|
|
Post by donkey on Oct 5, 2023 11:18:22 GMT -5
Jackie has attempted to reinvent herself and start a second career for some time now. Thus far, she has been unsuccessful in launching that second career, or Jackie 2.0 if you will. So that's why I call it Jackie 2.0. She's still trying to get her second career going. A failed attempt to reinvent herself and get a new career going isn't a career...it's a failed attempt at a new career. 2H was her first attempt to release original music...it wasn't a career. The Debut was also an attempt to reinvent herself. Based on your logic, The Debut should be Jackie 3.0, COT should be Jackie 4.0, and the upcoming album should be Jackie 5.0. However, the unit of measurement here is not attempts at a career...it's an actual career. She's only had one career so far. She's still trying to successfully launch that second career, thus, Jackie 2.0. If we are going to call each new attempt to reinvent herself with a new album and new type of type of music for Jackie, we are on about Jackie 5.0 right now. If we are going to use each time Jackie releases an album with her original music on it, then 2H is Jackie 1.0 and the upcoming album is Jackie 2.0. However, neither is the case here. The unit of measurement is Jackie careers. Her second career has't successfully been launched yet. |
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Oct 5, 2023 11:23:51 GMT -5
I see COT as a cover album not 3.0 ! This new music is original music 🎶 and is 3.0 !
|
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Oct 5, 2023 11:31:23 GMT -5
I see COT as a cover album not 3.0 ! This new music is original music 🎶 and is 3.0 ! Try reading what I wrote again Coltman. If you are measuring by albums with significant non-covers, then 2H is her first non-cover album (actually only half of the songs were not covers)...so that would be Jackie 1.0 and the upcoming album would be Jackie 2.0. Reinventing herself isn't limited to covers or noncovers. IF you are measuring by careers, Jackie only had one career so far and is still trying to intiate a second career, or, Jackie 2.0. If your unit of measurement is new albums where Jackie tries new types of music, then we are on about Jackie 5.0. However, this isn't a measurement of attempts, or covers vs noncovers. Jackie 2.0 refers to careers..thus far she's only had one, and its been on the steady decline for years. That's what the Zoom interviewer meant by Jackie 2.0 and that's what I've meant as well. I see the attempt here I think. The attempt is to restrict the units of measurement to non-cover "attempts" at a second career. I'm not sure why your would restrict her attempts at re-invention to only non-cover albums though...her first career was all covers and you count that as Jackie 1.0. And 2H was half covers, so if albums with covers aren't allowed in your units of measurement here, 2H is, at best, only 1.5. lol |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 5, 2023 14:58:23 GMT -5
2H was half covers, so if albums with covers aren't allowed in your units of measurement here, 2H is, at best, only 1.5. You are mistaken. 2H Pt1 was a full length CC album. 2H Pt2 was a full length pop EP. Which is why 2H Pt2 is Jackie 2.0. Jackie's upcoming album is a full length pop EP, just like 2H Pt2. Which is why the upcoming album is Jackie 3.0. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest 5 on Oct 5, 2023 15:03:00 GMT -5
2H was half covers, so if albums with covers aren't allowed in your units of measurement here, 2H is, at best, only 1.5. You are mistaken. 2H Pt1 was a full length CC album. 2H Pt2 was a full length pop EP. Which is why 2H Pt2 is Jackie 2.0. Jackie's upcoming album is a full length pop EP, just like 2H Pt2. Which is why the upcoming album is Jackie 3.0.
"She (Jackie) describes her 2.0 sound as “alt pop,” and her songs are deeply personal."nypost.com/2023/09/02/agt-child-star-jackie-evancho-struggled-with-fame-anorexia/ |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 5, 2023 15:15:09 GMT -5
LOL...but Jackie 1.0 was her first career. Now she's trying to launch a second career...and has been for a while. Thus, Jackie 2.0. The units here are measured in actual careers, not attempts at careers or attempts at releasing original music. 2H Pt2 was her first attempt at releasing originals. If you want to use attempts at releasing original music as the unit of measurement, it's still 2.0 as now she's taking a second go at that. 3.0 only works if you mix units/apples and oranges, aka careers and original song release attempts. And you can't do that as it is clearly against the law and all the norms of civilized society. lol  I'm counting careers. But we disagree on whether to count a failed career as a career. We agree that Jackie's CC career is Jackie 1.0. For me, Jackie 2.0 (her second career) began in 2017 with the release of 2H Pt2. Note that 2H Pt2 was released by Jackie 2.0, not by Jackie 1.0. During this period, Jackie had 2 concurrent careers, a CC career and a pop career. Jackie 2.0 lasted only a few months and Jackie abandoned it. 6 years later in 2023, Jackie launched her 2nd attempt at pop with the release of BME. The question is what to call BME. Is BME the launch of her 2nd pop career or is it her 2nd attempt at her 1st pop career? If the former, then BME is Jackie 3.0. If the latter then BME is Jackie 2.0. I much prefer the former (Jackie 3.0) because calling it Jackie 2.0 implies that Jackie's 2017 attempt at a pop career never existed. The does a disservice to the facts. The fact that her 1st pop career was unsuccessful does not mean that it did not exist. Calling BME 2023 "Jackie 3.0" acknowledges that her previous 2017 attempt at pop existed. The Debut, being non-oldie (relatively modern) musical covers, not sung in a classical style, was as much pop as CC too. CoT was folk (bit of a detour from either CC or pop, bit of a stretch to call CC) - well done for what it was but not lively enough to catch on, little other than BSN being widely recognized by other than Joni fans, and having been delayed well past optimum release time. I'd say one could argue there was a continuum of sorts, if not entirely uninterrupted (by CoT), between 2Hp2 and BSN/new album. So treating it as such doesn't ignore the previous effort at pop originals - which didn't even entirely begin there, there having been a couple of originals on Awakening (IMO, Take Me There, if better publicized and perhaps a tad faster, could have had what it takes to catch on; I recall thinking that at the video taping, it could be the most radio-friendly). |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Oct 5, 2023 15:18:20 GMT -5
To me, a failed attempt at a second career doesn't count as a career...it failed. Windows 1.0 failed but it was still the first version of Windows. Windows 2.0 failed but it was still the second version of Windows. A version failing does not make it not a version. It just makes it a failed version. There is a huge difference between a failed version and a non-version. Just like the difference between a failed career and one that never existed. Jackie's 2H Pt2 career existed for a short time and even released an EP but that career was abandoned. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 5, 2023 15:26:12 GMT -5
I see COT as a cover album not 3.0 ! This new music is original music 🎶 and is 3.0 ! Try reading what I wrote again Coltman. If you are measuring by albums with significant non-covers, then 2H is her first non-cover album (actually only half of the songs were not covers)...so that would be Jackie 1.0 and the upcoming album would be Jackie 2.0. Reinventing herself isn't limited to covers or noncovers. IF you are measuring by careers, Jackie only had one career so far and is still trying to intiate a second career, or, Jackie 2.0. If your unit of measurement is new albums where Jackie tries new types of music, then we are on about Jackie 5.0. However, this isn't a measurement of attempts, or covers vs noncovers. Jackie 2.0 refers to careers..thus far she's only had one, and its been on the steady decline for years. That's what the Zoom interviewer meant by Jackie 2.0 and that's what I've meant as well. I see the attempt here I think. The attempt is to restrict the units of measurement to non-cover "attempts" at a second career. I'm not sure why your would restrict her attempts at re-invention to only non-cover albums though...her first career was all covers and you count that as Jackie 1.0. And 2H was half covers, so if albums with covers aren't allowed in your units of measurement here, 2H is, at best, only 1.5. lol The whole originals/non originals argument is bogus anyway. DWM had two originals, although I'd hardly call them pop. Xmas albums will almost never have originals, nor can movie/musical themed albums unless soundtrack by the original cast. Awakening had two originals, 2Hp2 (taken separately from the 1st 2H CD) was all originals. DF (and Uncle Matt then working on his composition PhD) made the point of having at least a few originals right from the start. Heck, even PTAD had "Teaching Angels How to Fly" by a guy she worked with on a couple of songs on the album (James Breedwell), which whether or not original at that time was basically unknown until Jackie recorded it. There were thus a few originals or nearly so whenever the theme didn't preclude them. 2Hp2 was only unique until the upcoming album in being all originals. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 5, 2023 16:11:41 GMT -5
To me, a failed attempt at a second career doesn't count as a career...it failed. Windows 1.0 failed but it was still the first version of Windows. Windows 2.0 failed but it was still the second version of Windows. A version failing does not make it not a version. It just makes it a failed version. There is a huge difference between a failed version and a non-version. Just like the difference between a failed career and one that never existed. Jackie's 2H Pt2 career existed for a short time and even released an EP but that career was abandoned. Not abandoned, postponed or diverted. The Debut was as nearly pop as CC, albeit modern musical covers. It was a move toward more modern content, if not taking the risk of being something different based on originals. It was was perhaps timid compared to jumping in full-on with another album of originals; but if if the experiment of offering 2Hp2 by itself was meh (do we have numbers for that?), not a huge retreat from the direction. CoT was IMO if not a retreat at least a not very effective diversion. They're all trying different things - maybe giving the appearance of randomly so rather than a strategy (which may have existed but not be recognized without inside info), but still; and insofar as different material requires different skills, the skills are all cumulative, even "Get Jack" or some of the 54/Below work. Even the last Xmas album was not much like the previous. Finding labels/producers/co-writers to work with on all originals, and learning enough to do that, seem to have been the limitation, not unwillingness per se. Some "versions" are big jumps, others are little more than arbitrary cutoffs that maybe set the stage (by early introduction of new functionality while deprecating certain functionality that will be removed/replaced in a later version) for future real versions. I could make that point with Windows or macOS (or with some research, Linux) versions, but that would get a bit long and way off topic. "Awakening" and "The Debut" were perhaps transitional rather than strictly one thing or the other. 2H, as CD+EP with EP available separately, tried the experiment of being both in a separable manner. TL/DR: some "versions" are substantive, others are transitional or defined by marketing or feasibility rather than major differences. |
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Oct 5, 2023 16:12:01 GMT -5
Try reading what I wrote again Coltman. If you are measuring by albums with significant non-covers, then 2H is her first non-cover album (actually only half of the songs were not covers)...so that would be Jackie 1.0 and the upcoming album would be Jackie 2.0. Reinventing herself isn't limited to covers or noncovers. IF you are measuring by careers, Jackie only had one career so far and is still trying to intiate a second career, or, Jackie 2.0. If your unit of measurement is new albums where Jackie tries new types of music, then we are on about Jackie 5.0. However, this isn't a measurement of attempts, or covers vs noncovers. Jackie 2.0 refers to careers..thus far she's only had one, and its been on the steady decline for years. That's what the Zoom interviewer meant by Jackie 2.0 and that's what I've meant as well. I see the attempt here I think. The attempt is to restrict the units of measurement to non-cover "attempts" at a second career. I'm not sure why your would restrict her attempts at re-invention to only non-cover albums though...her first career was all covers and you count that as Jackie 1.0. And 2H was half covers, so if albums with covers aren't allowed in your units of measurement here, 2H is, at best, only 1.5. lol The whole originals/non originals argument is bogus anyway. DWM had two originals, although I'd hardly call them pop. Xmas albums will almost never have originals, nor can movie/musical themed albums unless soundtrack by the original cast. Awakening had two originals, 2Hp2 (taken separately from the 1st 2H CD) was all originals. DF (and Uncle Matt then working on his composition PhD) made the point of having at least a few originals right from the start. Heck, even PTAD had "Teaching Angels How to Fly" by a guy she worked with on a couple of songs on the album (James Breedwell), which whether or not original at that time was basically unknown until Jackie recorded it. There were thus a few originals or nearly so whenever the theme didn't preclude them. 2Hp2 was only unique until the upcoming album in being all originals. When they are talking about originals, I think they mean originals written by jackie. |
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Oct 5, 2023 16:17:32 GMT -5
To me, a failed attempt at a second career doesn't count as a career...it failed. Windows 1.0 failed but it was still the first version of Windows. Windows 2.0 failed but it was still the second version of Windows. A version failing does not make it not a version. It just makes it a failed version. There is a huge difference between a failed version and a non-version. Just like the difference between a failed career and one that never existed. Jackie's 2H Pt2 career existed for a short time and even released an EP but that career was abandoned. Yes, but Jackie 2.0 was referring to a new career, not attempts at a new career. She made a number of attempts at a new career. If we are talking attempts, she also attempted a new career with The Debut...she tried out Broadway music. Jackie has had one successful career that has been on life support for a while now. You can draw a career graph line and show the height of it in the early days and the steady decline of it to the present day. She has had only one career. She has been attempting a "comeback", aka, a second career for quite some time now...basically since becoming an adult. So far, none of her attempts have been successful or gained any significant traction. Now, if you want quantify this in terms of albums with a significant amount of original Jackie music in them, then I would say 2H is Jackie's first attempt at that, or Jackie attempt at album of originals 1.0. The upcoming album would be Jackie attempt at originals 2.0. But if you are talking about careers...come on...she's only really had one career here. The point is she has been trying to reinvent herself and find a new audience as an adult singer...removed from the little girl image. That would be Jackie career 2.0, if it ever comes to be. As long as her fan base continues to shrink, we are still in the death throes Jackie career #1. Right now she is down to a couple of concerts a year, and the majority of her song list is old classic Jackie stuff. If you are talking in terms of failed attempts at a comeback, well, you would have to include Two Hearts, The Debut, COT, the upcoming album...at a minimum. That would be Jackie 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0. That is, if you're are talking in terms of failed attempts to reinvent herself and change her image/grow her base. Her current career is in the dumpster pretty much and has been for years. Will she ever get a second career...aka a new fan base, regular concerts again, etc? Time will tell but it doesnt look good right now. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 5, 2023 16:26:44 GMT -5
The whole originals/non originals argument is bogus anyway. DWM had two originals, although I'd hardly call them pop. Xmas albums will almost never have originals, nor can movie/musical themed albums unless soundtrack by the original cast. Awakening had two originals, 2Hp2 (taken separately from the 1st 2H CD) was all originals. DF (and Uncle Matt then working on his composition PhD) made the point of having at least a few originals right from the start. Heck, even PTAD had "Teaching Angels How to Fly" by a guy she worked with on a couple of songs on the album (James Breedwell), which whether or not original at that time was basically unknown until Jackie recorded it. There were thus a few originals or nearly so whenever the theme didn't preclude them. 2Hp2 was only unique until the upcoming album in being all originals. When they are talking about originals, I think they mean originals written by jackie. She nominally co-wrote I think all but one of the 2Hp2 songs, meaning probably she had a lot of input on the lyrics (someone that always enjoyed writing could probably do some/most of rhythmic poetry, which is what lyrics usually are, working with a composer that pointed out what the rhythm should be), and relatively little on the musical composition, although one might suppose she learned something about composition or hooks or the like in the process. Heck, she had input on the DWM title track, although at 10, that was just being prompted for ideas that DF and his writing partner of the time would turn into lyrics and write music for. So from early on, the concept was there if not the full practice. For now, she still has a co-producer. But the point of being co-producer herself is obviously that she's learning that too. It's not a huge jump from GarageBand to Logic Pro (or Ableton or one of the others if you don't mind somewhat more re-learning), and even with GarageBand one can do something pro or near pro, if a bit simpler. Not as rich in sound and potentially artistry as with actual musicians for accompaniment, but not nearly as expensive either. Almost all along, she's been learn by doing; some coaching/training behind the scenes too. Probably NOT a huge classroom aficionado. That implies a lot of experiments along the journey; also expensive in their own way, but they are applied learning, which when sufficient pieces come together may make unexpected jumps. Is that a product of not feeling free to take four years or more off for formal training? Maybe in part, but people do learn differently too; I'd rather do self-study and CLEP tests than sit in a classroom. And even 18 months off for COVID/family problems/mental and physical health was a big setback; who's to say that four years, unless there was at least one high-end expensive to make album in the middle with lots of promo, wouldn't be an even bigger setback? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest 4 on Oct 5, 2023 16:41:08 GMT -5
Another way to look at Jackie's career is by eras. This was how her six-DVD fan documentary was organized. But I really can't think of many artists I divide that way.
Maybe Michael Jackson into Jackson Five / Michael Jackson
Stevie Wonder into Little Stevie Wonder / Stevie Wonder.
Rod Stewart into Jeff Beck lead singer / Faces lead / Rod Stewart and the Faces / Rod Stewart
BOGC has a legit point about every non-theme album having some kind of original song.
As for me, I usually think of her as Kid / Not Kid. I also think of her vocal changes and developments, but that's too esoteric.
Also I look at every album since Awakening as an attempt to portray herself as someone new. "Awakening" was quite obviously meant to show that she's blossoming into a beautiful young woman, who has ideas of her own, etc.
Basically, Awakening was as much a theme album as all the rest. "Two Hearts" same thing. "Oh my wonderful fans, I just love CC, but I have another love, and that's songwriting. Please stay with me as I delve into this new love of mine... my other heart... my Two Hearts"... etc...
Every album, including the upcoming one, has had a theme. An expression of a new or unrealized passion. I'm not making fun of that – every marketing campaign needs a gimmick – but they do all have a gimmick. Theme albums are gimmicks. Sia's wig was a gimmick (said so herself, intentionally and with good results).
I see so many ways to divide up her career that it just seems academic to prefer one over any other. I've said this before, that maybe her popularity problem has more to do with her name than her music, which is why I'll again put in my vote for her joining a band so her name is in the credits, not on the cover of the album. I'm not insulting her, it's just that her name may carry too much baggage. If somehow she pulls off a successful image remake with this album, then yay (for real, yay). So far the ladder hasn't been tall enough to get her out of the hole, so I see this new album as a rope she has to grab. She has to climb out, one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Oct 5, 2023 17:02:33 GMT -5
[...] I see so many ways to divide up her career that it just seems academic to prefer one over any other. I've said this before, that maybe her popularity problem has more to do with her name than her music, which is why I'll again put in my vote for her joining a band so her name is in the credits, not on the cover of the album. I'm not insulting her, it's just that her name may carry too much baggage. If somehow she pulls off a successful image remake with this album, then yay (for real, yay). So far the ladder hasn't been tall enough to get her out of the hole, so I see this new album as a rope she has to grab. She has to climb out, one way or another. Without necessarily agreeing entirely, an interesting take IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest 4 on Oct 5, 2023 18:03:16 GMT -5
[...] I see so many ways to divide up her career that it just seems academic to prefer one over any other. I've said this before, that maybe her popularity problem has more to do with her name than her music, which is why I'll again put in my vote for her joining a band so her name is in the credits, not on the cover of the album. I'm not insulting her, it's just that her name may carry too much baggage. If somehow she pulls off a successful image remake with this album, then yay (for real, yay). So far the ladder hasn't been tall enough to get her out of the hole, so I see this new album as a rope she has to grab. She has to climb out, one way or another. Without necessarily agreeing entirely, an interesting take IMO. I meant that sincerely. I'm a band person. Think of all the bands that have a name that is not the female lead singer. I took this list from the first website about female leads I found (ones with singer names crossed out). Most of them have female singers we're well familiar with: 1. The Yeah Yeah Yeahs 2. Paramore 3. ABBA 4. Blondie 5. Sonny & Cher6. The Pretty Reckless 7. The Pretenders 8. The Go-Gos 9. Flyleaf 10. Evanescence 11. Hey Monday 12. No Doubt 13. Halestorm 14. The Distillers 15. Vixen 16. Alabama Shakes 17. Gladys Knight & The Pips18. The Shirelles 19. The Cranberries 20. Heart 21. Pale Waves 22. Hole 23. Fleetwood Mac 24. Jefferson Airplane 25. The Bangles 26. Wilson Phillips27. The Ronettes 28. The Runaways/Blackhearts 29. Destiny’s Child 30. Garbage 31. The Supremes 32. First Aid Kit 33. All Saints 34. Spice Girls 35. TLC To extend the "hole" analogy, there are a few forgotten ladders that lead to other paths, like college (dental, vet, law, arts), trade school (music production, performance, theatre, dental asst, business, culinary, const trades, etc.). Every one of those is an alternate ladder to climb. |
|
