I recently read that Tom Petty would perform during half time at the 2008 Super Bowl. As a Petty fan, I personally really like that choice. Chances that he'll play "American Girl"--very high. Chances he'll play "Last Dance with Mary Jane,"--very slim.
While I'm happy about the choice of entertainment, I can't say that I was surprised to hear Petty was playing... It's consistent with recent years for the big game. Last year was Prince. The year before, The Rolling Stones. Before that was Paul McCartney, Janet Jackson, Shania Twain and in 2002, U2.
What I find interesting is ever since the birth of online music, whenever we need an entertainer for the masses, we still reach back to performers who were popular before digital music arrived. Why?
Over the course of modern music history, we have had GIANTS. People who, no matter what your individual favorite performer was at the time, everyone can agree is great: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Elton John, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Springsteen and all the aforementioned Super Bowl performers. Giants who defined their times.
But today, with the splintering of music such as it is, we don't have giants anymore. We have people who are really good in their genre, but very few entertainers who critics and mass amounts of consumers alike both get behind and champion.
Because of this, when it comes time to choose a performer for a TV event that draws 90 million American viewers we have to dip back into history to find someone that most people will enjoy. There's only so long that can go on.
Let me be clear: I love that we can each find what's perfect for individual preferences. And choice is a beautiful thing. But I think in the future we won't have the iconic entertainers that we've enjoyed throughout the decades. And this isn't just music. Consider, in movies, our $15 million stars are the same today as they were 10 years ago: Hanks, Pitt, Roberts, Denzel. New stars rise meteorically today and seem to fade tomorrow.
So, while we're becoming a society that champions individual preference, we're resigning the notion to draw together for common likes. We're becoming more ingrained and defined by our own clubs. Which is good. But if we can't come together and unite around common things, are we creating a watered down culture that is undefinable for future generations when they look back? Elvis defines the 50s. Hendrix the 60s. And so on. Who will be the key musicians to define '01-'10? Maybe we're compressing the way we look at time. The Dixie Chicks stand for '01-'03, Kanye for '07-'08. I dunno. Things to ponder, I suppose.
The interesting thing for society is that mega stars, for the most part, unite us. We can all appreciate The Beatles, Elton John and Prince. But, for as great as Radiohead, 50 Cent and Rhianna are, we don't all unify around them. Which makes me wonder, when it comes time to entertain 135 million Americans in 2020, who we gonna choose to do it?
you are so right. and you have a great mind to be able to wonder like that. this is one of those where everyone is going to agree with you, but they will ask themselves - why couldn't i think of that?
Posted by: Allen Jones | January 19, 2008 at 10:13 AM
It's gonna be "Color me Bad" - they were WAY ahead of their time. OK, seriously, my vote for 2020 is to just have a late 70's holographic projection of Tom Petty - and since weed will be legal by then, it will be cool to play a MP3 (HiFi MP3 by 2020 I hope) of Last Dance with Mary Jane. Hey, maybe they could re-enact the video with Kim Bassinger's (sp?) actual dead body. Wow, that was inappropriate. sry
Posted by: Josh | January 23, 2008 at 10:54 PM
i actually remember listening to a bit on npr where someone was talking about how it is no longer possible for new musical acts to expect to make a living being real rockstars like back in the day. the audience for any one act is now smaller than it was before, because there are so many choices and niches. it's impossible to expect to become the next rolling stones anymore.
however, i think gnarls barkley is an interesting example for that kind of "unifying" act that you were talkign about. the first time i heard "crazy" was on kcrw. then it went to indie, and then after that, it was on EVERY single radio station, from power (hiphop) to kroq (rock), to star (adult contemporary)!
i think that's the potential for the mass entertainers now.... it has to work extra hard to cross all those genre barriers, as opposed to just be really good at being it's own genre.
Posted by: jenka | January 25, 2008 at 02:49 PM
"crazy" is an excellent point. that thing crossed all lines and unified. a tough thing for an artist to do today, but possible.
Posted by: John Drake | February 07, 2008 at 08:35 AM