Is the age of the Great Entertainer Over?

[aristocatz]

We still have Miley.

 

[Stitchfans]

Paul McCartney says hello too.

Did anyone see him on the Late Show Marquee?

Wow, just wow.

beat me to it. I was thinking of him too

 

[bicker]

On the music side you had Frank Sinatra, then Elvis and then MJ. But it seems now there isn't one person that is at the top. And anyone that gets near the top falls just as quickly.

First, that says more about how little there was in the past, than it says anything about today. The fact is that the world is getting more inter-connected, and options and offerings are more frequent, more plentiful, and more varied. Instead of having to settle, people can now engage in tastes far more specific and unique than ever before, and that works against narrow prevalence.

Second, I think the term "the Great Entertainer" is misleading. It implies that there can only be one of quality, and that quality itself can only be defined by the vast majority of people all agreeing with each other at the same time. It isn't greatness that these entertainers of old necessarily had, at least not in that context, but rather, as I alluded to before, singular prevalence: They were simply "the most popular at the time" -- that, and that alone, earned them the misleading moniker. There are entertainers today who are every bit as "great" as any of those folks were, even though fewer people appreciate them. The general population moves from favorite to favorite so frequently, now, not because none of them are great, but rather because there are so many of them that are great, and also because the general population has taken a shine to building people up and tearing them down. This vindictive and malicious nature of the general population is a relatively new phenomenon, becoming a major force only over the last thirty years.

Third -- and I think this is obvious -- there is no advantage (to anyone other than the one who holds the title) to there being a one "most popular" entertainer. It doesn't serve any public good I can think of.

 

[bicker]

It is sad, but now music is just like a fad. Nobody cares about what they are singing about.

That's an erroneous generalization. There are artists who care as much, if not more, than any other artists have ever cared about what they are singing about. If anything, our ability to appreciate the impact and context of our arts has increased over time. However, what you're noting is that there are many more people who are just singing without such significance or importance. The existence of people who don't care doesn't imply that no one cares.

Passion in music has evaporated, and until that returns, and until an entertainer touches the hearts of millions with his/her words... there will not be another Great.

As I alluded to above, there will not be another "Great" until our society degrades to the point where it cannot afford to support more than one.

 

[bicker]

If another comes in my lifetime I bet I'll be too old and crotchety to know it anyway.

This is a really good point: I think one of the reasons why things look to many the way they look is because their perspective is colored by their own experience, and especially how life and the passage of time, themselves, affect one's perspective. The whole concept of nostalgia exists because it is human nature to remember mostly just the good things from the past and forget mostly just the bad things. So, if you let this standard mechanism operate on you, then things will always look like they're going downhill, as your life goes on.

 

[bicker]

You should modify it to "Great POP Entertainer" because there's plenty of entertainers of other genres. What one person considers a good entertainer isn't the same as another person's opinion.

Yes, that's quite a bit what I was getting at, above, but you've raised another issue: That "pop" itself is a genre. However, unlike other genres, "pop" is characterized by that "narrow prevalence" I talked about earlier, instead of being, itself, a technically describable musical style. "Pop" therefore changes over time, and so you can never really evaluate "greatness" within the realm of "pop", in a comparative manner between different time periods. "Pop" is like profit: You can judge it with objective numbers (and even then, with limited relevance), not qualitatively.

 

[bicker]

I was not thinking of talented performers. I was looking at people who became cultural icons.

That raises yet-another issue. I've been looking at this thread really from the standpoint of music, only, but over time, the sources for candidates for our "cultural icons" change. I suppose a couple of centuries ago, it was mostly politicians and writers. I think the 20th Century saw the ascendancy of singers and actors, in this regard. I think we're seeing a further broadening of the sources for candidacies. I've seen people with Albert Einstein and Bill Gates t-shirts. I think that, while in the past news commentators have worked to avoid putting themselves up as icons, I think that's no longer the case. We could see people like Bill Maher and Ann Coulter vying for icon status.

 

[DisneyBlonde]

Honestly, I like Justin Timberlake. He's a good singer, a great dancer, I think he's a solid performer all around. I actually miss NSYNC. And I don't admit to any of this too often.