No Sleep (New Single)

[HIStory]

Ageist industry is sports, not music.

If you say so. I'd be more glad about examples and arguments than ex-cathedra statements though.

 

[mj_frenzy]

If you say so. I'd be more glad about examples and arguments than ex-cathedra statements though.

Boundaries in music do not make sense at all. Also, creativity in no way can be judged by seasonal criteria (such as chart positions).

For example, Shania Twain’s residency shows in Las Vegas (Shania: Still the One) reinforce my statement. Her eagerness/enthusiasm to create new things (visually, stylistically, etc.) took shape in the most beautiful way &, to an extent, broke new ground in music (new 4D experience, for example).

 

[HIStory]

OK, mj_frenzy, let's start with the basics: what is ageism in your view?

 

[mj_frenzy]

OK, mj_frenzy, let's start with the basics: what is ageism in your view?

In my opinion, ageism categorizes people’s abilities according (solely) to their age.

 

[HIStory]

In my opinion, ageism categorizes people’s abilities according (solely) to their age.

And do you think that only happens in sports?

 

[mj_frenzy]

And do you think that only happens in sports?

Sports industry comes to my mind first, & I also believe that the same does not apply necessarily to music.

 

[HIStory]

Sports industry comes to my mind first, & I also believe that the same does not apply necessarily to music.

Music and the music industry are two different things, don't you think? Do you really think there is no ageism in the music industry? Do you think Iggy Azelea or Nikki Minaj are more popular than artists in their 40s-50s because they are more talented or because they have some sort of advantage in how they are marketed and treated by the media and the public because they are young and fresh as opposed to artists who are older? If you do not think so then please elaborate on why you think Iggy Azela and Nikki Minaj are more popular now then? Is it their superior talent, superior music or what?

 

[mj_frenzy]

Music and the music industry are two different things, don't you think? Do you really think there is no ageism in the music industry? Do you think Iggy Azelea or Nikki Minaj are more popular than artists in their 40s-50s because they are more talented or because they have some sort of advantage in how they are marketed and treated by the media and the public because they are young and fresh as opposed to artists who are older? If you do not think so then please elaborate on why you think Iggy Azela and Nikki Minaj are more popular now then? Is it their superior talent, superior music or what?

People can like these two hip-hop/rap artists in the same way they still adore Shania Twain. I cannot understand why they have to be mutually-exclusive.

Also, ageism cannot be excluded from music, but even when ageism appears, then it does not mean that (automatically) constitutes a rule/fact.

Furthermore, I know there is a vast difference between music & music industry. The former practically knows no boundaries, the latter is rather limited to (mostly) materialistic purposes.

 

[HIStory]

People can like these two hip-hop/rap artists in the same way they still adore Shania Twain. I cannot understand why they have to be mutually-exclusive.

I hope you realize that the comment that you responded to saying there is no ageism in the music industry was in response of comments about No Sleeep's chart success (or lack of) on the previous page. So we specifically talk about the relation between chart success and ageism here. So let me ask: when did Shania Twain have her last big charting hit in the same mould as Iggy Azalea or Nikki Minaj are charting these days?

 

[mj_frenzy]

I hope you realize that the comment that you responded to saying there is no ageism in the music industry was in response of comments about No Sleeep's chart success (or lack of) on the previous page. So we specifically talk about the relation between chart success and ageism here. So let me ask: when did Shania Twain have her last big charting hit in the same mould as Iggy Azalea or Nikki Minaj are charting these days?

I responded initially to your very first argument that ageism (according to you) is prevalent in popular music (rather than in music industry) & hence plays a major role in creativity. That is the basis of all of your arguments.

In this spirit, I addressed Shania Twain, who in her late 40’s – early 50’s broke new ground in music in (at least) one artistic field (& still no one can predict her next achievements as she gets older). If her accomplishments are being (or not) reflected also on chart positions is something that makes no difference to me.

 

[HIStory]

I responded initially to your very first argument that ageism (according to you) is prevalent in popular music (rather than in music industry) & hence plays a major role in creativity. That is the basis of all of your arguments.

Not true. This is what I wrote:

When was the last time a veteran artist had a big hit? Madonna did all kind of gimmicks - music that tries to appeal to teenagers, putting every current celebrity under the Sun in her video etc. - and her single still did not rise higher than #84 on Billboard. People should realize that this is an ageist industry where old acts do not score big hits, unless it's a duet with some currently popular young act. Just enjoy the music for what it is. To expect Janet to score a big hit at this age was never realistic.

Nowhere I mentioned creativity in this discussion. Now you are trying to get back to an older discussion we had some time ago about the creative aspect, but that was a different discussion about a different aspect. Here I only reacted to the specific aspect of chart success which is pretty clear from the context and from what posts my comment followed. You denied that ageism plays any part in what chances an older artist might have on the charts. So that means the reason why someone like Nikki Minaj or Iggy Azalea has more success on the charts, more airplay in the radio etc than veteran artists in your view has to do with something else than ageism. I'd like to know what it is in your view then. More talent? Better music? Because if it's not ageism there must be some other reason. I'm trying to find out what it is in your opinion but I cannot get a straight answer from you.

 

[barbee0715]

Popular=commercial success=it's always been Ageist. Look at Marvin Gaye and Smokey Robinson when Michael and Jermaine hit big.

Look at Diana when Whitney took over. No more hits after 1985.
I'm sure they were all freaking out when 20 yr old Janet took over the music scene. And it has nothing to do with art.

It's why I dislike the KOP moniker to a certain extent. Pop changes. From jazz to big band to be bop to rick and roll to disco to NJS to rap and EDM now.

 

[Annita]

Some of the names in your post have produced timeless music,at least some songs from them are timeless, means everybody knows them and can say they are the songs from the special artist ( Michael, Withney, Diana, Beatles, Elvis, Springsteen, Gaye) and they are played in radio, streaming, albums are still selling.But in my opinion Janet Jackson isn`t in this reign. I really would say that not many today knows her songs even from her very succesful years today.
At least in Europe today people will mainly know her as sister from Michael, far more as they can say what music she has made.

 

[Antwort]

I agree with the doll and respect that the music business tends to be haunted by ageism, but I also agree with this next statement

If her accomplishments are being (or not) reflected also on chart positions is something that makes no difference to me.

but instead of Shania (great artist btw), I apply them to Janet. Maybe i'm just biased, but I really don't care about chart positions. All I know is that I enjoy the song thoroughly and nothing else matters to me.

 

[HIStory]

Some of the names in your post have produced timeless music,at least some songs from them are timeless, means everybody knows them and can say they are the songs from the special artist ( Michael, Withney, Diana, Beatles, Elvis, Springsteen, Gaye) and they are played in radio, streaming, albums are still selling.But in my opinion Janet Jackson isn`t in this reign. I really would say that not many today knows her songs even from her very succesful years today.
At least in Europe today people will mainly know her as sister from Michael, far more as they can say what music she has made.

Well, there are obviously bigger and lesser known stars. But I would not say Diana Ross or Marvin Gaye are more known and more popular in Europe than Janet. At least where I live I am not sure if I went to the street and asked people about Marvin Gaye a whole lot of people would know about him or the music he made. Same with Diana. Yet, they are legends of course. My point is that just because someone is not that known/popular at certain points of the globe it does not mean he or she cannot be a legend or a special artists in other parts of the planet.

The MJ, Beatles, Elvis level - where someone's name is known virtually all over the planet - is the very top level and obviously most won't get on that level, but if you name Diana or Marvin Gaye I can't see how Janet is less known.

 

[barbee0715]

My point tho was talking about current commercial charting success. The people I named were still quite young and in no way ready to retire, but along came a younger generation to take over the charts. And they did.

The artistry of the people I named is legendary tho.

 

[Tygger]

My point is that just because someone is not that known/popular at certain points of the globe it does not mean he or she cannot be a legend or a special artists in other parts of the planet.

Agreed.

The MJ, Beatles, Elvis level - where someone's name is known virtually all over the planet -

Disagreed. It is a misnomer that the Beatles and Elvis are as popular around the world as Michael is. I will not take away from the achievements of The Beatles and Elvis however; it is particularly Americans and Europeans who prefer to believe they are as well known outside of those regions as Michael has been, currently is, and will always be which actually takes away from Michael's achievements in some form(s).

 

[mj_frenzy]

Not true. This is what I wrote:

Nowhere I mentioned creativity in this discussion. Now you are trying to get back to an older discussion we had some time ago about the creative aspect, but that was a different discussion about a different aspect. Here I only reacted to the specific aspect of chart success which is pretty clear from the context and from what posts my comment followed. You denied that ageism plays any part in what chances an older artist might have on the charts. So that means the reason why someone like Nikki Minaj or Iggy Azalea has more success on the charts, more airplay in the radio etc than veteran artists in your view has to do with something else than ageism. I'd like to know what it is in your view then. More talent? Better music? Because if it's not ageism there must be some other reason. I'm trying to find out what it is in your opinion but I cannot get a straight answer from you.

Quite the contrary, it is the same discussion about the same aspect, just a little bit narrowed to a more tangible side of music: chart positions/radio airplays.

Also, for me, chart positions cannot be regarded as an objective way to evaluate success. So, to try to explain the chart performance of these two hip-hop female singers is rather worthless. Never before did I claim in this discussion that older artists are (in a way) obliged to reach high chart positions.

 

[HIStory]

Quite the contrary, it is the same discussion about the same aspect

Never before did I claim in this discussion that older artists are (in a way) obliged to reach high chart positions.

The post that you chose to reply to was very clearly about chart success in answer to the discussion before it. That you try to derail the discussion in some other direction will not change the initial point of the post that you replied to.

 

[mj_frenzy]

The post that you chose to reply to was very clearly about chart success in answer to the discussion before it. That you try to derail the discussion in some other direction will not change the initial point of the post that you replied to.

I replied to your post (about chart success & older artists) in order to express my disagreement about that. I placed emphasis on the fact that sports is a field/industry that ageism applies the most (rather than music).

I firmly believe that music should be looked at in a broader way.

 

[HIStory]

I replied to your post (about chart success & older artists) in order to express my disagreement about that.

About what? My point in that post was that chart success is affected by ageism. If you express disagreement about that then that means you think ageism does not affect the chart success of veteran artists. When I asked you to elaborate on that or provide examples you keep refusing and try to derail the discussion instead in some other direction that was never the point in the post that you replied to.

(Also when you say things like "sports is ageist" that's what makes me wonder whether you even fully understand what the word means.)

 

[mj_frenzy]

About what? My point in that post was that chart success is affected by ageism. If you express disagreement about that then that means you think ageism does not affect the chart success of veteran artists. When I asked you to elaborate on that or provide examples you keep refusing and try to derail the discussion instead in some other direction that was never the point in the post that you replied to.

(Also when you say things like "sports is ageist" that's what makes me wonder whether you even fully understand what the word means.)

For me, chart performance is not a reliable way to measure success, irrespective of the artist’s age. This is the reason for my disagreement.

According to you, creativity is (in the first place) subject to ageism, & chart performance (as a way of measuring success/appeal) subsequently will be subject to ageism, too. I can understand that, although I disagree on that way of thinking.

Also, ageism is too apparent in sports (& especially in some fields ageism’s influence can become really annoying).

 

[HIStory]

For me, chart performance is not a reliable way to measure success, irrespective of the artist’s age. This is the reason for my disagreement.

That's not what you said though. Since my point in that point was only that ageism in the music industry exists and affects veteran artists' chart success, you disagreeing with it means that you disagree with the statement that ageism in the music industry exists or that it affects the chart performances of veteran artists.

According to you, creativity is (in the first place) subject to ageism

Also, ageism is too apparent in sports (& especially in some fields ageism’s influence can become really annoying).

Again, when you make statements like these it makes me wonder if you even understand the meaning of the word "ageism". Creativity or sports performance can be a subject to age, not ageism. Do you understand the difference between the two words - "age" and "ageism"?
Can you shed a light on what you mean by "ageism in sports", for example?

& chart performance (as a way of measuring success/appeal) subsequently will be subject to ageism, too.

No. Again, you choose to take things out of the context of that whole discussion which was people posting the chart performance of No Sleeep and suggesting it was a flop. My point actually was exactly that it should not matter considering that veteran artists tend not to score big hits on the charts these days (unless they do a duet with some currently hot act) because of ageism in the music industry. Please look up what ageism means before you once again confuse it with the word "age"! You constantly seem to confuse the two.

You can have the opinion that it is not true and that ageism does not exist in the industry or that the general lack of chart success or air play of veteran artists do not have anything to do with ageism, but then I'd like to know what it has to do with in your opinion. But you always refuse to answer that saying that you do not care about chart success. It is fine, you do not have to, but please realize that you got yourself into a discussion about just that - chart success -, so of course I am going to ask you questions about that, not about something else. If you do not care maybe you should not have got into this discussion about chart success in the first place.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Again, when you make statements like these it makes me wonder if you even understand the meaning of the word "ageism". Creativity or sports performance can be a subject to age, not ageism. Do you understand the difference between the two words - "age" and "ageism"?
Can you shed a light on what you mean by "ageism in sports", for example?

Please look up what ageism means before you once again confuse it with the word "age"! You constantly seem to confuse the two.

I am shocked to hear that there are still people who (arrogantly) claim that ageism does not exist in sports.

As I have already stated, ageism takes place when people are being categorized/discriminated based solely on their age. In this sense, people are expected not to be able to live up to specific physical activities/sports after a certain age because this is the socially “appropriate” thing, but, of course, not necessarily the right one.

More specifically, this way of thinking is pretty prevalent in sports because also of other reasons that take place. For example, an older athlete may feel inferior to a younger one (for fear of being teased, etc.), or because sports fans demand young athletes in the team they support for various reasons (prestige, etc.), or because managers/coaches do not have the willingness (or time) to focus on older ages, etc.

Ageism is prevalent in many aspects of our society, & especially in those that require physical strength (rather than mental abilities).

In other words, age (as a physical condition) has to do (mostly) with the body, whereas ageism (as a way of thinking) has to do (mostly) with the mind.

To sum up:
Creativity (as a mental ability) cannot be subject to age.
Creativity (as a mental ability) cannot be subject to ageism.

Sports performance (as a physical ability) can be subject to age.
Sports performance (as a physical ability) can be subject to ageism.

I hope now you can tell the difference between age & ageism.

 

[HIStory]

I hope now you can tell the difference between age & ageism.

I do. I was just not sure about you since you seemed to used the term interchangeably with age.

In other words, age (as a physical condition) has to do (mostly) with the body, whereas ageism (as a way of thinking) has to do (mostly) with the mind.

Not really. Age is simply a fact of life. Age can affect several aspects of life - both physical (body) and mental (mind). To acknowledge the fact that at the age of 60 I will not be likely to be able to run as fast as I used to when I was 20 is not ageism, it's simply acknowledging a fact of life and not being in denial about it.

Ageism is prejudice against people (something that comes from the outside, from other people) due to their age. For example, if you are not being accepted for a job even though you have all abilities to do that job, just because they go for someone younger with the same or even lesser abilities. That is ageism. However, if that job, for example, requires attributes that I do not have any more because of my age and a younger person does, then that is not ageism.

The difference between age and ageism is not the difference body vs. mind. The difference is that one is a fact of life, the other is a prejudice that comes from the outside and puts you in disadvantaged positions because of your age.

It exists in all areas of life not only in areas where physical strength is required. Sometimes companies want to uphold a youthful image and because of that they only pick young people to work with, even though older people too could do the same job. That is ageism.

I could say that I am equally shocked that you do not acknowledge that this phenomenon, ageism, exists in the music industry. So artists do not get discriminated by radios due to them being of an older generation? Madonna recently complained her music does not get air-play because of her age. She complained about ageism in the industry. So did she lie? Ageism in the music industry comes both from people within the industry and the public.

Spare me of the whole creativity thing, that was not the point here. The post that you chose to disagree with was simply a post about veteran artists' chart performances (not creativity) and how that is affected by ageism. And I'm going to ask you once again: if you don't think ageism exists in the music industry then why do you think veteran artists struggle to get air play or are less successful on the charts? You can have an alternative theory, that would be alright, but thing is you never provided an alternative theory, instead you keep erecting straw-man arguments about creativity, which was never the point of this discussion.

 

[mj_frenzy]

I do. I was just not sure about you since you seemed to used the term interchangeably with age.

Not really. Age is simply a fact of life. Age can affect several aspects of life - both physical (body) and mental (mind). To acknowledge the fact that at the age of 60 I will not be likely to be able to run as fast as I used to when I was 20 is not ageism, it's simply acknowledging a fact of life and not being in denial about it.

Ageism is prejudice against people (something that comes from the outside, from other people) due to their age. For example, if you are not being accepted for a job even though you have all abilities to do that job, just because they go for someone younger with the same or even lesser abilities. That is ageism. However, if that job, for example, requires attributes that I do not have any more because of my age and a younger person does, then that is not ageism.

The difference between age and ageism is not the difference body vs. mind. The difference is that one is a fact of life, the other is a prejudice that comes from the outside and puts you in disadvantaged positions because of your age.

It exists in all areas of life not only in areas where physical strength is required. Sometimes companies want to uphold a youthful image and because of that they only pick young people to work with, even though older people too could do the same job. That is ageism.

I could say that I am equally shocked that you do not acknowledge that this phenomenon, ageism, exists in the music industry. So artists do not get discriminated by radios due to them being of an older generation? Madonna recently complained her music does not get air-play because of her age. She complained about ageism in the industry. So did she lie? Ageism in the music industry comes both from people within the industry and the public.

Spare me of the whole creativity thing, that was not the point here. The post that you chose to disagree with was simply a post about veteran artists' chart performances (not creativity) and how that is affected by ageism. And I'm going to ask you once again: if you don't think ageism exists in the music industry then why do you think veteran artists struggle to get air play or are less successful on the charts? You can have an alternative theory, that would be alright, but thing is you never provided an alternative theory, instead you keep erecting straw-man arguments about creativity, which was never the point of this discussion.

I focused on creativity & sports performance because that was exactly what you asked me about.

I know that ageism can appear also in other aspects of our life (like the ones you mentioned) that are not so physically demanding. This is the reason why I used the words ‘prevalent’ or ‘too apparent’ when I referred to sports.

Also, I did not say that the difference between age & ageism is a difference between body & mind. What I mean is, that age originates (mostly) from body whereas ageism comes (mostly) from mind.

At no point did I claim that ageism must be categorically excluded from music industry. Music industry is another part of the society & to claim the opposite would not have made sense. But, in any case, even if ageism appears in music industry, in my opinion, it should not be taken as a fact.

Also, I am not exactly sure if dominating the charts is always a matter of high priority when it comes to older artists. They probably want to implement/expand their capabilities on other aspects of music, because music should be considered a multi-dimensional art. To claim that they do not innovate sounds rather pessimistic.

Also, I cannot speak for Madonna. &, furthermore, I think, no one can talk on behalf of the public when it comes to ageism. To try to represent the public/audience sounds disdainful.

 

[HIStory]

I focused on creativity & sports performance because that was exactly what you asked me about.

No, I asked you to give examples of ageism in sports. The creativity stuff is just what you try to keep dragging into this discussion based on an older discussion we had but here it wasn't the point at all. The statement that you said you disagreed with was this:

When was the last time a veteran artist had a big hit? Madonna did all kind of gimmicks - music that tries to appeal to teenagers, putting every current celebrity under the Sun in her video etc. - and her single still did not rise higher than #84 on Billboard. People should realize that this is an ageist industry where old acts do not score big hits, unless it's a duet with some currently popular young act. Just enjoy the music for what it is. To expect Janet to score a big hit at this age was never realistic.

I simply talked about the possible reason for why veteran artist tend not to do well on the charts.

At no point did I claim that ageism must be categorically excluded from music industry. Music industry is another part of the society & to claim the opposite would not have made sense.

But, in any case, even if ageism appears in music industry, in my opinion, it should not be taken as a fact.

So what is your opinion on why veteran artist seem to have lesser air play and lesser chart success than their younger counterparts?

Also, I am not exactly sure if dominating the charts is always a matter of high priority when it comes to older artists.

Actually that was one of my points that you chose to disagree with. LOL.

 

[mj_frenzy]

No, I asked you to give examples of ageism in sports. The creativity stuff is just what you try to keep dragging into this discussion based on an older discussion we had but here it wasn't the point at all. The statement that you said you disagreed with was this:

I simply talked about the possible reason for why veteran artist tend not to do well on the charts.

So what is your opinion on why veteran artist seem to have lesser air play and lesser chart success than their younger counterparts?

Actually that was one of my points that you chose to disagree with. LOL.

I am surprised to see that my statements are open to such misinterpretations.

I said earlier: “Never before did I claim in this discussion that older artists are (in a way) obliged to reach high chart positions.”

I say now: “Also, I am not exactly sure if dominating the charts is always a matter of high priority when it comes to older artists.”

This was (& still is) my point of view regarding that matter: Older artists can still innovate (Shania Twain, for example) but chart success is not probably their ultimate aim in their careers/lives. They grew up (not only physically but also artistically) & only to achieve chart success (at any cost) is not maybe something that could make them happier.

On the contrary, according to you, older (physically) artists not only are not able to create any more (you never provided a good reason for that) but also this inability has to be the reason for their chart performances as well (“So I don't think it's fair to expect something groundbreaking from Janet - whether creatively or commercially&#8221. This is the root of the disagreement, that’s why I keep denying that (but for you seems like an evasion of your questions).

 

[HIStory]

I am surprised to see that my statements are open to such misinterpretations.

I said earlier: “Never before did I claim in this discussion that older artists are (in a way) obliged to reach high chart positions.”

I say now: “Also, I am not exactly sure if dominating the charts is always a matter of high priority when it comes to older artists.”

This was (& still is) my point of view regarding that matter: Older artists can still innovate (Shania Twain, for example) but chart success is not probably their ultimate aim in their careers/lives. They grew up (not only physically but also artistically) & only to achieve chart success (at any cost) is not maybe something that could make them happier.

On the contrary, according to you, older artists not only cannot create any more (you never provided a good reason for that) but also this inability has to be the reason for the lack of their creativity or chart low performances (“So I don't think it's fair to expect something groundbreaking from Janet - whether creatively or commercially&#8221. This is the root of the disagreement, that’s why I keep denying that (but for you seems like an evasion of your questions).

You are mixing together two discussions.

The arguments you dug up here were from another discussion between us about whether it is fair to expect something groundbreaking from older artists. My point in that older discussion was that I do think that artists tend to reach their creative peak at younger ages. I still think so, because that is simply my observation. Most popular artists, tend to create their artistically most important works at a younger age. Rarely they do at the age of 40 or 50. You are free to disagree with that but I moved on from that discussion.

My current statement that you picked on to disagree with, however, never said anything about any creativity, creative peaks, it simply dealt with chart success and ageism in the industry, as simple as that. That you are trying to drag another discussion into it will not change the fact that what you disagreed with was simply a comment about ageism (IMO) affecting the chart success, air play etc. of veteran artists. As simple as that.

 

[mj_frenzy]

You are mixing together two discussions.

The arguments you dug up here were from another discussion between us about whether it is fair to expect something groundbreaking from older artists. My point in that older discussion was that I do think that artists tend to reach their creative peak at younger ages. I still think so, because that is simply my observation. Most popular artists, tend to create their artistically most important works at a younger age. Rarely they do at the age of 40 or 50. You are free to disagree with that but I moved on from that discussion.

My current statement that you picked on to disagree with, however, never said anything about any creativity, creative peaks, it simply dealt with chart success and ageism in the industry, as simple as that. That you are trying to drag another discussion into it will not change the fact that what you disagreed with was simply a comment about ageism (IMO) affecting the chart success, air play etc. of veteran artists. As simple as that.

In this spirit, if ageism was too widespread in music industry (as you claim that it is), then it would have adversely affected artists also in their late 20’s – early 30’s (at an age when many of them enjoy high chart positions/air plays).

Also, by going back to an earlier, crucial point of this discussion does not mean that I mix two different discussions.