Latest on MJJC

Do We Have Real Superstars Anymore?

BabeBeMine said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree
Exactly....popularity and hype does not equal superstar because alot of factors determine what makes a superstar besides all that. Prince and Michael Jackson had that for example but they made good music. They produced classics unlike an artist like Beyonce who only makes garbage music for mass appeal. She will never be a superstar or a legend because she doesnt make classic music. She is all hype and stage performances which isnt enough to be called a superstar.
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you re- read my post again I basically said the same thing.
 
With all the technology we have now, it's just not possible for stars to be as big as they once were.

I think Mariah was the last of the huge superstars...maybe even Backstreet Boys because they sold an impressive amount of albums in like 8 years.
 
Even though she gets on my nerves, I think Beyonce is the closest thing there is at this time.
 
Let's not forget that we have Janet!? She's a superstar to me!
 
mjscarousal said:
If you re- read my post again I basically said the same thing.
Click to expand...

I know. It was more a reflection to what BabeBeMine said when comparing the length of Usher's career to the length of the prime of Michael's career.
 
BabeBeMine said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is true, but the subject of the topic is do we have real superstars anymore. And global popularity is one of the major characteristics of a superstar. But of course, not the only characteristic.
 
Victory2004 said:
Is the superstar era over? Think Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2, the Boss. Is Lady Gaga the way to go now? Instant fame, (probably) quick decline?
—Pique Santos, via Facebook
Fame is still as famey as ever—in fact, more so.
Sure, there are literally more people able to see Lady Gaga groping around in a Wild Rumpus suit than there were in the age of Marilyn Monroe or the rise of Michael Jackson. But that's no measure of the quality of someone's fame.
The intensity and universality of worship—how many different demographics adore an actor or singer—now, that's how you measure fame.
And no new star who has risen in the past five years—not Taylor Swift, not Robert Pattinson, not Gaga—has...
...the same universal, almost holy adoration enjoyed by stars of previous generations.
And no matter what you say in the comments section, that's a fact.
How do I know? Because of the technology, stupid!
"Today you don't have to make the decision to leave the domestic sphere and go to the theater," Wheeler Winston Dixon, a film studies professor at University of Nebraska, explains. "Before, you'd need to go to the theater, where the star would be on a huge screen, and you would, essentially, worship the star."
That's right. Once, movie theaters were like temples; in fact, back in the 1910s and 1920s—true fact, kids—the average family went to the movies and saw giant, inaccessible, beautiful people twice a week.
There are no real movie temples anymore, not when you can choose to stay at home, instantly download a flick and have a very-much-shrunken star come and pay homage to you.
Most stars today are also overexposed compared with icons of yesteryear, and that even includes supposedly "private" actors like Harrison Ford, Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman.
Why? Too many media outlets and forms of communication, that's why. Even if we don't know exactly why Harrison Ford always seems to be asleep when he's talking, we at least have the technological ability to discuss this fact in a million different forums, and that dilutes a star's utter specialness.
"When Michael Jackson was at the top of his form, we only got the images that were given to us," says publicist Richard Laermer, whose forthcoming book, How to Fame, discusses the end of the superstar era.
"That's how real celebrity was formed. If Epic wanted to show us Michael at home, that's what we got. You didn't see them every minute with curlers on, being besieged by paps who just want to laugh at these famous types. That's not what real celebrity is. Elizabeth Taylor was not laughed at. She told us what to think of her—and we obeyed."
Crochety old people would likely blame Twitter for part of the decline, too. Hey, let's all blame Twitter. There's a reason why we should: It lets stars talk too much.
"In order to be an icon, you have to be a mystery," Laermer points out. "Alas, there are no more mysteries!"
Lastly, consumers are all divided up.
In the old-timey days everybody, whether they were a farmer or a doctor or a spelunker or a governor, had the same basic choices for learning about a star: TV, radio or a newspaper. Not a ton of choices. If a newspaper editor or TV interviewer wanted to show us Burt Reynolds, we had to watch Burt Reynolds.
Now, the teens have Twitter, the old people have Leno, the still-older people have Larry King, the hip Asian and European kids have crazy cell phones that do everything but cook and clean, moms have Facebook, music fans have MySpace, and Tina Fey fans have YouFace.
And each one of those communities may crown a different celebrity as king or queen at any given time, and for as long as they want, before moving on.
"Icons emerge, but they are iconic within the realm that they emerge from," says University of Southern California professor Elizabeth Currid, who has a book about fame, Star Power, coming out later this year. "I may worship Anna Wintour and Madonna as iconic individuals in the same breath because they are both the dominant stars of their respective fields. I would argue most people pick favorites within different types of popular culture."
Indeed. Favorites like the Answer B!tch. Isn't that true, my 20,000-plus Twitter fans? http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/ask_the_answer_bitch/b165659_do_we_have_real_superstars_anymore.html
Click to expand...
I like the artickle. I think it's very spot on on todays reality of celebrities.
To answer the question, NO there are very few super stars left. Madonna is probably the only one alive of the good old times. But even she IMO is fading because I don't see her being very original. Shame.

Some of the newer stars like Beyonce could be counted as a superstar because she has been around for like a decade and I don't see her going anywhere anytime soon, unless something sad happens.
There might be more superstars now from the film world. But the music world is slowly dying. Even if there is somebody who is super talented and original they are moulded into a form - nice for everybody.

The older ones like Bowie, Prince and Stevie Wonder are still remarkable but they haven't been in the spotligh really in years. Sure they tour and relase albums but thye have their own group of faithfull followers but they are not seen in the mainstream anymore. Have the been railroaded by the new commers? Have they not been given a good enough chance to shine again? Or have they simply chosen to focus on their life away from the spotlight. These are just rhetorical questions.

Eminem may have achieved a lot on the rap/hip hop world but I don't see people celebrating him like 20 years from now. Simply because he is so much about hate and agression. And not in a good way at all.

A superstar has to be someone who is know at least in the western world and Russia plus Japan. They should have a career longer than 5 years preferably 10 years. And not just main stream popularity. More than 3 albums or movies released. Must be a likable person with unique personality.


MIST said:
They are all good actors but if you don´t have a tv would you know they existed then?I think it´s more common that someone in the village has a radio and they can listen to music.
I remember the young man from Congo who listened to Michaels music on his sisters cd-player and he had to remember it to dance to it when he came home.
Click to expand...
Yeah like you said. The reason why Michael was a MEGA star was the fact that he was known from europe to africa, to south america to canada and even in the far east. One could go to a desert in mongolia and the people there would recognize Michael's image.
Michael was the definition of a mega star.
DuranDuran said:
That's why some acts from then can have successful tours today like Van Halen, The Police, Depeche Mode, Madonna, Duran Duran, Prince, Genesis, even New Kids On The Block. I don't see anybody being interested in Lil Wayne 20 years from now, lol.
Click to expand...
The thing with many bands is that even if they are huge and succesfull around the world there are many in the group and nobody stands out. The Beatles and Queen had strong characters who stood out but it rarely happens now.
clarac said:
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..
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
I think Gaga is yet to be seen what she'll be. I personally don't like her music, it doesn't stand out from the rest (of the shit they play on radio) but I hear ppl say she's talented and maybe she is. I just think all the (weird?) stuff she does is just a marketing tecnique and not really her onw thing.
I liked your ac/cd example. I could also name some bands that I am not a fan of but can't deny that they have something special. They are the rolling stones and Abba.
 
Michael used to be called "MEGASTAR" in the 90's Dangerous Era.
Since the last 3 - 4 years they call him Popstar.
These days such titles don't mean anything. Especially "King of ..." is worth less then superstar. They name every wannabe one-hit wonder with such fancy names now.

But we should acknowledge that Beyonce, Britney , Gaga, Christina, Justin and etc are the Michaels, The Madonnas and Whitneys of these days. Doesn't matter if their talent is comparable with the biggest stars in the past.

Will ever be huge stars like Michael and Madonna? - NO!
Are there superstar? _ YES.

If we like it or not.
 
OnOurWay said:
With all the technology we have now, it's just not possible for stars to be as big as they once were. .
Click to expand...

I believe that to an extent. But also believe if there was someone as magical as MJ, they would have a chance. They'd have to have his work ethic, too.

Just think...if for the Olympics, there was a entertainer who had MJ's gifts performing in the opening ceremony, singularly giving a mesmerizing performance like MJ did for Motown 25, they would be the talk of the world!

And when I say MJ's gifts, I mean all of them. Singing, dancing, looks, charisma,....they could possibly reach that stratosphere, especially if they had albums already selling tremendously. And because of the standard MJ set, they would have to do it all now...not just sing but dance, too.

If Susan Boyle was younger--and let's face it that's a factor as well as other superficial traits like looks and personality--she'd be so in a position to reach iconic level. Because as much as the world is fragmented, it is also easily accessible. Milions and millions saw her youtube clip.

So I do think it is possible to be a superstar today, I just don't think anyone out there now has ALL it takes to become one of the magnitude of Michael Joseph Jackson.
 
raingirl said:
A superstar has to be someone who is know at least in the western world and Russia plus Japan. They should have a career longer than 5 years preferably 10 years. And not just main stream popularity. More than 3 albums or movies released. Must be a likable person with unique personality.
Click to expand...

Completley agree!

Also I would like to disagree with lom kit, about that there are still superstars. The ones you mantioned do not count as ones, I'm sure they are the ones who are out there today but to call them superstars is impossible.
 
Michael and Madonna were the last to achieve the kind of untouchable fame that very few ever rose to. They achieved the kind of fame the likes of Elvis. Megastars that EVERYONE the world over knew and admired. Now, only Madonna is left and it makes me so very sad. Today we have Hiltons and Kardashians. MJ was one of a kind and an end of an era. I don't know what I'm gonna do when the day comes that Madonna passes. Ugh.... I don't even wanna think about it. MJ's death was too hard as is. To lose both of my idols...
 
Superstars are bands like kiss,Mayden,Madonna,Rolling stones,Bruce springsteen,u2,depeche mode,the cure,metallica,elton john,the police,david bowie,maccartney,prince,led zep,radiohead,Pearl Jam etc and it's not a coincidence that many of this names are the best grossing live acts of the last decade(or more),they are internationally recognized...
All these names above here don't need labels anymore...don't need promotion,they sell out everywhere..anyway..don't even need an album out!
Titles right now are given as easily as they are taken away..so yes they are pretty much useless.

I can't acknowledge Usher or Justin timberlake being bigger than this pp here because they are not relevant *artistically* regardless the genre of music...we don't have generations of young artists looking up them for inspiration...young bands still search for the real icons from the past.
Usher ....I can't name a song by this person...he has a very specific target of pp so I'd say he's a very well known (rnb??) artist.... a superstar is someone who doesn't need to be presented,known by 7 years old kids to 75 years old grandmas..everywhere in the world..that's a superstar (to me)

How many next michael jacksons have been named?I've lost count...do we have one for real?ha ha
Robbie Willimans was the next Freddie Mercury,yeah sure...then he was the next king of pop,then it was Usher,then Justin Timberlake,then Chris Brown....now it's Justin Bieber lol...
 
Victory2004 said:
Do We Have Real Superstars Anymore?

Sat., Feb. 6, 2010 9:00 AM PST by Leslie Gornstein
425.gaga.jackson.lc.020410.jpg
Michael Caulfield/ Getty Images; Ebet Roberts/Getty Images
Is the superstar era over? Think Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2, the Boss. Is Lady Gaga the way to go now? Instant fame, (probably) quick decline?
—Pique Santos, via Facebook
Fame is still as famey as ever—in fact, more so.
Sure, there are literally more people able to see Lady Gaga groping around in a Wild Rumpus suit than there were in the age of Marilyn Monroe or the rise of Michael Jackson. But that's no measure of the quality of someone's fame.
The intensity and universality of worship—how many different demographics adore an actor or singer—now, that's how you measure fame.
And no new star who has risen in the past five years—not Taylor Swift, not Robert Pattinson, not Gaga—has...
...the same universal, almost holy adoration enjoyed by stars of previous generations.
And no matter what you say in the comments section, that's a fact.
How do I know? Because of the technology, stupid!
"Today you don't have to make the decision to leave the domestic sphere and go to the theater," Wheeler Winston Dixon, a film studies professor at University of Nebraska, explains. "Before, you'd need to go to the theater, where the star would be on a huge screen, and you would, essentially, worship the star."
That's right. Once, movie theaters were like temples; in fact, back in the 1910s and 1920s—true fact, kids—the average family went to the movies and saw giant, inaccessible, beautiful people twice a week.
There are no real movie temples anymore, not when you can choose to stay at home, instantly download a flick and have a very-much-shrunken star come and pay homage to you.
Most stars today are also overexposed compared with icons of yesteryear, and that even includes supposedly "private" actors like Harrison Ford, Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman.
Why? Too many media outlets and forms of communication, that's why. Even if we don't know exactly why Harrison Ford always seems to be asleep when he's talking, we at least have the technological ability to discuss this fact in a million different forums, and that dilutes a star's utter specialness.
"When Michael Jackson was at the top of his form, we only got the images that were given to us," says publicist Richard Laermer, whose forthcoming book, How to Fame, discusses the end of the superstar era.
"That's how real celebrity was formed. If Epic wanted to show us Michael at home, that's what we got. You didn't see them every minute with curlers on, being besieged by paps who just want to laugh at these famous types. That's not what real celebrity is. Elizabeth Taylor was not laughed at. She told us what to think of her—and we obeyed."
Crochety old people would likely blame Twitter for part of the decline, too. Hey, let's all blame Twitter. There's a reason why we should: It lets stars talk too much.
"In order to be an icon, you have to be a mystery," Laermer points out. "Alas, there are no more mysteries!"
Lastly, consumers are all divided up.
In the old-timey days everybody, whether they were a farmer or a doctor or a spelunker or a governor, had the same basic choices for learning about a star: TV, radio or a newspaper. Not a ton of choices. If a newspaper editor or TV interviewer wanted to show us Burt Reynolds, we had to watch Burt Reynolds.
Now, the teens have Twitter, the old people have Leno, the still-older people have Larry King, the hip Asian and European kids have crazy cell phones that do everything but cook and clean, moms have Facebook, music fans have MySpace, and Tina Fey fans have YouFace.
And each one of those communities may crown a different celebrity as king or queen at any given time, and for as long as they want, before moving on.
"Icons emerge, but they are iconic within the realm that they emerge from," says University of Southern California professor Elizabeth Currid, who has a book about fame, Star Power, coming out later this year. "I may worship Anna Wintour and Madonna as iconic individuals in the same breath because they are both the dominant stars of their respective fields. I would argue most people pick favorites within different types of popular culture."
Indeed. Favorites like the Answer B!tch. Isn't that true, my 20,000-plus Twitter fans? http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/ask_the_answer_bitch/b165659_do_we_have_real_superstars_anymore.html
Click to expand...

To answer your question honestly..
No..
 
i like the article..especially what it says about the comment section. lol. and, because this forum doesn't allow me to have a one word answer, and i had to edit it, to make sure it wouldn't tell me to go back, and try again, i'll just say No. no more superstars. MJ was the last superstar. actually, mega uber star. the only one, and the shine will never wear off.
 
Last edited:
"...There are stars, then there are superstars, and then of course is Michael Jackson - The Supernova"
 
I would compare Beyonce's success with that of Diana Ross tbqh. Their career paths seem similar, from what I know of it, only that Beyonce doesn't have a boy almost 20 years younger that her whose totally infatuated with her following her every move.

Yet anyways. lol

If there is one in the future I think we need to watch out. He might be the one.
 
I agree w/ the article, and not just because I'm an MJ fan, but I think it's true about how because of the Internet and other media, instead of the culture uniting on one rallying point, it's all divided into special interests. I read a similar article at the turn of the millennium on how print media was dying because of this phenom. Older magazines like Life/Look/Saturday Evening Post that had once appealed to the masses had died out, and the print newspapers are dying out too. Take a look at the Barnes and Noble and Borders magazine racks: Tons of magazines, but it's really all broken down into niche interests. It's not a good thing or bad thing IMO, just a fact of life.

I do think there are a few cultural uniters, the superbowl for example brings together all Americans, evidenced by the insanely high ratings it gets year after year. It's a cultural event, from the 'superbowl party' w/ people who don't even like football tuning in for the commercials (recent CNN poll proved this) or the party.

American Idol united people as a cultural event, though ratings have fallen in recent yrs. Plus once you break down AI's contestents, even those are niche: the all-american country chick; the R&B guy; the rocker chick; the R&B girl; the male pop singer (clay aiken, archeleto); the rock guy, etc. Since once the idol winner leaves the show, they obviously don't have the huge following of AI, and I think that's the reason, everyone who watches AI doesn't necessarily like the winner's music.

I've read the same theory about TV shows in general, that shows on NBC/ABC/CBS will never be what they used to w/ ratings, w/ the competition of huge TV packages, the Internet, etc.

So yeah, I think there's very little if anything that unites people like it used to because of the diversity of choices. So, one individual uniting people I think is really a thing of the past.
 
We have plenty of superstars and will in the future have plenty of superstars. But Michael was on another level and will we see anyone else like that? No, I very much doubt there will.
 
twinklEE said:
I don't consider any of the stars today as ''superstars'' not Gaga, not Beyonce, not Ke$ha, not The Jonas Brothers, not Miley, none of them.
The era of real megastars/superstars came to an end decades ago. There will never a star that will rise to Michael's level.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% there are no superstars anymore and no one can ever compare to Michael, no one!!

Julia
 
Do we have any superstars at the moment? Like many have posted you can really only count Madonna as a superstar these days (I love Prince, but I don't think he's a Superstar - outside the US and to a lesser extent, the UK).

Obviously the world has changed, and music has dramatically. Up until the beginning of the new millennium you still had the emergence of global stars that stirred up massive interest on a world wide scale. In the 90's you had the Backstreet Boys and the Spice Girls who were, during their peak, bonafied Superstars. You also had Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston emerge to hit their peaks during the decade. In the following decade it all fizzled out. I truly believe the closest thing we had to a megastar in the 00's was Eminem or Britney Spears (no, i'm not kidding)... however by the beginning of 2002, everything changed.

The Spice Girls during the mid-to-late 90's were so big they had a movie and MOVEMENT which girls the world over followed. One memory i'll forever have of growing up is the seemingly endless stream of hits they generated from their 3 albums, and girls dancing the steps during school talent shows and in the playground. They had everything from clothing to a PlayStation game released during their somewhat short time together as a group.

In my opinion, true global Superstardom won't happen for a solo artist like Michael Jackson for a VERY long time, if at all. It's such a shame because we still have those 90's stars that I believe had the potential to be something more than what they currently are. No one really defines or personifies pop culture anymore. I believe whole-heartedly that Mariah Carey of the 90's and Janet Jackson of the Jimmy Jam era had that potential, but somewhere along the way things didn't go together and they remained talented celebrities.

Oh and finally... As much as I love hip hop, Lil' Wayne cannot be considered a superstar. I'm sure he's big in the US, but in other parts of the world I don't think he's at that level.
 
It’s Simple Michael= The King and Madonna= The Queen. With Michael's passing I would say Madonna is the only real world superstar left. She just performed to over 3.5 million fans in 32 countries, grossing a total of $408 million us dollars for her last tour. No one ever made as big an impact all over the world as these 2 artists. I think also U2, Paul McCartney are superstars but not on the same levels of success as Michael or Madonna. I feel kind of bad that kids today don’t really know what a superstar really is because they really don’t have any.
 
jonus30 said:
It’s Simple Michael= The King and Madonna= The Queen. With Michael's passing I would say Madonna is the only real world superstar left. She just performed to over 3.5 million fans in 32 countries, grossing a total of $408 million us dollars for her last tour. No one ever made as big an impact all over the world as these 2 artists. I think also U2, Paul McCartney are superstars but not on the same levels of success as Michael or Madonna. I feel kind of bad that kids today don’t really know what a superstar really is because they really don’t have any.
Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness...the reason why the gross amount was so high for her tour was because the ticket prices were pretty high. Not to discredit her success, but that was a lot of money.
 
redcrush said:
I would compare Beyonce's success with that of Diana Ross tbqh.
Click to expand...

No way!!!

Beyonce has so many people fooled, this is what she wants people to say.

She is nothing compared to Diana Ross.

No there will never ever be another superstar...the only one was Michael Jackson. I don't want there to be another superstar either...we had the brightest one and people wanted him chased away because they couldnt handle it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top