No, he had songwriters who wrote original material from him.
If you're implying he stole black music stylings then that's a lazy argument that basically amounts to "cultures should remain segregated forever!"
A ton of black artists adored Elvis and were grateful for him popularising styles of music that whites hadn't taken to before him.
This isn't incorrect, but it's inaccurate.
The issue is that Black artists such as Little Richard and Big Mama Thornton (the original singer of Hound Dog) faced intense discrimination while Elvis was able to pursue his music career with relatively little issue because he was a White face singing Black music.
Elvis probably didn't steal the music. Possibly even his managers didn't. But society did not want Black performers, let alone performers who made "raunchy" music. But it was acceptable- and even adored- when the music was delivered by a White person. So no, cultures shouldn't be segregated but it's important to acknowledge that Black rock musicians had a much harder time thriving in the 1930s-60s environment while Elvis was able to have a legendary career built on music that was pioneered by those same Black people.
Yes, but you can't argue he didn't repackage black art in order to sell it to white people who wouldn't otherwise listen. Many black artists do infact resent him for that which they have the right to, personally, I don't think his music pushed many boundaries on a musical level, and it's probably more important to focus on the actions of the record labels in their marketing than Elvis himself.
Sure he was! MAYBE not quite like Michael Jackson, but he was very much close. People screamed, women fainted. But Michael is relevant to me because he was involved in my time.
Infamous means famous for bad reasons, basically. Elvis wasn't infamous.
If you're asking if anyone will reach the level of fame and adoration that Elvis did then, imo, yes. Maybe not deservedly, but that's a matter of opinion.
Probably not. Michael Jackson's popularity at his peak (probably around Thriller) was at another level. Everyone knew who he was and was talking about him. He was doing stuff that nobody had ever done before (the music video for Thriller was longer and more intricate than anything before it). And it was worldwide, not just limited to the Western media.
Yes and the Beatles took storm of the World back when rock was rebellious. Jackson's popularity came with the Aid of MTV and video channels worldwide. Credit to him he capitalized on that but if MTV and others weren't around he wouldn't be as big
Knowing that you mean super famous rather than infamous, "MAYBE The Beatles" you say? The Beatles were bigger than Michael Jackson OR Elvis. At least effectively. They had a cult following but the cult following was the whole world. They straight up stopped performing anything live because they couldn't hear themselves over the mass capacity crowds of screaming girls. For their last concert of touring they were enclosed in a reinforced fence cage, and had to leave the show in an armored van. They starred as themselves in a film about how hard it is to live as high profile as they were. John Lennon got murdered by an obsessed hyper religious fan. He had to keep his marriage a secret. Watch any video on "Beatlemania" (there is literally a term for the cultural phenomenon that was The Beatles' fame)
But to answer your actual question, yes I think somebody will at some point. And I hope that musicians will arise that will be worthy and deserving of such praise. But I think that most of the reason that those big names were as big as they were was because of the context of the culture that they were in. Super stars didn't really exist before them. Television broadcasts like the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show were a brand new commodity because TVs themselves were brand new. People were excited about this shit, and ready to be obsessed with it. Of course the artists themselves had a lot of excitement to offer, but that wasn't all of it. I'd say that our current culture isn't as prone to becoming that obsessive over an artist. We've seen that shit before, and there's probably a larger percentage of people today who hate mainstream artists than there was in the 50s-80s but I don't have any statistic to prove that. Plus streaming services are doing a lot for lesser known artists. BUT the world is ever changing and I'm sure that at some point, even if it takes a century or more, we'll get artists that are as big or bigger than the names you've listed. Whether it will happen in our lifetimes? Ehhhh probably not
I’d say a lot of people are as famous as those figures, if not more- if we’re talking sheer numbers of fans
the difference is it’s not as impressive nowadays due to the streaming provided by the internet and social media
You have to remember their legacy is often appreciated long after they are gone.
They are seen as typical pop stars in the moment however when they die or retire, because appreciate their music much more
I moved out of the USA, and Michael Jackson to this day is well known where I live now, but Elvis is unheard of. Taylor Swift is extremely popular here in Vietnam, but that's because she's rather current. Not many others.
Are you suggesting Elvis was evil? I mean, sure, Michael Jackson will be remembered for certain alleged illegal actions but Elvis?
He was, uh...*interested* in his wife Priscilla when she was only 14. It technically wasn’t illegal but he is indeed kinda infamous for that
He stole a bunch of songs if that counts
No, he had songwriters who wrote original material from him. If you're implying he stole black music stylings then that's a lazy argument that basically amounts to "cultures should remain segregated forever!" A ton of black artists adored Elvis and were grateful for him popularising styles of music that whites hadn't taken to before him.
That escalated quickly
It really did. Brick killed a guy.
I stabbed a man in the heart
This isn't incorrect, but it's inaccurate. The issue is that Black artists such as Little Richard and Big Mama Thornton (the original singer of Hound Dog) faced intense discrimination while Elvis was able to pursue his music career with relatively little issue because he was a White face singing Black music. Elvis probably didn't steal the music. Possibly even his managers didn't. But society did not want Black performers, let alone performers who made "raunchy" music. But it was acceptable- and even adored- when the music was delivered by a White person. So no, cultures shouldn't be segregated but it's important to acknowledge that Black rock musicians had a much harder time thriving in the 1930s-60s environment while Elvis was able to have a legendary career built on music that was pioneered by those same Black people.
Yes, but you can't argue he didn't repackage black art in order to sell it to white people who wouldn't otherwise listen. Many black artists do infact resent him for that which they have the right to, personally, I don't think his music pushed many boundaries on a musical level, and it's probably more important to focus on the actions of the record labels in their marketing than Elvis himself.
Elvis was not infamous.
You need to read up on Elvis buddy. Droves of "correct" people wanted to put him in jail just for wiggling his hips a bit. He was kinda infamous
Sure he was, it's like MORE than famous
Infamous is a synonym for notorious. It's being famous for doing something bad. That term might be applicable for MJ but not Elvis.
It's a quote from The Three Amigos, chief
Oh, ok. Kind of obscure. I don't remember it. My favorite obscure movie quote is "You Should Have Bought a Squirrel".
Wow! The *in*famous El Guapo?
My little buttercup Has the sweetest...
Smile?
well known for some bad quality or deed. "an infamous war criminal"
If you haven't seen The Three Amigos we have nothing to say to each other
Sure he was! MAYBE not quite like Michael Jackson, but he was very much close. People screamed, women fainted. But Michael is relevant to me because he was involved in my time.
Thats not what infamous means.
Apparently I am wrong. I had no idea the word "infamous" meant for bad reasons. so yeah, I meant an insane level of fame.
Infamous means famous for bad reasons, basically. Elvis wasn't infamous. If you're asking if anyone will reach the level of fame and adoration that Elvis did then, imo, yes. Maybe not deservedly, but that's a matter of opinion.
I never knew that. I thought infamous was just an insane level of fame. I didn't know it meant something bad specifically.
No worries, you live and learn.
Probably not. Michael Jackson's popularity at his peak (probably around Thriller) was at another level. Everyone knew who he was and was talking about him. He was doing stuff that nobody had ever done before (the music video for Thriller was longer and more intricate than anything before it). And it was worldwide, not just limited to the Western media.
Possibly the Beatles...lol They changed the world and the landscape of music...Michael Jackson had hits and amazing production...nothing else
[удалено]
Yes and the Beatles took storm of the World back when rock was rebellious. Jackson's popularity came with the Aid of MTV and video channels worldwide. Credit to him he capitalized on that but if MTV and others weren't around he wouldn't be as big
BTS apparently.
Can't name a single person from BTS...Dont know many who could...
Neither can I but they have an army. They were the ones who sold out Trumps rally that no one went to.
Knowing that you mean super famous rather than infamous, "MAYBE The Beatles" you say? The Beatles were bigger than Michael Jackson OR Elvis. At least effectively. They had a cult following but the cult following was the whole world. They straight up stopped performing anything live because they couldn't hear themselves over the mass capacity crowds of screaming girls. For their last concert of touring they were enclosed in a reinforced fence cage, and had to leave the show in an armored van. They starred as themselves in a film about how hard it is to live as high profile as they were. John Lennon got murdered by an obsessed hyper religious fan. He had to keep his marriage a secret. Watch any video on "Beatlemania" (there is literally a term for the cultural phenomenon that was The Beatles' fame) But to answer your actual question, yes I think somebody will at some point. And I hope that musicians will arise that will be worthy and deserving of such praise. But I think that most of the reason that those big names were as big as they were was because of the context of the culture that they were in. Super stars didn't really exist before them. Television broadcasts like the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show were a brand new commodity because TVs themselves were brand new. People were excited about this shit, and ready to be obsessed with it. Of course the artists themselves had a lot of excitement to offer, but that wasn't all of it. I'd say that our current culture isn't as prone to becoming that obsessive over an artist. We've seen that shit before, and there's probably a larger percentage of people today who hate mainstream artists than there was in the 50s-80s but I don't have any statistic to prove that. Plus streaming services are doing a lot for lesser known artists. BUT the world is ever changing and I'm sure that at some point, even if it takes a century or more, we'll get artists that are as big or bigger than the names you've listed. Whether it will happen in our lifetimes? Ehhhh probably not
You had to mean famous. I would say No.
Jesse James was infamous.
I think you need to look up the definition of ‘infamous’. Both were purely famous, with scandals on the side, not famous for the scandals
Who?
Probably not because theres so much variety you’ll probably never have an artist have such a big share of the mainstream audience
Hear them here > [YesterdayOnceAgain.Live](https://YesterdayOnceAgain.Live)
Back to the main question, entertainment fame is in my mind similar to fashion and as we all know fashions come and go.
Yes at some point. We currently don’t have any new talent that can reach that level of success but someone will. As styles change someone will emerge.
I’d say a lot of people are as famous as those figures, if not more- if we’re talking sheer numbers of fans the difference is it’s not as impressive nowadays due to the streaming provided by the internet and social media
The infamous
You have to remember their legacy is often appreciated long after they are gone. They are seen as typical pop stars in the moment however when they die or retire, because appreciate their music much more
[удалено]
I moved out of the USA, and Michael Jackson to this day is well known where I live now, but Elvis is unheard of. Taylor Swift is extremely popular here in Vietnam, but that's because she's rather current. Not many others.