See that's very uninteresting and irrelevant but it's money that makes the world go round, where the actual impact is aka where artists and labels can make a living, aka where people drop a good amount of their money, as opposed to a free listen on the radio and aka where the music industry lives on aka where it's worth and has more of an impact than a free listen on public radio.

What is the point of hundreds of millions of people listening to an artists record on the radio to try to prove themselves when at the end it won't work nor will it have an impact (Rihanna, Pharell, Robin Thicke).

You can be an artist with impact and at the end of the day you don't have to try to prove yourself to millions of people listen to you since the impact is already there and you don't have to prove anything, (though new work can only reinforce you)

Without the fame which aka leads to impact aka leads to money, there is only hype and no results.

Is this simple formula too much for second/third world countries?

At the end of the day, radio is just a minor force to exposure. Some artists have it, some don't, some have that on top of their star power and celebrity status which leads to impact and the fame required for them not to prove themselves if they wanted, but some are more ambitious than others.

XO

Adele

You really can't say that if you have ears and basic music knowledge. Can't Take Me Home was pure R&B, then she completely redefined her sound with pop-rock M!ss. Try This was more of a punk- and rock influenced album (she even got her Grammy for Trouble in the Best ROCK Vocal by Female), again a departure from her 2nd albums sound, that's why it wasn't so successful back then. I'm Not Dead is majorly pop-rock, but influenced by country, punk, alternative rock, and R&B. I'm not even arguing about Funhouse but if you listen to it after I'm Not Dead, it's clearly different, not that much like her previous albums, but still. The Truth About Love was majorly pop, sampled rock music, but it was less organic than Funhouse, hence the electronic sound.

She can't evolve you say As if one can only evolve if they make huge reinventions era after era after era.

As soon as I read the OP, I knew folks was gon rush to say Britney, Xtina, Beyoncé, etc. Why so little ambition for your faves to grow when they're still so young? I'm guessing y'all mean by commercial standards (I hope), anywayz....

any successful 20+ year veterans.

Khia.

P!NK

Beyonce definitely.....

She's stated it clearly already, and besides that, Beyonce will always be respected in the industry

At this point Beyonce. Shes already been on that level but this album just solidified it for anyone with doubt.

Christina has nothing left to prove not because of iconic status but because people have no significant expectations of her whatsoever. Shes just keeps getting featured and they consume it without even caring.

Britney has nothing left to prove because people were just so happy she made it out of that tabloid bombardment phase, they felt a deep nostalgia for her and subsequently she kept making albums (up until BJ) that satisfied her image and her fans. Shes an icon in her own way, although not a respected one.

To anyone that says Gaga, she has a lot left to prove, but that makes her interesting.

Shakira then

Britney Spears, unfortunately. I would prefer her to be a lot less successful if it meant getting more promo, though. Like I would trade BOMT and OIDIA for 100 more promo performances.


Anyone who has passed 50M albums can do whatever the heck they want, in my book. I guess that realistically only means Mariah, Britney, Shakira and Beyonce of the 90s-10s girls

Madonna.