Quote:
Originally Posted by realtalk92
There is no difference. However, you say this like Rihanna is one of the greatest singers of her generation with impeccable range and depth. lol
She is not a Whitney Houston or a Luther Vandross.
Whitney could stand in front of a sold out stadium and do so many magical things with her voice. She didn't need a spetacle. She didn't need to prance around stage half naked.
She could stand on stage alone and entertain with her voice because she created an unmatched piece of vocal art when she sanged.
None of the above singers have nothing on her or Luther sorry.
|
But that 'prancing' around the stage is just another aspect of the performance. Maybe it wasn't Whitney's style to put on a show like that because she could rely simply on her voice but Rihanna's public image and her stage show are just another element of her artistic oeuvre.
To reiterate, in the turn of the nineteenth century there was this popular Polish actress who used to sell out theatres, leave her audience in hysterical tears every night - just from reciting the alphabet. Her material wasn't important, this woman just had such a gorgeous way of expressing herself that she could draw out that much feeling from her audience. That's art to me.