Do Record Deals Equal Talent?

Contributed Anonymously:

I am getting kind of tired of the notions in this website when people say things like, “Well if Ashlee Simpson isn’t talented then why does she have a record deal?!” and so on. What does having a record deal have anything to do with how talented the person is, yet alone justify if people will actually like their music? The only thing that the record deal signifies is that somebody noticed some potential in the artist, and that they are going to take a shot at making them into a star. Does it mean we have to assume that the person is talented because some guy saw some $$$?

Just to be realistic with the times, we don’t know what most music producers are trying to endeavor. They could pick up anybody with a hot body and pretty face and a decent voice and sign them up with a record deal. It’s no secret that today we have technology that can enhance or approve someone’s crappy voice. So they could even easily make somebody appear halfway decent. At the end people, it’s all about popularity.

Look at William Hung, he can’t sing even if his ass depended on it, but obviously people loved him because he’s so bad and such a good guy, so they asked for a stupid ass album from him so they can laugh for entertainment. So to justify that “oh if this person isn’t so talented then why would he/she be signed with a record deal!” is just an old notion that’s getting way overused on here. It’s about how they show for the record deal.

The record deal alone isn’t the be all and end all of all their talents. If the person can’t sing a single note live decently, has crappy music, is a phony, no personality, etc., then who gives a crap about the record deal. The music and how they perform live should speak for itself!