Hacker News Reader

Comment by danans | Hacker News Reader

To me, apart from her amazing music and philanthropy, what Dolly Parton represents is something that was (emphasis on past tense) at one time truly exceptional about the United States - that someone from a very humble background (poverty in East TN) could have a tremendous impact on the culture of the world - the other example in entertainment being Michael Jackson (from Gary IN).

Admittedly the US music industry was among the few where this phenomenon happened, although definitionally very few reach pop stardom.

In contrast, much of the world exports only its "elite culture", not the culture of common people.

View on HN

Don’t you still see this with hip-hop to some extent?

I also think a lot of the difference is that a much smaller percentage of the population grows up as poor as she did. A person from a similar wealth/income percentile today mightn’t seem to have had such a difficult start.

Obviously lots of other things are different today – it’s easier than ever to access a wide variety of music but that’s not what people tend to do (iirc); there’s less money to be made selling music; there’s perhaps less interest in more ‘rural’ genres of music.

> Don’t you still see this with hip-hop to some extent?

To some extent yes, but I suspect that is declining also as the genre becomes corporatized.

becomes? i think that happened like 15 years ago...

Sure, I was being charitable

Your contention is what, that now this is no longer possible or less likely?

Less likely, for many reasons - including the more crowded marketplace for talent, but also a culture that is more corporation generated over time.

I disagree strongly, I think we are even better at identifying talent in the margins today and the leaps are potentially larger.

this is counterbalanced by somewhat talented products of nepotism getting in, like Stella Lefty

i have no idea who that is but also i was talking about society writ large, not just music.

> more crowded marketplace for talent

That is “the people” isn’t it? It is the consequence of democratization and openness.

I am not sure if superstars were good representatives of what most people wanted. Often, I am sorry to say, it was the lowest common denominator. Now common people can actually enter the arena and represent their corner of the population.

But, almost by definition, if you are part of “the people”, you don’t get to stand out much.

See also Britney Spears, who's mom ran a small daycare. Taylor Swift's an in between story, middle class financial services parents, hard to say if they were paycheck to paycheck or not...

Its not necessarily the best thing that big companies have a business model of taking advantage of poor, or relatively poorer, people, particularly attractive young women. See our global Epstein class and global Weinstein class.

Taylor Swift's parents spent 1 Mil+ on her career. I wouldn't call that middle class.

I might give it to them still if they were fully leveraged.

Calling Swift middle class and that they were possibly paycheck to paycheck is laughable.

Her father had a huge role to play in her success with his business deals and would largely be considered upper middle class if not higher. If anything, Taylor’s story reinforces the idea that families with wealth offer easier paths in life for their children.

I'm from Pennsylvania and a proverbial stone's throw from where Taylor Swift is also from. Trust me when I tell you that there's nothing "middle class" about her. Her parents are wealthy and this gave her a big boost into the entertainment industry, with lots of expensive coaching, music lessons, and trips to Nashville.

IIRC he worked for a large financial services company (Merrill Lynch?) and was able to transfer to the Nashville office so that Taylor could be closer to the music scene.

No offense, but "the idea that families with wealth offer easier paths in life for their children" - like isn't this obviously the case?

The amazing thing about America is that there are paths for those not as wealthy, but of course they are harder, as much as we might not want them to be... no?

> The amazing thing about America is that there are paths for those not as wealthy

The US is not special in that regard, and in fact not even particularly good at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index

The thread is about Taylor Swift, arguably the most successful music entertainer of all time. The parents with upper|middle class gave a boost, but you absolutely cannot buy this level of stardom and hasn't been replicated anywhere that I know of.

America is 100% the place to be rich or poor, if this really is your goal, from Dolly to Jackson or Swift.

> hasn't been replicated anywhere that I know of.

Did you hear about this little band called the Beatles?

> isn't this obviously the case?

It is, but people often act like it isn't and everybody has an equal chance. Therefore it is necessary to frequently restate the obvious.

"equal chance"

Nobody is claiming this or ever should. The claim is that there is real proof of "success" from dirt poor to middle|upper class with these music entertainer examples. Nothing ever will be equal chance, and that shouldn't really be the goal [depending on how it's defined and implemented].

> Its not necessarily the best thing that big companies have a business model of taking advantage of poor, or relatively poorer, people, particularly attractive young women. See our global Epstein class and global Weinstein class.

I agree. But are those kinds of abuse a requirement of a system that raises the voices of poorer people, or is it that we have permitted them?

I don't know if Taylor Swift endured similar hardship in her rise, but if she didn't as other replies have suggested, she's an example of how the system should treat those who are less privileged than she was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com