Could it be the reason there are no big stars anymore is because we don't let it happen?

Question

what I mean is that , it seems no matter how good you are today, people will dissect your work looking for anything to compare past artists to you and knock you down?

Ex - if you really listen to the Stones and with a cynical ear , you'll notice they were just good songwriters, to me they are gods but if anyone today plays a tele through a twin reverb, you're automatically a Keith Richards wannabe and you're ripped to shreds in hipster mags

Or is just that all rock today sucks?

Answer 1

When you said "mags" my senses spiked. Think of ALL the magazines written about stars/heroes/public figures in any genre; music, sports, entertainment, and you'll find a lot of the same thing. My take on this is that because the world has shrunk so much due to technology making everything instant, the writers have run out of angles for the next story. You had better publish or you'll perish, so the writing continues regardless of weight of content. When you don't have anything to say, taking the person of interest apart is always grounds for a story. At least the public eats it up, or the editors wouldn't print the stuff. We live in a sensationalist society and are frankly bored with no or slow "news." It is most unfortunate that today's talent is being compared to a different time and generation for the sake of argument. Keith Richards wasn't compared to Chuck Berry, even though the man was his inspiration.

Answer 2

I think that the direction the best music these days is going isn't exactly radio-friendly. In my opinion the progressive bands of today are putting out good music but people want songs no longer than 3 minutes 4 minutes tops to be on the radio as hits. And when there is a song that falls in that time slot, people don't like it because it's too different. I think the reason there are no "big stars" is because the radio plays the same stuff over and over and even though people like it and buy the records, they aren't moved by something new and fresh like they were when the big bands were putting out the stuff to be excited about in their time.

Answer 3

You're right on both counts. There really hasn't been a band to make the public sit up and take notice in a LONG time. Sure, there's been recent bands that hit it "big" with a single, but then they release another CD which isn't very good and the public forgets about them. bands can't seem to develop a large core fan base any more. People may snicker at some of the 80's hair bands, but they can still pull in bigger crowds year after year than current bands. Its because they have a core fan base.

Answer 4

The labels haven't subscribed to or promoted artists' "careers" for years. They've been too busy being famous and chasing the fast buck with singles and pretty faces with catchy beats.

It's a fast food world where everybody's driving through and not dining in.

And for those who can't come up with good rock music nowadays, they just don't know where to look.

Answer 5

no, i totally agree with you.

that's all people do on here is ***** and compare today's music to the past.
if it sounds the same, they say they're copying.
if it sounds different, they say they're not as good.

people just love to hate, and will never accept a modern band, no matter how good they are.

Answer 6

i like to think it's because there is so much good stuff out there we can't focus on just one, and thats good because we don't end up with one band that dominates the airwaves.

Answer 7

i feel like wolfmother is better than a lot of people say, and the fate that you described may have befallen them

Answer 8

Nobody outstanding anymore, everyone new sounds the same.

Answer 9

There is Hannah Montana! ;)




(THAT WAS A JOKE!!)

Answer 10

Unfortunately, it is the latter.