Why does the mainstream industry only want a select few to be popular?
 

There are a ton of female as well as male singers/artists that have it. They have the looks, they have the charisma, they are good performers, songwriters, make creative music and so forth. However, we will probably never hear about them outside of their niche audiences or word of mouth.
http://ioneglobalgrind.files.wordpre...bb33.jpg?w=532


Once upon a time the formula of a pop star was looks + catchy music+ marketable image+ flashy spetacle

and Tada!!!

You have yourself a popstar
http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/...tney-1-383.jpg

but this formula seems to be null and void for this generation of pop stars (not that I liked that formula but just observation). It seems the decision on who becomes a super star in todays music era is based on the industry itself versus the old school formula and public opinion.

I guess my question is...why?

There are a ton of artists and performers that have the looks, are great performers and produce great music. They have the "it" factors so why aren't they superstars?

It appears the industry simply does not want to market them. There are artists that would and could be superstars if they had the marketing to reach more people. The industry just wants to market its select few for whatever reason

Once again...why?

I am so sick of the hypersexual pop stars that make generic pop music while other female pop stars make more creative music get less attention.

I am sick of the corny wannabe male pop stars that make imitation bland versions of previous music for past era's.

The mainstream industry could be so much bigger if they simply market other artists.

Why does the mainstream industry want the pop artists to have small competition? Why do they black ball those other artists for the sake of the established ones? Why doesn't the mainstream industry care about creativity like it once did?


I notice this is a rock orientated forum. Do you music listeners even care about the state of the music industry or popular music?

...Are you...criticising the "industry's" preference of vacuous pop icons over genuine musical talent and passion...or criticising their decision to not take on every single potential pop icon they come across?

If the answer is "both"...then I...I just don't know what to think

Is that your opinion? Are you trying to imply a point? Can you please explain?

I guess it is a mixture of both issues but a little more the bolded.

There are artists that have a marketable image and they also make creative catchy music but they are still overlooked.

Well I suppose you sort-of answered your own question...

If the "industry" markets every potential pop icon it comes across, it will create an unsustainable level of competition, and the least popular will just die out anyway, leaving only the "mega-stars" to take the crown and keep the competition limited to a handful. Seeing as they all kind-of look and sound the same, I guess it'll just be about who looks the sexiest in their music videos.

It's like capitalism...or natural selection...or something like that.

You are right but I would challenge your opinion and say that even in the
80's there was still alot of competition.

Although the 80's had big stars like MJ and Madonna, they still had Prince, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind and Fire, Bon Jovi, U2, Bruce Springton, Whitney Houston, etc. There still was a balance and a variety despite the bigger stars and it made it more interesting. There was a varity of stars playing on the radio likewise selling out arena's and it is not like that any more.

Even during the 90's and early 00's there was way more competition than what it is today.

The popularity of today's pop stars is not a reflection of their music and talent but more so because of image and marketing. People are not buying pop music anymore and before someone makes the "internet/youtube arguement" when Adele became a superstar she became a superstar because people liked her music.

Her "21" album has sold far more than any other pop star that is out right now. So while it appears the others are more popular, it seems people are more interested in listening and buying quality music. I am not a huge Adele fan but she does have more depth to her music compared to the other pop singers.

So that tells me that people will pay for quality music and are interested in other singers besides what is being shoved down their ears.

If people were exposed to different types of artists they would be just as popular in my opinion.

Maybe. There's nothing stopping people finding these under-appreciated acts and styles though. You could scan through a few threads on this forum and find a few hundred artists you've maybe never listened to before.

But you could argue that thanks to the internet and social media, there is too much competition. Anyone can get their tunes out there in this day and age through their own efforts. The prime issue is that there's far too much of it and so much of it is crap.

But all the shallow pop nonsense still sells and brings in the millions...I suppose some people just like the radio. It's just "one of those things".

Well I understand people can find their underappreciated artists or singers but I just thought it would be interesting to discuss for discussion purposes.

I don't think its because people just "like the radio". I think people like what they are overexposed to or have been exposed to. I think the general music listener is use to a particular style of music or singer so they just accept it since pop music is so easily accessible.

If people were introduced to a different type of artist or singer I think they would like it as well.

I think the internet has made it easier for music listeners to appreciate their underappreciated artists and other music but it still does not change that the pop industry looks over them. I know it doesnt matter what the industry thinks but once upon a time the industry was more diverse than what it is now. I think it can still be diverse but for some reason the industry does not want it to be.

Oh and blackdragon, thanks for your opinions!

Its a product of technology. Everybody can be a star with autotune and fake boobs and butts. The pop industry is very reliant on sex appeal now more so then its ever been. They have developed a formula for success and none of it requires musical ability any longer. Sure there are breakthrough performers with excess ability but its fewer and farther between. Thats why I find myself listening to rnb from years ago, there is so much depth to the lyrics and the vocal talent was on a different level altogether. Music goes in waves though so i'm sure at some point people will revert back. As for the industry choosing what they market its always been that way and always will be. Janelle Monae is a mainstream star though, not sure why you chose her for your discussion.

no worries!

yeah wow imo everyone who has ever written any music should be famous and mainstream what are these industry idiots doing

banter!

I disagree

but why do you think this?

I choose Janelle because while she is mainstream, she is not a singer I would define as a "superstar". She isn't that mainstream although she is more popular than your average "indie" artist. I used her as an example because she is artist that deserves to be a superstar. She has all the factors necessary to be one and unlike the current ones, she actually makes creative music but for some reason the mainstream industry does not want to market her.

You make alot of great points. Why do you think the industry is choosing this "hypersexual pop star" when its clear people want more authencity?

Thanks for your opinions!

Isn't this like the fiftieth time you've had this debate on this site? How much more is there to say?

LOL

This is my first time making a thread on it!

This is a discussion board. There are many of the same topics that constantly get discussed

The Batlord can you give me your opinion on the topic? I am interested in hearing your perspectives.

It's a business. As the industry has learned and adapted their methods for making money have become more refined leading us to what we have today. It is what it is. If you want to change it then you're going to have to take the record companies out Fight Club-style, otherwise they're going to keep churning out music on an assembly line cause that's what's worked for them so far. Maybe if I cared more about pop music as something other than a quick ear worm then I'd be more upset, but... eh.

The guy who detailed every Britney Spears album ever made and fawned over it in his Blog, doesn't care about pop music? OK

^Ha!
Thanks!

I defintly would LOVE to change it. There should be more women in the big black chairs running the shots instead of middle age white men who scope and map the industry based on their sexist color struck ideals.

I can see you feel pretty strongly about it. But all races and all genders have the same potential for bias, prejudice and the promotion of radio-friendly nonsense.

Look at it this way - with most adults trying to keep up with the expensive modern realities and spending most of their entertainment dollars on HDTV and the Internet (Cable seriously killed a lot of what was happening as far back as The 70's!), to the suits that want it big, the only monetary voice left is that of the kids with the expendable money who listen to this and have no time for anything really serious or thought provoking.


After a time finding out that the industry lost money big time in giving videos to MTV for free (yes, those mega-budget three minute clips) and even more money trying to ride on a standard that has died as the record chains went into their death scenes while the rest of the world went to the Internet, the answer to them was not to get into anything too risky and rely on an Idol based system mixed in with some controversy and of the tired and tested Rock and Roll Hollywood Babylon-style meltdowns so that the celebrity-obsessed culture can look and look for ages (I still think that all of the recent Pop Idol breakdowns are staged - you know you're supposed to listen to what they tell you not to, right?) all sold by the bucket load at Wal Mart.


They know they will not get their target goal of money from the niche audiences or the Indie kids who have already pledged their allegiances away from the mainstream.

It's like the movie industry and finding out that giving the Directors major leeway that can result in things like Heaven's Gate, a move that can cost a studio a lot of money and a lot of trouble to recoup forcing them to get back to the old strategy. Cue the Epic Mentality which led to people like Michael Bay.

One bad move, and you have to Keep It Simple Stupid (I guess that most of the future record executives of America in The 70's were Kiss fans!). No time to wonder if this, that, or the other will work, just go with the right formula and it will work for itself. So now we have a High School Musical Disco McDonald's with condoms on the side.

You are right ....but most of the people calling the shots behind the scenes ARE middle age/old white men.

That is what the statistics state. These are the facts


I wonder if they had a African American or Latina woman making the serious moves and running the show would this "hypersexual" female image even exist.

I highly doubt it.

It makes complete sense monetarily to go with a tried and true formula. The only time they will take a risk on an artist is if they already have their own built in fan base that they got from the internet.

They won't invest completely either, just a little bit of money to test the waters and if the artist can back up the claim that they already have a built in fan base then they invest more.

If they want to make money they would let it continue to exist. Debra Lee at BET is a good example of that.

I love me some pop, but other than a few select cases, like Britney or Kylie Minogue, I don't actually care about it for longer than it takes to actually listen to a radio single.

Great Post!!!!


I agree with all of this I guess I am a bit confused as to why the industry contradicts itself. There are artists that have the same it factors that they have pledged by for decades but for some reason they will not market them.

Why do you think despite an artist having it qualities and catchy music they still are overlooked?

Why can't a beautiful talented singer like Janelle,who also makes catchy music sell out an arena or get a number one album?

The industry won't allow it.... why?

I can't stand Debra Lee but Debra answers to someone at the end of the day. She is not answering to another African American woman.

She is following the orders of a white man.

She chooses to for money.

The BET creators sold BET to Viacom and that was the WORST mistake they could have possibly done to the channel. It is appalling the way BET portrays black people, APPALLING


Why do you think they took a risk with Adele instead of maybe...Jennifer Hudson?

Because these "it" qualities to you are different than "it" qualities for someone else.

Janelle Monae has no "it" qualities to me. Whatever. Move on.

You can't just make a statement like this to a Janelle Monae fan and then say

"Whatever. Move On" LOL

No, I want you to explain why you think this, since you came in here and boldly stated it.

You were the one that bolded it, not me.

Her music just doesnt do anything for me. I don't hate it, i dont like it; her music is just there. If you want me to write an essay on why, i am not going to.

If you want to focus on me no liking her, then idk, but my main point was that people like different things. I dont know why she has to be a "superstar" to justify anything to you. Just like what you like and dont worry so much about what others listen to (or arent listening to, evidently).

Thanks!

You made a bold statement so I just simply ask for you to explain your opinion because I am interested in hearing peoples opinions.


Just because I am interested in hearing others opinions on the issue does not mean I am seeking justification for a artist I like.

Regardless whether you like her or not, her music is catchy, she is attractive, she is a good performer and she has other it qualities about her that would be ideal for marketing a pop star. I don't care whether she becomes a superstar or not because I will always love her. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss for discussion purposes.

Connections, connections, connections. It was always that way through the ages. Seriously, there's nothing wrong with it, as it always works when you play the card right, but sadly the number of the more daring connections have been less in number. Also, in my opinion, those who push the buttons have been a little bland and calculated in the music taste department Stateside. I have to admit elsewhere around the world, the Pop scenes have a little more flavor to my taste.

Sometimes it works with the public, other times it does not.

The Industry changes with the "changing of the guard" - one series of people deposing another, and the usual tale if that when someone takes charge, the goal is to discredit what happened before or at least knock the rising stars and keep the established ones. A chess game - Machiavelli style with Beat.

Mainstream music acts are basically actors and actresses. Industry big wigs decide on a set, or badass stage show and general theme, then find people who fit the part physically and personality wise. This is because the radio masses are more likely to consider a concert with enormous props and amazing lighting, interesting, than a talented musician. Ask anyone who's not really into music about the best show they've been to, the stage is the first thing mentioned with the auditory experience an afterthought.

People who can afford to make an awesome set, or know others willing to help them, also have an opportunity to break into the mainstream. Its all about marketing a performer... not a musician. Personally, I'm not bothered by it. Just look at what they do as a different kind of art.

And of course... there are exceptions. But mainly its about money, luck, or connections. Bigger record companies see trends going slightly in one direction then push it a million times further in that direction by signing tons of artists in that general category who are marketable personas.

Since we're discussing conspiracy theories. Thats mine. Just thought of it.

Welcome to the real world. This is not exclusive to popular music, but all music. Any band or artist you know, you've heard of because of those 3 things. I'd argue luck is the biggest contributor to any artist's success or lack there of.

I'd argue that you're not allowed in this thread anymore because you're discussing logic and this is a place for conspiracy theories only.

First off, THANKS, really great perspectives here.



I agree with you on this because there are alot of industry folk that kiss the asses of some of the most overrated artists and I have no clue as to why. I think it is apart of a script for artists to follow and to say about other artists.

I know that its not professional to publicly bad mouth another artist but some of these compliments these bland current pop stars receive is so ridiculous to the point you would think they were talking about Mozart. LOL Either that or they are getting paid to or they smoking something.... lol


For some reason current popular music doesn't seem to be about "music" and more so about image. It wasn't like that years ago. Image played a role of course but it wasn't the only means to how a pop star became popular.

Its sickening. We have little girls looking up to these hyper sexual singers and they want to be like them. smh There is nothing "cute" about that.

Absolutely!

Its just that these pop singers are just so bland and boring. For some reason the general music listener eats them up and doesn't seem care. It would be one thing if they were at least somewhat "interesting." Todays pop singers have to rely on things non related to music to stay relevant like movies, tv shows, clothing line, perfume line, commercials, etc.

It's a basic human truth: the law of averages.

"For many are called, but few are chosen."

Back in 1989, Frank Zappa released an autobiography called "The Real Frank Zappa Book." Being a big fan of Zappa and The Mothers of Invention, I bought a copy of the book and read it through. In the book, Frank mentions a speech he gave, in 1984, to the convention of the American Society of University Composers (ASUC). It was one of many interesting parts in the book, that stuck in my mind, and it is just as relevant today and just as humorous now as it was then. I found the entire speech reproduced at a website and thought I'd post some excerpts here, since they fit the topic of this thread. I've also included the link to the entire speech, in case anyone is interested in reading it in it's entirety.

Here are some excerpts from the speech...


"Back in the old days, when all the REALLY GOOD MUSIC was being written, composers were TRULY INSPIRED, had a DEEP MEANING in their works and SUFFERED INTENSE EMOTIONAL DISCOMFORT as these GREAT WORKS were 'BORN'."

Yes, people still believe in this kind of stuff. In truth, the situation was pretty much the same as now, (with a few slight variations).

THEN: The composer had to write for the specific tastes (no matter how bad) of, THE KING, THE POLITICAL DICTATOR, or THE CHURCH. Failure to do so resulted in unemployment, torture or death. The public was not consulted. They simply were not equipped to make assessments of relative merit from gavotte to gavotte. If the KING couldn't gavotte to it, then it had no right to exist.

ALL OF THE SWILL PRODUCED UNDER THESE CONSTRAINTS IS WHAT WE NOW ADMIRE AS 'REAL CLASSICAL MUSIC'. Forget what it sounds like . . . forget whether or not you happen to enjoy it . . . that's how it got made . . . and when music is taught in schools, it is the 'taste norms' of those KINGS, DICTATORS, and CLERICS which are perpetuated in the harmony and counterpoint classes.

After those are doled out, and the student gets to the 'advanced stuff', he is introduced to the splendors of 12-tone rigmarole, serialized dynamics, and computer programming of 'automated indeterminate composition'.

Those 'tools' enable the budding genius to do what everybody else does in 'modern life': hide behind preposterous regulations (preferably as a member of a 'committee'), in order to absolve himself of blame or responsibility for 'individual action' --- in this case, the heinous act of 'musical creation'. By conforming to these idiocies, the young composer receives praise, certification of splendidness, and GRANT MONEY. Everything his teachers would murder for.

Anyone not choosing to follow this approved method of enlightenment is regarded as a fool or a pervert.

Today, the composer has to write for the specific tastes (no matter how bad) of 'THE KING' (now disguised as a Movie or TV producer, The Head of the Opera Company, The Lady With The Frightening Hair on the Special Committee, or her niece, DEBBIE).

Some of you don't know about DEBBIE since you don't have to deal with radio stations or record companies in the way that people from the 'other world' do, but you ought to find out about her, just in case you decide to 'switch over' later.

DEBBIE is thirteen years old. Her parents like to think of themselves as 'average, God-fearing American White People'. Her dad belongs to a corrupt Union of some sort and is, as we might suspect, a lazy incompetent, over-paid, ignorant sonofabitch. Her mom is a sexually maladjusted mercenary shrew who lives only to spend her husband's paycheck on ridiculous clothes designed to make her look 'younger'.

DEBBIE is incredibly stupid. She has been raised to respect the values and attitudes which her parents hold sacred. Sometimes she dreams about being kissed by a lifeguard.

When the people in THE SECRET OFFICE WHERE THEY RUN EVERYTHING FROM found out about DEBBIE, they were thrilled. She was perfect. She was hopeless. She was THEIR KIND OF GIRL. She was immediately chosen for the critical role of 'ARCH-TYPICAL IMAGINARY POP MUSIC CONSUMERAND ULTIMATE ARBITER OF MUSICAL TASTE FOR THE ENTIRE NATION'. From that moment on, everything musical in this country would have to be modified to conform to what they computed to be HER NEEDS & DESIRES.

DEBBIE'S 'taste' determined the size, shape and color of all musical information in the United States during the latter part of the twentieth century. Eventually she grew up to be just like her mother and married a guy just like her father. She has somehow managed to reproduce herself. The people in THE SECRET OFFICE have their eye on her daughter at this very moment.

As a SERIOUS AMERICAN COMPOSER, should DEBBIE really concern you? Because DEBBIE prefers only short songs with lyrics about boy-girl situations sung by persons of indeterminate sex, wearing S & M clothing, and because there is LARGE MONEY INVOLVED, the major record companies, which, a few years ago, occasionally risked investment in recording of new works, have all but shut down their 'classical divisions' and seldom record 'new music'. The small labels that do release it have wretched distribution. Some have wretched accounting procedures. They might release your recording, but you won't get paid.

The problem with living composers is: THEY HAVE TO EAT. Mostly what they eat is brown and lumpy. There is no question that this diet has had an effect on their work.

Just as composers in the earlier age had to accommodate the whims of KINGS, DICTATORS, and CHURCHES, composers today must write for the amusement and edification of their sinister descendants: The Guy who Figures Out What Kind of Tax Break you get from ARTS DONATIONS, The OIL, TOBACCO, or CHEMICAL COMPANY That Needs To 'Lose' a Few Million Bucks By The End of The Fiscal Year, The Five guys Who Program All the Radio Stations in The U.S., The Fanatic Fundamentalists Who Demand Bland Lyric Content and Total avoidance of Biological Reality, and The M.B.A.s Who Advise Everyone On How TO Make More Money By Praising Ignorance and Docility While Suppressing Anything Intelligent or Inventive."


And here is the link to the entire speech...

Bingo! There Goes Your Tenure! - The Full Speech

What's important is that the people that like that type of artist, their niche, know about the good artist. If not, it'll be underappreciated because they don't know about it. It doesn't matter if it's fully mainstream, why would you care so much about that?
When that happens it's usually just mindless sheep/drones that like whatever they're told to like by marketing, or people that just never take the effort to look for better music, making them only listen to what's on the radio. Why would it matter what they think about the artist?

it matters if it's well known to the people that genuinely care about that type of music, at least to me. There''s a lot of Punk bands I like that are nowhere near popular compared to pop punk or mainstream music, but they're very well known by almost any punk fan so I don't really care too much about it.