Michael Jackson, Madonna, Mariah, Whitney....missioned accomplished....

Likely Contenders; As They Stand Now:

Usher - 18 Years of Career

[img:$uid]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPILygiEpZMA2oI1l8Dcb70BoTqUDfK_PC7oPMod3Lk1r5kHuI[/img:$uid]

Usher's first single 'Can I Get Wit It' was released on August 1, 1994...he turns 18 Years in August 2012

Beyonce - 15 Years of Career

[img:$uid]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRinSlBGHqa7aqX3dYkqErCSQXuCaFUMkWcJKMcfxTEdb4zvSCX[/img:$uid]

Beyonce's first single 'No No No' was released on November 11, 1997...she turns 15 Years in November 2012

[img:$uid]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwNMgcF2mx4VYxCuq7WhSsy7zVatxIuEz9WHqY7LgmxjmvezY-[/img:$uid]

Britney - 14 Years of Career

B's first single '....Baby One More Time' was released on September 30, 1998.. she turns 14 Years in September 2012

Pink - 12 Years of Career

[img:$uid]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQvDuBF9zp1O2vw2jEZXnTCWmoeAZLUn_jI1q0650iHxs4P_vy[/img:$uid]

Pink's first single 'There You Go' was released on February 8, 2000...she turned 12 Years in February 2012

Who has the juices? Rihanna, Gaga, Bruno? Katy Perry, 5 Years...does she have staying-power? Justin Bieber, Xtina...

Thoughts?

Celine Dion ... platinum album in 08 that outsold Hard Candy, Discipline, I Look To You, and Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel plus Tina Turner like ticket sales on her tour

mission accomplished

It's weird....I don't really consider any of them as approaching two decade careers already, but the evidence is all there...

God I feel old...

Usher - his following has slowed, but he probly has a couple more platinum albums in him

Britney - She's at a crossroads in her career she's proved she could come back, but does she have staying power?

Beyonce - Bitch is gonna be around forever

P!nk - has the vocal chops and the work ethic to be around for a long time

Rihanna - I don't see how she could stick around for her 30s, sure she has had a big run for upwards of 6 years now, but she doesn't have the voice to carry her work beyond the clubs. She doesn't have the range that allowed Kylie and Madonna to be successful in their 30s.

Gaga - I think she'll be as unstoppable as Cher

Bruno - all depends on how his sophomore album turns out, he could be JT big or crash and burn like Jason Derulo

Katy Perry - she's smart, I think she will be around for awhile. She'll certainly be able to be a successful touring artist for years to come. jp jp

Xtina - All depends on if she can pull another hit out on her next album, otherwise she's toast

Justin Bieber - Another child star could pop out and overshadow him like he did to the Joe Bros and Miley. I don't see him around for very long.

Hudson said:

I hate comparision threads like these because their pointless. Why is Michael Jackson being mentioned? Why is Madonna being mentioned?

If you want to ask the question THEN ASK IT without trying to make a comparision with past legends and during a time when the industry was different. There was way more competition back then.... they had ridiculous talent except Madonna but thats besides the point. Im so sick of you people bringing up legends as to validate a point... just make it and move the fuck along. None of these artists are going to have careers like Madonna or Michael because they dont have strong catalogues. The reason why alot of the past artists still sell out is because of their MUSIC which is why someone like Mariah can just sing standing on a stage the entire time but still sell out a show for over 10,000 people...

I just think its just insulting because their not on the same calibar and it was doing the time the industry was different.

Out of the artists listed the only artists that experienced any form of competition was Usher, Brittany and Pink... Beyonce thrived during a period where there was NOBODY out in her particular category but I guess all that is beside the point.

They all look like they will reach 20 years but in all honesty it really doesnt mean anything.

They have not accomplished anything or produced anything significaty for it to mean something.

[Edited 5/31/12 11:29am]

mjscarousal said:

I hate comparision threads like these because their pointless. Why is Michael Jackson being mentioned? Why is Madonna being mentioned?

If you want to ask the question THEN ASK IT without trying to make a comparision with past legends and during a time when the industry was different. There was way more competition back then.... they had ridiculous talent except Madonna but thats besides the point. Im so sick of you people bringing up legends as to validate a point... just make it and move the fuck along. None of these artists are going to have careers like Madonna or Michael because they dont have strong catalogues. The reason why alot of the past artists still sell out is because of their MUSIC which is why someone like Mariah can just sing standing on a stage the entire time but still sell out a show for over 10,000 people...

I just think its just insulting because their not on the same calibar and it was doing the time the industry was different.

Out of the artists listed the only artists that experienced any form of competition was Usher, Brittany and Pink... Beyonce thrived during a period where there was NOBODY out in her particular category but I guess all that is beside the point.

They all look like they will reach 20 years but in all honesty it really doesnt mean anything.

They have not accomplished anything or produced anything significaty for it to mean something.

[Edited 5/31/12 11:29am]

You don't think the sheer fact of being relevant for 20 years is an accomplishment within itself?

mjscarousal said:

I hate comparision threads like these because their pointless. Why is Michael Jackson being mentioned? Why is Madonna being mentioned?

If you want to ask the question THEN ASK IT without trying to make a comparision with past legends and during a time when the industry was different. There was way more competition back then.... they had ridiculous talent except Madonna but thats besides the point. Im so sick of you people bringing up legends as to validate a point... just make it and move the fuck along. None of these artists are going to have careers like Madonna or Michael because they dont have strong catalogues. The reason why alot of the past artists still sell out is because of their MUSIC which is why someone like Mariah can just sing standing on a stage the entire time but still sell out a show for over 10,000 people...

I just think its just insulting because their not on the same calibar and it was doing the time the industry was different.

Out of the artists listed the only artists that experienced any form of competition was Usher, Brittany and Pink... Beyonce thrived during a period where there was NOBODY out in her particular category but I guess all that is beside the point.

They all look like they will reach 20 years but in all honesty it really doesnt mean anything.

They have not accomplished anything or produced anything significaty for it to mean something.

[Edited 5/31/12 11:29am]

Nobody brings up names to compare more than you so maybe you should be careful about the walls in your glass house.

wow 2 more years and Usher will be in the game for 20 years

People having hits, getting radio play, or being seen on television is not relevant to me. As long as someone is releasing records and/or performing, even if its at a oldies show, then that is still their career:

Chante Moore

Jamiroquai

En Vogue

Shamekia Copeland

Wilson Phillips

Kenny Wayne Shepherd

Susan Tedeschi

Mel Waiters

Like Mickey said, folks can still have 20 years of a career even if their chart life don't last as long.

Timmy84 said:

Like Mickey said, folks can still have 20 years of a career even if their chart life don't last as long.

The Bacon Brothers have no hits, and they've been performing a long time.

RKJCNE said:

mjscarousal said:

I hate comparision threads like these because their pointless. Why is Michael Jackson being mentioned? Why is Madonna being mentioned?

If you want to ask the question THEN ASK IT without trying to make a comparision with past legends and during a time when the industry was different. There was way more competition back then.... they had ridiculous talent except Madonna but thats besides the point. Im so sick of you people bringing up legends as to validate a point... just make it and move the fuck along. None of these artists are going to have careers like Madonna or Michael because they dont have strong catalogues. The reason why alot of the past artists still sell out is because of their MUSIC which is why someone like Mariah can just sing standing on a stage the entire time but still sell out a show for over 10,000 people...

I just think its just insulting because their not on the same calibar and it was doing the time the industry was different.

Out of the artists listed the only artists that experienced any form of competition was Usher, Brittany and Pink... Beyonce thrived during a period where there was NOBODY out in her particular category but I guess all that is beside the point.

They all look like they will reach 20 years but in all honesty it really doesnt mean anything.

They have not accomplished anything or produced anything significaty for it to mean something.

[Edited 5/31/12 11:29am]

Nobody brings up names to compare more than you so maybe you should be careful about the walls in your glass house.

Like for instance???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Every question doesnt have to be validated with what past artists have done because the artists out now arent in the same calibar...

musicjunky318 said:

mjscarousal said:

I hate comparision threads like these because their pointless. Why is Michael Jackson being mentioned? Why is Madonna being mentioned?

If you want to ask the question THEN ASK IT without trying to make a comparision with past legends and during a time when the industry was different. There was way more competition back then.... they had ridiculous talent except Madonna but thats besides the point. Im so sick of you people bringing up legends as to validate a point... just make it and move the fuck along. None of these artists are going to have careers like Madonna or Michael because they dont have strong catalogues. The reason why alot of the past artists still sell out is because of their MUSIC which is why someone like Mariah can just sing standing on a stage the entire time but still sell out a show for over 10,000 people...

I just think its just insulting because their not on the same calibar and it was doing the time the industry was different.

Out of the artists listed the only artists that experienced any form of competition was Usher, Brittany and Pink... Beyonce thrived during a period where there was NOBODY out in her particular category but I guess all that is beside the point.

They all look like they will reach 20 years but in all honesty it really doesnt mean anything.

They have not accomplished anything or produced anything significaty for it to mean something.

[Edited 5/31/12 11:29am]

You don't think the sheer fact of being relevant for 20 years is an accomplishment within itself?

No, if they havent significantly done anything, it really doesnt mean anything only to the people who only care about how many years someone has been relevant which I personally feel is a generic reason.

Lauryn Hill and even D Angelo have made far greater impacts in music than any of the above within in a SHORT time...They were relevant but I feel what is more important is what they DID, what they INTRODUCED, and showcased....not necessarily the length of time they were popular but everyone has their own outlook.

I already acknowledged they all are looking to reach 20 years and that while that is a good thing in TODAYS industry is not saying a whole lot because of how they were able to reach that not to mention none of them have made a tremendous impact on music or are trying to experiment etc.. Beside Pink, basically their all carbon copies of past artists.. at least Pink somewhat tries to be creative.

I answered your question but I didnt feel it was necessary to bring up MJ, Whitney, Madonna etc as to compare them to what is out now...The industries were different and that fact should be taken into account.

musicjunky318 said:

Michael Jackson, Madonna, Mariah, Whitney....missioned accomplished....

Likely Contenders; As They Stand Now:

Usher - 18 Years of Career

[img:$uid]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPILygiEpZMA2oI1l8Dcb70BoTqUDfK_PC7oPMod3Lk1r5kHuI[/img:$uid]

Usher's first single 'Can I Get Wit It' was released on August 1, 1994...he turns 18 Years in August 2012

Beyonce - 15 Years of Career

[img:$uid]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRinSlBGHqa7aqX3dYkqErCSQXuCaFUMkWcJKMcfxTEdb4zvSCX[/img:$uid]

Beyonce's first single 'No No No' was released on November 11, 1997...she turns 15 Years in November 2012

[img:$uid]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwNMgcF2mx4VYxCuq7WhSsy7zVatxIuEz9WHqY7LgmxjmvezY-[/img:$uid]

Britney - 14 Years of Career

B's first single '....Baby One More Time' was released on September 30, 1998.. she turns 14 Years in September 2012

Pink - 12 Years of Career

[img:$uid]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQvDuBF9zp1O2vw2jEZXnTCWmoeAZLUn_jI1q0650iHxs4P_vy[/img:$uid]

Pink's first single 'There You Go' was released on February 8, 2000...she turned 12 Years in February 2012

Who has the juices? Rihanna, Gaga, Bruno? Katy Perry, 5 Years...does she have staying-power? Justin Bieber, Xtina...

Thoughts?

Well its scary to think of these artists because with the exception of Beyonce and Britney there is very little output, i think back to someone like Elton John who had 21 albums by the age of 33! basically he did that total in 10 years, now i know that now that isnt how BUSINESS goes, but i dont beleive that argument, because if NO ONE is really selling, who cares, record put it out and go from there, if its not a big seller, who cares nothing really is.

lastdecember said:

Well its scary to think of these artists because with the exception of Beyonce and Britney there is very little output, i think back to someone like Elton John who had 21 albums by the age of 33! basically he did that total in 10 years, now i know that now that isnt how BUSINESS goes, but i dont beleive that argument, because if NO ONE is really selling, who cares, record put it out and go from there, if its not a big seller, who cares nothing really is.

A career doesn't really have anything to do with how many albums an act puts out though. Sade only has 6 albums of new material and half of them was released in the 1980s. A bar band can perform for 20 years without releasing any albums. An act can also have a long career without any mainstream popularity like a zydeco group.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

Well its scary to think of these artists because with the exception of Beyonce and Britney there is very little output, i think back to someone like Elton John who had 21 albums by the age of 33! basically he did that total in 10 years, now i know that now that isnt how BUSINESS goes, but i dont beleive that argument, because if NO ONE is really selling, who cares, record put it out and go from there, if its not a big seller, who cares nothing really is.

A career doesn't really have anything to do with how many albums an act puts out though. Sade only has 6 albums of new material and half of them was released in the 1980s. A bar band can perform for 20 years without releasing any albums. An act can also have a long career without any mainstream popularity like a zydeco group.

To an extent you are right, but for me if your an artist just record, i mean i dont take it away from Sade but if im into an artist i really need output or they are on and off my radar too much, i mean i love JULIAN LENNON and his last two albums are better than most Beatle Solo albums but they came out in 1998 and 2011, so i really only have what he did prior to that which was from 1984-1991 which was 4 albums, so i mean he has had more than a career, but i bet people would say the guy hasnt had a career in music because of the lack of output, so to me i get your point but i feel, that people would say certain have careers even though they had gaps but others havent because of gaps.

lastdecember said:

but for me if your an artist just record

Most acts make their money from performing, not releasing records, since very few sell any significant amount. The ones who do sell are just making money for stockholders. It's always been that way. I think Maze last released an album in the late 1980s or early 90s. But they've been touring all this time. Even Steely Dan, who was mostly a studio group during their heyday, are mainly touring now.

[Edited 5/31/12 17:18pm]

That's mainly a reason why some don't wanna record, there's no money coming back. That's why most tour or invest in something that they know the money would return to them. There's been folks like the ones already mentioned that have maintained their careers by touring when record sales go down. Hell you got one charted hit (or two charted hits) wonders that still make decent money touring or onwing their own records via publishing rights. I consider it actually remarkable when artists still have charted hits 20 years on. When you check the entire history of recorded music, some of the ones heralded as legends only had four years or two years of chart success but either their impact on those songs and careers gave them life after the commercial acclaims died down. Like it's said you don't always need a hit record to survive.

Timmy84 said:

That's mainly a reason why some don't wanna record, there's no money coming back. That's why most tour or invest in something that they know the money would return to them. There's been folks like the ones already mentioned that have maintained their careers by touring when record sales go down. Hell you got one charted hit (or two charted hits) wonders that still make decent money touring or onwing their own records via publishing rights. I consider it actually remarkable when artists still have charted hits 20 years on. When you check the entire history of recorded music, some of the ones heralded as legends only had four years or two years of chart success but either their impact on those songs and careers gave them life after the commercial acclaims died down. Like it's said you don't always need a hit record to survive.

Well thats slightly different though, touring to survive would mean that you have recorded a pretty decent amount of work, because you really cant be an opening act all the time, so you gotta have some kind of hit or two and a pretty good amount of records at least 5 and up to be a touring force. I mean bands that still can tour and make huge money also have about 10 and up albums out, but they still need to get something new out there just to not turn into some sort of "side show" laundry list artist, which some do, and thats cool, but to me you gotta do something new or it does get stale. I mean I love CHICAGO but they are nothing but a hits touring summer time show probably not gonna have a new record for quite awhile if ever again. But then you have a group like Styx that does that same type of tour, but still has new records and plays them to keep fresh, since they are without one of the original voices, or Rick Springfield who has been on the road really since 2000 full force, never really taking more than 2-3 months off, but also has had 5 new albums since 2000. So there is no right or wrong way, but i think there is a different business model now, and kind of the reason you dont see people selling alot of tickets either, unless your Jovi or elton or u2.

lastdecember said:

Well thats slightly different though, touring to survive would mean that you have recorded a pretty decent amount of work, because you really cant be an opening act all the time, so you gotta have some kind of hit or two and a pretty good amount of records at least 5 and up to be a touring force. I mean bands that still can tour and make huge money also have about 10 and up albums out, but they still need to get something new out there just to not turn into some sort of "side show" laundry list artist, which some do, and thats cool, but to me you gotta do something new or it does get stale. I mean I love CHICAGO but they are nothing but a hits touring summer time show probably not gonna have a new record for quite awhile if ever again. But then you have a group like Styx that does that same type of tour, but still has new records and plays them to keep fresh, since they are without one of the original voices, or Rick Springfield who has been on the road really since 2000 full force, never really taking more than 2-3 months off, but also has had 5 new albums since 2000. So there is no right or wrong way, but i think there is a different business model now, and kind of the reason you dont see people selling alot of tickets either, unless your Jovi or elton or u2.

Many acts who still release new material don't perform them, as the main audience who comes to their concerts don't want to hear songs they don't know. The average person doesn't even know that veteran acts are still releasing albums or don't care. Paul McCartney has lots of songs, but most of his show today are Beatles tunes. They release stuff on small labels like KOCH, Concord, Stax, or Malaco, that don't get much media coverage. Not many people are aware of The O7's Condensate. As far as touring goes, it doesn't necessarily mean stadiums, it can just be a club. Tone Loc is still performing and he's mainly known for 2 or 3 songs. Some Latin freestyle singers also do club dates now. When was the last time Gloria Gaynor had a popular record? She's still around. PBS is always showing concerts with old doo wop, disco, folk, 60's pop, soul, etc. performers.

From 3:00-5:10, Black Ivory are discussing the music business:

[Edited 5/31/12 18:19pm]

Snoop Dogg!

[img:$uid]http://www.yummysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/snoop-dogg1.jpg[/img:$uid]

Since 1992 release of the titled-track for the film soundtrack Deep Cover (credited as Dr. Dre featuring Snoop Dogg Dog) , Snoop has been in the game for 20 years already.

[Edited 5/31/12 20:23pm]

And why is this thread only focusing on individual stars? How about groups?!?

New Edition is celebrating their 30th year anniversary in the music industry.

I actually think Usher is a very talented person & will be around for a long time.

Beyonce is very talented too - I actually admire her alot.

Poor Britney though - I actaully thought her last album was creative but the concert dreadful (saw the DVD of that) - I often wonder if she would even get a record out if she was to start now? She was just there at the right time.

I think this can be said of alot of artists now.

Rihanna - some good songs but does not come across live so great - so it falls apart in the concert settings - and she looks ready to crash and burn.

Pink - she is great - love her live gigs too, she really can sing but her songs & concert are very repetitive - would like to see her branch out in another direction.

Justin timberlake - he great too (he just sprung to mind) - another great talent but lazy - hasnt produced anything Since "Sexy Back".

Celine - well she is in a class of her own - not really in the genre we are discussing?

But to still be around for 20 years is still an acheivement to say the least - and at least they have done something.

I get more cranky when people are famous for doing nothing................like the Kadashians !!!! (grrrrrr).

TonyVanDam said:

And why is this thread only focusing on individual stars? How about groups?!?

New Edition is celebrating their 30th year anniversary in the music industry.

Because people think the music industry ONLY consists of Beyonce, Usher, Rihanna, Brittany, Justin and Katy Perry as if their accomplishing something when in reality their are people OF THEIR GENERATION that have already reached 20 years of a career.

Erykah Badu and Jill Scott are on their way as well. Mint Condition have been in the game for 20 years now as well as Boys II Men. Kelly Price and so forth....

[Edited 5/31/12 21:19pm]

They ignored rappers, but the title is POP STARS so I guess it's understandable.

For us Aussies - let us not forget our own lovely Kylie Minogue is now celebrating her 25th year in the industry.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

Well thats slightly different though, touring to survive would mean that you have recorded a pretty decent amount of work, because you really cant be an opening act all the time, so you gotta have some kind of hit or two and a pretty good amount of records at least 5 and up to be a touring force. I mean bands that still can tour and make huge money also have about 10 and up albums out, but they still need to get something new out there just to not turn into some sort of "side show" laundry list artist, which some do, and thats cool, but to me you gotta do something new or it does get stale. I mean I love CHICAGO but they are nothing but a hits touring summer time show probably not gonna have a new record for quite awhile if ever again. But then you have a group like Styx that does that same type of tour, but still has new records and plays them to keep fresh, since they are without one of the original voices, or Rick Springfield who has been on the road really since 2000 full force, never really taking more than 2-3 months off, but also has had 5 new albums since 2000. So there is no right or wrong way, but i think there is a different business model now, and kind of the reason you dont see people selling alot of tickets either, unless your Jovi or elton or u2.

Many acts who still release new material don't perform them, as the main audience who comes to their concerts don't want to hear songs they don't know. The average person doesn't even know that veteran acts are still releasing albums or don't care. Paul McCartney has lots of songs, but most of his show today are Beatles tunes. They release stuff on small labels like KOCH, Concord, Stax, or Malaco, that don't get much media coverage. Not many people are aware of The O7's Condensate. As far as touring goes, it doesn't necessarily mean stadiums, it can just be a club. Tone Loc is still performing and he's mainly known for 2 or 3 songs. Some Latin freestyle singers also do club dates now. When was the last time Gloria Gaynor had a popular record? She's still around. PBS is always showing concerts with old doo wop, disco, folk, 60's pop, soul, etc. performers.

From 3:00-5:10, Black Ivory are discussing the music business:

[Edited 5/31/12 18:19pm]

yeah i get what youre saying though i think Gloria Gaynor has long since recorded or she is really just a one hit wonder, i mean nothing anywhere else basically, so her idea of touring is not like Chicago or Styx going out for months and months doing marathon shows, GLoria is more like the "novelity" type performer, cant really take her too serious though, but i understand what you are saying. Though i do think there are a few out there that do new stuff at their gigs, Duran Duran when they release a new album, you get most of it played at shows, and thats true with alot of bands from that time period though they still through in their well known stuff, they will usually give you a good selection of their new record, depending really on the artist and their confidence in playing it.

I don't follow Khia too closely (just think she's hilarious even when she's dead wrong sometimes) but this girl has one classic under her belt (My Neck, My Back) and puts out new material regularly. So while she may not be Nicki Minaj, does Nicki have a song that will stand the test of time like Khia's?

And does Khia's lack of crossover mainstream material allow her to constantly pump new music to her fanbase?