|
Post by FreakyFlyBry on May 27, 2004 18:03:08 GMT -5
The first hit for the fakest group to ever make the top 40, it peaked at #4 in 1989. It's an alright song, but it probably would've been better if they actually sang it
|
|
|
Post by Courage on May 27, 2004 18:05:27 GMT -5
It's an alright song, but it probably would've been better if they actually sang it Probably not
|
|
|
Post by merg on May 27, 2004 21:00:57 GMT -5
this is quite possibly the worst kind of cheese ever... the song isn't horrible, but man it's not that good either
|
|
|
Post by billcs on May 27, 2004 21:42:01 GMT -5
Hey the singers were all right and the song is the best of their hits - all of which went Top 5 on the Billboard Hot 100! It's too bad that it was all tainted by a sham. And it begat other such problems.
By the time of all of this success, noted belter (best known for The Weather Girls, the originators of "It's Raining Men") Martha Wash's voice was being used on all of the North American hits by Black Box, Seduction's "You're My One And Only (True Love)", and C&C Music Factory's "Gonna Make You Sweat" with absolutely no credit, despite all of their success. This was all settled through a lawsuit.
Technotronic also credited a model named Felly with the vocal for "Pump Up The Jam" but it was really Ya Kid K,who was ultimately credited on subsequent hits like "Move This". And there were a few others, but the notion finally faded out by the late 90's.
|
|
|
Post by Jason on May 28, 2004 16:13:07 GMT -5
I liked Milli Vanill's songs a lot. In fact, I still like them today. Whoever actually sang them was really good. This was my least favorite of the four singles, though.
|
|
CRAIG:
KYLiE Freak
Posts: 10,902
|
Post by CRAIG: on May 28, 2004 20:04:21 GMT -5
[shadow=silver,left,300]cheesy[/shadow] [shadow=silver,right,500]corny[/shadow]
|
|
Bebe Reptar
Dr. Faceless
I like to stomp and roar... hey, I'm just a dinosaur!
Posts: 8,828
|
Post by Bebe Reptar on May 28, 2004 20:22:04 GMT -5
It's alright.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2004 17:28:43 GMT -5
Here's what I never understood about Milli Vanilli and the whole "Best New Artist" Grammy thing:
"Best New Artist" as an award is supposed to be based on the musical and vocal work of an artist within the eligibility dates, right? This isn't an award that's voted on based on public reception, style, whatever.
Upon the discovery that Milli Vanilli performed using people who didn't actually sing, why was the award stripped? Shouldn't it have just gone to the performers who were actually behind the band? Because, in reality, the performers were actually awarded based on their work. It was just the fake Milli Vanilli who accepted the award.
|
|
|
Post by billcs on May 30, 2004 18:02:37 GMT -5
Here's what I never understood about Milli Vanilli and the whole "Best New Artist" Grammy thing: "Best New Artist" as an award is supposed to be based on the musical and vocal work of an artist within the eligibility dates, right? This isn't an award that's voted on based on public reception, style, whatever. Upon the discovery that Milli Vanilli performed using people who didn't actually sing, why was the award stripped? Shouldn't it have just gone to the performers who were actually behind the band? Because, in reality, the performers were actually awarded based on their work. It was just the fake Milli Vanilli who accepted the award. I could only guess that the Academy felt that whoever was involved in the entire sham was complicit and so the award was revoked.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on May 30, 2004 19:16:05 GMT -5
Here's what I never understood about Milli Vanilli and the whole "Best New Artist" Grammy thing: "Best New Artist" as an award is supposed to be based on the musical and vocal work of an artist within the eligibility dates, right? This isn't an award that's voted on based on public reception, style, whatever. Upon the discovery that Milli Vanilli performed using people who didn't actually sing, why was the award stripped? Shouldn't it have just gone to the performers who were actually behind the band? Because, in reality, the performers were actually awarded based on their work. It was just the fake Milli Vanilli who accepted the award. How's this for an explanation? They were awarded based on the pretense that it WAS them singing (and so forth). Then it's revealed that they were NEVER singing (and so forth). The result is being awarded while at the same time lying about actually singing. Get it now? BTW - what ever did happen to the award that year? Was it later re-awarded to a different nominee or is it forever vacant?
|
|
|
Post by FreakyFlyBry on May 30, 2004 19:32:30 GMT -5
BTW - what ever did happen to the award that year? Was it later re-awarded to a different nominee or is it forever vacant? I believe it was left vacant.
|
|
|
Post by Courage on May 31, 2004 18:22:58 GMT -5
I believe it was left vacant. Yes it was
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2004 19:58:02 GMT -5
Here's what I never understood about Milli Vanilli and the whole "Best New Artist" Grammy thing: "Best New Artist" as an award is supposed to be based on the musical and vocal work of an artist within the eligibility dates, right? This isn't an award that's voted on based on public reception, style, whatever. Upon the discovery that Milli Vanilli performed using people who didn't actually sing, why was the award stripped? Shouldn't it have just gone to the performers who were actually behind the band? Because, in reality, the performers were actually awarded based on their work. It was just the fake Milli Vanilli who accepted the award. Does anybody in the U.S. remember that you could send in your Milli Vanilli CDs or albums back to the record company and get back something like a $3 refund for having been "cheated"? I think taking away the grammy and offering refunds was the biggest publicity stunt. What a pile of shit. The truth is that people have been lip synching to other singers' work for ages. We just don't know how much, but we can't be so stupid as to think Milli Vanilli were the first act ever to pull this off. Nobody says shit these days about these singers who need to have their voices digitally altered or enhanced with double vocals or additional singers, etc., in order to be "loud enough" or "on key" to sound half-way decent. Milli Vanilli were good performance artists. It's too damn bad, however, that the real singers weren't in a position to hit the big time for themselves ... like with what happened to poor Martha Wash. By the way, one of the two "fakes" in Milli Vanilli killed himself a few years back. He had been depressed for years after the "We are fake!" discovery came out in the news. Supposedly what happened is that Milli Vanilli "insisted" that they be able to sing "for real" on their follow-up record, and the record company couldn't make them back down ... so the record company supposedly PURPROSELY leaked the info to various sources. At any rate, I don't remember which one of the guys ended up killing himself, but it's just sad how something can get so out of hand and end up like that. Life's a bitch ... and then you die ... indeed.
|
|
|
Post by billcs on Nov 10, 2004 20:22:09 GMT -5
It was Rob Pilatus who died of an overdose of booze and pills in 1998, age 32. I believe the guys who actually sang the songs are session singers who continue singing to this day.
|
|
|
Post by jt25 on Nov 10, 2004 20:27:50 GMT -5
It was Rob Pilatus who died of an overdose of booze and pills in 1998, age 32. Was that Milli or Vanilli?
|
|