Soulflower

There are a ton of female as well as male singers/artists that have it. They have the looks, they have the charisma, they are good performers, songwriters, make creative music and so forth. However, we will probably never hear about them outside of their niche audiences or word of mouth.



Once upon a time the formula of a pop star was looks + catchy music+ marketable image+ flashy spetacle

and Tada!!!

You have yourself a popstar


but this formula seems to be null and void for this generation of pop stars (not that I liked that formula but just observation). It seems the decision on who becomes a super star in todays music era is based on the industry itself versus the old school formula and public opinion.

I guess my question is...why?

There are a ton of artists and performers that have the looks, are great performers and produce great music. They have the "it" factors so why aren't they superstars?

It appears the industry simply does not want to market them. There are artists that would and could be superstars if they had the marketing to reach more people. The industry just wants to market its select few for whatever reason

Once again...why?

I am so sick of the hypersexual pop stars that make generic pop music while other female pop stars make more creative music get less attention.

I am sick of the corny wannabe male pop stars that make imitation bland versions of previous music for past era's.

The mainstream industry could be so much bigger if they simply market other artists.

Why does the mainstream industry want the pop artists to have small competition? Why do they black ball those other artists for the sake of the established ones? Why doesn't the mainstream industry care about creativity like it once did?


I notice this is a rock orientated forum. Do you music listeners even care about the state of the music industry or popular music?

blackdragon123

...Are you...criticising the "industry's" preference of vacuous pop icons over genuine musical talent and passion...or criticising their decision to not take on every single potential pop icon they come across?

If the answer is "both"...then I...I just don't know what to think

__________________
'Well, I'm a common working man,
With a half of bitter, bread and jam,
And if it pleases me, I'll put one on ya man,
When the copper fades away!' - Jethro Tull

Soulflower

Is that your opinion? Are you trying to imply a point? Can you please explain?

I guess it is a mixture of both issues but a little more the bolded.

There are artists that have a marketable image and they also make creative catchy music but they are still overlooked.

blackdragon123

Well I suppose you sort-of answered your own question...

If the "industry" markets every potential pop icon it comes across, it will create an unsustainable level of competition, and the least popular will just die out anyway, leaving only the "mega-stars" to take the crown and keep the competition limited to a handful. Seeing as they all kind-of look and sound the same, I guess it'll just be about who looks the sexiest in their music videos.

It's like capitalism...or natural selection...or something like that.

__________________
'Well, I'm a common working man,
With a half of bitter, bread and jam,
And if it pleases me, I'll put one on ya man,
When the copper fades away!' - Jethro Tull

Soulflower

You are right but I would challenge your opinion and say that even in the
80's there was still alot of competition.

Although the 80's had big stars like MJ and Madonna, they still had Prince, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind and Fire, Bon Jovi, U2, Bruce Springton, Whitney Houston, etc. There still was a balance and a variety despite the bigger stars and it made it more interesting. There was a varity of stars playing on the radio likewise selling out arena's and it is not like that any more.

Even during the 90's and early 00's there was way more competition than what it is today.

The popularity of today's pop stars is not a reflection of their music and talent but more so because of image and marketing. People are not buying pop music anymore and before someone makes the "internet/youtube arguement" when Adele became a superstar she became a superstar because people liked her music.

Her "21" album has sold far more than any other pop star that is out right now. So while it appears the others are more popular, it seems people are more interested in listening and buying quality music. I am not a huge Adele fan but she does have more depth to her music compared to the other pop singers.

So that tells me that people will pay for quality music and are interested in other singers besides what is being shoved down their ears.

If people were exposed to different types of artists they would be just as popular in my opinion.

blackdragon123

Maybe. There's nothing stopping people finding these under-appreciated acts and styles though. You could scan through a few threads on this forum and find a few hundred artists you've maybe never listened to before.

But you could argue that thanks to the internet and social media, there is too much competition. Anyone can get their tunes out there in this day and age through their own efforts. The prime issue is that there's far too much of it and so much of it is crap.

But all the shallow pop nonsense still sells and brings in the millions...I suppose some people just like the radio. It's just "one of those things".

__________________
'Well, I'm a common working man,
With a half of bitter, bread and jam,
And if it pleases me, I'll put one on ya man,
When the copper fades away!' - Jethro Tull

Soulflower

Well I understand people can find their underappreciated artists or singers but I just thought it would be interesting to discuss for discussion purposes.

I don't think its because people just "like the radio". I think people like what they are overexposed to or have been exposed to. I think the general music listener is use to a particular style of music or singer so they just accept it since pop music is so easily accessible.

If people were introduced to a different type of artist or singer I think they would like it as well.

I think the internet has made it easier for music listeners to appreciate their underappreciated artists and other music but it still does not change that the pop industry looks over them. I know it doesnt matter what the industry thinks but once upon a time the industry was more diverse than what it is now. I think it can still be diverse but for some reason the industry does not want it to be.

Soulflower

Oh and blackdragon, thanks for your opinions!

blackdragon123

no worries!

__________________
'Well, I'm a common working man,
With a half of bitter, bread and jam,
And if it pleases me, I'll put one on ya man,
When the copper fades away!' - Jethro Tull

Balto91

......I care about the industry and where its going. If you ask me, ever since especially when Lady Gaga came out it has gone to (thumbs down, raspberries). Ever since LG's arrival, you've had Kesha, Katy Perry, Lorde, all copycats copying mediocre sounds (I almost stopped using Roland keyboards after Roland began endorsing LG).

They say everything comes back in style eventually. I believe we are beginning to see this in music. With the 80's how everything was dance pop oriented (e.g. Michael Jackson) Same goes for the vinyls, even new ones. So I believe the Lady Gaga/Beyonce thing we're seeing is a nowadays Madonna thing going on. The problem that exits that didn't exist in the 80's is the technology. When Madonna was out, what was king was the Roland Juno's and NES. Fast forward almost 30 years later, now we have so many more dance friendly products (e.g. Ableton, Propellerhead), the dreaded autotuning and other computer friendly software/hardware I think getting out of the recreated 80's buzz might take some time. If we're lucky, we'll get another Nirvana/Offspring comeback.