Rihanna was once the world's preeminent pop star. And yes, I use past tense.

Despite having her hit "Work" firmly ensconced at number one for the past two months, a stat that ties her with the Beatles as second only to Mariah Carey for most weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100 chart, Rihanna has recently transcended pop stardom.

http://www.huffingtonpost...93902.html

Legacy???!!! nope

Oh, how I love The Onion.

I have nothing against her but that new song she has...the one that samples Carlos Santana's "Maria,Maria" guitar riff....is horrible

SoulAlive said:

luv4u said:

Uh, the one Rihanna album I liked was "Anti" but she is FAR from a "legacy"act...

alphastreet said:

purplethunder3121 said:

She is not even CLOSE to a legacy. That is the problem, it is not about not liking her or this or that, it is the labels we put on people who are not even close to doing something over the top that can put her in those ranks. Talk to me when she is 45 and still putting out records and taking chances in music developing and just going out there and still doing it. A bunch of singles in this generation of digital and streaming and clicks and views SORRY but that does not equal LEGACY. We are in a new age where it does not matter anymore who is even playing on records, so even the days of the musician are just about gone. There are many others that have done more in work that maybe and have not had the chart success that I think are more in line with having lasting legacies. A complaint I had with Mariah Carey and Beyonce and others were there were no really good records in there, the songs were so interchangeable it seems like doing an album was an afterthought. I get that same feel from Ri, the themes and the music has not really developed or changed which is fine, you have a formula, and many do, but album wise and lasting effect of even singles I just dont see it. I mean these kind of articles always happen, like calling NIRVANA the greatest band ever, when they really did nothing to warrant that title at all, they were on a road and then lost their frontman but losing him took over what they actually were, a pretty good band that was developing, not the best band at all. I mean another article I read actually had Cardi B in the same breathe as the Beatles? Are you fucking out of your mind? even if you hate or think the beatles are overrated etc...if Cardi B is in the same talk you need to be removed from all conversations, and this was a Billboard magazine writer!

lastdecember said:

purple05 said:

lastdecember said:

She is not even CLOSE to a legacy. That is the problem, it is not about not liking her or this or that, it is the labels we put on people who are not even close to doing something over the top that can put her in those ranks. Talk to me when she is 45 and still putting out records and taking chances in music developing and just going out there and still doing it. A bunch of singles in this generation of digital and streaming and clicks and views SORRY but that does not equal LEGACY. We are in a new age where it does not matter anymore who is even playing on records, so even the days of the musician are just about gone. There are many others that have done more in work that maybe and have not had the chart success that I think are more in line with having lasting legacies. A complaint I had with Mariah Carey and Beyonce and others were there were no really good records in there, the songs were so interchangeable it seems like doing an album was an afterthought. I get that same feel from Ri, the themes and the music has not really developed or changed which is fine, you have a formula, and many do, but album wise and lasting effect of even singles I just dont see it. I mean these kind of articles always happen, like calling NIRVANA the greatest band ever, when they really did nothing to warrant that title at all, they were on a road and then lost their frontman but losing him took over what they actually were, a pretty good band that was developing, not the best band at all. I mean another article I read actually had Cardi B in the same breathe as the Beatles? Are you fucking out of your mind? even if you hate or think the beatles are overrated etc...if Cardi B is in the same talk you need to be removed from all conversations, and this was a Billboard magazine writer!

I agree they givecartist these titles too prematurely. Beyoncé has just transitioned over to legacy act/solidified her staying power with this last album. Even if she never sells much she will always be able to tour. To what extent, well only time will tell. I can’t stand Cardi but the article was about a record she tied with the Beatles and Ashanti. It wasn’t about artistic merit

But when Billboard puts it in that context is bizarre because people who dont know think she is reaching and having that effect on an audience. If Cardi B right now would have the top 5 singles on the HOT 100 and a number one album, she would be said that she is doing something only they did which on the surface would be yes but the way music is consumed now, it is a about ONE percent of what they acheived. People going out buying records in stores is a lot different than streaming it on Youtube which takes no effort at all and also can be faked easily. So even in Ashanti's case equating these things is BS.

alphastreet said:

luv4u said:

Legacy???!!! nope

Well to be fair, it's not easy making it big and crossing over for someone who began her career with the genre she did. So maybe her legacy is not for you and I, but it's for somebody and speaks to them

There it is.

This is not about the merits of Rihanna as an artist. This is about her track record. Last year, she became only the third act to have thirty (30) top 10 tracks on Billboard's pop charts. Madge and the Beatles are the other two. She's had consistent success in the post-album era.

Plus, her legacy doesn't have to be relevant to EVERY generation of audiences for it to be a legacy all the same. She of course had advantages -- and disadvantages -- that that earlier artists did not have. But she's among the elite acts (as opposed to elite artists) of her generation, her generation will in all likelihood revere her for it, and the Xers and Boomers cannot stop that.

Let's not go "Old Man Yells At Cloud" over this.

namepeace said:

alphastreet said:

luv4u said: Well to be fair, it's not easy making it big and crossing over for someone who began her career with the genre she did. So maybe her legacy is not for you and I, but it's for somebody and speaks to them

There it is.

This is not about the merits of Rihanna as an artist. This is about her track record. Last year, she became only the third act to have thirty (30) top 10 tracks on Billboard's pop charts. Madge and the Beatles are the other two. She's had consistent success in the post-album era.

Plus, her legacy doesn't have to be relevant to EVERY generation of audiences for it to be a legacy all the same. She of course had advantages -- and disadvantages -- that that earlier artists did not have. But she's among the elite acts (as opposed to elite artists) of her generation, her generation will in all likelihood revere her for it, and the Xers and Boomers cannot stop that.

Let's not go "Old Man Yells At Cloud" over this.

And in Barbados and among dancehall enthusiasts around the globe, she is probably seen as acheiving the American Dream. I say good on her.

lastdecember said:

She is not even CLOSE to a legacy. That is the problem, it is not about not liking her or this or that, it is the labels we put on people who are not even close to doing something over the top that can put her in those ranks. Talk to me when she is 45 and still putting out records and taking chances in music developing and just going out there and still doing it. A bunch of singles in this generation of digital and streaming and clicks and views SORRY but that does not equal LEGACY. We are in a new age where it does not matter anymore who is even playing on records, so even the days of the musician are just about gone. There are many others that have done more in work that maybe and have not had the chart success that I think are more in line with having lasting legacies. A complaint I had with Mariah Carey and Beyonce and others were there were no really good records in there, the songs were so interchangeable it seems like doing an album was an afterthought. I get that same feel from Ri, the themes and the music has not really developed or changed which is fine, you have a formula, and many do, but album wise and lasting effect of even singles I just dont see it. I mean these kind of articles always happen, like calling NIRVANA the greatest band ever, when they really did nothing to warrant that title at all, they were on a road and then lost their frontman but losing him took over what they actually were, a pretty good band that was developing, not the best band at all. I mean another article I read actually had Cardi B in the same breathe as the Beatles? Are you fucking out of your mind? even if you hate or think the beatles are overrated etc...if Cardi B is in the same talk you need to be removed from all conversations, and this was a Billboard magazine writer!

namepeace said:

alphastreet said:

luv4u said: Well to be fair, it's not easy making it big and crossing over for someone who began her career with the genre she did. So maybe her legacy is not for you and I, but it's for somebody and speaks to them

There it is.

This is not about the merits of Rihanna as an artist. This is about her track record. Last year, she became only the third act to have thirty (30) top 10 tracks on Billboard's pop charts. Madge and the Beatles are the other two. She's had consistent success in the post-album era.

Plus, her legacy doesn't have to be relevant to EVERY generation of audiences for it to be a legacy all the same. She of course had advantages -- and disadvantages -- that that earlier artists did not have. But she's among the elite acts (as opposed to elite artists) of her generation, her generation will in all likelihood revere her for it, and the Xers and Boomers cannot stop that.

Let's not go "Old Man Yells At Cloud" over this.

I think we put too much in artists now and what they are going to remembered for. Right now hands down Kim Kardishan is the biggest Icon of the last decade and a half. that is fact if we want to look at it for what it is, she to this generation is what elvis was in the 50's or Marilyn Monroe or the Beatles etc... she far outweighs in terms of being "known" that any person in the last 15 years, Everyone knows her, not everyone knows Rihanna's hits, or even Beyonce's, so Kim K also is an Icon and has a Legacy too that far exceeds really anyone.

Legacy my Aunt Fanny!!!

people started calling madonna legends before her 10 year mark I remember. It happens...but these editors should really put disclaimer: IN MY OPINION lol..however it does imply meaning:

lastdecember said:

namepeace said:

There it is.

This is not about the merits of Rihanna as an artist. This is about her track record. Last year, she became only the third act to have thirty (30) top 10 tracks on Billboard's pop charts. Madge and the Beatles are the other two. She's had consistent success in the post-album era.

Plus, her legacy doesn't have to be relevant to EVERY generation of audiences for it to be a legacy all the same. She of course had advantages -- and disadvantages -- that that earlier artists did not have. But she's among the elite acts (as opposed to elite artists) of her generation, her generation will in all likelihood revere her for it, and the Xers and Boomers cannot stop that.

Let's not go "Old Man Yells At Cloud" over this.

I think we put too much in artists now and what they are going to remembered for. Right now hands down Kim Kardishan is the biggest Icon of the last decade and a half. that is fact if we want to look at it for what it is, she to this generation is what elvis was in the 50's or Marilyn Monroe or the Beatles etc... she far outweighs in terms of being "known" that any person in the last 15 years, Everyone knows her, not everyone knows Rihanna's hits, or even Beyonce's, so Kim K also is an Icon and has a Legacy too that far exceeds really anyone.

KK isn't a musician. We're talking legacies vis-a-vis musical acts.

Extrapolate Rih Rih's career out based on Madonna. Madge had about 3 dozen top 10 hits and her fans continued to support her and helped her build a legacy as an Icon, not just in her "day" but well beyond. Rih Rih's got 30 and counting, and I find it unlikely that she'll somehow be seen as a novelty act or flash in the pan.

The depth of her fans' adoration will continue to grow. We saw it with Madge.

namepeace said:

lastdecember said:

I think we put too much in artists now and what they are going to remembered for. Right now hands down Kim Kardishan is the biggest Icon of the last decade and a half. that is fact if we want to look at it for what it is, she to this generation is what elvis was in the 50's or Marilyn Monroe or the Beatles etc... she far outweighs in terms of being "known" that any person in the last 15 years, Everyone knows her, not everyone knows Rihanna's hits, or even Beyonce's, so Kim K also is an Icon and has a Legacy too that far exceeds really anyone.

KK isn't a musician. We're talking legacies vis-a-vis musical acts.

Extrapolate Rih Rih's career out based on Madonna. Madge had about 3 dozen top 10 hits and her fans continued to support her and helped her build a legacy as an Icon, not just in her "day" but well beyond. Rih Rih's got 30 and counting, and I find it unlikely that she'll somehow be seen as a novelty act or flash in the pan.

The depth of her fans' adoration will continue to grow. We saw it with Madge.

We also have to remember Madonna hits didnt come off the back of others like many of these new artists who are just features, does Rihanna even HAVE 30 stand alone single releases (not just songs she was singing hooks on). in my opinion those don't really count. Madonna has actual hit singles off the backs of no one but herself.

paisleypark4 said:

namepeace said:

KK isn't a musician. We're talking legacies vis-a-vis musical acts.

Extrapolate Rih Rih's career out based on Madonna. Madge had about 3 dozen top 10 hits and her fans continued to support her and helped her build a legacy as an Icon, not just in her "day" but well beyond. Rih Rih's got 30 and counting, and I find it unlikely that she'll somehow be seen as a novelty act or flash in the pan.

The depth of her fans' adoration will continue to grow. We saw it with Madge.

We also have to remember Madonna hits didnt come off the back of others like many of these new artists who are just features, does Rihanna even HAVE 30 stand alone single releases (not just songs she was singing hooks on). in my opinion those don't really count. Madonna has actual hit singles off the backs of no one but herself.

As for her chart history it's here: https://www.billboard.com/music/rihanna

As for this "backs" business, come on, pp4. You know good and damn well as we all do, that Madge isn't a self-contained artist. She relied heavily on producers and other seasoned pros, as Rih Rih has, to produce hit after hit.

I'm not saying this because I'm a Rihanna fan, hell I don't know most of her music. But we older heads need to be consistent.

namepeace said:

paisleypark4 said:

We also have to remember Madonna hits didnt come off the back of others like many of these new artists who are just features, does Rihanna even HAVE 30 stand alone single releases (not just songs she was singing hooks on). in my opinion those don't really count. Madonna has actual hit singles off the backs of no one but herself.

As for her chart history it's here: https://www.billboard.com/music/rihanna

As for this "backs" business, come on, pp4. You know good and damn well as we all do, that Madge isn't a self-contained artist. She relied heavily on producers and other seasoned pros, as Rih Rih has, to produce hit after hit.

I'm not saying this because I'm a Rihanna fan, hell I don't know most of her music. But we older heads need to be consistent.

I can actually see this. She has enough hits for a three-album set, where as some of our faves did not.

Lots of the baby boomers favorites were in their twenties in the 1960s and were legacy acts by the time the 1970s came around.

"Pon De Replay" was 13 years ago this year, dudes.

paisleypark4 said:

namepeace said:

As for her chart history it's here: https://www.billboard.com/music/rihanna

As for this "backs" business, come on, pp4. You know good and damn well as we all do, that Madge isn't a self-contained artist. She relied heavily on producers and other seasoned pros, as Rih Rih has, to produce hit after hit.

I'm not saying this because I'm a Rihanna fan, hell I don't know most of her music. But we older heads need to be consistent.

No I meant as counting those features as stand alone singles.

Nah Monster and Love The Way You Lie don't go down in the greatest hits collection just for singing a 30 second hook to me. I like Rihanna and I did a count of the actual album singles SHE has released (for example Sidewalk Talk by Jellybean aint going down on any future Greatest Hit collections etc..but a song like Britney's Me Against The Music has a little more weight than singing hooks).

Did a tally without including those small features and she released 33 singles herself (or in equal level in a group like Four Five Seconds). That's impressive! Enough to fill a two disc collection.

True, and that was my point. She's been in the game a while and she's had a lot of success. She'll probably have some more before her window closes.

She only 30 so she got a good couple mo hits agreed. Anti is finally a good cohesive project with lots of her own personality in it...somewhat like Beyonce's last three albums. i think artists get better as they mature and reach into their 30s and 40s