Once you reach a level of fame(music)...

shifty_uk

shifty_uk

shifty_uk

Soldato
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
13,905
Location
.
I reckon once a level of fame is reached for singers, bands and so on that they can essentially produce and release rubbish and it'll generally be accepted by society regardless of quality?

Couple of examples from the top of my head...

Black Eyed Peas? Maybe their hits were pretty decent back in the day(not too sure, I didn't follow) but they seem to love producing kids party anthems these days. 'I've had the time of my life' remix with a 'dirty bit' thrown in? Seriously?

Beyonce? Fair enough, she's a talented r&b singer but she's got enough money to play with that she could release anything and it would be accepted and adored by the masses. 'Who run the world. Girls. Who run the world. Girls. Who run the world. Girls' *head explodes*.

It's all opinion of course, what works for you may not work for me etc but I still hold my opinion that money and fame grants you access and influence in the marketplace. Enough so that you can essentially produce tat and it'll fly off the shelves. This maybe the case with movies, also.
 
Definitely agree with what you're saying. The music you are talking about is generated by what I call the music business or music industry, and in my eyes barely even qualifies as music anyway. Chart music is 99% formulaic, emotionless, expressionless garbage that the world could do without.
 
shifty_uk said:
Beyonce? Fair enough, she's a talented r&b singer but she's got enough money to play with that she could release anything and it would be accepted and adored by the masses. 'Who run the world. Girls. Who run the world. Girls. Who run the world. Girls' *head explodes*.
Click to expand...
I would not credit Beyonce with any talent at all. She's fit as **** but thats about it.

It's all opinion of course, what works for you may not work for me etc but I still hold my opinion that money and fame grants you access and influence in the marketplace. Enough so that you can essentially produce tat and it'll fly off the shelves. This maybe the case with movies, also.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be sarcastic all the time, but hello captain obvious :p.
 
I'm not sure I agree with you, at least on the reasoning behind it.

Most singers/bands only have 1 or possibly 2 good albums in them, with the exception of truly great artists. After that if they've made it big enough then they can still sell the junk that they produce, if they haven't made it big enough then they simply disappear.
 
lrlcr said:
Most singers/bands only have 1 or possibly 2 good albums in them, with the exception of truly great artists. After that if they've made it big enough then they can still sell the junk that they produce, if they haven't made it big enough then they simply disappear.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure thats what shifty was saying..?
 
some people love to be contrarians, if your forced to listen to mainstream radio during work hours than I completely understand a jaded perspective on most chart music, but its not ALL terrible.
 
Making music costs a lot of money, therefore when a lot of bands attract initial fame and attention they then need to create commercially viable music in order to stay near/at the top.

Unfortunately commercially viable music doesn't necessarily translate into good music.
 
[zane]Yeh but you gotta respect what they are doing[/zane]

Seriously though I think Black Eyed Peas used to be a respected rap group, but I quite like the hits they churn out now :p

DON'T STOP THE PART-AY
 
toshj said:
Making music costs a lot of money, therefore when a lot of bands attract initial fame and attention they then need to create commercially viable music in order to stay near/at the top.

Unfortunately commercially viable music doesn't necessarily translate into good music.
Click to expand...

Well the thing is that some artists are skimping on music producers.

The good music producers (Dr.Dre, Max Martin, Dr Luke, JR Rotem (all of his songs start with the "jjjjr" jingle) charge 6 figures upfront and then lots more if it does well.

Nearly everything they produce sounds good/does well.
 
Yes but these songs are aimed at those buying pop music (the young 12-20 year olds)

This is the way it's been since the early 60s with manufactured music and bands. (Elvis Presley, Monkees, Jackson 5).

I do agree that once bands have success then the ideals and drive that got them famous will no longer be there. Then you have the brands like Madonna who has everything done for her musically but she sells. She's a "brand" and not really and artist.
 
Yeah I totally agree with once you reach a level anything you would release would be accepted by the masses. That is why I personally stopped listening to music a long time ago. Just makes no sense anymore!
 
I don't know why I like this, and no not that.


It's the instrumental, simple yet effective.

Also this
Go on criticise my taste in music. :p

Not usually a fan of Rnb and hip hop.
 
Last edited:
There are certain artists who I feel this 'rule' doesn't really apply for.

Some examples:

Bob Marley
Damian Marley (still very young in the game, but yet to release a bad album I feel)
Eminem (I don't really like his music, but you have to give credit where it's due)
UB40 (32 years and counting)
Lowkey
Queen
Rolling Stones

I'll add more when I think of them.
 
Pretty much yeah, to some extent it happens in other entertainment forms as well, sometimes footballers get a massive money move and then even if they flop they get another not-quite-so-big money move afterwards (e.g. Veron).

However I guess "accepted by society" is a bit of a grey area, generally what happens is an artist hits the big time then at least the next 1-2 albums will sell well regardless, I do think you get a bit of a tail off after that point if it isn't much good though.

Take Oasis for example, love them or hate them most fans will tell you they released 3 good albums (Definitely Maybe, Morning Glory, Masterplan) in the 90s, and they basically dined out on that for the next 10 years. However considering the fact I used to love Oasis in the 90s I lost interst in their records by the mid-noughties, although I still went to 3 gigs 2005-9 because I knew they would play old material.

Realistically looking at their past few albums I would say there is a couple of good songs on there but pretty mediocre apart from that, they seemed to burn up all their creative energy in the mid90s yet some people probably still bought their records in the hope that there would be a return to form. I know some people think they have always been rubbish but that isn't really relevant, the point is they DID have a lot of people who liked their music.

As for Beyone I really don't know, I liked the odd DC track, the odd early Beyonce track, I don't think she has got any worse, she is still making the odd good record, still entertaning crowds.

At the end of the day the industry wants a cash cow, they want to get an artist out there and then churn out the products, Girls Aloud is probably a really good example as they released a ridiculously large number of albums in a short space of time, FIVE albums between 2003-2008. S Club 7 the same, 4 albums 1999-2002 then a greatest hits in 2003. I would do the same in that position, strike while you are in the public eye, get the cash rolling in.

Maybe an extension of your theory would be to look at what happens when people leave a band and go solo. In the majority of cases they usually churn out a load of tripe, but the first album will nearly always sell on the back of their name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom