Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 7, 2016 18:44:46 GMT -5
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? Depends on your definition, but Bruno, Bieber, Adele, Eminem and Timberlake being superstars while Janet Jackson, Elton John, Olivia Newton John, Hall and Oats, and Marvin Gaye aren't? Also, you added like 5 in the last two decades while also saying that we'd be lucky to get one per decade. Seems like a contradiction to me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2016 18:53:07 GMT -5
I think some are mixing up "superstar" and "legend". Olivia Newton-John was massive in the 70s and early 80s and the biggest female pop star until Madonna; yet today, your average culturally aware person under the age of 40 is probably only familiar with her being in Grease (if that). Hall & Oates are another act that was absolutely massive for about a decade, but outside of the occasional 80s throwback, they definitely haven't "held up" as time went on (in the way say, Prince, Madonna, Michael, or many of the biggest 60s and 70s rock acts have). I'd throw Celine Dion in that group as far as 90s acts, and I think it's still too early to say someone like Adele won't end up in that group.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 7, 2016 20:13:18 GMT -5
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? No, but he is sort of "monopolizing" the industry (and I use that word loosely) more than any other artist has other than arguably The Beatles. And on top of that, these days hits last LONGER and #1s are HARDER to get. It seems like if anything, the number of artists who are eating are shrinking, and the margin at which they are succeeding relative to other artists is increasing. On a side note, people here seem to be acting like all these established superstars became the way they are the first day they showed up. They're acting like we already know that nobody who debuted in the last 6 years will still be making hits 10 years from now.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 7, 2016 20:14:26 GMT -5
I think some are mixing up "superstar" and "legend". Olivia Newton-John was massive in the 70s and early 80s and the biggest female pop star until Madonna; yet today, your average culturally aware person under the age of 40 is probably only familiar with her being in Grease (if that). Hall & Oates are another act that was absolutely massive for about a decade, but outside of the occasional 80s throwback, they definitely haven't "held up" as time went on (in the way say, Prince, Madonna, Michael, or many of the biggest 60s and 70s rock acts have). I'd throw Celine Dion in that group as far as 90s acts, and I think it's still too early to say someone like Adele won't end up in that group. Wouldn't "legend" be a cultural term then? And superstar be the industry term?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 7, 2016 21:33:28 GMT -5
So you're suggesting that everyone who listens to music of any kind listens to Drake? No, but he is sort of "monopolizing" the industry (and I use that word loosely) more than any other artist has other than arguably The Beatles. And on top of that, these days hits last LONGER and #1s are HARDER to get. It seems like if anything, the number of artists who are eating are shrinking, and the margin at which they are succeeding relative to other artists is increasing. It could be argued quite easily that the opposite is true. Drake is "monopolizing" the industry as far as pop or mainstream music goes but if you compare music consumption today to the time of the Beatles, the choices of how to listen to music are endless. Back in the 60s, you had television (and then only a few stations) and radio. Then you had record shops and word of mouth from people you knew. That's pretty much it. If you got attention from broadcast media, you had nearly the entire audience you were capable of getting. Today, you obviously have the Internet which has unlimited options of streaming, downloading and exploring new music. Now of course, it could be said that when given that much choice, people tend to stick with what they're familiar with, but unlike 50 years ago, there isn't one single avenue for music. People can easily get by without ever hearing a single Adele song. Hell, I've never even heard Views by Drake and have only heard One Dance and the song with Rihanna so far. His reach isn't as wide as you might think.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 7, 2016 23:10:51 GMT -5
No, but he is sort of "monopolizing" the industry (and I use that word loosely) more than any other artist has other than arguably The Beatles. And on top of that, these days hits last LONGER and #1s are HARDER to get. It seems like if anything, the number of artists who are eating are shrinking, and the margin at which they are succeeding relative to other artists is increasing. It could be argued quite easily that the opposite is true. Drake is "monopolizing" the industry as far as pop or mainstream music goes but if you compare music consumption today to the time of the Beatles, the choices of how to listen to music are endless. Back in the 60s, you had television (and then only a few stations) and radio. Then you had record shops and word of mouth from people you knew. That's pretty much it. If you got attention from broadcast media, you had nearly the entire audience you were capable of getting. Today, you obviously have the Internet which has unlimited options of streaming, downloading and exploring new music. Now of course, it could be said that when given that much choice, people tend to stick with what they're familiar with, but unlike 50 years ago, there isn't one single avenue for music. People can easily get by without ever hearing a single Adele song. Hell, I've never even heard Views by Drake and have only heard One Dance and the song with Rihanna so far. His reach isn't as wide as you might think. Yet with ALLL those choices we have on the internet, artists like Drake and Justin Bieber can still easily dominate the culture in a way that ONLY the Beatles were ever able to do in the 60's. And I'm not just talking about chart takeovers because an album dropped. I'm talking about having multiple overlapping hits that last a very long time. You think that there are a lot of people today who haven't heard Views? Yeah, you're absolutely right. But I bet you there were a heck of a lot more people back in the 1960's that couldn't be bothered to drive to the store buy the biggest albums of the days of yore and put it on their old fashion record player, just to see if they might like it. I guess the biggest question I would ask to the people who are trying to say that there are no more superstars is.... what do you consider Rihanna? Or even Taylor Swift? Those people have been at it for a decade and are some of the most prolific hit makers ever. How long until they become "superstars"?
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,607
|
Post by Enigma. on Sept 8, 2016 2:27:48 GMT -5
If we must wait 25 years to declare an artist as superstar it's not surprising that 10s doesn't have any
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 8, 2016 6:14:24 GMT -5
It could be argued quite easily that the opposite is true. Drake is "monopolizing" the industry as far as pop or mainstream music goes but if you compare music consumption today to the time of the Beatles, the choices of how to listen to music are endless. Back in the 60s, you had television (and then only a few stations) and radio. Then you had record shops and word of mouth from people you knew. That's pretty much it. If you got attention from broadcast media, you had nearly the entire audience you were capable of getting. Today, you obviously have the Internet which has unlimited options of streaming, downloading and exploring new music. Now of course, it could be said that when given that much choice, people tend to stick with what they're familiar with, but unlike 50 years ago, there isn't one single avenue for music. People can easily get by without ever hearing a single Adele song. Hell, I've never even heard Views by Drake and have only heard One Dance and the song with Rihanna so far. His reach isn't as wide as you might think. Yet with ALLL those choices we have on the internet, artists like Drake and Justin Bieber can still easily dominate the culture in a way that ONLY the Beatles were ever able to do in the 60's. And I'm not just talking about chart takeovers because an album dropped. I'm talking about having multiple overlapping hits that last a very long time. You think that there are a lot of people today who haven't heard Views? Yeah, you're absolutely right. But I bet you there were a heck of a lot more people back in the 1960's that couldn't be bothered to drive to the store buy the biggest albums of the days of yore and put it on their old fashion record player, just to see if they might like it. I guess the biggest question I would ask to the people who are trying to say that there are no more superstars is.... what do you consider Rihanna? Or even Taylor Swift? Those people have been at it for a decade and are some of the most prolific hit makers ever. How long until they become "superstars"? I think you're over-emphasizing what you consider as "the culture". They're dominating the measured culture, i.e. billboard and radio charts, but as we find time and time again, those measurements are limited. Beyond that, it isn't that hard to avoid them if you want. I don't even try to and I don't hear much about or from either of them. You're also placing present day values on a different generation of people. People in the 60s "couldn't be bothered"? It's not like they had other options. If they wanted music, they HAD to be bothered to go to the record store and HAD to put it on their "old fashioned record player". I doubt they considered it an inconvenience. Not like there was a backup like the Internet or download/streaming entitlement.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 8, 2016 11:08:13 GMT -5
Yet with ALLL those choices we have on the internet, artists like Drake and Justin Bieber can still easily dominate the culture in a way that ONLY the Beatles were ever able to do in the 60's. And I'm not just talking about chart takeovers because an album dropped. I'm talking about having multiple overlapping hits that last a very long time. You think that there are a lot of people today who haven't heard Views? Yeah, you're absolutely right. But I bet you there were a heck of a lot more people back in the 1960's that couldn't be bothered to drive to the store buy the biggest albums of the days of yore and put it on their old fashion record player, just to see if they might like it. I guess the biggest question I would ask to the people who are trying to say that there are no more superstars is.... what do you consider Rihanna? Or even Taylor Swift? Those people have been at it for a decade and are some of the most prolific hit makers ever. How long until they become "superstars"? I think you're over-emphasizing what you consider as "the culture". They're dominating the measured culture, i.e. billboard and radio charts, but as we find time and time again, those measurements are limited. Beyond that, it isn't that hard to avoid them if you want. I don't even try to and I don't hear much about or from either of them. You're also placing present day values on a different generation of people. People in the 60s "couldn't be bothered"? It's not like they had other options. If they wanted music, they HAD to be bothered to go to the record store and HAD to put it on their "old fashioned record player". I doubt they considered it an inconvenience. Not like there was a backup like the Internet or download/streaming entitlement. If you were in the 60's and you were already at the age where you stopped giving credit to or caring about new artists, it would be even easier to not listen to people like The Beatles, The Supremes, Elvis Presley, Chubby Checker, Brenda Lee, 4 Seasons or whoever. It would be even easier to live in your bubble without knowing what their music sounds like because it would take a lot more effort back then to listen to music at all. Remember that not everybody loved these new artists in the 1960's either. You had people who flat out hated them just like you do with artists today.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 11:18:22 GMT -5
To suggest that Drake's success is even remotely comparable to the complete cultural dominance of the Beatles in the 60s is factually inaccurate.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 8, 2016 15:29:48 GMT -5
To suggest that Drake's success is even remotely comparable to the complete cultural dominance of the Beatles in the 60s is factually inaccurate. Not saying they're necessarily on the same level, but it's nonsense to say "well, Drake isn't as big as the Beatles, so I guess there's no more superstars in the world anymore". And seriously, even if he isn't as big as The Beatles, how many people in history have had the type of year that Drake is having now? It's got to be a fairly low number regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 8, 2016 15:36:21 GMT -5
I think you're over-emphasizing what you consider as "the culture". They're dominating the measured culture, i.e. billboard and radio charts, but as we find time and time again, those measurements are limited. Beyond that, it isn't that hard to avoid them if you want. I don't even try to and I don't hear much about or from either of them. You're also placing present day values on a different generation of people. People in the 60s "couldn't be bothered"? It's not like they had other options. If they wanted music, they HAD to be bothered to go to the record store and HAD to put it on their "old fashioned record player". I doubt they considered it an inconvenience. Not like there was a backup like the Internet or download/streaming entitlement. If you were in the 60's and you were already at the age where you stopped giving credit to or caring about new artists, it would be even easier to not listen to people like The Beatles, The Supremes, Elvis Presley, Chubby Checker, Brenda Lee, 4 Seasons or whoever. It would be even easier to live in your bubble without knowing what their music sounds like because it would take a lot more effort back then to listen to music at all. Remember that not everybody loved these new artists in the 1960's either. You had people who flat out hated them just like you do with artists today. You had four routes to the outside world. The telephone, newspaper, television and radio. If you watched tv or listened to the radio, you heard their music or heard of them. If you talked to anyone, more likely if the topic of entertainment came up, as it often can, you heard about them. You could skip over them in the newspaper if you so wanted. But there were very few alternatives. That's. My. Point. By default, in that time, you had few choices. Obviously not everyone liked then-popular music. The alternative was limited. Today, the alternative is endless. If Drake is the biggest artist we have with the most exposure in terms of population, he pales in comparison. To bring it back to the original question: can he be considered a superstar? Perhaps. But the argument has been made that maybe the very concept is dying. Drake's reach, or Bieber's reach, is small compared to that of superstars from decades past. Not even because of their own limitations but because of the alternatives available. By today's standards, sure, they can be considered superstars because they're the biggest names out there now and have been consistently for several years. But if trends continue, the very idea of a superstar as we knew it might cease to exist.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 8, 2016 16:42:19 GMT -5
If you were in the 60's and you were already at the age where you stopped giving credit to or caring about new artists, it would be even easier to not listen to people like The Beatles, The Supremes, Elvis Presley, Chubby Checker, Brenda Lee, 4 Seasons or whoever. It would be even easier to live in your bubble without knowing what their music sounds like because it would take a lot more effort back then to listen to music at all. Remember that not everybody loved these new artists in the 1960's either. You had people who flat out hated them just like you do with artists today. You had four routes to the outside world. The telephone, newspaper, television and radio. If you watched tv or listened to the radio, you heard their music or heard of them. If you talked to anyone, more likely if the topic of entertainment came up, as it often can, you heard about them. You could skip over them in the newspaper if you so wanted. But there were very few alternatives. That's. My. Point. By default, in that time, you had few choices. Obviously not everyone liked then-popular music. The alternative was limited. Today, the alternative is endless. If Drake is the biggest artist we have with the most exposure in terms of population, he pales in comparison. To bring it back to the original question: can he be considered a superstar? Perhaps. But the argument has been made that maybe the very concept is dying. Drake's reach, or Bieber's reach, is small compared to that of superstars from decades past. Not even because of their own limitations but because of the alternatives available. By today's standards, sure, they can be considered superstars because they're the biggest names out there now and have been consistently for several years. But if trends continue, the very idea of a superstar as we knew it might cease to exist. If the alternatives are so important, why would we be seeing artists like Drake being able to dominate the music industry in such a way that is largely unprecedented? Not much has changed within the last 20 years as far as charting goes. Only the advent of the internet, and it has actually allowed albums and songs to permeate our culture more intensely over a longer period of time. I think there is a bigger gap between the A-List of today and the B-List of today than there was in the time when radio neatly controlled who we did and didn't listen to. Move past the Beatles and look at somebody like Diana Ross and The Supremes, if that helps. Since comparing anybody to The Beatles seems like blasphemy. Would everything you are saying apply equally to The Supremes? How far would you have to go down the list in your opinion before it started to become comparable? Brenda Lee? It seems to me you might be right about "anyone" knowing the Beatles, but would they be the rule or would they be an outlier in their viral popularity?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 8, 2016 16:50:35 GMT -5
Oh. You're using charts as the sole determining factor. No wonder you can't seem to comprehend what I'm trying to say.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 9, 2016 3:26:35 GMT -5
Oh. You're using charts as the sole determining factor. No wonder you can't seem to comprehend what I'm trying to say. When did I imply that? I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you're trying to say by asking those questions. Is your statement about the Beatles being more culturally unavoidable in the 1960's than Bieber and Drake are these days, due to the narrowness of media, also applicable to artists like Brenda Lee or The Supremes?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 9, 2016 6:15:22 GMT -5
It would apply to any major artist of those days. Tv shows too. Just because Drake is dominating the charts today, doesn't necessarily mean he's culturally unavoidable. The charts don't have the same reach they had back in the 60s because fewer people consume music in a way measured by charts.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 9, 2016 15:58:25 GMT -5
It would apply to any major artist of those days. Tv shows too. Just because Drake is dominating the charts today, doesn't necessarily mean he's culturally unavoidable. The charts don't have the same reach they had back in the 60s because fewer people consume music in a way measured by charts. For one, I'd again try to make the distinction between musical popularity and cultural significance. Beatles is arguable #1 of all time in both categories. Can you honestly tell me that your mother or grandmother (or whatever relative you have that's from 60-80 years old, I don't know how old you are) don't know who Justin Bieber is? How many people over 8 years old, in the US. don't know the name Justin Bieber? I'd assume the biggest demographic of adults who don't know who JB is would be elderly immigrants with English as a second language and people such as the Amish who purposefully avoid all contact with outside culture. Maybe some homeless people or people who are heavily incarcerated for the last 5 or so years to the point where they aren't able to watch TV or news regularly. The thing is, almost no American of sound mind and body doesn't know who Justin Bieber is. So if you want to transition from musical accomplishments (based on whatever measurement personally suits you best) to pure fame, I don't see what demographic alive today who doesn't know JB would be more likely to know The Beatles in the 1960's. 1000 TV channels or 3 TV channels, we seem to have gotten the same results.
|
|
upsidedown
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2012
Posts: 10,604
|
Post by upsidedown on Sept 9, 2016 19:49:49 GMT -5
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... ... you put Rihanna but declined to put Britney? What?
|
|
Relaxing Cup
Diamond Member
Joined: March 2014
Posts: 14,673
|
Post by Relaxing Cup on Sept 9, 2016 19:54:37 GMT -5
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, JANET JACKSON 90s: Mariah, Celine, JANET JACKSON 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... ... you put Rihanna but declined to put Britney? What? you should be more pissed about the inclusion of JT tbh
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 9, 2016 19:56:46 GMT -5
It would apply to any major artist of those days. Tv shows too. Just because Drake is dominating the charts today, doesn't necessarily mean he's culturally unavoidable. The charts don't have the same reach they had back in the 60s because fewer people consume music in a way measured by charts. For one, I'd again try to make the distinction between musical popularity and cultural significance. Beatles is arguable #1 of all time in both categories. Can you honestly tell me that your mother or grandmother (or whatever relative you have that's from 60-80 years old, I don't know how old you are) don't know who Justin Bieber is? How many people over 8 years old, in the US. don't know the name Justin Bieber? I'd assume the biggest demographic of adults who don't know who JB is would be elderly immigrants with English as a second language and people such as the Amish who purposefully avoid all contact with outside culture. Maybe some homeless people or people who are heavily incarcerated for the last 5 or so years to the point where they aren't able to watch TV or news regularly. The thing is, almost no American of sound mind and body doesn't know who Justin Bieber is. So if you want to transition from musical accomplishments (based on whatever measurement personally suits you best) to pure fame, I don't see what demographic alive today who doesn't know JB would be more likely to know The Beatles in the 1960's. 1000 TV channels or 3 TV channels, we seem to have gotten the same results. To be honest, I don't even really remember what we're debating anymore...
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 9, 2016 23:14:14 GMT -5
For one, I'd again try to make the distinction between musical popularity and cultural significance. Beatles is arguable #1 of all time in both categories. Can you honestly tell me that your mother or grandmother (or whatever relative you have that's from 60-80 years old, I don't know how old you are) don't know who Justin Bieber is? How many people over 8 years old, in the US. don't know the name Justin Bieber? I'd assume the biggest demographic of adults who don't know who JB is would be elderly immigrants with English as a second language and people such as the Amish who purposefully avoid all contact with outside culture. Maybe some homeless people or people who are heavily incarcerated for the last 5 or so years to the point where they aren't able to watch TV or news regularly. The thing is, almost no American of sound mind and body doesn't know who Justin Bieber is. So if you want to transition from musical accomplishments (based on whatever measurement personally suits you best) to pure fame, I don't see what demographic alive today who doesn't know JB would be more likely to know The Beatles in the 1960's. 1000 TV channels or 3 TV channels, we seem to have gotten the same results. To be honest, I don't even really remember what we're debating anymore... Whether the concept of a "superstar" is dead, and I fail to see any evidence that it is, whether we're talking musically or culturally.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 9, 2016 23:16:37 GMT -5
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... ... you put Rihanna but declined to put Britney? What? Lol. Because some woman named "rihanna" is nowhere near the level of Queen "Baby One More Time".
|
|
Catboy
New Member
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 420
|
Post by Catboy on Sept 9, 2016 23:29:07 GMT -5
Superstar is not only one act that can achieve chart records. Superstar is an act than can impact in Pop Culture. Considering this, few artists have been able to do this: Elvis, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Aretha, Michael Jackson and Madonna. No one else gets close even them!
|
|
BDGeek
2x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by BDGeek on Sept 10, 2016 0:18:47 GMT -5
It would apply to any major artist of those days. Tv shows too. Just because Drake is dominating the charts today, doesn't necessarily mean he's culturally unavoidable. The charts don't have the same reach they had back in the 60s because fewer people consume music in a way measured by charts. Can you honestly tell me that your mother or grandmother (or whatever relative you have that's from 60-80 years old, I don't know how old you are) don't know who Justin Bieber is? How many people over 8 years old, in the US. don't know the name Justin Bieber? I'd assume the biggest demographic of adults who don't know who JB is would be elderly immigrants with English as a second language and people such as the Amish who purposefully avoid all contact with outside culture. Maybe some homeless people or people who are heavily incarcerated for the last 5 or so years to the point where they aren't able to watch TV or news regularly. The thing is, almost no American of sound mind and body doesn't know who Justin Bieber is. So if you want to transition from musical accomplishments (based on whatever measurement personally suits you best) to pure fame, I don't see what demographic alive today who doesn't know JB would be more likely to know The Beatles in the 1960's. I think we're coming at the term "superstar" from different definitions (which is fine and totally relevant to this thread). To me, a superstar is someone who is celebrated primarily for their music. Music that is inescapable for a significant period of time, and creates a lasting impact on the industry for years to come. The Purpose singles have done very well, but I still I feel like Bieber is more known as a teen heartthrob or delinquent than he is a game-changing musician. I don't really listen to radio anymore, so I find Drake fairly easy to avoid. And I guarantee you my 60-year-old parents haven't a clue who he is or what his music sounds like. I also framed my initial question in terms of post-Adele breakout superstars. I don't really put Drake or Bieber in this category as both were established artists by 2011 when Adele stormed the industry (I know 19 was successful prior to that, but she wasn't widely known outside the UK until 21). Bieber and Drake have both enjoyed great success since then, but I wouldn't say it's that much more astronomical than the high-profile success they were already enjoying.
|
|
कामसूत्र
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I will beach both of you off at the same time!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,104
|
Post by कामसूत्र on Sept 10, 2016 0:39:37 GMT -5
I'd assume the biggest demographic of adults who don't know who JB is would be elderly immigrants with English as a second language and people such as the Amish who purposefully avoid all contact with outside culture. Maybe some homeless people or people who are heavily incarcerated for the last 5 or so years to the point where they aren't able to watch TV or news regularly. On what basis are you making this assumption? It's possible that people above a certain age may just not care enough to know. They'll see the name in the newspaper or on a magazine cover and they know they have seen the name but it is meaningless to them because they are focused on other things that are far more important. Like the example of the homeless people, they are probably more concerned about where their next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep versus worrying about what a Justin Bieber is. The thing is, almost no American of sound mind and body doesn't know who Justin Bieber is. My dad is in his 70s and he has no idea what a Justin Bieber is nor does he care to know. He is more worried about whether his social security will be there for him and whether his interest income will be enough to live on for him and my mom. JB is not even on the radar.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 10, 2016 1:01:20 GMT -5
I'd assume the biggest demographic of adults who don't know who JB is would be elderly immigrants with English as a second language and people such as the Amish who purposefully avoid all contact with outside culture. Maybe some homeless people or people who are heavily incarcerated for the last 5 or so years to the point where they aren't able to watch TV or news regularly. On what basis are you making this assumption? It's possible that people above a certain age may just not care enough to know. They'll see the name in the newspaper or on a magazine cover and they know they have seen the name but it is meaningless to them because they are focused on other things that are far more important. Like the example of the homeless people, they are probably more concerned about where their next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep versus worrying about what a Justin Bieber is. The thing is, almost no American of sound mind and body doesn't know who Justin Bieber is. My dad is in his 70s and he has no idea what a Justin Bieber is nor does he care to know. He is more worried about whether his social security will be there for him and whether his interest income will be enough to live on for him and my mom. JB is not even on the radar. So you actually asked your dad just now whether he knows who JB is? I guess it just comes from my own experience. I know my own grandparents in their 60's and 70's are aware enough to know the name Justin Bieber, and at least know that he is a delinquent teen heart throb if nothing else. JB is mentioned on CNN. He's mentioned on the O'Reilly Factor and Glenn Beck. He's mentioned on casual morning news and many other programs the older generation enjoys. I wouldn't expect people in a retirement home to necessarily know who JB is. I expect that 70 year olds in the 60's had a similar reaction to The Beatles at the time. Another thing I'd like to point out in regards to the "there were only 3 channels!" argument is that 1. Were there less radio stations? Were there not still oldies stations, news stations, black stations, white stations, etc like there are now? Were the demographics of people hearing those stations not largely the same as the demographic today? 2. How many people actually had a TV in the 1960's? And wouldn't the demographics of people who didn't have one be largely similar to the demographics of people who don't follow popular culture or want anything to do with it (such as your father) 3. Just because there are 1000's of TV channels, wouldn't you agree that only a few of them are popular enough to really be all that significant? And that those that are are generally going to be covering the same topics (i.e. Bieber's latest outrage being covered on casual news hour from CNN to Fox to whatever). I wasn't a teenager in 1963 when Beatlemania hit, and from the sound of things, nobody here is, but I don't see any reason to think that on a FAME basis, more people knew The Beatles at the time than know Bieber now. Nor do I see any reason to think that the type of people who don't know who Drake, Katy Perry, Rihanna and Taylor Swift are today wouldn't be the exact same type of people to not know who The Supremes and Brenda Lee were, back in the 1960's.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2016 1:29:47 GMT -5
This thread is turning into a Nickkielodeon mess as far as I'm concerned. The question to me isn't if the superstar is dead because we have Believer Justin , Drake, Rihanna, Taylor, Katy. The real question is whether the talented superstar is dead. Of course every generation including the 2008/2009 and on generation of mediocrity will have its superstars. I just find them mostly to be bare of talent and more gimmicky, social media driven, capitalize on trends and fashion and have a great look and able to sell their looks. Just because they are known doesn't mean they equal to The Beatles or Elton John or Prince, Mariah, Whitney, Patti, Aretha hell even Britney could dance and had a skill. Most of this generation cant dance, can't sing, can't write, can't compose and lack the basic necessities of a artist imo.
hell someone i respect said recently " they have moved the goal posts of success from going 100 feet, to 2 feet" and that just about anyone with good looks and marketability can be famous now.
so no superstars will always exists lets just hope superstar talent returns soon.
cause baby aslong as a bish is cute and sexy she or he can chant the words "Juicy Fruit" 101 times over a sikkk beat and go #1 and people will go AWWWF and say OMG slay nowadays!
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 10, 2016 1:33:21 GMT -5
Can you honestly tell me that your mother or grandmother (or whatever relative you have that's from 60-80 years old, I don't know how old you are) don't know who Justin Bieber is? How many people over 8 years old, in the US. don't know the name Justin Bieber? I'd assume the biggest demographic of adults who don't know who JB is would be elderly immigrants with English as a second language and people such as the Amish who purposefully avoid all contact with outside culture. Maybe some homeless people or people who are heavily incarcerated for the last 5 or so years to the point where they aren't able to watch TV or news regularly. The thing is, almost no American of sound mind and body doesn't know who Justin Bieber is. So if you want to transition from musical accomplishments (based on whatever measurement personally suits you best) to pure fame, I don't see what demographic alive today who doesn't know JB would be more likely to know The Beatles in the 1960's. I think we're coming at the term "superstar" from different definitions (which is fine and totally relevant to this thread). To me, a superstar is someone who is celebrated primarily for their music. Music that is inescapable for a significant period of time, and creates a lasting impact on the industry for years to come. The Purpose singles have done very well, but I still I feel like Bieber is more known as a teen heartthrob or delinquent than he is a game-changing musician. I don't really listen to radio anymore, so I find Drake fairly easy to avoid. And I guarantee you my 60-year-old parents haven't a clue who he is or what his music sounds like. I also framed my initial question in terms of post-Adele breakout superstars. I don't really put Drake or Bieber in this category as both were established artists by 2011 when Adele stormed the industry (I know 19 was successful prior to that, but she wasn't widely known outside the UK until 21). Bieber and Drake have both enjoyed great success since then, but I wouldn't say it's that much more astronomical than the high-profile success they were already enjoying. How are we to know whether an artist whose break out was less than 5 years ago is going to have a long lasting impact for years to come? In only 5 years, what can you expect from somebody? Did people know that Michael Jackson or Stevie Wonder or Mariah Carrey would become some of the biggest artists of all time when they were only 1-5 years old? "Inescapable for a significant period of time" is what gets me, because I wonder what you mean by "inescapable". If Drake's not "inescapable" now, with his tentacles wrapped around a half dozen Pop Rap and R&B hits at any given time, then who is "inescapable"? You later say that you find Drake easily avoidable by not listening to the radio... who CAN'T you avoid by not listening to the radio? You said it was all about music for you. You might not be able to avoid hearing a name like Madonna, or Taylor Swift, or Michael Jackson, or Justin Bieber or The Beatles on the news. But I don't see how you couldn't avoid them by not listening to primary music sources, in any given time period. I'd say musically the biggest artists who debuted in 2011 or later (I'm not going to check what month Adele hit the Top 10 in or anything)... One Direction Florida Georgia Line The Weeknd Imagine Dragons Ariana Grande Ed Sheeran Meghan Trainor Fetty Wap Ellie Goulding Macklemore Some of those are mostly "one year wonders". Some of those are people who have calmed down in success recently, or bands that have broken up. But I'd say the two that show the most potential to be around having Top 10's 5-10 years from now are Meghan Trainor and Ariana Grande. Both have shown the ability to get numerous Top 10's across multiple years. I don't truly have the numbers but I trust that if you were to look back at the first few years 3, 4, or 5 years of MJ, Madonna, Prince, and all of the other established legends you'd see that they aren't necessarily artists who burst through the gate and screamed "greatest of all time" in their first few years on the chart.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Sept 10, 2016 1:48:39 GMT -5
This thread is turning into a Nickkielodeon mess as far as I'm concerned. The question to me isn't if the superstar is dead because we have Believer Justin , Drake, Rihanna, Taylor, Katy. The real question is whether the talented superstar is dead. Of course every generation including the 2008/2009 and on generation of mediocrity will have its superstars. I just find them mostly to be bare of talent and more gimmicky, social media driven, capitalize on trends and fashion and have a great look and able to sell their looks. Just because they are known doesn't mean they equal to The Beatles or Elton John or Prince, Mariah, Whitney, Patti, Aretha hell even Britney could dance and had a skill. Most of this generation cant dance, can't sing, can't write, can't compose and lack the basic necessities of a artist imo. hell someone i respect said recently " they have moved the goal posts of success from going 100 feet, to 2 feet" and that just about anyone with good looks and marketability can be famous now. so no superstars will always exists lets just hope superstar talent returns soon. cause baby aslong as a bish is cute and sexy she or he can chant the words "Juicy Fruit" 101 times over a sikkk beat and go #1 and people will go AWWWF and say OMG slay nowadays! I'm sure a lot of people on this thread will agree with you, as I suspect your sentiment that things just ain't as good as they used to be may be the cornerstone of most people's arguments here. But I don't think there's anything concrete to show here other than you're own person tastes. And I know that the same sentiment existed for every other generation's big legends as well. Elvis: "Nothing like talented acts of the past like Bing Crosby. This guy is just using sex to sell his generic "rock and roll" songs, that are all written by negro artists." The Beatles: "No way are these pansies as talented as great artists of the past like Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller. They just use these generic guitar ballads that all sound the same to appeal ignorant teenage girls who don't know any better." Madonna: "Just another no talent Pop floozy in a slutty dress, basically being a prostitute on TV. Gone are the days of talented artists like The Beatles." Mariah: "Processed assembly line Pop music of today. She doesn't even play any instruments! It's too bad we don't have real talented folks like Elvis that we had back in the day." "cause baby aslong as a bish is cute and sexy she or he can chant the words "Juicy Fruit" 101 times over a sikkk beat and go #1 and people will go AWWWF and say OMG slay nowadays!" Lol, Like this couldn't be said about every other decade. Every heard of a little song called "The Twist"? Essentially just a 60's version of what you just described.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2016 1:55:48 GMT -5
This thread is turning into a Nickkielodeon mess as far as I'm concerned. The question to me isn't if the superstar is dead because we have Believer Justin , Drake, Rihanna, Taylor, Katy. The real question is whether the talented superstar is dead. Of course every generation including the 2008/2009 and on generation of mediocrity will have its superstars. I just find them mostly to be bare of talent and more gimmicky, social media driven, capitalize on trends and fashion and have a great look and able to sell their looks. Just because they are known doesn't mean they equal to The Beatles or Elton John or Prince, Mariah, Whitney, Patti, Aretha hell even Britney could dance and had a skill. Most of this generation cant dance, can't sing, can't write, can't compose and lack the basic necessities of a artist imo. hell someone i respect said recently " they have moved the goal posts of success from going 100 feet, to 2 feet" and that just about anyone with good looks and marketability can be famous now. so no superstars will always exists lets just hope superstar talent returns soon. cause baby aslong as a bish is cute and sexy she or he can chant the words "Juicy Fruit" 101 times over a sikkk beat and go #1 and people will go AWWWF and say OMG slay nowadays! I'm sure a lot of people on this thread will agree with you, as I suspect your sentiment that things just ain't as good as they used to be may be the cornerstone of most people's arguments here. But I don't think there's anything concrete to show here other than you're own person tastes. And I know that the same sentiment existed for every other generation's big legends as well. Elvis: "Nothing like talented acts of the past like Bing Crosby. This guy is just using sex to sell his generic "rock and roll" songs, that are all written by negro artists." The Beatles: "No way are these pansies as talented as great artists of the past like Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller. They just use these generic guitar ballads that all sound the same to appeal ignorant teenage girls who don't know any better." Madonna: "Just another no talent Pop floozy in a slutty dress, basically being a prostitute on TV. Gone are the days of talented artists like The Beatles." Mariah: "Processed assembly line Pop music of today. She doesn't even play any instruments! It's too bad we don't have real talented folks like Elvis that we had back in the day." "cause baby aslong as a bish is cute and sexy she or he can chant the words "Juicy Fruit" 101 times over a sikkk beat and go #1 and people will go AWWWF and say OMG slay nowadays!" Lol, Like this couldn't be said about every other decade. Every heard of a little song called "The Twist"? Essentially just a 60's version of what you just described. Yes all well and good and people have ALWAYS badly compared one era to the next but what you had was generations use to talent dissing a newer generation and over the time all those statements proved to be wrong because people fell in love and respected them after a few years not just on their hit singles but their body of work, talents solely. So it may have started off with the examples you listed but in time it was admiration for their god given talents. That is what you're missing, its not about liking or enjoying a hit single its about RESPECT of artistry. I enjoy plenty of mindless s**t. I just don't overvalue their talent or feel just because i like a song that artist is talented. They actually have to have a natural gift or entertainment value that is rare. None of your stars today , do with possible exception of one trick pony Adele. The talented artists today are given no attention and never turn into stars (see Janelle Monae and compare her to the superstars of today) Now the examples of today superstars what have they done from album debut era to now to make people change their tune on their talents and respect them for that soley? Has Katy or anyone of them went from a gimmicky, non singing , basic artists to universally acclaimed for her talents or has she and others just accumulated more hits but remained a gimmicky, non singing, basic artists with more hits? Thats the thing talent can be dissed at first but real talent always shows up and is respected not just liked, its RESPECTED.
|
|