onlyforaminute said:

namepeace said:

That's fair, but I wasn't talking about sales or overall impact. I was talking about how Drake's generation(s) of fans will regard him. He will be their Beatles and their MJ, but not necessarily be considered a peer of the Beatles or MJ.

Maybe, but fans are fickle. In 20 or 30 years it's hard to say how they'll look back on some of these "icons" will they remember their work or the gossip about them? I'm just saying I'm noticing I know names of these people but it isn't their work that I'm knowing them by it's the tabloid stuff I'm associating with their names.

all fair, my main point was that we shouldn't presume that the Drakes and other acts of today are fungible. I bet a lot of boomers and older folks thought the Princes and Madonnas were flashes in the pan in the 80's and wouldn't join the ranks of icons.

I just want to caution against the old-man-yells-at-cloud phenomenon.

namepeace said:

onlyforaminute said:

Maybe, but fans are fickle. In 20 or 30 years it's hard to say how they'll look back on some of these "icons" will they remember their work or the gossip about them? I'm just saying I'm noticing I know names of these people but it isn't their work that I'm knowing them by it's the tabloid stuff I'm associating with their names.

all fair, my main point was that we shouldn't presume that the Drakes and other acts of today are fungible. I bet a lot of boomers and older folks thought the Princes and Madonnas were flashes in the pan in the 80's and wouldn't join the ranks of icons.

I just want to caution against the old-man-yells-at-cloud phenomenon.

I hear you. I try not to resemble that because I do remember the comments about Prince way back when, I fail miserably though. I just know that it seems that this generation of stars, I hear the names countless times, but I'm not hearing the music. I even had a convo with my daughter and she said she's noticing the shift too. I've always known songs and the artist, even if I was never a part of the fanbase without having to do any researching, it was just a generic thing that happened. I'm annoyed by it actually. Info overload is what I think is happening, "click bait" type stuff dominates the airways these days to the point it's pushing everything else out unless you specifically pursue certain things.

onlyforaminute said:

namepeace said:

all fair, my main point was that we shouldn't presume that the Drakes and other acts of today are fungible. I bet a lot of boomers and older folks thought the Princes and Madonnas were flashes in the pan in the 80's and wouldn't join the ranks of icons.

I just want to caution against the old-man-yells-at-cloud phenomenon.

I hear you. I try not to resemble that because I do remember the comments about Prince way back when, I fail miserably though. I just know that it seems that this generation of stars, I hear the names countless times, but I'm not hearing the music. I even had a convo with my daughter and she said she's noticing the shift too. I've always known songs and the artist, even if I was never a part of the fanbase without having to do any researching, it was just a generic thing that happened. I'm annoyed by it actually. Info overload is what I think is happening, "click bait" type stuff dominates the airways these days to the point it's pushing everything else out unless you specifically pursue certain things.

All good and fair. Enjoyed your posts!

onlyforaminute said:

namepeace said:

That's fair, but I wasn't talking about sales or overall impact. I was talking about how Drake's generation(s) of fans will regard him. He will be their Beatles and their MJ, but not necessarily be considered a peer of the Beatles or MJ.

Maybe, but fans are fickle. In 20 or 30 years it's hard to say how they'll look back on some of these "icons" will they remember their work or the gossip about them? I'm just saying I'm noticing I know names of these people but it isn't their work that I'm knowing them by it's the tabloid stuff I'm associating with their names.

.

Ja Rule forever.

.

Ruff Ryders forever.

.

No Limit forever.

.

I listen to this stuff all the time and don't feel embarassed because articles told me they are legendary.

Goddess4Real said:

StrangeButTrue said:

onlyforaminute said:

Maybe, but fans are fickle. In 20 or 30 years it's hard to say how they'll look back on some of these "icons" will they remember their work or the gossip about them? I'm just saying I'm noticing I know names of these people but it isn't their work that I'm knowing them by it's the tabloid stuff I'm associating with their names.

.

Ja Rule forever.

.

Ruff Ryders forever.

.

No Limit forever.

.

I listen to this stuff all the time and don't feel embarassed because articles told me they are legendary.

I'd have to admit, these names at least an actual song pops into my head. Legendary is pushing it though.

I admit, rakes have embedded themselves into popular culture forever. They don't get enough attention for doing so. Nobody wants to talk about it because it's happening now.

What you don't want is one of those rakes that is Too Short. But even those types of rakes have embedded themselves into popular culture forever, even without coming up with Dangerous.

tump said:

I admit, rakes have embedded themselves into popular culture forever. They don't get enough attention for doing so. Nobody wants to talk about it because it's happening now.

What you don't want is one of those rakes that is Too Short. But even those types of rakes have embedded themselves into popular culture forever, even without coming up with Dangerous.

Yes, bring back the Rakes

Yep, I'm beginning to believe generations are having their ears groomed for AI to take over the industry at some point and time in the near furture.

[Edited 11/12/18 12:14pm]

namepeace said:

Cinny said:

Exactly. Until we see Drake's catalog sales match in twenty years, safe to say there is no comparison.

That's fair, but I wasn't talking about sales or overall impact. I was talking about how Drake's generation(s) of fans will regard him. He will be their Beatles and their MJ, but not necessarily be considered a peer of the Beatles or MJ.

His sales are crazy, and the market is so different with digital sales. Singles today sell 5, 6 million easy. In the US market, just go and look at his certifications for this year. In that particlualr market he has two singles that have sold over 7 million, this year. A bunch that have sold 2 to 3 million, other that have sold 1 million.... and those are just random singles, from the album; but that's how music is sold today. They are selling more music than ever. As far as the certificatioin game, we already know that many artist are not properly certified... past & present. Certifications are not and have never been mandatory. I completely agree, what this generation will regard him as; in terms of their music and their time. It's their generations superstars...

namepeace said:

nd33 said:

namepeace said:

That's fair, but I wasn't talking about sales or overall impact. I was talking about how Drake's generation(s) of fans will regard him. He will be their Beatles and their MJ, but not necessarily be considered a peer of the Beatles or MJ.

If the numbers are that high, yes, his generation will put him on a pedestal retrospectively, like we do MJ, Prince etc. But outside his generation, I can’t see any lasting impact. There is just not enough depth to the music. If you can’t relate to the language and the lyrics, what’s left? A sparse beat, mostly devoid of rhythm and melody? There’s not enough substance to be cross generational like The Beatles and these other icons. This is music that’s easy to be bored by. I can’t say I can cite a song title either...

This reminds me of what a local critic said about "Hotline Bling": "A dumb song with slang so current that will be out of fashion in a couple years".

As i said before, i have no clue who he is.

Link to me 1 (one) song to introduce me to him (i guess his biggest or best one) and i'll tell you were he belongs in history

TheFman said:

As i said before, i have no clue who he is.

Link to me 1 (one) song to introduce me to him (i guess his biggest or best one) and i'll tell you were he belongs in history

Well this one has 1.4 billion on Youtube.

onlyforaminute said:

Yep, I'm beginning to believe generations are having their ears groomed for AI to take over the industry at some point and time in the near furture.

[Edited 11/12/18 12:14pm]

.

The other day I heard these little girls singing together possibly trying to harmonize while walking with their mother. Either they were just terribly tone-deaf or they were trying to mimic autotune singing. Regardless it was an hilarious sound.

CynicKill said:

TheFman said:

As i said before, i have no clue who he is.

Link to me 1 (one) song to introduce me to him (i guess his biggest or best one) and i'll tell you were he belongs in history

Well this one has 1.4 billion on Youtube.

.

Is this rap or hip hop though? Or is it R&B? He is singing the blues, literally. This is the funny thing about Drake is that he blurs so many lines. Also I prefer Erykah's version

[Edited 11/13/18 7:03am]

CynicKill said:

TheFman said:

As i said before, i have no clue who he is.

Link to me 1 (one) song to introduce me to him (i guess his biggest or best one) and i'll tell you were he belongs in history

Well this one has 1.4 billion on Youtube.

thanks.

Never heard it before, luckily, and hope will never hear it again

So it starts off with some fat-assed woman for no good reason, and that seems to be the repeating red line in the clip (they all have giant asses)

Very intelligent, ahuum, text about his cellphone. In what I think must be the refrain, I can't understand one single word. Something like 'hebeblee Ba lambabwee'

Totally lame and extremely boring. I got put me up some Beatles and Michael Jackson right now, I think their legacy is not yet in big danger

StrangeButTrue said:

onlyforaminute said:

Yep, I'm beginning to believe generations are having their ears groomed for AI to take over the industry at some point and time in the near furture.

[Edited 11/12/18 12:14pm]

.

The other day I heard these little girls singing together possibly trying to harmonize while walking with their mother. Either they were just terribly tone-deaf or they were trying to mimic autotune singing. Regardless it was an hilarious sound.

Everybody keeps saying the goal of the music business is to make a profit so what better way to make a profit than to cut out the middle man.

onlyforaminute said:

StrangeButTrue said:

.

The other day I heard these little girls singing together possibly trying to harmonize while walking with their mother. Either they were just terribly tone-deaf or they were trying to mimic autotune singing. Regardless it was an hilarious sound.

Everybody keeps saying the goal of the music business is to make a profit so what better way to make a profit than to cut out the middle man.

.

Music Education was the true middle man.

Here's Drake performing one of his songs live on SNL.

Should Prince and MJ move over?

CynicKill said:

Here's Drake performing one of his songs live on SNL.

Should Prince and MJ move over?

This dude is

I've seen better talent on a street corner.

Cinny said:
Until we see Drake's catalog sales match in twenty years, safe to say there is no comparison.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare how people buy and listen to music in one era to another. It's like victrolas and radio made most people buying sheet music obsolete. 33s & 45s made 78s obsolete. TV killed the radio plays & serials. The walkman killed the popularity of 8-tracks and reel-to-reel. CDs hurt the popularity of records & cassettes. DVD killed video rental places like Blockbuster & Hollywood Video. The internet/Napster hurt CDs. If the internet/streaming/downloading existed in the 1960s & 1980s, The Beatles & Michael Jackson wouldn't have sold as much either. Today, buying video games has taken over the popularity of buying music with later generations. Grand Theft Auto 5 has made more money than any other type of entertainment in history, including movies. Red Dead Redemption 2 recently had huge sales, around 15 million in around a week or so. Technology has also killed people buying music. You don't need to buy a stereo, record, tape, or CD to listen to music. They don't even put CD players in cars now as a default. The last time I went into a Radio Shack, there were no radios, mostly cell phones. Buying music on a physical product is not as important to most people now, since there are alternative ways to listen to it, and they don't have to worry about a tape getting ate up by the player, scratched records/CDs, or having to store a bunch of records. People are still willing to spend $200+ on Air Jordans. You can't stream sneakers.

MickyDolenz said:

You can't stream sneakers.

.

https://hackaday.com/2018/10/05/3d-printed-sneakers-are-now-a-thing/

StrangeButTrue said:

onlyforaminute said:

Everybody keeps saying the goal of the music business is to make a profit so what better way to make a profit than to cut out the middle man.

.

Music Education was the true middle man.

Well that's been practically eliminated. Soon only something reserved for the elite.

MickyDolenz said:

Cinny said:
Until we see Drake's catalog sales match in twenty years, safe to say there is no comparison.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare how people buy and listen to music in one era to another. It's like victrolas and radio made most people buying sheet music obsolete. 33s & 45s made 78s obsolete. TV killed the radio plays & serials. The walkman killed the popularity of 8-tracks and reel-to-reel. CDs hurt the popularity of records & cassettes. DVD killed video rental places like Blockbuster & Hollywood Video. The internet/Napster hurt CDs. If the internet/streaming/downloading existed in the 1960s & 1980s, The Beatles & Michael Jackson wouldn't have sold as much either. Today, buying video games has taken over the popularity of buying music with later generations. Grand Theft Auto 5 has made more money than any other type of entertainment in history, including movies. Red Dead Redemption 2 recently had huge sales, around 15 million in around a week or so. Technology has also killed people buying music. You don't need to buy a stereo, record, tape, or CD to listen to music. They don't even put CD players in cars now as a default. The last time I went into a Radio Shack, there were no radios, mostly cell phones. Buying music on a physical product is not as important to most people now, since there are alternative ways to listen to it, and they don't have to worry about a tape getting ate up by the player, scratched records/CDs, or having to store a bunch of records. People are still willing to spend $200+ on Air Jordans. You can't stream sneakers.

And yet, every single format saw new sales of old Beatles and old MJ. I just don't think Drake will have a lasting impact except for the secret mindgarden of the few whose brains pruned in the 2010s.

Graycap23 said:

One of the worst so called artist I've ever wasted more than 3 seconds on.

You got that right....total garbage.

Cinny said:

And yet, every single format saw new sales of old Beatles and old MJ. I just don't think Drake will have a lasting impact except for the secret mindgarden of the few whose brains pruned in the 2010s.

If people stream The Beatles, that's not really a sale. Billboard & the RIAA now count a certain amount of streams as a sale of 1 album. But nobody bought anything, it's not even a download. It's like listening to The Beatles/Michael Jackson on the radio and counting that as a sale. Even people who used to buy street tapes actually spent money on them, although they were unofficial and didn't count as sales. The people who buy Beatles box sets are more likely boomers buying the same album over again. A new release on vinyl averages $20 - $45 and most people are not going to spend that much on an album, when they can listen to it on Youtube where in some cases there's a music video. Also it was more common in the past for a lot of artists to remake the same songs (Stagger Lee, Summertime, Amazing Grace, Danny Boy, Yesterday, I Heard It Through The Grapevine, etc.), that's less common now. The remakes were more money for the songwriter and/or publisher. One reason is probably because most hits today are rap songs which don't really fit someone else doing it, they're generally tailor made for the original artist. There's unlikely to be a Rod Stewart American Hip Hop Standards album. The Beatles don't just sell music now, and so are not depending only on record sales to make money.

He's really not. Basically, his pop culture metrics are nowhere near the level of even modest hit makers of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's. Rollingstone Mag has the why of it:

-

https://www.rollingstone....it-753795/

-

https://www.rollingstone....er-731943/

[Edited 11/14/18 8:39am]