with todays top 40 music being plastic , do you think today's artist will be viewed as influence 10 years from now by then artist?

i dont think so todays artist are inspired by either prince mj whitney madonna George clinton james brown etc but todays music is a fade. and 3 months from now people dont even listen to the mp3's they listend back then

I don´t think so. Contamporary artists suck.

motownlover said:

I don't think so. maybe the same thing could've been said... no not even that tired argument of saying in the 70's ppeople thought Zeppelin was noise works. Because you could see tons of people trying to sound like them and even being influenced by them then, I can't pinpoint anyone contemporary artist were that is the case.

Pharrell & Chad
NERD/NEPTUNES

Of course there will be. They just might not be the artists that are currently commercial juggernauts. And even if they are, shoot, artists are influenced by what they hear. Just as MJ was influenced by Jackie Wilson, Usher was influenced by MJ, there are artists that are influenced by Usher. Does that put Usher on MJ's or Jackie Wilson's level? Nope.

kdj997 said:

But everyone sounds like everyone else, so you can't really tell who's influenced whom. This will shake out in a few years anyway. I just wouldn't say that no contemporary artists will be influences to future artists.

Andre 3000 who is Prince and stevie of the 90s.

The only 2 people i have heard from this generation (for the most part) that have gotten their names mentioned in "comparisons" and i feel will be influences, are Ryan Adams (though he began in Whiskeytown in the 90's) and Norah Jones. Though both are from what is considered todays "mainstream", i think because of their committment to their work they will inlfuence others. Ryan Adams actually already influenced Elton John, Elton John listened to Ryans "Heartbreaker" and immediately got back into his old style of recording like he did in the 70's.

2freaky4church1 said:

Explain the correlation between Dre3K and Stevie Wonder, please.

And to answer the thread question, yes. That goes without saying. Do you people think music just ends with our generation? WTF? There will ALWAYS be people influenced by people before them. I think a lot of people have a hard time accepting how some of their favorite artists are becoming less relevant because they were so affected by said artist's music but that's the way it goes. Just as our parents said "That mess you're listening to ain't music", such is the case now. Its the nature of change. Some accept it and some don't. I can't for the life of me understand the previous generations' desire to dominate the younger generation's musical choices. It seems like the recent previous generation is far worse about this than the grandparent-aged generation. Its strange how important it seems for the "80s teen generation" to stay relevant with the youth. Its much worse than previous generations. I guess its the youth obsessed American culture's dominance coupled with the blatant disregard the entertainment industry has shown for anyone over 25 in recent years.
The entertainment industry is the "Logan's Run" of the world these days; at 30, your career is executed.

2freaky4church1 said:

Me'Shell Ndegeocello is miles ahead of Dre3K. And she could play and write circles around him. They both dropped around the same time, as well. Commercially, he might resemble them, but that's it. Me'Shell is better, period.



Good points, Blaque. 80's children . . . remember when the boomers in the media were telling us that Prince, MJ, Madonna, The Police, U2 et al. didn't rank with the icons of the 60's? They may have had a point (to a point) but those artists influenced newcomers 2 decades later.

We're doing the same thing they did.

Most definitely. Even groups that us older folks don't consider to be good are influencing younger generations.

Take Green Day, not my favorite band, decent songs, but how many young bands are doing this pop/punk thing since they came out? They latched onto something that wasn't entirely original, but highly influential, nonetheless.

And someone mentioned Usher. I hate him, but some kids are going to look up to him & Justin, not Madonna & Michael. Same as kids my age liking Prince without realizing they really liked James Brown by extension.

John Mayer is attracting a group of people who don't know they love the guitar playing of Stevie Ray Vaughn, whose fans don't know they also love Albert King & Jimi Hendrix.

I'm already seeing people putting up britney, justin and beyonce up there. Same with 90's artists like Mariah, Nirvana, Tupac, Biggie, grunge bands etc.

I don't feel like today's artists are impactful, it's the producers like neptunes and timbaland more so than anything.

NDRU said:

namepeace said:

I think they will keep discovering the classics, and I had your point in mind about how when were kids our parents said "they're no Beatles or Stevie Wonder" and we're judging the younger generation pretty much the same way.

The next generation of artists will not be another MJ or Beatles, but they'll be their own thing and influence their own generations, and point back to previous generations...I hope.



[Edited 2/12/08 18:14pm]

Some will. Some won't.

I doubt the Justin Timberlakes and the Ushers will influence. However, I believe the artists with a bit more depth might influence the future talent. But certainly not JT or Usher, if that is what some are thinking.

Give Justin like 4 more years and he won't matter. He is just milking his success for all its worth, and he should, cus he knows it won't last forever. He just doesn't have the IT factor that Michael and Prince and many others do.

In short, if all you do is copy your influences and rely on producers to shape your sound, you are bringing practically nothing original to the table. So there is nothing original that will influence anyone in the future.

alphastreet said:

thats what i was trying to get across. todays artist have very little to do with there music. its the producers that over shadows the act most of the times.
you cant say justins style because its timbalands style

motownlover said:

yeah because we all know Diana Ross was writing all the material for the Supremes or The Temps were telling Smokey or Norman how there shit better sound.

Isn't it obvious?












































Soulja boy

I mean his work is BRILLIANT

beatmakers ( producers ) are responsible for the sounds we hear today and they sample people like george clinton . so how can people be inspired that are inspired by taking other artist songs by sampling.

Vanilli said:

Where have you been? Omarion, Mario, Johnta Austin, Chris Brown, etc...they DO NOT sound like Michael, they sound like Usher. Keep in mind that Usher has been around since the early 90s. Its 2008. He's already influenced and will continue to. You have to give credit where its due. He'll never impact music like MJ but he has been an influence. I'm sure there will be a couple of Timberlake knockoffs as well.

Motownlover - you are completely dismissing artists like Van Hunt, Chrisette Michele, Angie Stone, Martin Luther, Ledesi, Leela James and many others who DON'T do that. You are only looking at pop music and pop music has changed in the past decade. The Superproducers rule over the mass-produced mind fluff and artists have very little control in today's music business. They are different worlds. There are lots of talented individuals with deals that only get to do a couple of CDs before they are dropped. The business is not set up to support a Prince in this day and age. You don't get to make 4 albums before you have a chart-topper. You get one. Artists today have to express themselves and do it within parameters so that their records sell or they get dropped. The rules have changed.

Alicia Keys, Engineers, Otep Shamaya.

BlaqueKnight said:

But then again, did any of us knew 25 years earlier that a drum machine, a synthesizer, a sampler, & a turntable would replace nearly all of the other musical instruments within modern pop culture?

Of course these contemporary artists will be influences 10 years from now. Just look at how the shit hoppers of the 1990s have influenced the shit hoppers of today. Music hasn't changed one bit in the last 15 years and it's not going to change any time soon. It was shit hop then, it's still shit hop, and it will be shit hop 10 years from now unless someone invents something even more cheaper to make.

vainandy said:

Vainandy murders hip-hop after a seeming sabbatical.

All is right with the Org world.

vainandy said:

Classic!

vainandy said:

Please don't give the dirty south any bright ideas. They already ruining the rap game as it is with that crunk shit!!!

sure. we'll probably be even further down the road with the ridiculous tongue-in-cheek pastiche trend that's created bands like the Killers, the Darkness, Franz Ferdinand, etc.

great point vainandy but with todays artist as being mentioned as an influence leaving as quick as they came , and it being a producers game is hard for me to imagine. on the other hand kids probaly either dont know who the man behind the"music" (sampling beat programeur) is so they think just has his own sound. my kid next door is 13 and he doenst even know who prince is

motownlover said:

I understand. I'm a hip-hop "head" going way back, but I also grew up with music. Recognizing the Kanyes and Timabalands as geniuses doesn't register with me. But that's all the kids have as a frame of reference. Sadly.

I'm not surprised by the 13 year-old. He wasn't even born when Prince was in his prime. There were probably more than a few 13 year-olds in my day would have known who, say, Otis Redding or Al Green was.