packaged, sure, but her early stuff and then her post-pop stuff was very good. She can genuinely sing. For that matter, she sings better than some on your "artist" list below. I don't think you hate her, you hate her popularity. If she were unknown singing in a small club somewhere, people would ask why no one had discovered her. Her fame was greater than her talent (and she did go through that baroque--toomanynotes disease for a while), but to say she's talentless is wrong.

[Rabrrrrrr]

61. Oh, God yes, I have

Haven't been able to tolerate her "singing" since she came out in the early 80s or whenever the hell it was.

Our local radio station (which I listened to all the time because all I had was AM in my car at the time, no tape deck, or anything, and it was a nice way to stay on top of local news and events and hear a nice combination of "music that old people find inoffensive" from many genres) played her music a lot. So for about five years, I was able to keep up with her overdone caterwauling.

Never met a song of hers I liked.

Can she stay on pitch? Sure, that she can do. Does she have breath control? Yep, I'll give her that, too. But she's not. at. all. interesting. Nothing unique about her voice, except the screechy effects of her constant overextension of it.

And no, of course I don't hate her as a person. As an "artist", yes. And yes I do hate her popularity - but not because I hate popularity, but because of what her popularity means: that Americans still prefer a a bag of packaged shit labeled "fragrant flowers" that the industry tells them is something they should like, to real flowers.

[ldf]

64. caterwauling!!!

bingo! that was the word i was looking for.

:-)

[Rabrrrrrr]

68. You're welcome! I'm glad I could be of assistance!

:woohoo:

[jobycom]

65. AM? You listened to her stuff on AM?

That explains much. You listened to her on an adult contemporary AM station that, as you said, only played stuff that wouldn't offend anyone, and you wonder why the stuff you heard from her was uninteresting? You can listen to those channels and think Willie Nelson, Johny Cash and Joni Mitchel were uninteresting and overhyped.

Popularity isn't about buying a bag of packaged "shit," it's about people listening to someone on a level they can understand. Most people aren't art afficianados, and don't have the time to become them. They listen to music as a diversion, as a way to relax or to express emotions. Popular artists sell to them. Other artists decide to push their art, and they appeal to a smaller crowd, since their art takes a bit more understanding and concentration than the masses are interested in putting in. Still other "artists" have no talent, and try to pretend they are pure to an art form that no one understands, and mistake their tiny, dedicated audience as proof that they have an obscure talent.

Art is always directed at an audience. You prefer specialists. Others don't. Some artists move between the two, like Johnny Cash and Roy Clarke, whom you mentioned below. They had a lot of popular, lightweight stuff, too.

And some artists change. Someone like Whitney Houston as a young singer wanted fame and fortune. She did what she was told and got it, and lived it for a while. Then she decided she didn't like it, and went for a less popular style for a while. Who knows what she will come back as, if she does. Look at Johnny Cash. If he'd died ten years ago, he'd have just been thought of as a common country singer. His reputation for artistry began a decade ago when he started the last stage of his career.

Houston is not talentless. You don't like her career choices. But she's not talentless.

[Rabrrrrrr]

69. It wasn't adult contemporary - I'd never disrespect myself enough to

listen to one of those stations. I'd have sat in silence.

The radio station I had was "small town nice" in format. :-)

So you're saying that Whitney's stuff that made it radio was not as good as her other stuff? Or that Whitney's best music is offensive enough that a small town nice format radio station, the station that played the local high school games, reported on hog futures, and played country, rock, boring jazz, and other "nice" music wouldn't play it?

I find that hard to believe.


And you said: Popularity isn't about buying a bag of packaged "shit," it's about people listening to someone on a level they can understand.

Yes, I agree. And the sad truth is, the majority of Americans think the bag of shit is a nice flower because they've not been educated properly, and they're too fucking lazy to go find out if it's really a bag of shit. They don't understand because they have no interest in bettering themselves and developing their understanding. Much easier to just label it as "hard" or "where's the beat?" or "How can I have sex to this?" or "Too many notes" and, again, the ol' "where's the beat?" canard.

Most people aren't art afficianados, and don't have the time to become them.

No, they don't have the desire. They prefer the pre-packaged that is, as you say...

music as a diversion, as a way to relax or to express emotions. Popular artists sell to them.

Yep - the ol' "I don't want ot think about it, I just want it in the background while I do something else, like drink overly sweet cocktails, or do something else trendy and ignorant" crowd.

So, fine - maybe she isn't talentless. Even to become a corporate shill, you have to have talent of some sort to begin with. Perhaps I should then more correctly say that she lacks artistry.

And lacks it in spades.

She is definitely a talented ENTERTAINER, but that's all she'll ever be. And in some ways that's fine, because Americans don't want anything any more challenging than music they can dance to while talking and drinking to excess as the prelude to their evening rutting.

Speaking personally, I've always figured "Why eat the gritty old piece of shoulder meat, when the filet mignon costs the same price?"

[jobycom]

70. You finally agree. She has talent, you just prefer other types of talent.

Glad we had this conversation. :-)

And there's nothing wrong with someone liking music on their own level instead of yours, rather than giving up something else they love to become an expert. We're Democrats, we're egalitarian. Lighten up some. Tom Cruise makes people smile. Whitney Houston makes them happy. It's a beautiful thing.

Actually, if you lightened up, you wouldn't be as much fun. Not trying to tell you what to do, just being silly and talking smack. Glad you have such a great sense of humor. :-)

[RummyTheDummy]

19. Whoa. That's some great venom

I dont think she's THAT bad. But just out of curiosity, could you throw out some people in the entertainment world that you do like? All I ever see of you is people you want dead. (not that you should like Whitney or anything or that I disagree completely with your assesment)

[jobycom]

24. I'm curious about that, too. Seems like any entertainer whose

made over ten bucks in a year earns profanity and death wishes from you, Rabrrr. WHo or what do you like?

[Heidi]

26. I'm in line marked "curious," too.

I'm sure we're _all_ just missing the humor in that post.

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. ROTFL!

No, not every entertainer who makes money. Only the ones who don't deserve it, the ones who package up shit and sell it as art.

And while a bloviated ignorant American mass is also partly to blame for buying a package of shit and saying it smells like flowers, my ire is directed toward those entertainers who cop the easy way, who let the industry tycoons remake them into whatever image their demographic studies tell them will sell like a motherfucker.

There are many genuine and real entertainers, and artists, out there, for whom I have great respect, and who are also (or were) quite rich. Zappa ranks high among them. Also the guys of Yes, Laurie Anderson, Lou Reed, Neil Young, Billie Holiday, Joni Mitchell, Cy Twombly, the Dean Brothers, Robert Fripp, Brian Eno, David Bowie, Roy Clark, Johnny Cash, and on and on.

So those who say I hate everything have obviously missed a lot of my posts here on DU.

Though, let's face, the ones that I like get a few sentences of appreciation; and the ones I think are a danger to humanity's soul get the viciously energetic rants.

[jobycom]

49. So you like outdated and dead artists, mostly?

You've got a nice list, but I don't agree with your assessment of art. I love many in your list, and like the rest. But they are doing something different. Whitney Houston has a genuine vocal talent (well, "had", anyway), and a good voice. She's not out to make an artistic impact on the world. Laurie Anderson is weird--not everyone can understand her. Some like Whitney Houston because she fulfills their expectations for entertainment, whereas Laurie Anderson doesn't. When you violently curse at her, you insult her fans and their expectations and ideals, as well (Well, okay, that's a stretch, since she probably no longer has any).

I'm just always upset by violent attacks on artists, I guess. Bloody Republican presidents have earned violent attacks, but a singer with a good voice but no burning desire to advance the cause of art doesn't deserve it--just shrug her off.

And for the record, how can you put David Bowie in that list? He's as talentless a sellout as I've ever heard. Name a trend he didn't jump on and try to emulate. The only difference between him and Whitney Houston is that she really could sing. (Oh, I know, "his early stuff, his early stuff." But isn't a sellout usually someone with talent who takes the easy road to riches?)

[jmowreader]

73. He LOVED GG Allin!

Which brings me to my very favorite part about Whitney Houston...

(next post, please)

[jmowreader]

74. Whitney is the first singer I can recall....

who could make a song about masturbation singable in church.

Yes, folks, I'm talking about "The Greatest Love of All." It's about jacking off.

Examine these lyrics...

I never found anyone who fulfilled my need
A lonely place to be and so I learned to depend on me

Tell me that Whitney's not saying her man-at-the-time wasn't doing it for her.

Now, this is a very sweet-sounding ballad that little old ladies like, not something like John Valby's "Merry Month of May" (which contains the line "he said 'oh my darlin Beth, you have jism on your breath' so he dropped her like a fuckin' rock."), so I guess that makes it okay.

[Rabrrrrrr]

40. Thanks!

Actually, I didn't say anything about wanting her dead - I said there is no hell deep enough for her.

I don't see how anyone with more than a first grade level of reading skill can read that as a deathwish.

For a list of people I DO appreciate, see my post above (#39).

But note this: I'm not big on "entertainers" in general. I'm VERY big on ARTISTS.

And yes, there IS a difference.

[Robeson]

21. I agree.

[Heidi]

25. You agree with a rant

that suggests there is "no hell deep enough for her"? She's an _entertainer_ for pete's sake!

[jobycom]

27. Nero syndrome

Kill the entertainers if you don't like them. It's a standing tradition amongst bloodthirsty tyrants, but why should such fun be reserved for emperors?

[Robeson]

28. You've pegged me. I'm a blood thirsty tyrant....

...next, maybe you could let me know what country I rule...:eyes:

[Heidi]

29. I don't think you're a bloodthirsty tyrant, Robeson.

My post to you was expressing surprise that you agreed with Post No. 9. :shrug:

(Edited to correct Post Number.)

[jobycom]

51. Post 42 was meant to be here.

[jobycom]

42. Hey, why not

read the last part of the post! Gives it a sort of American post-modern de Toqueville twist that you missed altogether.

And lighten up. I was no more (nor no less) calling you a bloody tyrant than you were genuinely wishing for Whitney Houston's literal death and eternal suffering. :-)

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Hey - you just responded to your own post!

:P

[jobycom]

45. LOL First post of the morning syndrome. It was meant for Robeson

They need a smiley that commits harikari in shame....

[Robeson]

30. Yes, that was a bit much, but she was/is a product, not an artist.

...incidentally, are we not allowed to have an opinion, or did I miss something?....:shrug:

[Heidi]

31. As I said below . . .

I was expressing surprise that you agreed with Post 9.

(Edited to correct Post Number.)

[Robeson]

32. Actually, it was post #9 that I responded to, and except for the last...

...paragraph of that post, I would have to agree with that post in that she is an industry invention. Sorry if I don't think she's a Joni Mitchell.

[Heidi]

33. My bad.

I meant Post 9. I don't think she's Joni Mitchell either, and it was the last part that bothered me, too.

[Robeson]

34. No problem......

...and maybe I didn't make myself clear. It was the "product" aspect of that post I agreed with. Hope I didn't come across to harsh, but I got a little defensive when someone basically called me a "Nero" and "tyrant". Obviously that poster has never read any of my posts or knows how I feel about various issues. Perhaps they should use the search engine on this site to find out.

But no problem with you Heidi. You're a favorite!... :thumbsup:

[Heidi]

35. I don't think jobycom was referring to you, Robeson.

I think he was referring to Post 9.

:grouphug: <---------- We probably all just need one of these.

[jobycom]

44. Geeze

Sorry. My post was a jest, but it was a hell of a lot less brutal than the post you agreed with. And you didn't qualify which part of the post you agreed with, you just agreed. The most prominent part of that post was harsh vulgarity and an angry wish for Houston to suffer.

And you could have just as easily done a search on my name to see what I'm about, too.

[jobycom]

23. I hate that. That's bullshit.

Just let it go, Rabrrr

:freak:

:yoiks:

[jobycom]

50. I worked hard on this one, and no one caught

Guess I'm a talentless, packaged artist, too. :cry:

[Heidi]

52. I don't think so.

I make my living as an artist, and for the most part, I don't care whether someone accuses me of being a talentless, packaged artist. In that case, they're not interested in my work, and I chalk it up to "win some, lose some." When I'm true to my vision and still manage to sell my work, I buy groceries and go on. It's a joy and a job, and I'm not the arbiter of who is talentless and who is not, except with respect to what work I do or do not buy. Case in point: I don't think Whitney Houston is talentless, but I don't buy her work either; for me, that's a more effective way of expressing my regard for her body of work than damning her to hell (which I don't believe in, anyway.) :shrug:

[jobycom]

53. Good post, but still, everyone missed my Novak walkout done in smileys

Other than that, I agree with your post on each point.

[Rabrrrrrr]

58. OMG! That DID sail right over me!

Even after you reposted to it saying how hard you worked on it, I still didn't get it.

I'm so fucking clueless sometimes.

:cry:

Very clever of you! I wish I had caught first before the explanation, I would have laughed my ass off.

nicely done!

[jobycom]

59. Thanks. It was too obscure

coming on the heated, unrelated thread. Execution was decent, context was weak. Luckily, I'm not above begging for approval! (I know, I'm pathetic. How do I live with myself?)

[Rabrrrrrr]

62. It really isn't obscure, though - we should have gotten it.

Oh, well.

Sometimes group consciousness itself can be clueless.

[Heidi]

67. True confession:

I rarely look at the smilies appended to posts. I think I'm missing the really important stuff. ( :cry: )

[bliss_eternal]

12. Cocaine IS a helluva drug...

:shrug:

I was never a huge fan of hers--but liked some of her work. Friends that were HUGE fans, seem to blame Bobby for her demise. Seems she went willingly (to me at least)...

What I don't get is why after her Diane Sawyer interview, no one was trying to take HER kid away (as was done with M. Jackson after Bashir interview aired). She and Bobby both admitted on national television that they sit around getting high together.

What about the safety of their child?

:eyes:

[borlis]

16. I thought she HAD a great powerful voice back in the day.

I actually watched part of the reality show last night and I guess what surprised me the most is what an old hag she looks like. She used to be extremely beautiful. She must have a very talented make up artist tend to her before she goes anywhere special. BTW the show really sucks.

[fleabert]

17. she sure does like to talk about poop a lot.

and talk about bobby pulling poop out of her butt... :shrug: ? :wtf:

[ladjf]

20. Please stop the noise, particularly that "I will always love you".

It painful to hear.

[Left_Winger]

36. No opinion, either way n/t

[barb162]

46. I like her singing. When she started having drug problems, I think

it was because of her husband. It has crossed my mind more than once she should dump that clown.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

48. Had a GREAT voice back in the day. The songs and music weren't

particularly good, stupid pop stuff.

Like Mariah Carey (ducking), there was great potential, just not realized, wasted in overproduced pop crap.

And now all spent, because of drugs.

[billyskank]

55. She oversings - she really does my head in

*Shudder* No thanks!

[MrSlayer]

66. I think she's horrible.

I hate R&B singers with that exaggerated warble in their voice and turning songs that should be over in 2 minutes into 10 minutes of wailing. Whitney Houston sucks.

[mvd]

71. Better voice than Mariah and Celine

I'll give her that.

[bigwillq]

72. I use to love her ( still do a bit) but

I'm really disappointed with how low she has fallen not only in her career but in her life.

It's sad what drugs can do to people and this is coming from someone who dabbled with drugs here and there.

She must really have an addiction, and she really needs a lot of help but she must decide when she wants the help. I hope she decides that it's time to clean up her act.

Watching Being Bobby makes me so upset. I mean, here is Whitney Houston, pop diva,Grammy-award winning, million dollar contracts, multi-million selling singer, and she looks and acts like someone they picked up off the street.

Have some self-respect Whitney, please.
And this from a woman who got her start in gospel and has preached about church and religion.
Whitney, what would your god say/think about this?

Makes me too sad, sorry. I know nobody gives a shit about Whitney and think it's her own fault (which it is) but I've always loved and admired Whitney.

What a waste.
What a shame.