A short while ago someone posted a topic asking if Madonna was considered still relevant, and I couldn't help but wonder by who's definition.

When people think of relevance they think of who's happening right now, so in that mindframe people like Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj and L'il Wayne are definitely relevant. But I don't think their current popularity makes them relevant at all, nor does Madonna's lack of chart position make her irrelevant. What it does make them is current.

Entertainment Tonight and People Magazine will trump such things as Snooki and the latest Batman film as relevant but are they really?

To me relevance has to do with how important you appear to the culture.

Joss Weadon, a writer I like, is considered relevant because of his billion dollar blockbuster "The Avengers", but is it relevant? It might be now. It could be in the future. But to me someone like Martin Scorcese is relevant. Constantly referenced, admired by all filmmakers and copied to this day, to me that's relevance. He's never had a mega-million blockbuster but it hardly matters because he's so revered. Best movie of the 70's: "Taxi driver". Best movie of the 80's: "Raging Bull". Best movie of the 90's: "Goodfellas". Oscar winning Best Picture on the 00's: "The Departed". (All argueable I'm sure, but you get my point).

"The Big Bang Theory" is THE most popular sitcom on the air, and it can be good for a laugh, but it'll always be The Golden Girls with Nerds to me. But "The Wire", a show seen by probably less then a tenth of BBT audience was, and is, talked about as the best show ever on TV five years after it's cancellation.

Prince hasn't had a major hit since the mid nineties and probably couldn't get airplay today if he paid for it, but it doesn't stop musicians from being constantly inspired by him. Every so often a new song will pop up and you have to take a second listen because it sounds like something Prince would've done. He has a cultural stamp on a decade that is fondly remembered.

As for Madonna I'm gonna say yes, she is relevant. Not for the big arena tours she really needs to stop doing (My view. Hell she's still making money so who am I to tell her?) but because every girl after her has tried to copy her way of doing things (GaGa is argueably Madonna with the internet). And she does have a hit or two that is fondly remembered decades after they came out (Borderline and La Isla Bonita being prime examples).

So what do you think? Do I have this whole relevance thing all wrong?

Bravo for a very thoughtful post.

You've cause me to think about the distinction between popularity and relevance.
by point out their relevance can be measured in "staying power" and emulation.

So many "flash in the pan" artists are popular for a relative minute but do they leave a legacy?

That is the question.

And by what method do you rate them? Quality? Breaking new ground? Charisma?

A lot of people swear that Madonna is not that great of a vocalist. I don't care enough to judge her on that feature because I just like her creativity.

And yet on the other hand ultimately relevance is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.

I always find it interesting when musicians who are being interviewed reveal who their influences are. Most of the time it's predictable but sometimes it can be quite surpising who they cite.

I like you, Cinny.

Terrib3Towel said:

I like you, Cinny.

Awww I FEEL the love.

More relevance:

Vincent Van Gogh.

His paintings go for tens of millions and he's been dead for a minute.