Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The realities of being a pop star

itscharlibb.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 249 posts

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#151

Post by NaomiLehman »

MomsAVoxell wrote: post #143

I’ve known many pop stars (have worked in the pro audio industry for decades) and one thing that is common among them is that they are very interesting people. Very rarely interested - mostly involved in being interesting. I think there has to be a balance, personally. If you spend your life trying to be as interesting as possible, it gets very spiritually depleting. If you do take an honest interest in others, thoug…

I would guess that the balance is difficult for regular people and impossible for famous people.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#152

Post by tormeh »

dbspin wrote: post #144

While this is a fascinating perspective, I find this analysis of the source of hate online to be under-examined and self serving. Sure, any public figure will be the target of hatred, negative projection, ridicule. And doubtless that's doubly true for female celebrities. But much of this is driven by envy - envy fuelled by the gilded age level of inequality we're currently experiencing. By the performative nature of…

It's just entertainment. I don't think there's anything to it. The four chord song over and over. We all want some sort of excitement or maybe magic, and these superstars give it to us. The reality distortion fields around them is attractive in and of themself as an escape from our boring lives. Being 'artistic' is not in itself a good thing. It could just mean you take yourself too seriously. If you advance the art somehow - cool. If you're just being weird for the sake of originality... I guess some people like that as well.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#153

Post by brabel »

> We are still trained to hate women, to hate ourselves and to be angry at women if they step out of the neat little box that public perception has put them in.

I really don’t see this. Female singers seem to be enjoying about as much freedom to do and act in whatever way they please as it’s possible without basically letting them get away with criminal behavior… and even then many openly talk about doing drugs and other stuff that would get anyone else in trouble. Is it possible I am blind to some patriarchal society traits that make us “hate” women and she’s right about that?? If not, why some women still believe that??

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#154

Post by ad_hockey »

bigmealbigmeal wrote: post #148
ad_hockey wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most common refrain is that popstars often write their music. This is misleading: they write the lyrics, suggest a general vibe, and some rough melodies or chords. And even this is a stretch many times. They are not composing or producing the music in any larger sense, and this is the pivotal part of actually making music. To be fair, if they write the lyrics, define the vibe/feel of the song, and compose the m…

The operative word was "rough". They give a few hints; they're not painstakingly mapping out the melodies and chords for every instrument and determining what those instruments are, and how they sound. If you're writing for a guitar and voice, then you've basically got a song, but pop music is built on sometimes hundreds of different instruments and effects.

That seems like quite a high bar, to the extent that I'm not sure we could ever credit anyone with creating a pop song if it applies. Everyone seems comfortable crediting Lennon and McCartney with their various Beatles songs, for example, but were they doing all the things you describe? Did they do more to create those songs than, say, Taylor Swift does for hers? It's not obvious to me that it's the case.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#155

Post by thaumasiotes »

e40 wrote: post #117
thaumasiotes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most powerful man in the US right now is just a reality TV star. That's a strange characterization; he was famous across the country before there was even a concept of "reality TV".

He was known by an order of magnitude more people after he became a reality tv star.

Really? In the 70s he would have been known to the population that read newspaper comic strips. He's been a household name continuously from then to now.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#156

Post by MomsAVoxell »

NaomiLehman wrote: post #151
MomsAVoxell wrote: post #143

I’ve known many pop stars (have worked in the pro audio industry for decades) and one thing that is common among them is that they are very interesting people. Very rarely interested - mostly involved in being interesting. I think there has to be a balance, personally. If you spend your life trying to be as interesting as possible, it gets very spiritually depleting. If you do take an honest interest in others, thoug…

I would guess that the balance is difficult for regular people and impossible for famous people.

It's not impossible - it just requires attention and is a part of the responsibilities of the job, in my opinion.

But even regular people try too hard to be interesting sometimes. Attention is a currency in our culture; its too often traded poorly.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#157

Post by rsanek »

miki123211 wrote: post #118
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your average NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL athletes are broke 5 years after they are out of the league. Fame, is mostly a curse. I'm not familiar with the financials of music / media production (I didn't read the linked article yet, sorry). But I feel this over-pitying attitude towards professional sports players is misplaced. They do often go broke after their career. That is sad. It is also completely avoidable with _very_…

I know nothing about pro sports, but: To be a good "team player", it's good to be liked by your teammates. If you want to be friends with your teammates, who all spend money like there's no tomorrow, it probably helps if you do the same. I'm not saying you can't save up as an athlete, but it's probably harder than we think.

Seems unlikely to me. At that level (minimum salaries in NBA are around $1~3m, depnding on years of experience), even a 10% savings rate could ensure you're never totally "broke." I would find it hard to believe that the difference between spending 100% and 90% could be at all noticeable externally.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#158

Post by rsanek »

> Another thing about being a pop star is that you cannot avoid the fact that some people are simply determined to prove that you are stupid... subconsciously people still believe there is only room for women to be a certain type of way

Is this limited to females or even those in pop? I think any star is at risk here. I'd argue male athletes are targets at least as often. See: public discourse on Travis Kelce.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#159

Post by brabel »

bigiain wrote: post #66
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your average NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL athletes are broke 5 years after they are out of the league. Fame, is mostly a curse. I'm not familiar with the financials of music / media production (I didn't read the linked article yet, sorry). But I feel this over-pitying attitude towards professional sports players is misplaced. They do often go broke after their career. That is sad. It is also completely avoidable with _very_…

You're right, of course. But often there are obvious and "easy" answers that are anything but easy for the person who needs those answers. "Just cheer up, depressed person!" "Just eat less and exercise more, fat person!" "Just stop shooting up, heroin addict!" "Don't accept generic lifestyle creep, pro athlete who's teammates are all living it up like they live in a gangsta rap music video!" I'm sure there are lots o…

You are both right. Yes it’s very easy to just eat less or spend less. But it’s also nearly impossible for the obese or the athlete respectively. Because we need to recognize people don’t really have free will to do what they know is best. If we recognized that and acted accordingly then the world would be so much more reasonable to live in.

Re: The realities of being a pop star

#160

Post by bigmealbigmeal »

ad_hockey wrote: post #154
bigmealbigmeal wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The operative word was "rough". They give a few hints; they're not painstakingly mapping out the melodies and chords for every instrument and determining what those instruments are, and how they sound. If you're writing for a guitar and voice, then you've basically got a song, but pop music is built on sometimes hundreds of different instruments and effects.

That seems like quite a high bar, to the extent that I'm not sure we could ever credit anyone with creating a pop song if it applies. Everyone seems comfortable crediting Lennon and McCartney with their various Beatles songs, for example, but were they doing all the things you describe? Did they do more to create those songs than, say, Taylor Swift does for hers? It's not obvious to me that it's the case.

Yes, it's absolutely the case for Lennon and McCartney, since they didn't give rough ideas to George Martin to fill in; they specifically wrote the exact melodies for half the instruments involved and exactly how to play them.

You could argue that Harrison and Starr always deserved some of the writing credit, since they often determined their parts, and I wouldn't actually disagree with that -- though Lennon and McCartney were kinda control freaks, so I'm not sure how much leeway was actually given. When they started bringing in extra instruments, again, there is arguably some extra credit to be given to Martin and others, but Lennon and McCartney were still strongly directing what was to be played.

For what it's worth -- and this is going to get me hated even more than my popstar-skepticism -- I don't really like the Beatles that much. But it's transparent that they did more than Taylor Swift because they were specifically and precisely writing the melodies for the instruments being played.

Post reply on HN