>I'm unapologetic in my opinion that music today is more
>vibrant and fun than it was 10-15 years ago...

the 00's is a bad metric. but i know why you started with that qualifier.

>but I have to
>say I'm very disappointed that this is not transferring over
>to the stage.

Here I think you should say to live performance not just stage. Because what is brought to the stage I think is indicative of the type/quality of vibrance and fun being made today.

>Theatrics and spectacle alone does not make one
>sound or perform like a star...

Actually I disagree. It does. What it doesn't do is make you a star quality musical performer. When you get into your examples, the natural talent and ability is obviously there, but its the theatrics that made them stars. Mixing the theatrics with true musical ability is what makes a true music star.

> unfortunately an alarming
>number of those old enough to know better seem to have
>forgotten this.

They've been sold not to remember (that's not a typo). To quote Henry Rollins:

"It is true that there are a lot more good-looking people than those who are musically gifted. The music industry jumped onto this fact and started signing people whom the camera loved, and let already overworked studio engineers handle the unglamorous chores of pitch-correcting, sampling and bringing in pro hitters to prop up these gorgeous cash calves."

>Making things even more worrisome is we have a
>new generation coming that has never known what real "sugar"
>tastes like. I'm serious when I say this worries me ... it's
>not just hyperbole.

Now this is real, and unfortunately what happens when we allow an industry to be the champion of culture. When entertainment is more important than art. And yes I brought it there because that's what this is really about. You want art in your entertainment. But the industry unequivocally decided they could make more money foregoing the art all together and raise a generation of 'talent' and audience that only looks for the entertainment value. Then they wonder why the attention span is so short, shelf life is so short, and their business model is beginning to wear at the seems. I mean this goes back to the 90's when they beat us over the head with star power and how important it was to rush out and pay them for producing the stars. We're just at the tail end of that effect today.

>It may be coincidental that the Sweet & Low star is gaining a
>stranglehold in a period directly after the passing of the
>greatest Pop Star of the last 40 years...

It was happening before that.

>but I think there's
>a connection. Of course the move towards counterfeit
>superstars goes back before MJ's passing... the minute MJ left
>the stage and became a full time TMZ item the opening was
>there. The music industry had already been taking short cuts
>for close to two decades but now they were in a pickle...
>failing to develop and nurture talent at the expense of short
>term profit meant the bench was thin and in some cases
>completely empty.

I agree with this for the most part.

>The so-call "Neo-Soul" movement boasted of a
>return to musicianship and "real" songs but it didn't have any
>of the pizazz that could fill the void left by the greats of
>yesterday. Of the two that did one was a dude basically doing
>arena karaoke and the other was a woman with a lack of radio
>friendly hits. And Hip-Hop... We all know Hip Hop had the
>personalities but fell pitifully short as a genre that could
>produce quality live acts.

Cold blooded. But true more or less.

>It was clear the slack would have to be taken up by those
>closest to MJ's pop tree... The Boy Band off-shoots, Usher,
>sister Janet and her clones. Thing is all these acts could
>mimic the moves & theatrics of MJ but to a varying degree all
>fell short of the substance that sustained Michael all those
>years.... talent and the drive to create.

Yeah that's what I was referring to above.

>Now here we sit about 10 years later with a new crop of
>"stars"... the difference is these performers have also been
>inspired by the failed replacements of the post MJ era.

DING!!

>That
>"middle" generation did a respectable job at times but it was
>still a long way from what any of us over 40 became accustom
>to when we were young. My worry is the further we move away
>from the age of the stage, the more bloated and fake it's
>going to get. We have people today going into a frenzy anytime
>they see outrageous outfits, lifts, pyrotechnics, and a gang
>of people on stage... proclaiming it the "best shit ever" and
>throwing out GOAT status based solely on the spectacle. Old
>heads you can't be afraid to step up and call this bullshit
>for what it is. Sitting out there and co-signing shit you
>should know better of just to avoid grumpy old man jokes isn't
>helping anyone. Step up and share the knowledge you have...

Okay here's where we differ though. I think the stage is important but your expectations have to change. It's like On the real you give me a choice between seeing MJ in his prime or Trane late in his career and I'd go with Trane. These are of course apples and oranges musically, but I use it to illustrate a point. It's gotta go apples and oranges with it. Not just do what neo soul did and try to repackage. And I think in terms of the music there are things happening in that diretion. But it doesn't translate to the stage quite yet. Not as star power entertainment. But if it can refine itself and its performance better I think we'll see things ten years from now we could have never imagined.

The most important thing in making that happen IMO though is devaluing the industries role in it all. Let that shit fall. Let the talent marinate. What comes from that... you'll be surprised.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Read me write - http://themoshi.tumblr.com/