Can you be HUGELY successful and NOT a wh0r3?

[wwwjd]

because new music has dwindled down to crappy, cookie cutter over production, and people that have to get nekked to get an audience.... thus this thread.

without getting TOO into the nit-picky of EXACTLY what constitutes "HUGELY SUCCESSFUL", I'd say everyone knows Gaga and Katy Perry whether they like them or not.

Large concerts are expensive - so they are for older crowds that will pay. Kids around here go to Snoop Dogg for $20 and stuff like that. So, yes, concerts from the hasbeens

sell well to the older crowd (of which I am) and they are hugely successful in the touring realm... but they are not the ones getting naked and don't really fit here, I don't think.

None of them are topping the iTunes sales charts.

 

Personally, I'm all for the resurgance of GREAT music. I'm working up wiring songs exaclty as it was done pre-computer: with band members, live. Not all pasted together. I hope

the new ways are the old GOOD ways once again. Because the stuff being shat out today is truly yawn inspiring.

[Vito Corleone]

because new music has dwindled down to crappy, cookie cutter over production, and people that have to get nekked to get an audience.... thus this thread. without getting TOO into the nit-picky of EXACTLY what constitutes "HUGELY SUCCESSFUL", I'd say everyone knows Gaga and Katy Perry whether they like them or not. Large concerts are expensive - so they are for older crowds that will pay. Kids around here go to Snoop Dogg for $20 and stuff like that. So, yes, concerts from the hasbeens sell well to the older crowd (of which I am) and they are hugely successful in the touring realm... but they are not the ones getting naked and don't really fit here, I don't think. None of them are topping the iTunes sales charts. Personally, I'm all for the resurgance of GREAT music. I'm working up wiring songs exaclty as it was done pre-computer: with band members, live. Not all pasted together. I hope the new ways are the old GOOD ways once again. Because the stuff being shat out today is truly yawn inspiring.

Except for the substitution of a few names and terms, this exact same post could have been written in 1966.

[BlueStrat]

 

Except for the substitution of a few names and terms, this exact same post could have been written in 1966.

 

 

Yes, but the difference is, in 1966 no band had a real shot at any kind of acclaim outside the label/airplay system. Today, that's changed drastically. While I make predictions with a lot of reservation, I do see radio pop as becoming just another niche market in the next 10 or 15 years, losing a lot of it's market share. I'm thinking the days of superstar status is all but over except for maybe just a handful of performers. I mean, think about it: in 1966, even te most diehard country fan knew who the Beatles were. And likewise, every rocker knew who Johnny Cash or Hank Williams or Elvis was. Today, few country fans know who the Black Eyed Peas or Akon or Kei$ha is. Few pop fans know who Josh Turner or Lady Antebellum are. And almost no one knows who the top metal bands are. Each niche has it's own following, oblivious to the others simply because they don't ever have to listen to it.

 

Of course, I could be completely full of it.

[Vito Corleone]

Yes, but the difference is, in 1966 no band had a real shot at any kind of acclaim outside the label/airplay system. Today, that's changed drastically. While I make predictions with a lot of reservation, I do see radio pop as becoming just another niche market in the next 10 or 15 years, losing a lot of it's market share. I'm thinking the days of superstar status is all but over except for maybe just a handful of performers. I mean, think about it: in 1966, even te most diehard country fan knew who the Beatles were. And likewise, every rocker knew who Johnny Cash or Hank Williams or Elvis was. Today, few country fans know who the Black Eyed Peas or Akon or Kei$ha is. Few pop fans know who Josh Turner or Lady Antebellum are. And almost no one knows who the top metal bands are. Each niche has it's own following, oblivious to the others simply because they don't ever have to listen to it. Of course, I could be completely full of it.

 

 

Very true that everything is more 'niched' these days. That's true with everything. There's 150 TV channels instead of just 3. Pop radio certainly doesn't have the power it once had and there are all sorts of different avenues for getting ones music out there.

 

What I was address was the "old music is great/all the new stuff is {censored}" comments that I've been listening to since I was a little kid.

[kurdy]

well, Adele is working on her third release, and she is still huge in the UK; here not quite yet, but I do agree she needs more of an 'act', and she needs to 'toughen up' her songwriting...because it does indeed all start to run together when you hear them one after another. BTW, I don't believe anyone said the gatekeepers make the hits, they just decide who can ...not who will .

 

 

Yes, Adele really needs to hone her act and get better at what she’s doing so she can become…more successful? Is there a number higher than #1?

 

Adele has pretty much blown up already. To anyone who pays attention to current music, she’s about as big as it gets in the current business. Her latest album has been on top for months, she’s had a long running #1 hit song on the radio. She may not be a superstar on the level of Gaga, Katy or Kanye, but the reasons why those acts are such huge superstars have little to do with their music.

 

People used to criticize MTV, the argument being that it was all about the look rather than the music. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but those days probably weren’t so bad after all. At least when all those weird images and outfits and crazy haircuts were flashing across the screen, it was accompanying a song performed by the artist in the video. It was a visual representation of their music, and it all tied together.

 

These days, pop stars are superstars for the same reason as the Kardashian sisters are superstars—they are personalities above all else. Music has little to do with it. A lot of people hear about them that have never heard their music. If you want to reach superstar status, you basically have to have a bit of a “train wreck” factor. Wear outrageous costumes, date celebrities, say ridiculous things in the press, court the paparazzi, post some hateful rants on twitter--all things to keep the media talking about you.

 

However, becoming a bona fide superstar isn’t the only route available. There are quite a few artists--Adele being the most obvious example—that you don’t really hear about too often in the media, but their music is all over the radio—kind of a throwback to the pre-MTV days. Other examples are OneRepublic, Sara Bareilles, The Script, Train, Maroon5, Lady Antebellum, even Coldplay (or three of its members anyway)—we probably have all heard one of their songs at one point or another—we just might not know who sings them, and wouldn’t be able to pick them out of a crowd of people...Then, there are a lot of artists who don’t get played on the radio that have huge fan bases and sell out wherever they play. There are a lot of gradations; it’s no longer that either you’re a star or you’re nobody. I’d say that’s mostly a good thing. If I had a choice between being a superstar celebrity, and being a fairly unknown personality with a bunch of hit songs under my belt (or even just an underground act with a loyal fanbase), I’d choose the latter. Fortunately (or not), that's a decision most of us will probably never be faced with.

[wwwjd]

I seriously think this is a great direction for this thread. I mean it. No sarcasm here. Totally fits!

 

One thing you must not forget is that pop is marketed at the kids... almost always. What we old farts think about trends, old bands playing sold out shows, singers looking like hookers, musical directions... is all irrelevent in the kids minds. WE might see pop fading and dieing off a little, but I serioously beleiee it will always been the mainstay for tweens and teens in high school - those with disposable income. Once they hit college, they hear indi estuff and spread their minds much more... but before then, pop will always "pop" with them. I feel anyway. So, as we grow older, wiser, we grow away from this format and it does look more foriegn to us, and worse with each decade... to the kids buying it, dancing to it, making the hugely successful successful, it is always the same.

 

I DO beleive the quality of WRITING has gone down with the advances of toys for everyone to make music (or think they do), and there is no stopping that.

The thing. One of my personal goals in life is to never become outdated musically, and I've held on for 20 years past my "youth" so far. That said, the playing field HAS changed and it is not for the better. No, it is not new, but it has gotten bad..... NOW we have to have labels on music warning parents of Explicit content, NOW we songs that directly describe sex activity instead of slyly hinting or suggesting it with colorful artistic verbage, NOW we have female artists that are interchangeable with porn stars, NOW there are more negative depressing songs online than positive ones (do a bunch of research and you will see what I mean).... all this lead me to this topic, CAN one be HUGE SUCESSFUL (to the kids that buy music?) and not dress like a porn star?

 

There is a huge glut.amount of music out now... maybe that is what it takes to get noticed: get naked. I think that is a cheap copout myself. But sex does sell.

 

Good thinking man's discussion. Thanks to all participants. I'm not right or wrong, jsut tossing in ideas

[iblastoff]

Serious discussion please. I do understand the primal link tween music and sex. I do. But for the last decade marketing has reached increasingly lower to exploite hot sexy girls to make them pop stars. What about them makes them stars other than taking more clothes off? Is that the only difference: a great singer VS a great singer that will get close to naked? Will POP STARS next big evolution just become PORN STARS? Just off the top of my head we had {censored} CAT DOLLS, BRITNEY SPEARS, LADY GAGA, KATY PERRY, RIHANNA, KESHA, Nikki Minaj (Minaj? REALLY?) all playing the Happy Hooker card as image and videos, willing to take most of it off, and sing very directly about porno style action. At least Beyonce is keeping it halfway classy. Now, I'm not a prude, nor against sex on any level, but my question remains, do you HAVE TO BE A WH0RE to succeed in music now? Also in the last year 3 songs were charting, or rather, competing to push the envelope of "look at my lack of talent, I can cover that with the shocking F word" F**kin' Perfect - Pink F**k You - Cee Lo Green Tonight I'm F**king you - Eglesias guy Really? Music can't do any better than ho's and swearing? (I know there is a ton of other music charting, but for discussion....) I didn't get into music to do porno. I'll do PORNO if I want porno.

 

 

in lady gagas defence, she is ugly as {censored}. her sex appeal is definitey not whats sky rocketing her to the top.

besides, the majority of fans of the artists you're mentioning are girls anyway. do you actually know any non-gay dude who listens to britney spears just because shes 'hot'??

[wwwjd]

maybe because they know that where the girls are listening, the guys are there? gotta appeal to ANY possible buyer. At clubs, the girl want to be her, and the guys want to be near the girls, so they setup the chain reaction. but that is a good point, WHO ARE they marketing too being all sexyified? I know some guys would buy and be caught listening to it BECAUSE it is what the girls like, and are drawn to: "ooH! I LOVE THIS SONG! Turn it up!" they say, starting to dance outside his car...

[kmart]

This...

She may not be a superstar on the level of Gaga, Katy or Kanye, but the reasons why those acts are such huge superstars have little to do with their music.

Doesn't matter if it's 'about music' or not: Adele ain't nowhere near 'as big as it gets' in the current business.
Not even close.

To put it in perspective in timely terms: if Gaga, Katy Perry or Kanye were playing Lollapalooza this weekend, they would be headlining.
Adele would not.

[Vito Corleone]

WHO ARE they marketing too being all sexyified?

 

 

Young girls explore their sexuality vicariously through these pop-tarts (to a certain degree.) And that's not anything new either. Madonna certainly didn't appeal to straight males much.

 

It's not much different from the male-appeal of certain male rock stars and metal bands. These guys create an image, either visually or through the music, that young boys aspire to being and therefore become fans of the musicians.

[3shiftgtr]

The premise is that HARDCORE PORN is the (only) reason CURRENT artists are successful/popular.

First off that is not my premise. Agreed that porn is not the reason, it is merely a tool (no pun intended, put a pretty good one doncha think?) used by the artist.

Please show everyone a SINGLE example of HARDCORE PORN attached to a pop star who is current, relevant, and most of all... popular (or at least this decade) as a result of their HARDCORE PORN antics, if you can (The previous list fails at that, IMO).

Well to my point, current and relevant aren't the same. Current? O.K., true, GaGa and Perry and Ke$ha etc. haven't opened up for the cameras....but that isn't relevant to the bigger point that I have been trying to get across. What is relevant is it's application to society, it's ramifications, and what you have to do to be popular. The bottom line is that in recent history, people HAVE sucked it on camera and used it as a marketing tool. And that fact remains a truth. And it is applicable to the discussion at hand. It doesn't discount it's effects because it is relevant to what is accepted morality in the use of sex as a sales tool.

Look, I think a clarification is in order here. After re-reading this thread, it seems there is a division; one group crying PRUDE!, and the other group crying WHORE! It seems as though I am coming across in the WHORE camp. My intention isn't to judge the act of selling sex. My point is the percieved 'line of morality' and why it is there, and how it is used.

The thing I have not done a good job of in my posts is to clarify my point as being empirical by nature...observation and experience. I have been in imaging meetings where it is suggested that 'the line' gets moved: that controversy is NEEDED to further their career. So in my mind, this comes from the top. I used porn as an example of the line getting moved. My point that porn has been used is that I am 100% sure that most of the 'leaked' porn out there, is there on purpose. We obviously disagree on that point....and going into that discussion only ends in an agreement to disagree....but it none the less points to a formula that is used to achieve greater levels of FAME and NOTORIETY. And my point is that you can't logically say that Annette's sweater in the 50's is the same as the current crop of semi nudes. It can't be because THE LINE MOVED. And in order for the model to keep working, the line has to continually move. Celeb porn, planned or not, was used by the artists as a tool and helped to move that line.

And if the line constantly moves, what happens next? Everybody is saying that it is nothing new cuz we are now sexualized etc. And I AGREE. The selling of sex is the selling of sex, and in that regard, there is no difference between Annette's sweater and sucking caulk. The model is selling sex. But within that model, what needs to be done? A line of morality has to be drawn and you either need to straddle it (no pun intended, but yet there it is), jump to the other side, or try to move it. We all agree that the line has moved over the years. What is being asked is can you be successful and not 'drop trau'. And the answer, in regards to how business is conducted, lies in where the line is and where the artist finds themselves in relation to it.

Annette's sweater didn't move the line it only got attention. Same with Katy Perry's semi nudes. But SOMEBODY moved that damn line. And the porn thing me using just one example.....celeb porn moved the line a bit....playboy in the 50's moved it....G.G. Allin moved it in the underground.....Norwegian black metal moved it when they sang about burning churches and killing Christians, burnt churches and killed Christians and put photos of the burnt churches on your album cover, then selling records as a result.

And that is what I have been doing a bad job of getting across. Sorry if I came across antagonistic or like I was pointing and screaming "WHORE". I wasn't. I'm not coming at the point as a consumer or even judging the consumer. I'm thinking in terms of controlling someone's career.

Sorry for the too long post.

[3shiftgtr]

The "pop tarts" are just one aspect of that and REFLECT what is going on in larger society at LEAST as much as they drive it.

 

 

I disagree. I come from the camp that believes that society at large doesn't move the line of what is accepted and fashionable, some one has to introduce it. In the business of music, there is a LOT of money spent on starting trends and the people who are willing do so. While I can't speak to the number of people who dress in startling sub culture fashions before they get mainstream popular, I feel that it takes some one to sell it to the public at large.

 

So they are inspired by a few, and the goal is to inspire many. Maybe it is a matter of terms, but 'reflecting' is different than 'being inspired by' in my mind; this is what is going on in societey vs. these people inspire me and I'm gonna take this to the mainstream.

[Vito Corleone]

I disagree. I come from the camp that believes that society at large doesn't move the line of what is accepted and fashionable, some one has to introduce it.

 

 

Agreed, I'm just not sure it's the poptarts who do that. I don't think they are the ones who move the line. They certainly have no problem rubbing up against it for every dollar they can get, but that line has already been moved by the time they get there.

[daddymack]

where is Tipper Gore when we need her?

 

All media undergoes changes as to what is and is not acceptable, based on a myriad of external and internal influences. I can remember when married couples on TV slept in separate beds. Then one day *wham* people are having trysts in hotel rooms during prime time..I remember when cursing on radio, TV, or records was verboten...you never even heard 'crap', 'damn', 'hell'...

So did the media change, or the world around it change?

Both...McLuhan said 'the medium is the message', and yes, it is, but the unspoken point he was making was that it reflects the state of the society in which it exists, as well as partially defining the society itself.

Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying “The government you elect is government you deserve.” H.L. Mencken said the same thing, but better: "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard." In many ways, this applies to mass media, including music.

[BlueStrat]

What I was address was the "old music is great/all the new stuff is {censored}" comments that I've been listening to since I was a little kid.

 

 

Ah. Well we know that's a crock!

[BlueStrat]

 

Yes, Adele really needs to hone her act and get better at what she’s doing so she can become…more successful? Is there a number higher than #1? Adele has pretty much blown up already. To anyone who pays attention to current music, she’s about as big as it gets in the current business. Her latest album has been on top for months, she’s had a long running #1 hit song on the radio. She may not be a superstar on the level of Gaga, Katy or Kanye, but the reasons why those acts are such huge superstars have little to do with their music.

 

 

Being #1 for a few months isn't the same as being a superstar.

 

Ever hear of a band called "Paperboy" who had a #1 hit in 1992 called "Ditty"? How about Stephen Bishop, Rupert Holmes, Mungo Jerry, Melanie, and hundreds of others who had hit records and never were heard from again?

[Vito Corleone]

where is Tipper Gore when we need her?

Divorced.

So much for family values, 'eh?

[kmart]

guido61 The "pop tarts" are just one aspect of that and REFLECT what is going on in larger society at LEAST as much as they drive it.

 

 

 

I disagree. I come from the camp that believes that society at large doesn't move the line of what is accepted and fashionable, some one has to introduce it.

 

 

Seems as if you're saying that because you believe what you say above, Guido's belief (also quoted above) isn't possible.

In other words, that they are conflicting/mutually exclusive ideas.

 

But they aren't, at all.

Think objectively about what each of you are saying; I believe you can see what I mean.

 

Now I do certainly believe that it's always been the case that some are just ahead of the curve (of change, be that positive, neutral or negative), and influence the rest of society, subtley at first, then with more obvious and impactful nudges.

 

But it sure isn't the 'pop tarts' pushing that envelope anywhere near at the level being implied, no way, IMO.

[kmart]

Divorced. So much for family values, 'eh?

 

 

An ignorant hypocrite speaking about things she clearly didn't fully understand and/or comprehend, from a long line of idiots who lived solely by making snap-judgement blanket statements about the world.

I don't know what I've enjoyed more over the years: Tipper being made to look like the dim-bulb she is at the PMRC witch-hunt hearings by the well-thought statements of Frank Zappa, or Tipper being made to look like the dim-bulb she is by the clearly less articulate Dee Snider.

[Vito Corleone]

An ignorant hypocrite speaking about things she clearly didn't fully understand and/or comprehend, from a long line of idiots who lived solely by making snap-judgement blanket statements about the world. I don't know what I've enjoyed more over the years: Tipper being made to look like the dim-bulb she is at the PMRC witch-hunt hearings by the well-thought statements of Frank Zappa, or Tipper being made to look like the dim-bulb she is by the clearly less articulate Dee Snider.

 

 

I agree with you, but the other side of that coin?

 

All the fear of our free speech being infringed upon simply because Tipper Gore wanted to put that stupid Parental Advisory label on CDs? THAT'S hardly come to fruition.

 

And "Darling Nikki" seems downright quaint compared to the stuff being released since the advent of the Parental Advisory label.

[wwwjd]

Good point. this is a bad thread to go down here, but it is sort of related.... afterall, we have ratings on movies, if SONGS are going to get all "Adult" (also read pornographic?) they need ratings also. Shouldn't be a big deal.

The second your innocent 8 year old daughter starts researching what exactly is meant by "Come on rude boy, boy Can you get it up, Come here rude boy, boy Is you big enough, Take it, take it" after she had been singing it all afternoon, all your worries about censorship fly out the window and you wonder how it ever came to this.

[3shiftgtr]

Seems as if you're saying that because you believe what you say above, Guido's belief (also quoted above) isn't possible. In other words, that they are conflicting/mutually exclusive ideas.

 

 

As I understand it, mutually exclusive events are events that cannot happen at the same time (heads and tails can't happen in the same coin toss). I think your saying that they are NOT mutually exclusive....that they CAN happen at the same time, right?

 

My opinion regarding that is this: The idea that someone can reflect what is popular in mass culture AND create what is popular in mass culture by using the same thing is mutually exclusive. And it comes from looking at it empirically: like a person in the business. You can't wear Lady GaGa's popular outfits and break new ground....if your Lady GaGa. Lady GaGa has to REINTRODUCE something that motivates people to dress like her.

 

And Guido's thing as I understood it is that a sub culture phenomenon happens at smaller level and then is sold to a larger group, such as in the Madonna example.

 

My disagreement comes from the fact that we are talking about being huge....mass popular culture....and you can't reflect a trend in mass popular culture and drive that same trend at the same time.

 

 

But it sure isn't the 'pop tarts' pushing that envelope anywhere near at the level being implied, no way, IMO.

 

 

Agreed. Not right now. The current crop ain't that popular.....but I remember when grunge hit...when Madonna hit...when Michael Jackson hit....I've heard about what happened when the Beatles hit.....the fashions and behaviors of popular mass culture changed over night.....

 

 

Now I do certainly believe that it's always been the case that some are just ahead of the curve (of change, be that positive, neutral or negative), and influence the rest of society, subtle at first, then with more obvious and impactful nudges.

 

 

But that is coming from the point of the consumer isn't it? It has to be planned, agreed upon and marketed by the artist, label and team....if they are ahead of the curve it is cuz that was discussed, considered and approved by the powers that be, and quite possibly changed 20 times before we got what we see/hear. And therefore there is a level of control exerted by the people providing the content to MAKE it influential. So it is not some subtle natural thing that just happens as a result of some quirky musician's music....

[kmart]

 

The second your innocent 8 year old daughter starts researching what exactly is meant by "Come on rude boy, boy Can you get it up, Come here rude boy, boy Is you big enough, Take it, take it" after she had been singing it all afternoon, all your worries about censorship fly out the window and you wonder how it ever came to this.

 

 

Oh, I see: it's the musicians and music industry's fault that one lets their 8 year old daughter listen to music with what they feel are objectionable lyrics AND that they allow their 8 year old daughter look up what those lyrics mean...probably online, right?

 

Yeah, those damn irresponsible music people, and them not caring to raise our poor innocent children for us.

 

Sorry, but your post appears to put even the tiniest bit of responsibility on the music biz/musicians for something that is 100% square on the shoulders of the parent.

 

That's hogwash/ridiculous.

 

What SHOULDN'T be a big deal is a parent filtering media for their child and at the same time recognizing they won't catch everything, so they best raise their child to be able to comprehend what might not be right for them to be listening to, watching, reading, etc.

 

Or they can just expect someone else to do it for them. I'm sure THAT will work out fine.

[BlueStrat]

 

Oh, I see: it's the musicians and music industry's fault that one lets their 8 year old daughter listen to music with what they feel are objectionable lyrics AND that they allow their 8 year old daughter look up what those lyrics mean...probably online, right?

 

 

Is it then your contention that media doesn't have a cumulative effect on society as a whole? Sure, you can make your kid (as an example) stop watching violent programming or playing violent video games, but it other parents don't care, and their kids start acting out and becoming violent, doesn't that affect everyone? If media didn't have a cumulative effect over time, advertising wouldn't work, would it?

 

 

Let's take smoking as another example. Back in the day, media portrayed smoking as glamorous and something sophisticated adults did. And because of it, most people smoked at one time or another, and kids couldn't wait to start. But in the 70s/80s it was determined that smoking was unhealthy, and media was employed to change attitudes. Over time, smoking disappeared from advertising, TV, most movies, and it's been banned in public places largely due to the influence of media. Now, smokers are practically regarded as pariahs. That would not have been possible without the power of media.

 

The fact is, yes, media reflects current values but it also re-inforces them and moves them a little further to the extreme with each passing year. I don't think this can even be argued otherwise. The question is, does media ONLY reflect what we are already doing, or does it contribute to the societal evolution? I say the latter.

 

I see marketing the same way I see any kind of propaganda: it's designed to sway opinion and change attitudes about ideas or products, with the recipient unaware of it.

[wwwjd]

 

Oh, I see: it's the musicians and music industry's fault that one lets their 8 year old daughter listen to music with what they feel are objectionable lyrics AND that they allow their 8 year old daughter look up what those lyrics mean...probably online, right? Yeah, those damn irresponsible music people, and them not caring to raise our poor innocent children for us. Sorry, but your post appears to put even the tiniest bit of responsibility on the music biz/musicians for something that is 100% square on the shoulders of the parent. That's hogwash/ridiculous. What SHOULDN'T be a big deal is a parent filtering media for their child and at the same time recognizing they won't catch everything, so they best raise their child to be able to comprehend what might not be right for them to be listening to, watching, reading, etc. Or they can just expect someone else to do it for them. I'm sure THAT will work out fine.

 

 

ok..... then... why do we bother having ratings on movies? Is SEEING somehow harsher than LISTENING? Should movie "ratings" go away as well? ... parents problem and all....