Why are there no rock stars anymore?

the purple tin · 19-10-2017 02:41PM

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Josh Homme is still around

But he's a buttoned down husband and dad now.

jmayo · 19-10-2017 02:53PM

I laugh when someone said the only rock stars still around are the likes of Mick and Keith.
They are now ultra establishment and their rebellious days are long since gone.
Was the definition of a rock star someone who shagged groupies, wrecked hotels, was as high as a kite on coke and was part of a great band or was a great solo act ?
Very few ever actually achieved that.

One thing that has happened that has lessened the creation of huge stars be they music, TV or film is the accessibility that people now have to them.
The mystic is gone to a huge degree.
It is now also all about celebrity rather than ability and ultimately stardom.

Also we now have so many options and so much access to it.
The definition of arrival at the top is not down to appearing on the once weekly Top of the Pops.
Who the feck pays any attention to charts anymore, hell are they even collated anymore ?

Added to that we have all these talent shows where manufactured acts are flung out, creativity is not fostered, uniqueness is a handicap and longevity is never considered.

And part of this formulisation is that music has become corporate, much like sport.
Boring is safe, safe means sponsors are forking out wads of cash and media watchdogs don't turn people off the product.
And the product is now on view 24/7/365 so it can't be risked to have a non boring type.

A music executive would have a heart attack nowadays when faced with the likes of keith Moon or his protege Joe Walsh.
No music executive would want their band banned from a world wide hotel chain ala, believe it or not those sometimes middle of the road sounding guys, The Eagles.

Safe sells itunes downloads.
Safe is Ed Sheeran and Coldplay.

fryup · 19-10-2017 02:54PM

rock stars aren't all hell raisers you know...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRCTc6stICc

sjb25 · 19-10-2017 02:55PM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_1hgVcNzvzY

Hector Bellend · 19-10-2017 03:07PM

Birneybau wrote: »

The Foo Fighters are as rock as Bon Jovi.

I know you like Jovi.

dd972 · 19-10-2017 03:36PM

Their music may suck (imho) but someone like Chris Martin or Ed Sheeran would rather enjoy their 8 bedroom, 5 bathroom house in Devon than wind up like Keith Moon, who could blame them.

Dyr · 19-10-2017 03:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the best answer I think. Back in the 70s and 80s, rock stars lived a life people could only wonder about and look at in awe. A bit like nobles back hundreds of years ago. Nowadays the basic standard of living and level of comfort is so high that wealth and hedonism does not deliver the same sense of awe or have the same psychological impact on people. People in coucil estates drive BMW's and snort cocaine at the weekend these days.

I've seen some dribble in my time but this is prime stuff

Turnipman · 19-10-2017 03:46PM

Bambi wrote: »

I've seen some dribble in my time but this is prime stuff

Do you mean drivel?

Or do you lack a stiff lower lip?

eviltimeban · 19-10-2017 03:56PM

It's about access. In the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s, fans didn't have direct access to the musicians who were topping the charts, so they could only wonder what they were like, what kind of people they were. Wonder builds mystique which builds obsession.

Nowadays, everyone is on Twitter, including the musicians. It is common ground. Record labels build social media marketing campaigns around album releases. Singers are now on everyone's phones, not just in the pages of music magazines or posters on walls. Every gig is videoed by phone and on YouTube immediately. There's no mystery, that "legendary gig" that a few select people were at. You can look it all up online now.

Bands and singers even stream sessions from their recording studios, destroying the mystery of how a record is made. And of course, home recording has advanced which means the average person on the street can make a reasonably good sounding track on their laptop, or even tablet.

It does work to some artistes' advantage - One Direction cultivated a huge following through social media, same for Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande. But these are clearly not rock musicians.

The other aspect is the death of alternative rock. Back in the pre-Nirvana, pre-Oasis days, rock was on the sidelines, "indie" rarely broke through. A band got together with ambition no greater than to get on John Peel and maybe play the second stage at Glastonbury. Since the grunge and Britpop breakthroughs, nowadays it's all about having a long career rather than making a brief but important impact. And of course, making money.

Streaming is the final issue, as it also removes the mystique. I remember not being able to get my hands on certain records for months, years even. They became something mythical; that rare 12" or b-side that you'd never heard but HAD to have. Now, everything is available, everything is online, and I don't even have to pay for it.

19-10-2017 04:07PM

eviltimeban wrote: »

It's about access. In the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s, fans didn't have direct access to the musicians who were topping the charts, so they could only wonder what they were like, what kind of people they were. Wonder builds mystique which builds obsession.

Nowadays, everyone is on Twitter, including the musicians. It is common ground. Record labels build social media marketing campaigns around album releases. Singers are now on everyone's phones, not just in the pages of music magazines or posters on walls. Every gig is videoed by phone and on YouTube immediately. There's no mystery, that "legendary gig" that a few select people were at. You can look it all up online now.

Bands and singers even stream sessions from their recording studios, destroying the mystery of how a record is made. And of course, home recording has advanced which means the average person on the street can make a reasonably good sounding track on their laptop, or even tablet.

It does work to some artistes' advantage - One Direction cultivated a huge following through social media, same for Lady Gaga and Ariana Grande. But these are clearly not rock musicians.

The other aspect is the death of alternative rock. Back in the pre-Nirvana, pre-Oasis days, rock was on the sidelines, "indie" rarely broke through. A band got together with ambition no greater than to get on John Peel and maybe play the second stage at Glastonbury. Since the grunge and Britpop breakthroughs, nowadays it's all about having a long career rather than making a brief but important impact. And of course, making money.

Streaming is the final issue, as it also removes the mystique. I remember not being able to get my hands on certain records for months, years even. They became something mythical; that rare 12" or b-side that you'd never heard but HAD to have. Now, everything is available, everything is online, and I don't even have to pay for it.

It's the problem of too much of a good thing. If you asked someone in 1995 would they like to have unlimited free access to any music they want and be able to look up anything they want about their favourite bands anytime they want, they would have been like "ILL DO ANYTHING TO HAVE THAT!" ... but when everyone actually has it, after a very short time it becomes something taken for granted and it removes any possibility of them once again enjoying the kind of excitement they were once able to have before the days of abundance. People are literally not able to be as genuinely grateful for or excited about music as they were in the 90s or before, and the same goes for visual media too. That permanent loss caused by recent technology a lot sadder than I think most people realise. Like really, how often does anyone nowadays *really* get as excited about the coming release of a movie/game/album/tv show/new season/book as people used to get before we all became spoiled by abundance? Like I suppose people years ago would love to have been able to live in a constant distracted state, facillitated by all the technology but it also means you are never really appreciating or enjoying any one thing as much as people enjoyed things years ago.

bullpost · 19-10-2017 04:08PM

Homesick Alien wrote: »

Matt Bellamy of Muse is one of the last ones remaining. He shreds on guitar, all his songs are about the post apocalypse, he believes in all sorts of crazy conspiracies and no one really knows much about him.

Is that not Jim Corr?

the purple tin · 19-10-2017 04:11PM

This video sums up the rise and fall of a rockstar nicely

siblers · 19-10-2017 04:16PM

Homesick Alien wrote: »

Matt Bellamy of Muse is one of the last ones remaining. He shreds on guitar, all his songs are about the post apocalypse, he believes in all sorts of crazy conspiracies and no one really knows much about him.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 19-10-2017 04:24PM

the purple tin wrote: »

But he's a buttoned down husband and dad now.

In all fairness when you hit late 30s, early 40s the game is up. There's nothing worse than a mature male trying to play up to an image.

He's become a distinguished recording artist now.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 19-10-2017 04:27PM

Who was the last real mainstream fcuk up I wonder. A Drug addict and alco, a real rockstar.

Pete Doherty? Amy Winehouse?

jmayo · 19-10-2017 04:30PM

Less is often better.

Back in the bad old 80s, a highlight and must watch for the week was MTV USA on Sunday afternoon and TOTPS on Thursday, most especially if you were in two channel land.

Nowadays a kid can sit in their room and watch anything they want on a smart phone.
There isn't the same focus given to specific events or specific times.

There is now more competition, faster turnaround of acts, less time given by record companies to acts to deliver.
The likes of Cowell want their acts to follow a safe guaranteed formula which ensures financial return.
Sure the acts can sing for the most part, but perish the thought they mightn't look fairly good, sound different or God Forbid try their own material.
Every now and again a quirky act ala Susan Boyle is thrown up to tug at the old heart strings but they are the exception.

More options does not always mean more quality.

In my mind the one saving grace of modern media is that every so often someone or something special gains traction on Youtube.
It actually helps circumvent the corporate music entities.

philstar · 19-10-2017 10:40PM

the days of driving rolls royces into swimming pools and throwing TV's out of hotel windows are long gone i'm afraid, everyone gone boring & PC :rolleyes:

shame no real characters out there....like this chap...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpmVb441ukI

maryishere · 19-10-2017 10:48PM

There are a few around, I bumped in to one when I was having a stroll after work on Dun Laoghaire pier last month. Its just you do not hear of them being rebellious nowadays. Modern music is so poor compared to the music of a generation ago too.

philstar · 19-10-2017 11:07PM

maryishere wrote: »

There are a few around, I bumped in to one when I was having a stroll after work on Dun Laoghaire pier last month.

Miss O'Connor by any chance?

Why are there no rock stars anymore?

Comments