HOWEVER, originally this album spoke to an experience I personally don't know you can *get* without being of the persuasion/diaspora
it definitely speaks to the quality and the power of the songs and their writing, and also to her musical skill
...sure....
but what do you think?
you like it (why or why not)?
is this soulful?
is she parroting, or do you think this is organic (in terms of the emotions in terms of what is being expressed)?
there is a larger thing I've thought about posting that this is emblematic of...the way soulfulness has migrated into majority performers and gets props for being novel (see: Adele, Christina Aguilera, Timberlake, etc). I don't necessarily want to have that convo now - I'd rather focus on the acoustic cover of Black Messiah (first anyway)
I know there are tons of examples of this sort of thing ("covers on youtube"), and I'm not acting like this is new, but that's kind of the point...
it's late in the day so this will probably not get much attention...I may up it tomorrow if not
6. "meh" In response to Reply # 5 Thu May-12-16 10:49 AM by Selah
none of this particular is salient to the larger point, and purely a matter of opinion (though for conversation sake it might have been interesting to hear deeper dissent that "naw, it's different"). i'll defer on that part
after looking 'ol girl up i'm interested to hear what she sounded like doing Teena Marie
8. "go back and listen to her cover "sugar daddy"..." In response to Reply # 6
..her accompanist is in the pocket, yet she's all over the place (and doesn't appear to understand the swing of the song).
i don't doubt that she's capable, but this video was posted the same week BM dropped. she hadn't sat with the album long enough to truly capture the swing (which is crucial).
14. "details make the difference..." In response to Reply # 9 Thu May-12-16 12:06 PM by CyrenYoung
..i don't think its an either/or scenario. its obvious that she has a jazz background. its very possible for a person to "feel" the music, but not be "of" it. she has the soul, but hasn't mastered the delivery.
*sugar daddy* listen to her delivery of these lines at the end of the 1st verse:
shoulda seen the way they tossed and turned the way she make the congregation squirm
she completely missed the playfulness of the original delivery, and its importance at that particular junction. while her interpretation is cool, it lands flat with no impact.
that line should evoke images similar to the silliness of tom the cat, playin' his heart out on "is you is or is you ain't my baby."
21. "just to make sure i'm clear" In response to Reply # 14
>its very possible for a person to >"feel" the music, but not be "of" it. she has the soul, but >hasn't mastered the delivery.
i'm still trying to get at the definition of "soul"
here you seem to be saying it's delivery (which has to do with techincal skill. can you "sing" it right?) or "feel" (can you SANG it right?)
or maybe a combination of both
relative to "feel"...... is it more about what YOU feel as the artist, or what you can EVOKE in the listener?
^^^that's a side question
>*sugar daddy* listen to her delivery of these lines at the end >of the 1st verse:
perhaps, she is trying to "change the message" (what it invokes the listener to feel)? is that not legit (and in some ways not part of the reason for doing a cover)? it may not hit you the same way as the original (or at all) but to say it's invalid (...just a line...) seems kinda unfair
all this said/asked......
i'm not disagreeing with you per se, i'm just making sure (or maybe trying to validate) it - defining soul - is pretty much purely subjective
28. "wisdom in the world of songwriting..." In response to Reply # 21
..lyrics are merely words, until someone takes the time (and effort) to nurture them, bring them to life.
in this way, we give birth to music.
sure, you can cut corners. you can even cover songs that have been birthed before you. but without a clear understanding of the work you wish to reinterpret, your efforts shall be in vain.
this isn't a debate about soul or its definition. soul can be many different things, but it is NOT pretend.
as far as morgan james, i'm not much for assumptions. we don't have enough original material to render a verdict (like karmin).
the bottom line: you can only borrow so much. at some point, every successful artist must leave the shadows of their influences and embrace their own voice. their own vision. from conception to fruition.
to me, this just shows how good a musician D'Angelo is cuz this is aiight, but the music translates to a different style. she is bland, but D'Angelo's music is on point.
10. "A good song is a good song period" In response to Reply # 0
It's why songwriting is such an important skill(as important as musicianship), and why standards transcend not only time but genre.
I think the beef here is that 'trying to blow up youtube 102' is finding a song in one genre and cover/adapting it to another.
Taken on its own, it's solid. She's got a good voice. Compared to the original though...no comparison. It's arguably less about D'Angelo (she's obviously a stronger vocalist) but with the sparse instrumentation and the lack of intentional lack of soul syncopation in her voice/acoustic guitar its lacking.
12. "Yeah, I don't know if it was a wise choice on D's part" In response to Reply # 11 Thu May-12-16 11:18 AM by BigReg
But I ain't mad at it. I mean, right now im at my desk listening to some punk songs where the lyrics are pretty unintelligible too.
While people got mad at D for keeping his vocals in the mix, its not as if he was singing off key etc. My only beef with it was that since it flirted with some protest songs it would have been nice to have them understood, lol
16. "every genre has hit songs with lyrics that are difficult to decipher..." In response to Reply # 11
..this is really no different.
music is a language and every language has its nuance.
d'angelo's delivery is part of the song. he sings with the slide & swing of the chosen instrumentation that surrounds the lyrics.
you may not hear every single word, but you feel it nonetheless. you may not understand it at first, but you KNOW its there.
it takes time for the average person to decipher the lyrics, and that's a good challenge. some won't take that challenge, but for those that do: the pay off is just one more thing to learn (and love) about the overall music.
25. "i'm all for deciphering lyrics, but" In response to Reply # 16
D's version comes off us mumbling and unintelligible.
i knew he was saying something, just could not figure out what.
Till its Done is a great example.
I can make out words here and there in the original, but I get the whole concept and message when I heard her sing it. a light bulb legit went off just now. Made me connect with the song in a way that I hadn't when it was released.
It's D's decision and I respect it, but if i can't hear or understand the words (unlike when i listen to foreign language music) then I'm not putting in extra work. I'll let it play and zone in or out.
13. "RE: A good song is a good song period" In response to Reply # 10
right.
but that is a moot point because a bad singer can ruin a good song.
>It's why songwriting is such an important skill(as important >as musicianship), and why standards transcend not only time >but genre.
BUT (repeated) a standard has to be sung well or it'll suck...the particular interpretation of it anyway
>I think the beef here is that 'trying to blow up youtube 102' >is finding a song in one genre and cover/adapting it to >another.
so you're saying you dislike that whole cloth or what?
>Taken on its own, it's solid. She's got a good voice. >Compared to the original though...no comparison.
again *THIS* is the meat of it
it compares unfavorably why?
do you just prefer one to the other "gut feeling" (one moves you and the other doesn't) or is there an actual reason you can explain
me asking about soulfulness was trying to get at that, to me she is obviously TRYING to feel it but it appears (to me) to be not really genuine
>It's >arguably less about D'Angelo (she's obviously a stronger >vocalist) but with the sparse instrumentation and the lack of >intentional lack of soul syncopation in her voice/acoustic >guitar its lacking.
I think the sparse instrumentation help bring the singer out more
and i don't quite get "lack of intentional lack of soul syncopation "
17. "Songs tend to be written with genre in mind" In response to Reply # 13
>it compares unfavorably why? > >do you just prefer one to the other "gut feeling" (one moves >you and the other doesn't) or is there an actual reason you >can explain > >me asking about soulfulness was trying to get at that, to me >she is obviously TRYING to feel it but it appears (to me) to >be not really genuine
and different genres have different emphasis on notes/beats, even speed, even TECHNIQUE.
It's why the many many orchestral versions of Metallica songs are good, but they don't compare to three distorted guitars and a drummer waling at 180 BPM...even if the later miss notes here and there.
She's soulful but D'Angelo's purposely buried his vocals in the songs to add grit which she lacks.
The acoustic guitar is nice, but there's a reason why its primarily electric guitar in those songs (sharper, less twangier sound), along with the fact that you're effectively covering rhythm and blues songs -=WITH NO RHYTHM SECTION=- lol.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
