Where is Rihanna's cultural rank?

[SPRΞΞ]

Let's assume she gets to #1 with We Found Love. That would tie her with Whitney Houston, and put her beyond Janet Jackson, only 1 away from Madonna and the Supremes.

is she equal with them? Where does she culturally rank?

All things considered...chart statistics, legacy, importance to music history, stage presence, ability to sell out tours, voice, message, fashion, controversy, and everything else...

where would you place Rihanna in terms of the best there ever was?

i'm talking male and female, not just divas.

[HolidayGuy]

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. :)

[strikeleo]

Oct 22, 2011 8:51:24 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

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. :)

Please, don't group Madonna and Michael Jackson with The Beatles and Elvis Presley. That's offensive. Especially since The Beatles represented exactly the contrary of what Madonna does.
The Beatles were all about songwriting, producing their tracks and all that, and their impact was more on that level, it brought to light those skills, rather than dancing.
Madonna and Michael were great, but their impact was more on a performer level than on an artist level, you know? I know you're a fan of Madonna so you'll try to group her with the big talents, but don't, it's offensive, especially since no way in hell did Madonna impact the world in a positive light like The Beatles did.
Sorry for going off on you, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.

[HolidayGuy]

^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.

[strikeleo]

Oct 22, 2011 9:16:52 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

^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.

I totally understand you, but it's sort of like grouping Britney Spears and Adele together, you know? Yeah, I tried to be current there, so, I hope you get what I'm saying.
The Beatles were more about songwriting, writing about love, and just sort of producing their own tracks, which is a lot more in line with singers like Bob Dylan, or even Mariah Carey. They represented something different than say Madonna and Michael Jackson, and their cultural impact was on a whole different level too.
Madonna and Michael Jackson brought to light dance music, great performances, but neither of them is that well-regarded when it comes to songwriting. Both of them, especially Madonna, pushed the boundaries on how the pop world should work, but what they did was exactly the contrary of what bands like The Beatles did. It's because of The Beatles that we have these singer-songwriters nowadays, and it's because of Madonna and Jackson that we have those great performers nowadays.
I should also mention they are in now way on the same level, The Beatles' and Elvis Presley's cultural impact just don't compare to Madonna's and Michael's.

[NeRD]

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.

[HolidayGuy]

I hear what you're saying, strike, and I don't necessarily disagree. But you shouldn't "shortchange" MJ and Madonna in terms of the music- both fare very well when outlets do best-of/greatest features; Madonna more on a widespread level, as MJ's solo critical success is mostly confined to Off the Wall and Thriller. Both were co-writers/co-producers of their work, too. Madonna did use music as a stepping stone to her larger cultural assault, but she would not have become what she did if the music was not strong.

BTW- aside from all of the critical success, note that the founding members of the now-defunct UK Music Hall of Fame were Elvis, The Beatles, Bob Marley, Madonna and U2. And Elvis, Beatles, Madonna and U2 were first-year-eligible inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I'm just sayin'.

Back to Rihanna- as of now, I don't see her enjoying the same level of reverence that those four acts have enjoyed. She has many many years to go, so, really, any talk is very premature as it is.

[Carlitoz]

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...

[MiniMusic]

Oct 22, 2011 9:27:25 GMT -5 strikeleo said:

Oct 22, 2011 9:16:52 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

^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.

I totally understand you, but it's sort of like grouping Britney Spears and Adele together, you know? Yeah, I tried to be current there, so, I hope you get what I'm saying.
The Beatles were more about songwriting, writing about love, and just sort of producing their own tracks, which is a lot more in line with singers like Bob Dylan, or even Mariah Carey. They represented something different than say Madonna and Michael Jackson, and their cultural impact was on a whole different level too.
Madonna and Michael Jackson brought to light dance music, great performances, but neither of them is that well-regarded when it comes to songwriting. Both of them, especially Madonna, pushed the boundaries on how the pop world should work, but what they did was exactly the contrary of what bands like The Beatles did. It's because of The Beatles that we have these singer-songwriters nowadays, and it's because of Madonna and Jackson that we have those great performers nowadays.
I should also mention they are in now way on the same level, The Beatles' and Elvis Presley's cultural impact just don't compare to Madonna's and Michael's.

Uhhhh. I'm going to assume you haven't even heard a Michael Jackson album. His production and writing talents go way beyond the Beatles. Have you ever heard his songs like "Little Susie" or "Who Is It" or "Heal the World" or "Earth Song" etc. I can go on and on- he was beyond talented. And he wrote and produced many of his tracks by himself.

[leoapp]

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

[MiniMusic]

Oct 22, 2011 9:58:33 GMT -5 leoapp said:

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

fixed tbh

[tonytaylor]

Oct 22, 2011 9:09:21 GMT -5 strikeleo said:

Oct 22, 2011 8:51:24 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

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. :)

Please, don't group Madonna and Michael Jackson with The Beatles and Elvis Presley. That's offensive. Especially since The Beatles represented exactly the contrary of what Madonna does.
The Beatles were all about songwriting, producing their tracks and all that, and their impact was more on that level, it brought to light those skills, rather than dancing.
Madonna and Michael were great, but their impact was more on a performer level than on an artist level, you know? I know you're a fan of Madonna so you'll try to group her with the big talents, but don't, it's offensive, especially since no way in hell did Madonna impact the world in a positive light like The Beatles did.
Sorry for going off on you, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.

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.

[Scotty]

I think someone needs to calm down a little. When we group Michael Jackson, Madonna, The Beatles, and Elvis Presley together, we are talking about how influential they were in their respective genres. We're not suggesting anything other than that. To be perfectly blunt, Michael Jackson and The Beatles were both incredible acts (I prefer the Beatles infinitely, but that is WAY besides the point), but I'm completely sure you will never convince whoever you're arguing with that his or her fav is worse than yours. I'm just saying.

Please, don't group Madonna and Michael Jackson with The Beatles and Elvis Presley. That's offensive. Especially since The Beatles represented exactly the contrary of what Madonna does.
The Beatles were all about songwriting, producing their tracks and all that, and their impact was more on that level, it brought to light those skills, rather than dancing.
Madonna and Michael were great, but their impact was more on a performer level than on an artist level, you know? I know you're a fan of Madonna so you'll try to group her with the big talents, but don't, it's offensive, especially since no way in hell did Madonna impact the world in a positive light like The Beatles did.
Sorry for going off on you, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.

I find it offensive that you're trying to impose such an ignorant view on which art form is more important than the other. I just want you to think about what you just said and how hard dancers and performers work for their art, sometimes to the point where they get very sick and physically drained (and then STILL dance to captivate their audience), and then come back to us and tell us that dancing and performance is not equally as important an art as songwriting is. If you can't understand that, then you obviously don't have a lot of place in this conversation.

Michael Jackson and Madonna have undeniably influenced the genre of pop music in ways you probably don't understand in the capacity to see why we choose to group them with The Beatles.

[like2throw]

Oct 22, 2011 10:10:50 GMT -5 tonytaylor said:

Oct 22, 2011 9:09:21 GMT -5 strikeleo said:

Please, don't group Madonna and Michael Jackson with The Beatles and Elvis Presley. That's offensive. Especially since The Beatles represented exactly the contrary of what Madonna does.
The Beatles were all about songwriting, producing their tracks and all that, and their impact was more on that level, it brought to light those skills, rather than dancing.
Madonna and Michael were great, but their impact was more on a performer level than on an artist level, you know? I know you're a fan of Madonna so you'll try to group her with the big talents, but don't, it's offensive, especially since no way in hell did Madonna impact the world in a positive light like The Beatles did.
Sorry for going off on you, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.

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.

[strikeleo]

Oct 22, 2011 11:04:06 GMT -5 Scotty said:

I think someone needs to calm down a little. When we group Michael Jackson, Madonna, The Beatles, and Elvis Presley together, we are talking about how influential they were in their respective genres. We're not suggesting anything other than that. To be perfectly blunt, Michael Jackson and The Beatles were both incredible acts (I prefer the Beatles infinitely, but that is WAY besides the point), but I'm completely sure you will never convince whoever you're arguing with that his or her fav is worse than yours. I'm just saying.

Please, don't group Madonna and Michael Jackson with The Beatles and Elvis Presley. That's offensive. Especially since The Beatles represented exactly the contrary of what Madonna does.
The Beatles were all about songwriting, producing their tracks and all that, and their impact was more on that level, it brought to light those skills, rather than dancing.
Madonna and Michael were great, but their impact was more on a performer level than on an artist level, you know? I know you're a fan of Madonna so you'll try to group her with the big talents, but don't, it's offensive, especially since no way in hell did Madonna impact the world in a positive light like The Beatles did.
Sorry for going off on you, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.

I find it offensive that you're trying to impose such an ignorant view on which art form is more important than the other. I just want you to think about what you just said and how hard dancers and performers work for their art, sometimes to the point where they get very sick and physically drained (and then STILL dance to captivate their audience), and then come back to us and tell us that dancing and performance is not equally as important an art as songwriting is. If you can't understand that, then you obviously don't have a lot of place in this conversation.

Michael Jackson and Madonna have undeniably influenced the genre of pop music in ways you probably don't understand in the capacity to see why we choose to group them with The Beatles.

You see, that's the thing though, no one is saying that dancing isn't important, just that the Beatles is on a whole other level than Madonna and MJ, and that they also impacted in a much different (and bigger) way than the latter ever did, so, to compare them or group them is sort of like putting one of the greatest band of all time together with great singers - but not anywhere near the greatest.

You should also note that music is a form of art, and while dancing is great, it doesn't necessarily belong in music. So, yeah, while one did more to music itself and the other did more to performing skills, they are not necessarily comparable or even on the same level.
Like I said, I like Madonna and Michael Jackson fine, but The Beatles influenced the whole world on a whole other level, and to me, it sounds offensive when people group them together because it's like comparing something that CHANGED the world, to something that influenced it, but didn't come close to changing it, you know???

I also hope I didn't come off as offensive in this, because it was definitely not my intention, It's a silly pet peeve of mine.

The Beatles and Elvis Presley





Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2, Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey



Britney Spears, Beyoncé, Rihanna and the likes...


(Part of it is because I really don't see many layers of impacting, like, Michael Jackson did loads to music and performing, but Whitney and the likes did loads to music and singing, brought back the light to singing, so yeah, sure MJ's impact was huge, but I think it's up to par with Whitney's.)

[when the pawn...]

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.

[#LisaRinna]

Oct 22, 2011 9:41:27 GMT -5 Carlitoz said:

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.

I don't think impact can be measured going only by critics lists either. After all, it still is their own opinion. And opinions are not always fair.
There are publications who review Mariah's work not even concentrating on the music itself (which there is a lot to discuss since she writes and produces her material), but on her personal life which I think is pathetic. So when you read their reviews they're all like "Mariah's life is turbolent and dramatic and bla bla bla" and then 2 lines that describe the album itself full of back-handed compliments and have done so for pretty much her entire career.
I'm not trying to make a case specifically for her, but you did mention her, so I'm sorry if I'm just talking about her. I am sure that also happens with other acts as well and it's sad.

And for me, Mariah Carey has accomplished so much in her career and surely her hits are a part of what she'll be remembered for, but not the only part hopefully. I hope her talents and her ability to make music that resonates with many people across countries and cultures will be what she'll be remembered for.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

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.

[God]

Above everybody else and under Me.

[Deleted]

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.

[MikeCheck12]

Apples vs. Oranges

[PDC1987]

Oct 22, 2011 9:09:21 GMT -5 strikeleo said:

Oct 22, 2011 8:51:24 GMT -5 HolidayGuy said:

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. :)

Please, don't group Madonna and Michael Jackson with The Beatles and Elvis Presley. That's offensive. Especially since The Beatles represented exactly the contrary of what Madonna does.
The Beatles were all about songwriting, producing their tracks and all that, and their impact was more on that level, it brought to light those skills, rather than dancing.
Madonna and Michael were great, but their impact was more on a performer level than on an artist level, you know? I know you're a fan of Madonna so you'll try to group her with the big talents, but don't, it's offensive, especially since no way in hell did Madonna impact the world in a positive light like The Beatles did.
Sorry for going off on you, but that's just a pet peeve of mine.

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.

[PDC1987]

Oct 22, 2011 12:24:48 GMT -5 strikeleo said:

Oct 22, 2011 11:04:06 GMT -5 Scotty said:

I think someone needs to calm down a little. When we group Michael Jackson, Madonna, The Beatles, and Elvis Presley together, we are talking about how influential they were in their respective genres. We're not suggesting anything other than that. To be perfectly blunt, Michael Jackson and The Beatles were both incredible acts (I prefer the Beatles infinitely, but that is WAY besides the point), but I'm completely sure you will never convince whoever you're arguing with that his or her fav is worse than yours. I'm just saying.


I find it offensive that you're trying to impose such an ignorant view on which art form is more important than the other. I just want you to think about what you just said and how hard dancers and performers work for their art, sometimes to the point where they get very sick and physically drained (and then STILL dance to captivate their audience), and then come back to us and tell us that dancing and performance is not equally as important an art as songwriting is. If you can't understand that, then you obviously don't have a lot of place in this conversation.

Michael Jackson and Madonna have undeniably influenced the genre of pop music in ways you probably don't understand in the capacity to see why we choose to group them with The Beatles.

You see, that's the thing though, no one is saying that dancing isn't important, just that the Beatles is on a whole other level than Madonna and MJ, and that they also impacted in a much different (and bigger) way than the latter ever did, so, to compare them or group them is sort of like putting one of the greatest band of all time together with great singers - but not anywhere near the greatest.

You should also note that music is a form of art, and while dancing is great, it doesn't necessarily belong in music. So, yeah, while one did more to music itself and the other did more to performing skills, they are not necessarily comparable or even on the same level.
Like I said, I like Madonna and Michael Jackson fine, but The Beatles influenced the whole world on a whole other level, and to me, it sounds offensive when people group them together because it's like comparing something that CHANGED the world, to something that influenced it, but didn't come close to changing it, you know???

I also hope I didn't come off as offensive in this, because it was definitely not my intention, It's a silly pet peeve of mine.

The Beatles and Elvis Presley





Madonna, Michael Jackson, U2, Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey



Britney Spears, Beyoncé, Rihanna and the likes...


(Part of it is because I really don't see many layers of impacting, like, Michael Jackson did loads to music and performing, but Whitney and the likes did loads to music and singing, brought back the light to singing, so yeah, sure MJ's impact was huge, but I think it's up to par with Whitney's.)

I really can't grasp nonsense like this.

So Madonna and MJ aren't above the likes of Celine and Whitney?

I just flat-lined.

[Deleted]

Oct 22, 2011 16:02:28 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

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.

Once again, jazzy came to win. Perfect post.

[like2throw]

I actually thinking

Elvis/Beatles

Michael Jackson/ Rolling Stones/ Led Zeppelin/ Dylan

Madonna/ U2/ Springsteen

Mariah Carey/ Prince/ Whitney Houston / Nirvana

Britney Spears/ Beyonce/ Celine Dion/ Janet Jackson/ Eminem

In terms of tiers and s**t.

[when the pawn...]

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.

[Deleted]

Well she will be considered legendary if she sustains her success 10-15 years from now and if her songs are still big. That would basically be a 20+ year long career and there's little doubt that she would be considered a chart legend if it continues even if there's no iconic moments besides "Umbrella". The question is will she actually be able to do that?

That seems like a huge stretch and it's impossible to say because as of rn, the only people we've actually seen prove that is Madonna/MJ/Janet.

I just don't think it would be wise to just count Rihanna out, especially since 90% of the world (including myself) probably did that when PDR came out. It's hard to compare her to some of her peers because I don't think we've ever seen an act who continuously grows and develops while still enjoying sizable success. It's not like a Gaga-like situation where you fear that they won't be able to top themselves either success-wise or creativity wise. I think most people/fans still believe the best is yet to come from Rih and she's almost on her 7th year.

[Carlitoz]

Oct 22, 2011 22:59:32 GMT -5 like2throw said:

I actually thinking

Elvis/Beatles

Michael Jackson/ Rolling Stones/ Led Zeppelin/ Dylan

Madonna/ U2/ Springsteen

Mariah Carey/ Prince/ Whitney Houston / Nirvana

Britney Spears/ Beyonce/ Celine Dion/ Janet Jackson/ Eminem

In terms of tiers and s**t.

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.

[#LisaRinna]

I think a more interesting would be about Prince. Why isn't he mentioned with those 4 acts on the highest level?
He's received tons of praise throughout his career and has had an impact with his sound on many artists..

[Lowe]

Oct 23, 2011 11:09:58 GMT -5 #LisaRinna said:

I think a more interesting would be about Prince. Why isn't he mentioned with those 4 acts on the highest level?
He's received tons of praise throughout his career and has had an impact with his sound on many artists..

I agree. Prince does seem to be "forgotten" a lot in the scheme of things. Thats an interesting discussion.