Is the superstar "dead?"

[BDGeek]

In the age of the Internet and social media, it's easier than ever for artists to get their music heard. But with this newfound platform for exposure, no singular talent is really able to stand out anymore. When it does, it's quickly lost to the vacuum of Spotify, YouTube, etc. to make way for the next one. And with such a heavy emphasis on appearance, visuals, and social media engagement, actual musical talent has become sort of secondary.
 

It's been several years since Adele took the musical world by storm, as Lady Gaga, Eminem, and Michael Jackson all did before her. Since then, a few established artists have had successful album campaigns, but no new artist has really managed to break out and become "the next big thing." We may now live in an age where we will no longer be able to produce another superstar.

What do you think? Will we see another breakout pop sensation? Have we, or are we already in the midst of one? Is a lack of true superstars a good thing, or a bad thing? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

[Harx]

Yeah I miss something like that, someone big to arrive and shake things up. The closest thing we had to a smash superstar in recent few years debut was... Meghan Trainor I guess? Arrived out of nowhere and scored first #1 (ignoring the fact that the song absolute crap) and then she continued to have hits. We don't really have many superstar debuts anymore, we just recycle singers that were around for a while and make them much bigger. Currently biggest superstars in music industry are Justin Bieber, Drake, and they were both around for a while now. Not to mention Rihanna but I guess she will always be around.

I think that music industry desperately needs some new personalities right now, it feels so stale for a while.

[Bigfatliar 3]

Do you mean new superstar? And these days, it quietly gets tough and hard for coming back artist to keep relevant. JLo, pitbull, fergie, Britney and Beyonce did but its longevity is runout quickly. What does new superstar refer to? We have the chainsmokers. Currently #1 BBH100, #1 spotify globally, #1 worlwide selling on itunes, and it will be topping the chart for months. They have selfie before but this is their biggest year.

As really something new, we have Desiigner, Lukas Graham and Zara Larsson. I dunno if twenty one pilots is one of or not. But all of them is relevant answer for me for new superstars this year.

[Deleted]

I think a couple of things contribute to this (and by "superstar" I'm referring to the level of fame acts like Michael Jackson and Madonna achieved at their peaks). One is the that there are far more options for consuming music now (many more radio formats than back then, on-demand access to music, etc), and wider access to music means less people are listening to the same thing. The other is that the presence of the Internet and social media has "demystified" the superstar. You used to really only see superstars at high profile events. Now you know what they're doing and thinking all day every day. It eliminates that "larger than life" image.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Aug 30, 2016 7:42:20 GMT -5 Bigfatliar 3 said:

As really something new, we have Desiigner, Lukas Graham and Zara Larsson. I dunno if twenty one pilots is one of or not. But all of them is relevant answer for me for new superstars this year.

One hit wonders are by definition not superstars.

Somebody will come along and explode into a genuine superstar, they always do. For all of the past superstars that you can name, there were hundreds of artists who had a hit song or two but didn't become a MJ or a Whitney.

[allow that]

Aug 30, 2016 8:15:35 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

The other is that the presence of the Internet and social media has "demystified" the superstar. You used to really only see superstars at high profile events. Now you know what they're doing and thinking all day every day. It eliminates that "larger than life" image.

Yes.

Beyonce definitely took note of this. I think PART of the reason her profile seems so much higher than her peers is because she's withdrawn from social media and interviews, thus leaving most of her day-to-day mysterious and elusive.

[Glove Slap]

I think "obsolete" is a more proper term than dead, at least the type of superstar/mega-celebrity that this thread is talking about. It's part of what Jazzy mentioned, and another part of the Internet impact is that people have more avenues now to show, express, and promote themselves exponentially more than before. A figure like Michael Jackson or Madonna simply isn't needed because there is no need for society to project that level of themselves on another person, even thought stan s**t and twitter may give the initial impression to some otherwise.

Simultaneously, I think what occurred to these "superstars", and has been witnessed, also decreases the desire for anyone to try to become specifically what those people were. You can look at images of MJ, Prince, or Whitney when they were young and at their peak, and just see the glamorous and "iconic" parts, but when you put the complete picture together and add the isolation, the lack of public sympathy, the self-medication and substance abuse, and ultimate death by middle age and the inability to raise a family to completion, really basic human needs and desires, it becomes something far different. Beyonce and Adele aren't following these outlines, and it has proven to be one of their strengths unique to each.

[Parerastarr10]

Technological advancements have accelerated the rate at which we as a global community consume all things, including music. So what we are left with is pockets of civility that rep hard for a few artists in particular. In years past, the slower global pace allowed us to appreciate acts such as, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey (among many others).

Psy is the most recent global superstar, not named Adele, but he could only maintain that title for 8-12 months. I think this may mean that global superstars are a dying breed. However, artists that dominate their home country, and continent for that matter will continue to thrive.

[Deleted]

no

[Enigma.]

People must keep in mind that if we get a new superstar once in a decade we are very lucky

70s: Bowie, Bee Gees and MJ
80s: Madonna, Whitney and Prince
90s: Mariah, Celine
00s: Eminem, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake
10s: Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Adele, Taylor Swift

I don't see there's lack of them really...

[Live Your Life]

Aug 30, 2016 11:25:14 GMT -5 Parerastarr10 said:

Technological advancements have accelerated the rate at which we as a global community consume all things, including music. So what we are left with is pockets of civility that rep hard for a few artists in particular. In years past, the slower global pace allowed us to appreciate acts such as, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey (among many others).

This perfectly articulates the comment that I was going to make. Spot on. I also feel like the term "superstar" is a lot more subjective now than ever (as are a lot of things in the entertainment industry). Those teens that are stanning hard for acts like Fifth Harmony and Selena Gomez on Twitter probably feel like they're the biggest things ever.

Aug 30, 2016 11:47:08 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

People must keep in mind that if we get a new superstar once in a decade we are very lucky

70s: Bowie, Bee Gees and MJ
80s: Madonna, Whitney and Prince
90s: Mariah, Celine
00s: Eminem, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake
10s: Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Adele, Taylor Swift

I don't see there's lack of them really...

I agree with this as well. Some people may feel that the quality of music/singers have vastly declined (and I can't say that I disagree), but at the same time, I feel like everyone clings to the superstars of their time or that pique their personal tastes the most. I'm sure there were a lot of people that felt the superstars of the 90s had nothing on the superstars of the 80s, and so on and so forth.

[HEADOFTHEPACK]

I don't think it's dead as such, I agreed with some of the post that mentioned it being potentially obsolete in the way it used to be - the definition shifts slightly through the decades and really depends on culture, or if that artist can tap into something culturally relevant. Sometimes that's short-lived and sometimes that lasts decades.

I think a star like Madonna is particularly rare. She's never really lost her way to quite the same extent as her peers (eg. Whitney/MJ) and is so resilient. Most if not all other stars crumble under similar pressure or criticism and I don't think she ever did really. Where others get defensive in a rude or aggressive way or start to act out (eg. Gaga), Madonna always articulates her decisions very well - at her highest peaks and her lowest troughs. She's very impressive.

[when the pawn...]

Totally will depend on what happens next but I think Lorde could be a long-lasting presence in pop music. Not necessarily a hitmaker like Katy Perry or Rihanna but an important pop artist of this era.

It takes time - Lady Gaga and Britney Spears may have exploded out of the gate but Adele was not a "superstar" until 3-4 years into her career. Katy could have easily faded away after the first album. Rihanna took 3 albums before people were taking her seriously (and even then, she still seemed relatively disposable). Hell, "Say My Name" was 3 years into Destiny's Child's career and before that, no one looked at Beyonce like a superstar.

I think the notion that the superstar is dead is premature. 2014-2016 may not have yielded a new major *STAR* but we have no shortage of huge names feeding us new music. Adele, Justin Bieber, Rihanna, Kanye West, Drake, Britney Spears and Beyonce have all released new albums in the last year. Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Bruno Mars presumably in the next 6 months.

[Deleted]

To me a superstar is someone who, at that moment in time, has an ubiquitous presence not just on the radio but in the media; the "household name" standard, you could say. I don't want to say the superstar is 'dead' just yet but new superstar talent is notably absent these days. Jazzy made a good point that social media has it now that more people can get their music heard by somebody, but because there are so many options out there, no one is getting heard by everybody. I still remember when Jay Sean had reached #1 with Down, and a few weeks later (after the song had already peaked) a friend saw his video on tv and asked 'Who is that? Have you heard of this song before?' I was like 'uh...the guy that just had the #1 song in the country two weeks ago? Girl where you been?' Mind you, we were still more or less in the demographic for mainstream music and my friend's tastes were about as mainstream-fed as you could get. But I knew even then, the market was becoming fragmented. It's harder to become a superstar in an age that makes it easy for fans to sequester themselves in whatever genre of music they enjoy listening to and shut out everything else.

I get the sense that a lot of people are factoring in longevity as an element of superstardom, when I personally don't think that's a necessary factor since this isn't an icon/legend debate. Most talent falls off before they hit the ten year mark (or even five really), but we used to be able to count on new faces popping up and becoming the new buzz as old buzz died off. These days, it seems like all the up-and-coming talent either taps out after just one or two hits, or they get stuck at B-list status and are never quite able to get that household name pinnacle that all superstars achieve. Even Meghan Trainor's name didn't exactly explode when she hit the scene. She got herself one monstrous hit and a string of moderate hits, but despite having a Grammy and what seems to be superstar-caliber personality, she doesn't have A-list appeal and her name does not generate interest in conversation or news cycles.

I also think that while superstars are good for the buzz, they're probably viewed as bad for for labels' bottom lines. This theory is somewhat analogous to the end of the supermodel era, when fashion houses decided they didn't want the models outshining the clothes anymore - superstars that manage to survive in the industry can command better deals, more advantageous contract negotiations and bidding wars, and more artistic control than someone whose next album might live or die based on his/her standing with the suits. I lowkey wonder if labels truly want to discover the next 'big thing.' The next big thing costs money and is not likely to be easily controlled. Particularly with overall revenue dwindling and sales units being replaced by streaming points, labels seem a bit content to rely on a slew of B-list entertainers as our current crop of superstars age out. The only recent-ish except to this is Adele, and I feel like her success was a complete accident that no one saw coming and now has no clue how to duplicate.

On that note, who do we think was the last real 'superstar' to come through? Adele herself I guess? I really can't think of anyone else I would give that title to post-2011.

[ilikemusic]

I posted this in the VMA thread but I'm gonna repost it here because it makes more sense:

I've made threads about this topic on other forums before. I 100% completely agree with everything everyone is saying. I think what it comes down to, is the current music industry's over-emphasis on targeting the tween and teenage demographic. Most of the newer acts (2011-onwards) that have emerged from this decade have had ok-sized success, but nothing to brag about compared to the popstars that were even debuting in the late 2000's. I think it's because most of them don't appeal to anyone over the age of 25, and that's being generous. Not to mention, adults are the people that actually go out and purchase music, yet, there are far less artists in the mainstream that actually appeal to them. Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran, and Adele are really the only new universally appealing acts to have risen to superstardom this decade, but even this was in 2010-2011, before the domination of social media really came into play.

Labels no longer develop artists. I know for a fact that they have close to a 0% in the budget for actually taking time to craft someone into a long lasting artist (and product). They're all about quick money, nowadays. If an act is trendy, they'll milk them for all they've got but will have no hesitation to throw them into the garbage bin once the trend is over. People don't buy music, so 95% of what you hear on Top 40 radio is all made by a computer. It's cheaper, more cost-effective, and quicker than hiring session musicians to actually play instruments. I love Adele, don't get me wrong, but she really isn't all that innovative. She just appears this way because she's one of the only mainstream artists to incorporate live instrumentation into the production of her songs, which in turn, appeals to more people. Everything you hear on the radio nowadays is electronic, and it's gotten monotonous. Speaking of monotony, the same two/three groups of songwriters/producers are responsible for almost every Top 10 hit this decade. Because of this, most pop artists' pretty much have the exact same sound. There are far less artists actually responsible for creating their own craft, and are simply just the voice and face of a product that has little to no distinction from the next one. There is such a lack of diversity in not only pop music, but urban music as well. Almost every Hip-hop/R&B song is marked by auto-tuned half-rapping/half-singing and extremely banal lyrics. Gone are the days where you had to actually be somewhat of a clever lyricist (vulgar or not), which brings me to my next point.....

This goes back to the point that "having actual musical talent" is secondary. It's not only secondary, it's no longer even necessary. We have people like Jacob Sartorius charting on the Hot 100 because he acquired a following by LIP SYNCING on some app that's all the rage with today's teenagers. He can't actually sing, which is evident in how processed/robotic his voice sounds on his songs. Although the harsh robotic autotune sound is no longer trendy, pitch correction is mandatory in today's recordings. You will not find one record that comes out today that does not have some sort of pitch alteration on it, even ones with the best of singers. Recently, as in the past three years, pitch correction is applied to live vocals on most of the award show performances, although it wasn't on any in this current VMA's and it's banned for the Grammy's. Certain artists (Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, and Taylor Swift are the worst offenders) have their vocals edited on almost every major performance they've given in the past 2-3 years. It's obvious to me because I produce/mix vocals myself and my ears can detect any slight use of pitch correction, although their use of it is not very slight. But the average kid, teen, even adult doesn't notice it. Some people actually believe Selena Gomez improved her vocals....... LOL

It's unfortunate to what that present-day music industry has resorted to. It's almost entirely style over substance, and even the "styles" are lame. Sorry for such a long post, I'm just very opinionated lol.

[tekkenguy]

Honestly, the last true "superstar" artist we've seen was One Direction back in 2012. None of the others (Ariana, Meghan, Lorde, Kendrick, 5H, Sheeran) can really fit in this category as well IMO.

The only superstars we've seen rise to "superstardom" this decade are Bieber, Bruno, Adele, Drake, and 1D (and maybe Nicki). No one else fits the bill IMO (sorry Kesha).

[BDGeek]

Aug 30, 2016 20:42:06 GMT -5 @antigonerising said:

I also think that while superstars are good for the buzz, they're probably viewed as bad for for labels' bottom lines. This theory is somewhat analogous to the end of the supermodel era, when fashion houses decided they didn't want the models outshining the clothes anymore - superstars that manage to survive in the industry can command better deals, more advantageous contract negotiations and bidding wars, and more artistic control than someone whose next album might live or die based on his/her standing with the suits. I lowkey wonder if labels truly want to discover the next 'big thing.' The next big thing costs money and is not likely to be easily controlled. Particularly with overall revenue dwindling and sales units being replaced by streaming points, labels seem a bit content to rely on a slew of B-list entertainers as our current crop of superstars age out. The only recent-ish except to this is Adele, and I feel like her success was a complete accident that no one saw coming and now has no clue how to duplicate.

On that note, who do we think was the last real 'superstar' to come through? Adele herself I guess? I really can't think of anyone else I would give that title to post-2011.

The bold make for some really interesting points. I'd initially look at superstars as artists who are most lucrative for labels, but I suppose investment in new ones is a huge risk in the current climate. Will labels ever be able to afford that risk again?

Regarding the last real superstar to come through, it really comes back to how you define superstar. Ed Sheeran and Sam Smith had hugely successful years in 2014-2015, but neither has become inescapably huge. One Direction have done very well, but they get lost in the shadows cast by the Backstreet Boys and NSYNC (at least in the US). Meghan Trainor lacks the "oomph" of previous Best New Artist winners, and Ariana Grande's voice is restricted to of-the-moment songs that lack staying power. All these people have talent and achievements to be proud of, but they still don't feel as colossal as Britney, Justin Timberlake, or The Black Eyed Peas did in their heydays.

There are also bands, rappers, country artists, and DJs probably worth mentioning as well. But none of them really came to mind while I was brainstorming.

[Marie Osmond Is A Fucking Cunt]

With the way people consume music now, there is so little money to be made that the labels are just not going to shell out the money to really spend it on building and developing an artist. And given what kinds of artists the labels are signing, it's only going to get worse. To get to a superstar level, some money does need to be invested. The artist isn't going to be selling out arenas and stadiums as soon as they come out so they will not be making money right from that avenue. People don't see any value in music anymore so why should the labels? Look at how little they spend on the productions, the covers, the music videos, the promotion, the tours, etc. It's so bootleg and ratchet now.

And then look at what constitutes talent now. It's not even necessary for the artist to even be a singer. They can be some internet nobody and suddenly they are getting signed. Or they get signed for actually being able to sing, but then they want to sex them all up and then market them like the ones who can't sing because that's what the people go for. They accept mediocrity and trash because that's what they are used to and when they get real, honest talent, they can't handle it and reject it. Most of today's popstars are basically lifelike sex dolls that happen to make sounds that some can call music, but any resemblance to music is purely coincidental.

People like Barbra Streisand, Diana Ross, Donna Summer, Elvis Presley, Madonna, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, Prince, and Whitney Houston only come along once in a lifetime and it's an unwinnable, uphill battle to try to turn a new artist into the next _______ because there will be only one of that said legend.

[Enigma.]

Poor Janet, even I forgot her in this thread

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2016 23:18:12 GMT -5 BDGeek said:

In the age of the Internet and social media, it's easier than ever for artists to get their music heard. But with this newfound platform for exposure, no singular talent is really able to stand out anymore. When it does, it's quickly lost to the vacuum of Spotify, YouTube, etc. to make way for the next one. And with such a heavy emphasis on appearance, visuals, and social media engagement, actual musical talent has become sort of secondary.
 
.

You need to have talent to stand out and frankly, my dear talent is a dying ART these days.

I think the demand for a superstar is still very much in need its just the supply isnt there. That fact a lovely talent like Adele is standing out in this day and age where she would be just another act years ago can attest to that. Very cute girl, very cute voice and lovely songs but the need to have that IT talent has pushed her way up to superstar level while not having diversity or anything else but that one move that works for her.

I don't blame Spotify , Youtube or the internet age. It's just that labels not invested in talent development. Beyonce didn't just wake up like this, she went to media training, she was went to a singing and dancing bootcamp led by a drill sergeant, she honed her skills in DC. Michael, Janet and the others have Joe Jackson whipping them into shape. Whitney and Mariah had Svengali's plotting , developing, dropping money into making their talents shine brightest above all others. Days ago we had the Motowns, we had groups were they developed until they were ready to be a solo star.

Nowadays we have girls and bois who cant command a stage , who cant sing nor dance. The backing track gets turned on, light show is created to take the eyes of the mediocre act and voila. They don't teach anyone how to craft a album. It's like taking a cow to slaughter that isn't ready yet, see Taylor Swift on stage, before they would fatten up the cow and ensure it was ready for consumption. We are left with mediocre acts and no superstars who somehow manage to be successful anyways. That is why we celebrate the Taylor Swifts, Katy Perry's & Ariana Grandes today, expectations and investment is at a all time low. We settle for less, we get less. The last legit superstar is dying with Beyonce (legit talent) & Rihanna ( The only one who has managed to play from the Madonna handbook and succeed at it). Watching Future incoherent mess at the VMA's and seeing Nicki rap and walk around to a backing track can attest to the fact no matter what genre, what we call talent nowadays is lazy, incoherent or no existent.

I remember a time when you would turn on the radio and every song, artist was a force . There wasn't one or two it was enough to fill a entire day of radio program, instead of having 5 songs on a loop. You would think with all the platforms that exist today and our incessant appetite for something new we would have more choices from the menu than the same 5 girls, 1 boy and zero group.

[Golden Bluebird]

Wow, is this thread (or to be more specific, the later posts) depressing to read.

[Ling-Ling]

I always fear piping in about this topic, because I know I'll just sound old.

But I think all of the points made here are valid. The fact that the internet/social media age has made everything and everyone available 24/7, it dilutes the impact any artist can have. The investment isn't there anymore from record labels either. And I agree, the discipline simply isn't there anymore. Pumping out superstar artists takes a ton of work... nowadays, these motherless children are dropping a few EPs and bam, have an album. But where is the training, hustling and craft? I'm not seeing it.

And I also think the radio landscape right now is killing any chances for anyone to truly stand out. I know as a lover of Urban radio right now, everything sounds the same. These minimalist instrumentals, NO f**kinG TEMPO (seriously, can you not make upbeat music anymore?), synthetic trap beats and no vocal skills required. Seriously, you could hold a gun to my head and I couldn't tell you the difference between Sevyn Streeter, Justine Skye, Mila J, Tinashe, Jhene Aiko, Teyana Taylor, etc. It's no wonder these girls can't take off and get an album launched, they're all making interchangeable music (which is sad, because some of them are super talented). And radio is forcing them into that box.

And I look at this crop of pop up and comers. Daya, Alessia Cara, Zara Larsson, etc... and I feel the same way. Did these girls all have the same vocal coach or something? Because they all sound like they're imitating the same damn singer. Tone, vocal inflections, etc. And once again, I blame pop radio. All of these tropical house beats sound the damn same, all of these interchangeable DJ feat big name artist songs all sound the same, all of the urban lite pop songs sounds the same, all of the beat drops sound the same. I keep waiting for someone to break through and twist the formula. But nothing. And I blame radio's inability to break acts like they used to. A radio DJ taking a chance used to be able to create a star, that doesn't happen anymore. All the radio stations are homogenized and owned by like one or two giant corporations. They're main goal is to play inoffensive music that will keep people tuned in and from changing the station, not about playing anything different to challenge a listener.

[Deleted]

Late to the party, but there's a great discussion going here.

I don't think superstars are "dead," but they're harder to come by because in the social media/instant gratification age, people just don't seem as invested in consuming music the way that previous generations were.

Even in the age of Adele/Taylor, today's gigantic artists feel a little...empty in comparison to those of the past.

Selling millions of albums is impressive, but that's not what makes an artist. It's just kind of sad that the only thing we have to measure a superstar by in 2016 is album sales, streams and Instagram likes. Gone are the days of mysterious personas and those celebrities that FEEL larger than life because of their music and its impact on Pop culture.

Things move so fast nowadays that labels don't really have an incentive to invest in their artists and "build" them for long-term success, if you will.

It hardly matters if artists are built to last, because labels don't have to invest much into them in the first place, so if they're finished in a few years it's on to the next person waiting in line.

The idea of most iconic artists having a certain mystery about them is true as well; I feel like most of this generations artists don't even know what mystery is, because they're encouraged to put everything out there.

Building a brand consists of several different facets, but so many of those things have been stripped away and it makes everything else seem a little hollow in comparison.

So many of the industry's great artists were terrible people, but excellent artists. They were encouraged to do/say whatever they wanted to and try to push the limits of what was acceptable. Nowadays artists are encouraged to be on their absolute best behavior 24/7, and anyone who puts even a nick in their coat of armor is encouraged to immediately issue an "apology" and do damage control to appease their fans.

Artistry is a form of expression, but today's artistry feels too...perfect? Sure, life can be wonderful, but I miss the days when artists were encouraged to be flawed and and ridiculous and messy.

[Sherane Lamar]

Aug 30, 2016 11:25:14 GMT -5 Parerastarr10 said:

One of these names does not fit with the others. 

One of these names is only on the level of current recognition because of a certain recent event. 

No offence to either you or Bowie, but listing three of the most popular musicians of all time next to a renowned artistic genius with a hand full of big hits doesn't make a lot of sense. Two very different types of superstar, and listing them that way almost seems like you wouldn't know the difference. 

[Sherane Lamar]

Alright, what the heck are so many of you guys talking about?

The internet making it so that people are spread out and not all listening to the same types of music??? The exact opposite is happening!

Drake had the biggest week of any artist ever when he dropped Views this year. Using an inverse point system, Drake will have a bigger year in 2015 than any artist has had this decade, by a huge amount. If I had the data, I wouldn't be surprised if Drake's 2016 is bigger than any other other artist's year ever.

How can you say that there are no superstars when a single artist can monopolize the industry the way Drake has BY USING THE INTERNET (i.e. the power of streaming).

[Sherane Lamar]

Aug 30, 2016 11:47:08 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

People must keep in mind that if we get a new superstar once in a decade we are very lucky

70s: Bowie, Bee Gees and MJ
80s: Madonna, Whitney and Prince
90s: Mariah, Celine
00s: Eminem, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake
10s: Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Adele, Taylor Swift

I don't see there's lack of them really...

Really bad list imo. If Bruno, Bieber, Adele, Eminem and Timberlake are superstars, you left of dozens of equivalents from those other decades.

[Enigma.]

So you're saying that Adele isn't a superstar yet she's the best selling artist in years in the US, UK AND globally? Ok.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Sept 7, 2016 2:39:26 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Alright, what the heck are so many of you guys talking about?

The internet making it so that people are spread out and not all listening to the same types of music??? The exact opposite is happening!

Drake had the biggest week of any artist ever when he dropped Views this year. Using an inverse point system, Drake will have a bigger year in 2015 than any artist has had this decade, by a huge amount. If I had the data, I wouldn't be surprised if Drake's 2016 is bigger than any other other artist's year ever.

How can you say that there are no superstars when a single artist can monopolize the industry the way Drake has BY USING THE INTERNET (i.e. the power of streaming).

So you're suggesting that everyone who listens to music of any kind listens to Drake?

[Bigfatliar 3]

Sept 7, 2016 2:43:23 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Aug 30, 2016 11:47:08 GMT -5 Enigma. said:

People must keep in mind that if we get a new superstar once in a decade we are very lucky

70s: Bowie, Bee Gees and MJ
80s: Madonna, Whitney and Prince
90s: Mariah, Celine
00s: Eminem, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake
10s: Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Adele, Taylor Swift

I don't see there's lack of them really...

Really bad list imo. If Bruno, Bieber, Adele, Eminem and Timberlake are superstars, you left of dozens of equivalents from those other decades.

then what is ur list superstars from 10s? 

[spooky21]

Aug 30, 2016 11:25:14 GMT -5 Parerastarr10 said:

Psy is the most recent global superstar, not named Adele, but he could only maintain that title for 8-12 months.