Home

[Cartierline]

Whitney was the VOICE, but she was no artist.

[Ｂｏｏｍｚ]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

[Ｂｏｏｍｚ]

I was just revisiting this performance the other day. Her voice was starting to decline around this time but the way she sat there and still gave a vocal LASHIN.

The on-stage charisma! That's artistry!

...cocaine sweat and all

[oph.]

I was just revisiting this performance the other day. Her voice was starting to decline around this time but the way she sat there and still gave a vocal LASHIN.

The on-stage charisma! That's artistry!

...cocaine sweat and all

[stillpretty]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

obviously whitney did something well as an artist to become one of the best selling of all time

but i think the context of this thread was pointing more towards material. songs. the music
the level of creativity and creative ambition in the material itself. how un-"safe" was it?

that's usually the assumed context when "artistry" is mentioned, from what i've seen
it's more a combination of how creative/unique/interesting the material was, and how well the artist used their voice on the material is considered too.

whitney will always be the voice and we can literally sit and talk about what she did with her voice all day. but even she herself knew the "artistry" was lacking IMO. which is why she tried to switch it up and come more into her own instead of just singing off those interchangeable/assembly line produced/generic pop tunes they were giving her.

as i mentioned earlier in the thread, she def tried to give us more of who "whitney" was an artist (and a person) and that shouldn't go without a note.

I think the "My Love is Your Love" era was a huge turning point for her. i think i even remember her saying so herself. she wanted to get more control. ala GODnet.

[oph.]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

!!!!!!!!!!!!

[oph.]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

obviously whitney did something well as an artist to become one of the best selling of all time

but i think the context of this thread was pointing more towards material. songs. the music
the level of creativity and creative ambition in the material itself. how un-"safe" was it?

that's usually the assumed context when "artistry" is mentioned, from what i've seen
it's more a combination of how creative/unique/interesting the material was, and how well the artist used their voice on the material is considered too.

whitney will always be the voice and we can literally sit and talk about what she did with her voice all day. but even she herself knew the "artistry" was lacking IMO. which is why she tried to switch it up and come more into her own instead of just singing off those interchangeable/assembly line produced/generic pop tunes they were giving her.

that's you just making an assumption tho bby. all it said was category: artistry go. there were no specifications made.

an to boon's point, i don't think voices don't get enough acknowledgement when it comes to what they contribute ARTISTICALLY to the material. it is very much a part of the artistry.

also, i think y'all kinda playin in whit's face. i learned from the best, your love is my love, heartbreak hotel, it's not right weren't no generic pop messes. these eclectic, soulful hits. 

[stillpretty]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

obviously whitney did something well as an artist to become one of the best selling of all time

but i think the context of this thread was pointing more towards material. songs. the music
the level of creativity and creative ambition in the material itself. how un-"safe" was it?

that's usually the assumed context when "artistry" is mentioned, from what i've seen
it's more a combination of how creative/unique/interesting the material was, and how well the artist used their voice on the material is considered too.

whitney will always be the voice and we can literally sit and talk about what she did with her voice all day. but even she herself knew the "artistry" was lacking IMO. which is why she tried to switch it up and come more into her own instead of just singing off those interchangeable/assembly line produced/generic pop tunes they were giving her.

that's you just making an assumption tho bby. all it said was category: artistry go. there were no specifications made.

an to boon's point, i don't think voices don't get enough acknowledgement when it comes to what they contribute ARTISTICALLY to the material. it is very much a part of the artistry.

also, i think y'all kinda playin in whit's face. i learned from the best, your love is my love, heartbreak hotel, it's not right weren't no generic pop messes. these eclectic, soulful hits. 

i'm not assuming in saying Whitney was not satisfied with the direction her music was going in herself, and felt the label was giving her generic microwaved pop tunes.

she expressed this herself and pushed for more creative control.

all those songs you just listed came after she decided to start pushing to switch things up

but when many casual listeners think of Whitney, they obviously think of her biggest hits. which is the case for most artists people aren't stans of

[stillpretty]

i also noted on previous pages that whitney DID make an effort to switch it up.

so u aint tellin me nothing new by listing those songs. sdsnsdnnsdds

those are my teas. her best work IMO

"my love is your love" is by far her most listenable album

BITCH when the piano HITS

[stillpretty]

i think the biggest difference here is Janet and ESPECIALLY Mariah released WAY more albums
Mariah was like the kwee of releasing every other year MINIMUM at one point.

Madonna released a lot as well ...she was on that every 2-3 years schedule.
and that's super freakin frequent considering how BIG and extensive album rollouts/eras were in those days.
the gorls weren't just releasing 10 songs, shooting a video and calling it an era. sfnsfnsfsfsnfnsfnfs

so we got much more of a chance to see them SETTLE into their creative tea.
and perfect it

Whitney just didn't release as much.
kinda fuckin crazy that she had a gap from 1990 to 1998 without an official studio alber mess (if you don't count The Bodyguard soundtrack)

[oph.]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

obviously whitney did something well as an artist to become one of the best selling of all time

but i think the context of this thread was pointing more towards material. songs. the music
the level of creativity and creative ambition in the material itself. how un-"safe" was it?

that's usually the assumed context when "artistry" is mentioned, from what i've seen
it's more a combination of how creative/unique/interesting the material was, and how well the artist used their voice on the material is considered too.

whitney will always be the voice and we can literally sit and talk about what she did with her voice all day. but even she herself knew the "artistry" was lacking IMO. which is why she tried to switch it up and come more into her own instead of just singing off those interchangeable/assembly line produced/generic pop tunes they were giving her.

that's you just making an assumption tho bby. all it said was category: artistry go. there were no specifications made.

an to boon's point, i don't think voices don't get enough acknowledgement when it comes to what they contribute ARTISTICALLY to the material. it is very much a part of the artistry.

also, i think y'all kinda playin in whit's face. i learned from the best, your love is my love, heartbreak hotel, it's not right weren't no generic pop messes. these eclectic, soulful hits. 

i'm not assuming in saying Whitney was not satisfied with the direction her music was going in herself, and felt the label was giving her generic microwaved pop tunes.

she expressed this herself and pushed for more creative control.

all those songs you just listed came after she decided to start pushing to switch things up

but when many casual listeners think of Whitney, they obviously think of her biggest hits. which is the case for most artists people aren't stans of

wasn't referring to o that part when I said assuming. was referring to the party where u literally said assumed babe. also, even before she decided to "switch it up" her VOICE was still contributing to the artistry even if the tracks were more pop. which is why that's why i said that where she reigned supreme. out of vocals, performance, and musical creativity the stronfs in this list is white, janet and madonna. Mariah is not the better than either three in any of those categories, IMO. but that's my last thesis post for the night.



whit, the ARTIST

[stillpretty]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

obviously whitney did something well as an artist to become one of the best selling of all time

but i think the context of this thread was pointing more towards material. songs. the music
the level of creativity and creative ambition in the material itself. how un-"safe" was it?

that's usually the assumed context when "artistry" is mentioned, from what i've seen
it's more a combination of how creative/unique/interesting the material was, and how well the artist used their voice on the material is considered too.

whitney will always be the voice and we can literally sit and talk about what she did with her voice all day. but even she herself knew the "artistry" was lacking IMO. which is why she tried to switch it up and come more into her own instead of just singing off those interchangeable/assembly line produced/generic pop tunes they were giving her.

that's you just making an assumption tho bby. all it said was category: artistry go. there were no specifications made.

an to boon's point, i don't think voices don't get enough acknowledgement when it comes to what they contribute ARTISTICALLY to the material. it is very much a part of the artistry.

also, i think y'all kinda playin in whit's face. i learned from the best, your love is my love, heartbreak hotel, it's not right weren't no generic pop messes. these eclectic, soulful hits. 

i'm not assuming in saying Whitney was not satisfied with the direction her music was going in herself, and felt the label was giving her generic microwaved pop tunes.

she expressed this herself and pushed for more creative control.

all those songs you just listed came after she decided to start pushing to switch things up

but when many casual listeners think of Whitney, they obviously think of her biggest hits. which is the case for most artists people aren't stans of

wasn't referring to o that part when I said assuming. was referring to the party where u literally said assumed babe. also, even before she decided to "switch it up" her VOICE was still contributing to the artistry even if the tracks were more pop. which is why that's why i said that where she reigned supreme. out of vocals, performance, and musical creativity the stronfs in this list is white, janet and madonna. Mariah is not the better than either three in any of those categories, IMO. but that's my last thesis post for the night.



whit, the ARTIST

boomz clearly assumed people were not considering Whitney's voice as a significant part of her "artistry"

So I'm not alone toots. Context

[Amazing]

I don't care about your definitions. Madonna is the weakest link to me. I enjoy her music the least. The other 3 are some of my favourite artists of all time.

[RAY7]

I don't care about your definitions. Madonna is the weakest link to me. I enjoy her music the least. The other 3 are some of my favourite artists of all time.

exactly

[oph.]

What Whit could do with her voice...made her an artist. Her voice was her paint brush.

More than one way you can be an artist
See: Rihanna

Whitney's voice was the vehicle that drove all those songs written by other people, into hits

obviously whitney did something well as an artist to become one of the best selling of all time

but i think the context of this thread was pointing more towards material. songs. the music
the level of creativity and creative ambition in the material itself. how un-"safe" was it?

that's usually the assumed context when "artistry" is mentioned, from what i've seen
it's more a combination of how creative/unique/interesting the material was, and how well the artist used their voice on the material is considered too.

whitney will always be the voice and we can literally sit and talk about what she did with her voice all day. but even she herself knew the "artistry" was lacking IMO. which is why she tried to switch it up and come more into her own instead of just singing off those interchangeable/assembly line produced/generic pop tunes they were giving her.

that's you just making an assumption tho bby. all it said was category: artistry go. there were no specifications made.

an to boon's point, i don't think voices don't get enough acknowledgement when it comes to what they contribute ARTISTICALLY to the material. it is very much a part of the artistry.

also, i think y'all kinda playin in whit's face. i learned from the best, your love is my love, heartbreak hotel, it's not right weren't no generic pop messes. these eclectic, soulful hits. 

i'm not assuming in saying Whitney was not satisfied with the direction her music was going in herself, and felt the label was giving her generic microwaved pop tunes.

she expressed this herself and pushed for more creative control.

all those songs you just listed came after she decided to start pushing to switch things up

but when many casual listeners think of Whitney, they obviously think of her biggest hits. which is the case for most artists people aren't stans of

wasn't referring to o that part when I said assuming. was referring to the party where u literally said assumed babe. also, even before she decided to "switch it up" her VOICE was still contributing to the artistry even if the tracks were more pop. which is why that's why i said that where she reigned supreme. out of vocals, performance, and musical creativity the stronfs in this list is white, janet and madonna. Mariah is not the better than either three in any of those categories, IMO. but that's my last thesis post for the night.



whit, the ARTIST

boomz clearly assumed people were not considering Whitney's voice as a significant part of her "artistry"

how is he assuming it when y'all r in here SAYING IT, toots?? bvvvccvcx