Sci-Fi said:
I was talking about SINGERS hence the mention of Adele. Some of those people you mention are still new to music and really haven't had much in the way of hits. Plus a few of those I've never heard of, so...yeah. I'm talking about those who've actually had multiple hit records and produced more than 2 albums in their career. Let's see what happens to them in a few years
You may as well add William Hung to your list. He had a HUGE fan base that garnered him lots of popularity even today he's still mentioned in media. I'm not talking about them.
Forget it though, though I would try to discuss current events for a change of pace. I just though it was absurd for this guy to say women have a shorter shelf life not a debate.
Well, first of all I'm sorry if I upset you, it wasn't my intention. I'm just trying to have a debate, as I do agree that it's silly to state that women have a shorter life span as a solo artist than men, but at the same time I do think it's equally silly to claim that there aren't any great male solo artists/singers.
For instance, I think it's strange to say that you can compare William Hung to Dima Bilan. The former is an American idol winner (or performer, something like that) who barely scraped a record deal together, while the other has won 32 awards to date. Sure, a lot of people in the USA probably don't know him, but he's an absolute star in Eastern-Europe/the former USSR/some parts of the Middle-East and Asia. He's been dominating their local MTV awards, scored massive hits and won the Eurovision song contest. I think his name's relevant to the topic, as you never specified what makes or breaks a 'successful' solo artist.
Furthermore, I think it's unfair to claim that people like Lenny Kravitz, Jackson Browne, Enrique Iglesias and Ricky Martin e.g. haven't proven anything. I think they're well established male singers, that have always been solo artists and who have managed to score quite a few number one hits. How are they any different than a Gwen Stefani or a Joss Stone?
Amnesiac has a point when he says that today's society suffers from a lower attention span. We've evolved to a graphic, fast paced world, in which time is - more than ever - money. However, it's also the amount of singers and available songs that has caused (and simultaneously is the result of) an enormous revolution: we can see artists everywhere these days, while our parents and grandparents had to listen to records/the radio/local bands at balls/... This in turn means that there's a bigger market for singers/performers, which means there's more of them and more ways for them to distribute their music (outside of the traditional channels). This might make it seem like an artist has vanished off the face of the world, while in reality he's just happy with his fanbase and he has found different ways to distribute his songs.
Also, seeing as we are confronted with so many artists and so many songs on a daily basis, it's normal that people get tired more easily of a genre/sound and like to experiment with crossovers which in turn leads to new artists. On top of that there's the enormous competition between all these artists, which leads to them rushing out songs/albums to still the hunger of their fans (who have absolutely no more patience, seeing as their options are so broad) which in turn makes it very difficult to release a second album that receives the same amount of praise as the first did.
Lastly, we shouldn't forget that our artists are a product of the same society as we are. That's why they invest so much time and money in fancy (internet) clips, colourful outfits, genre crossovers, 'multidisciplinary behaviour' (singers that act and model?) and who have (as people in general have) become lazier and more aimed at instant commercial success and their five minutes of spotlight. A good example of this behaviour is the amount of modern day artists who claim they are their music (= 'it's not my music or lyrics that count, it's my world that does').
It's not about 'for love of the game' (music) anymore, but for the fame.
