Options
Female Power: Women ruling the charts - Why do you think this is?
![[Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c8ccf0c647869219536d2baa55c9a3be.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 95 Forum Member
✭
During the last few years a group of female solo artists have really stepped up on the charts with a steady stream of singles. Names like Iggy Azalea, Ariana Grande, Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, Sia, Miley Cyrus, Kesha, Charlie XCX, Jessie J, Rita Ora, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Lorde and of course Beyonce and Lady Gaga are constantly on the charts. And I'm sure there's a few sporadically visible names missing from this list. This onslaught of female artists is especially true in the US. At the moment both Iggy Azalea and Ariana Grande have three singles in the Top-10 on the Billboard.
At the same time very few male solo artists appear on the lists, at least as frequently as female ones. There have of course been a few big singles by men, but they have usually been either one-hit-wonders or one-offs released by famous artists but not followed up by other singles. There are a few visible singers like Justin Bieber and John Legend, a few rappers like Pitbull and Drake and a few DJs like Calvin Harris and Avicii, but they still don't have the spotlight like women do.
Women simply seem to get much more attention for their music at the moment. Entertainment news articles are splashed with announcements about upcoming or released singles/albums by women. Why do you think this is? Is it all about marketing? Do women have more freedom to express themselves in a way that they get noticed? Or is this view that women get more attention just an illusion?
At the same time very few male solo artists appear on the lists, at least as frequently as female ones. There have of course been a few big singles by men, but they have usually been either one-hit-wonders or one-offs released by famous artists but not followed up by other singles. There are a few visible singers like Justin Bieber and John Legend, a few rappers like Pitbull and Drake and a few DJs like Calvin Harris and Avicii, but they still don't have the spotlight like women do.
Women simply seem to get much more attention for their music at the moment. Entertainment news articles are splashed with announcements about upcoming or released singles/albums by women. Why do you think this is? Is it all about marketing? Do women have more freedom to express themselves in a way that they get noticed? Or is this view that women get more attention just an illusion?
0
Comments
In a nutshell it's about a huge change in the music industry with popular music in the hands of a tiny number of massive multimedia conglomerates who dictate what we listen to in terms almost entirely driven by profit and business models (rather than artist-led and creative ones). It's also about the huge change in how we consume music, from physical sales to downloading and the use of visual media (Youtube videos etc.). And it's also about the shift in the cultural importance of music from a phenomenon which once shaped entire youth cultures to a mass-produced commodity with little cultural impact.
100% agree nothing more to add.
When i grew up music shaped a whole generation free of artistic interference by big multinational corporations,although they may have distributed the records they did not dictate material.
Thats why David Coverdale lead singer of whitesnake in effect dissolved whitesnake as a recording entity with EMI years back, when asked,he said they were trying to dictate artistic content and he was having none of it.
I do also think there's something in how women are marketed (sex and some marked sexism to appeal to the widest possible chunk). Men are obviously marketed in very particular ways but it's a very different animal when it comes to women. And breaking it all down probably requires an essay written by someone with more information and time at their fingertips than me.
Its just a cultural shift that has been prevalent for about 25 years or so but now I think its beginning to go the other way. Bruno Mars, Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith, George Ezra etc seem to be going in more adventurous directions in pop music. The appeal of female pop artists is beginning to lag aside from ones like Iggy who have something distinct to offer.
There are of course males making big hit tunes like Pharrell Williams and Sam Smith but I guess the indie sector don't like to credit people like that.
Boys need to try harder. A lot harder. Where are today's Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Kinks, Who, Led Zep, Queen, Sex Pistols, Clash, Michael Jackson, REM, Pet Shop Boys, New Order, Duran Duran, Guns & Roses, Blur, Oasis, Nirvana, Radiohead, Prodigy, Dr Dre+ Eminem etc etc etc?
The corporate conspiracy theory is bull because bluntly if you go down to grass roots the unsigned bands are in all brutal honesty not that good.
Indeed I think part of the problem is that many of today's male acts, especially in the indie sector have bought too hard into all the anti corporate drivel and think they are somehow incredibly clever making tuneless middle class feeble minded drivel nobody wants to listen to bar The Guardian music columnists.
Girls in contrast do not have these moronic pretentious male taste barriers and just make music that makes them want to party, so consequently do a lot better.
Most of the older bands in you categories like the Rolling Stones, The Who,Led Zep were not dance bands but Rock acts the stones have now completed more then 50 years an an entity as have The Who .!:)
I am afraid a lot of the smaller pubs and clubs that bands like the stones started off in are now closed,so it does not leave a lot of space for newer acts to develop.
The corporate bit is not bull entirely as alluded to in one of my previous pages David Coverdale of Deep Purple/and Whitesnake has stated that the record companies wanted more and more control which is why he left EMI rather then the other war around,a respected artist who was not going to be told what to put out.
The newer acts especially male ones do sing more to the corporate tune. Probably with a few exceptions such as Amy Winehouse and a few more who are of course female..
Yes male acts have bought into the corporate drivel more its what they see succeeding from the like of Mr Louie Walsh and Pals.
I think its a cycle though and at the moment the girls have it.
I mean Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus look/act more like porn stars than pop stars.
Sad that this is what is held up to be aspired to and the 'cool way to be'. Hopefully kids will see through that bullcrap. But yeah my point is that its not really about the songs -it's about the 'shocking' sexy videos thought up by businessmen. Gets people talking.
I'm also getting real tired of the industry abusing the words 'female empowerment' and using it as a front to sexualise women more than ever. For e.g. She's wearing only her underwear and a pair of heels- thus she is empowered! Give me a break.
That made me laugh.:D
Rhianna once tried stripping to her Knickers in a farmers field for a vid she was making he chased her off,Lady Ga Ga well we have probably seen more underwear there then an Anne Summers catalogue,Rita Ora also stripped down to sports Bra and Knickers from a suit in a London Club,Miley Cyrus in underwear too.
Whatever happened to nice singers like Judie Tzuke who never felt the need to strip in public,;-)
Its no wonder women are convinced to strip down to a bikini and heels when women's 'smart' attire is normally a dress which is open to the elements with at least one of a) half cleavage b) bare arms c) bare belly or part of belly d) bare back e) bare legs or a combination of one or more of those.
If that's the norm for women's clothes you're starting out with it sets the bar pretty low, so for outfits to become gradually more revealing is something you can persuade people into and for people not to find weird.
Just what I'm saying is, the amount of flesh women are allowed/expected to casually have on show has got us so used to it that a lot of people don't bat an eyelid at something like Jennifer Lopez's VMA outfit http://cdn.respect-mag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/vma2014jenniferl.jpg?206228 or Jessie J's new album cover http://www.mtv.co.uk/jessie-j/news/jessie-j-unveils-new-album-sweet-talker-shows-off-hot-bod-on-artwork
And some people even expect women to just show flesh; for a woman's smart outfit (or performing outfit) to have half her legs and boobs out.
I say, respect to women like Janelle Monae or Madonna nowadays who want to and do wear a pantsuit or trousers to smart events and performances. You don't have to get it all out just because people are expecting it of you just because you're a woman.
I am afraid that right there is the bull. Take Northern Ireland alone, we have so many talented new artists and bands that are as yet unsigned playing pubs all over the place. Metal seems to be a genre we excel at right now which is cool (me being a metal head and all).
Compare that to Lady Gaga, Rihanna or even Beyonce. They've got that adoration arena on lock down. And that's music's future imo. It's about the individual connection, and women have it far easier. They can be admired by all with ease through their individual merits.
Also, I'd add society consumes women and the female body in a way we don't for men, and so men tend to be ignored. Say Bruno Mars strips off totally. No one would really care. If Beyonce did it, all hell would break loose.
Women have a lot to write and sing about. Men limit themselves to pure heteronormativity, due to not wanting to rock the boat about what a 'man' should sing about. But it is changing...slowly, but change is change.
I would agree that to explain the current trajectory of pop music would take some time.
For example, whilst what you say about the industry and consumption is mainly true but of itself it doesn't explain the increased number of female artists in the charts. The model you talk of would as likely suggest the phenomenon of 1D and Justin Bieber.
I think the rise of celebrity culture has an influence as well.
If we accept the business model of the music industry then you get the normal marketing methods which often put women on display to sell products. But that's only the beginning of explaining females on display.
A mixed bag of ideas there. It is just possible that young, disaffected men don't see pop music as an outlet for their ideas and feelings in the way that they did in the past? But I agree that women are shaping the future of pop music and beyond.
Pop music is about multimedia, you have to sell an image as well as music most of the time. And It would wrong to say that men haven't traded on looks and sexuality in pop in the past but yes women are and have been on display in art and marketing for a long time. And that isn't going to change very soon. But I don't think it fully explains why women are more listened to nowadays. It's at least partly because women's role in society has changed. As you say women have more to write and sing about because they do more and are more influential in society.
Well yes and no. I'm not sure if your objectivity is clouded by a general bias against indie or rock music but I wouldn't say it's drivel. However, your point is kind of valid inasmuch as that there is a prevailing theory that the wellspring of music has more or less run dry. Rock and roll (and all its offshoots since its invention in the 1950s) was always relatively limited - an accusation levelled by a number of other artists in the early days, such as jazz performers, who decried the new sound as basic, primitive and limited to a small musical palette.
Over the last half century popular music has more or less run through every conceivable permutation of ideas and I think that new male groups in particular find it hard to carve out a niche which will appeal to a public already saturated with 50 years of male-oriented pop and rock. This is particularly true these days where young people have access to pretty much the entire back catalogue of most important artists throughout the last half century at the touch of a button.
What has been grossly under-represented in the past, though, are black and female artists. There have been plenty of examples of both, to be sure, but perhaps now we are seeing them dominate because there is still a lot of untapped potential. In the case of female performers we now have easy access to visual media so the sex appeal angle can be exploited more effectively.
For male artists, even the soft, pop-oriented ones, there is still no market for bands (too expensive, can't be manipulated, take too long to write and record new material etc.) so even a modern equivalent of, say, Simply Red or Wet Wet Wet wouldn't get off the ground. We don't even have a 2010s equivalent of Busted or McFly. New male bands, then, have to necessarily look to labels outside the Big Three (Sony, Universal and Warners, who own around 3/4 of the songs in the top 40 at any one time recently) and will not only receive less exposure but will have to find some appeal not already tried by their forebears.
Male singers or singing groups find it easier - there's still a market for boybands and solo singers but they can't be marketed like women with sexy videos and they are still limited and overshadowed by the wealth of male performers who have preceded them.
For modern female artists it is somewhat easier. The modern phenomenon of girl groups and sexy solos is largely a product of the post-Spice Girls era. Historical precedents exist but in far smaller numbers than for the men. Major labels still have much to exploit before people get bored of this current trend, too.
And this is by no means the full picture. We haven't even touched yet on the corporate pop machine's profit-driven, risk averse, knock-em-out-quick-and-cheap business model.
The likes of Katy Perry and Miley surely have more female than male fans so how does that work?
Good question. The old adage "sex sells" isn't strictly true in itself. What is does is grab your attention (particularly if you are male). It also generates column inches in the tabloids, so lots of free publicity, even if it's critical - all publicity is good publicity.
Interestingly, research in advertising and media has also shown that girls do like female artists who portray a sexy image, as long as it's not too explicit and "porn" like. They prefer it to an artist who tends to dress more conservatively. This is not always true (look at Adele's success, for example, although her appeal is broader) but it's a general trend.
Beyonce is an example. She's adored and near worshipped for her beauty and bootylicious figure (alongside her talent). And her new album celebrated that, and she just won a Video Vanguard award in part due to that album and its reception.
Sex does sell in part, but good music helps too.
We have to remember that half of music consumers are women and the other half are men. If we assume that men are not that drawn to pop music in the first place, at least not as much as women, then I have a hard time imagining that they would buy pop music made by women, regardless of how good looking the artists are. I admit I watch a lot of music videos simply because there are sexy female artists in them, but I have never bought any of their music. And women on the other hand must primarily be drawn to male artists when it comes to looks, even if the men do not dress in revealing clothes. So again, it's hard to imagine that women are that impressed by scantily clad female artists.
So even though female artists get attention in the media for their looks, it's hard to understand how it would have such a major effect on their music sales.
I of course have to admit that as much as women get negative publicity too for their outfits it does help them too. Men have much more limited options when expressing themselves visually. If you're a rocker, it pretty much means jeans, a t-shirt and a leather jacket. If you're a rapper, it's pretty much the same thing. An RnB singer? Same outfit, etc.
Women on the other hand get to wear pretty much whatever, and that makes them seem artistic, strong and brave. If a man walked up on stage wearing a tight neon catsuit, he would be considered a clown, or as stepping out of the closet. A woman, on the other hand, can do that without problems. So of course the many options women can do visually, and the fact that they are more allowed to play with their sexuality, works in their favour. A straight female artist kissing a woman on stage is just playful and shows that she is exploring, but if a straight male artist kisses a man on stage, it just taints his career.
Look at the big album sellers - Ed Sheeran, Coldplay, Paolo Nutini, Sam Smith.
Ellie Goulding, Paloma Faith and London Grammar (which is made up of 1 girl, 2 boys) are they only females in the top 10 biggest albums so far.
Pharrell, 1D, Gary Barlow, Robbie Williams, Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, Disclosure, Elbow... are only some of the artists in the Top 40 biggest album sellers
I think the OP was mainly thinking about the singles charts but it's a good point about the album charts. When I read through those artists though I'm thinking maybe it's more of a class thing these days than a gender thing?
One reason stands above the rest, the internet.
Downloading is an easy target but bootlegging has been around for a long time before the internet came onto the scene. I think youtube and the dramatic rise of the music video. Its no surprise that a huge increase in female artists who are happy to wear very little also comes about the same time that major charts started accepting youtube views into the charting numbers.
Shock videos have always been around, but once the internet, and 24 hour multiple music channels have also strengthened this. I think a major turn happened when Robbie Williams Rock DJ video with him pulling his skin off was a huge change in recent times. Videos can ramp up the popularity of a song, which in turns brings in more money.
Movies have seen a similar treatment although for slightly different reasons. But the problem is the same, a huge explosion in ways to receive content. So more content space, more competition, thus more content is made. In order to keep churning out "filler", more and more films are slapped together too keep the numbers up.
You can still find good stuff, but the mass markets are now coming to the point of complete irrelevance.
To people saying there are fantastic underground music scenes that the mainstream are missing out on, care to put some links to some of the stars of these scenes? Especially the guy claiming there is an amazing Northern Irish Metal scene.
But here's the sardonic comment before you post them. I quite honestly suspect most of these acts will be pleasant enough but ultimately nothing special at all.
I actually try and watch quite a lot of unsigned music and I enjoy it on the spot in whatever pub/club its been played in. I buy the album they sell on their little stall, take it home and then when I'm not drunk afterwards...realise its not that good and it never gets listened to ever again.
I think it is really sexist and patronising to suggest females only sell because of sex and I'm bored to death with the all the best rock'n'roll sounds have been done before argument. Rock'n'roll has a limited palette of sounds? The well is dry? Last time I looked all musicians have the same notes available to them-its how you use them that counts.
Doesn't seem to be stopping those pesky female and black artists from coming up with something popular or new does it? Why can't white boys do the same? Oh apart from a lack of talent...
And finally, I am, or at least used to be a massive fan of all things indie. However I happen to believe though that most of the current scene is crap. I usually find the people that complain the most about how bad current music is and how bad it is that its all women and black people dominating the charts with vile "pop" are indie fans that just can't take the reality that what is really wrong is indie is sh*t now and there are few heroes left in that scene. Just because indie is bad now doesn't mean everything else is.
And lastly one good comment above is the suggestion that do young lads even care about music anymore anyway? Does the Call of Duty generation even give a toss? I remember seeing Noel Gallagher saying something along the lines of you have to be a bit angsty and angry to do rock and in his view most lads these days have their smart phones, giant flat screen TV's, all the rest of their gadgets and don't care for anything else.
He may have a point.
There is a metal scene in Northern Ireland, that's true. I'm not a metal head so just how amazing it is I don't know and I wouldn't judge. The NI symphonic metal band Selene are ok but nothing original.
I did see Sweet Savage way back in the 80s and I think they were significant in their time.
I know exactly what you are talking about. And yes the vast majority of the underground/indie artists never amount to anything. That's partly because success is an exclusivist notion anyway.
Well not all female artists actually use their sexual attractiveness in presenting themselves (Adele and Florence Welch spring to mind), so you're right, they don't always sell through sex. I've listened and bought music from Beyoncé, Ellie Goulding, Rihanna and others because I thought it was good. The fact that these women are good to look at is just a bonus.
I wouldn't say rock has run of ideas though. I listen to Sigur Ros, Mogwai, Radiohead, Slint...post rock bands for want of a better term but they have taken rock to a new place.
Well as nearly all our modern music forms have their origin in either African American or European Electronic (or more often both) music cultures, that isn't a surprise.
Yes, he may. Is Noel the last 'working class hero' of pop?
My disappointment is that pop music doesn't seem to be the outlet for disaffection it was in the past. Modern pop music is very listenable and actually well constructed but all sounds a little too safe to me.
Well said.
Last week's Top 10 were mainly male, I noticed, so that's not necessarily true at the moment.