Latest on MJJC

Do We Have Real Superstars Anymore?

BabeBeMine said:
If we are talking about longevity, Usher has been around since 1997 as a major force in music. That's 13 years as a solo artist at a high level which to me is longevity and not just a 1 or 2 year quick run and out.

Most ppl consider MJ's prime as a solo artist 1979-1992 which is 13 years. The same as Usher.
Click to expand...

That may have been MJ's peak, but if you ignore the 10 years before '79 and ten years after '92, you're excluding the massive fan bases that were formed in those periods. Many posters on this very board became fans in the 90's after his so called peak. MJ's mutligenerational appeal is what made him a megastar like no other.

That's why at age 50, MJ could sell out 800,000 tickets in 4 hours, 8 years after his last album. And Usher, even still in the midst of his peak, can not.

Plus...it is the extent of MJ's talent...

When people talk about him, musicians and layman alike, they talk about his abilities with awe. Others may sing as well, others may dance as well, and others may have his nearly tangible charisma, but NO ONE embodies it all. That's why MJ was in a league of his own, and nobody today comes close to being a star of his magnitude. And I don't think anyone has that overwhelming drive, let alone ALL his talents, to ever be in his league again.
 
Yeezy2010 said:
Those artists shit on anyone in mainstream today. I know they do but its the mainstream that get called the superstars. Tribe Called Quest and Madvillain also. These people are legendary in hip hop. But everybody else that listens to mainstream stuff won't have a clue about these. Only artist I feel that is still tryna push boundaries is Kanye with creativity etc. Maybe Lupe. And Nas actually with the Distant Relatives album.

And yes there still are "superstars"... its just todays superstars. And in 20 years I think Kanye could be brought up for the College Dropout and tryna push the boundaries and tryna change the game. His tour was great. I know Im a Kanye fan with the username etc but that Glow In the Dark Tour was somethin else.
Eminem will be talked about in 20 years. White guy doing what hes done in Rap. Never been done. He influences alot of people. Shame about him over the last 5-6 years though with his personal problems. And now choosing to work with shitters like Drake and Eminem

Only people out now in todays mainstream artists with longevity are Beyonce, Kanye, Eminem and Jay Z.
Click to expand...

There are no "superstars" in todays mainstream. None of the artists you have listed have pushed the music industry, innovative, original, made classic material, or has impacted the music industry.Except for Nas, Wu Tang, Rakim, KRS-One. You will never hear the real artists who push the music industry because the media only wants what sells. None of the artists u listed have made any clasiccs. There is nothing original about Beyonce, Eminem or Kanye. Kanye is better then most mainstream rappers but then again I can list so many rappers better than Kanye and all his music after that first album has sucked.

Lupe Fiasco being one and his not even underground and his current. Kanyes first album was really good and of quality material but he hasnt been consistent but if ur a fan I can respect, that he is better than alot of commercial rappers but that doesnt make him a "superstar" Beyonce has a descent voice but there are plenty of singers better than her. Not only that her music is garbage. She doesnt write, produce arrange, or compose any of her music. She isnt innnovative or original, she is not a superstar either just very overrated big difference.

There were alot of white rappers before Eminem. One of the most famous white rap group that made it big before Eminem were the "Beastie Boys" and alot of there material has exactly been a little more consistent then Eminem. Eminem is a good rapper but his overall music has not been consistent enough to be called a superstar like alot of other rappers. Its just so much more than a talented singer and rapper to be called a superstar. "Legend" and "superstar" are two words that are thrown around to much, its almost as if its so easy to be called one without any hard work.

I dont look at the current artists as "superstars" because there not There just todays "mainstream artists" nothing more and nothing less. But if YOU feel that way then thats all that matters.
 
gerryevans said:
That may have been MJ's peak, but if you ignore the 10 years before '79 and ten years after '92, you're excluding the massive fan bases that were formed in those periods. Many posters on this very board became fans in the 90's after his so called peak. MJ's mutligenerational appeal is what made him a megastar like no other.

That's why at age 50, MJ could sell out 800,000 tickets in 4 hours, 8 years after his last album. And Usher, even still in the midst of his peak, can not.

Plus...it is the extent of MJ's talent...

When people talk about him, musicians and layman alike, they talk about his abilities with awe. Others may sing as well, others may dance as well, and others may have his nearly tangible charisma, but NO ONE embodies it all. That's why MJ was in a league of his own, and nobody today comes close to being a star of his magnitude. And I don't think anyone has that overwhelming drive, let alone ALL his talents, to ever be in his league again.
Click to expand...

Good points but sales just mean popularity, not necessarily your music is quality. Not saying MJ didn't make quality music, but History sold well and as a fan of r&b it's not one of my favorites or the favorite of many r&b fans in the USA. Many fans in the US who are in to soul music prefer Off The Wall and Thriller.
 
I already knew this in 2009 when soo many famous people left us... a bridge of real talent that connected old & new left the world... there's no one like that now... :no:
 
BabeBeMine said:
If we are talking about longevity, Usher has been around since 1997 as a major force in music. That's 13 years as a solo artist at a high level which to me is longevity and not just a 1 or 2 year quick run and out.

Most ppl consider MJ's prime as a solo artist 1979-1992 which is 13 years. The same as Usher.

Die hard fans might want to add on albums after that but critics, non fans and even current music artist who love MJ rarely mention History, Blood on the Dance Floor or Invincible. Majority consider his peak from 79-1992
Click to expand...

So you think Usher is a same league as Michael?

It's not just about longetivity, but even there Usher is no match for Michael. You took Michael's "prime" (as opposed to his whole career) and compared that to Usher's whole career. And you know what? Even a pre- and post-prime MJ was probably more known and popular around the world and sold more albums than Usher in his prime. He might be popular in the US but in my (European) country Usher is hardly even a factor, for example. Maybe teenagers would be able to tell who he is (and that is a big MAYBE because I'm not even sure of that), but don't bet on people above 40 being able to tell who he is. Of course, that isn't the case with Michael Jackson.

And then we haven't even talked about such things yet as atristic value, originality, creativity yet.
 
Last edited:
BabeBeMine said:
Good points but sales just mean popularity, not necessarily your music is quality. Not saying MJ didn't make quality music, but History sold well and as a fan of r&b it's not one of my favorites or the favorite of many r&b fans in the USA. Many fans in the US who are in to soul music prefer Off The Wall and Thriller.
Click to expand...

If we talk about the quality of music I give even less chance to Usher compared to MJ. Michael made music that appealed to all kinds of people all around the world, in all cultures, not just to fans of a certain genre. The music he made is still popular and played in radios after 20-30-40 years. I doubt it will be the same with the music Usher is playing.

The US is a very important market for music, but just being popular in the US won't make you a superstar. A superstar is a superstar because he can cross over national and cultural boundaries.
 
mjscarousal said:
Longevity has alot to do with what makes a supestar. Alot of the singers, rappers, etc out today do not have that. They dont produce classic material in order to have longevity. Classic material stands the test of time and has nothing to do with how popular you are.
Click to expand...

I see you were the one who brought up longevity and I agree. But it's about the longevity of the music the artist makes, not necessarily the longevity of a career (although a Superstar has to have longevity in his career too). But just because you had a long career that alone doesn't make you a superstar. I could name artists with long careers who are still not superstars.

The bottom line is if THE MUSIC stands the test of time. If it will be still listened to after decades and even after the artist is not with us any more. I have huge, huge doubts if people like Usher, Gaga, Eminem, you name it, are in this category - in fact, I'm sure they aren't.
 
NO.
And not only we don't have superstars but we don't have good music anymore.
I have hundreds of old vinyls home from when I was a child myself like 6 years old and I personally requested "A kind of magic" by Queen as a birthday present,and all the vinyls from my parents,from the 60's 70's and 80's.
There isn't a bad record!

Maybe you won't like some songs or genre,or artists,but you can't deny their awesomeness.....impossible.
I hate ac/dc for example,but never I'll diss this band,I know who they are and shame on me for not being able to be fan lol!this is my attitudae.

Even trash disco pop from the 80's have a certain mood to them that makes them "part of something".What do we have now?Hip hop,tons of it,a shitload of disney kids that have to have a singing career no matter what,they are all the same with just different marketing pp behind them,from avril lavigne(old i know) to Taylor Swift whatever,from the Jonas bros to Myley Cirus or what ever they are called.
I know things about them because we are bombarded by press,I swear to God i don't even know how they sound like..
I miss the times when i could listen to bands for 10 years without even knowing how they looked like or who they f**K with.

Fake artistic personalities,created inside an office where they are trained on what to say,how to dress,who to date,how to comb their hair to attract millions of fanboys and fangirls,who are nothing but clients for the multitude of products these tools so called-artists sell.Since when music has been so devaluated to be put in the hands of a buch of kids?!

The same pp who tells teens that Avril is punk,Taylor S. is country,Jonas and co. are poprock,Mika is the new Freddie Mercury,Justin Bieber is the new Michael Jackson....
I think Gaga is kinda fresh compared to what pop music has to offer now but she's nothing but a good Steven Meisel Vogue's photoshoot in motion,yes i like Alexander Mcqueen crazy shoes,but where's the melody?where's the innovation?where are the lyrics?
LOL Marilyn Manson did a better job robbing Bowie and Alice cooper and Gary Numan's looks,almost 15 years ago....everybody seems to have a short memory.

I can accept if the superstar concept is outdated by real artists like Ani Difranco(who should win grammys not Swift),or Bjork(whose crazy outfits were a part of her art,not the main subject),or Radiohead just to name the most common ones from the 90's,but they are completely snubbed in favor of products.
What shocks me the most is newer generations have it all,they have access to everything they need to inform themselves,to dig deeper into things,to discover the real talent but choose to settle and buy crap,literally and not.
And I'm not even going into the "Twilight" zone..
 
I think the problem is that most young people haven't yet been around when superstars still existed, so they don't know what it is really. Thus they think Gaga and Usher and Cirus and the Jonas brothers are superstars, because they don't know the real deal. For us, who are old enough to remember the 80s, that's simply ridiculous. The 80s were the golden age of pop/rock music IMO. You watched a Grammy or an AMA and people like MJ, Prince, Sting, Whintey, David Bowie, Queen etc. etc. were nominated. Artists who made their own stuff, created their own music and image, instead of agents and PR companies creating it for them based on marketing polls. Today music and art became too controlled by marketing considerations instead of people letting their creativity and imagination free and the result is the incredibly boring copycat artists we have today, people who are there because they want to be stars and not because they have something to offer.
 
BabeBeMine said:
Good points but sales just mean popularity, not necessarily your music is quality. Not saying MJ didn't make quality music, but History sold well and as a fan of r&b it's not one of my favorites or the favorite of many r&b fans in the USA. Many fans in the US who are in to soul music prefer Off The Wall and Thriller.
Click to expand...
You're correct! Many outside of the US prefer Dangerous and HIStory. Or maybe I'm speaking for myself. lol
 
BabeBeMine said:
Good points but sales just mean popularity, not necessarily your music is quality. Not saying MJ didn't make quality music, but History sold well and as a fan of r&b it's not one of my favorites or the favorite of many r&b fans in the USA. Many fans in the US who are in to soul music prefer Off The Wall and Thriller.
Click to expand...

But Michael was more than an r'n'b sounding artist. His fans are not mainly r'n'b folks so i don't get what you are trying to make with that statement? They are allowed to prefer what they want but it doesn't make their opinions superior.

The USA market is huge but if you are mainly big in the USA and not around the world, can you really be called a superstar??

So it is silly to compare Usher's 13 years of solo artist to Michael's 13 years as a solo artist between 1979-1992 because Michael BLOWS Usher from Heaven to Hell with talent, sales, popularity, originality, hysteria and critical/commercial success - around the whole world!!! Not just the USA! And lets not forget pre 1980 and post 1993. Michael was a megastar and is is disrespectful to Michael to compare artists to him, especially when it comes from his own fan.

Usher is talented but he is not a superstar! Just a star! My opinion of course.
 
Victory2004 said:
;D Do We Have Real Superstars Anymore?
Sat., Feb. 6, 2010 9:00 AM PST
425.gaga.jackson.lc.020410.jpg

Michael Caulfield/ Getty Images; Ebet Roberts/Getty Images
Is the superstar era over? http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/ask_the_answer_bitch/b165659_do_we_have_real_superstars_anymore.html
Click to expand...
Hi Victory.... :)

No we dont. Beyonce and Madonna are close but, uhm, no cigar.

It's funny this question has come up because it's something I have been thinking about for a while now.
There's no one whom I admire and enjoy more than MJ. Flat out.
I've been a fan of MJ's for longer than some have been in this world.
I've always followed his amazing career...before the internet and
since I got my computer, more than 8 years ago.

Even when MJ was still alive, there was no one that compares to him.
Thats the truth and the fan in me speaking.
 
clarac said:
Fake artistic personalities,created inside an office where they are trained on what to say, how to dress, who to date, how to comb their hair to attract millions of fanboys and fangirls, who are nothing but clients for the multitude of products these tools so called-artists sell.Since when music has been so devaluated to be put in the hands of a buch of kids?!
Click to expand...
I think that started with Berry Gordy's "charm school" in the 1960s, lol. Some acts like Marvin "Stubborn Kinda Fellow" Gaye wouldn't go to it.
 
gerryevans said:
That's why at age 50, MJ could sell out 800,000 tickets in 4 hours, 8 years after his last album. And Usher, even still in the midst of his peak, can not.
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness..there will never be another. :cry:
 
BabeBeMine said:
Good points but sales just mean popularity, not necessarily your music is quality. Not saying MJ didn't make quality music, but History sold well and as a fan of r&b it's not one of my favorites or the favorite of many r&b fans in the USA. Many fans in the US who are in to soul music prefer Off The Wall and Thriller.
Click to expand...

Well, if we're throwing quality into the mix, too, that narrows the field even more as to today's superstars and potential superstars, especially in comparison to the gifted one.

MJ was obsessive about the quality of the product he put out. Very few today care to the extent he did. They don't have to. With auto-tune, you don't even have to sing good to become a "star". Perhaps that's another reason there won't be megastars like him anymore. Quality isn't a prerequisite.
 
Naad said:
I hate the world we live in now. It's goddamn boring. I miss the 80s and 90s. We had proper music, like Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna (at her prime, even now she's lame).
Click to expand...

couldn't agree more!!! i deleted every song from my ipod from the past 7 years .. todays music is crap! ..its all about sex and non sense stuff...
 
DuranDuran said:
I think that started with Berry Gordy's "charm school" in the 1960s, lol. Some acts like Marvin "Stubborn Kinda Fellow" Gaye wouldn't go to it.
Click to expand...

haha true!that counterpart kicked some serious ass.
the biggest problem now is that there's no compromise between art and making a living out of it,the right balance...from a pop icon like M to a let's call them alternative act like Radiohead,they both sell to the masses,make millions,but at the same time they are real..I saw them live,they have something to say,ah...they can sing lol
 
respect77 said:
So you think Usher is a same league as Michael?

It's not just about longetivity, but even there Usher is no match for Michael. You took Michael's "prime" (as opposed to his whole career) and compared that to Usher's whole career. And you know what? Even a pre- and post-prime MJ was probably more known and popular around the world and sold more albums than Usher in his prime. He might be popular in the US but in my (European) country Usher is hardly even a factor, for example. Maybe teenagers would be able to tell who he is (and that is a big MAYBE because I'm not even sure of that), but don't bet on people above 40 being able to tell who he is. Of course, that isn't the case with Michael Jackson.

And then we haven't even talked about such things yet as atristic value, originality, creativity yet.
Click to expand...

I never meant that. My point was putting down other artist as if there just flat out horrible in order to boost your favorite artist. Usher has proven to be much more than just a 1 hit wonder and has had multiple successful albums. His 2004 album sold like 9 million in the USA alone. If you put that album in the early 1990s when there was no internet, that album probably hits the 20 million mark in the USA alone. Hard to compare sales now and back in the 80s because the times are different. You can get music for free these days just like you can watch all the NBA and NFL games for free on Justin.TV. So you have less ppl buying the music because they can get it for free. or listen to it for Free on the internet and burn it to a CD. In the 80s in order to get the album you had no choice but to buy it.

Even MC Hammer sold 13 million in the USA
 
I see that a lot of people are posting a lot of artists, that while uber popular, are nowhere near the same league as Elvis, Michael, and The Beatles. The difference with these three compared to the others people are coming up with is that those three do have multi-generational appeal AND are known the world over. You can go to many places in the world and know who, at least, one of those acts are.

This is not the same for acts, such as Usher, Taylor Swift, Utada Hikaru, Bob Dylan or even some artists, because they are more well-known in their respective countries, or appeal to a somewhat limited audience. That would be difference between being a 'megastar', 'superstar, and a 'star.' Michael Jackson is still the biggest and most famous American musician. Ever.

I'm not trying to downplay anyone else, but that is just the way it is. Until someone else or another band can come in and know the socks off the entire world it's going to be really hard to top those three. As the article said, it's going to be really hard for a new act to do that considering things just aren't the way they used to be. Even if those acts came out today it would still be pretty hard for them to have gained the massive following that they did when there were way less options around for people.

Madonna may be the last one, but she's still on the lower end with Britney Spears on the real, real, real lower end. If Lady Gaga was a real good dancer I think that she might have been the one closest to being on her way there.
 
We do not have a Superstar anymore.

A Superstar is Global and hugely popular.

Robbie Williams is not at all known in USA. And he does not qualify as a Superstar. - I like him very much, but he is no superstar, not at all.

Taylor Swift - NOOO WAY !!
Lady GaGa - not at all.
Madonna - maybe the only living person out there close to be a Superstar. She has sold many many albums. But in my opinion she is not a Superstar.
Paul McCartney - not at all.
Stevie Wonder - not at all.
Mariah Carrie - nope.
Britney Spears - :lol: of course not. - she may would be a great pornstar, but not a Superstar!
I could continue the list for 20 pages, but no Superstar would appear.

Michael Jackson was the last Superstar. He was a living Legend - now he's just a Legend, the biggest ever.
 
Do We Have Real Superstars Anymore?

No, we don't, nor will we.
Everything in the show business is so fragmented.
Michael was the last megastar in world history.
 
MEGASTAR = MICHAEL JACKSON and I think that name was made for him only.
I MISS the '80s and the '90s I miss the real good music. IN the '90s I remember I never was bored listening music On MTV, NEVER!!! Now it's like OMG!!! I think in the '50s, '60s, '70s , '80s were days when people didn't play music for fame and money like today, they were playing music from heart. That's why good music it's not around these days.
I am glad I get the chance to live the '80s and '90s and most happy that I get the chance to live Michael's era. THERE are too MANY people who want to make music for fun, for money, for fame not because this is their dream.

Miss u MICHAEL SO SO MUCH!!!!
 
Prince & Madonna are the sole survivors, imo. Everybody wants a hit, but it's all about instant success nowadays. Not too many artists around who are commercially viable AND somewhat original.
 
Prince is no way near Superstar status.

Madonna maybe. Personally I've never liked her, but she is very famous and popular around the world.
 
madonna, mccartney and some say prince (although i dont agree) are just legends. BUT... There is only 1 SUPERSTAR and we know who that is... :)
 
Prince is a joke and McCartney are not a Superstar.
 
I think Beyonce and KanYe may be the only ones as of today, but they are nowhere near MJ, Prince, The Beatles, Elvis and Madonna..but the Beyonce fans think she is..Kanye in my opinion is the best artist out right now in my honest opinion, sure Beyonce is a great performer, but it's Kanye's artistry wipes her out!!
 
Last edited:
There probably isn't any global superstars anymore, but do you really need that just to enjoy the artist. There are some underated artist and albums that have come and gone throught the years, but maybe they didn't reach global popularity because of a certain look or style. Who knows.

There are artist who are less popular but have made better music than the popular artist in my opinion. Alicia Keys isn't as popular as Beyonce but i prefer her vocals and music more. As long as you enjoy the music who cares about the popularity. Sometimes a certain look can make you popular, while another artist may make better music but isnt that all attractive to the global audience which can affect overall sales.
 
Barack Obama ftw!! :D

As for music,we do have superstars,but they are organized into niche categories.
For example the LGBT community consider the Scissor Sisters superstars,but wouldnt even class people like eminem and little wayne as stars,even though in their own niche market they are considered superstars.


What about muse? They are MASSIVE in the UK,not sure about other places though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top