I know that you like them, (I’m just assuming, by the list - maybe I shouldn’t?) but that doesn’t mean that they’ll be a franchise.
I like Bloodhound Gang, but that’s just a personal favorite. I don’t really expect them to be around in 10 years, though.
Forgive my EXTREME insolence, but R ‘n R (and beyond…)will produce whatever they need, OVER and OVER! Dating myself here…We had xxxx and before we had Matchbox20, and before we had Green Day, and before STP, and Madonna, and U2, and Van Halen, and Donna Summer, K.C. and his band…, and Elton John, and Bowie, and Grand Freakin’ Funk, and Sly, and the Beatles, and Dylan, and Smokie, and Little Richard, and Jerry Lee, and Johnny B. Goode!, and Elvis, and Frankie, and Big Bands etc.! You get my point…
Skin2skin:
You might be right. I was just trying to think of individual performers that met my criterion of having a large amount of talent and the type of personality and growing fanbase that could cause them to ‘break through’. Beck arguably has done so already, although his last album (his best since Odelay) has had disappointing sales.
The problem, as I see it, is that the music industry has changed. Back in the good old days, the record companies used to have ‘scouts’ that would travel around looking for talent. And when they found it, they would nurture it, let it grow, support it, and build a lasting franchise around that talent.
The Grateful Dead never had a top 10 hit until 1980, after putting out God knows how many albums. Warren Zevon was giving bags of production money, support by top quality stars as backup on his albums, etc. He had one top 10 hit. But he turned into a minor legend, even though he never had a gazillion-selling album.
But today, record companies manufacture stars. They don’t want to take a risk unknowns, so this is what they do - they decide that they need a ‘tough girl’, or a ‘sexy dancing girl’, or a ‘boy band’, or whatever their market research suggests will sell. Then they go out and find someone who can sing and who otherwise fits the part. Then they stick them in a room with a bunch of contract song writers, create an album, cut some videos, and spend a bag full of money on promotion. They’ve discovered that this is a way to make hit albums.
And it works. For a while. Britney, Christina, Avril, Alanis, The Backstreet Boys, etc. sell albums like crazy. But these albums fade away. Dark Side of the Moon was on the album charts for what, 25 years? Can anyone even remember the name of a Backstreet Boys album?
This is becoming an acknowledged problem in the industry. Their ‘back catalog’ from the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s still sells well. Artists from that era still make hit records.
But the late 80’s and 90’s are a black hole. Very few hit albums from those years still sell. This has implications for the record company’s long-term profitability. In short, there are NO franchise performers any more, because the studio system has no room for them.
Probably because at the peak of their success things were getting out of control. I know people have criticized Pearl Jam and particularly Eddie Vedder for being too whiny about the burden of fame or what have you, but these guys had stalkers. They had people chasing them down the street. They had people steal their personal belongings right out of their dressing rooms. Vedder had a mentally ill fan break into his home. There was a con man in the Pacific Northwest who was using guitarist Stone Gossard’s identity as part of his scam. If that kind of stuff were happening to me, I’d want to cool things off a bit too.
In fact, I’d probably just say screw the music business altogether, take my money, and retire to some distant land. But Pearl Jam must have decided they were in it for the long haul. They’re already the only major surviving rock act of their era, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they kept touring for the next couple of decades.
I vote Green Day (laugh if you want). They’ve been around for a long time now. I wouldn’t be surprised if they lasted another decade or two.
If we’re looking for icons in the key of Madonna, the Rolling Stones and Michael Jackson, I think we have to overlook the likes of Dave Matthews Band and Sheryl Crow. AFAIK, DMB are next-to-unknown outside of the US. Sheryl Crow may still have a US audience, but I haven’t heard her stuff regularly played on the radio since the 90s.
Radiohead and Foo Fighters are two bands poles-apart, but they’ve both been going strong for 9 or so years now without any sign of flagging. I agree that the Red Hot Chili Peppers have a chance of sticking around for the long haul.
Blur is a band probably not as big in the US as they are elsewhere, but I think Damian Alburn et al will be remembered in the decades to come. Blur’s music has continued to evolve and grow, and their audience has largely stuck around to hear their new stuff. Critics still love Blur (and rightly so).
Tori Amos is another potential icon.
Incidentally, I don’t agree that media controls, market segmentation and marketing is entirely to blame for the apparent dearth of emerging music icons. It’s a simple fact that there’s a lot more music being released these days. More music being released means – believe it or not – there’s more good music in the marketplace (along with all the shite). I’d argue that it’s increasingly difficult for a exceptional contemporary artist to achieve the same level of acclaim and attention that he or she would have received in earlier times simply because they face a lot more competition.
Watsonwil, the thing to keep in mind is that you probably could’ve asked this question at any point and received similar responses (just different names). You can’t really predict who will achieve this kind of major status, as bands that do it don’t come along predictably. Who knew that bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden would turn out to be icons instead of one-hit or one-album wonders?
Creep is still Radiohead’s best-known song and it SCREAMED one-hit wonder (good song, I think, but it’s very much of its time). That was ten years ago. But since then, they’ve become one of the most popular, critically respected, and daring bands out there.
I’m guessing by franchise you mean that in the same way the NFL labels a franchise player. Your money guy.
My pick is Alecia Moore, aka Pink. She’s not there yet but she has more potential than the other pretenders. I think it’s up to her. Does she really want it. Can she handle it without flubbing it. So far she has the most promise of the youngsters. She has a spark where the others are just packaged goods. Keep your fingers crossed.
I can easily picture the Red Hot Chili Peppers touring 15 years from now. A double-bill with Jane’s Addiction, right?
I’d show up to see the White Stripes open for 'em 
It doesn’t really work that way. You can’t say that since DMB is unknown internationally they’ll never be an icon and then turn around and choose Blur. Because they’re another band that (while great) is relatively unknown internationally.
And I don’t understand all this talk about how if they’re not big outside the US they’re not big. Musicians come from around the world to see if they can make it in the US. It’s a goal for most of them. No one says “sure my fame in the US is nice, but I really want to make it in Sweden.”
Maybe it’s my American nationalism talking, but I think a lot of people overplay the importance of making it big internationally.
Interesting topic.
One dimension that has not been mentioned, near as I can tell, is how to define an icon. I will take a shot - it is an artist/group who within their first few albums hits a huge, cross over, culturally-defining homerun - meaning their song or album could be used as the soundtrack for that summer/year. (Note: I am discussing this within the context of the U.S. market)
Think Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumours”
U2’s “Joshua Tree”
Prince’s “Purple Rain”
From there, they need to have songs, records or moments that keep them in the crossover public eye - “surfing the wave” if you will. And do this in a way that maintains their position - i.e., does so in a way where they maintain a respectable image.
So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at what we’ve got:
Boy/girl bands - plenty of crossover hits, no respect, no longevity
Creed - crossover hits, no respect, longevity questionable
Pearl Jam - Massive crossover hit, plenty of respect, but a lack of ongoing crossover longevity - has shifted from icon to cult
Sheryl Crow - first album = big crossover, plenty of crossover hits after that, last album not as respected, but is clearly held as peer by other major singer-songwriting rockers. An icon.
Radiohead - one minor crossover (Creep), massive respect. A cult
DMB - a crossover (Crash and maybe one or two others). Jam-band respect - a cult.
Pink - crossover hit, more respect with 2nd album, respected singer. Time will tell if she can stay consistent and franchise it.
White Stripes - no crossover, critics’ darlings (I love 'em, too). Cult for now
Foos - no big crossover into the public consciousness, but solid great songs/albums and Grohl can still work his crossover appeal from Nirvana. Massive respect - he’s made it twice now. Grohl is more of the icon than the Foos, and deservedly so.
Any others? Hmmmm - I might nominate No Doubt - massive crossover, and Rock Steady returns them to form and popularity.
Robbie Williams, if he can find crossover success in the U.S. He is already an icon everywhere else.
Since the OP mentioned rock, I won’t comment on hip hop, but there are plenty there.
How about the Barenaked Ladies? They’ve been around for 10 years and have tons of rabid fans, enough to sell out any concert they put on, regardless of the success of their current album. I don’t see why they can’t continue doing the same thing for another 15-20 years.
I’ll have to correct you there. Pink completely changed her image in the course of one album.
If the singles are any indication of the album, it’s loaded with radio sheen. A little bit of distorted guitar and whiny lyrics about the lack on laundry you do isn’t gritty (what did she do - buy some of Linkin Park’s leftovers?). If that’s gritty, what do you call something like the Moldy Peaches? And I described her as an Avril drone (that’s a Britney drone in wolf’s clothing).
I’m sure the record company was really upset with the way she trod on their toes. Left a sinking trend (glitzy pop star) and jumped on an emerging one (faux-punk teen-pop) and sold millions in the process. Rebel rebel.
Yeah, all those critics’ favourites that will be forgotten in five years time. Like the Velvet Underground, Joy Division, New Order, The Pixies, Fugazi, Grandmaster Flash, Neil Young, Afrika Bambaata, Patti Smith…
Blur are well known internationally. They’ve only failed to have a lasting legacy in the U.S. No matter - there are plenty of British things that are remembered despite America ignoring them.
You’re not huge if you’re only big in one market, even if that market is one of the largest in the world.
I think it is your American nationalism talking.
SmackFu - the Barenaked Ladies had a modest hit (One Week), at best, and have been popular for a while. Clearly cult faves, but not nearly icons.
Justin_Bailey - man, don’t be givin’ the U.S. a bad name internationally (or, worse than it has become already these days). gex gex (hello, Sir) is correct in his/her take on your post.
Having said that, gex, I take exception to your “rebel rebel” dismissal of Pink. Again, I am not a huge fan, but her ability to stay ahead of the trend is entirely worth respect - look at Clapton, who was always staying just enough ahead of trends to stay hip. There are countless other examples, but you get the idea. If she does it one or two more times, she qualifies for bonified icon status…
I am thinking more about your post, gex and want to comment further. There is a difference between “icons” - both critically respected and capable of filling big venues, and “legends”. Your list - “Yeah, all those critics’ favourites that will be forgotten in five years time. Like the Velvet Underground, Joy Division, New Order, The Pixies, Fugazi, Grandmaster Flash, Neil Young, Afrika Bambaata, Patti Smith…” - none of them would be filling stadiums the way the Eagles reunion tour would. (note: I am not happy about that, mind you, just stating what I perceive to be true).
By the way - ask me about knowing Patti Smith’s literary agent and seeing her original typed copy of “Piss Factory” - very cool.
ahem Sorry, I just have to step up and defend their honour. Their first album was self-titled and released in 1996 and it was pretty big overseas and in Canada. Then they released another self-titled album in the U.S. in 1997 (mostly the same as the Euro version with a few different songs). Then came Millennium (their third album) in 1999 which sold 1.1 million copies in the first week. Black and Blue (album number four) was released in 2000 and sold 1.6 million copies in the first week. Then of course they had Chapter One but that was just a greatest hits album.
They’re on a break now but I do honestly think the Backstreet Boys have what it takes to stick around for a while longer (I should point out that they’ve been together already for 10 years). Just because you don’t see much of them now doesn’t mean their done. They just took some time off to have lives. I can’t really blame them after the huge success they’ve had.
I’m not sure when they’ll release another album but it’ll probably be a lot different than their first three. They know they won’t have the same appeal to teenage girls forever so they’ll branch out and try to reach a more mature audience (which probably won’t be so difficult seein’ as how they already have a niche in the adult contemporary crowd). Will they have the same popularity as before? Most likely not. Is that a problem? Nah. Not as long as they maintain their staying power in the place of massive popularity.
Oh and I have to add that they do have some fans that continue to love them once they reach college age. coughmecough I’ve been an obessive fan girly since I was 14 and I’m not ashamed to admit it!
<teenybopper mode>
OMG!! KEVIN IS SOOOOOOOOOOO HOT! I like totally wanna have his babies and stuff!
</teenybopper mode>
I hear they’re already pretty popular with middle-aged creeps who enjoy hanging out with flocks of sweaty teenagers. Hell, the band isn’t that far away from fitting that category themselves.
Dave Grohl - I much prefer him and the Foo Fighters, than when he was in Nirvana. Much better band and more creative.
Did you have a point Marley23 or are you just jealous?
I was just attempting demonstrate what a crossover hit the band is. They’ve got the young girls and creepy older men nailed, those are both key demos.
I’m not disputing that they had big albums. Marketing will do that for you. All of the acts I mentioned had huge selling albums. Gigantic. Monstrous.
None of which continue to sell very well. Once the fad is gone, it turns out that marketing and glitz is all there is. Sure, they can sing. They can harmonize. But people who can sing and harmonize are a dime a dozen. Real artists create art. The Backstreet Boys have a good beat, and you can dance to it.
Janice Joplin could rip your heart out. Bruce Springsteen sings songs that speak to the working man. Bob Dylan writes poetry set to music. This stuff is timeless. There will be Janis Joplin revival acts fifty years from now. In 500 years, this century’s music will be remembered largely for the Beatles.
That’s the difference between artists and performers. The record companies don’t nurture artists any more - they package up entertainment produced by committee and fronted by good-looking malleable ‘stars’. It may sound good, it may be fun to listen to at a party, but once a new one comes along, the old ones fade away.