Will society ever go hysterical over a celebrity again?

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
People don't swarm airports when JK Rowling visits the states, nor does a majority of Americans tune into to Letterman or Leno when Daniel Radcliffe is the guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[JackInDaCrak]

According to someone I believe, girls would get so excited over the Beatles that the ones close to the stage would cum in their pants and leave wet spots on the seats.

[esad]

Part of the reason we'll never really see this again is because of overexposure. Today, there are endless TV shows, videos, interviews, etc.

Back when the Beatles did Ed Sullivan they had hardly been seen by most people in America. Their music had become popular but nobody had really gotten a good look at them in the states. Plus, back then if you wanted to see the Beatles perform you had to go to the concert. It's not like there were a gazillion live versions of their songs on MTV1,2,3 and whatever.

We give people too much of want they today and now everyone gets sick of anything new very quickly.

That and talentless PR and Marketing wienies run most of the music labels and are just trying to cash in as soon and often as possible. New groups don't show up on MTV because they're good, they get played because they made some sweet three way deal between Viacom, Clear Channel and Disney.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of the reason we'll never really see this again is because of overexposure. Today, there are endless TV shows, videos, interviews, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Blah, you beat me to it.

Yea, media overexposure will prevent this from every happening again. You won't ever see us crowding around the tv set to watch some band on NBC b/c it will just be streamed on the internet later anyway--so might as well do something else and watch it whenever you have the time right? In the 60's people made time to get in front of the tv b/c that was their only chance to see them.

Something revolutionary won't have the impact today as it would even 15 years ago.

[TheCroShow]

[ QUOTE ]
Part of the reason we'll never really see this again is because of overexposure. Today, there are endless TV shows, videos, interviews, etc.

Back when the Beatles did Ed Sullivan they had hardly been seen by most people in America. Their music had become popular but nobody had really gotten a good look at them in the states. Plus, back then if you wanted to see the Beatles perform you had to go to the concert. It's not like there were a gazillion live versions of their songs on MTV1,2,3 and whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this 100%. because of youtube, tv, websites. the internet alone is why this does not happen.

yesterday i went to the Canucks intra-squad game, met a couple of former Canucks, got a few autographs and didn't really freak out. sure i was super [censored] pumped, but if it wasn't for tv, internet, etc i probably would have gone insane.

[MikeyPatriot]

Anyone think Borat is a good recent example? Things definitely got overexposed after the movie was released, but people went nuts for him at appearances around the world.

Edit: To expound on the impact of the internet, wouldn't it be more fair to say that the internet doesn't completely remove the ability of society to go nuts over a person or group, but rather causes the ascent/descent to occur more quickly?

[benza13]

[ QUOTE ]

That and talentless PR and Marketing wienies run most of the music labels and are just trying to cash in as soon and often as possible. New groups don't show up on MTV because they're good, they get played because they made some sweet three way deal between Viacom, Clear Channel and Disney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh, this is definitely a huge problem with media phenomena today. I am visiting my parents and am listening to terrestrial radio for the first time in a while while driving around. The local rap station here is soon to be sponsoring a concert and as they listed the artists I realized they were all artists I had heard multiple times while listening to the station and I listened to it far less than other stations. I haven't been interested enough to research it, I would be shocked to learn that these artists were not connected to the radio station through their parent corporations.

All of these artists are completely overexposed as a result and this detracts from their ability to become as big of a deal, IMO.

[globalboy]

Good Christ these threads suck.

[MiloDanglers]

Eminem? Teens loved him, parents hated him. Only about 5 years ago.

[Dids]

This thread assumes that we've stopped, which clearly we haven't. I think we do it more now than we did then.

It just seems different because of the way media coverage is now distributed across 1000 cable stations instead of 3 major networks.