Home

[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"

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

 

"yall"

so when u find this post of me explicitly saying whitney gets no "artistry" points for her voice and how she used it

lemme know. im ready to eat egg.

[stillpretty]

honestly artists like GHan and Kim Burrell already prove that how a singer uses their voice on material can significantly contribute to the perceived level of "artistry" they have.

Boomz wasn't introducing some new, edgy concept

cssjnsjnscnscjnscjnscjjc

[Ulysses]

Yeahhhhhh. Whit was NO artist. She was a singer.

If we compare her to someone like Madonna especially.

Madonna literally reinvented her style and sound so many times, even coming off of super successful eras. There was no fear to do something different and literally was being followed by every other female pop artist in the industry. She was hands on with everything.

Whit was just along for the ride and singing the songs that were being handed to her. Is there artistry in the vocal approach and being the VOICE? Yes. But artistry is much more than just being able to sing the fuck outta a song.

[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

 

"yall"

so when u find this post of me explicitly saying whitney gets no "artistry" points for her voice and how she used it

lemme know. im ready to eat egg.

n

ok, take "y'all" out and replace it with "they". the POINT is boomz didn't make an assumption as you claimed he did.

bvvvccccc u love trynna evade the point

[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"

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

 

"yall"

so when u find this post of me explicitly saying whitney gets no "artistry" points for her voice and how she used it

lemme know. im ready to eat egg.

n

ok, take "y'all" out and replace it with "they". the POINT is boomz didn't make an assumption as you claimed he did.

bvvvccccc u love trynna evade the point

im reviewing the thread and i see people in here acknowledging Whitney as having the best voice, even if they didn't pick her as the best "artist"

they're kinda saying what Boomz is saying, but just in a different way.

Boomz chose to constantly focus on Whitney's voice, like many others in here did.
honestly, what's the difference?

snnsjffjnsfjsnsjfnjsnfjjnsf the wording i guess?

[stillpretty]

i know you're saying context is being "assumed" by me. but based on the replies in this thread, it's actually SAFE to assume that the definition of "artistry" for many people is a combination of multiple factors coming together.

evidence of this: people are literally saying Whitney is the best singer then picking someone else as the best "artist".

sfsfnfsjfsnfjsnjfsnsjnjnjsfsf

so it's safe to assume many people's definition of "great artistry" is a pleasant/good vocal, unique material, and overall delivery that all falls under the umbrella of said artist's name.

does that make sense?

[oph.]

no it doesn't make sense vvvccc. i pointed out that you were assuming as it related to PROMPT prompt, which never specified what artistry it was referring to. never argued WHAT most people would assume.

in fact i understand very well what most people would assume when it comes to artistry, which is why i said on a previous page:

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

additionally

Whitney wasn't an artist. She was just a singer, and that's fine.

Whitney was the VOICE, but she was no artist.

Yeahhhhhh. Whit was NO artist. She was a singer. 

yea, they're not saying what boomz was saying vvvvvcccccccc

happy sunday hun

[stillpretty]

well i was clearly speaking to a reasonably assumed context, and have been speaking to that this entire time.

challenge: ask most people you know what they consider "great artistry" to be

and tell me how many people tell you all they consider for that is how great someone's voice is.

that's all. i'll gladly eat egg if my assumptions are wrong or unreasonable.

[Justaway_]

sdsdsdsdsdssd the nips r PISSED

Girl she was just a singer, accept her for who she was and move on. A good singer, performer.

The other 3 are creative, innovative artists, producers and songwriters 

[RAY7]

It needs to be said that although Whitney did not write her songs and her material was the most "safe" and not really experimental or edgy like the others...
She does have a catalog full memorable classic hits, also it was authentic to her as a person. She was a church girl who just loved her husband and family, and she sang songs about love, heartbreak, God etc. She was relatable and ppl loved her personality and her "regal" image. Last thing, she definitely was the most "emotive" singer on the list. Not just loud and doing runs for no reason but really singing with passion that makes ppl FEEL something. I'm listening to her 200 times before I even think about Madonna singing off key about being a slut

Thank you for your time lol

[I. Hate. Monica.]

I'm not even a big nippy fan but she was an artist. Let's not play in here lol

[Justaway_]

It needs to be said that although Whitney did not write her songs and her material was the most "safe" and not really experimental or edgy like the others...
She does have a catalog full memorable classic hits, also it was authentic to her as a person. She was a church girl who just loved her husband and family, and she sang songs about love, heartbreak, God etc. She was relatable and ppl loved her personality and her "regal" image. Last thing, she definitely was the most "emotive" singer on the list. Not just loud and doing runs for no reason but really singing with passion that makes ppl FEEL something. I'm listening to her 200 times before I even think about Madonna singing off key about being a slut

Thank you for your time lol

Well you're known for your ghetto tastes so..

[Nine]

It needs to be said that although Whitney did not write her songs and her material was the most "safe" and not really experimental or edgy like the others...
She does have a catalog full memorable classic hits, also it was authentic to her as a person. She was a church girl who just loved her husband and family, and she sang songs about love, heartbreak, God etc. She was relatable and ppl loved her personality and her "regal" image. Last thing, she definitely was the most "emotive" singer on the list. Not just loud and doing runs for no reason but really singing with passion that makes ppl FEEL something. I'm listening to her 200 times before I even think about Madonna singing off key about being a slut

Thank you for your time lol

fkldfsklfdsmdfslkfdm'dfklmdf';ldsm'dfl;dssdfdsfdsdfs

[Nine]

I'm kinda turning on Take a Bow before any Whitney mess but that's just me

[Nine]

I'm not even a big nippy fan but she was an artist. Let's not play in here lol

We're not playing

 

Great singer, an artist she was not.

She was kinda like the Rihanna of 80s/90s. Just singing whatever was placed in front of her. Doesn't make her any less iconic.