Adele 21 - Trying to put things in some sort of context

[NothingFails]

You did not just say what I said! You questioned the relative success of AOB against ABBA and asked why ABBA are more “universally regarded”, while inferring (incorrectly) that AOB “had more impact”, Revivals and Mama Mia are the probably reasons for ABBA’s enduring appeal, ABBA never had a Top 20 studio Album, AOB 2nd Album was more successful than any ABBA album.

I didn´t say AoB had more impact then Abba overall. I did say that, on their big, they were having more impact in the USA then Abba did on theirs. They had a number one album, went x9 platinum with it, had 3 top 5 singles, etc. They were big, even if for just one year. Abba had never been big in the USA in the 70´s.

And I was actually mistaken about them not having a Top 20 album in the USA. They actually peaked at #14 with "The Album" and that was their highest before the Mamma Mia movie propelled their GH into the Top 10 (tough it was not eligible to chart at that point).

I think its generally regarded that the main reason ABBA didn't "win" America until long after their breakup is because unlike most artists in the 70s, ABBA didn't concentrate on touring or putting the US as their top priority. They had some popularity in America, but outside of their 1979 tour they never toured here. They did do a brief publicity tour in mid-1978 that actually resulted in The Album peaking #14 (it initially peaked at #35) and caused Take A Chance On Me to be their second biggest US single.

I think as a whole ABBA has had the last laugh when you consider how "Gold" has done as a catalog title compared to what similar collections for Olivia Newton-John and Donna Summer, two comparative female acts who were much bigger in the 70s than ABBA in the US have sold. Even before "Mamma Mia" came out, the album was already a very strong seller.

[NothingFails]

I grew up in the 90´s, when Thriller was already old and MJ had already become an "abomination". And I remember growing up seeing him in the news (usually bad news), but everytime they mentioned something about her a little part of one of his classic songs were played.

That´s how I got to know the singles from Thriller and Bad when I was a kid.

So, being in evidence in the media, wether it´s for bad news or not, did help new generations to hear his music. Think how many kids were listening to Thriller the year he died. "Thriller" had not become better then it is just because MJ died, but his death made put his songs in evidence everywhere. I even got to know some of his older singles that I had not even noticed he released...

Well a lot of entertainers die every year. Thriller still draws in new listeners because it is such a great album. You didn't have to be a kid in the 1980's to find "Billie Jean", "Beat It" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" to be irresistible songs. I remember working retail in the early 00's when MJ was a "trainwreck" and when the radio was on when we were past closing and just putting things up before going home for the night, Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' was playing on the radio, and despite the song being 20 years old and recorded by a "trainwreck", everyone was digging the song and listening to it, and these were people of different age groups and races, but MJ in his peak was something that all walks were all stopping to enjoy.

[joao]

So why did Abba music became "classic" while AOB´s has fallen into "90´s eurotrash" category? I don´t see any qualitative difference between those acts. They have many things in common: both are nordic, boy-girl mixed group, and made pure fun pop music without any pretension to be serious or political.

Well for one thing AOB were around for like two albums and Abba were around for 8 yrs producing pop classic after pop classic. Outside the US, Abba are infinitely bigger than AOB ever were.

That simply isn´t an answear for the "why" question. You just say it is because it is.

But imagine if, for some reason, the band had split before "Arrival" and never released anything else. Would songs like Mamma Mia and Waterloo be regarded as classics? NO. They´d just be old songs that nobody cares anymore.

Which goes back to my point that sometimes, older material just gets the "classic" status because the band manages to stick around longer, and it has nothing to do with the inner quality of the material. Same goes for MJ, Madonna, and all other artists people regard as "icons". That´s not to say their material didn´t have quality at all, but their early material wouldn´t be regarded as "classic" if they didn´t manage to stick around.

And NO, sticking around for longer has nothing to do with the quality of the material or talent either. Sometimes artists go away because they die early, bands split because problems among the members, and so on... Sometimes artists begin to loose their chart sucess exactly when their music quality starts to improve, etc, etc.

To think the whole discussing has started because some people argued that 21 wasn´t as big as older classics because it isn´t a classic itself. Were any of the aforementioned releases regarded as "classics" on the 1st year after their releases?

[NothingFails]

That simply isn´t an answear for the "why" question. You just say it is because it is.

But imagine if, for some reason, the band had split before "Arrival" and never released anything else. Would songs like Mamma Mia and Waterloo be regarded as classics? NO. They´d just be old songs that nobody cares anymore.

Which goes back to my point that sometimes, older material just gets the "classic" status because the band manages to stick around longer, and it has nothing to do with the inner quality of the material. Same goes for MJ, Madonna, and all other artists people regard as "icons". That´s not to say their material didn´t have quality at all, but their early material wouldn´t be regarded as "classic" if they didn´t manage to stick around.

Madonna and ABBA yes, their early music wasn't their best (although M's debut is one of the best dance albums of the 1980s, but nothing that really would've made people expect her to still be viable 30 years old), but "Thriller" wasn't early MJ, Thriller was peak-era MJ. Remember that The Jackson 5 were around in the late 1960s and MJ had already cemented a career for himself that would've left him remembered even if he'd retired after Off The Wall. The "early" solo stuff like Got To Be There and Ben aren't generally regarded as his career high points either.

[HAL9000]

... sometimes, older material just gets the "classic" status because the band manages to stick around longer, and it has nothing to do with the inner quality of the material. Same goes for MJ, Madonna, and all other artists people regard as "icons". That´s not to say their material didn´t have quality at all, but their early material wouldn´t be regarded as "classic" if they didn´t manage to stick around.

If artist is present on the scene for a longer period of time, of course, that can lead to a re-evaluation of older or forgotten works but if there is no quality, re-evaluated work will never be recognized as classic. The quality is what encourages people for generations, decades, centuries to rediscover, analyze, consume and enjoy the works of great artists.

To think the whole discussing has started because some people argued that 21 wasn´t as big as older classics because it isn´t a classic itself.

"21" will definitely be recognized as classic. The art is the highest form of human expression and just listen "Someone Like You", so simple, honest, personal song that carries emotion with raw vocals of the person/singer who truly believes in what she sings. Absolutely brilliant!

[HAL9000]

Remember that The Jackson 5 were around in the late 1960s and MJ had already cemented a career for himself that would've left him remembered even if he'd retired after Off The Wall.

Yeah, people often forget that Michael Jackson recorded 18 studio albums + dozens compilations before he recorded "Thriller".

I'll mention one interesting trivia... In 1981, one year before "Thriller", Queen released "Greatest Flix" VHS. The first video Killer Queen is a montage with interesting trivia for each member of the group. One of the greatest musicians EVER, legendary Freddie Mercury singled out "The Jacksons" as his favourite band. Obviously, genius recognizes genius!

[Benny]

So why did Abba music became "classic" while AOB´s has fallen into "90´s eurotrash" category? I don´t see any qualitative difference between those acts. They have many things in common: both are nordic, boy-girl mixed group, and made pure fun pop music without any pretension to be serious or political.

I see a huge qualitative difference between those acts. Abba's songs are timeless, they sound as fresh today as they sounded in the 70s, while Ace Of Base created a sound that was good at their time but sounds "old-fashioned" from today's point of view. I know that this is subjective but most people see it that way, that's the explanation why Abba Gold has been a consistent seller for over 20 years everywhere (also in the US) while Ace Of Base's "Greatest Hits" hardly find any buyers nowadays. I would compare Ace Of Base in the 90s to Boney M in the 70s, both were very successful at their peak (Ace Of Base worlwide, Boney M in Europe) because their music followed the trend of what was hot at their time (70s disco for Boney M, 90s Europop/ -dance for Ace Of Base), but they didn't prove to have an enduring appeal.

And if it wasn´t for Abba revivals like the musical in the 90´s, and most recently the Mamma Mia movie, who knows if their 70´s songs wouldn´t have fallen into the shameful category, instead of the classics.

Abba's revival in the 90s and the launch of "Mamma Mia" were a result of the popularity of their songs and not vice versa. You could create a musical based on songs by Ace Of Base and it wouldn't help their music sales, nobody would be interested in it.

[rundmck]

I'm not surprised you feel that way Benny.
How's Bjorn these days anyway?

[Benny]

I'm not surprised you feel that way Benny.
How's Bjorn these days anyway?

[jimmypages59]

Joao wrote:

phoenix83 wrote:
joao wrote:
So why did Abba music became "classic" while AOB´s has fallen into "90´s eurotrash" category?

Well for one thing AOB were around for like two albums and Abba were around for 8 yrs producing pop classic after pop classic. Outside the US, Abba are infinitely bigger than AOB ever were.

That simply isn´t an answear for the "why" question. You just say it is because it is.

Maybe not, but I did give you extremely sound, logical and probable reason behind “why”, so “why” carry on against Phoenix83’s answer?

But imagine if, for some reason, the band had split before "Arrival" and never released anything else. Would songs like Mamma Mia and Waterloo be regarded as classics? NO. They´d just be old songs that nobody cares anymore.

“Why”, must we always “imagine” with you, it is not even educated subjective supposition, it is complete “what if”. Can you not stick to what we know or what can be reasonably deduced from fact, rather than what you think or feel how “something” might have turned out, if “something” had happened. You do not know how “something” might have turned out and neither do I, quite simply because it didn’t happen, so don’t offer these kind of answers as answers.
Joao wrote:

Which goes back to my point that sometimes, older material just gets the "classic" status because the band manages to stick around longer, and it has nothing to do with the inner quality of the material. Same goes for MJ, Madonna, and all other artists people regard as "icons". That´s not to say their material didn´t have quality at all, but their early material wouldn´t be regarded as "classic" if they didn´t manage to stick around.

Again, more “I think”! You do not know how their material would be regarded, if they didn’t manage to “Stick around”, because they did. So all you are doing is stating how you “think” things “might” have turned out, plenty artists have “stopped” after 1 or 2 albums and remain revered and “classic”.

Joao wrote:

And NO, sticking around for longer has nothing to do with the quality of the material or talent either. Sometimes artists go away because they die early, bands split because problems among the members, and so on... Sometimes artists begin to loose their chart sucess exactly when their music quality starts to improve, etc, etc.

Yes, some of this is true, but some artists do “stick around” because they are talented and do release quality material. You are too quick to impress your opinion as fact or give very ambiguous answers. You state things, such as “And NO, sticking around for longer has nothing to do with the quality of the material or talent either.”, when it can be, it may not be the key reason or the only reason to “sticking around”, (in my mind there are many), but clearly in some cases, it is one of the factors for an artists longevity.

Joao wrote:

To think the whole discussing has started because some people argued that 21 wasn´t as big as older classics because it isn´t a classic itself. Were any of the aforementioned releases regarded as "classics" on the 1st year after their releases?

I don’t think I’ve really discussed the merits of 21. It is a hard one to decide (and who decides) when something becomes classic or what makes it classic. Classic status is not determined by chart position, staying power or sales…yes chart position, staying power and sales can be used or are often quoted, when describing some classic album such as Led Zeppelin IV, Dark Side of The Moon or Thriller, but the same cannot be used for every “Classic” album. As an example;

*Weeks are for initial chart run or until first drop off.

1979 The Clash – London Calling US No.9 20wks (1xP 1996) “Classic”
1979 The Eagles – The Long Run US No.1 (9) 57wks (1xP 1980) (7xP 2001) “Non Classic”

London Calling is clearly the “Classic”, often finishing in the Top 10 of “Best Ever” lists, yet it’s initial performance is dwarfed by The Long Run and to this day, it’s sales. It has often turned up in catalog, whereas TLR has never, but was still only certified for 1m in 96, while TLR was certified for 7m in 97.

1971 Led Zeppelin – IV US No.2 151wks (1xG 1971) 23xP 2006) (SS 3.7m 2011) “Classic”
1971 Marvin Gaye – What’s Going On US No.6 48wks (No Cert) (SS 1.1m 2006) “Classic”

Both albums are thought of as classics, but their weeks on chart initially, are vastly different and even subsequently, IV has 11 re-entries (100+ wks), WGO has 1 (5wks) around his death and sales are not even worth compairing, yet both are classics.

Classic albums quite simply, do not become classic through sales or performance. Yes, sales and performance can certainly become a benefit of being “classic”, but they do not determine the status.

IMO opinion, “Classic Albums” are determined by White Middle Class, anal music journalists and their elitist lists, views and articles on what is “cool”, “timeless”, “ground breaking” etc etc etc. I am not saying a lot of these classic albums do not deserve praise, some of them are fantastic, just that it is kind of prescribed brainwashing, based on perception, rather than popularity.

Classic – Something determined by elitists, but not necessarily popular or successful, although can be
Popular – Something determined by the public, but not necessarily classic or critically acclaimed, although can be.
Complete Crossover - Something which is classic, critically acclaimed, popular and successful, which is lauded by the elitists and bought in mass quantities by the general buying public.

[johnnyboy]

jimmypage59 - I think you make a good distinction between 'classic' and 'popular'. Classic albums may be hugely successful - like Thriller or not like London Calling.
I think you're right about music journalists and their opinions about what is or isn't classic. I feel Sgt Pepper benefits from this critical acclaim - even though it's a very average album, IMO.

As regards ABBA, Benny is right. They are popular now because of their songs. Other acts such as Boney M and Blondie have had musicals - these were very short lived. Arguably they didn't have the enduring appeal of ABBA.

It's interesting that ABBA now way outsell their US chart rivals at the time such as Donna Summer, Olivia Newton John and yes the Bee Gees.

[NothingFails]

And if it wasn´t for Abba revivals like the musical in the 90´s, and most recently the Mamma Mia movie, who knows if their 70´s songs wouldn´t have fallen into the shameful category, instead of the classics.

Abba's revival in the 90s and the launch of "Mamma Mia" were a result of the popularity of their songs and not vice versa. You could create a musical based on songs by Ace Of Base and it wouldn't help their music sales, nobody would be interested in it.

Agreed. Mamma Mia premiered in 1999 if I recall, ABBA had already experienced a career renaissance in the US in the early/mid 90's after nostalia for the 70s really kicked in, "Gold" was released, movies like Priscilla and Muriel's Wedding paid tribute and "hip" artists like Kurt Cobain and Bono singing their praises... it was a little bit of all of this that made ABBA "hot" in America by 95-96, arguably hotter than when they were active. While it only peaked at #63 upon initial release, Gold still spent quite a decent amount of time on the US albums chart and then even more on Catalog even before Mamma Mia premiered on Broadway.

[joao]

I see a huge qualitative difference between those acts. Abba's songs are timeless, they sound as fresh today as they sounded in the 70s, while Ace Of Base created a sound that was good at their time but sounds "old-fashioned" from today's point of view.

Well, I guess it´s quite easy to judge now, that both acts have aged enough. Obviously, the "still sounds current today" argument can be used for any artist that managed to remain popular, but hell, no, a song like "Mamma Mia" doesn´t sound current at all. People enjoy it being a 70´s song, but if it was released by someone today it would sound completely out of date, because it´s completely cheesy song structure is out of fashion since more then a decade (tough it would still have done well if released in the 90´s, at least in Europe).

One thing you completely fail to understand is that history (and not only pop history) is usually rewritten from the perspective of the winner. So artists that remain famous today will easily have these outstanding remarks in their biographies, even tough an observer who was alive during their peak might not have noticed anything special that would distinguish them among all time greatests.

The biggest proof of that is that people say "it´s too early to judge" whenever someone suggest that a current album (like 21, for example) could become a "classic". Of course, it woudln´t be early to judge if it was only down to the musical quality itself. We heard this album since more then a year, which is not definitely early to judge if it fits the quality requirements to become a classic or not.

People are just expecting the album to become old, so if in 2030 the album is still a big catalog seller and Adele is a legedary old woman they will say things like "she clearly had something special, her music was timeless". While if she goes away after the next album people in 2030 won´t even remember 21 existed.

There is no objective way of measuing the quality of music, and everlasting appeal has to do with popularity, not with quality.

Just like any given trash song can become the most popular song of any given week while some genius works will not even see the light of the Hot 100 charts, in the long term it is the same.

There is no objective way of sayng a song like "All That She Wants" is worse then "Mamma Mia". You can look back at both artists trajectories, and after decades of hearing how Abba is universally praised, etc, conclude there´s no comparison between the 2 songs. But an hypothetical impartial listener who never heard about any of those 2 acts, and was given a first listen to "All That She Wants" and "Mamma Mia", might well have concluded from his heart that the 1st song is by far the best.

If there was really a qualitative difference by songs of "legendary" artists and normal artists, the people would realize that by the time those songs are still new... and not just decades after, conveniently agreeing that those who remained sucessful were better, while the others that gone away were nothing special.

[joao]

Another thing people have to take into consideration before sayng that an artist´s "everlasting appeal" has to do with its quality being superior to the quality of the normal artists, is that artists with "everlasting appeal" are not the same in all countries and all regions of the world.

I have argued in another thread that Janet Jackson, for example, is not even a celebrity in some countries of the world today, while in the USA she retains the status of a "legend". I live in Brazil, and I know more people who would recognize Cindy Lauper and her songs then Janet Jackson.

Here in Brazil if you ask anyone what are the biggest "sugar-metal" bands of the 80´s/90´s, along with Bon Jovi and Guns N Roses, people would answear The Scorpions (german rock band, long forgotten in the USA), since their old albums still sell, old songs are still played, and even more recent lead singles from new albums still get some radio airplay (altough limited), while other legendary (for the americans) rock acts from the 80´s are not big here (Bruce Springsteen´s new release has passed unnoticed here, as have all of his more recent albums...).

An interesting fact: long forgotten 90´s one-hit-wonders (for the americans) Aqua (the "Barbie Girl" song) remain a very popular act in Scandinavia to this day. Their 2009 greatest hit album was #1 in Denmark and spent 39 weeks in the Top 40, their most recent studio album released october last year peaked at #2. While fellow "icon" Janet Jackson doesn´t have a top 40 entry in the Danish album´s chart since 2004´s Damita Jo, which reached a poor #34 peak (being its only week in the chart...).

So either the brazilian and the danish are too stupid to distinguish between artists that have "everlasting quality" to those that should go away after 12 months, or really there isn´t such thing as an "everlasting appeal". People only see an "everlasting appeal" in a song AFTER it had already lasted for long .

[stevyy]

I have argued in another thread that Janet Jackson, for example, is not even a celebrity in some countries of the world today, while in the USA she retains the status of a "legend". I live in Brazil, and I know more people who would recognize Cindy Lauper and her songs then Janet Jackson.

This is complete bolllocks. Why do you feel the need to bash other artists? Janet Jackson is a global superstar.

So according to what you wrote Adele is not truely global because her album did quite poorly in Japan, which happens to be the second largest music market in the world.

[davyboy]

I have argued in another thread that Janet Jackson, for example, is not even a celebrity in some countries of the world today, while in the USA she retains the status of a "legend". I live in Brazil, and I know more people who would recognize Cindy Lauper and her songs then Janet Jackson.

This is complete bolllocks. Why do you feel the need to bash other artists? Janet Jackson is a global superstar.

So according to what you wrote Adele is not truely global because her album did quite poorly in Japan, which happens to be the second largest music market in the world.

Stevyy I think the points you're picking up on here are not particularly relevant to the central points of what Joao was saying...which is that because different countries might accord 'legendary status' to different artists, then the factors that make a legend have as much to do with how people respond to an act as to any 'absolute' measure of quality of that act. (OK so maybe you disagree with Janet as an example, but not with the Scorpions/Springsteen one, the overall point is still valid).

Re Adele/Japan - I didn't see anywhere in Joao's post the statement that an artist had to be big everywhere to be truly global. i.e. He wasn't saying because the Boss isn't so big in Brazil any more that he's not a 'global artist'.

The reason he was making these points is to say that 'legendary status' is in itself subjective according to what happens in different cultures and needs time to assess. If it were purely about 'absolute quality' then we wouldn't need time and all countries would be in agreement.

On the other hand when Joao said Adele might be a 'legendary old woman' in 2030....blimey Joao she'll only be in her early forties!! Some of us better start reaching for our walking sticks if that counts as old these days

[joao]

I have argued in another thread that Janet Jackson, for example, is not even a celebrity in some countries of the world today, while in the USA she retains the status of a "legend". I live in Brazil, and I know more people who would recognize Cindy Lauper and her songs then Janet Jackson.

This is complete bolllocks. Why do you feel the need to bash other artists? Janet Jackson is a global superstar.

So according to what you wrote Adele is not truely global because her album did quite poorly in Japan, which happens to be the second largest music market in the world.

I´m not bashing her, just stating facts. The fact that she can´t even have a Top 40 album since many years in some markets, it´s a fact, wether you like it or not.

And "21" did quite poorly in Japan yet it´s the year to date #1 western album in Japan and had a top 5 peak on the overall chart. She´s still a developing artist there, not a stablished act. The fact that you searched so hard for a flaw in Adele´s international sucess and yet the best you could find is a country where 21 is the bestselling foreigner album at the moment and had a nice peak... really says a lot.

[joao]

On the other hand when Joao said Adele might be a 'legendary old woman' in 2030....blimey Joao she'll only be in her early forties!! Some of us better start reaching for our walking sticks if that counts as old these days

Nevermind, I didn´t even notice this. I just thought that by 2030 Adele will probably look like an old lady, since she already looks a bit older then she actually is today.

But back on topic... even true global superstars had those markets where they were only "moderately sucessful" during their big eras. Take for example Abba, who never had a Top 10 album in the USA, or Mariah Carey who was only having moderate sucess in Europe when her albums were shifting big numbers in USA and Asia.

150,000 copies and a #4 peak in Japan is amazing as it is, for a foreigner artist who is new to the japanese audience. I know that Lady Gaga and Avril Lavigne sell more then that there, but 150k is already ok for an artist that is smashing anywhere else and definitely doesn´t even need those japanese sales. Keep in mind those are not the final sales, since the album only started to move relevant quantities there since a few months back, and so far, it has not even been promoted there. Me thinks this album will shift between 200k-250k without promo there, which is amazing as it is, but if Adele does promo there, well, it´s kinda unpredictable. We all know what an Adele live performance on TV causes to her sales, so it´s not like she would even need to struggle much.

[Timmy94]

Though it seems that 21 is going the same way as Come Away With Me and Back To Black: Very successful around the world but only moderately successful in Japan.
OK we could say Japanese market here, Japan market there but she's doing unexpected and unusual stuff all around the world breaking records from huge (local) artists of the last 3 decades so why excuse her Japanese chart performance with being a foreign artist and not established yet when this wasn't a discussing point in all the other countries?

[HAL9000]

history (and not only pop history) is usually rewritten from the perspective of the winner. So artists that remain famous today will easily have these outstanding remarks in their biographies, even tough an observer who was alive during their peak might not have noticed anything special that would distinguish them among all time greatests.

Our human civilization has produced thousands of geniuses, artists and they have not earned their status because someone rewrote a history, but because they have left an invaluable legacy. Just because you or someone else didn't initially saw the difference between genius or mediocrity that doesn't change a fact that many (or some) people saw the difference.

The biggest proof of that is that people say "it´s too early to judge" whenever someone suggest that a current album (like 21, for example) could become a "classic". Of course, it woudln´t be early to judge if it was only down to the musical quality itself. We heard this album since more then a year, which is not definitely early to judge if it fits the quality requirements to become a classic or not.

Defining the classics is a process of constant questioning, reassessment, re-evaluation. Classic is something that is considered or perceived as a permanent value and/or it is accepted as a model. The historical circumstances and a year of origin (time context), passage of time, importance, innovation, influence - these are some of the factors that define or may define a classic.

There is no objective way of measuing the quality of music

You can't quantitatively evaluate music to the point that you can say music composition X is universally better than music composition Y but the point is with good music you can get an honest, positive reaction, feedback from the audience. Look, music is just a combination of frequencies that some artist (author) put in some specific order as a result of his/her imagination, inspiration & creativity, but those frequencies presented through singing/performing affect listener's brain and body as a whole. Good music can inspire, motivate, unite, relax, amuse, sadden, music can influence our thoughts. can recall past events etc....
Also talking about singing/performing music we can measure (to certain degree) the quality because to reproduce certain note(s) singer/performer must posses skills and precision (perfect pitch, tonal memory etc.). Listener with absolute pitch will hear the difference between excellent and very good singer/performer, non-absolute pitch listener wouldn't notice the difference and tone deaf people actually can't hear that THIS is totally out of tune.

Just like any given trash song can become the most popular song of any given week while some genius works will not even see the light of the Hot 100 charts

A song theme can be very important for chart success. For example singing about love, lost love, heartbreak, boyfriend, girlfriend, joy etc. are probably the easiest way to find audience/success because almost everyone can relate with that, especially younger generations & teenagers. To me personally it is far more intriguing to listen to variety of themes which show the full richness of human nature and our imagination and perception. Inevitably some songs will hardly find a wider audience because of cold and inaccessible themes although they can be brilliant. Physical look of the artist(s) can also play a role in a current chart success.
Anyway, at the end of day the quality marks the main difference between short-lived popularity and everlasting appeal. Great songs will amaze, amuse, influence and inspire for generations because of their quality.

Another thing people have to take into consideration before sayng that an artist´s "everlasting appeal" has to do with its quality being superior to the quality of the normal artists, is that artists with "everlasting appeal" are not the same in all countries and all regions of the world.

You are talking about universal appeal and although the music is transcendent there is a possible language barrier with lyrics. A prejudice due to physical appearance, race, religion, sexual orientation etc. could also play a role in someone's status around the world, there are many different reasons but the fact is, some works do have an everlasting appeal around the world (or at least in a certain part of the world) and that is because of their quality.

There is a very beautiful, poetic scene in Kubrick's movie "Paths of Glory" (1957) where frightened female German captive sings the German folk song "Der treue Husar" in front of French soldiers, and they, not understanding the word, just listen and some even cry. Among others, a brilliant example of genuine human connection through ART.

[Benny]

There is no objective way of measuing the quality of music, and everlasting appeal has to do with popularity, not with quality.

Just like any given trash song can become the most popular song of any given week while some genius works will not even see the light of the Hot 100 charts, in the long term it is the same.

If there was really a qualitative difference by songs of "legendary" artists and normal artists, the people would realize that by the time those songs are still new... and not just decades after, conveniently agreeing that those who remained sucessful were better, while the others that gone away were nothing special.

A discussion about the quality of music is always subjective, I already said that in my last post (but apparently you ignored that sentence). However, you cannot deny that some songs have an enduring appeal due to their quality. "Hotel California" by the Eagles, "Dancing Queen" by Abba or "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen for example are all from the 1970s but still popular today, many younger people know these songs and radio stations still play them. And that's not just because these acts are "so legendary". The Eagles, for example, don't have that legendary status in Europe (in contrast to the US), still "Hotel California" is seen as a classic today also in European countries.

If young people like a song that is already 35 years old then this means that there's something special about that song, 'cause younger people usually don't like songs that their parents already listened to and don't care if it comes from a "legend" or not. To me, a song that manages to appeal to different generations in different decades has to have something special. That's what I call quality.

Anyway, at the end of day the quality marks the main difference between short-lived popularity and everlasting appeal. Great songs will amaze, amuse, influence and inspire for generations because of their quality.

Exactly!

[johnnyboy]

Thanks HUR (and MJD). Excellent analysis!

Thanks HAL9000/MJD!

[johnnyboy]

I never really thought of the arguments MJD used to get involved in, as "personal abuse" or "abusive".

I think he just got too wound up or frustrated, by people who did not always share his views...where I can understand his frustration and most of what he said to people, I also felt that there were times, when others came up with excellent and I thought more correct arguments against or about his figures and presumptions and he just simply, could or would not accept them.

It just seemed that a lot of the time, he did not want his original contention to look wrong and would defend it, beyond defence. There were times when I personally thought, the "other argument" made far more sense and seemed the more logical, rational and sensible assumption.

I did enjoy my interactions with him and his take on things, but felt he was always too unable to accept criticism about his presumptions, to the point where he would take them (criticisms) as an affront and would vigorously defend his presumptions, because they were his, not necessarily because they were correct.

Mind you, I think we can all be guilty of this sometimes.

Exactly!

[NothingFails]

actually I kinda liked MJD's fighting. I remember when he and this Elvis fan would always duke it out over whether a random Jackson 5 single from 1972 sold 200,000 or 300,000

[aez]

The argument about Adele being a "legend" has risen again, now in the 21 Charts and Sales topic. In order to stop flooding that thread with our very interesting arguments it's been decided that we continue our 'friendly sharing of thoughts' here.

So I'm going to copy and paste my last post on the matter, and then phoenix83's reply to it.