mjscarousal said:

namepeace said:

That's fair, but a lot of artists who aren't icons today will be considered icons tomorrow.

For the most part, icons are formed over time. Sometimes decades. So it's understandable that 90's acts would have to wait a while to get in. I didn't list any myself.

Respectfully disagree.

An artist has to actually make an iconic album, song, performance or moment in pop culture in order to be revered as one. In other words, they have to actually do something iconic to be viewed as an Icon. This is something that does not occur "over time". An artist can become an Icon instantly. IMO, its theopposite, the more an artist moves pass their commerical peak, the lower their chances are in making a iconic moment that really makes an impact on people.

This line of thinking wrongly presumes that "iconic" status is instantly conferred. To the contrary, oftentimes, the iconography of songs, performances, moments or "albums" are litigated. Even some of the work we consider iconic from Prince now was not universally stipulated at the time of release.

Plus, iconography is largely determined by the generation that grew up listening to the artist. As they come of age -- and the older generations fade away -- new iconography emerges, and supplants older iconography.

Look no further than any publication's top 100 songs/albums/artists list from 10 years ago to now, and my point is made.

When MJ moonwalked across that stage on Motown 25, he became an ICON and then of course he went on to do other Iconic things. He didn't become viewed as one 10 years after he did that.

At that very moment he became one because it was groundbreaking and defining for music and entertainment.

When Prince dropped Purple Rain he became an Icon

When Janet made RN, she became an Icon.

They didn't just become viewed as Icons, "overtime"

Hence my statement, "for the most part." We can't judge all iconography by the cream of the crop. There are levels to this. Not all icons are created equal.

There are some artists that will never be seen as Icons and that is simply because some will never do anything Iconic or momentum that reasonates with the general public.

It takes years, if not decades, of litigation before one makes the final call on that.

[Edited 4/25/17 20:27pm]

[Edited 4/26/17 14:03pm]

namepeace said:

mjscarousal said:

Respectfully disagree.

An artist has to actually make an iconic album, song, performance or moment in pop culture in order to be revered as one. In other words, they have to actually do something iconic to be viewed as an Icon. This is something that does not occur "over time". An artist can become an Icon instantly. IMO, its theopposite, the more an artist moves pass their commerical peak, the lower their chances are in making a iconic moment that really makes an impact on people.

This line of thinking wrongly presumes that "iconic" status is instantly conferred. To the contrary, oftentimes, the iconography of songs, performances, moments or "albums" are litigated. Even some of the work we consider iconic from Prince now was not universally stipulated at the time of release.

Plus, iconography is largely determined by the generation that grew up listening to the artist. As they come of age -- and the older generations fade away -- new iconography emerges, and supplants older iconography.

Look no further than any publication's top 100 songs/albums/artists list from 10 years ago to now, and my point is made.

When MJ moonwalked across that stage on Motown 25, he became an ICON and then of course he went on to do other Iconic things. He didn't become viewed as one 10 years after he did that.

At that very moment he became one because it was groundbreaking and defining for music and entertainment.

When Prince dropped Purple Rain he became an Icon

When Janet made RN, she became an Icon.

They didn't just become viewed as Icons, "overtime"

Hence my statement, "for the most part." We can't judge all iconography by the cream of the crop. There are levels to this. Not all icons are created equal.

There are some artists that will never be seen as Icons and that is simply because some will never do anything Iconic or momentum that reasonates with the general public.

It takes years, if not decades, of litigation before one makes the final call on that.

[Edited 4/25/17 20:27pm]

[Edited 4/26/17 14:03pm]

IMO, your line of thinking wrongly assumes that a pop star will eventually be viewed as an icon "over time". Your logic presumes that in order for a pop star to be viewed as an icon, a certain length of time needs to pass by in order for them to be viewed as an Icon. IMO, this is a skewed assumption because for one, not all pop stars will become an Icon. Two, this logic doesn't consider the KEY factors in what maks an Icon. A length of time passing by has no bearing on what makes an icon because the iconic status is largely based on impact. A pop star actually has to make a groundbreaking impact on music or people whether that be through music or entertainment that is defining.

My point about Prince was that when Purple Rain was released and after that groundbreaking era he was instantly viewed as an Icon because it was an Iconic moment for music, the songs, the album, the movie, the clothes, etc. JUST this alone made him an Icon because of the groundbreaking impact that it made so regardless of what other works you felt were't iconic, Purple Rain is what made him a universal music Icon (his done other things but this was defining) and he became one instantly in 84. Prince didn't become an Icon in 94 and he definitly didnt become one in 04 and he definitly didn't become one at the time of his death. He was an Icon in 1984 after that groundbreaking era and believe it or not there are young people who do view him as an Icon and respect him as Icon.

I completely disagree with your opinion that "old iconography" replaces "new iconography". Marilyn Monroe, MJ, Madonna, etc are constantly referenced, copied, influenced and cited in todays generation and their iconic moments, songs and albums are still cited and influence. Iconography does not have a time cap, that is what makes it iconic.

I agree that iconography is partially determined by the generation that grew up listening to a particular artist but they are not the ONLY demographic that has a say. Most of the true Icons were Icons because there popularity and music reached multiple ages and generations.

Lastly, I think overall your logic disregards that Icons actually have to make some type of momentum impact on people. This is why I said this is something that usually happens instantly. In other words, the general public doesn't wait for a pop star to "make there iconic moment". They either do it or they don't. Your either an Icon or your not. There are some artists that simply wont have that groundbreaking and big impact on people and there are some that do and this impact cannot be manufactured. It has to be geniune, imo that is what makes it groundbreaking.

namepeace said:

mltijchr said:

in my opinion, R&B music did peak in the late 70s. the level of creativity, musicianship & vocal talent & prowess of the best of that era - & since that era - is still unrivaled.

.

having expressed that, for me, this (so-called "contemporary") R&B HOF would have to start earlier than the late 70s. for me, this RBHOF would start with these 5

MASTERS

of rhythm & blues :

.

ISLEY BROTHERS

STEVIE WONDER

.

of course, many other groups & singers would be worthy to be inducted AFTER this "starting five" :

.

Earth Wind & Fire

Rufus/Chaka Khan

Prince

Cameo

Rick James

Kool/Gang

Teena Marie

The Time

Luther Vandross

.

this last group was simply off the top of my head.. several others would be worthy of early inclusion to this R&B hall of fame.

.

if I were in charge of this HOF, there MIGHT be only 2 or 3 inductees who released their 1st music after 1996..

this is how much "today's r&b music" has DETERIORATED from what it had been.

I don't disagree with you about the creative peak of R&B being the late 70's, due to the depth and breadth of R&B in that time. I also don't disagree with you that R&B can't be separated from the classic era of the 60's or the artists who led and/or paved the way for a golden age in the 70's.

But I still say we're dealing with the OP's Contemporary R&B Hall of Fame (ca. 1977-present), which is frankly a much more challenging topic. That's because it asks us which artists truly stepped out of the shadows of the (arguable) Golden Era of R&B from the 60's to mid-70's to make their own impact on the genre. Most of your list would still qualify.

But I disagree with you about your 1996 cutoff. Commercially, R&B morphed into "rap and beats" over the last 20 (or 25) years. But there have been a lot of artists out there making quality music. Consider who would be disqualified -- the likes of Erykah Badu, Jill Scott, Bilal, Janelle Monae, The Foreign Exchange, Van Hunt, and other acts who've made meaningful, impactful, creative R&B music.

.

namepeace, if you'd like please do throw out 5 names or so of who you see as good "current" r&b singers or groups. starting late last year I've been making a CONCIOUS EFFORT to look for & listen to more "current" singers. off the top of my head, 2 whose music I rather like are Lizz Wright (apparently she did some music with Prince?) & a brother from the UK named Omar.. so

I'm making very small strides & more importantly, I am making what resembles a real effort.

.

what can I tell you.. the BRILLIAN music of the 70s - basically across ALL GENRES - is the best music I've heard in my life & I am VERY SPOILED by that..

mltijchr said:

.

namepeace, if you'd like please do throw out 5 names or so of who you see as good "current" r&b singers or groups. starting late last year I've been making a CONCIOUS EFFORT to look for & listen to more "current" singers. off the top of my head, 2 whose music I rather like are Lizz Wright (apparently she did some music with Prince?) & a brother from the UK named Omar.. so

I'm making very small strides & more importantly, I am making what resembles a real effort.

If you are focusing on singers, Ledisi, Leela James, Elle Varner, Philip Owusu, Phonte/Foreign Exchange, are five that come to mind.

what can I tell you.. the BRILLIAN music of the 70s - basically across ALL GENRES - is the best music I've heard in my life & I am VERY SPOILED by that..

This Seventies Child is with you on that. I cherish Prince's work, and the work of so many artists of so many different genres before and after the 70's. But it's still my go-to decade.

That said, so many of today's R&B and "future soul" artists are holding their own these days, even if they don't get the airplay.

namepeace I appreciate those suggestions. I will check them out in the coming weeks.

.

you then brought up (yet) another valid point - there are good, current singers & groups

but you won't find most of them on "popular radio".

which is why I keep scouring for new music that approaches the brilliant 70s music you & I appreciate..

Donny Hathaway

Babyface

Toni Braxton

Keith Sweat

Boyz II Men

En Vouge

Miki Howard

Toni Tony Tone

Aaron Hall

Bobby Brown

mltijchr said:

namepeace I appreciate those suggestions. I will check them out in the coming weeks.

.

you then brought up (yet) another valid point - there are good, current singers & groups

but you won't find most of them on "popular radio".

which is why I keep scouring for new music that approaches the brilliant 70s music you & I appreciate..

Moonchild has done some good stuff. Also, the Internet and Hiatus Kaiyote -- the latter of which is my favorite band at the moment -- are taking R&B/Soul music in very interesting directions.

The Internet's frontwoman, Syd, has a really nice solo joint out, Fin.

Anderson .Paak and the producer Mndsgn have combined as NxWorries, and their album, Yes Lawd! is one of the best albums I've heard in years.

How do you call it 'contemporary' r&b then go on to name a bunch of artists from the 60s,70s,80s? If they wasnt making impact in the 90s,00s how are they contemporary?

lowkey said:

How do you call it 'contemporary' r&b then go on to name a bunch of artists from the 60s,70s,80s? If they wasnt making impact in the 90s, 00s how are they contemporary?

They're not. In my case, I named acts who influenced R&B that's on the radio today and some that influenced lesser known sub-genres like southern soul. If you look at the current R&B chart it's more hip hop acts than R&B singers. Many of the singers do collabos with rappers or use the sound like trap beats. So really hip hop is contemporary R&B. The chart in Billboard is even called hip hop/R&B. There is an "adult R&B" chart, but that's like veteran acts like Charlie Wilson, Johnny Gill, & Mary J. Blige and a few newer ones like Sam Smith & Bruno Mars. Adult R&B is a sub-chart for R&B.

lowkey said:

How do you call it 'contemporary' r&b then go on to name a bunch of artists from the 60s,70s,80s? If they wasnt making impact in the 90s,00s how are they contemporary?

Thanks, I was confused by this as well. I listed contemporary sounding acts at first but then switched because I thnk OP was referring to acts that had an influence on R&B as a whole but your right there really is no point in it being "comtemporary" if the latter is the case. It minus well be called "R&B Hall of fame"

lowkey said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

lowkey said:

How do you call it 'contemporary' r&b then go on to name a bunch of artists from the 60s,70s,80s? If they wasnt making impact in the 90s,00s how are they contemporary?

Their impact was on the music hitting the charts not exactly their own music. If that is the case, Mary J, Usher and Beyonce are the only performers from The 90s still popular today.

they all started in the 90s. it doesnt matter if they are still making hit today, it should be based on the impact they made during that period of time. there has to be some kind of time criteria when dealing with hall of fames, i would think artists who impacted r&b at least 20-25 years ago should be considered for contemporary r&b. there would be very few holdovers from the 80s...mj,janet,whitney,prince,luther,new edition, then you would include the artists that blew up in the 90s ...maryj, mariah, tlc, boys 2 men, toni braxton,ect.

lowkey said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

lowkey said: Their impact was on the music hitting the charts not exactly their own music. If that is the case, Mary J, Usher and Beyonce are the only performers from The 90s still popular today.

they all started in the 90s. it doesnt matter if they are still making hit today, it should be based on the impact they made during that period of time. there has to be some kind of time criteria when dealing with hall of fames, i would think artists who impacted r&b at least 20-25 years ago should be considered for contemporary r&b. there would be very few holdovers from the 80s...mj,janet,whitney,prince,luther,new edition, then you would include the artists that blew up in the 90s ...maryj, mariah, tlc, boys 2 men, toni braxton,ect.

The OP defined "Contemporary R&B" from the late 70's to today. So, for the purposes of this thread only, that's where we're going. OP never said you had to agree with it.

The alternatives?

1. Get the OP to change his/her definition.

2. Start a new thread defining "Contemporary R&B" from 1990 to present (which would be a good thread in and of itself).

Rene & Angela