Talk:Superstar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whrere's Andy Warhol?[edit]

Came to this article hoping for a comprehensive overview of the term and what it means for popular culture. It's hard to imagine an article about the superstar phenomenon without at least some treatment of Andy Warhol, who is usually credited with coining the concept if not the word. I'm wondering if this article might be nibbling around the edges of the phenomenon without getting to the core.Wikidemo 15:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! I love the new Andy Warhol quote about Ingrid Superstar. However, I think it would be more encyclopedic to say something like "Andy Warhol, credited with popularizing the term,[cite] claims it derived from a model among his circle who called herself Ingrid Superstar. [cite Warhol quote]..." etc. One source to start on is this one: [1]. Wikidemo 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Images, cleanup, etc.[edit]

I like the way the article is going - it's very informative even though a little messy. But some ongoing concerns.

Not sure why Susan Sarandon is held out as the epitome of superstar. That seems kind of random. And though Mary Woronov is certainly a very handsome middle aged woman, she is not exuding superstar quality in that picture. This is a good example where we can use a non-free image from the Warhol days. They're certainly irreplaceable. Or a new image of an unarguable current superstar (are there any left today? Paris Hilton comes to mind but she's more of a postmodern deconstruction of the superstar myth than a real superstar. Hannah Montana?). Best is if we could find a free period image of Nico, Edie Sedgewick, Woronov, or one of the other period 60s or 70s women.

Also, why are we linking to citations in the form of a google cache of lecture notes? That seems really sloppy and probably not a reliable source. Wikidemo (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now Aaliyah is the prime example? She died several years ago - shouldnt the current example be, well... current? How about Beyonce instead? Or, hell, you've got Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Hugh Jackman... Metao (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Cruise!?[edit]

i think it is a bit dangerous to use tom cruise as an example of a superstar! High ranking scientologists have forseen he shall be honoured like a god one day! But then again... with that haircut?

Madonna[edit]

Madonna is the best possible candidate for a present-day superstar. She has proven herself for over 25 years and in recent times she has had a number 1 album (Hard Candy) and a number 1 single (4 Minutes). She was just inducted into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame and she has the highest grossing tours for a female to date. Tom Cruise is not a superstar. I think he might have been a few years ago but in recent times he has become more of a media joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.220.14 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Madonna, a superstar? Please, are you living in the 1980s? More people recognize Michael Jordan than Madonna. What a joke of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.25.110 (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, grumblers, one man's garbage is another man's treasure, as they say. The term is a little bit like "genius", "legend", "hero", "diva", or "master chef", and so on. It's overused. I don't know if anyone alive is there. People like Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, maybe Michael Jackson if he didn't have his personal issues. Could be Michael Jordan. In the original conception it was about more than popularity. It was supposed to apply to people who had a magical, untouchable buzz to them. It's about being larger than life. Some people can be incredibly popular like Oprah, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, without being a superstar. If you're very real and friendly you're not a superstar. It's almost like they're not people. There are also some models and performers who aren't as well known who have that quality. If this article gets better it's doing more than defining the word or listing examples, it would explain the phenomenon. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To the person who asks if we are living in the 1980's: Madonna has had commercial and critical success in the 80's, 90's, the 2000's and has had a number 1 album and single in the past few weeks. As for Michael Jordan, I doubt he could get MILLIONS of fans all over the world to sell out huge venues in mere hours to see him. Which brings me to ANOTHER prime example. Madonna's current world tour (The Sticky and Sweet Tour) has been selling out and breaking records and is expected to be one of the highest earning tours of the year. Many people would refer to her as an ICON which is a step above Superstar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.116.13 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As a Business Major, I can tell you-from what I have learned from my professors- Micheal Jordan's historic Endorsement of Nike shoes was nothing short of a marketing campaign Miracle...and thats beside his equally historic basketball career. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh look, another prime example:

Why has all mention of Madonna been removed from this page? That whole quote about Michael Jordon is the opinion of an individual and that does not make it factual. Several months later now since my first posting about Madonna, her Sticky and Sweet Tour has now become the highest selling tour of ANY solo artist. How much more proof do you people need to allow Madonna to be given credit as a superstar or icon? Not only that but the superstar of our time. There is not an artist like her right now. She is the only one of her kind and a superstar like her only comes around once in a blue moon. The cultural impact that woman has had can not and should not be overlooked just because some people personally dislike her for whatever reason. I don't mean to be redundant but if I must then I will. She has had more top 10 hits than Elvis Presley. She is the highest earning solo artist for any tour. She has had success every year since her career began back in 1983. She has also enjoyed major success all over the world. Remember, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and encyclopedias don't just go by what goes on in the United States. Quit creating some personal vendetta against her and quit being biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.224.172 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Janet Jackson[edit]

I am going to have to disagree with putting Janet Jackson as a superstar. Her most recent albums have all been commercial failures and her films have not exactly been too critically praised. Now I am not saying that Madonna's films have all been critically praised but the fact is Madonna is much more prolific and iconic than Janet Jackson. Janet Jackson has faded in and out of Pop Culture on several occasions but Madonna has been a fixture in the Pop World since 1983. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.116.13 (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well, funny that the exact same caption was used for both of them, so somebody is pulling somebody's leg I think. Anyway, I've re-edited for the same reason as before - uncited, encyclopedic tone, opinion/analysis, etc. Making it more factual and neutrally worded. I have no opinion on who should be up there. Maybe neither. The most obvious choice would be one of the actually, early superstars - Nico, Edith Sedgewick, etc. Or maybe someone like Greta Garbo or Marilyn Monroe. Not as well known today, but fits the definition. Wikidemo (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Janet Jackson is as much of a superstar as Madonna and several other entertainers including, Michael Jackson, Prince, and Elvis. Madonna and Janet are socially recognized and the first and second most successful female entertainers of all time. Both artists have has their commercial peaks and declines in pop music over the years. Lets remember Jackson released Control in 1986 and since had all her albums go multi-platinum till 2001-thats over a decade of consistant commercial and critical acclaim. Madonna had her first commercial delcine with Erotica and Bedtime stories and then returned to the forefront of pop music after Ray of Light. The current status of a persons career is Irrelevant compared to their overall achievement. Is Elvis any less of a cultural icon since his death?
It doesn't matter which superstar is at the top of the article, but lets not throw stones. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Piece of Me music video by Britney Spears.jpg[edit]

The image File:Piece of Me music video by Britney Spears.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

403 Forbidden?[edit]

When this is what the majority of the refs' footnotes say, I think it's pretty clear that better sources are needed. I don't know how these are working for other people, but the last two refs weren't working for me.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

American Royalty?[edit]

Are Paul McCartney and The Rolling Stones really American Royalty? --AdamSommerton (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They've been removed now, but John Lennon is still there. Anyone else agree this group should be restricted to actual Americans? --AdamSommerton (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson[edit]

Shouldn't Michael Jackson be there with an image? I mean, he is most likely the best known Superstar in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndroidOfNotreDame (talkcontribs) 10:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Christina-Aguilera Wax Figure.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Christina-Aguilera Wax Figure.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The word *superstar* and how it's come so far.[edit]

The word *superstar* has little or no meaning, now and for some time, greater than has the word "awesome." Both are at once bloated with overuse and abrased of even superficial comparative meaning.

It seems, with a little online archival newspaper searching, that 'super-star' (as it was originally typographed) was taken up first in popular usage in many places as a sports term - the Wikipedia page announces two examples.

In the arts there was Caruso , and Charles Chaplin, and Sarah Bernhardt who would halt traffic and draw great crowds. They were not stars or superstars. They were Caruso, or Chaplin, or Bernhardt.

Bradman.

Secretariat.

As the closer to the present day show business term it was used to define the duo Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Following Cleopatra (1963) they as a marquée couple obtained astronomical fees for their film-making. It was those enormous amounts of money that were really the great stars, that is, the drawing power, of the films that were made by them beginning 1964. They were actually outside the Hollywood system, greater than the accepted international stars such as Sophia Loren, and to explain their identity the term *superstars* filtered in very quickly into the journalistic world-wide apparatus.

It became a new form of 'the highest'. One who was greater than the system. An immediate one to assume that new reality was Barbra Streisand. And then the steady very few followed.

It was not until Madonna that the new constellation was born. Beyoncé, if I am correct, being the most recent full-blown incarnation.

The Wikipedia article allows Andy Warhol the claim to the term's modern genesis. A search of http://www.warholstars.org will shift the exact baptism a little.

http://www.warholstars.org/warholfilm/andywarhol9.html ( "Warholstars Condensed... sort of ---" Page 9 )

Gerard Malanga:

"Andy loved to manipulate and control people, and his vengeance against Edie (Sedgwick)... was Ingrid Superstar. This was Ingrid's entry into the Warhol scene, brought in by Chuck Wein, who was also getting even with Edie. I came up with the name Ingrid Superstar, because you can't top that. ... Ingrid was a sweetheart, but Ingrid just totally lacked class... She was this girl from a working-class background in Jersey with a Jersey accent."

But the term *superstar* was already the Burtons' , Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. I would say that with certainty if I could find the dates.

Essentially the *superstar* is the person overwhelmingly greater than any integrated system of talent to which its gift belongs. In one other word - "awesome."


--Laurencebeck (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)