Will pop/rock produce another icon or franchise band/performer?

Cafe Society
1

I mean a REAL icon or franchise. One that has staying power. Now the industry is so driven by hype, image control and divas, that once the next big thing comes along, “The greatest in the world” is quickly discarded for the next “greatest.”

All the while, Madonna, the Stone and even freakboy Michael Jackson are able to draw crowds, sales or ratings.

Acts that have big hits in multiple decades (no including ones that were in 99 and then 2000!)

It seems like under the current rules of media control, it will be difficult to achieve this status. The next time we hear about many of these acts again, will be when they are old enough to do an E! special on them.

Given, Spears and Aguilerra have held on longer than I thought they would, but eventually Page Six will tire of them and they will fade away (hopefully after blowing their money, and forced to go the Cinemax route!)

But who was the last entertainer to obtain this status? I would say it was Sheryll Crow. Not an icon in the sense of Madonna or The Beatles, but a nice franchise singer who draws nice crowds, sells a lot of records, and has hits spanning about a decade. You just know that she is going to keep being a consistent performer.

I thought Pearl Jam was going to be bigger, but they seemed to fight being successful.

Does anyone think Creed will be tearing it up in a decade?

2

Not if I have any say in the matter.

3

Exactly. They scream “One album wonder”!

I was thinking about this one again in the car, and I wonder if a band like Match Box 20 will stick around. They really have had quite a few hits over a decent span of time.

4

Watsonwill said, "Does anyone think Creed will be tearing it up in a decade? "

Over my dead body!!

5

Well, fans are much more fickle these days and will dump a group if they put out an album that isn’t exactly like their previous one. That works against long-term acts.

In any case, that sort of long-term success is rare. Also, groups that have long-term success from the 60s, say, usually turn into “greatest hits” acts.

But you will still see acts who last for decades. Say what you will about Madonna, but she definitely has staying power.

6

I thought Matchbox 20 had the potential to be very big. Good sound, charismatic frontman, some critical appeal. Then it seemed every song dwelled on relationship angst. Each album may as well be entitled 12 Variations on the Same Theme.

7

Strictly franchise, Alecia Moore (Pink). Tip 'o the iceberg, fellas!

8

I wonder if the fact that I am not “with it” plays into my doubts of pop/rock establishing a new franchise player. I have never heard of Alecia Moore (pink).

Maybe I am not the best judge.

I also agree with RealityChuck that most of these bands turn into Greatest Hits performers. I went to several Aerosmith concerts and when Tyler announces “This one is from our latest album”, a rush of people go to get a beer.

People are defintely looking for Springsteen to sing Born in the USA. That is a great way of phrasing it. Will pop/rock ever produce another “Greatest Hits” Act?

9

OK, my opinion is biased because I am a huge fan, but I actually do like Pearl Jam for this, despite the OP stating that “they seemed to fight being successful.” They just have a different concept of success, that’s all. Gotta give them some kind of credit for refusing to define “greatness” on anyone’s terms but their own.

They’ve been around longer than most bands of their “era,” and they’re still putting out records that matter (to me and their other fans, anyway). Granted, they don’t have a new “hit single” every week, but then again they care about the music and their fans, not about “units sold.” Their audience is pretty broad, age-wise, and also rabidly loyal. And, they are U-N-B-E-fucking-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E in concert. They really love what they do, and I hope I speak for all their fans when I say that we love what they do for us.

Also, what about U2? They aren’t going anywhere for a while. Nor is Bon Jovi. Also Dave Matthews. And I like John Mellencamp too. I think it is important to look at who is already established, instead of who has yet to make a name for themselves. Some of these guys are well on their way, but I think they still have a lot left in 'em.

10

Yeah, but those guys already made names for themselves before the mid-90’s (which is when I note the last one to occur…S. Crow). Despite my earlier negative comments, I would include Pearl Jam. They sell out venues every where they go.

I am probably jaded because I thought they could be “Rolling Stones” big.

U2 and Mellencamp go WAY back.

Dave Mathews is interesting. I considered him but decided not to include him (them…whatever). I like his stuff a lot, but it seems like he (they) is trying to stay in that college/bar/frat boy niche. Which is cool, but I don’t know if they are icons.

Consensus?

11

Beck. He’s going to get better with age.

12

the Foo Fighters. They seem to endlessly be increasing in popularity, but not the larger than life kind that usually results in people getting sick of them quick. Plus they don’t have the drug problems that mess up a lot of bands. They just sort of slowly but surely keep going. Just think, Dave Grohl’s been in this band longer and with more albums already than he was with Nirvana. I think when he sang “I’ll Stick Around” he meant it.

Also, the Red Hot Chili Peppers have been around for like 20 years now. Now they have had all the drug problems you can imagine, and half the time I forget they’re even still around, but then they release albums every few years and amazingly they’re still getting better.

I wish Pearl Jam could manage to get it together. I’ve always loved their music but their attitude is idiotic. I think they intentionally try and release harder to enjoy music with each album so as to trim their fan base. Why would anyone do this?

Radiohead is another band that I believe is going to be around for a long time.

13

To kind of address something that the OP sort of talked around but didn’t really say outright … the problem with a lot of “new” artists is that they’re just so damn young – Britney & Christina had their first hit records before they were old enough to vote, fer Chrissakes. So, their target audience is sort of limited anyway to people “that age,” and I know for sure that I am embarrassed to admit to what I listened to when I was 16. (Hint: Nothing I listen to NOW, that’s for damn sure.)

Cheryl Crow is an interesting example … I like her stuff too. But when she “broke” she was already 30, and she had been working for 10+ years as a backup singer for some of the “big names” (Michael Jackson, for one). She also writes her own songs and produces (some of) her own records – which means she doesn’t have to record tripe unless she feels like it. She sort of fills the “chick niche” in pop-rock music. And she is rumored to have slept with Clapton, which certainly doesn’t hurt her cred any (although dueting with Kid Rock lost her some points in my book - eww).

I agree with acrossthesea about the Foo Fighters. They are pretty gosh darn great. Dave Grohl is really something altogether else. But he has also been around for, like, hundreds of years relative to some of the whippersnappers out there. (Also, re: PJ – I guess they do it because they can …)

14

**

I realize people have wildly different views when it comes to DMB, but to consider them anything less than the biggest rock act of today is just wrong.

They ARE an Icon/Franchise/whatever.

I also think Green Day is either right there or will be there with their next album.

15

I think John Mayer will achieve this over the course of his career. For those of you who are tired of his last album, his new one, “Heavier Things,” is due out September 9th.

16

You know, I think you’ve got it in one. The bands you’ve mentioned aren’t going to do anything long term (Creed, Britney, Christina). It’s like saying “These 60s bands suck. Do you really think Strawberry Alarm Clock or Tommy James and the Shondells will stick around for the long term?”

However, there are plenty of bands outside the mainstream that have just as much longevity and talent as the Springsteens and the Stones. Try Radiohead, Foo Fighters, Dr Dre, Eminem and Beck for big selling acts. The White Stripes and Basement Jaxx will most likely become stayers. Coldplay could, although the way they keep churning out the same old thing over and over again could hold them back.

Slightly underground, you’ll find things like the Flaming Lips, Wilco and Built To Spill will stick around.

And Pink sucks. She’s Britney marketed to a new generation. She’s the older Avril Lavigne.

Big claim for a band who’s done shit all at an international level.

17

I would hope that Wilco and The Jayhawks would be able to stick around, but the key factor in their longevity is probably their restlessness. And the fact that they can’t seem to really break through and get a big hit (though God knows they deserve to). It’s more likely that they’ll break up from internal tension than that they’ll become unmarketable.

That’s why I think the best odds are on the individual performers. Ones that come to mind that could be with us a long time and get better are:

**Beck
John Mayer
Jack Johnson
Ryan Adams
Lucinda Williams
Moby
Nora Jones
**

18

I don’t think you’ll see much in the way of long-term big-name acts until the balance of power changes between artists and labels. This just may occur with the new litigation over file-sharing and mp3 technology and music distribution systems and whatever inevitable government interference will come about as a result.

The upshot, though, is that recording contracts today are much different than those of yesterdecade. Previously, the artist was locked into that label for a certain number of years. Now, it’s for a certain number of albums.

Yes, that means an artist can’t simply stop recording and wait out the terms of an unpleasant contractual duty. He’s stuck with a crappy deal, with crappy promotion and crappy royalties, until he produces enough crap to get out from under it, and by then, he’s probably ruined his career. The labels, meanwhile, usually hold all the options to extend, while the artist pays for the advance radio copies out of his own pocket.

Also, with the fragmentation of the radio dial – now we have rock, classic rock, oldies rock, soft rock, rap, R&B, salsa, country, oldies country, oldies salsa, oldies salsa-rap, oldies rock-salsa-rap, hip-hop, hip-hop salsa, oldies hip-hop-salsa-rock-rap, and so on, so it’s vital for the labels to stick their artist into a Slot. A Pigeonhole. How are we going to market you, my lad? Yes, yes, you’re a classically trained opera singer and you’ve played in 13 bands and you can sing anything in the world. But what are we going to label you with, my dear?

The first advice you get when submitting a demo tape is to make all the songs in the same genre. You’d better pick something you’ll be happy doing for the rest of your (short) career, because labels don’t care if you’re versatile. They want to know if you have enough of It to keep you going for a year or two. Then if they ever need something else, they’ll call. Stay by the phone, m’kay?

I don’t think this is going to change overnight simply because a band happens along, even one band, that’s got talent and moxie and pizzazz. Because there’s hundreds, thousands of 'em out there, and as like as not, they’ll only get one shot.

Maybe I’m cynical, but there you go.

FISH

19

I presume this in reference to Creed.

Unfortunately for you, you are dead wrong. Creed’s 2nd album, Human Clay has sold over 12,000,000 copies and counting, while their 3rd album, Weathered has sold over 5,000,000 copies. Those albums both debuted at #1 on the Billboard Top 200 albums chart and remianed there for over 12 weeks.

Various songs of Creeds have hit #1 on various Billboard charts including the Hot 100 and Modern Rock Tracks charts.

20

I’ll take exception with that statement.
Pink did something pretty extraordinary. She went from complete sellout to genuine artist in 1 album.

Her Misundaztood (or however she spelled it) is a very real, raw and gritty album. She had the guts to go from the Brittney drone you described to putting herself out there. Besides that, it was actually musically interesting.

I don’t much care for Pink’s music, but I am impressed by it. I’m interested to see what happens with her as she matures. I’m guessing she’s going to lean toward the blues. Whatever it is, I feel confident that she’s not going to just toe the corporate line, she’ll do whatever the hell she wants musically, even if it is crap. I gotta respect that.