My 8 year old daughter loves Disney Channel. Seems like every attractive teen on a show that can carry a tune to any extent at all there these days also gets pushed as a recording artist.
I do think Miley Cyrus has talent and it will be interesting to see where her career goes. And how about them Jonas brothers?
I suppose appeal is totally in the eyes of the beholder. One thing for sure, if your selling lots of records, somebody out there likes you.
Remember also that the "pop" in pop music stands for popular and often has little to do with artistic merit, which is all very subjective anyhow.
One thing I've learned as I've gotten older is that most things that are in fact popular generally have some merit mixed in although often it can get lost in the mix. |
I don't think the OP is really asking for comments about his individual choices, but why are some artists incredibly commercially successful and others not?
A few examples:
Rolling Stones vs. the Kinks
U2 vs. Gang Of 4
Stevie Ray Vaughan vs. Buddy Guy
Grateful Dead vs. Quicksilver Messenger Service
Eric Clapton vs. Jack Bruce
Everyone on this list attained commercial, artistic and critical success, but the first named became megastars and the second named did not. In sports and other competitive fields a person's willpower and desire are major determinate factors, but I'm not sure that's the answer here. Then again, it's called show business and some will naturally know how to work the system better than others. |
Hey Bill,
Well, I can go along with most of your list, with two exceptions: Norah Jones, (I really like her voice, although I will admit that her records have been hit or miss), and Phil Collins. (He is the true definintion of "Pop Music", and he does it well: But Pop music is what it is, which is just toe tapping music, that does not require a lot of thought. And yes, his best days are truly well behind him, as his talent seemed to have peaked in the late '70s, and he has just been coasting since then.)
Hifiharv,
I gotta agree with you, I have never understood the attraction of U2. (And I can not stand Bono's voice.)
But you like Tom Waits? Yikes!
Other I just don't like include:
Elvis (Never liked him, his voice or his Schtick)
Stink (Never liked the Police either)
Radiohead (Another guy whose voice I don't like)
Prince (Yuck, with a capital "Y")
I really like good vocals, and if I don't like a person's voice, (for whatever reason), I just can not like their music much.
Now Yoko Ono, there's a good voice!
(Excuse me while I run to the toilet! .....)
My two cents worth anyway. |
Metallica; please go away! |
Kiss
Queen
Spears
R. Martin
McCartney solo |
Probably just about everything that creeps into the hit parades although, in honesty, I can't be sure of that anymore ever since the likes of Atomic Kitten, Black Eyed Peas, et.al. actually forced me (physical pain, I swear) to quit listening to the radio about 4 years ago.
Apart from those two, Celine Dion, Sheryl Crow and Phil Collins score high on my own List Of Dread too, the latter in spite of the fact that from the 1st album to "The Lamb" I used to be a Genesis aficionado (after that count me out).
And then there is the wonderful Jennifer Lopez (listed with a bullet!), Alanis Morissette, Europe, Poison and Kiss (wonder if these clowns ever figured out what the S-runes actually stand for)
I'm sure I'll think of some more mega stars once I hit "submit" |
norah jones? really?
i think her voice alone is good enough to merit success and her first two albums were great (IMO). |
Hi Audiofeil,
while I could not answer for all of your list, I could for some. (by the way I agree with most of your list. I do like Pinks voice. I just wish she had better material). As for Celine Dion...yuk.
Sheryl Crow and Celine Dion both being in your list is ironic. She wrote songs for her! I believe Sheryl was a music teacher/songwriter/muso who sang backing vocals for Michael Jackon in the late 80s, and made some money from adverts including one for Macdonalds. Her 1st album sold 7 million copies. So many of you out there must have bought it. It even won 3 grammies. That kind of success means you will hang around for a while.
Another nice coincidence for your list is that her 1st album was produced by Phil Collins producer. Somewhere along the way she got involved with Eric Clapton which would have opened many doors if she needed it by then. Timing is everything.
Phil Collins was in an already huge progressive rock band (Genesis) and wrote a tender 1st solo album about a split with his wife. In his special situation ,with a fan base, management/powerful record co etc found its way to the masses and secured a path to instant solo pop success. He is clever and was a powerful guy in the industry in the 80s/90s. I have heard some unkind stories about the sort of guy he is. You got to love "In the air tonight" though dont you? I cannot help "air drumming" to that one.
In Celine Dions case it cant hurt to marry your manager who happens to be very powerful figure. I seem to remember hearing a story that label mate Mariah Carey who married the head of Sony records in the US at the time was so concerned about Celines huge success that she had hubby move Celine to another label so she could be the biggest artist on it. Nice try, unfortunately Celine kept recording...! |
Santana--enough already
Whitney Houston--not then, not now
Bob Dylan--Blood on the Tracks, fine. But that don't make poet laureate.
Sting--should have stuck with the boys.
Madonna--packaged to last forever.
Phish--Jesus, please...just stop. |
RE Phil Collins: Mostly a combination of talent, personality and business sense/management combined.
In general, all three are needed for an artist to enjoy long term continued success on a large scale. Having said that, I can take or leave most of his commercial solo output.
I suspect most in the list benefit from all three of these things to different extents. All are undeniably talented for a start.
Re Boston: THeir first album was unique at the time, largely accessible and quite well done overall. HAving said that, they get way too much air time on classic rock stations in proportion to their output these days resulting my being extremely sick of them.
RE Joe Cocker: He got a lot of exposure back in the day. Also, singing a well known Beatles tune in the opening credits of a highly regarded series like "The Wonder Years" back in the day didn't hurt. OVerall, he's never been my cup of tea.
Meh regarding most of the others although there are a few tunes from most that I enjoy.
One recent artist whose level of success I do not get is "Nickelback". IF that's the pinnacle of modern success, rock may truly in fact be dead.
I like many also could not understand Taylor Hicks winning American Idol but his career since would seem to bear me out on that one.
BTW I'm enjoying Dylan's more recent work over the last 10 years more these days then a lot of his older classic stuff. I admire that guy for doing his own thing at his age and still being successful. A true legend!
U2? They're OK and have a lot of good tunes but I have never been a big fan.
It would also seem that quirkiness can help an act remain in the public eye over the long haul. Michael JAckson anyone? |
Can't agree with all your choices, especially, Rickie Lee Jones, although she does seem to be in a long lasting slump. The single one that puzzles me the most these days, (other than EVERYONE from those stupid TV talent shows) is U2. No rhythm, no melody, no musicianship, no nothing. I don't get it, there is just no music here. Sorry U2 fans, just my stupid opinion, I even like Tom Waits, so chalk me up as a complete lunatic... "with stains on his pants". While I'm at it, let me just say that Dylan sounds terrible these days. I loved Bob Dylan, and cherish his earlier Lp's. "Masters of War", "God on our side", etc... amazing songs. But, the voice is just terrible now. My wife who actually is/was also a fan, just calls him Frog Man. |
