Stardom
Amy Coghlan
Richard Dyer's Star Theory applied to
Pop Stars

• The terms "pop performer" and "pop star" have become
 interchangeable —, in media terms they are not the same
 thing. The study of stars as media texts demands that the
     distinction be made between those who are simply
    known for performing pop music and those who are
    known for being pop stars, who have an identity or
        persona which is not restricted solely to their
                       musicianship.
Richard Dyer's Star Theory applied to
Pop Stars
 • One of the reasons so many pop performers are
    described as pop stars is that they are quickly
   promoted to this status by their management.
     This is easily done courtesy of a few placed
        stories, a famous boyfriend/girlfriend,
  attendance at premieres/parties and a feature in
   HEAT magazine. It can be easy to forget about
      the music in the light of the outfits or love
   affairs. There are some who appear to leapfrog
  the performer stage entirely, but they do have to
                     go through it.
Richard Dyer's Star Theory applied to
Pop Stars
 • HOWEVER, a true pop star does have a lasting
      significance, and has "brand awareness"
   amongst a wider market over a period of time.
   Many of the so-called pop stars populating the
   top forty currently have not made a sufficient
  sociological or cultural impact to be classified as
      true stars if we return to Richard Dyers’
  definition. They will be forgotten by all but their
          most avid fans within a few years.
Stars as Constructions
• Stars are artificial images, even if they are represented as being "real people. It helps if their
        image contains a USP — they can be copied and/or parodied because of it. Their
  representation may be metonymic — Madonna's conical bra in the early 1990s, Bono's 'Fly'
    sunglasses, Britney's belly, Justin Bieber's bangs. Pop stars have the advantage over film
   stars in that their constructed image may be much more consistent over a period of time,
                        and is not dependent on the creative input of others.

                                Richard Dyer proposes that:
   A star is an image not a real person that is constructed out of a range of materials (eg
                     advertising, magazines etc as well as films [music]).

  • Yet that construction process is not automatic nor fully understood. Record companies
       think they know about it — but witness the number of failures on their books. TV
     programmes such as The X Factor show us the supposed construction process, how an
   ordinary person is groomed, styled and coached into fulfilling a set of record company and
   market expectations.This is not true stardom, which must happen through a combination
                             of factors. None of them labelled 'X'.
Stars as Constructions
     • The Pet Shop Boys, quoted in Q, March 2002
 “Cowell is a dreadful piece of crap who drags the music
   business down whenever he rears his ugly head... Pop
  stars today have no longevity. Rock 'n' roll is not about
 singing perfect notes or being a showbiz personality. It's
  about the anger and the angst. I hate what Pop Idol has
                   done to the business.”

• Roger Daltrey (The Who), As a record buying public, we
    prefer to believe in stars who are their own and our
      constructions rather than a transparent offering
   designed explicitly to appeal to our blander tastebuds
   served up by a record company interested only in our
                            wallets.
Industry and Audience
• Stars are produced by the music industry to make money out of audiences,
   who respond to various elements of a star persona by buying records and
   becoming fans. Record companies nurture and shape their stars — as the
   TV talent show processes have shown us. They tend to manufacture what
    they think audiences want, hence the 'photocopied' nature of many boy
  bands, teen bands etc.However, there are whole markets out there who are
       not convinced by the hype and don't want to spend their money on
  blandness.The record industry also has a duty to provide bands/artists who
   are perceived as 'real' (for 'real, maybe read 'ugly' or unpolished) for these
  audiences.Stars can also be created by this route. Pop stars, whatever their
    nature, are quite clearly the product of their record company — and they
                                     must be sold.

                          Richard Dyer says:
  Stars are commodities produced and consumed on the strength of their
                               meanings.
Stars and Audience
• The music industry is aware of the audiences it caters to, the perky pre-school hippy,
    and it does its best to keep us all happy. Historically, the industry has provided us
    with a range of commodities all with different appeal. One way to achieve this is by
   producing new stars of different types playing constantly mutating genres of music -
      there's always something and someone fresh to choose from (important for the
    younger audience). Another way is to produce a star with long-lasting appeal, who,
  once their brand is established, can cater to a fan audience for decades (in the way U2
                              or the Rolling Stones have done).

• Unfortunately, these methods are oppositional. The 'conveyor belt' approach to new
   stars means that talent isn't developed, and a star's value may be very short-lived. A
  star may only be significant or relevant for two years, or two albums. Too much focus
  on 'golden oldies' means that younger fans can't identify with stars, whom they see as
  belonging to their parents' generation. A healthy music industry develops both types
      of talent, and generates a diverse range of stars, who mean different things to
  different audience segments. Many pundits who say that the music industry is in the
       doldrums claim it is because this range of meanings is absent, or because the
                  meaning of the modern star is superficial and transient.
Ideology and Culture
   • Stars represent shared cultural values and attitudes, and promote a certain ideology.
    Audience interest in these values enhances their 'star quality', and it is through conveying
     beliefs ideas and opinions outside music that performers help create their star persona.

    • A star may initiate a fashion trend, with legions of fans copying their hairstyle and
    clothing. Stars initiate or benefit from cultural discourse (e.g. via their Twitter feed), and
                               create an ongoing critical commentary.

 • Now more than ever before, social networks give pop stars the opportunity to establish
  their own values outside their music. Lady Gaga tweets frequently about LGBT issues, and
  expects her Little Monsters to engage with that discourse just as much as she expects them
                                    to listen to her music.

 • Stardom, and star worship in general is a cultural value in itself. Ideologies drawn upon
    include materialism and sexuality. Whole sites of institutional support (eg radio & TV
   shows, magazines, websites) are devoted to star scrutiny, and it seems we can never get
                                    enough information.

 • Stars also provide us with a focal point for our own cultural thinking — particularly to do
                                     with Youth & Sexuality.
Character and Personality
• A star begins as a "real" human, possessing gender &
   race characteristics. Stars provide audiences with a
    focus for ideas of 'what people are supposed to be
      like' (eg for women, thin/beautiful) - they may
           support hegemony by conforming to it
     (thin/beautiful) or providing difference (fat/still
                          lovable).

   • Much of the discussion of stars in celebrity
 magazines is about how stars compare to the current
 hegemonic ideal, and how we compare to the stars.
Character and Personality
                                  Richard Dyer — The Stars (BFI Education 1979)
    • Pop stars, on the other hand, establish their character and personality through songs and performance
     and will strive for immediate star identity with a first album. They appear to have more control over their
              persona in that many of them write their own songs, and that their body of work develops,
        chronologically over time, along with society. Pop stars don't do aberrant costume dramas or science
      fiction movies which take them out of place in time and space and confuse their audience. They produce
     45-74 minutes of music which gives a clear indication of their interests, moods, appetites and lifestyle at a
        particular point in time; audiences read music=person, and will base their understanding of the star's
         persona on the sentiments expressed by their songs. This understanding may be very personal and
       intimate, the star's music can infiltrate every corner of a fan's life. Albums are continually read and re-
     read as texts think of the 100+ times you might listen to a track, whereas films tend to be watched once or
                                                        twice only.

      • Because a pop star's persona is constructed on the basis of a narrow text, continually re-read and
      reassessed, this may lead, in many cases, to second album syndrome, when an artist is unable to sustain
        their persona over a period of time (largely because they got rich off the back of the first album and
       bought all the houses cars etc they'd ever wanted) and they are unable to create a consistent account of
         their character and personality in their second major release .The root spring of their persona then
                                          disappears, or becomes confused.

•     A pop star's persona, therefore, as depicted in terms of character and personality, is a fragile thing which
         needs constant nurturing, and is the product of constant discourse between the star and his or her
                                                       audience.
RICHARD DYER SAYS ON PERSONALITY
AND CHARACTER:
“In these terms it can be argued that stars are representations
   of persons which reinforce, legitimate or occasionally alter
     the prevalent preconceptions of what it is to be a human
     being in this society.There is a good deal at stake in such
     conceptions. On the one hand, our society stresses what
   makes them like others in the social group/class/gender to
     which they belong. This individualising stress involves a
   separation of the person's "self" from his/her social "roles",
   and hence poses the individual against society. On the other
    hand society suggests that certain norms of behaviour are
  appropriate to given groups of people, which many people in
  such groups would now wish to contest (eg the struggles over
       representation of blacks, women and gays in recent
  years).Stars are one of the ways in which conceptions of such
                     persons are promulgated.”

Stardom

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Richard Dyer's StarTheory applied to Pop Stars • The terms "pop performer" and "pop star" have become interchangeable —, in media terms they are not the same thing. The study of stars as media texts demands that the distinction be made between those who are simply known for performing pop music and those who are known for being pop stars, who have an identity or persona which is not restricted solely to their musicianship.
  • 3.
    Richard Dyer's StarTheory applied to Pop Stars • One of the reasons so many pop performers are described as pop stars is that they are quickly promoted to this status by their management. This is easily done courtesy of a few placed stories, a famous boyfriend/girlfriend, attendance at premieres/parties and a feature in HEAT magazine. It can be easy to forget about the music in the light of the outfits or love affairs. There are some who appear to leapfrog the performer stage entirely, but they do have to go through it.
  • 4.
    Richard Dyer's StarTheory applied to Pop Stars • HOWEVER, a true pop star does have a lasting significance, and has "brand awareness" amongst a wider market over a period of time. Many of the so-called pop stars populating the top forty currently have not made a sufficient sociological or cultural impact to be classified as true stars if we return to Richard Dyers’ definition. They will be forgotten by all but their most avid fans within a few years.
  • 5.
    Stars as Constructions •Stars are artificial images, even if they are represented as being "real people. It helps if their image contains a USP — they can be copied and/or parodied because of it. Their representation may be metonymic — Madonna's conical bra in the early 1990s, Bono's 'Fly' sunglasses, Britney's belly, Justin Bieber's bangs. Pop stars have the advantage over film stars in that their constructed image may be much more consistent over a period of time, and is not dependent on the creative input of others. Richard Dyer proposes that: A star is an image not a real person that is constructed out of a range of materials (eg advertising, magazines etc as well as films [music]). • Yet that construction process is not automatic nor fully understood. Record companies think they know about it — but witness the number of failures on their books. TV programmes such as The X Factor show us the supposed construction process, how an ordinary person is groomed, styled and coached into fulfilling a set of record company and market expectations.This is not true stardom, which must happen through a combination of factors. None of them labelled 'X'.
  • 6.
    Stars as Constructions • The Pet Shop Boys, quoted in Q, March 2002 “Cowell is a dreadful piece of crap who drags the music business down whenever he rears his ugly head... Pop stars today have no longevity. Rock 'n' roll is not about singing perfect notes or being a showbiz personality. It's about the anger and the angst. I hate what Pop Idol has done to the business.” • Roger Daltrey (The Who), As a record buying public, we prefer to believe in stars who are their own and our constructions rather than a transparent offering designed explicitly to appeal to our blander tastebuds served up by a record company interested only in our wallets.
  • 7.
    Industry and Audience •Stars are produced by the music industry to make money out of audiences, who respond to various elements of a star persona by buying records and becoming fans. Record companies nurture and shape their stars — as the TV talent show processes have shown us. They tend to manufacture what they think audiences want, hence the 'photocopied' nature of many boy bands, teen bands etc.However, there are whole markets out there who are not convinced by the hype and don't want to spend their money on blandness.The record industry also has a duty to provide bands/artists who are perceived as 'real' (for 'real, maybe read 'ugly' or unpolished) for these audiences.Stars can also be created by this route. Pop stars, whatever their nature, are quite clearly the product of their record company — and they must be sold. Richard Dyer says: Stars are commodities produced and consumed on the strength of their meanings.
  • 8.
    Stars and Audience •The music industry is aware of the audiences it caters to, the perky pre-school hippy, and it does its best to keep us all happy. Historically, the industry has provided us with a range of commodities all with different appeal. One way to achieve this is by producing new stars of different types playing constantly mutating genres of music - there's always something and someone fresh to choose from (important for the younger audience). Another way is to produce a star with long-lasting appeal, who, once their brand is established, can cater to a fan audience for decades (in the way U2 or the Rolling Stones have done). • Unfortunately, these methods are oppositional. The 'conveyor belt' approach to new stars means that talent isn't developed, and a star's value may be very short-lived. A star may only be significant or relevant for two years, or two albums. Too much focus on 'golden oldies' means that younger fans can't identify with stars, whom they see as belonging to their parents' generation. A healthy music industry develops both types of talent, and generates a diverse range of stars, who mean different things to different audience segments. Many pundits who say that the music industry is in the doldrums claim it is because this range of meanings is absent, or because the meaning of the modern star is superficial and transient.
  • 9.
    Ideology and Culture • Stars represent shared cultural values and attitudes, and promote a certain ideology. Audience interest in these values enhances their 'star quality', and it is through conveying beliefs ideas and opinions outside music that performers help create their star persona. • A star may initiate a fashion trend, with legions of fans copying their hairstyle and clothing. Stars initiate or benefit from cultural discourse (e.g. via their Twitter feed), and create an ongoing critical commentary. • Now more than ever before, social networks give pop stars the opportunity to establish their own values outside their music. Lady Gaga tweets frequently about LGBT issues, and expects her Little Monsters to engage with that discourse just as much as she expects them to listen to her music. • Stardom, and star worship in general is a cultural value in itself. Ideologies drawn upon include materialism and sexuality. Whole sites of institutional support (eg radio & TV shows, magazines, websites) are devoted to star scrutiny, and it seems we can never get enough information. • Stars also provide us with a focal point for our own cultural thinking — particularly to do with Youth & Sexuality.
  • 10.
    Character and Personality •A star begins as a "real" human, possessing gender & race characteristics. Stars provide audiences with a focus for ideas of 'what people are supposed to be like' (eg for women, thin/beautiful) - they may support hegemony by conforming to it (thin/beautiful) or providing difference (fat/still lovable). • Much of the discussion of stars in celebrity magazines is about how stars compare to the current hegemonic ideal, and how we compare to the stars.
  • 11.
    Character and Personality Richard Dyer — The Stars (BFI Education 1979) • Pop stars, on the other hand, establish their character and personality through songs and performance and will strive for immediate star identity with a first album. They appear to have more control over their persona in that many of them write their own songs, and that their body of work develops, chronologically over time, along with society. Pop stars don't do aberrant costume dramas or science fiction movies which take them out of place in time and space and confuse their audience. They produce 45-74 minutes of music which gives a clear indication of their interests, moods, appetites and lifestyle at a particular point in time; audiences read music=person, and will base their understanding of the star's persona on the sentiments expressed by their songs. This understanding may be very personal and intimate, the star's music can infiltrate every corner of a fan's life. Albums are continually read and re- read as texts think of the 100+ times you might listen to a track, whereas films tend to be watched once or twice only. • Because a pop star's persona is constructed on the basis of a narrow text, continually re-read and reassessed, this may lead, in many cases, to second album syndrome, when an artist is unable to sustain their persona over a period of time (largely because they got rich off the back of the first album and bought all the houses cars etc they'd ever wanted) and they are unable to create a consistent account of their character and personality in their second major release .The root spring of their persona then disappears, or becomes confused. • A pop star's persona, therefore, as depicted in terms of character and personality, is a fragile thing which needs constant nurturing, and is the product of constant discourse between the star and his or her audience.
  • 12.
    RICHARD DYER SAYSON PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER: “In these terms it can be argued that stars are representations of persons which reinforce, legitimate or occasionally alter the prevalent preconceptions of what it is to be a human being in this society.There is a good deal at stake in such conceptions. On the one hand, our society stresses what makes them like others in the social group/class/gender to which they belong. This individualising stress involves a separation of the person's "self" from his/her social "roles", and hence poses the individual against society. On the other hand society suggests that certain norms of behaviour are appropriate to given groups of people, which many people in such groups would now wish to contest (eg the struggles over representation of blacks, women and gays in recent years).Stars are one of the ways in which conceptions of such persons are promulgated.”