DoctaMario

DoctaMario t1_itcoe2o wrote

Simplest way I can put it is, people's listening habits have changed and there's more to compete with music now in terms of entertainment so big stars are going to be fewer and far between. If Michael Jackson came out now, he'd have the same recognizability issues Dua Lipa has. More choice=less ubiquity=less big stars.

3

DoctaMario t1_itcmdla wrote

Beyonce, Britney, BSB all got in under the old paradigm before things really changed though. They'll always be stars because they came up when stars were still a big thing.

I think labels are smart enough to know that promoting Dua Lipa to people who listen to rock or 90s country is just flushing money down the toilet and that because the radio isn't as ubiquitous as it used to be, people can stay in their own backwater and be completely unaware of what's going on in other genres if they want to. Nobody knows anyone in the top 40 but that cuts both ways, as people who listen to top 40 probably don't know the people these other folks listen to.

2

DoctaMario t1_itcjv7j wrote

Is IS still very controlled, at least at the major label pop/country level. Pop acts are super curated but you also have the counterbalance to that which is journeyman Americana acts like John Moreland who are also able to make a living. People's tastes have splintered so we aren't forced to listen to top 40 radio anymore, which is why there are fewer "big stars" than there used to be. I prefer a music industry where we have more choice of what to listen to, and with how good recommendation algorithms are, it's easier than ever to find something you like.

I don't think many of the millennial stars have been around long enough to be replaced, and I actually think Billie Eilish is on an upswing. She's one of the few people most can agree is a star so she'll likely be getting a big promo push.

2

DoctaMario t1_itcapb8 wrote

Producer/songwriter working in the industry here.

To be fair, it's always been bad, but I'd argue it's actually better than it used to be because knowledge about it is out there more than it used to be and there are more possibilities for making a living now that you have streaming platforms like Spotify out there.

Back even as recent as the 90s, if a major label didn't like you, chances are you weren't going to have a career. Now you can book your own tours (assuming you even need to tour what with people now being able to build audiences online), sell you own merch, and keep all the money for yourself. If you sell 10,000 copies of a $10 CD (people like these as souvenirs) on your own, that's $100k that goes into YOUR pocket. So while you don't have as many big stars now as we used to, musicians that would never get signed still have the potential to get out there, find an audience and actually make a living off their music. Florida Georgia Line was doing so well independently that it was actually a pay cut for them when they signed to a major label.

As for concerts, that's always been the same. The artist sets the price and Ticketmaster is there to absorb the blowback as they have always been. Springsteen and Blink 182 have older audiences that are more established and they know those folks will pay whatever they're asking if they want to be at the show badly enough. So I can't blame them for charging what they do, especially now since album sales are non-existent, if their audiences are willing to pay.

21

DoctaMario t1_iret7rz wrote

Part of the problem, at least here in the US, is how campaigns are run. It can be difficult to be well informed on what a candidate is really about, especially in the heat of a mud flinging campaign.

But regardless of all that, democracy as we've practiced it in the US doesn't work anymore, at least beyond the local level. People get a sense of accomplishment from voting but there is too often a disconnect between what people vote for and what the candidates actually do, and so in that respect, I think democracy, the representative kind anyway, is broken.

2