Music without the right "artist" is dead

[stanlea]

True. Mozart is a bastard. Salieri was THE genius.

[blueman]

Excellent example of creating a successful, personal brand

[rcat]

Did any of you watch the American Music Awards? This is the one which is voted on by the fans and general public. The OP is 100% correct.

[debra1rlo]

Excellent example of creating a successful, personal brand

All I know is I like it when they do that horsey dance.

[jupiter8]

Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.

[itsDavidAbraham]

Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.

Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did

[herodotus]

Many of the classic bands would not have a shot today because they relied only on a committed fan base and creating "good music". Today's fans are FAR more fickle and a lot less loyal than ever before. That's what I'm seeing anyway.

Many classic bands might not 'have a shot' at Rihanna style success today. But they likely would have done just fine on the scale of Charlie Parr or Steve Albini.

Music lovers, real music lovers who actually listen intently, are actually quite rare. The celebrity culture BS that masses of people consume and talk about intersects with actual music only occasionally and unpredictably.

[chk071]

Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.

Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did

So you say that any talented singer who just steps up to Jay-Z would become famous over night?

[jupiter8]

Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.

Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did

Huh ? That makes no sense what so ever.

[debra1rlo]

even if the OP's assertion is true (it may be, i'm in no place to say either way) it's not stopping people from doing their own thing. i've seen a lot of cool bands playing out live recently and i've had fun playing too.

[ariston]

Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.

Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did

That's a bit simplistic, yes? I don't know, I get kind of tired of this "four legs good, two legs bad" attitude. I love stupid pop songs, and I love microtonal noodlings and highbrow shit. There's art and knowledge and experience to be found in both.

Rihanna rocks. She might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and she might not be Dianne Reeves, but she's got that special something that a lot of singers don't have.

[Shabdahbriah]

so how is this different from the rest of the history of popular music?

Precisely! "Popular" by nature is 'trendy', and "trendy" by nature is fickle.

Fair enough, but it IS different by virtue of the variables (new technology) changing. I don't know how you can claim that popular music is as it always was when we now have music downloads, sample libraries and auto-tune. Today, so-called "real" band music is easily (and indistinguishably) replaced by something manufactured by a single person in a bedroom with the above tools readily (and mostly, freely) available. That, to me, is the game changer and its effects on what we are calling "popular music" are evident.

FAR be it from me to argue the "difference" technologically, as you make points with which I agree... however, relative to the OP's proposition/angst, we're dealing with the "psychology" (or psycho-graphics) and in large part demo-graphics of the 'phenomenon' OF "popular" or "pop-culture", in contrast to the "technology" available, save for (the most part) "distribution".

Obviously, the technology has made "creation" and distribution readily available/accessible to and for the masses, which (IMHO) does not preclude but generally presumes there being a viable "market", for their efforts.

That "presumption" is well fed by the an industry that is quite adept at selling "image" (bling-bait), to those who aspire to BE "popular" by association/agreement, albeit "vicariously" and/or affectaciously. That "me to", works both ways. e.g. How many "stars" now flaunt "tattoo's", for example?

To whom are they/do they - appeal?

The OP's premise was fairly accurate given what is known (or accepted/understood) to be the norm, unless the "local talent" has something that gets them "noticed" by the movers and shakers, AND can be capitalized on... then - things can change quickly.

[debra1rlo]

Rihanna rocks. She might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and she might not be Dianne Reeves, but she's got that special something that a lot of singers don't have.

But I would rate her under Ella Ella Ella Ella Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?

[itsDavidAbraham]

Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.

Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did

That's a bit simplistic, yes? I don't know, I get kind of tired of this "four legs good, two legs bad" attitude. I love stupid pop songs, and I love microtonal noodlings and highbrow shit. There's art and knowledge and experience to be found in both.

Rihanna rocks. She might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and she might not be Dianne Reeves, but she's got that special something that a lot of singers don't have.

Oh don't get me wrong. I love Rihanna, my OP wasn't meant to infer that there isn't significant value brought by the branded artist. It's just to acknowledge it. Many talented producers/songwriters beat themselves up because they haven't "made it", when their art is fine. The point is, a record like "Diamonds" has much more potential if sung by Rihanna than by a local artist. If that record had not gotten placed with Rihanna it would still be a good record.

[itsDavidAbraham]

Hmmm some of us may remember a time when Rihanna wasn't Rihanna but just a talented local singer that no one had heard about.

Yes, but the music didn't make her. Jay-Z did

So you say that any talented singer who just steps up to Jay-Z would become famous over night?

No? How did you infer that from what I wrote? lol.

Overnight? Rihanna's first album did not do very well, as a matter of fact many thought she would be dropped...but Jay continued to invest.