Rock Stars: Who needs 'em anymore?

The question I have is: seen as buffoons more than popular heroes BY WHOM?
If you're talking about the ILM massive, then yeah, most of us probably do. The press is sorta the same way, too. But what about all those kids who want to BE Puffy or Bono or Eminem? Shit, I remember talking to one 17-year-old in the rural midwest who wanted to be (get ready) 311--he thought they were the absolute shit, the most radical thing he'd ever heard. Just becuase you're plugged into the Net and have some idea of how the backstage manipulation works in the music biz doesn't make the idea of stars any less potent for people. So, no, I don't think stars are going away anytime soon.

I think the notion that electronic/dance music was going to do away with "the face" of popular music was always, if originally well- intentioned, a little naieve. We're never going to be "post" needing heros, villians, & focal points for our own subsumed longings, fantasy projections, villification. Even if it's not necessarily someone sweating onstage, the desire for the larger than life figures pop produces (even in the underground...witness Simon Reynolds spot on assesment of the cult of personality surronding Lee Perry; John Coltrane, Sun Ra, even Stockhausen...these are all figures who're revered as much for their persona in some circles [and often more well known] as their music) is not going away. Hell, it's a huge chunk of the fun. I look at my top 10 favorites list and it's still dominated by "rock star" figures of one sort or another (Prince, John Lydon, Sly Stone.) I think part of the problem is that the names Curt listed (with the possible exception of Eminem) are a geriatric rock star, a verging on geriatric rock star, and a bloated plutocrat rap mogul. There are still plenty of good 'uns out there.

I need them, or I think I might die. I am exaggerating only a very small bit.

Rockstars exist behind the laptop. Witness Cex #1 Entertainer.

So the answer is no, rockstars won't die, although they're bound to mutate.

Overexposure and posture, ok perhaps last decade (the whole re-glamization of 'rock star' narcissism and victim-as-rock-opera pastiche - the whole Cobain tragedy - becomes more and more like a dramedy for cable as we get into the new century's ideal of boy-bands (impersonal) and 'new music' (objective)) where was i? [hic] oh - yeah, rock stars .... Who needs em? We've got the Strokes and White Stripes... (gurgle, gurgle)...

There will be figures to rally around as long as people feel a need to 'belong' to something. Not that either of these things is good or bad

Ppl. need to belong, period. But hardly enuf reason for rockstars to exist. Rockstars actually provide, I think, more of a sense of individuality than community half the time -- if you identify with the star, often it is precisely their ability to project their personality across society which attracts you. Popstars, on the other hand, where desire for the star is the key, they're a different story. Even then, I'd argue that the process of entering into a fan collective is a step towards individuation and away from belonging to the fan massive, as coming into contact with other fans forces you to define self w/r/t them. Perhaps, to ref. an ILE thread, those with the most developed attitude towards rock are those who treat it like weather -- a social glue rather than ultimate end.

Jason, it seems to me that the Strokes and the White Stripes are precisely the kind of bands that promote the cult of personality that gives birth to rock stars! Don't worry; to me this is a good thing.