Great Thread & Question.....Here's my take...

An ICON is an individual that is considered Royalty in whatever field he/she is Mastered in, they're very popular, Loved & Praised by the Masses on a National &/or International Level.

A LEGEND tends to be an individual that has Mastered "staying power". People familiar with the LEGENDS craft knows them, but the Masses may not know the full scope of the LEGENDs Talent, but they know "of them". The general Public might not spend their money on the LEGEND in spite of "word of mouth".

Its downright ridiculous that these prestigious titles are carelessly given to any singer nowadays when they are not deserving. There should be some objective standard critierion that is used to determine who becomes these titles regardless of subjective opinions because every popular singer is not an Icon or Legend.

I looked up a few dictionary definitions of Icon and Legend that I thought would be interesting to look at.

Definition One: Icon

a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something.

Definition two:

a person who is very successful and admired

Definition One: Legend

A legend is a larger-than-life story that gets passed down from one generation to the next

Definition two:

an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field.

According to the first definitions, the title "Legend" supercedes Icon because a Legend is a story or event that gets passed down from generations to generations while an Icon is just a symbol of something. According to the second dictionary definitions, anybody who is famous and successful can be a legend or an Icon but we all know that does not automatically make a singer a legend or an Icon

For an Icon, there has to be something iconic associated with a singer or artist, something that has become a part of pop culture and forever associated with that person good or bad i.e. song, video, performance etc. Being successful does not make one Iconic.

For a Legend, there has to be groundbreaking music or performances that culturally impacted and changed pop culture and becomes apart of it. As a result, their contributions become classics and timeless

which is why their music or work of art gets passed down from generations to generations (thats what makes them a legend)

Awards, record sells, selling out concert tickets, popularity and chart positions does not make you a legend or even a Icon. It just symbolizes a certain point in time of popularity which does not last forever.

Legend, we see icons everyday, you can be an icon easily... Just do something iconic for once in your life, next thing you know you're regarded as an icon.

But you need to do a lot of otherwordly things to become a legend.

Alright, I'm starting to see the light on this now!

Anybody can become an icon but very few can become legends. However, I don't think being an icon is necessarily an easy thing to do and still requires credibility and longevity. True icons will be remembered for decades and their style and contributions to pop culture remaining intact many years after the fact (i.e. MJ, The Beatles, Elvis, Prince, Madonna, many a Motown artist, etc., etc.) because if anybody who created an image can become an icon even one that doesn't stand the test of time then the likes of Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, Nelly, Rihanna, Katy Perry, Nicki, Miley, and countless others would be icons as well and that just seems so wrong seeing their name alongside those that I've mentioned earlier. I doubt girls are going to be wearing Rihanna's half shaven perm 30 years from now; true icons create lasting images not trends that linger around for a few years at best.

Madonna is an icon, but no legend. Legend is somebody who will never have a replacement, only one in the history of the world. There will be no band as successful as The Beatles, therefore, they're legends. Lady Gaga easily snatched Madonna's popularity in 2009... and she became the "it" girl everybody talks about.

Shawy89 said:

Madonna is an icon, but no legend. Legend is somebody who will never have a replacement, only one in the history of the world. There will be no band as successful as The Beatles, therefore, they're legends. Lady Gaga easily snatched Madonna's popularity in 2009... and she became the "it" girl everybody talks about.

People still remember Madonna's hot streak in the 80s though when Gaga burst onto the scene she was being christened as the new her. Besides, Gaga's rise was over 20 years after Madonna's hey day and by virtue of being considered the new Madonna, Madonna was still being acknowledged. The woman is definitely diminishing her legacy more and more these days with every desperate attempt to remain relevant though.

[Edited 9/2/14 12:43pm]

Shawy89 said:

Dare I say that its possible to be both.

Musicslave said:

Shawy89 said:

Ask anybody and the first thing they'll call Madonna is an ICON...Prince is considered an ICON..Janet Jackson is considered an ICON....They are celebrated around the world..A LEGEND may be celebrated in his Country but not globally..It's an honor to be called either one but I feel ICON comes with a popularity factor that trumps everything...

well technically the true meaning of legend is something that cant be confirmed. like a story that gets passed down but there is no factual accounting if its true or not. i dont know how a person can be considered a legend but there could be something about them thats legend. if i was an artist i'd rather be considered iconic..thats like i set the standard

A bit silly question, but I try to give a serious answer (I genuinely find it interesting).

Icons are instantly recognizeable (at least to those that have been subjected to them frequently). The Coca-Cola logo is iconic and so is Superman. They often typify something of the historical era that they belong to and in case of pop / rock music "icons" are or have been very popular. I'd say that the looks are a big part of the appeal too (in the sense that the individuals have had their own style).

Some "icons":

Billy Idol
Mick Jagger

Janet Jackson
Madonna
Bobby Brown

Legends have a quality of otherwordliness. Atlantis is legendary and Titanic might be someday too. They denote a sense of something being lost and not being easily attainable. It's a bit strange to say that some person is a "legend", because a "legend" is really just one type of a story that's told to others. Often the word "legendary" is used in reference to people that have great skills that others would like to possess and they aren't necessarily big stars themselves. "Legends" tend be often, well, dead or quite old. Many have been elusive and eccentric.

"Legends":

Jimi Hendrix

Michael Jackson
Jaco Pastorius
Rick Rubin
Jonathan Richman

It's important that you can "tell stories" of people like these to others (to future generations etc.). Other musicians would like to work with these type of people more than with the "icons" and it's considered an honour if you get to meet them.

[Edited 9/3/14 8:28am]

novabrkr said:

novabrkr said:

A bit silly question, but I try to give a serious answer (I genuinely find it interesting).

Icons are instantly recognizeable (at least to those that have been subjected to them frequently). The Coca-Cola logo is iconic and so is Superman. They often typify something of the historical era that they belong to and in case of pop / rock music "icons" are or have been very popular. I'd say that the looks are a big part of the appeal too (in the sense that the individuals have had their own style).

Some "icons":

Billy Idol
Mick Jagger

Janet Jackson
Madonna
Bobby Brown

Legends have a quality of otherwordliness. Atlantis is legendary and Titanic might be someday too. They denote a sense of something being lost and not being easily attainable. It's a bit strange to say that some person is a "legend", because a "legend" is really just one type of a story that's told to others. Often the word "legendary" is used in reference to people that have great skills that others would like to possess and they aren't necessarily big stars themselves. "Legends" tend be often, well, dead or quite old. Many have been elusive and eccentric.

"Legends":

Jimi Hendrix

Michael Jackson
Jaco Pastorius
Rick Rubin
Jonathan Richman

It's important that you can "tell stories" of people like these to others (to future generations etc.). Other musicians would like to work with these type of people more than with the "icons" and it's considered an honour if you get to meet them.

[Edited 9/3/14 8:28am]

It's actually not a silly question. Concerning the definition of icons: they are symbols, words, or

representations that are usually the object of (religious) devotion. Legends do not contain an

element of otherworldliness. Instead, they contain elements of embellishment and implausibility.

Billy Idol and Bobby Brown are not icons: neither have had a career where the majority of their

fans have been religiously devoted to them worldwide, transcending language (which is what an

icon does). Janet Jackson and Mick Jagger are debatable icons. Madonna and Michael Jackson

are not; they are clearly icons. To this, I would add Jimi Hendrix with no argument.

And I don't know who told you that musicians want to work with legends over icons; that's

quite an assumption on your part!

duccichucka said:

novabrkr said:

A bit silly question, but I try to give a serious answer (I genuinely find it interesting).

Icons are instantly recognizeable (at least to those that have been subjected to them frequently). The Coca-Cola logo is iconic and so is Superman. They often typify something of the historical era that they belong to and in case of pop / rock music "icons" are or have been very popular. I'd say that the looks are a big part of the appeal too (in the sense that the individuals have had their own style).

Some "icons":

Billy Idol
Mick Jagger

Janet Jackson
Madonna
Bobby Brown

Legends have a quality of otherwordliness. Atlantis is legendary and Titanic might be someday too. They denote a sense of something being lost and not being easily attainable. It's a bit strange to say that some person is a "legend", because a "legend" is really just one type of a story that's told to others. Often the word "legendary" is used in reference to people that have great skills that others would like to possess and they aren't necessarily big stars themselves. "Legends" tend be often, well, dead or quite old. Many have been elusive and eccentric.

"Legends":

Jimi Hendrix

Michael Jackson
Jaco Pastorius
Rick Rubin
Jonathan Richman

It's important that you can "tell stories" of people like these to others (to future generations etc.). Other musicians would like to work with these type of people more than with the "icons" and it's considered an honour if you get to meet them.

[Edited 9/3/14 8:28am]

It's actually not a silly question. Concerning the definition of icons: they are symbols, words, or

representations that are usually the object of (religious) devotion. Legends do not contain an

element of otherworldliness. Instead, they contain elements of embellishment and implausibility.

Billy Idol and Bobby Brown are not icons: neither have had a career where the majority of their

fans have been religiously devoted to them worldwide, transcending language (which is what an

icon does). Janet Jackson and Mick Jagger are debatable icons. Madonna and Michael Jackson

are not; they are clearly icons. To this, I would add Jimi Hendrix with no argument.

And I don't know who told you that musicians want to work with legends over icons; that's

quite an assumption on your part!

How would you define Legend and why do you think Icon supercedes Legend?

Do you define legend based on a celebrity having notority or...?

novabrkr said:

To me, an "Icon" is someone who is so famous, they are kind of symbolic of their moment in time. Justin Bieber is one of our cultural icons right now. Somebody mentioned Billy Idol, he's a good pick for an 80s icon. His is one of the faces that comes to mind when you think of that time period.

A "legend" is also well-known at least in their field, but may not have had the same level of fame and money in their own time. Their status is more related to the high level of respect they get. Lightnin' Hopkins is a legendary bluesman. Elvin Jones is a legendary jazz drummer.

If you want to talk about someone famous and respected, they may be both at once.

i dont think you can claim being called a legend is a bigger honor since calling a person a legend actually makes no sense.like i said the word 'legend' is basically like a story that has been passed down from generations. bloody mary or the candy man are legends, santa claus is legend. michael jackson is a real person that we all saw with our own eyes, 'mj bought the elephant mans bones' is a legend.there are artists who are icons of pop culture.if you see something and its immediately associated with a certain person by a large amount of people thats iconic.things dont have to be positive to be iconic, janet's nipplegate is iconic, john lennon being shot is iconic.

mjscarousal said:

duccichucka said:

It's actually not a silly question. Concerning the definition of icons: they are symbols, words, or

representations that are usually the object of (religious) devotion. Legends do not contain an

element of otherworldliness. Instead, they contain elements of embellishment and implausibility.

Billy Idol and Bobby Brown are not icons: neither have had a career where the majority of their

fans have been religiously devoted to them worldwide, transcending language (which is what an

icon does). Janet Jackson and Mick Jagger are debatable icons. Madonna and Michael Jackson

are not; they are clearly icons. To this, I would add Jimi Hendrix with no argument.

And I don't know who told you that musicians want to work with legends over icons; that's

quite an assumption on your part!

How would you define Legend and why do you think Icon supercedes Legend?

Do you define legend based on a celebrity having notority or...?

I would define legend the way that Merriam-Webster does, in the context of which we are

speaking:

" a famous or important person who is known for doing something extremely well."

Now, Merriam-Webster says this about icons:

"a person who is very successful and admired"

But also mentions that icons are:

"an object of uncritical devotion."

So, in the context in which we are speaking of, legends can be celebrities because in order to

be one, one of the qualifiers is that you be either famous or important. But there's another

dimension to being an icon, as MW clearly points out. Legends are not necessarily worshipped,

nor are they automatically objects of uncritical devotion.

So, judging from those definitions, an icon is a more estimable title than legend.

duccichucka said:

I would define legend the way that Merriam-Webster does, in the context of which we are

speaking:

" a famous or important person who is known for doing something extremely well."

Now, Merriam-Webster says this about icons:

"a person who is very successful and admired"

But also mentions that icons are:

"an object of uncritical devotion."

So, in the context in which we are speaking of, legends can be celebrities because in order to

be one, one of the qualifiers is that you be either famous or important. But there's another

dimension to being an icon, as MW clearly points out. Legends are not necessarily worshipped,

nor are they automatically objects of uncritical devotion.

So, judging from those definitions, an icon is a more estimable title than legend.

Now that was on-point....You gave us the Bottom-line....It's not even a difficult argument..Many Legends that we know and love are not ICONIC...Music wise, Aretha Franklin is an ICON, Stephanie Mills is a Legend..Stephanie is not ICONIC in the music world. Those of us that Love R&B consider her Royalty but every entertainer with "staying power/longevity" is not gonna be considered an ICON.

duccichucka said:

mjscarousal said:

How would you define Legend and why do you think Icon supercedes Legend?

Do you define legend based on a celebrity having notority or...?

I would define legend the way that Merriam-Webster does, in the context of which we are

speaking:

" a famous or important person who is known for doing something extremely well."

Now, Merriam-Webster says this about icons:

"a person who is very successful and admired"

But also mentions that icons are:

"an object of uncritical devotion."

So, in the context in which we are speaking of, legends can be celebrities because in order to

be one, one of the qualifiers is that you be either famous or important. But there's another

dimension to being an icon, as MW clearly points out. Legends are not necessarily worshipped,

nor are they automatically objects of uncritical devotion.

So, judging from those definitions, an icon is a more estimable title than legend.

There is more than one definition for legend though. You only listed one. The dictionary gives multiple definitions for the word legend.

Here are other definitions that I found.

From the same dictionary that you found your definition for Legend: Merriam-Webster

-a story coming down from the past; one popularly regarded as historical

-a popular myth of recent origin

-a person or thing that inspires

Typically when people refer to legends, they refer to artists or singers that are generational or have produced something related to music i.e. song, music video, etc that is still relevant even after their era or generation i.e. Marvin Gaye or Stevie Wonder. That is what makes them legendary. I guess since there are multiple definitions for the word legend, its subjective. Notiority or fame does not automatically makes a singer or artist a legend in my opinion.

[Edited 9/8/14 0:37am]

"One of the challenges we faced - in making a film about a pop culture icon and a controversial legendary person – was confronting people’s preconceived idea of Joan Rivers. Joan Rivers’ persona has been exploited widely and she can be a polarizing figure, so our task was to peel away layers and expose the self-driven, work obsessed, perfectionist and inspiration in a way that would surprise audiences." (Good example using both to describe an Entertainer of Joan's caliber)