I think the complaints on this thread that the contemporary artists chosen are too obscure are ridiculous.
Several people have complained that Sufjan Stevens, Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Avett Brothers, Jeff Tweedy/ Wilco, Bon Iver, etc. are too obscure to be named.
This morning, just out of curiosity, I looked at several lists of top albums of the decade from 2000-09. Every one of these artists were on top album of the decade lists for EVERY major publication I looked at (NPR, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, AV Club, Guardian, Paste and others).
NPR had a very short list of “albums that defined the decade” (2000-09) and several of those artists were on that short list.
These are the mainstream of contemporary music. If you haven’t heard of those artists/ bands, that is perhaps a sign that you haven’t kept up with contemporary music over the last 15 years or so, not that the posters are hipster-wannabes, or whatever the insult was.
I’ve never heard of several of those artists and I’m a big music fan. Legend status is reserved for those with mass appeal that are recognized by the average person, even those that aren’t big into music. The average person won’t know those bands so it doesn’t matter what major publications say.
Also, I have to laugh when people proclaim their “eclectic” taste in music and then list a couple of MOR artists. It’s like someone claiming to love ethnic food and then stating their favorite ethnic restaurants are Chipotle and Panda Express.
But if people are honest about it, it’s clear that the future legends are those with a mix of: huge followings, consistent sales, stadium-filling tours, and critical acclaim. By that measure, bankable future legends from this era will be Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake and Kanye. Just because a middle-aged college parent doesn’t care for their music or think that it matches the standard set by “our legends”… well that’s pretty much the textbook example of a generation gap.
Let’s try to not throw daggers at anyone. This is just a discussion about music, not our families.
@nottelling if we did a poll on three random artists from your list of possible “legends” - or anyone’s - and CC respondents or respondents in general revealed that for those three artists, only 33-66% of them (random figures) - so 1/3 to 2/3 of respondents was NOT familiar with that artist - then can they be a general “legend” (as opposed to a legend in a very specific genre - like jazz for instance).
For a more serious comment, I would like to suggest that “true” legend status should be given to people whose music is likely to be rediscovered and enjoyed by future generations. This is obviously the case for people like the Beatles, Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan, etc., because it’s already happened. I think it’s also true of some of the Motown greats. It’s harder for me to identify any current performers for whom this seems likely to happen. I mean, Adele is a very good singer, but will she be more of a legend than, say, Anita O’Day? Or even Peggy Lee? I hate to say it, but somebody like Kanye might be a better candidate to be rediscovered in the future.
And another thought: there are people who are legendary performers who may not persist as legends when there aren’t that many people any more who saw them perform. Examples from the past might be Sammy Davis, Jr., or Jimmy Durante. If they aren’t associated with hit songs that become common cultural furniture, they may fade out. I think if we had been asked this question 15 or 20 years ago, we might all have thought of some people who have faded out since then. Is Tori Amos a legend? How about (and it pains me to ask this) Linda Ronstadt?
I was trying to answer the question posed: what currently popular artists are likely to stand the test of time and be considered legends in 20 years’ time.
JHS’s list was specifically identified as the legends TO HIM based on the increasingly fragmented music culture. But he nonetheless included Wilco on that list.
I’m sure my seventy-four year old mom couldn’t name a Cure song. But that doesn’t mean that the Cure was not an immensely popular band in the 1980s. “Well, I haven’t heard of it” isn’t a very useful measure of mass popularity.
I do think you need to reach some level of mass appeal to be a legend. Mass appeal and critical acclaim sometimes do not intersect. Bon Iver and Arcade Fire, for instance: they might have won awards, but – and this is one gripe I have with the Grammys, that they seem so out of step with the marketplace, the natural “critics” who buy the records – where are the multi-platinum sales and packed arenas or football stadiums for those groups?
I think you can have great sales/hits and pack stadiums, but lack critical acclaim (by “professional” critics, anyway…), and still be a legend. But I don’t think you can lack the mass popularity component and be a legend.
Now, I don’t think you have to have a ton of hit songs per se – some bands don’t, but they still pack stadiums and sell records. Point is, there has to be a mass appeal threshold met, to me, in order to enter the “legend” realm. Whether that means hit songs, record sales, or packed large stadiums, or any combination, will depend on the artist or the band (sometimes the genre).
The Ramones and Metallica might not have had a ton of hit songs – top-40 mainstream singles I mean – but they were wildly successful in other ways and influential in their music. Metallica still sells out stadiums, 30+ years after they became popular.
Phil Ramone was a heck of a producer too, producing Billy Joel’s “The Stranger” album. There have been some other “dual threat” people – including stars like Phil Collins, Prince and Babyface – who also wrote and/or produced successful records for other acts.
Has anyone mentioned The Who… and famous band members Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry?
I seriously feel I’ve entered bizarro land if folks are claiming that bands like Arcade Fire are not popular. Take Arcade Fire: Grammy for Album of the year. Headlining act at major music festivals (Coachella). Records hit number 1 on the Billboard charts upon release. Sells out major arenas. Major publications calling their albums one of the very few defining albums if the decade, and almost every publication putting them in the top 5 albums of the decade. How is all of that not evidence of widespread popularity and potentially staying power?
Lou Reed/ Velvet Underground didn’t sell a lot of records in the late '60s, early 70s either, but I don’t think anyone who would deny that Lou Reed was a legend. (And yes, my kid had a Velvet Underground onesie as a baby).
The Who is one of my all time favorites, as sadly mainstream and uncool as I am. I will not be music-shamed The Kinks were also a favorite of mine and if they’d kept it together they could have headed towards legend, but I don’t think they quite got there.
"I seriously feel I’ve entered bizarro land if folks are claiming that bands like Arcade Fire are not popular. Take Arcade Fire: Grammy for Album of the year. Headlining act at major music festivals (Coachella). Records hit number 1 on the Billboard charts upon release. "
So why do they have no single that ever hit above 14 in the US? (Per Wikipedia discography) Where’s the connection between album of the year, concerts and yet (charitably) limited chart success?
This is just a discussion about music, not our families.