Generational Relevance?
Cosmo
9,768 Posts
Meaning, what artists out there have stayed somewhat relevant over the course of several generations? Of course taste will come into play, and this will probably open up a whole can of worms, but you know it seems that it's so few and far between that artists will actually be able to have a career in music, and thrive, while still pushing boundaries and maintaing a sense of "being hip" or something like that.I'll start it out, because these are a few artists that I've listened to in the past few days that I've thought are still thorough and maybe "got it" - albeit in a different sense than when they first started or during the apex of their careers:The Isley Brothers (6 decades, damn.)Prince (He's had his low points but still to this day he'll get on stage and kill it.)David Bowie (Again like Prince, but I watched a Bowie performance and from last year and he has come into a maturity with his art and music that's incredibly admirable by me.)Who else you got? If this is a stupid topic please disregard, but you know being someone who lives off music, a lifelong career and how to do it is never far off of my mind.
Comments
Marvin Gaye (yeah, I think I can get down with Sanctified Lady)
LL Cool J
I almost said Stones in the first post but didn't but yes of course, like them or not, I think that they hold up to a standard of generational relevance that I'm talking.
70's & 80's, definitely crossed a couple of generations, but not on the level of the Isley Brothers.
I doubt many kids are listening to Prince these days, but he's still doing good things. I don't think he was very "relevant" after the mid nineties w/ Pussy Control/Pheromone, if one equates relevance with reaching new generations of listeners.
He has a young-ish indie-rock following that knows all about his solo and Big Star recordings, but isn't too hip to his earlier Box Tops records.
I don't know about the Pointers either. Yeah, they had a good two decades (or so) of hits, but they don't seem to be influential.
Also Quincy Jones was going strong for a long ass time. Maybe not so much anymore... at least that I've heard of anyways.
And there was a banner ad up there advertising a new Tupac album. You have to hand it to a dude that put out more albums dead than he did while he was alive. (no sarcasm either).
Ergo, and his music has never been my thing, but I would say Paul McCartney. I prefer John, but he's still a major figure, and making new contributions.
I really don't think "the kids" are checking much these days. ::OLD MAN::
B/W
""Heroes"" is the shit.
The kids are too busy partying like rockstars???
Another one I'm thinking could be is actually Madonna. She's still dropping records and her original fan's children worship her.
good one.
Randy Newman, on a smaller scale, but his film work adds a notch, imo.
You think? I'm not too sure about that one only because I don't recall her output after the 70's-early 80's?
She moved into Adult Contemporary territory which may be why she fell off our radars (she's done a lot of soundtrack and political work too), but I think her songwriting will carry her for a long time; people will cover her songs forever. I am sure many will disagree with this choice.
These are the only two lounge-lizard types that the rock crowd has ever really paid attention to. Al Martino (to name somebody else in the same genre) doesn't have that kind of mystique.
Tom Waits