Mariah Carey,Here We Go Again !!! And The Monkees (!!?)

Steve,

I wonder, if what was really going on for the Monkees, was that they were merely "vehicles" for someone to make a lot of money? Based on the comments you just shared that would seem to be the case. Obviously, not a "new" story, at the time, in the entertainment business but this was different because of the popular recordings AND the weekly network TV show. Emotionally, it must have become difficult for them to be idolized like stars by the public and treated like "a property" by their employer!

Bob

 

Can I volunteer, please, sir

 

Perhaps the impetus behind The Monkees grabbing contol of their recordings and taking the act on the road was fueled more by their paltry salary than a need for artistic expression (as depicted in that made-for-tv movie). It does seem a little silly to be underpaying the cash cow that was fueling television, sponsers, songwriters, and record company execs. Even to this day, many of them still have bitter feelings toward The Monkees. I wonder if Don Kirshner made more than $700 a week from those records in 66 and 67?

Ahhh, he probably fells he deserved to make more......

 

I know of one person who could and did bring Mariah down to earth - Paul Sorvino's daughter.

 

The only people I see going crazy over Britiny Spears are 30ish year-old guys!

 

BUT, the Monkees had real talent! They fought for their artistic freedom and even fired Don Kirshner even when they may have not been in the position to do so!

After Kirshner realized he couldn't control them he set out to create the Archies. A bunch of cartoon characters can't fire you! Ron Dante was all too willing to sing as the Archies.

 

Grant,

I was neither questioning her talent nor saying her music does nothing for me. Even if I believe her look sells more CDs than her singing talent it doesn't mean I believe she's got no talent.

 

Gary,

As long as it does not morph into another Beatles thread, I'll be happy (no offense to the Beatles, I love em')

Bob

 

Some people may disagree but I think Britney Spears
1) has no singing talent - can't even hide this with all the fx's,
2) can't dance - Woody Harrelson has better moves on a basketball court,
3) looks cute only above her shoulders - overweight, inproportional, allegedly surgically enhanced,
4) needs better wardrobe/costume advice - there's a lot more than just wearing pants to compensate for the not so leggy figure.

 

Paul,

A very well done overview!

Bob

 

I don't think it's really fair to say Nesmith was the only one with real musical talent. Micky Dolenz had a fine voice, and he wrote at least one really damn good song (Randy Scouse Git). Peter Tork can play several instruments.

By the way, Carol Kaye must be mistaken. The Wrecking Crew played on only a very few of the songs on the Monkees' first two albums (just the tracks written/produced by Nesmith, I think). They didn't play on any of the big hits. It was a different group of session guys for most of those tracks. And even on the ones the Wrecking Crew did play on, Carol Kaye wasn't there, at least according to the extensive credits in the Rhino box set.

 

Okay, without making any kind of value judgment on Britney Spears or her music, I just have to ask incredulously:

You think Britney Spears is overweight???? Is a pinup of Karen Carpenter hanging on your wall? Do you think Calista Flockheart needs to go on a diet too?

 

czeskleba,

Certainly Dolenz and Tork were not talented enough musicians to be nationally known, recorded and recognized as such and that was the intent of my comment in my posting. On the other hand, Nesmith recorded some solo hits and played on some others albums after his stint with the Monkees. I believe my assessment was not "unfair". I do enjoy their recordings, by the way.

Bob

 

Gary,

To take her place you will need to add a pair of something and subtract a little bit of other things. Simply a plastic surgery won't cut it (pun intended).

 

czeskleba,

Karen Carpenter passed away long time ago so let her rest in peace. I think I know what you were getting at. Calista Flockhart needs to gain some muscle mass by eating well and exercising. Anorexia nervosa is a serious problem among female entertainers mainly due to the pressure put upon them by others and themselves to keep a slim and trim figure.

Back to Britney. If she wants to bare her midriff all the time, she should at least get into decent shape, if not Shania Twain shape. BTW, using belly button piercing as a distraction won't do the job.

 

Every culture in the world has an idea of what an attractive woman looks like. Each ethnic group within this country has a concept of what is attractive. Each region has their concept.

For example, in Latin America, people tend to prefer "thicker" women. To them, that is attractive. Euoropeans tend to lean towards thinner women.

A lot of what one thinks is attractive comes from where you live, your culture, and most importantly, what the women in your household growing up liked like.

It should also be noted that the further west you go in this country, the more that slim is in the norm.

Many are influenced by what they see in the movies and on TV.

It has been suggested that many men prefer very thin women because they tend to resemble young girls.

As to weather Britney looks attractive or in shape is all in the eyes of the beholder.

The discussion in thread is getting silly. People arguing over who looks healthy/good is pointless.

 

Britney Spears sells most of her CDs in North America so I tried to limit the scope of the discussion accordingly.

Including Britney Spears, right? It's the same standard generally accepted in popular culture.

No. They just don't want to be crushed.

Silliness is in the eyes of the beholder, but healthiness is not. I'm for the healthier and more natural shapes/looks.

The original point I tried to make was that Britney Spears became rich and famous not because of her singing skill but she's also lacking/substandard in many other departments including her dancing, look and wardrobe.

 

Paul Chang,

People can be perfectly healthy and have some meat on them bones! Also, I know many men who prefer "thicker" women.

According to some recent study, the further wes you go in this country, the more health conscious people tend to be. After all, California is warmer, so people tend to be outside and active more. They also wear fewer clothes because of that. It shows why people out here would be more health conscious. Their bodies are more visable. It's a very different thing than if you lived in the upper midwest or on the northern eastern seaboard.

Britany started by appealing to teenage girls. It then progressed to men lusting after her body. IMO, she has little or no singing talent.

 

Grant,

meat on the bones !== fat under the skin

Other than that, I agree with everything you said in the last post. In addition, she can't dance, either.

 

A little fat under a woman's skin is healthier than none, for all sorts of medical reasons. I grew up around medicine.

 

I agree. 0% body fat is indeed unnatural. But Britney Spears is not so young to carry "baby fat", IMO.

 

Well, many people in our society woyld look at her and say that she is too skinny.

Again, it's a matter of opinion.

 

Overweight or too skinny, she still can't dance for either body type.