Pinpointed: Vocalists vs Artists on Stan Twitter
By Bailey Tolentino
When you are asked the following question: “Who is your favourite singer?”
Do you immediately name the singer who has put out, in your opinion, the best music? Or do you name the singer who can belt the highest note for the longest duration?
In a normal, in-person conversation, nearly every person would go for the former. However, on Stan Twitter (a place where opinions are spoken as fact), the replies to this question will be bombarded with opinions — stated as if they are fact — from the fans of vocalists (usually Ariana Grande), attacking anyone who names a singer that isn’t known for, well, their singing.
The catch-all label of “singer” might be the issue, here. It would probably be better if we colloquially used the term “artist” or even “musician” to denote anyone who does music for a living. Unfortunately, the term “artist” is often accompanied by a pretentious undertone — an artist is usually expected to do more than nail every note at karaoke night. They are expected to understand music theory and make music that is so good that it’s esoteric; and fans are allowed to say that people don’t understand music if they don’t understand that artist’s music. A vocalist is usually the hitmaker and best live performer. Fans of vocalists will always make the argument that a singer’s literal job is to sing, and to do it well. The question is: what’s more important? To be a talented artist or to be a talented vocalist? Let’s discuss it in this month’s column.
I hesitate to split musicians by these labels, but to give you all an idea of what I mean by “vocalists” and “artists”, here are some examples:
Vocalist GOATs: Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, Freddie Mercury, Mariah Carey
Current Vocalists: Ariana Grande, Beyoncé, Adele, Sia
-
Artist GOATs: Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Leonard Cohen, Elton John
Current Artists: Billie Eilish, Lana del Rey, Taylor Swift, Charlie Puth (hear me out)
The list goes on and on — but let’s stop there, for the sake of getting into it. Charlie Puth feels like a random mention here, but I’m bringing him up because he is a fantastic jumping-off point. On his Instagram, Puth has a running video series called ‘Professor Puth’, which I have come to love. In each video, he explains a music production/theory staple with popular, understandable examples, that are easy for even the untrained ear to grasp.
The series has caused many casual listeners to appreciate Puth as a more talented artist than they had originally perceived him to be — myself included. Even Taylor Swift and Matty Healy declared Charlie Puth should be a bigger artist’. Still, none of us are spinning ‘Attention’ on repeat, per se. He’s got what it takes, but he doesn’t use it, for whatever reason. But that goes to show that being a fantastic artist kind of has nothing to do with how successful someone is, or how well they perform (vocally, chart-wise, or live on stage).
The “Stan Wars” on Twitter are relentless, because they go in circles. What makes an artist worthy of praise? Songwriting? Vocal skill? Involvement in the production? Classical training? Ariana Grande has never put out a self-written song that doesn’t rely entirely on her vocals. A talented singer, indeed, but what’s the point of singing a bad song, flawlessly? Taylor Swift can’t dance, but does that take away from the fact that she sold out hundreds of shows on her Eras Tour? Aren’t those sales proof that she is a great entertainer? Beyoncé is one of the greatest artists of all time because she can do it all — a little songwriting, much better singing, and a lot of dancing. I’m not even a fan of her, but I have to admit that well-roundedness is the best argument for being the greatest artist out there.
Notice how I only mentioned female artists? That’s because these standards are only set on women — and this is the main issue. Bob Dylan is often referred to as one of the greatest songwriters of all time — yet, his inability to perform vocally is brushed past by critics, with ease. Whether or not you listen to K-Pop, most would admit that BTS is one of the best music groups out there — but they don’t even sing on stage!
One could argue that live performance should not even be a factor to an artist’s talent. Charlie Puth is proof of this. However, why is it that Thom Yorke (of Radiohead) and Morrissey (of The Smiths) are praised for essentially moaning into the microphone, but Billie Eilish was immediately dismissed for her “whisper singing” when she debuted? I love all three of the above artists, but Eilish has certainly received the most backlash from (male) music critics and the general public alike.
Is it because women are expected to perform? Is it not enough to just make music? There is a flip-side to this, of course, as there always is. I would argue that Sabrina Carpenter benefits from the performance aspect; her songwriting alone isn’t enough to uphold her success. Olivia Rodrigo, on the other hand, could be this generation’s greatest songwriter — but she is constantly teased for her dorky dance moves when she is on stage. The whole thing just isn’t fair. There is also a whole different group of singers who are just famous for being who they are, and accolades have nothing to do with it. Think: Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber, Dua Lipa, Harry Styles, Miley Cyrus… That is not to say they aren’t talented, but there is not one particular strength that they capitalise on beyond being famous and having done what they do for so long.
Well, I’ve got to wrap it up. The point is, a singer is an artist no matter what — the art they specialise in just varies from person to person. It may be vocal performance, it may be their ear for production and music theory; hell, it may even be their ability to make fans feel loved. Whatever the case, it seems in this day and age that the actual singing is not the only thing listed on their job description. Therefore, we cannot measure the greatness of a singer based on either their ability to sing or their ability to do the rest of it.