What if is the big question. But think about it for a second, take your favorite legendary artist, and put him or her or them into this climate of the industry, what would happen to them? Now im not talking about sales, because lets face it, alot of our legends didnt really "sell" but what if they were forced into this "gotta sell" out the box from day one, what would happen to them?

I mean imagine Marvin Gaye having to be like Usher?
Imagine Diana Ross having to be "bootylicious" like beyonce 24/7.
Imagine Aretha and James not being able to do 1-2 albums a year like they used too.

Imagine Stevie Wonder having to cut "songs in the Key of life" to a single album..

where would we be?

I doubt they would. All the artists you listed were rebellious, risky acts that did what they wanted to do and at the time people welcomed it. Now if you're not dancing like Mike or sexing it up like Madonna or Janet, "you ain't shit" according to the powers that be... oh and if you don't do a track with a hip-hopper, lol.

Interesting how the 1-2 albums a year worked back in the day and no one minded that Aretha and The Supremes, amongst others, were constantly cranking out the hits. Now artists are being burned at the stake for "overkill." lol

This whole scene would've never existed


and this lil guy would've never had a chance

shesoffthewall said:

That's true. I actually don't mind it now.

Gotta make money and make sure you don't be a flash-in-the-pan.

bboy87 said:

Scary time. We can still revive it.

Fuck those media mergers...

shesoffthewall said:

The Jackson 5 released 3 albums in 1970. Hell the group, including the solo projects, released released 19 albums in 8 years!

bboy87 said:

NONE of the Motown artists in the early years DIDN'T release one album every year because Motown was always quick in producing products for their artists so they were always pushing albums by each of their artists every year, sometimes 2 or 3 (Supremes, Temptations, J5). A break would mean that they either couldn't get in the studio or they were burned out.
[Edited 11/15/08 18:48pm]
[Edited 11/15/08 18:48pm]

Timmy84 said:

Yep. Matthew Knowles and Tommy Mattolla (Mariah had atleast 9 albums in the 90's alone) come from that same school of thinking.

shesoffthewall said:

Mariah said the workload was the reason she had that infamous panic attack that caused the nervous breakdown in '01 because she releasing a LOT of material.

Timmy84 said:

That's definitely what happened. Overexposure can kill you.

Timmy84 said:

Hell, today Prince would be paraded around the talk-show circuit at age 7.

"Child prodigy needs no lessons in piano and can play whatever he wants".

He'd likely be burned out before he reached puberty. But not before the reality sickness made their millions and his parents got paid some short-term money.

Timmy84 said:

Not to mention Motown's artists were ALWAYS in the studio and were always working and they loved what they did

The Supremes(the Diana R versions) released like 25 albums in 8 years. I'm talking studio albums, cover albums, live compilations....DAMN!

I think someone like Elton John would have been hated in this kind of climate and he said it recently. He said he was glad he was coming up when he did, because you didnt have to succeed saleswise from day one, because you had people in your corner. Lets not forget from Eltons debut in late 1969 up to 1975 elton had 17 albums released. And by the time he was 33 years old he was on his 21st studio album, that shit aint EVER going to happen again.

bboy87 said:

A Christmas album, a country album, a Sam Cooke tribute album, a British Invasion cover album, live at the Copacabana, London's Talk of the Town, Rodgers and Hammerstein albums, some shelved albums that had the Supremes doing more standards from movie theme songs to Broadway standards, "Funny Girl" cover album, FOUR albums WITH the Temptations not to mention TWO TV SPECIALS and performances together in Las Vegas.

By the time Diana Ross left the Supremes, they had released close to 30 albums in total.

Timmy84 said:

But i think a bigger thing is that all of the legends became legends because they had to compete day in day out with their peers to outdo them. That doesnt exist today, and i know that people will argue that theres more music today, but inreality theres no competition at all. I think the reason peeps hate beyonce and feel its overkill is because there is no one else out there doing it too. The field is not equal anymore, back then it was and ever fought it out, now with all of the outlets for exposure, your music takes the back seat to everything else. Albums used to be the most important thing for an artist, now its last on their list of things to do. But when the competition isnt there like it isnt today, no one is UPPING their game, no one is getting better, only the hype is getting bigger. Back in the 70's which i still view as the most competitive decade EVER, you had everyone upping their game challenging themselves and each other.

lastdecember said:

hmmmm, I think Rihanna is gnawing at Beyonce's heels right now in the overkill department. lol

bboy87 said:

James Brown released TEN Albums total in 1968 alone, TEN!!

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Now THAT'S a lot of albums in one year!
[Edited 11/15/08 19:48pm]

i think its overkill with beyonce and rihanna cause their music is like fastfood,its a quick and good (mostly) but never a lasting impression, not like the way most grandmothers can cook you a great meal that leaves you like whew for the rest of the day.

As for motown yeah they were releasing albums constantly and they took it easy considering the tons of material they worked o with their artists.

i think it would be a lot harder for those artists these days, but everything happens for a reason.

If Janis Joplin were to have tried to work her shit in an environment like exists today, she wouldn't have made it. She wasn't what's considered hot or marketably good-looking, and she didn't have a pretty voice.

Janis' strength as a performer was in her ability to emote and to suck an audience into the emotional upheaval of a performance. But since that's not what's valued in a corporate market like today's, she'd be flipping burgers.

bboy87 said:

God, he was a big girl even as a kid.

Bless him.

The only person who would be a legend in pop music at anytime is Michael Jackson.
Everyone else would be either too old, not attractive enough, not talented enough, not versatile enough or not very marketable.

If it was today, the WB would have dropped Prince after the Dirty Mind LP. He would have been considered an one hit wonder (I wanna be your lover).

curioso said:

Diana Ross also. Imagine the shit she'd be wearing, doing in todays world.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

At least her hair will be fierce as always! That woman's hairstyles over the years is flawless

MikeMatronik said:

Exactly, and a host of others would be dropped and not allowed to grow. Heres who would be dropped in a second....

U2,Rem,Depeche Mode,The Cure,Inxs pretty much every RB band like Kool and the Gang, Earth Wind, etc...

lastdecember said:

Don't forget Bruce Springsteen.

I can't even think about it since back then I don't think people would've been that naive to even make the music business corporate.
[Edited 11/16/08 8:44am]

Timmy84 said:

that is what it boils down to. Back then the people that worked at the label, knew music and cared about the product they were shaping, now its about what will sell right now, mainly because everyone at labels now arent music majors, they are accounting and business majors.