great post

Excellent thread Motown and these are very valid points. I think the lack of middle in between stars is attributed to lack of talent and politics. IMO, todays record labels and the industry are not invested in promoting other talents besides the "big name" acts. The big name acts get the most promotion, the most marketing, the most nominations, the most performances times and other elite opportunities because that is what the industry wants. Unlike the industry of the 80's and 90's, there seems to be more industry politics at play now more than ever. IMO, I think todays industry controls more of who stays at the top and who stays at the bottom compared to the way the industry worked in the 80's. Nowadays, this is largely manipulated and constructed by the industry and media and less to do with general public interest. I think the career tragectory of Bruno and Adele shows that the public wants more midde in between stars and variety. To be clear, I don't consider them middle stars, they are definitly super stars but these artists first started out as indie acts and became instant super stars overnight mainly by word of mouth and natural public interest. I don't think the industry machine played as much of a role in them becoming super stars unlike some other stars out now.

[Edited 10/9/16 14:14pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

Record labels believe the easiest way to make the most money is by over relying on the most popular acts instead of allowing the development of a bigger pool of talent. The most popular stars may receive the most lucrative contracts and the most promotion but the value of a top tier star should be offset by an influx of acts who aren't as popular. The number of "superstar level" acts should be far greater than those on the "megastar level".

This is another good point that is not often stated and I would like to add to this point.

The lack of the middle class super star has had a impact on todays generation because the lack of the middle class super stars has cheapen the value of the so called "top tier star" as you stated. Since record labels today oversaturate the pop maket with the same "big name stars" it has taken away from their super star status imo and their are receipts that reflect this. There seems to be a lack of interest in award shows, album sells, etc due to the lack of star power overall in the industry. This is why I say politics are at play in the industry because a lot of these stars nowadays receive payola and pandering that is not reflected in how the general public see's them. The industry needs to develop more artists and diverse brand to spark interest in music again.

mjscarousal said:

mjscarousal said:

Excellent thread Motown and these are very valid points. I think the lack of middle in between stars is attributed to lack of talent and politics. IMO, todays record labels and the industry are not invested in promoting other talents besides the "big name" acts. The big name acts get the most promotion, the most marketing, the most nominations, the most performances times and other elite opportunities because that is what the industry wants. Unlike the industry of the 80's and 90's, there seems to be more industry politics at play now more than ever. IMO, I think todays industry controls more of who stays at the top and who stays at the bottom compared to the way the industry worked in the 80's. Nowadays, this is largely manipulated and constructed by the industry and media and less to do with general public interest. I think the career tragectory of Bruno and Adele shows that the public wants more midde in between stars and variety. To be clear, I don't consider them middle stars, they are definitly super stars but these artists first started out as indie acts and became instant super stars overnight mainly by word of mouth and natural public interest. I don't think the industry machine played as much of a role in them becoming super stars unlike some other stars out now.

mjscarousal this has always been to the case to one degree or another...

Lady T. found out she had sold more records than Motown claimed because a local distributor told her sales records truly in his area alone. The same can be said of Chaka Khan who said she was told she sold 250,000 on average in the Chicago Metro Area before other stations put her record on a turntable. I suspect that the shaving or just out and out lying about records sale profit when into the pockets of the label or was used to invest in the artist they decided to invest in heavenly. What destroyed thew so call middle chart acts, Peter Frampton, greed, and music CD's. Once the realize they could quadruple there profits with CD's, those middle acts were treated like one, two or maybe 3 hit CD hit wonders. Then it go to the point the goal was to maximize profits the middle chart acts were disposable, like a revolving door, hit it and drop it.

What the suits didn't see coming down the pick was the Internet or the digital age. There was no Clearwater conglomerate's, DJ has some say if not totally control of what they played and music was local. Music from the Chicago labels, Vee-Jay, Chess Records, OKeh, ABC-Paramount Brunswick Curton Chi-Sound just to name a few were supported by local stations plaything their artist/singers.

Those days of controlling and who on the charts and who aren't are over. Folks of all ages are to scattered over the Internet and TV (young people don't watch TV) for people to be corralled and marketed too. I'm cool with that....

TD3 said:

mjscarousal said:

Excellent thread Motown and these are very valid points. I think the lack of middle in between stars is attributed to lack of talent and politics. IMO, todays record labels and the industry are not invested in promoting other talents besides the "big name" acts. The big name acts get the most promotion, the most marketing, the most nominations, the most performances times and other elite opportunities because that is what the industry wants. Unlike the industry of the 80's and 90's, there seems to be more industry politics at play now more than ever. IMO, I think todays industry controls more of who stays at the top and who stays at the bottom compared to the way the industry worked in the 80's. Nowadays, this is largely manipulated and constructed by the industry and media and less to do with general public interest. I think the career tragectory of Bruno and Adele shows that the public wants more midde in between stars and variety. To be clear, I don't consider them middle stars, they are definitly super stars but these artists first started out as indie acts and became instant super stars overnight mainly by word of mouth and natural public interest. I don't think the industry machine played as much of a role in them becoming super stars unlike some other stars out now.

mjscarousal this has always been to the case to one degree or another...

Lady T. found out she had sold more records than Motown claimed because a local distributor told her sales records truly in his area alone. The same can be said of Chaka Khan who said she was told she sold 250,000 on average in the Chicago Metro Area before other stations put her record on a turntable. I suspect that the shaving or just out and out lying about records sale profit when into the pockets of the label or was used to invest in the artist they decided to invest in heavenly. What destroyed thew so call middle chart acts, Peter Frampton, greed, and music CD's. Once the realize they could quadruple there profits with CD's, those middle acts were treated like one, two or maybe 3 hit CD hit wonders. Then it go to the point the goal was to maximize profits the middle chart acts were disposable, like a revolving door, hit it and drop it.

What the suits didn't see coming down the pick was the Internet or the digital age. There was no Clearwater conglomerate's, DJ has some say if not totally control of what they played and music was local. Music from the Chicago labels, Vee-Jay, Chess Records, OKeh, ABC-Paramount Brunswick Curton Chi-Sound just to name a few were supported by local stations plaything their artist/singers.

Those days of controlling and who on the charts and who aren't are over. Folks of all ages are to scattered over the Internet and TV (young people don't watch TV) for people to be corralled and marketed too. I'm cool with that....

That's true. The over inflation of record sales did occur in the past but that is not the only form of industry manipulation that occurs. I am referring to the excessive pandering and payola that occurs at a disporpotionate level in this era. Yea, you had a little of that back in the day but not nearly to the extent that it occurs now. There is way to much undeserving pandering that todays artists get compared to the past and all this pandering is not reflective in the interest of the general public. I think there are more political stings being pulled and artists are paying money behind the scenes to give the semblance that they are more important than what they are. IMO, the popularity and success of past pop stars were more authentic and reflective of the general interest of the public.

MotownSubdivision said:

mjscarousal said:

This is another good point that is not often stated and I would like to add to this point.

The lack of the middle class super star has had a impact on todays generation because the lack of the middle class super stars has cheapen the value of the so called "top tier star" as you stated. Since record labels today oversaturate the pop maket with the same "big name stars" it has taken away from their super star status imo and their are receipts that reflect this. There seems to be a lack of interest in award shows, album sells, etc due to the lack of star power overall in the industry. This is why I say politics are at play in the industry because a lot of these stars nowadays receive payola and pandering that is not reflected in how the general public see's them. The industry needs to develop more artists and diverse brand to spark interest in music again.

Basically. Having more stars in the middle of the popularity spectrum makes those at the top look like bigger stars; it bolsters their reputation. Instead of being mountain lions on top of the mountain like their predecessors, today's top stars are more like ants on top of the ant hill.

The big name stars out now would never have been on the level of Michael, Whitney, Prince, etc even if there was competition because they are simply not as talented and unique but at least there would be more variety in pop music.

TD3 said:

mjscarousal said:

TD3 said:

mjscarousal this has always been to the case to one degree or another...

Lady T. found out she had sold more records than Motown claimed because a local distributor told her true records sales in his area alone. The same can be said of Chaka Khan who said she was told she sold 250,000 on average in the Chicago Metro Area before other stations put her record on a turntable. I suspect that the shaving or just out and out lying about records sale profit when into the pockets of the label or was used to invest in the artist they decided to invest in heavenly. What destroyed the so call middle chart acts, Peter Frampton, greed, and music CD's. Once the realize they could quadruple there profits with CD's, those middle acts were treated like one, two or maybe 3 hit CD hit wonders. Then it go to the point the goal was to maximize profits the middle chart acts were disposable, like a revolving door, hit it and drop it.

What the suits didn't see coming down the pick was the Internet or the digital age. There was no Clearwater conglomerate's, DJ has some say if not totally control of what they played and music was local. Music from the Chicago labels, Vee-Jay, Chess Records, OKeh, ABC-Paramount Brunswick Curton Chi-Sound just to name a few were supported by local stations plaything their artist/singers.

Those days of controlling and who on the charts and who aren't are over. Folks of all ages are to scattered over the Internet and TV (young people don't watch TV) for people to be corralled and marketed too. I'm cool with that....

That's true. The over inflation of record sales did occur in the past but that is not the only form of industry manipulation that occurs. I am referring to the excessive pandering and payola that occurs at a disporpotionate level in this era. Yea, you had a little of that back in the day but not nearly to the extent that it occurs now. There is way to much undeserving pandering that todays artists get compared to the past and all this pandering is not reflective in the interest of the general public. I think there are more political stings being pulled and artists are paying money behind the scenes to give the semblance that they are more important than what they are. IMO, the popularity and success of past pop stars were more authentic and reflective of the general interest of the public.

Ah gnaw Payola was alive an well back in the day, I can't say if it there's been an upshot because its always been notorious. That's a whole other conversation who own the public airways. It like the fight now, who owns the Internet. Let Comcast, Time Waren tell it they do.

MotownSubdivision said:

There are many problems with today's pop music but one that I think ranks higher than most is the lack of a "middle class" of artists. Back in the 1980's for instance, you had your upper class megastar talent like MJ, Prince, Madonna, Springsteen, Whitney, George Michael, etc. Just below on the superstar level, there were artists who were also widely popular and experienced massive success to varying degrees. Artists like Lionel Richie, Phil Collins, Tina Turner, Cyndi Lauper, Van Halen, Huey Lewis and the News, John Mellencamp, The Pointer Sisters, Hall and Oates, Culture Club, The Cars, Duran Duran, The Go-Gos, Bananarama, ZZ Top, Alabama, Janet Jackson, Debarge, Billy Ocean, Billy Joel, Billy Idol, Rick Springfield, Wham!, the Eurythmics, Def Leppard, Men At Work and many others; some of which have attained megastar success. Then you have artists on the low end of the spectrum (namely your one-hit wonders) like Rockwell, Ray Parker Jr., Shannon, Ready For The World, Twisted Sister, Rick Astley, Nena, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Thomas Dolby, A-Ha, Kajagoogoo, Tracey Ullman, Jan Hammer, Dexys Midnight Runners and others. There was a balance of star power and popularity; now the top stars receive the vast majority of the spotlight and promotion (and as a result, receive the most sales) with little in between. It seems now that if you aren't a top hitmaker then you're at the bottom; the talent pool is much smaller now and I blame the current hierarchy for the current hot or cold structure. [Edited 10/9/16 15:10pm]

This is a great post! I totally agree with the points you are making, Motown. I think that the disappearing "middle class" of music artists has coincided with the decline of physical record sales (CDs) and the increase of streaming/iTunes and YouTube. There is less of a reason for record labels to invest in the production of full-length albums for middle-class artists because people don't buy albums like they used to do so. Also, people are accessing radio differently now with the internet. It used to be as recently as 10-15 years ago, that people mostly listened to live radio and cell phones. I graduated from high school in 2004. People still went to music stores back then. I remember in 2000 when *NSYNC released "No Strings Attached," it was a really big deal. Usher had some really big albums in the early 2000s, as did Destiny's Child, Janet Jackson, Madonna, Mary J. Blige, Alicia Keys, Christina Aguilera, and Jay-Z. Even MJ's invicible had pretty good sales and radio play. The more middle class artists were ones like Jagged Edge, Gwen Stefani, 112, Nickelback, Ginuwine, Ciara, and Tyrese. I'm sure that I am forgetting some artists. I'm just going with what I remember.

--

The exception is country music. I listened to a lot of country music when I was in college at Washington State University (2004-2009); I went to school in the college town of Pullman, WA. I still listen to country, although I'm not as well-informed about the current state of the genre as I used to be. However, many country stars are able to have very long careers. Kenny Chesney, Rascal Flatts, Tim McGraw, and Carrie Underwood are still making hits.

206Michelle said:

Very good point but the whole wrestling industry is in a rut because they have eliminated the whole enhancement talent/jobbers in the Monday Night Wars where you had the mid cards be the curtain jerkers and the upper mid-card/main eventers wrestled every week or bi-weekly. Back in the mid to late 90's til 2001 (when the industry went south when WCW & ECW went out of business) you had a PPV calibre match on almost every card and in a PPV/ticket sales driven business if you say had MJ/Prince/Stevie every week in concert the interest would decline because there are only finite times before you see/hear everything. So that PPV calibre match driven product which not only the WWF did but WCW and even ECW, they haven't retained that popularity because they are still following the same format now. Years ago you had a tag match against the job guys, a singles match debuting a new character/or a repackaged gimmick, an interview with a wrestler pushing their big PPV match, then a main event of two mid card level talent and back then if you saw a Hulk vs Macho match or Warrior vs Hulk that was a huge deal. Now they've tried to reintroduce the enhancement talent/jobbers to put over guys like Braun Strowman but it's too little too late since the fans are accustomed to seeing big names every week.

You do need the undercarders to break through to be the new main eventers of the future and what WWE are lacking hugely now are the next Hulkster, Stonecold, The Rock, Undertaker so they have been signing up wrestlers on the independent circuit and trying to make them relevant. But seeing guys like Kevin Owens (Kevin Steen), Daniel Bryan (Bryan Danielson), AJ Styles, Seth Rollins (Tyler Black) and Dean Ambrose (Jon Moxley) be stars on the grand stage is kinda weird because you've seen them wrestle in front of tiny crowds and on smaller stages if you will. So to tie this all together, music needs the next Elvis, Prince, Michael, Whitney, Stevie, Bruce, Bob, Madonna, Beatles, Stones et al coming thru the ranks. But like with wrestling, nobody is breaking thru. When John Cena retires I don't know who WWE will rely on as being their franchise. Unless you're a megastar artist there isn't any real money in the music biz now so the next talents are either wasted or passed by the flavor of the month talent show fooder and stuck in a 9 to 5 job to make ends meet. So the music industry needs to remonetize itself again and the A&R guys and girls need to really hunt for new talent, not just on social media but look at artists developing fanbases organically by putting out great music. You'll always have labels like Stones Throw, Daptone et al but what the industry needs is a new indie like Motown or Stax pushing music into the mainstream again. There's also the issue there's only finite opportunities with a music genre or genres, back in the day, Prince, Mike & Stevie were doing such innovative things that they were ahead of the curve. Now if somebody new came out who could play lots of instruments they'd be labelled the new Prince. Which would be a heavy burden to carry. D'Angelo I think suffered from the Prince comparisons and I assume the lull in his releases is because he wanted to put out a perfect record each time.

Also it gets mentioned time & time again but the internet has all but destroyed the music industry. Youtube has been a gift & curse for artists since I'm sure many of us here have discovered new music because of recommendations online via the org or by checking out music on Youtube, Spotify etc. That aspect is great, but on the other hand, back when you bought a record, tape or CD it was pot luck whether a album was good or not. You couldn't really play a preview on Amazon, itunes back then and the internet has crushed CD sales but there is still a market with vinyl collectors and reissue collections. So like with wrestling, there will always be an audience, but if it further dwindles we'll never see the next stars break through at all. Music will always exist thats a given, but 10-20 years down the line we'll only have below bar facismile versions of yesterdays true artists. The influx of bubble gum pop stars (Britney et al) were a huge negative factor too because the market was flooded with inferior level talent and it hasn't really recovered since. The equivalent would be lower cards main eventing WrestleMania. But I find in alot of industries there isn't any real new superstars being made so maybe its just the way of the world.

thetimefan said:

The WWF had a select number of main event talent on top like Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, the Undertaker, Kane and Mick Foley. Underneath them in the midcard, you had a much larger talent pool consisting of wrestlers that range in popularity and compose the bulk of the show. Underneath them, you have the lowcarders who typically open shows and fill up whatever space that the midcarders and main eventers don't.

Imagine if the WWF eliminated the "midcard" division, splitting that part of the roster so that the more popular half became main eventers and the less popular half were put into the low card. That would be disastrous because they not only eliminated the bridge from the bottom to the top but also grossly increased the amount of wrestlers in the main event scene which takes the shine off of the legit main event talent such as Stone Cold and The Rock because there are too many others on their level and also makes it THAT much harder for a burgeoning lowcarder to reach that main event level when ready because most of the attention is going to be given to the main event scene. Furthermore when you get rid of the midcard, over time the distinction of class fades and nearly everybody seems to be on the same level.

Very good point but the whole wrestling industry is in a rut because they have eliminated the whole enhancement talent/jobbers in the Monday Night Wars where you had the mid cards be the curtain jerkers and the upper mid-card/main eventers wrestled every week or bi-weekly. Back in the mid to late 90's til 2001 (when the industry went south when WCW & ECW went out of business) you had a PPV calibre match on almost every card and in a PPV/ticket sales driven business if you say had MJ/Prince/Stevie every week in concert the interest would decline because there are only finite times before you see/hear everything. So that PPV calibre match driven product which not only the WWF did but WCW and even ECW, they haven't retained that popularity because they are still following the same format now. Years ago you had a tag match against the job guys, a singles match debuting a new character/or a repackaged gimmick, an interview with a wrestler pushing their big PPV match, then a main event of two mid card level talent and back then if you saw a Hulk vs Macho match or Warrior vs Hulk that was a huge deal. Now they've tried to reintroduce the enhancement talent/jobbers to put over guys like Braun Strowman but it's too little too late since the fans are accustomed to seeing big names every week.

You do need the undercarders to break through to be the new main eventers of the future and what WWE are lacking hugely now are the next Hulkster, Stonecold, The Rock, Undertaker so they have been signing up wrestlers on the independent circuit and trying to make them relevant. But seeing guys like Kevin Owens (Kevin Steen), Daniel Bryan (Bryan Danielson), AJ Styles, Seth Rollins (Tyler Black) and Dean Ambrose (Jon Moxley) be stars on the grand stage is kinda weird because you've seen them wrestle in front of tiny crowds and on smaller stages if you will. So to tie this all together, music needs the next Elvis, Prince, Michael, Whitney, Stevie, Bruce, Bob, Madonna, Beatles, Stones et al coming thru the ranks. But like with wrestling, nobody is breaking thru. When John Cena retires I don't know who WWE will rely on as being their franchise. Unless you're a megastar artist there isn't any real money in the music biz now so the next talents are either wasted or passed by the flavor of the month talent show fooder and stuck in a 9 to 5 job to make ends meet. So the music industry needs to remonetize itself again and the A&R guys and girls need to really hunt for new talent, not just on social media but look at artists developing fanbases organically by putting out great music. You'll always have labels like Stones Throw, Daptone et al but what the industry needs is a new indie like Motown or Stax pushing music into the mainstream again. There's also the issue there's only finite opportunities with a music genre or genres, back in the day, Prince, Mike & Stevie were doing such innovative things that they were ahead of the curve. Now if somebody new came out who could play lots of instruments they'd be labelled the new Prince. Which would be a heavy burden to carry. D'Angelo I think suffered from the Prince comparisons and I assume the lull in his releases is because he wanted to put out a perfect record each time.

Also it gets mentioned time & time again but the internet has all but destroyed the music industry. Youtube has been a gift & curse for artists since I'm sure many of us here have discovered new music because of recommendations online via the org or by checking out music on Youtube, Spotify etc. That aspect is great, but on the other hand, back when you bought a record, tape or CD it was pot luck whether a album was good or not. You couldn't really play a preview on Amazon, itunes back then and the internet has crushed CD sales but there is still a market with vinyl collectors and reissue collections. So like with wrestling, there will always be an audience, but if it further dwindles we'll never see the next stars break through at all. Music will always exist thats a given, but 10-20 years down the line we'll only have below bar facismile versions of yesterdays true artists. The influx of bubble gum pop stars (Britney et al) were a huge negative factor too because the market was flooded with inferior level talent and it hasn't really recovered since. The equivalent would be lower cards main eventing WrestleMania. But I find in alot of industries there isn't any real new superstars being made so maybe its just the way of the world.

Happy to see a fellow wrestling fan on here.

Enhancement talent and jobbers were still prevalent during the MNW; their job of (ahem...) jobbers was to put over the talent higher up the card on TV, not PPV where the actual matches were reserved. Nobody wants to pay for a squash match, which is why those happened on free TV. As for midcarders opening shows, the midcard is wide range of talent from a wrestler just above jobber status to a wrestler on the verge of a main event push or is occasionally put into main event scenarios; a midcard match can take place anywhere on a show since they compose the bulk of its content and have to be booked in accordance to other matches as well. The lower card matches on PPV basically exist to patch the holes that the midcard and main event(s) don't.

The wrestling scene and the music scene differ when it comes to your next point. Seeing a wrestler every week isn't the same as seeing a top artist perform every single week, that's the nature of the wrestling industry, they don't lose their mystique by appearing weekly but they do if they were found everywhere else on the card but the main event. Music and wrestling are similar in certain ways but that doesn't mean they're the exact same in terms of structure.

Where the two industries correlate is via their current presentation with the lion's share of the spotlight being on only the top draws; while the WWE has the mindset of only having one main guy be at the top and having the product revolve around them (such as the case with Cena), the lion's share of the music industry's resources are dedicated to the promotion of those who are already on top. In both cases, the middle section is neglected and the business suffers for it. Instead of the WWE having a dynamic main event scene as they did during the Attitude and Ruthless Aggression eras where there was a selection of top talent to rotate with, they instead put all their eggs in one basket and built the brand around a single person, making the burgeoning talent largely irrelevant. Instead of mainstream music having a strong foundation of talent for the bigger stars to stand on, they'd rather have nearly everything be about the bigger stars, adding to their overexposure and making them less popular than they could be. In both worlds, oversaturation is hurting, it's just that in the WWE there are other factors in addition to overexposure that is killing interest in the product while music has circumstances of its own. Music has the benefit of being universal though so even if less and less people are listening to the radio and are more skeptical about today's stars, listening to what they want in today's fragmented society, there will always be money to fall back on.

Amen. Blame capitalism. We should have about a hundred thousand bands or artists making about a hundred thou a year with decent cult followings. What we have is a dozen huge artists and a million bands struggling.

People are forced to do top forty dreck and cover bs. We need arts funding,.

2freaky4church1 said:

Yeah I think this hits it on the head. There IS still a big music industry that promotes superstars, and there definitely IS a thriving indie scene where people can put out their passionately personal music & get it in front of an audience.

.

What is missing is that middle ground, of artists who haven't hit big yet, probably won't hit right now, but might be in a position to do so an album or two down the line, with the right development.

.

Soundgarden is just one example I can think of. They have a major label album before Nirvana does, it doesn't sell huge numbers but is well respected enough to keep them going. It's not til their second one for the majors that they start to really catch fire. Their label had enough patience and belief in them to keep them afloat until they hit their stride.

.

I don't know if that happens anymore with major labels.

.

Part of the problem, there's no rock radio promoting new music by these mid level acts. All the rock music I hear on FM radio these days is old and familiar. That was how bands like Presidents of The USA manage to sell a lot of records in a hurry. They weren't a guaranteed hit, kind of strange and quirky, but they managed to get in there to the right place at the right time. Who would sign such a band today and even try to get them on the radio?

That Britney is still big is shocking.

2freaky4church1 said:

Amen. Blame capitalism. We should have about a hundred thousand bands or artists making about a hundred thou a year with decent cult followings. What we have is a dozen huge artists and a million bands struggling.

People are forced to do top forty dreck and cover bs. We need arts funding,.

Yes, but that doesn't really explain why things are so different now than in the 80's and 90's. We had the same capitalist system back then so that couldn't be the total problem.

I think the problem is more the rise of streaming. People buy less music now but listen to music they like on streaming services. So most people only buy albums by the top superstars and listen to the rest on streaming which makes artists hardly any money.

I don't think every artist should make the same amount of money though. Some forms of music appeal to more people so I think it's far those artists should make more money. If you make more avant garde music that appeals to fewer people, I don't see why you should make the same amount as a more mainstream artist.

I don't think the government should be controlling the arts. That to me takes away artistic freedom too much.

bobzilla77 said:

Yeah I think this hits it on the head. There IS still a big music industry that promotes superstars, and there definitely IS a thriving indie scene where people can put out their passionately personal music & get it in front of an audience.

.

What is missing is that middle ground, of artists who haven't hit big yet, probably won't hit right now, but might be in a position to do so an album or two down the line, with the right development.

.

Soundgarden is just one example I can think of. They have a major label album before Nirvana does, it doesn't sell huge numbers but is well respected enough to keep them going. It's not til their second one for the majors that they start to really catch fire. Their label had enough patience and belief in them to keep them afloat until they hit their stride.

.

I don't know if that happens anymore with major labels.

.

Part of the problem, there's no rock radio promoting new music by these mid level acts. All the rock music I hear on FM radio these days is old and familiar. That was how bands like Presidents of The USA manage to sell a lot of records in a hurry. They weren't a guaranteed hit, kind of strange and quirky, but they managed to get in there to the right place at the right time. Who would sign such a band today and even try to get them on the radio?

Totally agree with this. I like a lot of rock leaning indie music and it seems these type of bands no matter how good they are or how accessible and melodic their songs are have no chance of getting a radio hit.

2freaky4church1 said:

That Britney is still big is shocking.

Not really. She doesn't write her own music, but her music is fun, well done and catchy. People get all bent out of shape about her, but there have always been artists who have hits but don't write their own stuff.

Because of how music industry was between the 60s and 90s, it has created an illusion of how music is supposed to generate alot of money. Supply and demand is the only reason why music is how it is. Before recorded music, it wasn't normal to make alot of money on music. You had to be good at what you did, and you had to play live. Modern times has created alot of new opportunities and difficulties. It's a bit confusing, because there's not one path anymore. Not that it ever was. But it's even more diffuse today.

Glindathegood said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Amen. Blame capitalism. We should have about a hundred thousand bands or artists making about a hundred thou a year with decent cult followings. What we have is a dozen huge artists and a million bands struggling.

People are forced to do top forty dreck and cover bs. We need arts funding,.

Yes, but that doesn't really explain why things are so different now than in the 80's and 90's. We had the same capitalist system back then so that couldn't be the total problem.

I think the problem is more the rise of streaming. People buy less music now but listen to music they like on streaming services. So most people only buy albums by the top superstars and listen to the rest on streaming which makes artists hardly any money.

I don't think every artist should make the same amount of money though. Some forms of music appeal to more people so I think it's far those artists should make more money. If you make more avant garde music that appeals to fewer people, I don't see why you should make the same amount as a more mainstream artist.

I don't think the government should be controlling the arts. That to me takes away artistic freedom too much.

Nobody is saying all artists should be paid the same (at least nobody in this topic). If your local mixtape slinger or garage band were making the same money and receiving the same endorsements as someone like Drake or Beyonce or even a one-hit wonder like Gotye then an artist's popularity would be absolutely meaningless.

There just needs to be a hierarchy because there's a far smaller gap in between the top stars and acts on the low end of the spectrum than what there was in decades passed. And that gap doesn't bring those on the low end higher, it brings those on the high end lower.

Replica said:

Because of how music industry was between the 60s and 90s, it has created an illusion of how music is supposed to generate alot of money. Supply and demand is the only reason why music is how it is. Before recorded music, it wasn't normal to make alot of money on music. You had to be good at what you did, and you had to play live. Modern times has created alot of new opportunities and difficulties. It's a bit confusing, because there's not one path anymore. Not that it ever was. But it's even more diffuse today.

You make a good point. There are many factors at play here as to why the demand for music is low and one of those factors is that people just aren't that interested in the music that's being put out on a mainstream level these days.

Some say that there can be no such thing as a bad year for music since there's still tons of music being made and released annually and with countless choices at one'sdisposal, anyone can find something they enjoy if they dig deep enough. I don't subscribe to that logic. Yeah, there's always going to be something out there for everybody but that doesn't exempt a boring, uneventful or flat out awful year of music from being boring, uneventful or flat out awful; music is a subjective thing but to me, finding a few good or even great albums after having to dig for them in a sea of crap doesn't make a year better.

Adele just got her second diamond album and I believe one of Lady Gaga's albums went diamond during the height of her popularity. So people do still buy popular music if they feel its worth buying. There are clear examples that people still do buy records if they think the product is worth buying. Also, there also has been more of an influx of white pop stars compared to Black and I think the reason why there is so little bit of Black superstars is due to tokenism and discrimination. Like I said there is a lot of things at play here beyond the streaming, not buying records, etc as to why there are only a few major pop acts.

[Edited 10/10/16 19:50pm]

TD3 said:

mjscarousal said:

That's true. The over inflation of record sales did occur in the past but that is not the only form of industry manipulation that occurs. I am referring to the excessive pandering and payola that occurs at a disporpotionate level in this era. Yea, you had a little of that back in the day but not nearly to the extent that it occurs now. There is way to much undeserving pandering that todays artists get compared to the past and all this pandering is not reflective in the interest of the general public. I think there are more political stings being pulled and artists are paying money behind the scenes to give the semblance that they are more important than what they are. IMO, the popularity and success of past pop stars were more authentic and reflective of the general interest of the public.

Ah gnaw Payola was alive an well back in the day, I can't say if it there's been an upshot because its always been notorious. That's a whole other conversation who own the public airways. It like the fight now, who owns the Internet. Let Comcast, Time Waren tell it they do.

Lol, I hear you but you got to admit there is some sneaky shady things that goes on nowadays than ever before. Why do these artists have 20 and 30 grammys but low record sales and hits? It just doesn't add up.

mjscarousal said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Replica said:

Because of how music industry was between the 60s and 90s, it has created an illusion of how music is supposed to generate alot of money. Supply and demand is the only reason why music is how it is. Before recorded music, it wasn't normal to make alot of money on music. You had to be good at what you did, and you had to play live. Modern times has created alot of new opportunities and difficulties. It's a bit confusing, because there's not one path anymore. Not that it ever was. But it's even more diffuse today.

You make a good point. There are many factors at play here as to why the demand for music is low and one of those factors is that people just aren't that interested in the music that's being put out on a mainstream level these days.

Some say that there can be no such thing as a bad year for music since there's still tons of music being made and released annually and with countless choices at one'sdisposal, anyone can find something they enjoy if they dig deep enough. I don't subscribe to that logic. Yeah, there's always going to be something out there for everybody but that doesn't exempt a boring, uneventful or flat out awful year of music from being boring, uneventful or flat out awful; music is a subjective thing but to me, finding a few good or even great albums after having to dig for them in a sea of crap doesn't make a year better.

i see what you're saying. However, now anyone can release music. That is probably why we have to dig through all the garbage. Also, record companies aren't investing as much either. Making them rush the time spent in studio and production. Technology also makes it easier to get away with mistakes, and just let Pro Tools and an engineer handle the job. There's so many million digital plugins with auto this and auto that. It actually more difficult to always stay curious as a musician than earlier. That's why alot of musicians went back to real analog instruments. That's also why D'angelo recorded analog. People want to be able to touch, feel and be hands on with the music again. Creativity is there, and it's slowly getting popular again. Alot of cool stuff in the underground. No stadium rock stars anymore. But that was a part of the illusion of the past. We had money to make them that big. We also now have too many distractions in the entertainment business. You can entertain yourself in so many areas, making music more a part of everything else, than to stand on it's own two feet. We live in a multmedia era. Musicians are actors, bloggers are musicians... There's a whole lot of chaos, and a whole lot of junk. But there's alot of great music out there too. People just don't spend time getting to know music. Attention span is shorter and shorter, as everything is yelling "I'm HERE" all the time. No breaks. That's probably one of the reasons why Trump is as big as he is. He knows that if he doesn't say something outrageous within the next five minutes, he's forgotten. So he lives up to the formula.

Replica said: