Short-term mass popularity vs. Long-term relevence

[Islander canuck]

It seems that for the most part popular music can be sperated into two catagories short-term mass popularity or long-term relevence.

Short-term mass popularity: A solo artist or group who gain extreme popularity but eventualy fade into obscurity and are forgotten. Before they disappear from public contiousness these artists may have one or more hits. Since their success relies on popularity looks may take priority over musical ability.

Long-term relevence: A solo artsit or group who can remain in the puplic contiousness over an extended length of time. These are indeviduals who can maintain a fanbase for 20, 30 or 40+ years and still attract new fans. Any artist who achieves this sort of success must possess a certain level of musical ability.

Short-term mass populairty seems to be the prefered route for major record labels today as it results in them getting lots of money immedeately and when the public loses intrest in the artist they can just walk away. I suspect this has always beeen the case, the long-term relevence of any artsit is in large part of their own making. As such the scales are unbalanced when we conpare different eras.

Lastly I think the reason there are so many artists from the '70's who are still relevent today is not because the youth then were more talented then the youth of any other era but because there simply was more of them. For exaple according to wikipedia 40% of Americans were under the age of 20 in 1965. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2...r_II_baby_boom

[MaryCalifornia]

Interesting, IC.

My theory is that successful artists of the '70s who were born in the 40s or 50s did not (and do not) have the same unreasonable expectations of "happiness" and "personal satisfaction" that today's young artists do. This goes for studio execs as well. They were willing to work hard and subsume their own personal interests/desires for long-term success of the band. Nobody will do that nowadays - it has to be instant gratification, all the time. If you're not happy, you're gone. To have long-term success, all of the members have to sacrifice so much, and people today aren't willing to do that. There are too many other superficial enticing options out there. Everyone is always thinking they can do better.

[tjh532]

I think that a big part of it is image as well. I can remember growing up listening to songs and artists on the radio in the 70's and having absolutely no idea what they looked like. I just loved the music. Bands could be popular because they were producing great music. The flip side of that was that they had to be on the road all the time so that their fans could see them and they could build that fan base. In the 80's with the advent of MTV, that all changed. It was just as much about image as it was about musical talent. All of a sudden you had to have both. (Or sometimes, the look was more important) I think that really changed the industry. Now, artists can be successful without spending the majority of the year on the road. Shania Twain have several hits and was well known before she ever went on tour. Now you have crap out there like Miley Cyrus that passes as music. When people hear real music (like the Eagles) everyone recognizes that and appreciates it. I think that real music from all era's endures.
And Mary, ITA about the instant gratification. I think that there are a lot of artists out there that burn out quickly because they can't work as hard as it takes, or stick with it when they start to lose their popularity.

[tjh532]

Sorry that I didn't see your reply sooner Wasted! I agree that there are some artists that make it regardless of their less than model looks - I love the Zac Brown Band. Although I will add that it seems to only happen for the guys. I don't think that could happen for a woman. Look at Adele - killer voice, but she is always made up and dressed to the nines, and the tabloids are always reporting on what diet she's on and if it works. For pete sakes - just let her sing! On the flip side of that coin, you have someone like Taylor Swift, who dresses and looks like a fairy princess, and all of the little girls adore her. Yet she can't sing her way out of a paper bag (talk about auto tune! Have you ever heard her try to sing live? Not pretty) Of course that is just as much a comment on our society as it is on the music industry.
The book about making Rumours sounds interesting. I love books about the music industry and whatnot. I watched a documentary on Netflix last week about the making of Stevie Nicks last record with Dave Stewart ( of Eurythmics fame) and it was fascinating to see the behind the scenes process of recording and how they wrote the songs for that album. Most of it was recorded in her home.
As for the bands of the 70s having a better message to their music, again I think that has to do with society, and what is happening in our world. Teenagers in the 70's were very politically conscious of what was happening in their world, and the artists reflected that. Today, music is commercially driven, that you don't see much of that. Not that artists aren't capable. I just don't think that record labels will let that see the light of day. Too bad really, because art of all kinds is how people have always expressed their reaction to what is happening in the world around them.

[bluefeather]

I think in a way it was as commercial then as it is now(bands made up for a TV show like the Monkees) but some ways it's definitely got worse because it's easier AND CHEAPER to fake it with auto-tune etc. so a lot of authenticity and originality is lost

[MaryCalifornia]

Okay, I'm starting to get it. #crickets #icantakeahint

Hey Wasted, I can't imagine anyone in this thread had any problem with your comments, and thanks for participating. Sometimes the topics in this Singing for the Sake of the Song thread can get pushed down the list of topics very quickly within the same day and sort of just die out, which is what I think happened here.

[Zanny Kingston]

This really is great topic. I think everyone has had some really valid points on the subject as well.

My husband, by the way, is a real child of the 70's, and often tells me that I am musically stuck in the 70's. I was in high school in the late 70's into the early 80's, so old enough to appreciate the decade, and I will admit that I am stuck in the 70's, but I have maintained for many years, that for me, the 1970's was one of the greatest decades for music that has ever happened. Those were the songs of my youth and I am glad that they were, considering what we have had to pick from in the past several years. Its really a shame, as I am sure there is some real talent out there somewhere.

Not to sound archaic here, but there was no internet, computer, etc, etc, things were simpler and there were fewer options for entertainment. There were more musical genres, it seems than there are now and the relevance of that music from the 1970's is not lost on the television, movie and advertising gurus in this country. How many of those songs from the 70's sadly end up as themes for tv commercials? That's not an accident. They know just who is watching and buying.

Admittedly my guilty pleasure tv shows are some of the ' Real housewives' on Brave and there was always one housewife who believed they had a recording career ahead of them. Their records were all really really bad! Fortunately they fell into the short term category. Some of the really great talents tend to make it look very easy and that may attract the less talented thinking its easy money.

[tjh532]

Zanny - since you were brave enough to admit it, I will too. I have also watched some of the Real Housewives shows. There was one wife in New Jersey who thought she was going to make it, and then there was Kim in Atlanta. Neither one of them could even sing in tune. What a waste to spend money promoting people like that when there are others out there who are so incredibly talented, and will never get a shot.
I'm sure there were artists in the 70's who never got their shot either, but the ones who did make it had the chops to back it up. No auto-tune, lip-syncing, or any of the other 'help' artists have to help them perform these days.

[WalshFan88]

For me most of today's pop fluff is just that. There is a lot of flash and no substance. As JW would say, it's too perfected. Autotune, drum loops, pitch correction. It's taken the human element out of the music. It's sterile. And lets not forget how physical image has overtaken music and as long as you look the part, they can make the voice "good" by the computer. It's all about looks these days and image and cheesy lyrics. Gone IMO are the days of good pop music and good mainstream music. You have to go underground to find music that really has substance.

I'll probably get flamed for it but the Bieber's, Cyrus's, Swift's, and whatnot of the world will probably not last the test of time IMO... I hate to put Taylor Swift in that category but I get so sick of her writing a song about every breakup and every person to rub her wrong and her attitude. She still has some growing up to do. And the whole drama act she does. Bieber to me is a celebrity thug. Sounds harsh but it's true IMO. If he weren't famous he'd be in jail right now. And Cyrus is just going through a "any press is good press" and crazy phase to try to gain attention.

The days of great chops and being all about the music are on their way out, if not "Already Gone". Call me a classic rock purist if you wish but we'll see how this music fares against the classics in another decade.

[rick endres]

Here today, gone later today.

Except, unfortunately they don't always go away.

Today it's about how you look. You have to look like a supermodel. Who cares if you don't have a shred of talent? That's why God created AutoTune and 23 layers of vocal processing. There Are some genuine talents out there - Lady Antebellum on the country side, Mumford and Sons and Black Keys in mainstream pop. But for the most part today's music is drek...