Moderators: Amir, kingofskiffle, arab, AutomaticBR, seattleboy
What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girls legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)cooldeepak wrote:joao britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
britney has a huge impactargentino78 wrote:What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girlscooldeepak wrote:joao
britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's
all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)
Backstreet Boys and Spice Girls were more phenomena than legends. They had some years of huge success but that's it...argentino78 wrote:What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girls legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)cooldeepak wrote:joao britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
I don't understand this to be honest. I mean "she's a legend, I speak the truth, you have to accept the fact". For example Britney is certainly an icon in my opinion but not a legend. Anyway this is a pretty pointless argument in a chart thread, so let's move on!cooldeepak wrote:they are legends and britney has a huge impactargentino78 wrote:What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girlscooldeepak wrote:joao
britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's
all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)
she is definitely a legend whether u like it or not
I agree. The main problem is that people are too quick to bestow "legend" status. There is a reason you have to have been around a minimum of 25 years from your debut album in order to get in the Hall Of Fame, because usually it takes 20-25 years to see if you've really stood the test of time to be a legend. Just in the past year or two have the likes of Nirvana and Pearl Jam started being called "legends" and those guys first got big in 1991. Celine and Mariah are just barely at the point where they are starting to be considered legends and they both have nearly a decade on Britney career-wise. Hell even to this day many people debate if Madonna is deserving of being considered a legend or not. It's too soon to really tell yet.Nichu94 wrote:I don't understand this to be honest. I mean "she's a legend, I speak the truth, you have to accept the fact". For example Britney is certainly an icon in my opinion but not a legend. Anyway this is a pretty pointless argument in a chart thread, so let's move on!cooldeepak wrote:they are legends and britney has a huge impactargentino78 wrote:What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girlscooldeepak wrote:joao
britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's
all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)
she is definitely a legend whether u like it or not
Britney is no musical legend. However I will give her some credit for her longevity, not many late 90s pop stars are still relevant or popular today.Nichu94 wrote:I don't understand this to be honest. I mean "she's a legend, I speak the truth, you have to accept the fact". For example Britney is certainly an icon in my opinion but not a legend. Anyway this is a pretty pointless argument in a chart thread, so let's move on!cooldeepak wrote:they are legends and britney has a huge impactargentino78 wrote:What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girlscooldeepak wrote:joao
britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's
all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)
she is definitely a legend whether u like it or not
What does it have to do with when their debut albums were released?marcsgirl85 wrote:Celine & Mariah's debut albums came out April 2nd & June 12th 1990 respectively so they do deserve to be called Legends just not in the same level as Barbara Streisand or Paul McCartney
Up until this point I mean. She decided to change a little too late.NothingFails wrote:Have you heard the new Norah? It sounds nothing like her older music, it's more alternative sounding and a little more uptempo.TrinidadNavy wrote:What Norah basically suffered from is a lack of marketing and image. Alicia Keys is the perfect example. Both started off around the same time, and broke through with critically acclaimed albums.
But Alicia took risks, changed her sound, tried new things, while Norah stuck to her tried and true formula without doing much marketing after Come Away With Me. She let her music speak for itself and while admirable, her album-selling power has suffered.
I'm actually digging it and her older stuff put me to sleep. She has definitely taken a risk with this album.
LOL! Nothingfails has said it everything.NothingFails wrote:I agree. The main problem is that people are too quick to bestow "legend" status. There is a reason you have to have been around a minimum of 25 years from your debut album in order to get in the Hall Of Fame, because usually it takes 20-25 years to see if you've really stood the test of time to be a legend. Just in the past year or two have the likes of Nirvana and Pearl Jam started being called "legends" and those guys first got big in 1991. Celine and Mariah are just barely at the point where they are starting to be considered legends and they both have nearly a decade on Britney career-wise. Hell even to this day many people debate if Madonna is deserving of being considered a legend or not. It's too soon to really tell yet.Nichu94 wrote:I don't understand this to be honest. I mean "she's a legend, I speak the truth, you have to accept the fact". For example Britney is certainly an icon in my opinion but not a legend. Anyway this is a pretty pointless argument in a chart thread, so let's move on!cooldeepak wrote:they are legends and britney has a huge impactargentino78 wrote:What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girlscooldeepak wrote:joao
britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's
all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)
she is definitely a legend whether u like it or not
I do although personally I would not say Etta James was any more talented than Beyonce. But I agree, the term "legend" can generally only be given after many years and often, in hindsight (I'm pretty sure that during her peak years Etta was actually relatively unsuccessful in commercial terms but over time her songs have become recognised as classics).argentino78 wrote:LOL! Nothingfails has said it everything.NothingFails wrote:I agree. The main problem is that people are too quick to bestow "legend" status. There is a reason you have to have been around a minimum of 25 years from your debut album in order to get in the Hall Of Fame, because usually it takes 20-25 years to see if you've really stood the test of time to be a legend. Just in the past year or two have the likes of Nirvana and Pearl Jam started being called "legends" and those guys first got big in 1991. Celine and Mariah are just barely at the point where they are starting to be considered legends and they both have nearly a decade on Britney career-wise. Hell even to this day many people debate if Madonna is deserving of being considered a legend or not. It's too soon to really tell yet.Nichu94 wrote:I don't understand this to be honest. I mean "she's a legend, I speak the truth, you have to accept the fact". For example Britney is certainly an icon in my opinion but not a legend. Anyway this is a pretty pointless argument in a chart thread, so let's move on!cooldeepak wrote:they are legends and britney has a huge impactargentino78 wrote:What's your definition of legend FGS???? Backstreet boys or Spice girlscooldeepak wrote:joao
britney , BSB , spice girls will remain legends
legends? They were super successful for a couple of years and that's
all. That's not a legend. Even Spears is not a legend (yet)
she is definitely a legend whether u like it or not
Cooldeepak: I do think Spears is a 2000's pop ICON but you should re check the definition of LEGEND.
Beyoncé is an icon but Etta James is a legend. Got the difference?
I get what Marksgirl is saying. When you look at people like The Beatles and Stevie Wonder, who both came out 50 years ago, and notice how many generations of artists they have influenced and how their music has lost none of its stature over the decades, its safe to say they're "bigger legends" than someone who rose to stardom in the 90s.Timmy94 wrote:What does it have to do with when their debut albums were released?marcsgirl85 wrote:Celine & Mariah's debut albums came out April 2nd & June 12th 1990 respectively so they do deserve to be called Legends just not in the same level as Barbara Streisand or Paul McCartney
You can't say certain length of career = legend.
if we look at it this way.. then yay Beethoven (and Mozart) and all those classical icons and first international music stars are bigger legends than all of the mentioned ones combined. yay. Beethoven!!NothingFails wrote:I get what Marksgirl is saying. When you look at people like The Beatles and Stevie Wonder, who both came out 50 years ago, and notice how many generations of artists they have influenced and how their music has lost none of its stature over the decades, its safe to say they're "bigger legends" than someone who rose to stardom in the 90s.Timmy94 wrote:What does it have to do with when their debut albums were released?marcsgirl85 wrote:Celine & Mariah's debut albums came out April 2nd & June 12th 1990 respectively so they do deserve to be called Legends just not in the same level as Barbara Streisand or Paul McCartney
You can't say certain length of career = legend.
You could be right though. People are still listening to those artists centuries on. Nobody knows if or when in 2100 that there are still people out there embracing The Beatles or Michael Jackson. Could happen, much like how people are still watching movies from the 1930's today and movies like The Wizard Of Oz and King Kong are STILL popular, but still... that is almost 90 years from now, we'll probably all be dead.stevyy wrote:if we look at it this way.. then yay Beethoven (and Mozart) and all those classical icons and first international music stars are bigger legends than all of the mentioned ones combined. yay. Beethoven!!NothingFails wrote:I get what Marksgirl is saying. When you look at people like The Beatles and Stevie Wonder, who both came out 50 years ago, and notice how many generations of artists they have influenced and how their music has lost none of its stature over the decades, its safe to say they're "bigger legends" than someone who rose to stardom in the 90s.Timmy94 wrote:What does it have to do with when their debut albums were released?marcsgirl85 wrote:Celine & Mariah's debut albums came out April 2nd & June 12th 1990 respectively so they do deserve to be called Legends just not in the same level as Barbara Streisand or Paul McCartney
You can't say certain length of career = legend.
Yes, and it´s even offensive to put in the same category as those artists people who basically became famous because they were young and hot and had the luck to meet the right businessmen. I don´t know any musician who considers Britney or Backstreet Boys important. Come on... they only sold millions of records because their image had sexual appeal to teenagers. Not even in their heydays they were seen as relevant musicians or vocalists.NothingFails wrote:I get what Marksgirl is saying. When you look at people like The Beatles and Stevie Wonder, who both came out 50 years ago, and notice how many generations of artists they have influenced and how their music has lost none of its stature over the decades, its safe to say they're "bigger legends" than someone who rose to stardom in the 90s.Timmy94 wrote:What does it have to do with when their debut albums were released?marcsgirl85 wrote:Celine & Mariah's debut albums came out April 2nd & June 12th 1990 respectively so they do deserve to be called Legends just not in the same level as Barbara Streisand or Paul McCartney
You can't say certain length of career = legend.
They are, whatever way we look at it.stevyy wrote:if we look at it this way.. then yay Beethoven (and Mozart) and all those classical icons and first international music stars are bigger legends than all of the mentioned ones combined. yay. Beethoven!!NothingFails wrote:I get what Marksgirl is saying. When you look at people like The Beatles and Stevie Wonder, who both came out 50 years ago, and notice how many generations of artists they have influenced and how their music has lost none of its stature over the decades, its safe to say they're "bigger legends" than someone who rose to stardom in the 90s.Timmy94 wrote:What does it have to do with when their debut albums were released?marcsgirl85 wrote:Celine & Mariah's debut albums came out April 2nd & June 12th 1990 respectively so they do deserve to be called Legends just not in the same level as Barbara Streisand or Paul McCartney
You can't say certain length of career = legend.
I am sure the Sony/ATV catalog will ensure that it never will. The Beatles' catalog is so highly protected, they've never been sold via record clubs, you can't find them on Spotify/Rhapsody, their albums have never been heavily discounted, it took years for them to get on iTunes and even then you can only buy them album-only. They will continue to renew the license for it at least as long as we're all alive, much like how a lot of studios keep renewing the licenses to their hit tv shows and movies after the 28 years license wears off because Sony for example is not going to lose lucrative money and let Seinfeld go into the public domain when they're still making millions every year in reruns and DVD sales.joao wrote:I think not even the Beatles could be mentioned alongside classical songwriters. Their work still haven´t gone into public domain. Once their material goes into public domain, which means the copyright have expired, all labels will be able to explore it which means no particular label will put effort into promoting their music, so people will know the real impact. Dead artists like Elvis, John Lennon and Bob Marley are still promoted by their labels because they make them much more money then most of today´s acts.
stevyy wrote:
if we look at it this way.. then yay Beethoven (and Mozart) and all those classical icons and first international music stars are bigger legends than all of the mentioned ones combined. yay. Beethoven!!
Agreed - all classical composers have proven their music can last the test of time over centuries.joao wrote: They are, whatever way we look at it.![]()
Disagree. Cultural icons' images/personae, if the cultural figures are relevant enough, will persist after centuries - Shakespeare for example. I'm certain that the Beatles and Elvis (and possibly Michael Jackson) will have images recognised in future centuries as "icons of the 20th century" even if no-one could possibly understand the impact they had at the time.joao wrote: they were composers, not performers. Contemporary pop artists do not sell only music, they sell a package that includes their own images. I believe if some of today´s popular music remains relevant in centuries to come, it will be only the music itself, and not the image of the artists. So if "Baby One More Time" is still being heard in 2300 a.D., people will credit it to the songwriters, not the performer.
Agreed in the main but I think if there is one popular music artist whose works will be considered the equivalent of classical music in the future, it will certainly be the Beatles. I think in their case, it doesn't matter whether their work is "in the public domain" as you put it, the music has been so consistently popular and passed down through generations that it will inevitably happen again and again - to the point that their works will never be forgotten. As I say it's not 100% certain but the Beatles above all others are the most likely to be known in future centuries alongside Mozart/Beethoven etc. (Or maybe if I follow your theory about songwriters vs. images, it will be Lennon and McCartney who are revered...)joao wrote: think not even the Beatles could be mentioned alongside classical songwriters. Their work still haven´t gone into public domain. Once their material goes into public domain, which means the copyright have expired, all labels will be able to explore it which means no particular label will put effort into promoting their music, so people will know the real impact. Dead artists like Elvis, John Lennon and Bob Marley are still promoted by their labels because they make them much more money then most of today´s acts.
thebigham wrote:ONE Year ago:
CHART DATE: 05/09/2011
1 1 ADELE XL/COLUMBIA 154,543 +26%
21
-- 2 BEASTIE BOYS CAPITOL/EMI 125,223 --
HOT SAUCE COMMITTEE, PT. 2
-- 3 NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL MUSIC 38 CAPITOL/EMI 124,106 --
VARIOUS ARTISTS
-- 4 FLEET FOXES SUB POP 85,482 --
HELPLESSNESS BLUES
-- 5 JENNIFER LOPEZ ISLAND/IDJMG 80,305 --
LOVE?
-- 6 STEVIE NICKS REPRISE 47,115 --
IN YOUR DREAMS
-- 7 SADE EPIC 35,967 --
ULTIMATE COLLECTION
-- 8 MUSIQ SOULCHILD ATLANTIC 33,761 --
MUSIQINTHEMAGIQ
3 9 MUMFORD & SONS GLASSNOTE 30,262 0%
SIGH NO MORE
9 10 JASON ALDEAN BROKEN BOW 28,995 +25%
MY KINDA PARTY