For reference, I’m that kind of singer.
Performing Arts. Dancers can be great without becoming choreographers, singers & other musicians can be great without becoming songwriters. Interpretation of existing works can be very creative, and technical proficiency and stage presence are also impressive skills.
I guess that’s why they call them singers?
There’s no shame in being strictly a singer. That is an ability in and of itself. Besides some songwriters don’t perform or sing, and there’s also nothing wrong with that. (Drummers and bassists in bands write songs too!)
No one ever asked that question about an opera singer. Or of an actress/actor. Why should it be different?
I think the difference is the opera singer is their own name and you can point to some parts or performances, but the songs belong to someone else. “Toxic” by Britney Spears is considered her song… even though it was written by other people, for example. Nobody thinks that Queen of the Night is Diana Damrau’s song.
And I get there’s a difference, because nobody think Beyonce’s version of “Can You Feel The Love Tonight” is anything but Elton John’s song regardless. But the line is so blurred amongst pop singers (as some write their own and some don’t) that credit seems falsely attributed often.
Basically, if you’re a songwriter/composer, you have songs. If you’re a singer, you have performances.
Toxic by Britney Spears et al.
No one ever asked that question about an opera singer
I actually have asked this specific question to my idiotic boomer father recently (not MAGA but almost). He “knows” (or religiously believes) that people must both compose AND perform, otherwise they suck. I had some free time with this moron so I kept on trying to find examples until I went to your question.
An opera singer cannot “write” lyrics because they sing Mozart stuff and Mozart is dead. My father answered very seriously that, yes, even the best opera singer is still a failure because he’s singing songs from dead people.
Now you know, Bocelli and Pavarotti failed at life.
Let’s say that we have a complicated relationship, he never was a father to me, and I’ll grieve him for 30 seconds when he dies, but some people do believe that. Sorry for the rant.
Would that also make Frank Sinatra a failure?
What a bizarre line of thinking.
Yes, Sinatra too. He is obsessed by the 60/70s first rock music (the real kind, not the fake stuff of the 50s) and he’s stuck there.
You know what’s worse? He is listening on a regular basis to singers he hates because they wrote their own songs. Having pure principles is more important that liking something. Yep, he’s fucked up in his head somehow.
60/70s first rock music? Rock is a 1940s/50s genre if we are looking for its origins.
Can’t deny that there’s a really big difference between late 60s rock and 40/50 rock, though - it’s not really wrong to consider it a new genre, even if it appropriates the name of the older genre.
That’s a shame, he’s cutting off his ears to spite his brain. Ah well.
That they are singers not writers, producers or composers.
Unless that singer was Prince! On top of his other talents, he could play 20 instruments.
Same as I think of actors who don’t write their own films or plays.
And to labor the point, also cooks who don’t create their own recipes. Or football players who don’t invent the rules of the game. Or fighter pilots who don’t build their own jets. Or doctors who rely on “book learnin’” instead of figuring out how the human body works themselves.
You don’t even have to leave the realm of music. “A flautist that doesn’t write their own symphonies? Gasp, what a hack!”
Personally I have no issue with it as long as the artist / performer doesn’t lie and say they write their own music.
There are a handful of legendary singers that haven’t written even their best material. Frank Sinatra (My Way), Johnny Cash (Hurt), Madonna (Material Girl) and even Elvis Presley (Hound Dog). But, being a vocalist is like having an organic guitar. You wail, scream, screech, growl in various tone and octaves. And it is matter of making the song work. Some of the songs done by those artists I’ve mentioned, you would be hard pressed to find anyone else to fill their shoes, because they are what made the songs.
as long as you’re honest about it, you’re chill
Everyone has certain qualities, sometimes those qualities are along the same line, great singer and great songwriter.
A lot of times, though, you just have one of the two, great singer or great writer. Doesn’t matter, you still have a quality
i bake recipes that i don’t develop myself, still pretty good at it and people who eat my cakes never complained that i am not making stuff up on my own. totally fine.
I think it’s a talent that a lot of people appreciate, regardless of who wrote the words.
I think the average person appreciates the singing more than the lyrics in general, even in cases where that may be disappointing.
As a writer who has used AI to generate the vocals for songs I wrote, I can tell you that even a great performance of well-written music gives people “bad vibes” when they realize it’s a machine singing it.
Most art is a human-to-human experience and having an impassioned performance from a machine gives people the willies, even if a human wrote the song. Especially if they can’t tell it’s a machine and find out later.
Maybe this will change over time, but I think it’s ultimately about what speaks to people the most. Bob Dylan isn’t famous for being the best singer. Ariana Grande isn’t famous for being the best song-writer.
There are more songs than singers. This is inevitable. Aside, some of the greatest versions of songs are covers.
They’re definitely some of the artists of all time
Well, I like folk music, and those songs are multiple generations old. Without new musicians to play old songs and keep them alive, we’d lose so much of our history.
Pete Seeger liked to talk about “The Folk Process” which was akin to plagiary.
