KVR Audio

VariKusBrainZ · Post by **VariKusBrainZ** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:38 pm

jsp1979 wrote:Lady Gaga
Beyonce
Justin Bieber
Adele
Pink
Rihanna

Surely at least a couple of those sound familiar.

As a side note, Madonna is #45 on Billboard's top artists of 2016 (based on sales/chart performance).

http://www.billboard.com/charts/year-en ... op-artists

Pink hasn't been big since 10 years I thought

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:42 pm

aMUSEd wrote:The Beatles and Elvis suck

(don't like MJ either actually)

I wish I could suck like the Beatles. But damn it's hard. And I have never uttered "I got blisters on my fingers".

.jon · Post by **.jon** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:47 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:
aMUSEd wrote:The Beatles and Elvis suck

(don't like MJ either actually)
In hindsight the Beatles and Elvis were indeed pretty lame. But I suppose at the time they were new and interesting.

"New and interesting" is pretty much the understatement of the year when associated with Beatles and Elvis

Anyway, I'm not really commenting on whether they were subjectively good or deserved their popularity, just trying to discuss the effect that abundance has had on stardom.

What's the current megaband anyway?

fluffy_little_something · Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:47 pm

harryupbabble wrote:
aMUSEd wrote:The Beatles and Elvis suck

(don't like MJ either actually)
I wish I could suck like the Beatles. But damn it's hard. And I have never uttered "I got blisters on my fingers".

The amazing thing is that despite their goofy looks they were a boy band very popular with girls/women. Today one has to look good in order to become a star.

fluffy_little_something · Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:49 pm

.jon wrote:
fluffy_little_something wrote:
aMUSEd wrote:The Beatles and Elvis suck

(don't like MJ either actually)
In hindsight the Beatles and Elvis were indeed pretty lame. But I suppose at the time they were new and interesting.
"New and interesting" is pretty much the understatement of the year when associated with Beatles and Elvis

Anyway, I'm not really commenting on whether they were subjectively good or deserved their popularity, just trying to discuss the effect that abundance has had on stardom.

What's the current megaband anyway?

Well, at least Elvis stole many of his ideas from black artists, mostly unknown ones. If he had not been white, he would never have become popular.

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:58 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote: The amazing thing is that despite their goofy looks they were a boy band very popular with girls/women. Today one has to look good in order to become a star.

It's probably because the probability that a person that can right great songs and be good looking too is not probable. Yeah, I read that Elvis never wrote any of his songs. Sure the Beatles were cute to girls but when the girls stopped idolizing the Beatles, something else has to explain their longevity.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:31 pm

harryupbabble wrote: It's probably because the probability that a person that can right great songs and be good looking too is not probable. Yeah, I read that Elvis never wrote any of his songs. Sure the Beatles were cute to girls but when the girls stopped idolizing the Beatles, something else has to explain their longevity.

Well, I don't see how the two relate. Kate Bush was pretty cute, and wrote great songs, IMO. And Alicia Keys isn't exactly ugly either (I'm sure I could find other examples, if I took a little longer).

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:56 pm

Well if God exist and is fair then God shouldn't do that. Good-looking and talented. Unfair. But hey I would like to see you expand your meager list. Sorry Fernando I got the giggles again. I always think of ABBA when I see your name.

Zombie Queen · Post by **Zombie Queen** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:37 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:
harryupbabble wrote:
aMUSEd wrote:The Beatles and Elvis suck

(don't like MJ either actually)
I wish I could suck like the Beatles. But damn it's hard. And I have never uttered "I got blisters on my fingers".
The amazing thing is that despite their goofy looks they were a boy band very popular with girls/women. Today one has to look good in order to become a star.

C'mon, at least John and Paul were good looking, besides looks ain't everything for males, you can be ugly as a devil and still be attractive for women, take Jack Nicholson... Anyway, IMO, The Beatles were unique phenomenon, as top pop celebrities pulling out some innovative, amazing songs and make people buy it, must be the acid... Of course they made the bland lot, like Yesterday, Long and something road, etc. But then The Walrus, Helter Skelter, there was a good bite of sheer brilliance.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:22 pm

harryupbabble wrote: Sorry Fernando I got the giggles again. I always think of ABBA when I see your name.

Well, it's a name of long tradition in Portugal (and Spain - I think it comes from the Franks, but I'm not certain. EDIT: I checked, and it came from the Visigoths), and a name that is very important in my family (both my grand-fathers were Fernando, my father was Fernando, my mother was Fernanda, I am Fernando, and my son is Fernando)

Also, there were very important Fernandos in our artistic world.

Anyway, it's name that has no correspondence in scandinavia, so, I don't know why they chose it to be the hero of that song, but hey, at least my name became famous

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:23 pm

Zombie Queen wrote: C'mon, at least John and Paul were good looking.

John was good looking? Not IMO. If you said George, well...

jsp1979 · Post by **jsp1979** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:59 pm

VariKusBrainZ wrote:
Pink hasn't been big since 10 years I thought

Her last album went to number 1 (2012), it contained a #1 Billboard hit (2013), it contained two other top 10 hits, and she had a top 10 hit this year from a movie soundtrack ("Just Like Fire").

That's doing pretty good, I'd say.

Her last tour (2013) was the third highest grossing tour of the year.

(Yes I had to look all that up, but my point is that's one of those artists that just keeps putting out hits and having big tours year after year. Kelly Clarkson is another artist that has been highly successful for quite a while.)

jsp1979 · Post by **jsp1979** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:09 pm

.jon wrote:If you think Biebers and Gagas as popular as the MJs, Madonnas and Metallicas of yesteryear you are the ones who are out of touch.

I (nor anyone else) ever said Gaga or Bieber were as big as MJ. I said they were current pop stars.

The fragmentation of the music world and all of the other consumable media out there will likely make it difficult for anyone to achieve the sort of attention garnered by MJ or the Beatles.

fluffy_little_something · Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:45 pm

Is Thriller still the best-selling album ever?
If so, that record will probably also be for eternity now that many people don't buy records and CD's anymore, nor complete albums in file format.

ATS · Post by **ATS** » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:55 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Is Thriller still the best-selling album ever?
If so, that record will probably also be for eternity now that many people don't buy records and CD's anymore, nor complete albums in file format.

yup and like you said probably always will be, I remember like 3 people gave it to me on one birthday lol

Um, are there still any pop stars?