Important Acts

[Nee Lewman]

The conversation about Hole over in the VMP essentials thread sparked this thread.

We know there are important groups & artists...
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Chuck Berry
Elvis Presley (love or hate him, it is impossible to deny his importance in Rock n Roll)
Radiohead
Pink Floyd
The Beach Boys
Aretha Franklin
Janis Joplin
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Nina Simone


I'd certainly like to talk about the canon as it were. But who since the 90s is really important.

For example, while we all love and respect Beyonce - what has she done to ensure that her legacy is remembered 50 years from now. Is she a timeless and important act. I'm not saying she is or isn't. I think you could argue that she is. Especially post self-titled...

 

[Yer Ol' Uncle D]

Are you thinking bands that formed in the '90s or influential works released in the 90's and beyond?

 

[Nee Lewman]

Are you thinking bands that formed in the '90s or influential works released in the 90's and beyond?

90s and beyond... hell, I'm not opposed to bringing folks like Moses Sumney into the conversation - his influence on the folk/alt r&b scene is pretty huge and a different idiom than what Richie Havens or Terry Callier did... I think somewhere in the 80's the canon itself starts to get fuzzy... probably around the time REM/IRS broke big because now you have a lot of bands that would have never gotten outside their neck of the woods starting to have an impact on the whole of music. You have them on one end of the influence of the Velvet Underground aesthetic (poppy) and Sonic Youth on the other (avant garde).

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

The conversation about Hole over in the VMP essentials thread sparked this thread.

We know there are important groups & artists...
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Chuck Berry
Elvis Presley (love or hate him, it is impossible to deny his importance in Rock n Roll)
Radiohead
Pink Floyd
The Beach Boys
Aretha Franklin
Janis Joplin
Joni Mitchell
Ella Fitzgerald
Nina Simone


I'd certainly like to talk about the canon as it were. But who since the 90s is really important.

For example, while we all love and respect Beyonce - what has she done to ensure that her legacy is remembered 50 years from now. Is she a timeless and important act. I'm not saying she is or isn't. I think you could argue that she is. Especially post self-titled...

no Nirvana?

 

[Yer Ol' Uncle D]

VU started it in '67. The Jesus And Mary Chain doubled it with Psychocandy in '85, then My Bloody Valentine set it on fire and pushed it off a cliff with Loveless in 1991.

They're still talked about and revered today and they only released 3 records in 25 years. I think they'll remain in the conversation along with VU. My JAMC boys, I love 'em and they're worthy (every record they released was different), but they're a distant 3rd.

MBV made such a polarizing record in the 90's they'll remain in the mix for decades.

 

[Nee Lewman]

no Nirvana?

I wasn't trying to make a full list, just give examples. Also, if the premise of the thread is who post 90s belongs there, then there we are. We could certainly build a canon on this site. We have a depth of knowledge that expands over so many genres that I think we are just as authoritative as any of the big sites/magazines.

 

[Nee Lewman]

Or Prince?

As one of the bigger Prince fans here... I'm not sure of his importance. He's a continuation of the conversation that Sly Stone and George Clinton started. There are some innovations here and there and his activism as an artist (fight to own catalog and produce constantly along with his approach in the early internet days) would certainly be points in the pro column for important.

 

[Nee Lewman]

I'm also admittedly too close to Prince (from a music dna standpoint)... I have a hard time looking at anything he did objectively. I love it all even the bad albums (see Graffiti Bridge). (His film work, even Purple Rain, is disappointing though.)

 

[Nee Lewman]

I guess you need to define “ important,” then. As much as I love Sly & the Family Stone and Parliament / Funkadelic, I’d argue more people know who Prince is. I doubt the average person could name a single George Clinton song, but they all know “Purple Rain.”

We can define that together. I don't think popularity needs to be a part of the equation though. Look up at @Yer Ol' Uncle D's post. It is nigh impossible to equate VU's importance to music to their popularity. Velvet Underground & Nico only hit gold status after the 90s. Popularity can certainly play into the conversation though. Like I said, Prince certainly has a lot of pros in his column, but I'm biased and would rather the community as a whole place him. I'll argue to the hilt that Sly and Clinton are indeed important though. You don't get Prince without them.

 

[Nee Lewman]

Sly was also VERY popular in the day.

We can, I think safely, add Sly, Clinton, VU as well as Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye to the canon.

 

[Yer Ol' Uncle D]

I think it's mostly a matter of generational context. While us old bastards know how much is lifted/reworked/sampled/influenced/covered from music created decades before, to the generation present when it's cranked out, it's new and fresh and exciting.

Many folks don't know Elvis 'Hound Dog' was originally done by Big Mama Thornton.

Many folks don't know The Rolling Stones 'The Last Time' was originally done by Bobby Womack.

Many folks don't know Steve Miller 'Jet Airliner' was originally done by Paul Pena.

Many folks don't know Talking Heads 'Take Me To The River' was originally done by Al Green.

Many folks don't know they've heard The Winstons 'Amen, Brother' sampled thousands of time in modern music.

Everything old becomes new and the music keeps propagating itself.

 

[Nee Lewman]

I’m well aware how popular Sly & the Family Stone were — and I 100% agree Sly Stone is an important artist — but whereas Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Otis Redding, Curtis Mayfield, and James Brown have become these huge legacy artists, there has yet to be a wider appreciation of their music. It’s sad, really, and I’d mostly put it down to Sly’s drug use and erratic behavior, because he kind of took himself out of the conversation.

Otis is a completely different conversation. He actually wasn't a big deal in his lifetime. All of these guys have been part of my musical knowledge as long as I can remember being aware of music. It actually baffled me when I discovered that his popularity was all posthumous. That Dock of the Bay was his first real big hit. I was flabbergasted, it changed my perception of music. Like VU was a big part of my college years and music discovery, to find out that they are pretty much not known outside of the heads is just weird to me, especially how ubiquitous Walk on the Wild Side is.

@TheThinWhiteDuke posted a link to this article which I am currently reading:

‘There’s endless choice, but you’re not listening’: fans quitting Spotify to save their love of music

Former streaming service subscribers on why they have ditched mod cons for MP3s, CDs and other DIY music formats

www.theguardian.com

It is fascinating to me how much different people have a different relationship with music.

I remember a while back there was some article about how the average person stops listening to new music at some arbitrary age that made no sense to folks like myself and @AnthonyI or @Yer Ol' Uncle D

These are all reasons that I think we should consider things other than popularity in the equation.

 

[Nee Lewman]

I’m well aware how popular Sly & the Family Stone were — and I 100% agree Sly Stone is an important artist — but whereas Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Otis Redding, Curtis Mayfield, and James Brown have become these huge legacy artists, there has yet to be a wider appreciation of their music. It’s sad, really, and I’d mostly put it down to Sly’s drug use and erratic behavior, because he kind of took himself out of the conversation.

I think it's mostly a matter of generational context. While us old bastards know how much is lifted/reworked/sampled/influenced/covered from music created decades before, to the generation present when it's cranked out, it's new and fresh and exciting.

Many folks don't know Elvis 'Hound Dog' was originally done by Big Mama Thornton.

Many folks don't know The Rolling Stones 'The Last Time' was originally done by Bobby Womack.

Many folks don't know Steve Miller 'Jet Airliner' was originally done by Paul Pena.

Many folks don't know Talking Heads 'Take Me To The River' was originally done by Al Green.

Many folks don't know they've heard The Winstons 'Amen, Brother' sampled thousands of time in modern music.

Everything old becomes new and the music keeps propagating itself.

That last bit about the Winstons made me think about Brown (and to a lesser extent Mayfield) - not only are they important, but I think the hip hop movement removes them from the conversation about there not being a wider appreciation of their music. The guys making this music today completely get how important Brown and Mayfield are...

I also think it is important to call out the elephant in the room too.... color of skin has a lot to do with wider acceptance. We have to acknowledge that Elvis was Sam Phillips' dream of a White dude that sounded Black in reality.

I do think it is cool that Hip Hop has the audience it has today and has not been overrun by appropriation (in its craft - public consumption is another thing)

 

[AnthonyI]

Interesting discussion @Lee Newman

I think @Yer Ol' Uncle D's generational comment is something to really consider in the discussion for a few reasons. Drawing inspiration from the past, or covering "obscure" songs as their own and making them popular isn't a new thing, it's been going on a long time. I think as the "old bastards" we just have a deeper data base to draw from, lol. I know myself, and present company included, digest a lot of music in general so it stands to reason we're going to notice similarities or the inspiration behind more current offerings.

When it comes to the question of importance, that's tough based on personal opinion and the definition you want to attach to it. I'd argue that the music of the past will always hold more water simply because they "did it first". That doesn't mean there aren't talented artists and musicians now a days, but they seem harder to find, in my opinion. Mainstream popularity is still the hurdle to get past when you say you're a lover of music, if your list consists of current Top 40, in any genre, I think you're cheating yourself out of some amazing stuff..............the benefits of streaming come to the forefront.

Since Prince was brought up and I completely appreciate your honesty that your opinion is a bit weighted, but I'd offer a few things when it comes to his "importance". There is no doubt he's a genius, musically, lyrically and from a business standpoint, his movies weren't Oscar worthy, but they struck a cord and he ran with it and made money, lol.

That said, I think many don't realize how many "hits" Prince wrote for others over the years, how many things he was involved with beyond what was front and center, I mean hell, how many "younger" folks in general music fandom would know the lineage of Cornell's "Nothing Compares 2 U", lol. I'd say things like that should also be considered when you're talking about the importance question. I guess if you were to think about it this way, making a list of some of the greatest guitarist without including Les Paul for instance.

Music, inevitably, is a personal thing. It needs to strike a cord with the listener. Some acts/artists strike a more universal cord and those tend to become the "mainstream", others strike a more personal cord and could be the band playing at your local bar, one isn't better than the other, it's just how many ears does each one reach at a given time. This is one of the reasons I appreciate this site, as you mentioned, there's quite the range and depth in this group, and with that a lot of the members get to learn and listen to music that they otherwise would never hear, myself included.

I'm going to have to think about an important band from the 90's forward because there's a huge difference between popularity and importance.

 

[bettim84]

I have dropped the ball on keeping up with new music over the past few years, so this is a challenging conversation for me. It’s also hard to evaluate how much what matters in the present moment will matter decades down the road. But let’s give it a try.

Hip hop has been a major cultural force for decades and is now far more relevant than rock music in contemporary culture, so we should be able to single out a couple of standout artists who are likely to signify this shift. Given his cultural acclaim and sheer skill, I think it’s safe to say that Kendrick Lamar’s body of work in the 2010s is and will continue to be regarded as “important,” because it is very likely that future generations will go back and revisit albums like GKMC and TPAB.

Taylor Swift is massively important not just because of her body of work but also because of the whole agency narrative (re-recording her albums for IP reasons). I think at this point she has transcended the “popular at the time but ultimately irrelevant” threshold (e.g. I dunno, Carly Simon) and will likely remain a reference point for the types of paths that future artists may choose to follow throughout their careers.

Radiohead is arguably the last great classic rock band. If they care enough about their brand, you can see how they may maintain a high level of popularity even after they break up (which may have already happened). I’m not sure we can say that they’re particularly influential, but I think their sound is unique and powerful enough that future fans of rock music will want to revisit their catalogue more than, I dunno, the Foo Fighters’ (to name a far more popular but vastly inferior act).

I should add that none of the artists I listed above rank among my personal favorites. I’m not much of a hip hop fan, have limited patience for Taylor Swift, and am rarely in the mood for Radiohead.

One artist who is a personal favorite (even though I don’t really like most of her 21st-century output) and who probably belongs in this conversation is Björk. She fits neatly into the kooky/unique female songwriter canon; the 90s version of Kate Bush. I think it is likely that her first four or five albums will continue to be regarded as timeless classics, and I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if people (myself included) positively reevaluate her later work as well.

Notably, most of my favorite artists don’t make the cut for the “important” club. My favorite artists of the 2010s were probably Beach House, Father John Misty, and Grimes; maaaaybe Grimes can crack the conversation as a self-made, micro-popstar but that remains to be seen. As for the 2000s, I rank Spoon and Ladytron very highly, but can’t make a strong argument for either as a culturally important act. Going back to my favorites from the 90s, I think Nirvana definitely belongs, but others like Wilco, PJ Harvey, or Belle and Sebastian are less obvious.

[I gotta get to work so I’ll stop here]

 

[Joe Mac]

A kind of nascent and half complete thought. Could you also argue that whilst originality is important is it the be all and end all.

Are the band that made everyone want to be in a band and inspired the next wave less important because they ripped off or built on the sound of a band from the generation before that were less heard of?

 

[Nee Lewman]

I have dropped the ball on keeping up with new music over the past few years, so this is a challenging conversation for me. It’s also hard to evaluate how much what matters in the present moment will matter decades down the road. But let’s give it a try.

Hip hop has been a major cultural force for decades and is now far more relevant than rock music in contemporary culture, so we should be able to single out a couple of standout artists who are likely to signify this shift. Given his cultural acclaim and sheer skill, I think it’s safe to say that Kendrick Lamar’s body of work in the 2010s is and will continue to be regarded as “important,” because it is very likely that future generations will go back and revisit albums like GKMC and TPAB.

Taylor Swift is massively important not just because of her body of work but also because of the whole agency narrative (re-recording her albums for IP reasons). I think at this point she has transcended the “popular at the time but ultimately irrelevant” threshold (e.g. I dunno, Carly Simon) and will likely remain a reference point for the types of paths that future artists may choose to follow throughout their careers.

Radiohead is arguably the last great classic rock band. If they care enough about their brand, you can see how they may maintain a high level of popularity even after they break up (which may have already happened). I’m not sure we can say that they’re particularly influential, but I think their sound is unique and powerful enough that future fans of rock music will want to revisit their catalogue more than, I dunno, the Foo Fighters’ (to name a far more popular but vastly inferior act).

I should add that none of the artists I listed above rank among my personal favorites. I’m not much of a hip hop fan, have limited patience for Taylor Swift, and am rarely in the mood for Radiohead.

One artist who is a personal favorite (even though I don’t really like most of her 21st-century output) and who probably belongs in this conversation is Björk. She fits neatly into the kooky/unique female songwriter canon; the 90s version of Kate Bush. I think it is likely that her first four or five albums will continue to be regarded as timeless classics, and I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if people (myself included) positively reevaluate her later work as well.

Notably, most of my favorite artists don’t make the cut for the “important” club. My favorite artists of the 2010s were probably Beach House, Father John Misty, and Grimes; maaaaybe Grimes can crack the conversation as a self-made, micro-popstar but that remains to be seen. As for the 2000s, I rank Spoon and Ladytron very highly, but can’t make a strong argument for either as a culturally important act. Going back to my favorites from the 90s, I think Nirvana definitely belongs, but others like Wilco, PJ Harvey, or Belle and Sebastian are less obvious.

[I gotta get to work so I’ll stop here]

Wilco came from the ashes of Uncle Tupelo, a massively important band for it's punk take on Country and really kick starting alt country.

 

[Nee Lewman]

A kind of nascent and half complete thought. Could you also argue that whilst originality is important is it the be all and end all.

Are the band that made everyone want to be in a band and inspired the next wave less important because they ripped off or built on the sound of a band from the generation before that were less heard of?

I think it should be a mixture of both. Popularity is important. However, it can't be the end all either.

 

[Viking Dan]

Wilco came from the ashes of Uncle Tupelo, a massively important band for it's punk take on Country and really kick starting alt country.

I'll dive in here and co-sign the vote for UT as "important".

I think UT is an example that best expresses how I, personally, would define "important": They moved the needle in a way that expanded the boundaries so that, today, the sound/style can be said to be a touchstone for music that is" lifted/reworked/sampled/influenced/covered" (to lift/rework/sample @Yer Ol' Uncle D )

Now, why the needle moved [wide spread popularity, a totally new sound/genre created, the silent song writer of hits for otherss, etc.] might be the perfect grey area for debate and the way in which we seek to cull some acts and create a "canon" here.

Great thread.

 

[jamieanderson1968]

A kind of nascent and half complete thought. Could you also argue that whilst originality is important is it the be all and end all.

Are the band that made everyone want to be in a band and inspired the next wave less important because they ripped off or built on the sound of a band from the generation before that were less heard of?

There is a Bowie quote (pretty sure he stole it). Something along the lines of, its not important who first started a style or trend, but made it famous.

A lot of his music in the 70s (his heyday) is derivative of others, both famous (T.Rex) and not so famous at the time (Kraftwerk, Gang of Four, Talking Heads). He just took those ingredients, added his own style and made it big.