|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Oct 23, 2011 14:49:17 GMT -5
Prince is too behind the scenes in a lot of the way. He's recognizable but not as generally recognizable as someone like Mariah, even if his contributions are more.
Also, regarding the comment that the Beatles weren't original. I'm curious to know how. I honestly don't know THAT much about the Beatles however it was my understanding that even if they weren't "original", they still introduced a LOT of new and innovative ideas to mainstream music. I'm sure I could easily find some specifics in regards to their contributions that changed/affected the music world forever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2011 14:56:26 GMT -5
I think another thing that has hurt Prince is that he's seen as such a relic of the 80s. The majority of his success occurred between 1980 and the early 90s. By the late 90s he was completely irrelevant as a popular music star. He also brought some of that upon himself after he had his feud with Warner Bros. He never really released albums aimed at mainstream success again. He's remained a popular touring act, but he's not really someone who is constantly putting himself "out there" at award shows or events or anything either to keep his name in the public consciousness. His impact on pop music, and especially on R&B music, is still undeniable. You regularly hear current songs that are influenced by Prince's sound. Whether or not Prince himself is still someone mainstream audiences still seem interested in, his impact makes him a legend.
|
|
Rurry
Diamond Member
The Generalissimo
Careful, they're ruffled!
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 14,418 
|
Post by Rurry on Oct 23, 2011 15:15:25 GMT -5
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. Agreed completely. And honestly...Rihanna shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as any of these acts. She's a powerful pop culture icon at the moment, but she's far from a 'cultural legend'. I'd rank the 'big 4' above her obviously but she's also quite a distance behind The Rolling Stones, U2, Queen, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, ect, basically all of the artists that erfrank mentioned. In terms of artists who are closer to her in terms of impact (Mariah, Janet Jackson, Celine, Britney, who - sue me - I don't consider musical legends), I would put her behind all of them for the moment, but she could surpass a few of them if she maintains her success. |
|
repentyourself
6x Platinum Member
#jodisangels
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 6,629
|
Post by repentyourself on Oct 23, 2011 15:21:31 GMT -5
...what? Xtina is not above either of them at this point. |
|
Rurry
Diamond Member
The Generalissimo
Careful, they're ruffled!
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by Rurry on Oct 23, 2011 15:23:16 GMT -5
If we're looking at their entire careers I think it's reasonable to say that Christina is a little bit more of a cultural icon than Pink and Rihanna on the whole. Of course, if Christina continues to do nothing while the other two continues to flourish, they'll easily surpass her.
|
|
Luckie Starchild
Diamond Member
Has a special title
2020 PMA Lifetime Achievement Award, 2011 PMA winner and 8X nominee!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,539
|
Post by Luckie Starchild on Oct 23, 2011 15:50:29 GMT -5
...what? Xtina is not above either of them at this point. A lot of people (granted, who don't follow pop culture) don't know who Pink is... she's not a household name. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2011 16:06:45 GMT -5
If we're looking at their entire careers I think it's reasonable to say that Christina is a little bit more of a cultural icon than Pink and Rihanna on the whole. Of course, if Christina continues to do nothing while the other two continues to flourish, they'll easily surpass her. I agree that Christina has done more over the course of her 10 year career but I disagree on the "cultural icon" part. At the end of the day I don't think people really remember Christina's glory days that much. Her lengthy breaks chopped away at a great chunk of her status and now it's to the point where I think when people hear the name "Christina Aguilera" they're probably going to be like "oh she was that singer that was popular when I was a teenager". I don't think people really see her as an icon or someone who contributed enough to be remembered to be honest (even though she has done a lot). Pink has been around just as long as Christina and has held up better over time successwise I guess but she's not the type of glitzy in-your-face- popstar that Christina or Rihanna were/is so gauging her on a pop culture impact basis seems like it would be harder. |
|
leoapp
4x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 4,991
|
Post by leoapp on Oct 23, 2011 17:47:19 GMT -5
Xtina has definitely built her legendary (if not, iconic) status, especially outside US. Even during her low career, when she lacked of current hits, she's still one of the most expensive paid artists ever for private gig. I think they pay her that big just because of her voice, not really because of her amount of hits. Until now, she'll always be remembered by many people as the youngest female artists to have 'the voice', to make the best voice list, etc.
Rihanna may gain a higher status but of course in a different way, maybe because of her overall performance/charisma and the huge number of hits, not voice.
|
|
🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾
Diamond Member
Banned
I will beach both of you off at the same time!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,123
|
Post by 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 on Oct 23, 2011 18:27:12 GMT -5
Rihanna's cultural impact is extremely limited at this time. Sure, she has some good songs, but of those, only a couple of them have left an overall lasting impression that will not be forgotten. "Umbrella" and "Don't Stop The Music" are the only two I think that have really accomplished that, and even that is debatable. The significant majority of her music may be considered classic and masterpieces here at Pulse, but in the real world, she's not so highly regarded.
For all practical purposes in terms of culture, the only thing Rihanna will be really known for is the domestic violence incident with Chris Brown.
I think that if she continues to put out music that is of good quality and establishes her much more firmly will her cultural relevance increase. Her recent attempts to inject certain messages and awareness about various issues in her music videos are potentially a step in that direction. She is beginning to deviate from doing simple paint by numbers videos. But it is very obvious that she is taking a page out of Madonna's textbook for the female Pop artist in this regard. A controversy of some sort is nearly expected anytime Rihanna puts out a video (sound familiar). It's only a matter of time before she comes out with a song or video which contains imagery and/or subject matter that is so shocking and controversial (whether it be a provocative issue, violence, sex, etc.) that people may begin to question whether Rihanna has gone too far (sort of like when Madonna came out with the hypersexual trilogy of Erotica, the Sex book, and the movie Body Of Evidence). It can be argued that some of the controversy surrounding her "S&M", "Man Down", "Cheers", and "We Found Love" videos is almost parallel to that and it's already starting. If a backlash similar to what Madonna experienced after all that were to happen, I don't think Rihanna would be able to weather it and make a comeback after it all blows over in this post-internet world.
|
|
Mack
7x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by Mack on Oct 23, 2011 20:58:21 GMT -5
At the end of the day I don't think people really remember Christina's glory days that much. Her lengthy breaks chopped away at a great chunk of her status and now it's to the point where I think when people hear the name "Christina Aguilera" they're probably going to be like "oh she was that singer that was popular when I was a teenager". I don't think people really see her as an icon or someone who contributed enough to be remembered to be honest (even though she has done a lot). I disagree with this. Christina may not be the A-list musician/celebrity she was several years ago, but she's still a big star and a hugely recognizable name, even to those who weren't necessarily around when she was at her peak. She's released a handful of modern pop classics ('Genie In A Bottle', 'Beautiful', even 'What A Girl Wants'). Hell, her voice alone has netted her a place in music history. I wouldn't put her on the same level as Britney or Beyoncé, for instance, but I do think she's somewhat of an icon. |
|
Lockheart
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 4,273
|
Post by Lockheart on Oct 23, 2011 21:39:19 GMT -5
Sorry, I just had to laugh when I saw Christina and legend in the same sentence. I don't think she's legendary or iconic in any way. I think the last one was definitely Beyonce tbqh. No other act/s has achieved that. Not even GaGa. She's still currently seen as a fad and her dwindling success is not helping the case. As for Rihanna, she has not offered anything to pop music in general but a bunch of disposable but catchy hits. When I think Rihanna, nothing really pops out immediately.
|
|
Rurry
Diamond Member
The Generalissimo
Careful, they're ruffled!
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by Rurry on Oct 23, 2011 22:40:34 GMT -5
I don't think that Christina is a legend either, but denying that she is a big name who made a large impact at one point is simply being foolish. Even your average grandmother probably knows who Christina Aguilera is. I don't think the same can be said for Rihanna or Pink at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2011 22:43:27 GMT -5
At the end of the day I don't think people really remember Christina's glory days that much. Her lengthy breaks chopped away at a great chunk of her status and now it's to the point where I think when people hear the name "Christina Aguilera" they're probably going to be like "oh she was that singer that was popular when I was a teenager". I don't think people really see her as an icon or someone who contributed enough to be remembered to be honest (even though she has done a lot). I disagree with this. Christina may not be the A-list musician/celebrity she was several years ago, but she's still a big star and a hugely recognizable name, even to those who weren't necessarily around when she was at her peak. She's released a handful of modern pop classics ('Genie In A Bottle', 'Beautiful', even 'What A Girl Wants'). Hell, her voice alone has netted her a place in music history. I wouldn't put her on the same level as Britney or Beyoncé, for instance, but I do think she's somewhat of an icon. Oh I agree that she is definitely a hugely recognizable name. "Beautiful" was definitely iconic I give her that, as was the "Lady Marmalade" collab but I still think the fact that she took so many breaks and didn't really offer much besides "Stripped" over her 13-year career kind of ruined it for her. Her last 2 albums most won't remember so it's basically just the first 2 that would have any bearing to cement her as anything. I'd say the "Stripped" era has been her defining one, but it's hard to base someone's iconic status in their 13th year based off an album released 10 years ago. I just can't put her anywhere near the same lane as Beyonce or Britney who the public only recently (as in a year or 2 ago) started referring to as pop-culture icons. I don't know of any legend/icon who in over a decade of years have maybe one or so hit albums and nothing else notable to show for it for the remainder..especially when there's a blatant decline in public interest involved. Like, she's more comparable to Kelly Clarkson than Bey or Brit. That said, if Christina can manage to turn her career around after MJL, she could be onto something. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 0:14:42 GMT -5
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. 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. The salient point isn't that those albums contained twelve covers between them. It's that they also contained 16 ORIGINAL songs as well. And in 1963, a pop band writing the majority of their material on their first couple of albums was unheard of. It just wasn't done. Not until the Beatles. |
|
keepitreal
Charting
Joined: August 2010
Posts: 285
|
Post by keepitreal on Oct 24, 2011 2:16:13 GMT -5
Elvis/Beatles
Michael Jackson/ Rolling Stones/ Led Zeppelin/ Dylan
Madonna/ U2/ Springsteen /Prince
Mariah Carey/ Whitney Houston /Celine Dion /Nirvana
Britney Spears/ Janet Jackson/ Xtina
Beyonce/Eminem/ Pink/
Rihanna and the rest....
Based on acclolades, cultural impact, relevance,longevity, International recognition and industry respect.
|
|
SPRΞΞ
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2009
Posts: 22,307
|
Post by SPRΞΞ on Oct 24, 2011 2:32:45 GMT -5
Xtina above Eminem? lol, no.
|
|
repentyourself
6x Platinum Member
#jodisangels
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 6,629
|
Post by repentyourself on Oct 24, 2011 2:43:00 GMT -5
Britney Spears/ Janet Jackson/ Xtina Beyonce/Eminem/ Pink/ Rihanna and the rest.... Ch... let's keepitreal, please. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 4:24:54 GMT -5
These threads make me wince.
|
|
leoapp
4x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 4,991
|
Post by leoapp on Oct 24, 2011 6:07:49 GMT -5
When we talk about Janet. she's so underrated, her status is comparable to Mariah, Whitney and Celine but it seems that many people consider her a bit under the other 3.
Plus, there is no way, Britney & Xtina are in the same league as Janet.
|
|
MikeCheck12
Diamond Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 15,880
|
Post by MikeCheck12 on Oct 24, 2011 8:13:54 GMT -5
^ Could not agree more.
|
|
NeRD
Diamond Member
RIHANNA NAVY
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 15,302
|
Post by NeRD on Oct 24, 2011 9:21:16 GMT -5
A lot of good points being made in this thread, but a lot of delusion as well.
And I agree...P!NK is NOT a household name. Australia? Yes. But WW (US. included)? Hell no.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 9:37:39 GMT -5
HGHJAKSFYUGAS
|
|
|
|
Post by like2throw on Oct 24, 2011 13:38:34 GMT -5
I actually think Michael Jackson should be above Elvis, he was bigger, has the biggest selling album of all time, was bigger worldwide, has more notable songs, and more notable albums. Or atleast put them on the same level and the beatles number one.
As of right now I think whats holding rihanna back is that she has a lot of hits, but not ones that seem to stick, kinda like gaga has poker face, just dance, and bad romance, as her signature songs, beyonce has irreplacable, single ladies, and crazy in love. Rihanna only has one notable song, Umbrella. She doesnt have her signature album yet. She doesnt have that notable performance either. Shes kinda just a hit machine.
|
|
Rurry
Diamond Member
The Generalissimo
Careful, they're ruffled!
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by Rurry on Oct 24, 2011 15:19:07 GMT -5
HERE ON GILLIGAN'S ISLAND |
|
₫anny Jerz ♔
Diamond Member
Irrelevant
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 10,939
|
Post by ₫anny Jerz ♔ on Oct 24, 2011 17:17:35 GMT -5
If anyone actually looked closely at these rankings of 'legends/icons', you'd see that pretty much every one is also ranked by the amount of time that they've been on the scene. People put Elvis and the Beatles at the top, MJ/Madonna together, Mariah/Whitney/Celine, Beyonce/Britney/Eminem, etc. Time is the biggest issue here so naturally Rihanna has a way to go.
All of this 'legend' and 'icon' horseshit makes me cringe anyway. Everyone is so concerned with these meaningless labels. An artist's impact speaks for itself.
|
|
keepitreal
Charting
Joined: August 2010
Posts: 285
|
Post by keepitreal on Oct 24, 2011 18:53:26 GMT -5
I put Xtina above Eminim because although Eminin is talented and sells a lot of albums I rarely see his name on the "all time best lists" Maybe I miss them but I also think rap doesn't get its due neither. Xtina has had her ups and down but she's consider one of the best vocalist and manage to be on these lists. I think time does play a role because it means longevity and to be in this business after 15yrs says a lot. Janet Jackson also is underated but the music industry/media doesn't seem to help her status very much. Britney may not be the best of the best but she has made a name for herself and is still around.
|
|
|
|
Post by like2throw on Oct 24, 2011 19:15:21 GMT -5
I put Xtina above Eminim because although Eminin is talented and sells a lot of albums I rarely see his name on the "all time best lists" Maybe I miss them but I also think rap doesn't get its due neither. Xtina has had her ups and down but she's consider one of the best vocalist and manage to be on these lists. I think time does play a role because it means longevity and to be in this business after 15yrs says a lot. Janet Jackson also is underated but the music industry/media doesn't seem to help her status very much. Britney may not be the best of the best but she has made a name for herself and is still around. ???????????????????????????????????????? Eminem is more regarded than christina aguilera by a long shot....I cant even believe I have to even dispute this. Look at his sales, look at his peak years, christina is miniscule in comparison to the success that Eminem has attained. Oh, and Lose Yourself? Aint that on alot of these songs "lists" hes probably the top of the last decade, even above beyonce and britney spears |
|
Lockheart
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 4,273
|
Post by Lockheart on Oct 24, 2011 20:59:26 GMT -5
I put Xtina above Eminim because although Eminin is talented and sells a lot of albums I rarely see his name on the "all time best lists" Maybe I miss them but I also think rap doesn't get its due neither. Xtina has had her ups and down but she's consider one of the best vocalist and manage to be on these lists. I think time does play a role because it means longevity and to be in this business after 15yrs says a lot. Janet Jackson also is underated but the music industry/media doesn't seem to help her status very much. Britney may not be the best of the best but she has made a name for herself and is still around. ???????????????????????????????????????? Eminem is more regarded than christina aguilera by a long shot....I cant even believe I have to even dispute this. Look at his sales, look at his peak years, christina is miniscule in comparison to the success that Eminem has attained. Oh, and Lose Yourself? Aint that on alot of these songs "lists" hes probably the top of the last decade, even above beyonce and britney spearsI don't think so bew. Britney was the most searched and popular celebrity of the last decade. That's true fact. But bew there's no point in arguing with someone who spells it Eminim and regards Xtina as iconic |
|
|
|
Post by ingrownhairdyke on Oct 24, 2011 21:47:35 GMT -5
???????????????????????????????????????? Eminem is more regarded than christina aguilera by a long shot....I cant even believe I have to even dispute this. Look at his sales, look at his peak years, christina is miniscule in comparison to the success that Eminem has attained. Oh, and Lose Yourself? Aint that on alot of these songs "lists" hes probably the top of the last decade, even above beyonce and britney spearsI don't think so bew. Britney was the most searched and popular celebrity of the last decade. That's true fact. But bew there's no point in arguing with someone who spells it Eminim and regards Xtina as iconic Having millions of young people look up to you and have your songs performed on all these The Voice/Xfactor/American Idol shows all over the world by different people = iconic. Christina's voice alone has already made her a pop icon at least on a worldwide scale. Not to mention that people keep dismissing her and yet she's still getting paid millions constantly for all these private gigs. I'm not saying she's the biggest thing ever but to say she hasn't made an impact well that's being foolish. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 22:11:54 GMT -5
Having a bunch of hits does not make someone an icon or a legend. Olivia Newton-John had over a dozen Top 10 hits that spanned over a decade. She also had several Gold, Platinum, and multi-Platinum albums. How often do you hear people talking about how legendary and iconic she is? Where is she on this list? Connie Francis ranks among the top female artists in terms of Hot 100 entries. Another icon and legend?
|
|
