Because they can say "Oh, she's really got talent. She sings nicely."

And then you see them boping to that artist's most generic, auto-tuned trash track.

General Public are here for the mainstream. The Top 40. What's on radio and the catchy ones. What everybody listens to, they'll listen too. Those are facts.

But do they really care, like some of y'all, about vocals? "Talent" if you want to put it like that?


Y'all have to be aware most of y'all aren't part of the General Public since you're more on touch with what's on with the music industry, and many of you are stans.

We were listening to the radio and Rihanna's grammy performance came on and my mom said she sounded really bad and changed the channel I dunno, my family cares about vocals.

Not really. Some of the biggest songs have been sung by mediocre musicians.

Sadly no.

People are getting more and more tasteless and ignorant.

Hmm, yes to the extent that people will usually only admit to liking untalented vocalists as guilty pleasures (though they still enjoy them).

Exactly. If all artists had equal vocal ranges and abilities, the industry would be so boring and there would be no reason for award shows and whatnot.

Good point. And I think this is correct.

But sometimes some of you act as if just because some artists that really have incredible voices and some other abilities, they are underrated. How about their music? What do they have to offer?

Many of them are just boring, the same brokenhearted songs, and many many of them, got pretentious tracks.

Duh, even rock listeners are big on vocal delivery.

There have been plenty of bad singers to top the charts and sell a lot of records – so no. If people like the music, the fact that the singer can’t deliver live doesn’t really matter.

I don't think they ever had.

There's obv a few exceptions.

To me, talent and good vocals are definitely important for me.

There is this certain overrated pop start at the moment -who i won't name- but has had so many "hits" which I absolutely loathe, because she has no talent at all. Her live vocals are absolutely awful, and the most important thing is she doesn't even write or produce her own songs, while many other people I admire do.

But no, it seems the public doesn't care about good vocals. And the thing about good vocals not always making good music, is unfortunately true. Someone lik Leona Lewis doesn't have hits because her songs are kinda boring. Someone like the anonymous pop star I'm talking about deludes people into thinking she has great vocals on record, but sounds awful live. But because her writers deliberately make an album full of hits, the public buys that. Oh well. I cannot wait until she fades out.

I think it's on a case-by-case basis, but the reaction to the passing of Whitney - a woman who's only outstanding talent was her voice, and what she could do with it - proves that the public does.

This makes me want to point something out too. The general public isn't just a mass of people who think the same way, behave the same way. There are different age-groups, different segments that like different genres.

The people who bought Tik Tok probably aren't the same people who bought Someone Like You. There are people who do care about vocals. But there are also people who don't.

The general public cares about output, not input.

I think they do care when asked about their taste.

Just to don't look like the teen girl who likes everything pop, they say some random artists that, indeed, got talent. But I bet they don't even listen to them.

Who are you talking about?

You know you want to say it.

Evidently not... look @ how the general public praised Rihannas Grammy performance. She has mediocre vocals yet she got an A for her performance as well as Katy getting a "B".