mjscarousal said:

^ Yes Motown! If half these so called current power house acts did not have the machine behind them, people would not be interested because they are not interesting. They need to advertise and market out the ass to keep people interested and to stay relevant.MJ, Madonna, etc did not have to overexpose themselves to stay relevant. They did not have to force people to like them.

hw3004 said:

The question was who could sell out "a" 20K capacity arena - not who could sell out a multi date tour of 20K capacity arenas (which, as it's been pointed out, there are not a lot of)! I'd argue the 02 isn't a special case in terms of the venue per se, it's that it's a venue in London - one of the largest cities in the world and a major player in the music business.

The question was who could sell out a 20k capacity venue AND more. Objectively, these current acts can not sell out a 80-90, 000 venue like acts like U2 or Madonna. Mind you Madonna/U2 do it every night, which I think is worth mentioning because they are not as overexposed or popular as some other current acts we constantly hear about. Pretty much everyone at some point has sold out that O2 arena even lesser known acts that are not popular anymore. Whoopie doo ...some could sell it but could they sell out a 20 k every night of a tour? Probably not, looking at the stats most of the current acts don't even do 20k capacity venues.

Also, good points Lastdecember glad to see you back boo! Unfornately, I don't think these current acts will stop overexposing themselves. Even if they were to disappear and then come back these acts are just simply not that interesting.

Thanks mj! You always got my back! Overexposure is really a double edged sword for those that use it to stay in the public eye. On one hand it keeps eyeballs and attention on them but at the same time, it burns people out and drives them away. While they may have lots of supporters they're also losing supporters and turning off people who were never fans even more. In this day and age we have more polarizing artists than we ever had before and being polarizing doesn't make one a major star by itself.

[Edited 9/29/14 17:56pm]

It's not always the acts themselves that expose themselves. Remember there was no TMZ, reality shows, or internet gossip sites/blogs decades ago. At most there was Rona Barrett or the National Inquirer. In the 1980s, Entertainment Tonight came into being, but it wasn't really tabloid like it is today. It was just a place for celebs to plug their current music/movie/TV show. Celebs weren't considered news, you didn't see Walter Cronkite talking about them. The news was more serious.

.

There was much less paparrazi and they mostly focused on major Hollywood actors, not music acts as much. There was also less competition like video games, cell phones, PCs, DVD, internet, etc. Not too many people had a big pinball machine in their house, maybe some board games. The acts now have to compete with things that didn't exist and some people today have a shorter attention span.

[Edited 9/29/14 18:17pm]

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Exactly. The publicity artists get these days is incredible and not in a good way. It's pretty deplorable how the news panders to celebrities now as though they're the reason we wake up every morning.

Maybe not to you, but there's obviously a big audience for it. You really think celebs want paps ambushing them or hiding in the bushes at schools taking pictures of their kids. If celebrity gossip didn't make money, it wouldn't be on TV and the paps would be out of business. They're only giving the public what they want. Why do you think Wendy Williams is popular or The View/The Talk? These types of programs took the place of daytime soap operas. There used to be many soaps, but there's only 3 or 4 still on. There's way more talk shows nowadays too, and they have to have guests to appear on them. Show business is about making money, that's all it's ever been. That's partly why the mafia was often involved in it.