Where are all the popstars?

[flufff]

I've tuned into both MoM and The Saturday Show this morning and it would seem that neither of these shows has a popstar (or even wannabe popstar) on the line-up. What's going on?

So many of the regulars for this sort of thing are working on new albums, or looking after babies or no longer with a contract. Recent trends towards 'real' music, or American acts means they simply don't want to be on kids tv on a Saturday morning unless they really have to.

Are there really no new acts to be promoted now, or have the tv people given up on them?

[AcerBen]

Pop is dead.

Really, who is there left? Girls Aloud can't turn up every week can they?

[Scruffy]

AcerBen said:

Pop is dead.

Really, who is there left? Girls Aloud can't turn up every week can they?

GA, Rachel Stevens, Kelly Osbourne and Kylie Minogue would beg to differ, I'd imagine. Pop isn't dead, it's just becoming the alternative to yawn worthy soft rock and generic R'N'B.

[flufff]

Unfortunately none of those acts you mentioned wanted to be on Saturday Morning kids tv yesterday, and neither could any of the generic r'n'b acts.

Girls Aloud couldn't and shouldn't be on tv each week, but Atomic Kitten were, and for the first couple of years The Sugababes were regulars too, as were Steps, S Club 7/Juniors, Westlife, Busted, McFly, Blazin' Squad and even the ones who didn't quite make it, such as D-Side/Phixx/Triple 8 and V have done their fair share of filling air-time on Saturday mornings.

My point wasn't to trigger a pop versus r'n'b debate, except in so much that pop acts have traditionally been more up front about promotion.

But now the pop acts seem to be doing less promotion in between singles, which is probably a good thing for them, but with all the big acts releasing album in time for Christmas, following the same basic cycle - this leaves great big gaps in the calendar. These gaps are normally filled with the new acts coming forward, but either there are less new acts, ideas for promoting them don't include Saturday morning children's tv, or their budgets have been cut so they don't do as much.

Or maybe I've got it all wrong and it's the tv shows that don't want any popstars on in the first place!

It's probably a mixture of all of this. Less brand new acts and even less that are launched through this sort of tv, and the ones that have been launched in the past couple of years are either at a level of success that they aren't expected to be on tv each week, or they've not reached that level and got dropped.

I believe that some of the Summer Roadshows are being cancelled for the same reasons. They simply cannot get enough vaguely decent/popular acts to fill their line-ups.

[linus]

Scruffy said:

GA, Rachel Stevens, Kelly Osbourne and Kylie Minogue would beg to differ, I'd imagine. Pop isn't dead, it's just becoming the alternative to yawn worthy soft rock and generic R'N'B.

Thank goodness someone else thinks like I do.

[Poptastic!]

I find it a really big shame that kids don't want (or aren't allowed to want) pure pop anymore. Bands like Steps and S Club were the step between novelty acts and more mature music. Now they're expected to appreciate guitar riffs, booty-shaking and 80s samples on repeat as soon as they're old enough to like music. They need that introductory period, or how will they be able to go back to it in their late teens/early twenties when they realise the old days were the best? If people decide they're too cool for cheesy pop when they're 7, people will stop making it and there'll be nothing to play at cheesy discos for students *gasp!*

My only hope is that people will come to their senses eventually, even if by accident, when music has got so dull that suddenly when a new act comes out who seems so exciting in comparison that kids can't help but chase them down the street screaming their names. It's not the first time there's been a lull in pure pop - I'm no expert since I wasn't into music yet myself at the time, but the time between PWL and the 90s boyband explosion (ie. the first half of the 90s, excluding Take That who arrived a bit early) seemed pretty devoid of proper pop aceness. Not to say there wasn't any good music around but as far as I know it wasn't the best time for pop with dance, hip-hop and indie/britpop on the rise - just like now! So perhaps we can be positive after all?

Jessica

[Pierre]

You come close here to one of my pet theories, which is that pop music was mostly abysmal for most of the 90s, especially during the first half. When you look at the biggest chart successes of those years you can only feel slightly suicidal. On one hand you have the most awfully MOR tracks you can think of (Meat Loaf, Bryan Adams, Wet Wet Wet, etc...). On the other hand you had countless generic dance tracks sounding all the same (Culture Beat, Two Unlimited,....). And not much in between.

I never quite knew though if it was a truly bad period for pop music or if my perception was biased because I wasat the time in my indier-than-thou period.

[Sclubber]

I don't think it is lack of popstars. I think the TV companies are all trying to appeal to the Dick and Dom audience and hence use gunge rather than music to try and get ratings.

Saturday morning TV is no where near as good as it used to be. This years saturday show has had 0 music performance and MoM on ITV has one celebrity on it a week, but half the time these celebs are people off Coronation Street.

Just 2 or 3 years ago when the Saturday Show was good and SMTV was still going there used to abour 4 musical performance on BBC 1 and ITV between 9 and 11.30.

[Poptastic!]

Pierre said:

I never quite knew though if it was a truly bad period for pop music or if my perception was biased because I wasat the time in my indier-than-thou period.

I was in my nursery rhyme period, followed by my Motown, Fleetwood Mac and Abba period (the tapes my parents gave me when I wanted some music for my Barbies' fashion show). Can anyone tell us if there was any good pop music having success at the time?

Jessica

[AngelBaby]

i agree! morning programmes are crap at the moment and show no british new acts! They dont seem to be givin new bands any exposure! There are bands like C.lea, triple 8, d-side, that are much more entertaining and could be quite good givin the chance!!?

[andrea69]

I agree,surely some new music is better than nothing.
There are plenty of new acts out there screaming for a big break,like appearing on Sat morning tv,this would give them huge exposure and allow us to see new bands.Also when they appear on programmes like this,it gives you a little insight into the individuals characters-which is good.

[AcerBen]

Why aren't any new shit pop acts that release two singles before triumphantly disappearing off the face of the earth being signed

[Poptastic!]

AcerBen said:

Why aren't any new shit pop acts that release two singles before triumphantly disappearing off the face of the earth being signed

I guess the music industry are finally realising that these pop bands attempting to cash in on trends/a supposed gap in the market actually cost more than they earn. The bands that are really successful these days seem to come out of nowhere. For example Busted didn't have the 'on every TV show for weeks as the next big thing' treatment - they slowly became popular and the Sugababes took a while to get really big. Rooster seem to be the ones slowly growing at the moment. Although occasionally bands planned as the next big thing have been successful (eg. McFly), it only happens when there really is a market ready for them. I do feel it's a big shame that pre-teen girls don't have much choice of bands to follow religiously these days. It's basically McFly or if slightly older, perhaps Rooster, or if they've got taste (rules out most of them!), Girls Aloud. This is why kids are going off pop - there isn't enough. But then when it is provided, they don't buy it, so clearly they don't want pop anymore. But they need it!

Jessica

[Puss In Boots]

Whats interesting is the annual PITP at Hyde park was going to be cancelled because they can't get enough acts to put on the bill ( well not ones that can sell 100,000 tickets anyway - they had a hard job selling them last year) This is why the music industry are trying to push for another Live Aid to attract bigger acts, they have the venue now and the date, but Bob Geldof won't play ball.

This is according to an article in the Times yesterday.

[slug]

Is that the Capital PITP or another one? I think more and more of the bigger acts are doing lots of summer festival gigs on their own, as they can earn a lot of money doing it and I think also a lot of people dislike having to stand through 2 hours of waiting for their "favorite" act to come on, they can pay the same amount of money to see who they want to see then.

[ateen]

I wondered what happened to this years party in the park? i thought it was getting late and no announcement, but hey last year wasnt anything spectacular and only a few highlights made it fun. I do agree that pop is fading fast..just look at the headline performers at g-a-y every saturday night. It used to be someone big, pop and trashy every week, now they are struggling to find anyone and are reverting to putting onpast acts well past there glory and its a shame, cos gigs and performances like that are really intimate and fun. I miss the ays were holly valance would perform there, or blue, liberty x, mis-teeq and on and on...they may have been trashy but they provided entertainment which was utterly fun, encapsulating and worth paying £8 to get that close..now who do we have fooking rooster and crappy indie bands that look like university challenge rejects and diss pop music as manufactured. Bring it all back now

Chris x