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.
Oh, I definitely agree as a songwriter her songs will live on well past her career, I was just wondering how she as an artist has maintained relevance with her current output.
This is a good thread and I've asked myself these same questions in regards to my own music. It's a fine line between doing what you're known for, branching out into new territories and still being able to connect with the constantly changing tastes and ages of your audience.
He was one that came to mind when I saw that Neil Young pic.
A lot of dead people come to mind like Jerry Garcia, The Doors (jim) and Bob Marley..in a sense of being cool and relevant through years and generations.
What about Santana? Aerosmith? not really a fan but they've been around for a long time too, so has Blondie...I dont know if any of them are popular but they are still making music.
Hell, what about the Beatles..is Paul still relevant?
There's a difference between the "staying hip" kind of relevance and actually reinventing yourself and/or adapting to the changing musical landscape. Which one is this thread really about?
I think Prince belongs in the former category more than the latter, because he kind of just does what he does better than anyone else, but, with the exception of his dabbling in hip hop (which I never thought he did very successfully anyway), he kind of exists in his own sphere of influence that doesn't seem to draw from whatever is going on in music right now. I think even more obvious candidates for this category are the Ramones, AC-DC, Slayer, etc. (i.e. bands that carved out a narrow niche sound and basically stuck with it til the end).
Of the artists mentioned so far, I would strongly cosign on the Isleys, Bowie, Marvin, Stevie and Willie for the adapting/reinventing yourself category and would add:
Of the artists mentioned so far, I would strongly cosign on the Isleys, Bowie, Marvin, Stevie and Willie for the adapting/reinventing yourself category and would add:
Lucinda Williams
For some reason, Lucinda seems a little too current to be in the Old Masters category. Even though her first album came out 27 years ago, I don't remember her really catching on till well into the nineties, so she still seems kinda recent compared to Bowie, Marvin, etc..
Of the artists mentioned so far, I would strongly cosign on the Isleys, Bowie, Marvin, Stevie and Willie for the adapting/reinventing yourself category and would add:
Lucinda Williams
For some reason, Lucinda seems a little too current to be in the Old Masters category. Even though her first album came out 27 years ago, I don't remember her really catching on till well into the nineties, so she still seems kinda recent compared to Bowie, Marvin, etc..
There's a difference between the "staying hip" kind of relevance and actually reinventing yourself and/or adapting to the changing musical landscape. Which one is this thread really about?
Good question. It seems like this thread has become about something else.
If we're talking "staying hip" then Santana, who Just Alice mentioned, is a good example. If we're talking people who have navigated their careers or re-invented themselves like Madonna or Herbie Hancock that's another thing. Now, if we're talking about people who were once famous/popular/influential who are still working in some capacity, you can throw a dart at the musical map. I think this is where the thread has diverged.
Brian Eno was definitely influential, but does his career have generational relevance? I guess it could be argued that his ideas live on in some form or another in current artists, but if the dude is now making music for movies and playing with Belinda Carlisle is he truly relevant?
Just a thought.
Maybe we need to define what we're talking about here?
Though he isn't a solo artist (or at least wasn't while in his prime), I think Tony Allen (Fela's drummer) fits this description. His more recent projects (Psycho on the Bus, the Black Voices lp) have been rather forward thinking ... breaking down afrobeat to the bare essentials. I saw him perform a couple of times at the Knitting Factory and was blown away by how a single drummer could hold it down like he does.
As far as Ray Charles goes (Spanky Illson was wondering why his name hadn't turned up in this thread yet)...everybody seems to agree that he was in his creative prime in the '50s and '60s. But it stopped there. God love him, he was basically a period piece from the seventies onward. He didn't reinvent himself or anything that would make him current for a new generation - he just basically was what he was and kept doing his thing until he died.
Which was good. But no one is gonna call his 1980's country LP's or his duet album with Cleo Laine (doing songs from Porgy & Bess) as groundbreaking as "What'd I Say."
Brian Eno was definitely influential, but does his career have generational relevance? I guess it could be argued that his ideas live on in some form or another in current artists, but if the dude is now making music for movies and playing with Belinda Carlisle is he truly relevant?
I think if you can move from "father of modern ambient music", to glam/art rock (Roxy Music & Bowie), to procucing The Joshua Tree in the late 80's. It can be said he's spanned generations. Plus, he's a studio boffin, so his influence is going to be less visable.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Hey,
Here are some:
-Willie Neal Johnson (Gospel). -The Mighty Clouds of Joy (Gospel). -cosign on Joni Mitchell. -Steely Dan. -Crosby, Still, Nash, & Young (when he joins them to perform). -Bill Evans (in terms of musical influence in jazz circles). -Ramsey Lewis.
Good question. It seems like this thread has become about something else.
If we're talking "staying hip" then Santana, who Just Alice mentioned, is a good example. If we're talking people who have navigated their careers or re-invented themselves like Madonna or Herbie Hancock that's another thing. Now, if we're talking about people who were once famous/popular/influential who are still working in some capacity, you can throw a dart at the musical map. I think this is where the thread has diverged.
Brian Eno was definitely influential, but does his career have generational relevance? I guess it could be argued that his ideas live on in some form or another in current artists, but if the dude is now making music for movies and playing with Belinda Carlisle is he truly relevant?
Just a thought.
Maybe we need to define what we're talking about here?
Yeah, then there's also the category of artists who have become MORE relevant/hip post-facto. I think Tony Allen and Fela would fit into this category. Seems like it's taken a long while for the rest of the world to catch up to Afrobeat. Not that there weren't a healthy number of fans back in the day, but now it's ballooned out so much bigger.
All those Buena Vista characters - Ibrahim Ferrer n them - selling more records now than back in the day. Sharon Jones? Don't know how popular she was, but she's not so raer nowadays.
I would definitely give it up to musicians who have shifted focus too- starting a label, or going more behind the scenes in the studio like David Byrne and Eno.
few others I haven't seen mentioned:
Toots - not so hip anymore, but he's recording, steady touring and still lively as fire. Tom Ze - still sounding bugged out. Getting remixes from interesting heads. Caetano Veloso - still smooth. Joe Bataan - kinda, that album he put out a year ago was on point.
I doubt many kids are listening to Prince these days, but he's still doing good things.
I really don't think "the kids" are checking much these days. ::OLD MAN::
sadly, there is not a single artist mentioned here that is at all relevant to today's "younger generation," i.e. the age that the folks that were buying this stuff were when they were first buying it.
like, I remember actually listening to Prince's new shit when I was like 12. no way kids that are 12 today are listening to Prince.
so what's this thread about: stuff that was good when it came out, and that now happens to still sound good to a bunch of us that admittedly like older music?
I doubt many kids are listening to Prince these days, but he's still doing good things.
I really don't think "the kids" are checking much these days. ::OLD MAN::
sadly, there is not a single artist mentioned here that is at all relevant to today's "younger generation," i.e. the age that the folks that were buying this stuff were when they were first buying it.
like, I remember actually listening to Prince's new shit when I was like 12. no way kids that are 12 today are listening to Prince.
so what's this thread about: stuff that was good when it came out, and that now happens to still sound good to a bunch of us that admittedly like older music?
No, well... honestly I don't know, but I don't think so. I was just thinking about Bowie and how he set shit off at the beginning of his career, and went through all the reinventions and changes and things like that, changed his sound in accordance to the times without actually compromising his own personal sound, with his fingerprints all over it, and was able to keep his career going as it being somewhat progressive over the course of 3 decades. Or in the case of the Isleys, 6. But it's not a question about appreciation. I appreciate almost everyone in this thread, but I don't agree that everyone named in this thread fits the criteria of what it is exactly what I'm trying to describe.
Herbie Hancock was able to do it. 60s - jazz, 70s - funk/fusion, 80s - fusion/electro, 90s (well I don't know what he did in the 90s offhand,) 00s - albums with Christina Aguilera etc.
I doubt many kids are listening to Prince these days, but he's still doing good things.
I really don't think "the kids" are checking much these days. ::OLD MAN::
sadly, there is not a single artist mentioned here that is at all relevant to today's "younger generation," i.e. the age that the folks that were buying this stuff were when they were first buying it.
like, I remember actually listening to Prince's new shit when I was like 12. no way kids that are 12 today are listening to Prince.
so what's this thread about: stuff that was good when it came out, and that now happens to still sound good to a bunch of us that admittedly like older music?
Maybe not Prince, but AC-DC is fucking huge with high school kids. Probably more so than when I was in high school in the early to mid-90s, from what my girlfriend reports from her Teaching Assistant job.
Comments
Oh, I definitely agree as a songwriter her songs will live on well past her career, I was just wondering how she as an artist has maintained relevance with her current output.
This is a good thread and I've asked myself these same questions in regards to my own music. It's a fine line between doing what you're known for, branching out into new territories and still being able to connect with the constantly changing tastes and ages of your audience.
and also a seperate thread on how he's aged so damn well!?
Dude is a perfect example of this thread. Good call.
He was one that came to mind when I saw that Neil Young pic.
A lot of dead people come to mind like Jerry Garcia, The Doors (jim) and Bob Marley..in a sense of being cool and relevant through years and generations.
What about Santana? Aerosmith? not really a fan but they've been around for a long time too, so has Blondie...I dont know if any of them are popular but they are still making music.
Hell, what about the Beatles..is Paul still relevant?
I think Prince belongs in the former category more than the latter, because he kind of just does what he does better than anyone else, but, with the exception of his dabbling in hip hop (which I never thought he did very successfully anyway), he kind of exists in his own sphere of influence that doesn't seem to draw from whatever is going on in music right now. I think even more obvious candidates for this category are the Ramones, AC-DC, Slayer, etc. (i.e. bands that carved out a narrow niche sound and basically stuck with it til the end).
Of the artists mentioned so far, I would strongly cosign on the Isleys, Bowie, Marvin, Stevie and Willie for the adapting/reinventing yourself category and would add:
Lucinda Williams
Herbie Hancock
Tom Waits
michael jackson had a pretty good run but me thinks its over. at least state side....
neil diamond still packs em in but not sure that he appeals to anyone younger than 30 anymore.
is will smith still making records?
too short still has heat, he's been around for at leat a couple generations.
For some reason, Lucinda seems a little too current to be in the Old Masters category. Even though her first album came out 27 years ago, I don't remember her really catching on till well into the nineties, so she still seems kinda recent compared to Bowie, Marvin, etc..
Yeah, I can see that.
How about I change my answer to The Kinks?
Kitchenknight it's funny that you said Dylan and Leonard Cohen as Iw as going to mention both of them, except I ride hard for Leonard Cohen.
I could never get with any of his material, but John Zorn is in there.
Dr. Dre has been at it for a hot minute.
Not a fan, but sonic youth has it.
Pixies
Although I don't mess with Can post Damo, their material (especially the early 70's triumvirate) remains ominously relevant.
Scott Joplin
Talking Heads
The man, John Cage is infinite:
I understand WHY people love leonard cohen. He has written some great songs; but, something is just missing for me.
"Suzanne," and especially, "So Long, Mary Ann," are two, though, that I cannot hate upon.
Or Joni Mitchell?
Good question. It seems like this thread has become about something else.
If we're talking "staying hip" then Santana, who Just Alice mentioned, is a good example. If we're talking people who have navigated their careers or re-invented themselves like Madonna or Herbie Hancock that's another thing. Now, if we're talking about people who were once famous/popular/influential who are still working in some capacity, you can throw a dart at the musical map. I think this is where the thread has diverged.
Brian Eno was definitely influential, but does his career have generational relevance? I guess it could be argued that his ideas live on in some form or another in current artists, but if the dude is now making music for movies and playing with Belinda Carlisle is he truly relevant?
Just a thought.
Maybe we need to define what we're talking about here?
Scott Walker
Which was good. But no one is gonna call his 1980's country LP's or his duet album with Cleo Laine (doing songs from Porgy & Bess) as groundbreaking as "What'd I Say."
I think if you can move from "father of modern ambient music", to glam/art rock (Roxy Music & Bowie), to procucing The Joshua Tree in the late 80's. It can be said he's spanned generations. Plus, he's a studio boffin, so his influence is going to be less visable.
Here are some:
-Willie Neal Johnson (Gospel).
-The Mighty Clouds of Joy (Gospel).
-cosign on Joni Mitchell.
-Steely Dan.
-Crosby, Still, Nash, & Young (when he joins them to perform).
-Bill Evans (in terms of musical influence in jazz circles).
-Ramsey Lewis.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Sonic Youth
Yeah, then there's also the category of artists who have become MORE relevant/hip post-facto. I think Tony Allen and Fela would fit into this category. Seems like it's taken a long while for the rest of the world to catch up to Afrobeat. Not that there weren't a healthy number of fans back in the day, but now it's ballooned out so much bigger.
All those Buena Vista characters - Ibrahim Ferrer n them - selling more records now than back in the day. Sharon Jones? Don't know how popular she was, but she's not so raer nowadays.
I would definitely give it up to musicians who have shifted focus too- starting a label, or going more behind the scenes in the studio like David Byrne and Eno.
few others I haven't seen mentioned:
Toots - not so hip anymore, but he's recording, steady touring and still lively as fire.
Tom Ze - still sounding bugged out. Getting remixes from interesting heads.
Caetano Veloso - still smooth.
Joe Bataan - kinda, that album he put out a year ago was on point.
sadly, there is not a single artist mentioned here that is at all relevant to today's "younger generation," i.e. the age that the folks that were buying this stuff were when they were first buying it.
like, I remember actually listening to Prince's new shit when I was like 12. no way kids that are 12 today are listening to Prince.
so what's this thread about: stuff that was good when it came out, and that now happens to still sound good to a bunch of us that admittedly like older music?
No, well... honestly I don't know, but I don't think so. I was just thinking about Bowie and how he set shit off at the beginning of his career, and went through all the reinventions and changes and things like that, changed his sound in accordance to the times without actually compromising his own personal sound, with his fingerprints all over it, and was able to keep his career going as it being somewhat progressive over the course of 3 decades. Or in the case of the Isleys, 6. But it's not a question about appreciation. I appreciate almost everyone in this thread, but I don't agree that everyone named in this thread fits the criteria of what it is exactly what I'm trying to describe.
Herbie Hancock was able to do it. 60s - jazz, 70s - funk/fusion, 80s - fusion/electro, 90s (well I don't know what he did in the 90s offhand,) 00s - albums with Christina Aguilera etc.
Maybe not Prince, but AC-DC is fucking huge with high school kids. Probably more so than when I was in high school in the early to mid-90s, from what my girlfriend reports from her Teaching Assistant job.