I often hear that comment (and often from my Father) when it comes to music. Bing Crosby, Perry Como and co, "they don't make em like that anymore" he often laments.
Got me wondering. 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?
It's not like it was in MY day!
HI Tony, this sis a good question because at my age I have the tendency to say like your father. But if I look at what my kids listen, you have Red Hot Chilly Pepper, Rage against the machine (if you like the style) who should last the time test. You also have Lady Gaga, who I thought was going to be a short flame focusing on the crazy dressing. Well she turned out pretty good.
Today you cannot only judge of the popularity by how many records they sell but the number of click on YouTube,the quality of their videos, the media networks interest. Pearl Jam who is a bit older but still from the eighties and should also be enjoyed by my kid's kids. Because this is where the time wearing kicks in: if the next generation is not interested then it is fading away. Groups that I like as Led Zeppelin or Jimmy Hendrix are also cool for my kids, so they will pass them along.
Marc
Today you cannot only judge of the popularity by how many records they sell but the number of click on YouTube,the quality of their videos, the media networks interest. Pearl Jam who is a bit older but still from the eighties and should also be enjoyed by my kid's kids. Because this is where the time wearing kicks in: if the next generation is not interested then it is fading away. Groups that I like as Led Zeppelin or Jimmy Hendrix are also cool for my kids, so they will pass them along.
Marc
The Chili Peppers and Rage Against the Machine are also both from the 80s. They are to kids today what Sinatra and Doris Day were to us in the 70s. Timewise, that is -- the big difference being that kids today are much more apt to listen to old music (or old musicians) than we were.
There will always be stars, but I don' t think there will ever be megastars in the same way as in the 60s-90s for what we called "rock music." The star system (that is, the music industry) is in shards. I, for one, think that's a good thing, for the most part. A centralized music business was both good and bad. One of the bad things was the wretched excess and ruination that stardom and immense wealth (or horrible failure) often brought. Today (for rock music, etc., -- not as much for adult contemporary, urban contemporary, "country," and American Idol type stuff) good bands can make a decent living, but they're working stiffs: making and selling records regularly, touring small and medium clubs, and sometimes large venues. These would include (and I like some of these much more than others; I'm just giving examples off the top of my head) artists like Arcade Fire, Wilco, the Killers, Iron and Wine, Jay Farrar, Apples in Stereo, The National, Broken Social Scene, the Shins, Franz Ferdinand, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Bon Iver. They go through periods, often early on (like Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Bon Iver) with a big spike in popularity, but when that's over, they keep working and keep earning. That didn't used to happen so much - if you came down off a spike, the record company often dropped you, and you were done.
And those bands are sort of at the top end -- there are hundreds and hundreds less well-known bands that are nevertheless recording and working steadily, at least for the time being. Most of them wouldn't have had a chance in hell in 1976. Many of them suck, of course, but that's for audiences to decide - the point is that they're out there to be judged.
In the 70s, there were local rock clubs in cities, but the bands mostly sucked. They were often tribute bands, or bands that were trying to sound like Skynyrd or Sabbath or Floyd. And they were usually local. Now, there are a lot more clubs, and small auditoriums, booking national touring bands of all different kinds, many of them really good. And many of the musicians are, refreshingly, just trying to make a good living and make great music. They might also want to be rich and famous, but that often isn't their primary goal.
This is hard in some ways, because bands have to promote themselves a lot more. But it also means that fans (as opposed to corporate record-label weasels) are much more in control of who succeeds and who doesn't.
The "stars" these days tend to be people like Adele or Kanye West, or American Idol winners. Or Gaga. Some of them are really good, too, of course, but they gain much of their fame through media hype as opposed to strictly through the music business as such. They are the objects of gossip or "buzz," and that makes them stars as much as their music does.
I've seen hundreds of concerts by acts big and small. The best show I've ever seen was about five years ago -- a solo show by Sam Beam (Iron and Wine). And how many people have ever heard of him? Not so many, and I'm happy that's the case: I saw him in a small venue, and will continue to do so probably for years to come. To me, anyway, it's as if Bob Dylan kept working, but never became ultra-famous, and so I could continue to go see him in tiny, intimate venues at a reasonable price with no big hassles, no tiny little figures on faraway stages, no $11 plastic cups full of beer, etc.
There will always be stars, but I don' t think there will ever be megastars in the same way as in the 60s-90s for what we called "rock music." The star system (that is, the music industry) is in shards. I, for one, think that's a good thing, for the most part. A centralized music business was both good and bad. One of the bad things was the wretched excess and ruination that stardom and immense wealth (or horrible failure) often brought. Today (for rock music, etc., -- not as much for adult contemporary, urban contemporary, "country," and American Idol type stuff) good bands can make a decent living, but they're working stiffs: making and selling records regularly, touring small and medium clubs, and sometimes large venues. These would include (and I like some of these much more than others; I'm just giving examples off the top of my head) artists like Arcade Fire, Wilco, the Killers, Iron and Wine, Jay Farrar, Apples in Stereo, The National, Broken Social Scene, the Shins, Franz Ferdinand, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Bon Iver. They go through periods, often early on (like Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Bon Iver) with a big spike in popularity, but when that's over, they keep working and keep earning. That didn't used to happen so much - if you came down off a spike, the record company often dropped you, and you were done.
And those bands are sort of at the top end -- there are hundreds and hundreds less well-known bands that are nevertheless recording and working steadily, at least for the time being. Most of them wouldn't have had a chance in hell in 1976. Many of them suck, of course, but that's for audiences to decide - the point is that they're out there to be judged.
In the 70s, there were local rock clubs in cities, but the bands mostly sucked. They were often tribute bands, or bands that were trying to sound like Skynyrd or Sabbath or Floyd. And they were usually local. Now, there are a lot more clubs, and small auditoriums, booking national touring bands of all different kinds, many of them really good. And many of the musicians are, refreshingly, just trying to make a good living and make great music. They might also want to be rich and famous, but that often isn't their primary goal.
This is hard in some ways, because bands have to promote themselves a lot more. But it also means that fans (as opposed to corporate record-label weasels) are much more in control of who succeeds and who doesn't.
The "stars" these days tend to be people like Adele or Kanye West, or American Idol winners. Or Gaga. Some of them are really good, too, of course, but they gain much of their fame through media hype as opposed to strictly through the music business as such. They are the objects of gossip or "buzz," and that makes them stars as much as their music does.
I've seen hundreds of concerts by acts big and small. The best show I've ever seen was about five years ago -- a solo show by Sam Beam (Iron and Wine). And how many people have ever heard of him? Not so many, and I'm happy that's the case: I saw him in a small venue, and will continue to do so probably for years to come. To me, anyway, it's as if Bob Dylan kept working, but never became ultra-famous, and so I could continue to go see him in tiny, intimate venues at a reasonable price with no big hassles, no tiny little figures on faraway stages, no $11 plastic cups full of beer, etc.
-
Music Junkie
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:17 am
- Status: Offline
Walt:
Those thoughts crossed my mind while pondering this question last night as well. It is just so different today with the advent of the internet, than it was "back in the day". The industry as a whole is something completely different..... You made some really good points... B)
That bit aside, it is hard for me to look at anyone 40 or younger as a "real star". They are there, I assume. I just don't relate to them as I do to folks like Marc mentioned - Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Niel Young, AC/DC, etc. That just shows my age.... :woohoo:
My musical taste has changed quite a bit over the last several years, and I really find myself listening to styles of music and artists that are not "Top 40" type stuff and may not ever be considered "STARS". Folks like Iron & Wine, Minus the Bear, Newton Faulkner, Pinback, Metric, etc. Do many of you know these bands? Some might....
So, STARS that are 40 or younger...... Based on MUSIC, and not just fame or hype..... Adele comes to mind (though she has not been around that long and time will tell - she does have the talent). Hard to pick much else.... I guess I am a bit out of touch with today's styles..... I guess i am older than I thought.... :silly:
Very good question Tony. Maybe I'll revisit this with a bit more thought.
MJ
Those thoughts crossed my mind while pondering this question last night as well. It is just so different today with the advent of the internet, than it was "back in the day". The industry as a whole is something completely different..... You made some really good points... B)
That bit aside, it is hard for me to look at anyone 40 or younger as a "real star". They are there, I assume. I just don't relate to them as I do to folks like Marc mentioned - Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, Niel Young, AC/DC, etc. That just shows my age.... :woohoo:
My musical taste has changed quite a bit over the last several years, and I really find myself listening to styles of music and artists that are not "Top 40" type stuff and may not ever be considered "STARS". Folks like Iron & Wine, Minus the Bear, Newton Faulkner, Pinback, Metric, etc. Do many of you know these bands? Some might....
So, STARS that are 40 or younger...... Based on MUSIC, and not just fame or hype..... Adele comes to mind (though she has not been around that long and time will tell - she does have the talent). Hard to pick much else.... I guess I am a bit out of touch with today's styles..... I guess i am older than I thought.... :silly:
Very good question Tony. Maybe I'll revisit this with a bit more thought.
MJ
It seems I'm getting old, decrepit, and irrelevent, but I think since the 90's or so, there's been more continual turnover in the world of popular music and fewer artists with staying power.
(Or, as Chris Rock said at the MTV awards a few years back, it's "here today, gone today.")
Maybe with the advent of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, our attention span is not what it used to be.
Now we find a sound we like, and then it's on to the next thing. Few artist can maintain our attention.
My folks also listened to Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole and Tony Bennett, so I grew up liking that sound.
The Stars with staying power from my generation (in my opinion) are or were.
Elvis
Beach Boys
Willie Nelson
Bob Dylan
Beatles
Stones
Madonna
Neil Young
Pink Floyd (I think they still have the biggest selling album)
U2
There's probably at least 10-20 more that will have that staying power. (But, since I'm old I can't remember).
Todays stars that may eventually have that staying power. (There's probably more in this group too, but remember, I'm still old).
Nirvana
Green Day
Eminem
Alicia Keys
Adele (????) Still to be determined
Christina Aguilera
Dave Matthews
(Or, as Chris Rock said at the MTV awards a few years back, it's "here today, gone today.")
Maybe with the advent of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, our attention span is not what it used to be.
Now we find a sound we like, and then it's on to the next thing. Few artist can maintain our attention.
My folks also listened to Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole and Tony Bennett, so I grew up liking that sound.
The Stars with staying power from my generation (in my opinion) are or were.
Elvis
Beach Boys
Willie Nelson
Bob Dylan
Beatles
Stones
Madonna
Neil Young
Pink Floyd (I think they still have the biggest selling album)
U2
There's probably at least 10-20 more that will have that staying power. (But, since I'm old I can't remember).
Todays stars that may eventually have that staying power. (There's probably more in this group too, but remember, I'm still old).
Nirvana
Green Day
Eminem
Alicia Keys
Adele (????) Still to be determined
Christina Aguilera
Dave Matthews
My point was that there are many *more* artists with staying power, because musicians are far less beholden to giant record companies than they used to be. They might not be "stars," but they are working musicians with small (or medium-sized) but loyal fan bases. So they keep working, even if they never hit the big time. I think this is great -- we don't need "stars," we need good music, and there's tons of it out there. The difference is that these days, you often have to actively seek it out, because most of it is never played on the radio.
The phenomenon of "rock stars" was pretty short-lived, in historical terms. It doesn't seem that way to us because our entire lives had been dominated by it. It was a confluence of economics, technology, and culture that gave us that. But thanks to the Internet, we seem to be going back, in some ways, to a time when there were few "stars" but there were lots of musicians. I say, good!
The phenomenon of "rock stars" was pretty short-lived, in historical terms. It doesn't seem that way to us because our entire lives had been dominated by it. It was a confluence of economics, technology, and culture that gave us that. But thanks to the Internet, we seem to be going back, in some ways, to a time when there were few "stars" but there were lots of musicians. I say, good!
-
Music Junkie
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:17 am
- Status: Offline
unclewalt wrote:
I misunderstood...sorry.... Still a good point though, and I would not argue with you on that..... B)My point was that there are many *more* artists with staying power, because musicians are far less beholden to giant record companies than they used to be. They might not be "stars," but they are working musicians with small (or medium-sized) but loyal fan bases. So they keep working, even if they never hit the big time. I think this is great -- we don't need "stars," we need good music, and there's tons of it out there. The difference is that these days, you often have to actively seek it out, because most of it is never played on the radio.
The phenomenon of "rock stars" was pretty short-lived, in historical terms. It doesn't seem that way to us because our entire lives had been dominated by it. It was a confluence of economics, technology, and culture that gave us that. But thanks to the Internet, we seem to be going back, in some ways, to a time when there were few "stars" but there were lots of musicians. I say, good!
I was more addressing Max' Chris Rock quote, which is probably somewhat true for big stars, in terms of them staying big stars.
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.
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.