Who are the only music legends still around today?

[superfraser]

Probably in a year or two we'll all be saying Fergie, so I just want to get in early.

BOOM BOOM BOOM

 

[Power King]

Stevie Wonder has more talent than most of the 'legends' in this thread, and more talent than most names in this thread combined.

Oh wait, he's an r&b artist, so he must be shit.........

keep masturbating to the guitar though.

Hold on, bass is one of the instruments he plays.

Sad thing is, I like rock music, but the fans are probably the most blindfolded of any genre on earth.

 

[Saint KFC]

Stevie Wonder has more talent than most of the 'legends' in this thread, and more talent than most names in this thread combined.

Oh wait, he's an r&b artist, so he must be shit.........

keep masturbating to the guitar though.

So if a poster forgets an artist or two amidst brainstorming and the artist happens to be an R&B artist, than the poster must automatically think that the artist is shit because of their genre and that must have been the reason that they didn't include the artist in their list.



Great logic champ.

 

[Ill Chicken]

What a joke.

What a joke.

What a joke.

Do people really believe that these artists are on the same level as Jackson, Lennon etc?

Definitely Ozzy Osbourne whoever mentioned him. Chuck Berry, Elton John, Bob Dylan, Jerry Lee Lewis and Paul McCartney. Probably Mick Jagger aswell. Noone has mentioned Carlos Santana and Eric Clapton and Prince probably gets a gig aswell.

From my own genere of choice, Chuck Schuldiner from Death was definitely a legend - one of the most significant figures in metal and pretty much pioneered the entire Death Metal genre. Venom and Possessed are another two bands that have been extremely influential.

What a joke.

 

[Saint KFC]

What a joke.

Doesn't mean much coming from the guy who thinks that these artists are on the same wavelength as Lennon, Jackson, Berry etc

Thom Yorke - Radiohead
Billy Corgan - Smashing Pumpkins
Eddie Vedder - Pearl Jam
David Grohl - Nirvana/Foo Fighters
Brian Molko - Placebo
David Byrne - Talking Heads
Anthony Kiedis - Red Hot Chili Peppers
Andrew Cox - The Fauves

 

[SunKing]

Sad that Thom Yorke doesn't deserve a mention while Madonna does.

I guess being a whore and selling a truck load of records to stupid teenage girls is more important then actual talent.

 

[Zarrix]

Only time will tell, but Thom Yorke will most likely be a future legend, though maybe not to the same extent as the universially accepted legends of the 60's and 70's.

The rest of Chicken's list? no way in hell.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Lou Reed

Willie Nelson

Kris Kristofferson


Would have thought all 3 are probably more credible than any previously mentioned...


Shame on you.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Stevie Wonder has more talent than most of the 'legends' in this thread, and more talent than most names in this thread combined.

Oh wait, he's an r&b artist, so he must be shit.........

keep masturbating to the guitar though.

Hold on, bass is one of the instruments he plays.

Sad thing is, I like rock music, but the fans are probably the most blindfolded of any genre on earth.

Awesome brainiac.

Tell me the difference between r&b and rock n roll. Go on, do it.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Doesn't mean much coming from the guy who thinks that these artists are on the same wavelength as Lennon, Jackson, Berry etc

 

[Power King]

So if a poster forgets an artist or two amidst brainstorming and the artist happens to be an R&B artist, than the poster must automatically think that the artist is shit because of their genre and that must have been the reason that they didn't include the artist in their list.



Great logic champ.

Bzzt.

Most people here have minds that are ingrained into the rock genre, and blatantly ignore everything else.

A simple case of bias, not mere 'forgetfulness'.

Yours is an erroneous post, son.

 

[Power King]

Awesome brainiac.

Tell me the difference between r&b and rock n roll. Go on, do it.

Touched a nerve did I?

Do you know what a melody is?

Do you know what a guitar riff is?

Do you know what a drum line is?

Do you understand the meaning of, 'stress'?

That's just the mere introduction 101 stuff, brainiac.

lol at you guitar masturbators getting bumhurt because of my comments, yet still being unable to refute the greatness that is Stevie Wonder.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Bill Drummond & Jimmy Cauty - KLF

 

[Saint KFC]

Most people here have minds that are ingrained into the rock genre, and blatantly ignore everything else.

Find me irrefutable evidence of this. Sounds to me like you're just bitter and making rash generalisations.

A simple case of bias, not mere 'forgetfulness'.

Hardly - that's purely a cynical ideology on your behalf.

I mean seriously - what kind of dolt, when greeted with a poster not including someone in their list of legends, instantly assumes that the poster hates the genre associated with the forgotten legend.

The mind boggles.

Yours is an erroneous post, son.

And yours is a fallacious one, pops.

 

[XFactor1979]

bryan adams

he was more music of MY childhood

i mean, his classic hit from Robin Hood Prince of Thieves was on Family guy the other week

he was in a rich vein of form when he had hits from other movie soundtracks such as don juan de marco and the three musketeers.

 

[james Dean]

As someone mentioned before, a legend is someone who's death would shock the world ALA Lennon,Cobain,2pac or Jackson. Radio and TV stations are not going to change their whole scheduling if someone like Billy Corgan or Dave Grohl passed away

 

[Suspense]

Before I get called out for being a "guitar masturbator"...


KRS-One

 

[Ill Chicken]

As someone mentioned before, a legend is someone who's death would shock the world ALA Lennon,Cobain,2pac or Jackson. Radio and TV stations are not going to change their whole scheduling if someone like Billy Corgan or Dave Grohl passed away

Ha. Terrible. If mainstream media don't say it so, it ain't so.

 

[Power King]

S KFC, I'd like to reply, but I'm biting my tongue for the sake of discussing the thread topic properly.

I think when it comes to deaths and their subsequent impact on the world, you have to put things into context.

eg. Michael Jackson owned every single country's music charts at multiple times throughout his career, so obviously his death is massive news in every corner of the world.

I wouldn't have a clue about the 80's in terms of actually being there to absorb the impact, but I'm guessing this is the same with Lennon (albeit a death in different circumstances).

With Tupac, yes, Tupac is a hiphop legend. Having said that, at the time of his death, hiphop had only really been making a significant impact in the media for about ten years (and this was primarily in the States, perhaps the UK too), and so the genre was still a baby. Tupac's death, from what I gather, did stop America, because up until that point, he had been at the forefront of that genre for the last few years and was basically a massive artist. Everyone knew him and his death came as an enormous shock. In Australia and around the world though, I think his death would've had less of an impact, because hiphop was nowhere near as big then as it would've been in the States, let alone how big it is everywhere in the world today. My feeling is that Tupac's death would've made the news around the world, but would'nt have been as big news as it was in the States. Unlike say MJ or Lennon, which is/was massive news globally, ie completely dominating the news in other countries.

Thoughts?

 

[Damon_3388]

S KFC, I'd like to reply, but I'm biting my tongue for the sake of discussing the thread topic properly.

I think when it comes to deaths and their subsequent impact on the world, you have to put things into context.

eg. Michael Jackson owned every single country's music charts at multiple times throughout his career, so obviously his death is massive news in every corner of the world.

I wouldn't have a clue about the 80's in terms of actually being there to absorb the impact, but I'm guessing this is the same with Lennon (albeit a death in different circumstances).

With Tupac, yes, Tupac is a hiphop legend. Having said that, at the time of his death, hiphop had only really been making a significant impact in the media for about ten years (and this was primarily in the States, perhaps the UK too), and so the genre was still a baby. Tupac's death, from what I gather, did stop America, because up until that point, he had been at the forefront of that genre for the last few years and was basically a massive artist. Everyone knew him and his death came as an enormous shock. In Australia and around the world though, I think his death would've had less of an impact, because hiphop was nowhere near as big then as it would've been in the States, let alone how big it is everywhere in the world today. My feeling is that Tupac's death would've made the news around the world, but would'nt have been as big news as it was in the States. Unlike say MJ or Lennon, which is/was massive news globally, ie completely dominating the news in other countries.

Thoughts?

I'd say that's correct. There's probably plenty of people outside of the US who wouldn't be able to name one Tupac song, and some wouldn't even know who he is. Whereas even if you don't like them, unless they've been living under a rock, everyone knows The Beatles, John Lennon and Michael Jackson and Elvis.

He's not at the level of Lennon or Jackson, but I'll say again, the lack of Springsteen love in here is shocking. I know people are probably basing it off of what has had most impact upon them, but IMO it's ridiculous that names such as Dave Grohl, Brian Molko and the KLF are getting mentioned before the Boss. I respect their achievements, and am even somewhat of a fan of Molko and Placebo, but they are nowhere near the level of Springsteen in terms of longevity, influence, and quality of work IMO. He's still having #1 albums in 2009, nearly 40 years after his career began.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Nick Cave

 

[Ill Chicken]

I'd say that's correct. There's probably plenty of people outside of the US who wouldn't be able to name one Tupac song, and some wouldn't even know who he is. Whereas even if you don't like them, unless they've been living under a rock, everyone knows The Beatles, John Lennon and Michael Jackson and Elvis.

He's not at the level of Lennon or Jackson, but I'll say again, the lack of Springsteen love in here is shocking. I know people are probably basing it off of what has had most impact upon them, but IMO it's ridiculous that names such as Dave Grohl, Brian Molko and the KLF are getting mentioned before the Boss. I respect their achievements, and am even somewhat of a fan of Molko and Placebo, but they are nowhere near the level of Springsteen in terms of longevity, influence, and quality of work IMO. He's still having #1 albums in 2009, nearly 40 years after his career began.

Yeah well your respect obviously doesn't take into the fact that people have different tastes and definitions of what one considers a legend. It is naive to assume that mainstream music produces all the legends of the industry and its moreso that the marketability and corporate backing power doesn't influence the direct album sales of artists while bands like Radiohead who's last album was free and marketed itself continue to change an experiment with their sound. Who cares if Bruce Springsteen continues to produce soft rock albums at his target audience with the majority of sales falling within the US while his record label pays radio stations to play his songs.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Elton John
Bruce Springsteen
Neil Diamond
Madonna
Paul McCartney
Bob Dylan
Billy Joel

There are many others that would stop the world if they died, but mainly due to age and exposure ... Britney Spears would be huge news if it happened while she was still young for instance.

The some of the ones above might not stop the world as it would come down to their age and how long ago they affected the majority of people. Neil Diamond is a true music legend IMO and a fantastic songwriter. But his heyday is still Hot August Night despite fine recordings and performances since then. He probably didn't reinvent himself as MJ did and Madonna has done. Those that were able to transcend generations are the ones that stop the world.

With that in mind, Elton John, Madonna and Paul McCartney are the only ones guaranteed to have their own dedicated coverage on Sky News all day long (surely the biggest indicator to status in Australia these days )

 

[Damon_3388]

Yeah well your respect obviously doesn't take into the fact that people have different tastes and definitions of what one considers a legend. It is naive to assume that mainstream music produces all the legends of the industry and its moreso that the marketability and corporate backing power doesn't influence the direct album sales of artists while bands like Radiohead who's last album was free and marketed itself continue to change an experiment with their sound. Who cares if Bruce Springsteen continues to produce soft rock albums at his target audience with the majority of sales falling within the US while his record label pays radio stations to play his songs.

Well I could easily say who cares if Radiohead continues to produce nerdy, 'arty', experimental alternative stuff that half of the music buying public doesn't even care about. But I wouldn't say that, because whilst not being a massive fan, I respect their contribution to music and enjoy their work. I understand that they have a very dedicated following, and am not discounting their influence or abilities. I simply think that Springsteen has done more and has been more influential over time than Radiohead. Maybe it is that Radiohead's full influence and greatness is still yet to be seen (they've only been around since the early '90s, while Springsteen has performing since the late '60s and recording since the early '70s), but at this stage, I don't think they quite live up to Springsteen's body of work, and I don't see them holding legendary status in quite the same way. That's just my opinion though.

As for the part where you mentioned that the majority of sales for Springsteen's work come from the US, that might be true in a pure numbers sense, but his latest album reached #1 in 16 different countries (including the UK and every major market in Europe), and #3 in Australia, so he's definitely got appeal outside of his homeland. Considering as well that (as far as I'm aware) he rarely gets mainstream radio airplay for his more recent work (I know for certain that mainstream radio here barely acknowledges him at all), I think that's a decent effort.

I also respect that people have different tastes and opinions, and am very far from being the 'mainstream=good' type of person, who takes record sales and media coverage as the be-all and end-all. To be honest, I don't like to bring sales figures and chart positions into it, because they have too many variables effecting them. But with that said, in my opinion, to say that Radiohead have had a bigger impact on music (mainstream or whatever) than Springsteen is just not true.

 

[bradrowe#32]

Neil Young
Bruce Springsteen
The Who (Roger and Pete)
The Rolling Stones