GS: Here's a frightening thought: from 1958 to 1983, name 100 musical anythings that are iconic, that seem to last beyond their time.

NS: The Beatles, The Stones...

GS: Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, the numerous classic Motown artists, Madonna, U2, Prince, Pink Floyd... The list goes on. Individuals, all unanimously considered classic, timeless, revolutionary. Now from '84 until today, name some. Just give me a few — artists that, even after their passing, are or will be inescapable. Artists on the same level as the ones I just mentioned. Even if you don't like them, they will be impossible to avoid, or deny, even after they've stopped making music and maybe passed on. In fact, they become bigger when they stop. Name artists that even compare with the ones I just named.

NS: Nirvana?

GS: Nirvana. That's about it. They are the notable exception. Keep thinking. It's harder, isn't it, to name artists with as much confidence? The pickings are so slim, and it's not an arbitrary difference. There was a 10- to 15-year period in the '60s and '70s that gave birth to almost every artist we now call "iconic," or "classic." If you know anything about what makes longevity, about what makes something an everlasting icon, it's hard to find after that. The craft is gone, and that is what technology, in part, has brought us. What is the next Dark Side of the Moon? Now that the record industry barely exists, they wouldn't have a chance to make something like that. There is a reason that, along with the usual top-40 juggernauts, some of the biggest touring bands are half old people, like me.

This is an excerpt from a new interview conducted by his son. If you want to read the whole interview http://www.esquire.com/bl...re-of-rock

HAPPYPERSON said:

GS: Here's a frightening thought: from 1958 to 1983, name 100 musical anythings that are iconic, that seem to last beyond their time.

NS: The Beatles, The Stones...

GS: Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, the numerous classic Motown artists, Madonna, U2, Prince, Pink Floyd... The list goes on. Individuals, all unanimously considered classic, timeless, revolutionary. Now from '84 until today, name some. Just give me a few — artists that, even after their passing, are or will be inescapable. Artists on the same level as the ones I just mentioned. Even if you don't like them, they will be impossible to avoid, or deny, even after they've stopped making music and maybe passed on. In fact, they become bigger when they stop. Name artists that even compare with the ones I just named.

NS: Nirvana?

GS: Nirvana. That's about it. They are the notable exception. Keep thinking. It's harder, isn't it, to name artists with as much confidence? The pickings are so slim, and it's not an arbitrary difference. There was a 10- to 15-year period in the '60s and '70s that gave birth to almost every artist we now call "iconic," or "classic." If you know anything about what makes longevity, about what makes something an everlasting icon, it's hard to find after that. The craft is gone, and that is what technology, in part, has brought us. What is the next Dark Side of the Moon? Now that the record industry barely exists, they wouldn't have a chance to make something like that. There is a reason that, along with the usual top-40 juggernauts, some of the biggest touring bands are half old people, like me.

This is an excerpt from a new interview conducted by his son. If you want to read the whole interview http://www.esquire.com/bl...re-of-rock

I can't stand Gene Simmons but when it comes to his music, he knows his shit.

There are no Icons or legends of this generation.

mjscarousal said:

HAPPYPERSON said:

This is an excerpt from a new interview conducted by his son. If you want to read the whole interview http://www.esquire.com/bl...re-of-rock

I can't stand Gene Simmons but when it comes to his music, he knows his shit.

There are no Icons or legends of this generation.

I don't know if he knows his shit, but I do know that even tho he hates Michael he can't deny his iconic and legendary status in the industry. He'd be a fool if he did. He is highly overrated anyways tho, so I dont' care what this fool thinks about anyone lol

GoldDolphin said:

mjscarousal said:

I can't stand Gene Simmons but when it comes to his music, he knows his shit.

There are no Icons or legends of this generation.

I don't know if he knows his shit, but I do know that even tho he hates Michael he can't deny his iconic and legendary status in the industry. He'd be a fool if he did. He is highly overrated anyways tho, so I dont' care what this fool thinks about anyone lol

He knows his shit when he talks about the music industry.

I don't like Gene Simmons either not only because of his comments against Michael but for alot of other reasons as well. However, when he speaks about the artists of today and past artists he actually has some good insight. I think he is overrated too but that doesn't mean he doesnt have good insight about the music industry.

Gene Simmons is an idiot,but he's right....there really aren't any new icons in this generation.

SoulAlive said:

Gene Simmons is an idiot,but he's right....there really aren't any new icons in this generation.

No ICONS in this Generation?...Huh?....What do you consider the Queen of Hip-Hop Soul Mary J. Blige? Mary has been very relevant for the last 24yrs. I'll bet you all the Money in the World she'll be inducted into the Rock'n Roll hall of fame BEFORE her 50th birthday...Watch...

maybe there needs to be separate lists......iconic for their musical contributions and iconic for whatever else they contribute..

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

We're in an over zealous generation. Young rule the market. “@PaintTheSkyx: Don't have to do much to be considered a legend anymore, huh?"

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

When young people dub a star legendary, it's done in an attempt to establish their history. It's not sinister, it's cyclical.

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

Every generation does it, we just live in a more fast paced world. We give an artist a chance, then determine their value quicker.

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

That's why absolutely trash artists from the retro pop era would last a a few years before people realized they were shit.

Chancellor said:

SoulAlive said:

Gene Simmons is an idiot,but he's right....there really aren't any new icons in this generation.

No ICONS in this Generation?...Huh?....What do you consider the Queen of Hip-Hop Soul Mary J. Blige? Mary has been very relevant for the last 24yrs. I'll bet you all the Money in the World she'll be inducted into the Rock'n Roll hall of fame BEFORE her 50th birthday...Watch...

She's certainly a talented singer,but she doesn't come to mind when I think of the legendary icons of music

If we're talking about rock and no other musical genre, then Gene is mostly correct. There are no more rock icons after Nirvava.

But what about Pearl Jam? They came out within the same year AND same city as Nirvana, not to mention that Pearl Jam sold a lot more albums than Nirvana ever did (and this was an issue before the death of Kurt Cobain).

HAPPYPERSON said:

GS: Here's a frightening thought: from 1958 to 1983, name 100 musical anythings that are iconic, that seem to last beyond their time.

NS: The Beatles, The Stones...

GS: Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, the numerous classic Motown artists, Madonna, U2, Prince, Pink Floyd... The list goes on. Individuals, all unanimously considered classic, timeless, revolutionary. Now from '84 until today, name some. Just give me a few — artists that, even after their passing, are or will be inescapable. Artists on the same level as the ones I just mentioned. Even if you don't like them, they will be impossible to avoid, or deny, even after they've stopped making music and maybe passed on. In fact, they become bigger when they stop. Name artists that even compare with the ones I just named.

NS: Nirvana?

GS: Nirvana. That's about it. They are the notable exception. Keep thinking. It's harder, isn't it, to name artists with as much confidence? The pickings are so slim, and it's not an arbitrary difference. There was a 10- to 15-year period in the '60s and '70s that gave birth to almost every artist we now call "iconic," or "classic." If you know anything about what makes longevity, about what makes something an everlasting icon, it's hard to find after that. The craft is gone, and that is what technology, in part, has brought us. What is the next Dark Side of the Moon? Now that the record industry barely exists, they wouldn't have a chance to make something like that. There is a reason that, along with the usual top-40 juggernauts, some of the biggest touring bands are half old people, like me.

This is an excerpt from a new interview conducted by his son. If you want to read the whole interview http://www.esquire.com/bl...re-of-rock

C'mon, Gene! You're almost there! Almost!

It's got to be obvious to you that Nirvana isn't the exception - they're the ones that killed rock and roll!

SoulAlive said:

Chancellor said:

No ICONS in this Generation?...Huh?....What do you consider the Queen of Hip-Hop Soul Mary J. Blige? Mary has been very relevant for the last 24yrs. I'll bet you all the Money in the World she'll be inducted into the Rock'n Roll hall of fame BEFORE her 50th birthday...Watch...

She's certainly a talented singer,but she doesn't come to mind when I think of the legendary icons of music

I couldn't name three of her songs. Heck, I can't name one. That's probably more on me than her, as I guess I just never listened to whatever stations played her music.

But maybe that's the point. Maybe to be "iconic" you have to be so ubiquitous that no matter what stations or formats you listen to, you can't escape that artist.

HAPPYPERSON said:

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

We're in an over zealous generation. Young rule the market. “@PaintTheSkyx: Don't have to do much to be considered a legend anymore, huh?"

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

When young people dub a star legendary, it's done in an attempt to establish their history. It's not sinister, it's cyclical.

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

Every generation does it, we just live in a more fast paced world. We give an artist a chance, then determine their value quicker.

seauxmali. @carelesswhispah · Sep 6

That's why absolutely trash artists from the retro pop era would last a a few years before people realized they were shit.

I don't know who this person is, but they have no idea what they're talking about.

thedoorkeeper said:

RodeoSchro said:

SoulAlive said:

She's certainly a talented singer,but she doesn't come to mind when I think of the legendary icons of music

I couldn't name three of her songs. Heck, I can't name one. That's probably more on me than her, as I guess I just never listened to whatever stations played her music.

But maybe that's the point. Maybe to be "iconic" you have to be so ubiquitous that no matter what stations or formats you listen to, you can't escape that artist.

Exactly.When I think of musical "icons",I think of artists/celebrities who are so popular/respected that,even if you don't personally own any of their albums,you can still name a handful of their hits.

The Beatles,Michael Jackson,Madonna,Elvis,Aretha....those are "icons".

SoulAlive said:

She's certainly a talented singer,but she doesn't come to mind when I think of the legendary icons of music

Wow...So you don't think Mary j. Blige ushered in Hip Hop Soul and has influenced R&B Music as a whole? Wow so you think Rock'n Roll is the only form of music that matters because it sells more...

Chancellor said:

SoulAlive said:

She's certainly a talented singer,but she doesn't come to mind when I think of the legendary icons of music

Wow...So you don't think Mary j. Blige ushered in Hip Hop Soul and has influenced R&B Music as a whole? Wow so you think Rock'n Roll is the only form of music that matters because it sells more...

I agree with SoulAlive. Her music shaped 90's R&B and her career has lasted way longer than her contemporaries, but she's hardly an artist considered to be iconic. That's just the truth of the matter.