Will there ever be a "next big thing"?

sorry about the double post, i didn;t mean it.

gorts, feel free to delete one of them

renny

 

My point was just that the next big things will never be as all encompassing as they were back in the day due to the factors I noted. And who is to say it won't be for us? If I like then I'll buy it. The biggest thing now is Eminem and I'm a fan. I love that guy! <puts on flame retardent suit>

 

We're lamenting the lack of an artist or group that "everyone" and the record industry can rally around, but I take a different angle. There may have been a "big thing" in the past, but they were far from universal, even back then. Most of us here all love the Beatles, the Stones, Springsteen, Sinatra, Motown...but even they were not liked universally. And, Prince, Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and others all had many detractors during their heyday. Even today you can still find many, many people of all stripes who hate them and/or their music. There may have been some crossover in genres, but most people tend to stay within their likes.

Many of us reminice about how radio was so diverse, and many of us did hear very diverse radio in our youth, but in reality, those who did hear diversity were lucky, but far fewer than remembered. And, of course it's much worse now. There is virtually no diversity on radio except for that good-time, great oldies radio station. And the typical music fan? Pthew! Forget it!

 

A topic shift here, but what about satellite radio? What's the outlook on it now? Is it catching on like they thought it might or no? I understand it's pretty diverse, although I haven't jumped on that bandwagon myself yet.

 

I wasn't born yet but I don't think parents liked the Beatles. They weren't even "all-encompassing."

 

The last all encompassing artists were probably Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra.

 

You're so right, Mikey. I remember watching Sullivan, Disney and a lot of other programs with my folks. My wife and i console each other because as kids, we watched The Lawrence Welk Show with our parents. We weren't forced to, but we frequently watched a lot of TV with out parents. That's not to say we watched everything they did, but i think there was a lot more of that sort of thing 30 years ago. Perhaps because TV (and color TV) was not as commonplace. I remember going to a friend's house to watch Batman because his folks had a color TV.

Color TV consoles...man, those were the days. Talk about a big piece of furniture!

With regard to fragmentation, yes, that's where we are today. In the 60s we had five TV channels available to us: NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, and a local UHF station. Now with cable and satellite services offering hundreds of channels, there's something for "everybody". Never mind what Springsteen said about "57 channels and nothin' on".

By the way folks, i hope i'm not sounding like a dinosaur by reminiscing about the 60s. I'm making it sound like things were so much better than. It was a different time. Entertainment was different. Society was different. Today is pretty darned cool, too.

 

I can tell you that the Beatles never charted on the R&B charts, but the Rolling Stones, the Animals, and even Led Zepplin sure did!

 

Bartel is right, The Beatles werent the last big thing.

The Monkees were!!

 

>>>Grant, You Sure "Twist and Shout" didnt chart on the R&B Charts after Vee Jay released it? Vee Jaywas pretty much an R&B label and had all the ins with the R&B stations.....

 

Even if they didn't!!! SO WHAT!!!

 

According to Joel Whitburn and Billboard, there isn't one single entry by the Beatles on the R&B charts. Because they were on one or two R&B labels before Capitol took them means nothing.

There was no Billboard R&B chart in late 1964, so, we'll never know if it could have happened.

 

Right! It doesn't matter. I was just making the point that not even the Beatles were universally accepted. No artrist was. Because they never showed up on a given chart doesn't mean they weren't listened to or appreciated by other audiences. I don't know, but they probably never showed up on the C&W chart either.

 

They haven't shown up on the country charts.

 

If artists were universally accepted, we wouldn't have genres in place.

 

No R&B chart in 1964.........gee, no WONDER The Beatles werent on it!! )

 

Sad, but that's the way it is, always has been...

 

I have an XM unit...I dig it. It's really the only way I hear new music I can listen to...

Ben

 

at one time George Michael was "the next big thing"...what happened to him?

he really crashed and burned!

 

The definition of the next big thing would have to be: Who was very popular and is still popular on a significant level now? Brittany is too early to tell, but there were many artists who were touted as the next big thing and did not last. Examples - Bay City Rollers, New Kids on the block, Milli vanilli, Culture club, Tears for fears, etc. Only time will tell who was the NBT. Based on that criteria, I think Madonna was one, her older music will still be popular for years, not certain about Britanny.

 

I think the main thing that hurt him was that he lost the backing of a major label when he sued or was sued by Sony.

 

Exactly.

 

I think what hurt him was waiting a full three years to follow up the blockbuster Faith with the noncommercial, self-absorbed, moody "Listen Without Prejudice". After it bombed, the usual blame game occurred, the lawsuits got filed, Mr. Michael got caught in his sexcapades, and, *voila*, his career is officially toast.

 

There most certainly WAS an R&B chart in 1964! I'm sure there will be a "next big thing" and Harry Potter is the perfect example! It's just that a musical one probably won't be a product of Wall Street or Madison Avenue because the last musical ones weren't either. They were the product of an entire record industry that was created from the ground up during the early 1950s.