Justin Bieber.
Nickleback.
Twilight.
Glee
I'm going to guess that the names above will elicit a strong opinion from you, gentle reader. I've said nothing about them pro or con, but I don't have to – they've already built up a charge in the pop culture world, and it's fair to say that much of it is backlash from anyone older than the age of 13. If I mention the Bieb, I know there are readers out there who will be shaking their heads just from reading the name. Going back a little further in time, I might draw a snicker from mentioning, say, Hootie and the Blowfish, Alannis Morissette, Celine Dion or the Spin Doctors.
What do all these names have in common? Some might say they're all (at least a little) cheesy, they might have put their self-promotion ahead of sincere art, they 'jumped the shark' or won't/didn't age well – but there are tons of such acts that match those descriptors yet don't cause such eye-rolling (and was Justin Bieber ever on the good side of the shark to begin with?). Just to muddy the waters a little, let me throw a few older names at you:
the Bee Gees, Kiss, Neil Diamond or K. C. and the Sunshine Band
That's where things get interesting.
It's fair to say that all the names above have suffered pop culture over-exposure at some point in time. I certainly remember the days when you couldn't walk past a radio or a record store without hearing “Only Want to Be With You” by Hootie, or at an earlier date “That's the Way I Like It' by KC and co. I also remember being quite thoroughly sick of those tunes long before they dropped from radio rotation, and in fact I wasn't very enamoured with those songs to start with. I was, on the other hand, a fan of Kiss starting in the Spring of '78 until I gave up on them in '84, which means I kept on buying their records even in the years when it was most deeply unfashionable to do so ('80 to '83 was their nadir). Even as I continued to enjoy albums like 'Unmasked' and 'the Elder', I understood why the backlash was happening. People were tired of the image, their 'message' (such as it was) no longer resonated, and they had seemed to move from setting the trends to chasing them.
I've learned a lot of inconvenient and discouraging truths about the music industry over the last few years, most notably that radio airplay has historically tended to be dictated much less by public musical taste than by corporate interests, glorified mobsters and influence money. As airplay has much to do with the public's record-buying habits, airplay is vital to an artist's financial success. It's my educated guess that pop-culture backlash has much to do with these nefarious interests promoting certain acts long past the point of listeners' tolerance, for the sake of squeezing every last dollar from such acts. By 1979, the public was so sick of the pervasiveness of disco that a 'Disco Sucks' demonstration occurred at a White Sox/Tigers baseball game in Chicago, resulting in a riot causing thousands of dollars' damage and forfeiture of the game by the White Sox. K.C. and the Sunshine Band and the Bee Gees, probably the poster children of the disco era, suffered the brunt of the hostilities. Whether the cause was something as sinister as musical mobsters or as innocent as a few out-of-touch radio program directors, the result was the same – listeners were past sated.
I mentioned that things get interesting in discussing some over-exposed acts from the '70's because the stigma seem to have faded or vanished entirely for them. If a cover band throws a disco or Kiss tune into their set list these days, they're more likely to fill the dance floor than empty it – even with 20-something year-old dancers. The grudge seems to be over, even if Kiss is flirting once again with over-exposure. At least they needn't fear being over-played on conventional radio stations. That much hasn't changed since the '70's.
Much could be said for a lot of former pop-culture pariahs from the '80's. Your friends might still look at you askance for having Whitesnake or Def Leppard in your music collection, but the same friend may just as likely sing along with 'Here I Go Again' or 'Pour Some Sugar On Me' on the radio. Journey is so hot again that they're on the brink of their second backlash. Perhaps Steve Perry was wise to sit out the revival after all.
The '90's, meanwhile, haven't yet been rehabilitated, and perhaps may never be. It was in this decade that the grunge movement gave way to unfettered corporate control, resulting in a ton of thoroughly forgettable music. Not to say there wasn't some amazingly good music in that decade (Jeff Buckley leaps to mind), but it wasn't widely promoted. That distinction went to the Spin Doctors, the Spice Girls and Hootie.
Stephen Harper needn't care about global warming because he knows its worst effects won't likely occur until after his lifetime, or if they do he'll be rich enough to move to where the climate and conditions are still hospitable. Likewise, Justin Bieber's management don't fear his overexposure – in fact, they likely see a teen idol with a short shelf-life, and they're milking his image for every dollar they can before the inevitable total backlash sets in. They're not in it for the long haul. If the idol worship and subsequent public disdain leaves the adult Bieber an emotionally dysfunctional wreck, what does his management and label care? They maxed their income from him when they could, and knew they'd have to go find another golden goose soon anyway. Tough break, Justin – that's business. The smartly cynical just get out of range before the backlash happens.
In fairness, for an artist to suffer a popularity backlash, they must first be widely popular. Most widely-popular acts suffer a backlash, or at least a hiatus of popularity. Prince, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Van Halen are all big acts from the '80's who fell from public attention for a few years but who still manage to fill huge arenas when they tour these days. They were all heavily promoted by their respective record labels and management, but not to the point of hitting listeners' gag reflex. As a result, they continue to enjoy financial if not always artistic success, and their record labels have a stable source of revenue over the long haul. Few corporations these days are known for building their products to last, and in fact tend to build early obsolescence into their designs. Perhaps the music industry might eventually clue into how this is ultimately costlier for them.
Nickleback.
Twilight.
Glee
I'm going to guess that the names above will elicit a strong opinion from you, gentle reader. I've said nothing about them pro or con, but I don't have to – they've already built up a charge in the pop culture world, and it's fair to say that much of it is backlash from anyone older than the age of 13. If I mention the Bieb, I know there are readers out there who will be shaking their heads just from reading the name. Going back a little further in time, I might draw a snicker from mentioning, say, Hootie and the Blowfish, Alannis Morissette, Celine Dion or the Spin Doctors.
What do all these names have in common? Some might say they're all (at least a little) cheesy, they might have put their self-promotion ahead of sincere art, they 'jumped the shark' or won't/didn't age well – but there are tons of such acts that match those descriptors yet don't cause such eye-rolling (and was Justin Bieber ever on the good side of the shark to begin with?). Just to muddy the waters a little, let me throw a few older names at you:
the Bee Gees, Kiss, Neil Diamond or K. C. and the Sunshine Band
That's where things get interesting.
It's fair to say that all the names above have suffered pop culture over-exposure at some point in time. I certainly remember the days when you couldn't walk past a radio or a record store without hearing “Only Want to Be With You” by Hootie, or at an earlier date “That's the Way I Like It' by KC and co. I also remember being quite thoroughly sick of those tunes long before they dropped from radio rotation, and in fact I wasn't very enamoured with those songs to start with. I was, on the other hand, a fan of Kiss starting in the Spring of '78 until I gave up on them in '84, which means I kept on buying their records even in the years when it was most deeply unfashionable to do so ('80 to '83 was their nadir). Even as I continued to enjoy albums like 'Unmasked' and 'the Elder', I understood why the backlash was happening. People were tired of the image, their 'message' (such as it was) no longer resonated, and they had seemed to move from setting the trends to chasing them.
I've learned a lot of inconvenient and discouraging truths about the music industry over the last few years, most notably that radio airplay has historically tended to be dictated much less by public musical taste than by corporate interests, glorified mobsters and influence money. As airplay has much to do with the public's record-buying habits, airplay is vital to an artist's financial success. It's my educated guess that pop-culture backlash has much to do with these nefarious interests promoting certain acts long past the point of listeners' tolerance, for the sake of squeezing every last dollar from such acts. By 1979, the public was so sick of the pervasiveness of disco that a 'Disco Sucks' demonstration occurred at a White Sox/Tigers baseball game in Chicago, resulting in a riot causing thousands of dollars' damage and forfeiture of the game by the White Sox. K.C. and the Sunshine Band and the Bee Gees, probably the poster children of the disco era, suffered the brunt of the hostilities. Whether the cause was something as sinister as musical mobsters or as innocent as a few out-of-touch radio program directors, the result was the same – listeners were past sated.
I mentioned that things get interesting in discussing some over-exposed acts from the '70's because the stigma seem to have faded or vanished entirely for them. If a cover band throws a disco or Kiss tune into their set list these days, they're more likely to fill the dance floor than empty it – even with 20-something year-old dancers. The grudge seems to be over, even if Kiss is flirting once again with over-exposure. At least they needn't fear being over-played on conventional radio stations. That much hasn't changed since the '70's.
Much could be said for a lot of former pop-culture pariahs from the '80's. Your friends might still look at you askance for having Whitesnake or Def Leppard in your music collection, but the same friend may just as likely sing along with 'Here I Go Again' or 'Pour Some Sugar On Me' on the radio. Journey is so hot again that they're on the brink of their second backlash. Perhaps Steve Perry was wise to sit out the revival after all.
The '90's, meanwhile, haven't yet been rehabilitated, and perhaps may never be. It was in this decade that the grunge movement gave way to unfettered corporate control, resulting in a ton of thoroughly forgettable music. Not to say there wasn't some amazingly good music in that decade (Jeff Buckley leaps to mind), but it wasn't widely promoted. That distinction went to the Spin Doctors, the Spice Girls and Hootie.
Stephen Harper needn't care about global warming because he knows its worst effects won't likely occur until after his lifetime, or if they do he'll be rich enough to move to where the climate and conditions are still hospitable. Likewise, Justin Bieber's management don't fear his overexposure – in fact, they likely see a teen idol with a short shelf-life, and they're milking his image for every dollar they can before the inevitable total backlash sets in. They're not in it for the long haul. If the idol worship and subsequent public disdain leaves the adult Bieber an emotionally dysfunctional wreck, what does his management and label care? They maxed their income from him when they could, and knew they'd have to go find another golden goose soon anyway. Tough break, Justin – that's business. The smartly cynical just get out of range before the backlash happens.
In fairness, for an artist to suffer a popularity backlash, they must first be widely popular. Most widely-popular acts suffer a backlash, or at least a hiatus of popularity. Prince, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Van Halen are all big acts from the '80's who fell from public attention for a few years but who still manage to fill huge arenas when they tour these days. They were all heavily promoted by their respective record labels and management, but not to the point of hitting listeners' gag reflex. As a result, they continue to enjoy financial if not always artistic success, and their record labels have a stable source of revenue over the long haul. Few corporations these days are known for building their products to last, and in fact tend to build early obsolescence into their designs. Perhaps the music industry might eventually clue into how this is ultimately costlier for them.