I wasn't alive in the eighties or the first half of the nineties, but it seems like live acts were SIGNIFICANTLY better back then.

For example;

One Direction, aside from their pitched yelling, will literally stand there in a little line and do nothing. They don't play instruments like the boy bands past, they don't dance like N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys, and they barely harmonize. This might actually be the most untalented boy band in the history of boy bands. They are boring to watch. The fact that they're famous is insanity.

The Weeknd also does nothing.

Justin Bieber does things but is clearly a mediocre act/subpar act. You can tell nothing on that stage comes from his mind - its all tightly choreographed by a group of biz dudes , he's not a good dancer, and there is always some antic with him (puking on stage, throwing something, yelling at fans, hurting himself, etc...).

Beyonce is a particularly good live act - the best right now even, but I would only say that's because when your contemporaries are people like Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez, and One Direction and Lady Gaga - that tease of greatness - suddenly forsakes her place in pop culture, it's not that difficult. In my mind, Beyonce would've been an average act in say the 80s and only looks amazing due to a lack of quality contemporaries.

In your time, not only do you have Madonna, Michael Jackson, and the greatest of all - Prince, but you also have people like Billy Idol, George Michael, and Janet Jackson walking around. Everybody was doing something. People didn't just stand there. I notice this every time I watch an award show - THEY JUST STAND THERE.

[Edited 6/26/16 18:20pm]

Um Gaga is an awesome live performer.

AnonymousFan said:

THEY JUST STAND THERE.

It really depends on who you're focusing on. I've seen some pretty damn good local artists perform live & they kill it. Was in this resturant in Encino, and the house band killed it, but the one who stood out was this girl who just walked up to the mic & made everybody drop their jaws. Imagine somebody form the 70's fly through time machine right in that cafe. That band & the girl deserve to be playing in front of somebody else beside a bunch of non-chalant families with kids who were glued to their phones. They're out there, they just don't have the exposure yet.

AnonymousFan said:

I wasn't alive in the eighties or the first half of the nineties, but it seems like live acts were SIGNIFICANTLY better back then.

For example;

One Direction, aside from their pitched yelling, will literally stand there in a little line and do nothing. They don't play instruments like the boy bands past, they don't dance like N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys, and they barely harmonize. This might actually be the most untalented boy band in the history of boy bands. They are boring to watch. The fact that they're famous is insanity.

The Weeknd also does nothing.

Justin Bieber does things but is clearly a mediocre act/subpar act. You can tell nothing on that stage comes from his mind - its all tightly choreographed by a group of biz dudes , he's not a good dancer, and there is always some antic with him (puking on stage, throwing something, yelling at fans, hurting himself, etc...).

Beyonce is a particularly good live act - the best right now even, but I would only say that's because when your contemporaries are people like Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez, and One Direction and Lady Gaga - that tease of greatness - suddenly forsakes her place in pop culture, it's not that difficult. In my mind, Beyonce would've been an average act in say the 80s and only looks amazing due to a lack of quality contemporaries.

In your time, not only do you have Madonna, Michael Jackson, and the greatest of all - Prince, but you also have people like Billy Idol, George Michael, and Janet Jackson walking around. Everybody was doing something. People didn't just stand there. I notice this every time I watch an award show - THEY JUST STAND THERE.

[Edited 6/26/16 18:20pm]

To be sort of fair, if you look at the old Motown groups or the 70's Philly soul groups, they had some dance experts choreographing their stage moves as well, but all of them could sing well. And if you look at Parliament/Funkadelic, the early Earth Wind And Fire, and Kool & the Gang, they had weird costumes and stage sets that were as cheesy as many of their heavy metal contemporaries of the day, but they were all accomplished musicians, so even if you stripped away all the artifices you had great music behind it. The issue with many of today's artists is that their stage presence and live vocals are mediocre at best, and they've been groomed to be more media celebrities than actual artists.

CynicKill said:

Um Gaga is an awesome live performer.

Exactly, she was, but apparently she's forsaken her greatness to do whatever she's doing now. A HUGE shame. Now, she's chosen to live in lameness.

AnonymousFan said:

I've been checking these guys here for a few years now

728huey said:

I've started embracing local artists. Love Lauren Bevins singing blues and hope to see her include original work. Maybe it's time to starting supporting artists that aren't in the music machine. It seems more pure, more like music of old. (maybe I'm just getting old)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9IM_vDJOFo

AnonymousFan said:

I wasn't alive in the eighties or the first half of the nineties, but it seems like live acts were SIGNIFICANTLY better back then.

For example;

One Direction, aside from their pitched yelling, will literally stand there in a little line and do nothing. They don't play instruments like the boy bands past, they don't dance like N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys, and they barely harmonize. This might actually be the most untalented boy band in the history of boy bands. They are boring to watch. The fact that they're famous is insanity.

The Weeknd also does nothing.

Justin Bieber does things but is clearly a mediocre act/subpar act. You can tell nothing on that stage comes from his mind - its all tightly choreographed by a group of biz dudes , he's not a good dancer, and there is always some antic with him (puking on stage, throwing something, yelling at fans, hurting himself, etc...).

Beyonce is a particularly good live act - the best right now even, but I would only say that's because when your contemporaries are people like Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez, and One Direction and Lady Gaga - that tease of greatness - suddenly forsakes her place in pop culture, it's not that difficult. In my mind, Beyonce would've been an average act in say the 80s and only looks amazing due to a lack of quality contemporaries.

In your time, not only do you have Madonna, Michael Jackson, and the greatest of all - Prince, but you also have people like Billy Idol, George Michael, and Janet Jackson walking around. Everybody was doing something. People didn't just stand there. I notice this every time I watch an award show - THEY JUST STAND THERE.

[Edited 6/26/16 18:20pm]

Bruno Mars anyone? Janelle Monae? I personally think Bruno Mars is the best live act right now. I dont see whats so great about Beyonce, I really don't. She has talent but its average and like you said if this was the 80s or 90s she would be considered that... just okay. I personally think there are better performers and Lady Gaga's most recent live performances have actually been quite good.

CROWNS1 said:

I've started embracing local artists. Love Lauren Bevins singing blues and hope to see her include original work. Maybe it's time to starting supporting artists that aren't in the music machine. It seems more pure, more like music of old. (maybe I'm just getting old)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9IM_vDJOFo

I agree, there is a wealth of talented artists and performers out here if they were given a chance and opportunity. I think unfornately for this generation, most of the real talent is not commercial and consumers need to stop relying on pop stars to be creative and look for other artists else where.

mjscarousal said:

MotownSubdivision said:

mjscarousal said:

Bruno Mars anyone? Janelle Monae? I personally think Bruno Mars is the best live act right now. I dont see whats so great about Beyonce, I really don't. She has talent but its average and like you said if this was the 80s or 90s she would be considered that... just okay. I personally think there are better performers and Lady Gaga's most recent live performances have actually been quite good.

Bruno is in the minority though. Even so, as great as he is in today's musical landscape, he'd be looked at as an imitator or a novelty act in the 80's and 90's. The bar has just been set so low now that it can only go up.

The same can be said about Beyonce who pretty much is a Tina Turner/Diana Ross/Janet imitator. She doesn't have a unique stage identity. I agree with your perspectives on Bruno. What he is doing is not original but he is definitly the best live act now. I appreciate for one that he actually sings live and doesn't rely on to much spetacle for his stage shows.

mjscarousal said:

MotownSubdivision said:

For the most part, today's mainstream acts rely solely on special effects, backup dancers and guest stars to get them through a live performance.

It seems to me that's what the OP wants. This is the quote:

AnonymousFan said:

One Direction, aside from their pitched yelling, will literally stand there in a little line and do nothing. They are boring to watch.

The Weeknd also does nothing.

In your time, not only do you have Madonna, Michael Jackson, and the greatest of all - Prince, but you also have people like Billy Idol, George Michael, and Janet Jackson walking around. Everybody was doing something. People didn't just stand there. I notice this every time I watch an award show - THEY JUST STAND THERE.

So they don't want an act to just stand in one spot because that is "boring" to them. That's why I posted those videos of old acts who just stood in one spot. The recording industry began in the 1890s and since then a small percentage of acts did any dancing. Pre-televison, most of the audience did not even see the performers or know what they looked like as 78s generally did not have picture sleeves or they just heard the music on a jukebox or radio. That's how some listeners thought that the radio version of Amos & Andy were black actors, but they were white actors. A few acts might have appeared in movies (like Bing Crosby style crooners, jazz big bands, and 'singing cowboys') or a 'soundie', which was a early version of a music video. But people could only see those if they had a movie theater in their town. Even when TV began, there wasn't really many music TV programs that were widely broadcast.

All the backing dancers killed it. It's all about looks, not talent. Prince had looks but mostly had talent first. We do need to be truthful, if Prince looked like most men you all would not be fans.

MotownSubdivision said:

Well we live in a time where you don't have to be musically inclined in any sort of way to make it big.

. . . and there it is, most likely.

MotownSubdivision said:

mjscarousal said:

The same can be said about Beyonce who pretty much is a Tina Turner/Diana Ross/Janet imitator. She doesn't have a unique stage identity. I agree with your perspectives on Bruno. What he is doing is not original but he is definitly the best live act now. I appreciate for one that he actually sings live and doesn't rely on to much spetacle for his stage shows.

I wasn't disagreeing with you on Beyonce, just pointing out how Bruno is an imitator as well albeit one who is closer to his influences than Beyonce is to her's. Either way, while Bruno is the best live mainstream act today, he wouldn't have had a chance at mass popularity in the 80's. He wouldn't have been a match for the overwhelming starpower of Prince, MJ, Springsteen, George Michael, etc. just like Beyonce would've been crushed under the weight of Tina, Cyndi, Diana, Whitney, Janet and Madonna. [Edited 6/27/16 13:23pm]

I agree and well stated. I still think Beyonces influences are just as close. I don't think neither have a unique identity but I do respect that Bruno sticks to the music and doesn't focus on spetacle or PR as a selling point. If this was the 80s or 90s they wouldnt't be popular at all. They wouldn't even be one of the top mainstream acts.....

watch lawrence welk reruns

[Edited 6/28/16 12:07pm]

[Edited 6/28/16 12:17pm]

jon1967 said:

watch lawrence welk reruns

I used to watch that sometimes on PBS and there is dancing on it

Really, it all depends on who you go to see. If you're going to see a band that tours eleven months out of the year non-stop, chances are that band will be tight as a fist and the show will be killer. I've been to countless shows in the past, and have only been to a handful of bad shows. For example, I saw Coldplay in 2008. Tickets were about 90 bucks for mid-level seats, they played for only 80 minutes, and had zero energy. So not only do they seemingly charge about a dollar a minute, but they also give a very mediocre performance on top of it? I was pissed. I don't even like Coldplay enough to spend that kind of cheese on a ticket, but somebody twisted my arm into going. I've held it against them ever since lol. But anyway, since the topic of music is probably the most subjective topic in the world, you may think you've been seeing increasingly bad shows, but other people at said shows could think the total opposite and consider it some of the best gigs. Not to insult you or pick a fight, but have you thought that maybe you've just become disillusioned about live shows in general? I know I've been. These artists today sometimes charge outrageous prices for tickets to where it's almost the equivalent of a monthly car payment. It's easy to feel jipped after spending so much money for a ticket (and then merch and beer/refreshment cash on top of that) and then leaving the show feeling ripped off. That feeling gets old very quickly.

One Direction = masturbatory material for pre-teen girls to spend their parents disposable income
The Weeknd = exotic with wild hair stereotype, instant mainstream artist created to project underground image, marginal talent, 0 stage presence

Justin Beiber = see "One Direction" or Aaron Carter or Donny Osmond

Beyonce = Diana Ross-esque fiction thru Disney lens

.

Consumers made a lot of mistakes in the late 90s/early 00s and the industries failed to notice that people aren't really looking at them. Fast forward almost 20 years and your #1 albums aren't even nearing 100,000 sold physical. These horrible shows are what are keeping these acts afloat and you can tell by how disposable and interchangeable the acts have become. Those 90s acts are now banding together to tour together to do their 2 or 3 good songs. I can't imagine that happening ten/twenty from now as most can't even get 2 or 3 hits nowadays.

.

From Billboard regarding Drake's Views: In its eighth week at #1 (LOL) In the week ending June 23, it earned another 124,000 equivalent album units (up 2 percent). Of that sum, 33,000 were in pure album sales (up 25 percent).