It's not like it was in MY day!

Max
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:56 am
Status: Offline

Tue May 01, 2012 1:38 pm

To me "staying power" is being relevant across multiple generations. I can't speak for Chris Rock but I think his comment speaks for itself.
The original question to me was who will be the Sinatras, of the future.
Who ARE the stand-out stars of the contemporary era? I'm not talking about who is popular, current popularity and real star power that results in longevity don't necessarily go hand in hand. So in terms of artists who are say, around 40 or younger, who are the genuine STARS?
Someone can have a long career, be very talented and successful without having "staying power" but to be listened to across generations is different.


unclewalt
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 11:14 am
Status: Offline

Tue May 01, 2012 3:33 pm

dennisg wrote:
unclewalt wrote:
I don't think Nirvana really has staying power, given that it hasn't even been a band for nearly 20 years, since the main dude offed himself.
Define what you mean by "staying power."
I did. Quite extensively. If you mean that Nirvana's legacy will remain strong for a long time, I tend to agree - but even there, it's really nothing like Dylan or the Beatles. Nirvana was cited as a "current band" and I was responding to that.

As for new Sinatras (or Dylans, or Lennons), I don't know that there will be any. And this isn't necessarily bad. For good or ill (probably some of both), society, along with the media, is too fragmented now for such things to occur on that kind of scale. It's not that there aren't artists who speak to people in the same way, it's that they don't speak to gigantic swaths of them all at once.


tovo
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:35 pm
Status: Offline

Tue May 01, 2012 4:51 pm

unclewalt wrote:
dennisg wrote:
unclewalt wrote:
For good or ill (probably some of both), society, along with the media, is too fragmented now for such things to occur on that kind of scale. It's not that there aren't artists who speak to people in the same way, it's that they don't speak to gigantic swaths of them all at once.
Your contributions here are really interesting for me Walt. In terms of the quotation I have highlighted above, isn't it offset by the unprecedented access that artists have to the public? Surely they have the opportunity to reach mass audiences instantly like never before? Is it more an issue of so much choice for the public?


User avatar
neverfoundthetime
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
Status: Offline

Wed May 02, 2012 5:02 am

Interesting discussion. Walt is making a lot of good points which may or may not be still standing when the thread is done. Society more fragmented? I can certainly see that perspectives and possibilities have expanded and diversified enormously since the 60's so that the "mainstream view" which groups like the The Beatles or The Stones had to battle against is no longer such a solid wall. And the push against "the machine" has therefore lessened so there will be less rallying behind the rebellious, spotty heroes, so there will be less energy involved. Teenagers now have their place in society which they had to fight for in the 60's.

On the other hand, there is now a globally networked society connected by the WWW which can spread an idea or message or sound instantly. And this can be an independent source working out of someone's bedroom. That could never have happened way back. So maybe Walt is right, from now on in its lots of choice, lots of bands but less focus at the super start level... with noted exceptions of people like Lady Gaga. She's the only example of a artist with big impact and possible longevity (we will see) I can think of. I can't come up with any examples of a new band of the ilk of The Beatles or The Stones 'though. And the 60's seem so unique, maybe it was just a confluence of many factors which gave rise to our R&R culture and this birth will remain unique. How lucky were we to have been the right age to live through all that great music being created!

Maybe it will just be just individual songs and moments which grab us in a big way from now on.


tovo
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:35 pm
Status: Offline

Wed May 02, 2012 6:07 am

neverfoundthetime wrote:
How lucky were we to have been the right age to live through all that great music being created!
Speak for yourself old man!!


User avatar
neverfoundthetime
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
Status: Offline

Wed May 02, 2012 6:32 am

tovo wrote:
neverfoundthetime wrote:
How lucky were we to have been the right age to live through all that great music being created!
Speak for yourself old man!!
Greenhorn! :P


unclewalt
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 11:14 am
Status: Offline

Wed May 02, 2012 12:25 pm

tovo wrote:
unclewalt wrote:
dennisg wrote:
unclewalt wrote:


Your contributions here are really interesting for me Walt. In terms of the quotation I have highlighted above, isn't it offset by the unprecedented access that artists have to the public? Surely they have the opportunity to reach mass audiences instantly like never before? Is it more an issue of so much choice for the public?
Yes, choice. One of the reasons for superstardom was a bottlenecked media industry. A few huge record labels, three TV networks. Radio was much more open than now, but the hits were nevertheless pretty much determined by the labels, and how much they decided to promote certain acts. Now there are countless channels through which to reach the public. It's true that performers catch on thanks to the audience's ability to share, but that doesn't make them superstars.

It's much more complicated than just this, of course, as I noted earlier: technology, economics, culture, demographics have all played their part to get us where we are now. Consider that even by the late 80s, "rock star" already meant a lot less than it had a decade earlier, and that trend just continued as youth-culture continued to shrink as a force. Demographics are a huge part of this: the 60s happened in large part because the Baby Boom generation was so huge. That generation has also determined much of what has happened in succeeding decades: the rise of Nashville's sausage-making music factories, the rise of adult-contemporary artists, continued back-catalog sales, the rise of "classic rock" radio, etc. Youth tastes are still very important, as always, but it's been the Baby Boomers and their fat checking accounts that have driven much of commerce, including in the music market.


Chasplaya
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:41 pm
Status: Offline

Thu May 03, 2012 3:26 pm

Very interesting question Tony and some really good points made by Walt. And Chris I can recall my big brother saying the same as you, 'How lucky we were etc etc etc...' I think one band which comes close these days is NZ/Aussie's Crowded House, which did very well overseas as well as at home. But they are very much like Walt says they are a real working band and when a hit falls from the charts they are out there doing the pubs and clubs and smaller venues (hey every venue in NZ is small Lol)

It will be interesting to see where Adele is in a few years, I think she has the potential for a bit of staying power.


User avatar
neverfoundthetime
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
Status: Offline

Fri May 04, 2012 11:34 am

I think one band which comes close these days is NZ/Aussie's Crowded House, which did very well overseas as well as at home.
Yep, saw them in Zürich a few years back... pretty good live band.


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic