Since 2000, there had been no big star. Why?
 

According to my theory, big labels do not allow it, fearing that the artists will be decided. Labels want to dominate the music industry and simply afraid of the big stars. Why since 2000, did not show up one particularly significant in music, just as it did in the 90s?
In the 90s it was very much respected artists in various genres: Radiohead, Eminem, Tool, Massive Attack, Type O Negative, Rage Against The Machine, Portishead. I can't mention all important bands... but now?

Kendrick and Kanye come to mind. Everyone takes the piss on Kanye but he's still wildly popular musically.

Huh?

Taylor Swift
Adele ...

Probably has something to do with artists just stopping making good music since 1990

As a link to his music is under his post.

And, is Nirvana one of those ones that don't need to be mentioned? Because you can't mention 90's importance without Nirvana.

Kanye. e's being enjoying success ever since The Colledge Dropout, and now he's one of the most famous musicians ever. No joke. Even music sites and magazines admit that MBDTF is one of the greatest albums ever made. Can't really think of anyone who'd fit the bill for the 00's.

Some bigger ones I can name are Arcade Fire, Muse, Gorillaz, Coldplay (I've seen music sites go ballistic over them), and Daft Punk, but they aren't on the same level as Kanye in terms of stardom. Would competition itself have something to do with it? Does competition itself sell?

That's right, whoever said I was trying to make good music

Betelgeuse and Antares are pretty big stars...
http://forcetoknow.com/wp-content/up...oknow.com_.jpg

Though in fairness, they're not like they used to be in the nineties. Hardly ever hear any music from them....

@Frown: Pretty sure Mondo was being sarcastic, but maybe you're just being facetious. ;)

OP: Since you mention Radiohead, many would argue that they released their best material after the turn of the millennium, so they could just as well be considered an important 2000s band as a 90s one. But I guess you're talking about artists that emerged since the year 2000?

Facetious?? FROWNLAND??? Surely you jest! :laughing:

I'll facet your face

That doesn't even make sense.... :confused:

Oh! Come to think of it I think I completely misinterpreted his post... When he said 'irony' I figured he was referring to a person labeling all modern music as bad (of course this was intended as sarcasm from Mondo's side) releasing music of his own, but then it struck me that he was referring to the sarcasm/irony employed by Mondo. Funny that

Pink.

http://www.andreanolanusse.com/blogp...9/09/Pink1.jpg

Best part is she ****ing rocks.

FF to 2:30 if you are impatient.

Neither does your face

"To break someone's face" is a realively common expression.
If said face has a certain mineraloid hardness and smoothness, a punch that breaks, or, to be precise, slightly cracks it, might facet it. Although employing the word "facet" as a verb is somewhat novel.

http://www.xclusivetouch.co.uk/wp-co...-beard-gif.gif

It's a face comeback. It doesn't have to.

You're a face comeback. :)

Which, interestingly, is not a face comeback.

Ah, but it is a face comeback comeback. ;)

Well played.

I'm also still waiting for someone to make some kind of pun here using the words "face" and an alternate spelling of "come".

I'll come on...your face...and your back. Yeah.

That was brilliant.:tramp:
So brilliant, I just might let you.

This is when it's annoying waiting for Batty to wake up and scrub the **** and semen off him, and come join us.

Don't get me started about those encrusted Americans in their weird-ass time zones.

I thought about the heavens too.

It takes about 15 years for the dust to settle and for people to decide who the really big stars were. I was a teenager in the 80s and I remember people saying exactly the same thing.

Cut it down to 5 years and I'll agree. If you can come out of the gate, slam home a few solid albums, have a couple of major hits, and be discussed by the masses?

Star baby.

Album sales equals star power. Rihanna is a prime example. Adele, Jennifer Lopez, Nikki Minaj, Beyonce, Insert any other female vocalist with multi platinum success. But then how has that changed? It hasn't the same dire plot re-hashed for somebody elses kids, over and over and over.

*Nicki

I don't necessarily agree with the statement, but a few thoughts:

- Attention spans have decreased
- Access to music has increased substantially, resulting in more artists fighting for our attention
- Good artists are more reluctant to sign to major labels
- More people (musicians and fans alike) have become wise to the major label/artist b.s.
- Free streaming and torrenting limiting album sales compared to decades past

etc.

I'll give a genuine answer to the question posted in the thread title seeing as though nobody else seems to have bothered.

It's because they split up in 1974.

That never happened

There are "stars" - just not "rock stars." Pop is the dominant format now. Rock music is out. There are some good rock bands, but the major label system no longer sees rock music as it did in the 80s and 90s.

As to why, perhaps, grandmas don't know musicians/bands like they may have in the 90s and before, that's largely because of the fragmentation of distribution. There are no more MTVs and radio, although holding on, does not command the attention it once did. You used to be able to beam a video on MTV and if the video took, a new band would be able to sell out tours pretty quickly. The disruption of the Internet and the devaluation of music over the past 15 years has led to a lot of noise, making it difficult for artist's to break through without major label marketing and promotion.

As revenue has dwindled, the major labels have opted for the 'get rich quick' strategy as opposed to investing in their catalog (which ironically is the only thing making them any money these days) by developing career artists. So, you see pop stars come and go every year or two only to be replaced with someone younger. The same songwriters write new versions of the same songs every few years and the mainstream co-opts different genres/trends as it always has and the cycle repeats. Most "pop stars" as we know them today are known more for their social media accounts than for their music.

Someone else mentioned attention spans and that's part of it. It's a very complex issue with differing viewpoints, all of which are probably correct to a certain degree. I would agree with the sentiment that songwriting has become less important in the last few years, especially in pop. So in terms of creating stars, I don't think there's much substance these days in mainstream music. The major labels certainly aren't going to take a risk on an unpredictable artist like a Kurt Cobain, Trent Reznor, Neil Young, or David Bowie when they can easily manufacture a plastic pop star who they can control and share in every aspect of revenue. The labels are done taking risks.

I don't think so ...

Well, first who came on my mind Amy Winehouse. She wrote lyrics about her personal life, didn't care about labels, money and show business. Plus she made jazz, soul popular again and mixed couple styles. Press admits that Adele, Duffy, Lily Allen, Lana Del Rey become popular thanks to Amy. She started new mainstream in music.