Are there any modern day singers or up-and-coming singers who will have the same mass appeal as they do?

If so, who?

If not, why do you reckon there is a new wave of "super stars" ?

I can see Shakira and Christina Aguilera having the possibilities to develop into something really special.
I don't see any male artist right now being the new Michael Jackson or Prince though

The days of the superstars as such are over, for at least for some time at least. You have the superstars of today of course - Britney, Coldplay, Eminem... but they are a bit different case. The thing about pop/rock superstars is that they usually change something in the process. One could argue that also Britney and Eminem also did that, but just something on an intuitive level feels wrong about that. It's because we know (collectively) these artists shouldn't be up there on the level of fame they are, because they aren't enough talented or have that creative ideas. They aren't doing much anything.

So the reason why we don't have genuine superstars is because the mechanisms of fame itself have changed, it's not because there wouldn't be potential talent around. And also, the truly talented ones often seek alternative ways to get their music noticed, not just radios or MTV. They want to make alternative music, so that's where the fire is in my opinion. And they sort of have the same drive as the stars of the past did, they're just now people with their own record companies pressing limited editions of 300 copies shipped in recycled paper bag hand-made digipaks with original pen art on the cover.

marian said:

they both (I mean Shakira y Aguilera) suck

Imago said:

As singers, probably Madonna and MJ should not be in that list.

bublebath said:

But they have attitute and some major hits.Like Madonna in the beggining

i think today's technology, marketing methods, and the current state of the music industry has blocked pop culture from enjoying any potential modern music "phenoms" for a good long time.

we're not allowed to enjoy a pop star who has something unusual or spectacular to offer. pop stars right now are supposed to look like victoria's secret/A&F models and they're supposed to sing whiney ass shit that makes us feel sorry for them, thus enhancing their sexiness. blah blah blah blah blah.

bublebath said:

and Springstein should? somebody get him a coughdrop. MJ is/was the best natural singer out of all of em', but AB meant singers in the most generic sense. Sorta like calling the people on AI artists.

lilgish said:

Bublebath, all due respect, you didn't really mean to say that MJ "probably" shouldn't be mentioned as a singer? Did you? Even MJ's harshest critics would acknowledge that the man has a great singing voice, when he actually sings and doesn't grunt into the microphone.

Shamon

matisyahu...(unique and different)..
Youth (Matisyahu album)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Youth

Album by Matisyahu
Released March 7, 2006
Recorded 2005
Genre Reggae
Length 46:55
Label Epic Records, JDub Records, Or Music
Producer(s) Bill Laswell, Ill Factor, and Jimmy Douglass

Matisyahu chronology
Live at Stubb's
(2005) Youth
(2006)
Youth is the second studio album by Hasidic Jewish reggae singer Matisyahu. It was released on March 7, 2006 (see 2006 in music). The CD quickly shot to the top of iTunes best sellers list the day it was released (partially due to the fact that iTunes ran a special promotion for pre-orders.)

"When Matisyahu sings into the mic to the heavy-bass back up, guitars, and a drum kit, he's as much reggae dancehall, as Talmud study hall... Matisyahu is the new face of cultural fusion." – The Jewish Week
The first single from the album is "King Without a Crown", which was also a single on Matisyahu's previous album, Live at Stubb's. However, a proper video was shot for the Youth version of the song, whereas the version on the Stubb's concert album was accompanied by a concert video

check him out.....

Alicia Keys is the only one that I genuinely think does have this kind of appeal .

nurse said:

hell to the no!!!

CinisterCee said:

dude
you rule

to answer the question though...

NO. record companies don't sign or develop artists for longterm, catalog album sales anymore. it's all about one or two, maybe three, and sometimes four radio hits, perhaps a sophomore album and then maybe a lackluster third album (pink, jewel, nelly furtado, Nsync, backstreet are all models)...and then...it's ova and on to the next rihanna or T.I. or Mario

I don't think we'll ever see another Prince,MJ,Madonna or Springsteen.Most of the "stars" of today are disposable and are quickly replaced after just a few years at the top.

lilgish said:

and it's SpringSTEEN you dorks...

MartyMcFly said:

Maybe they were referring to the famous folk singer/autoharp virtuoso Fielding Springstein.

sosgemini said:

No Stop! Make it go away .

No because over the last few years, it's only been about selling albums and not nuturing artists (in fact, "artists" these days don't give a shit). I thought it was possible for Usher, but since his movie and soundtrack didn't do very well, I don't see him having that kind of appeal. I think the days of the superstar are over....Record companies just want money, not career artists.

i really don't think the term super star is relevant anymore altho it is still used. i mean is Beyonce a superstar? in this climate i think she could be considered a superstar but not a mega star like Madge or MJ. what about Mariah? she's probably the biggest one we have right now who is still relatively active in recording and touring other than Madonna

I think the title of the thread also might be a little misleading.

on the issue of long term artists, i do think record companies want to develop these guys as long tern artists but they caliber of artists just might not be out there yet.

maybe in a few years a trend will come about where singers and bands can be considered long term or be candidates for development.

ppl like Madge and Prince are now heritage artists. that's a real term used by the industry. ppl like The Stones or Elton John. folks like that may not sell a lot of albums but when they tour it's pay day!
[Edited 5/9/06 9:35am]

badjunkie said:

I agree with that statement to some effect. The other thing I would add that separates MJ, Madge, Bruce and Prince from most of today's biggest artists was the fact that they toured fairly often as well as releasing hit albums. One of the best ways for artists to get people to give their enduring love for them is to be seen and heard where they live every once in a while, so touring to support your album fulfills this goal. It's one of the main reasons why the Grateful Dead became such huge icons even though they rarely released any new studio material of any note since the early 1970's and why Pearl Jam is still regarded as a great band, even though their album sales declined slowly but steadily since the mid 1990s.

As far as todays artists, most of them are easily disposable because they can't put on a decent live show. Heck, most of them can't even hack it in the studio, let alone on stage. However, if I had to pick some artists who may be looked up to as icons in the future, I would have to pick Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Alicia Keys. Maybe Usher if he can still put out fairly decent albums, amd Eminem if he can get his personal business in order.

record store recessions...dancefloor boredom....dj's spinning the same song after song...da da da dj spinning the same song after song...

lil lius...

Imago said:

dont' forget tina, there will never ever be another like Tina Turner!

It's all about the money these days. If you have the money to back you up, you'll have a hit.

But there is a difference between being popular and being a force upon yourself...and when you are how does one keep that appeal yet maintain their integrity and artistic value. Many of the biggera acts today won't be around in a decade...shoo Brits is already on her way out with baby #2.

I hate to say this, but P & M & MJ (perhaps springsteen) are sell outs to a degree. They all sold out with mega million contract deals.

I look at some of the current artists...Beck, Bjork, and Ani DeFranco...that I feel are very artistic and are a force upon themselves. I believe they choose to push their art in a different way and they handle fame differently too. If they wanted to be huge, I think they could have been. But there is a compromise one takes when one becomes a Superstar.

superspaceboy said:

amen sister...

superspaceboy said:

Were the Beatles sell-outs? What do you mean by using 'sellout' here? I couldn't disagree more. Being a niche artist is something to hide behind if you don't have the goods to be really popular.

u2prnce said:

I think you are misinterpreting my definition of "sellout". I said they were to a degree. They all purposefully stroked the Star Maker Machine throughout their careers. if you sign a multi-million dollar contract, you are selling out to a degree. Prince almost immediately found out that he had.

The Beatles ALMOST were like that. They stopped touring once they realized they were "bigger" than they really were. But that was in a day and age where things were different than the people we're talking about on this thread. But I don't think they did anything purposefully to push their career into the stratosphere. I believe after they became big, the entire notion of "Superstar" got bumped up a notch.

And in regards to "niche" artists...I don't find Beck, Bjork or Ani..niche artists. They have wide appeal, yet choose to focus their music in a way that makes their audience a bit more narrow. Bjork has defintely done this. I think that if she wanted to, she could keep making Debut and Post records, but chooses NOT to.

superspaceboy said:

I guess I don't agree that commercial success equals artistic death. I think their mainstream success was chosen for them by the public. They all have their fans, but the artists you mentioned were never huge. There's no shame in that. But I don't award 'cool' points for people because their appeal is more narrowly defined.

u2prnce said:

Gosh, you misread everything I wrote.

I never said commercial success equals artistic death.

The artists I mentioned could have BEEN huge...I really don't think they wanted to be. If so, you don't follow up Odelay with Mutations...You don't follow up Post with Homogenic (and certainly don't follow up Vespertine with Mudulla). And good ole Ani just does as she wants. Super prolific, great music, but chooses not to go the way of the "record deal".