Where is Rihanna's cultural rank?

Like I stated in that Hot 100 thread, amount of No. 1s has nothing to do with cultural importance or anything of the sort. The acts with a lot of No. 1s who are far and away in a league of their own, culturally, are The Beatles, Elvis, Michael Jackson and Madonna. They are the "Fab Four" of the pop world, if you will. No amount of No.1s that anyone else attains will change that, because what they did in their work assured and clinched their greatness and importance.

Rihanna, not really having a hand in anything that she does in terms of the music, likely will keep racking up the hits, as long as her label is on the ball. She's not held in the same regard as a Janet Jackson, Whitney Houston or even Mimi Carey. Same goes for males- like she's anything close to Stevie Wonder or Elton John, in any capacity? The notion is preposterous.

And let's not forget the acts regarded as the best of all time, who have little to no No. 1s on the Hot 100.

In other words, RiRi's all-time "cultural" rank shouldn't really be much of a discussion. :)

^Oh, no worries. But, if you don't like their status, take it up with all of the outlets that have given them their high praise. :) Both MJ and Madonna have enjoyed a lot of critical accolades, so it's not like their other assets alone are what brought them their status. Madonna achieved her importance partly by tackling a myriad of cultural issues in her work, which The Beatles did not. But just because she did that, that doesn't negate that her music also is well regarded. Not as much as The Beatles or even Elvis, I give you that- but it's the combination of things that put her and MJ right up there.

I myself group them together not because I'm a fan (though I am of all four), but because it's a band, solo male rock (who also did other genres, though), male pop and female pop- for their genres, they plain and simple are the tops and regarded as the best. Then of course we have Aretha Franklin as the Queen of Soul, and other great, historically important acts whose work has made them music royalty in their own right. Back to the topic at hand- their status has little to do with the charts and commercial success.

This is all subjective.

Rihanna will NOT be in the same league as the artists she eclipses in #1s etc. for a very long time. She has only been around for six years. Those artists have been around for decades. Cultural impact comes with time and consistency. So far Rihanna has arguably had more consistency than any of her other Pop contemporaries so all she needs to do is maintain it and she's there.

Interesting discussion although something tells me most of it will have nothing to do with Rihanna... I enjoy Rihanna songs very much and I accept she's having crazy chart success. Significant cultural repercussions.... as far as I know, not much yet. In her age bracket, that would have to go without a doubt to Gaga. I'm sure teenage Rihanna fans would get so upset and say she's the biggest goddess of all, etc, etc and that they hate Gaga, etc, etc. I don't care. Facts are facts. I like Rihanna, but there are some things that are pointless to argue.

And yes, commercial or chart success does not equal cultural lasting impact. It equals sometimes simply commercial success. For example as talented and successful Mariah is, she is never listed in any Top 10 list of the top entertainers/artists of all time. Not even Top 50 to be honest. I'm not kidding. I've seen this in so many publications from so many different countries throughout the year and they all ignore Mariah. There must be a reason behind. I think it's a group of factors that do the trick and it's hard to determine the perfect mix.

NOW regarding what HolidayGuy said, I really liked his post. I'm a huge Madonna fan, an ok Michael fan, I respect the Beatles so much (and are currently exploring their music album by album and LOVING IT!), and Elvis does not do much to me, but I like some of his songs. I initially agreed with grouping the 4 of them as the biggest ones. Then I read Strikeleo's post and found it also very interesting. I think they all deserve to be listed together, not because they impacted culture exactly the same way in the same aspects. NO. They all did it differently. I agree on how different the Beatles' impact was to Madonna's although I would say that in some areas of impact they had some points in common. But NO, Madonna's music is nowhere close as significant as the Beatles'... and that is coming from a huge Madonna fan since 1985... myself. Madonna impacted culture in so many other ways and not necessarily only because her music. I would still have these 4 entertainers/artists in the Top 4, but it all depends on what aspects you're analyzing. I'm thinking about total impact in culture.

I just now started waiting for the lambs to get up in arms and crucify me for what I've said about their diva, ha, ha. Don't worry, lambs, I accept Mariah is WAY WAY ahead in the cultural impact ladder than Rihanna. I was not putting them on the same level. Calm down.

Ok, somehow I ended up the post talking about Rihanna...

Probably something like this: (Only mainstream acts)

Beatles, Elvis
MJ, Madonna

Mariah, Celine, Whitney, Janet



Britney, Beyonce, Eminem, Usher, Alicia Keys

Xtina


Pink



Rihanna

She's definitely on her way to gain bigger status

Their first 2 albums contained TWELVE covers. What I'm trying to say is it's far too early to be talking about Rihanna's cultural (or even musical) impact in the years to come. Obviously if I was a betting man I'd say she will come way down the list on account of her being a bit of a hit making puppet (which isn't to say the songs she sings aren't great pop because they are). Maybe if we ever see an album that she alone has conceptualised and written we would be in a better position to judge.

at this rate it will never happen until people forget about her and da hits, which she is pumping out at an excessive rate.

The Beatles
Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley
Madonna

Michael & Madonna made unquestionably massive impact - in style, videos, performance AND certainly music. Just about every single current pop (and lots of hip hop, rock, etc.) artist would cite either one/both as their #1/major influence.

Mariah/Whitney/Janet/Britney/Beyonce/Usher/Rihanna etc don't have anything on Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, James Brown, Stevie Wonder, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, David Bowie, The Beach Boys, Queen etc. That's insulting.

I think the Beatles are in their own group as far as what they've achieved for mainstream music in pretty much every way. Their chart achievements, music abilities and what they did put them far ahead the nearest "competitor", even Elvis. Of course, Elvis achieved many things that pushed many boundaries as well and his name is synonymous with the cultural impact that he's had. I really doubt many place Madonna and Michael Jackson on the same pedestal as those two.

HOWEVER, Madonna and MJ are still relatively recent to the music scene and their impact it felt in a more current basis than both Elvis and the Beatles. What they've achieved is certainly nothing to be sneezed at and I think when comparing anyone to those two, many still have a lot of ground to make up for. So I feel like when people group the Beatles, Elvis, MJ and Madonna in the same group, they aren't doing so because the four of them are equal in terms of impact on pop culture and music culture, they are doing so because those four are the ones that have done so much in their own individual ways that the nearest competitors are still far away.

You may think it's offensive to link Madonna/MJ to the Beatles but I think it's offensive to link Whitney, Celine, U2 and Mariah in with Madonna and MJ.
Not because I dislike the addition of those four. This isn't about my personal taste. This is about my opinion as to their achievements and contributions to pop culture on their behalf. I think U2 are a very influential band that have achieved a lot. However, I wouldn't place them ahead of Springsteen, Dylan or the Stones as far as what they've done for the good of music as an art and an industry. Whitney, Celine and Mariah have carried the torch but have rarely been leaders/originators in their areas as far as creativity and innovation is concerned.

Of course, it's hard to measure culture aspect of a pop singer, especially a present-day one. I think Rihanna is still pretty new in comparison to most of the names mentioned here and it's only fairly recently that I would even consider mentioning Britney Spears in amongst a lot of the names here in this context as far as cultural significance is concerned.

You can't pit Rihanna up against people who have been in the industry for decades longer than her, whether she has as many or more #1s than them or not. Most of these artists were around since before she was born. They've had a way longer time to build up a legacy. It took many of these artists YEARS to be seen in the light they are now. Madonna really achieved the level of respect she has now around the time she put out Ray of Light. Mariah has really never received widespread acclaim, but she definitely started receiving more overall appreciation after her Emancipation of Mimi comeback. For both Mariah and Madonna, that occurred about a decade and a half into their career. Michael Jackson reached that iconic level with Thriller, almost a decade and a half into his career. Rihanna has not reached any kind of iconic status in her 6 years in the music industry, but that's not to say if she's still around in a decade or even 5 more years, that she won't be viewed differently than she is now. She's certainly come a long way in a short time.

Cool story bro. Too bad he didn't put Madonna and the Beatles on the same level. What he meant is whether you like it or not when it comes to the most successful, famous, and influential recording acts of all time it's the Beatles, MJ, Madonna, and Elvis and then everyone else.

The Beatles used collaborators just like everyone else, and their music was not original.

Once again, jazzy came to win. Perfect post.

I just don't see Rihanna reaching legendary status. Iconic, perhaps, she'll have a TON of hits by the time she's wrapping up. But she hasn't broken any ground, doesn't sing particularly well, doesn't dance particularly well, doesn't write or produce. Her songs are great pop songs.

Celine, Mariah & Whitney could sing their @$$es off, Janet was an amazing performer, Madonna was stunningly groundbreaking, MJ was s phenomenal singer/performer and he wrote. Britney gave some major performances. Etc, etc. I won't get in to the rock bands/artists since we don't seem to be comparing Rihanna to them. I think her name will live on, it's hard to ignore this many hits. But I don't know what would give Rihanna legendary status besides a really successful career.

For what I see, most of it looks ok, but there's no way Prince will be on the same category with Mariah. Prince is on a higher level in cultural impact.

I'm sure some people will complain about Mariah being on the same category with Whitney with the usual "she writes and produces" thing. We're talking about cultural impact here, not if you write or produce. Anybody can write and produce crap and not for that they're cultural icons. Not that Mariah writes and produces crap, but it's nowhere close to the respected real writing giants in pop and rock history.