I can't think of one. Other performers don't stay relevant to the modern music at the time, there is a gap thats created. I never saw that with prince.

Prince could've gone into ANY musical setting and been appreciated and contributed. On stage and off.The ways he walked were as diverse as his musical skills.

Speaking directly to Josh and his assistant, he drops his appreciation for Kanye West’s “Gold Digger” (“the way he made something new with that sample was perfect”), Jill Scott’s “A Long Walk” (“every song on that first album was the truth”) and Kendrick’s Lamar’s whole To Pimp A Butterfly album (“He just has something he has to say. It’s pure. And with Thundercat on the album? Come on. You’re not taking ‘Alright’ off my playlist!”)

That music is as relevant as you can get in 2016 and he was fully up on it .and you know he had an opinion on everything out there, but he spoke about it not as a huge pop star but someone talking about it with a friend in a restaurant. I'm sure someone can explain it better. But he was this curious youthful blend of the past present and always was embracing the future. I don't think there are many if any like that around who can stir up so so much of the past in music, stay contiouosly present with himself and what was going on around him and then always a forward thinker with plans and ideas. That unique combination was rare and was one reason he remained so relevant and vital

[Edited 7/16/16 16:56pm]

Onthe1jb said:

I can't think of one. Other performers don't stay relevant to the modern music at the time, there is a gap thats created. I never saw that with prince.

Prince could've gone into ANY musical setting and been appreciated and contributed. On stage and off.The ways he walked were as diverse as his musical skills.

Speaking directly to Josh and his assistant, he drops his appreciation for Kanye West’s “Gold Digger” (“the way he made something new with that sample was perfect”), Jill Scott’s “A Long Walk” (“every song on that first album was the truth”) and Kendrick’s Lamar’s whole To Pimp A Butterfly album (“He just has something he has to say. It’s pure. And with Thundercat on the album? Come on. You’re not taking ‘Alright’ off my playlist!”)

That music is as relevant as you can get in 2016 and he was fully up on it .and you know he had an opinion on everything out there, but he spoke about it not as a huge pop star but someone talking about it with a friend in a restaurant. I'm sure someone can explain it better. But he was this curious youthful blend of the past present and always was embracing the future. I don't think there are many if any like that around who can stir up so so much of the past in music, stay contiouosly present with himself and what was going on around him and then always a forward thinker with plans and ideas. That unique combination was rare and was one reason he remained so relevant and vital

[Edited 7/16/16 16:56pm]

.

There actually are several 1980s era stars/groups who've stayed relevant enough to fill the concert halls and arenas (Springsteen, etc).

BUT the difference is that Prince refused to be an "oldies act" and refreshed himself constantly.

Everything he did, even stuff that seemed strange at the time, made sense. Sometimes it wasn't explained to the general public as well as it should have been.

He was bigger than Elvis.

There's probably only two others who could die in 2016 and be considered Prince's equals: McCartney and Springsteen.

.

laytonian said:

Onthe1jb said:

I can't think of one. Other performers don't stay relevant to the modern music at the time, there is a gap thats created. I never saw that with prince.

Prince could've gone into ANY musical setting and been appreciated and contributed. On stage and off.The ways he walked were as diverse as his musical skills.

Speaking directly to Josh and his assistant, he drops his appreciation for Kanye West’s “Gold Digger” (“the way he made something new with that sample was perfect”), Jill Scott’s “A Long Walk” (“every song on that first album was the truth”) and Kendrick’s Lamar’s whole To Pimp A Butterfly album (“He just has something he has to say. It’s pure. And with Thundercat on the album? Come on. You’re not taking ‘Alright’ off my playlist!”)

That music is as relevant as you can get in 2016 and he was fully up on it .and you know he had an opinion on everything out there, but he spoke about it not as a huge pop star but someone talking about it with a friend in a restaurant. I'm sure someone can explain it better. But he was this curious youthful blend of the past present and always was embracing the future. I don't think there are many if any like that around who can stir up so so much of the past in music, stay contiouosly present with himself and what was going on around him and then always a forward thinker with plans and ideas. That unique combination was rare and was one reason he remained so relevant and vital

[Edited 7/16/16 16:56pm]

.

There actually are several 1980s era stars/groups who've stayed relevant enough to fill the concert halls and arenas (Springsteen, etc).

BUT the difference is that Prince refused to be an "oldies act" and refreshed himself constantly.

Everything he did, even stuff that seemed strange at the time, made sense. Sometimes it wasn't explained to the general public as well as it should have been.

He was bigger than Elvis.

There's probably only two others who could die in 2016 and be considered Prince's equals: McCartney and Springsteen.

.

If he was bigger than Elvis why has mainstream media moved on so fast about Prince?....Presley has been dead going on 40 years and still pops up in the news on a consistent basis....one of Presley's guitar recently sold for big money in the UK.

jimmy3121 said:

laytonian said:

.

There actually are several 1980s era stars/groups who've stayed relevant enough to fill the concert halls and arenas (Springsteen, etc).

BUT the difference is that Prince refused to be an "oldies act" and refreshed himself constantly.

Everything he did, even stuff that seemed strange at the time, made sense. Sometimes it wasn't explained to the general public as well as it should have been.

He was bigger than Elvis.

There's probably only two others who could die in 2016 and be considered Prince's equals: McCartney and Springsteen.

.

If he was bigger than Elvis why has mainstream media moved on so fast about Prince?....Presley has been dead going on 40 years and still pops up in the news on a consistent basis....one of Presley's guitar recently sold for big money in the UK.

.

Because Presley's estate is constantly being monetized and publicized. That hasn't begun yet with Prince's.

.

I don't think Prince has always been relevant.
He had some long stretches where he would not be considered relevant. And that is ok.

He always had a strong fan base around the world, definately.
But I don't know if relevant would be the word.

RachB65 said:

Its been well established that her talent isnt comparable but Madonna has been tried to stay relevant and pretty much has continuously kept up with the times to some degree. People still talk about her, good or bad

.

True.

Relevant doesn't mean "to everyone". We should be using the term "respected".

When someone can walk out on the stage at the Grammys and get a standing ovation (when the more "popular" musicians of the day did not), THAT is respect.

.

I think the term respect is the one where Prince perhaps get the highest kudos. I can think of no one who has repeatedly been labeled a musical genuis by so many well respected musicians in addition to so many who worked with him, and still be able to be commercially success (yes, his pop radio hits were mostly in his first 15 years, but despite the lack of adequate promotion he had three gold albums the past decade and his concerts generally soldout). I think of other extremely talented artists who spanned the decades such as Joni Mitchell, Bruce, Neil young, Michael Jackson, Paul Simon, Stevie Wonder, and Paul McCartney for example), and they have had tremendous careers that had excellent albums throughout a long span. Other than perhaps McCartney, their brilliance seems more limited in scope compared to Prince. None, in my opinion, could have wrote, performed, and produced an album as varied as Sign O' the Times nor would any span so many genres as Prince did repeatedly. It would also be hard for most if not all to match his talent in playing a variety of instruments os well. Yes, Prince should be is probably is the musican commands the most respect and reverence!

No one really compares to Prince. The breadth of his talent (musician, arranger, producer, vocalist), music (too many genres to list), and intelligence/awareness has never been seen and will likely never be seen.

.

As far as a long prolific career, Sinatra stands out... reinvented himself several times while always being himself. Fought for civil rights. Fought for artist's rights (by forming Reprise Records). About four decades.

laytonian said:

NorthC said:

I suppose these are the kind of replies that one can expect on a Prince fan site, but seriously... Prince was on a roll in the 1980s, struggled to have some hits in the 1990s and lost it when he became TAFKAP. Ever since then, he's been an oldies act. Look at the set list from any given show from 2000 onwards and you'll see the same old hits pop up again and again. (With a few exceptions.) Nobody praised Musicology or ArtOfficialAge the way they praised Sign O' the Times. Okay, those albums got good reviews, but to say that they blew people's minds like he did in the 80s... No... If there is one artist who has been able to write good new songs from his youth to old age and get rave reviews, it would be Bob Dylan. He was nowhere in he 80s/90s, but ever since he released Time Out of Mind in 1997 (and started the celebrated Bootleg Series of archive material), he's made a strong comeback. His 2012 album Tempest was hailed as one of his best ever. And he actually played his new songs in concert. Bob is the one who refused to be an oldies act. He's been acknowledged as an icon of American and world culture. He recieved the Medal of Freedom from president Obama. He's been nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature. Even if most of his live set consists of Sinatra covers these days, he's up there with the very greatest.

I agree that Bob Dylan is in a category in himself in terms of songwriting and making critically acclaimed albums over so many decades. That said, he was often a terrible perfomer in person, typically spurring many walkouts by his fans in many of his performances (unlike Prince). He also certainly doesn't have the genre sweeping majesty of Prince nor the instument virouristy.

aside from a handfull of websites ...no one sees him like we do

NorthC said:

^Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody goes to Graceland because Elvis played so many instruments. Being a multi-instrumentalist is very impressive, but it doesn't make you a cultural icon. And the walkouts on Dylan's shows were because he refused to be a people pleaser and that added to his reputation.

when we know WHO will be in charge of releasing the vault material ...we can let them know what needs to be heard...

I think if Prince died in the late 90s, the reaction wouldn't have been so great. He really resurrected his career in terms of popularity with Musicology. But that doesn't really speak to relevance. If you need an example of that, if you doubt he was still relevant, I would just remind you that Uptown Funk happened only two short years ago and his sound (and others) is all over that joint.

NorthC said:

^Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody goes to Graceland because Elvis played so many instruments. Being a multi-instrumentalist is very impressive, but it doesn't make you a cultural icon. And the walkouts on Dylan's shows were because he refused to be a people pleaser and that added to his reputation.

I would say that the walkouts other than the period right after he went electric were more due to his being a disinterested and unengaged performer rather being so creative that people were not getting it. This doens't mean that he wasn't great in general and certainly revered, but that seems to be a major part of the musical pie that is missing in his case.

gandorb said:

Prince is was not relevant throughout his life and did not write good news songs from his youth to old age and get rave reviews but Bob Dylan has. Yeah Okay.

I bet Prince will be relevant when/if the estate start letting people cover and sample both present and pass work that Prince did.

People crack me up on this site.

NorthC said:

gandorb said:

I would say that the walkouts other than the period right after he went electric were more due to his being a disinterested and unengaged performer rather being so creative that people were not getting it. This doens't mean that he wasn't great in general and certainly revered, but that seems to be a major part of the musical pie that is missing in his case.

I wouldn't call Dylan a disinterested performer. He hid behind his keyboard a lot during the 2000s, but he played rarities like When I Paint My Masterpiece while he could have wowed the crowd with Knocking on Heavens Door. I have to agree that his live shows aren't for everyone (which is why he playes in theatres as opposed to arenas), but that wasn't my point. You can say whatever you want aboutDylan as a performer, but the OP's question was: is there any music star that was relevant throughout his life? And then I'd say, yes there is one who is still alive and kicking.

A rarity in a debate on this site lately, but I must say I get your point in regards to this thread.

laytonian said:

Onthe1jb said:

I can't think of one. Other performers don't stay relevant to the modern music at the time, there is a gap thats created. I never saw that with prince.

Prince could've gone into ANY musical setting and been appreciated and contributed. On stage and off.The ways he walked were as diverse as his musical skills.

Speaking directly to Josh and his assistant, he drops his appreciation for Kanye West’s “Gold Digger” (“the way he made something new with that sample was perfect”), Jill Scott’s “A Long Walk” (“every song on that first album was the truth”) and Kendrick’s Lamar’s whole To Pimp A Butterfly album (“He just has something he has to say. It’s pure. And with Thundercat on the album? Come on. You’re not taking ‘Alright’ off my playlist!”)

That music is as relevant as you can get in 2016 and he was fully up on it .and you know he had an opinion on everything out there, but he spoke about it not as a huge pop star but someone talking about it with a friend in a restaurant. I'm sure someone can explain it better. But he was this curious youthful blend of the past present and always was embracing the future. I don't think there are many if any like that around who can stir up so so much of the past in music, stay contiouosly present with himself and what was going on around him and then always a forward thinker with plans and ideas. That unique combination was rare and was one reason he remained so relevant and vital

[Edited 7/16/16 16:56pm]

.

There actually are several 1980s era stars/groups who've stayed relevant enough to fill the concert halls and arenas (Springsteen, etc).

BUT the difference is that Prince refused to be an "oldies act" and refreshed himself constantly.

Everything he did, even stuff that seemed strange at the time, made sense. Sometimes it wasn't explained to the general public as well as it should have been.

He was bigger than Elvis.

There's probably only two others who could die in 2016 and be considered Prince's equals: McCartney and Springsteen.

.

Dude, where were you on January 10, 2016 and the days following?

Also, I'll add that I saw Springsteen tour a few years back, and half the show was new material - he wasn't presenting himself as an oldies act.

NorthC said:

I have another older artist who did great things to add to this thread: Solomon Burke released a fantastic new album in 2002 filled with songs by Dylan, Van Morison, Tom Waites, Elvis Costello etc called Don't Give Up On Me. Then he hooked up with Dutch band De Dijk, who had been making Dutch-language soul/blues inspired music (and pretty succesful over here) for years and they decided to have their songs translated into English for Solomon to sing and they recorded an album (it's still on my wanting list) and got ready to tour, but Solomon sadly passed away on the plane to Amsterdam. So there we have another older artist who was still willing to try new things until the day he died. RIP Solomon... [Edited 7/17/16 13:23pm] [Edited 7/17/16 13:26pm] [Edited 7/17/16 13:28pm]

BONO

NorthC said:

Uhhh... Alright, if you want to make a point that Bono is a great and relevant artist, then go ahead, shoot! [Edited 7/17/16 16:06pm]

I was looking at a list from a few years ago and they name these musicians and gave the reasons why....http://www.thebestschools.org/magazine/50-important-living-musicians/#List They named prince 42 and the reason why.

[Edited 7/17/16 16:16pm]

Bowie. Damn.

Sting. Definitely.

Sting. Definitely.

RachB65 said:

Its been well established that her talent isnt comparable but Madonna has been tried to stay relevant and pretty much has continuously kept up with the times to some degree. People still talk about her, good or bad

Madonna is the first who came to my mind.

--

I would argue that she was more relevant than Prince. I was born in 1986 and grew up in the 1990s. I didn't have MTV until high school so my judgements of relevancy are based primarily on the news, radio airplay, and reading Reviving Ophelia in middle school. I remember hearing 2 Prince songs from my childhood prior to high school:"7" and "1999." I had also read about "Darling Nikki" because of how it influenced Tipper Gore and parental advisory labels. And I read about Prince in Mary Pipher's book Reviving Ophelia because one of Pipher's clients was obsessed with Prince. I knew Prince primarily as this weird musician who had "slave" written across his face, changed his name to a symbol, and had songs with sexually-charged lyrics. I also remember seeing his album Rave Un2 the Joy Fantastic and thinking it was irrelevant because none of its songs were on the radio.

--

Madonna was in the news for "Justify My Love," marrying Sean Penn, and all the usual celebrity stuff. But Madonna was also musically relevant. Just based on my memory, Madonna had radio hits in the late 1990s with "Ray of Light" and "Frozen." She had radio hits in 2000-2001 with "Music," "Don't Tell Me," and "What It Feels Like for a Girl." Prince's radio hits in the late 1990s and 2000s...crickets.

--

When I was in high school and college (2000-2009), none of the Prince songs playing on the radio were current...they were all past hits. So I love Prince, but he was often irrelevant in the last 20 years; his relevance ebbed and flowed but was not consistent. Very little of his stuff was on YouTube, and he had his reasons, which I totally understand and think were smart, but the lack of a presence on YouTube disconnected him from the younger generation.

[Edited 7/17/16 20:13pm]

This whole thread shows it all depends on how you define relevance! Is it how revered your are including critically acclaimed arlbums over several decases such as Bob Dylan and Neil Young. Is it how long you have hit singles (Madonna) and/or albums (several including U2). Is it how the last responder suggested the amount of media coverage of your every move???? ( Madonna, Brittiny Spears (oh hell no), etc. Things change if you then start exchanging the word from relevant to revered as a musical artist, as I definitely think if there was a multiple choice of who was the top musical genuis of popular music in the last 40 years with people in the musical field and even critics, I think Prince would win despite not having that critically acclaimed msterpiece post 1980s. It is worth noting that several years ago Rolling Stone had the top 50 albums of the rock era and I believe PR was #2, Sign o' Times was in the top 10, and Dirty Mind was in the top 50. I think that the Beatles were the only artists to have 2 in the top 10. There may have been revised polls since then, butI haven't kept up with Rolling Stone.