MickyDolenz said:

teoalcantara said:

I'd argue that taste is an opinion of the listener, not quality.

You can't prove that one performer's record is better than another. It's an opinion, not a fact. Just because a music snob or critic thinks something is better does not make it so. Just because someone plays an instrument or writes their own songs does not make his or her music better than someone who doesn't. Somebody like Yngwie Malmsteen might play faster than B. B. King, but that does not make his music better or appealing. Music is not like sports where there is a winner or loser by running faster or getting the most points or a bodybuilding competition where the biggest person wins.

It's all about standards. One may not like Jimmy Hendrix, Santana or Eric Clapton, but would be a fool to say there's no quality to their guitar playing. They set standards and are revered by their peers. So is Prince.

purple05 said:

teoalcantara said:

I'd argue that taste is an opinion of the listener, not quality.

Quality is subjective. It’s defined by the person.

I will paste here my reply to MickyDolenz on the same subject:


It's all about standards. One may not like Jimmy Hendrix, Santana or Eric Clapton, but would be a fool to say there's no quality to their guitar playing. They set standards and are revered by their peers. So is Prince.

Prince did a lot of alienating while he was alive.

CynicKill said:

teoalcantara said:

skywalker said:

Your reasoning is missing the mark for me. Prestige. Is that not the same as popularity? You said, "Prestige with the media"....Prince was often at odds (and downright combative) with the media.

-

Again, your logic is off to me. Much of what you are saying can easily be applied to Prince. Prince has songs that are still immensely popular. "I would Die 4 U" was used by Justin Timberlake in his Superbowl performance...furthermore, it was completely centered around Prince and his image. Whereas, Prince's use of "We will Rock You" was a much more brief intro, rather than showcasing Queen or Freddie Mercury.

-

Don't be silly, you know Prince was widely known and enjoyed by the masses after 1984. Some of Prince's biggest successes came AFTER 1984.This is like saying that Queen went into obscurity after the 1970's. It's simply not true. Every career has peaks and valleys.

-

Prince is one of the most famous musicians that ever lived. It's just a fact. Just because people you talk to are unaware or not fans....doesn't change the fact.

-

Listen, most people I talk to under the age of 45 are vaguely aware of Led Zeppelin. That doesn't change or diminish their impact or popularity. Again, I teach middle school students. They have no idea who Mick Jagger is. Does that make The Stones "unpopular" or "unknown"?

-

After reading this thread again, I feel like you may be using the term "popular" to mean "trendy."

[Edited 2/15/19 6:46am]

Prestige does not mean popularity. One can have prestige without being popular. A PHD for example. He may enjoy prestige among his peers, but is he popular? Not necessarily.

We are talking about the music industry though, no? Hard to compare the world of academics to the music biz. How a PHD gauges popularity vs. a rock star are very different things.

-

Simply put, Prince has both prestige and popularity. If he was simply prestigious amongst his peers/press, he would not have been able to play 21 sold out shows at the 02 in London. The masses turned up in droves for that record breaking series of shows.

Prince was often at odds (and downright combative) with the media, but the media was not at odds with him. He was respected, but also elusive. And this is one of the reasons his popularity dwindled over the years.

Disagree. For years (especially in the 80's and 90's) the press was taking him to task for changing his name to , not showing up for "We are The World", etc. Hell, his own hometown news paper had a headline once exclaiming: "Purple Drain" about his financial woes in the early/mid 90's.

"I Would Die 4 U" was beautifully used by Justin Timberlake in his Super Bowl performance because of its lyrics (IMHO) not because of its popularity. He centered the performance around his image so to appear as a direct message from Prince himself to his fans and hometown: he had died for his fans, for his city (the game was being held in Minneapolis). It's a shame so many people didn't get the significance and criticized the tribute. Justin avoided being obvious and got lambasted.

Yes. The Superbowl was in Minneapolis so the Prince tribute was appropriate. However, you have to consider the audience. The ENTIRE United States of America is watching that game. Prince's popularity is such that EVERYONE in the country "gets it" and immediately knows who Prince is and what/why Justin Timeberlake is playing the song.

-

Listen, the punk band The Replacements are also an innovative and prestigious band from Minneapolis. Why didn't Justin do a Replacements tribute? Or a tribute to other Minneapolis acts like Mint Condition, The Jets, or Soul Asylum? Because Prince is OBVIOUSLY MORE POPULAR. He is known globally and one of the most famous musicians to ever live.

I'm not being silly. Prince's last single to hit the top 10 charts was in 1994, when "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World", reached #3. After that, "I Hate U" reached #12 (1995), "Greatest Romance" #63 (2000) and "Call My Name" #75 (2004) (https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/483652/princes-40-biggest-billboard-hits).

Yes. And over a decade after his last top 10 hit, he had number one albums, won several grammys (and other accolades), was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, performed record breaking residencies, gave (what is generally regarded as) the best halftime performance of all time, and had some of the best selling/highest grossing concert tours ever.

-

Sidenote: Hit singles don't mean anything anymore. The music biz is dead in this regard. People don't call in to request songs, and they don't have to buy music. They just stream or youtube it. Good luck figuring out the contrived algorithm that goes into determining charts. Shocker: It's still basically payola/pay to play.

-

Drake is said to have more hits that The Beatles and Michael Jackson. Can you honestly, off the top of your head, name 10 songs by Drake? 5 songs? How is his concert tour doing?

I think you've nailed down our difference in perspective: semantics. There's fame, popularity and trend. Prince is famous, was popular for a long period (most of the 80's and 90's) and also "trendy" in 1984.

-

Robin Thicke was trendy 5 years ago. Blurred Lines? Where is he now? Drake is (arguably) the hottest thing in music. Again, how's his tour going? Kanye West (genius?) is already regulated to being 2nd fiddle on a reality show with his wife.

-

Let's end this by going back to the original post:

Elvis

Beatles

Rolling Stones

Led Zeppelin

Micheal Jackson

Madonna

Bruce Springsteen

By your definition: How many of these people are trendy or popular? 0. I could be wrong, but none of these acts have had a top 10 single (your barometer for popularity) in years.

-

According to your definition, you know what's currently trendy and popular? The dab, The floss, Fortnight, fidget spinners, and Cardi B. I thing I'll stick with all time great/legendary status any day of the week.

[Edited 2/16/19 7:23am]

[Edited 2/16/19 11:55am]

point of this thread was Prince in realation to so-called Icons ....

We are talking about the music industry though, no? Hard to compare the world of academics to the music biz. How a PHD gauges popularity vs. a rock star are very different things.

I was talking about the meaning of the word 'Prestige'. That it's not a synonym to 'Popularity'. The PHD was an example. But I will give you one from the music biz: Guthrie Govan. He has prestige as a guitar virtuoso. Would you say he is popular?

Simply put, Prince has both prestige and popularity. If he was simply prestigious amongst his peers/press, he would not have been able to play 21 sold out shows at the 02 in London. The masses turned up in droves for that record breaking series of shows.

There's no doubt that Prince still has a large number of fans, myself included. My reply was in regard to the question posed by the OP. Do you honestly think that to the general public Prince is as popular/known as Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, The Rolling Stones etc.?

Disagree. For years (especially in the 80's and 90's) the press was taking him to task for changing his name to , not showing up for "We are The World", etc. Hell, his own hometown news paper had a headline once exclaiming: "Purple Drain" about his financial woes in the early/mid 90's.

As I see it, they were simply reporting the news.

Yes. The Superbowl was in Minneapolis so the Prince tribute was appropriate. However, you have to consider the audience. The ENTIRE United States of America is watching that game. Prince's popularity is such that EVERYONE in the country "gets it" and immediately knows who Prince is and what/why Justin Timeberlake is playing the song.

-

Listen, the punk band The Replacements are also an innovative and prestigious band from Minneapolis. Why didn't Justin do a Replacements tribute? Or a tribute to other Minneapolis acts like Mint Condition, The Jets, or Soul Asylum? Because Prince is OBVIOUSLY MORE POPULAR. He is known globally and one of the most famous musicians to ever live.

I wasn't saying Justin only did the tribute because the game was in Minneapolis. I was explaning the reason why I think Justin chose "I Would 4 U" in particular. He used a large (to a somewhat ethereal effect) Prince projection and vocals to convey the idea that he was personally saying to his hometown and fans that he had died for them, but not really. Like his spirit was there saying to Minneapolis:

"I'm not a human, I am a dove, I'm your conscious, I am love - All I really need is to know that You believe: Yeah, I would die for you, Darling if you want me to You, I would die for you"

Yes. And over a decade after his last top 10 hit, he had number one albums, won several grammys (and other accolades), was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, performed record breaking residencies, gave (what is generally regarded as) the best halftime performance of all time, and had some of the best selling/highest grossing concert tours ever.

-

Sidenote: Hit singles don't mean anything anymore. The music biz is dead in this regard. People don't call in to request songs, and they don't have to buy music. They just stream or youtube it. Good luck figuring out the contrived algorithm that goes into determining charts. Shocker: It's still basically payola/pay to play.

-

Drake is said to have more hits that The Beatles and Michael Jackson. Can you honestly, off the top of your head, name 10 songs by Drake? 5 songs? How is his concert tour doing?

Charts are based on sales. Sales reflect popularity (not necessarily quality).

There's no point in arguing with you, because we have different convictions. Also, I'm Brazilian and English is not my language. So it's possible I'm having trouble communicating myself.

Bottom line is: Prince is famous, an Icon, a musical genius, a virtuoso. But his popularity has dwindled considerably over the years (much to his own fault) and to the general public , sadly, he is not as well regarded/known as the other artists listed by the OP (even if he should).

[Edited 2/16/19 16:30pm]

teoalcantara said:

RJOrion said:

MotownSubdivision said:

luvsexy4all said:

Elvis

Beatles

Rolling Stones

Led Zeppelin

Micheal Jackson

Madonna

Bruce Springsteen

....is Prince considered part of this elite group???

definitely depends on whom you are asking. when white folks say someone is an icon, they expect others to just agree cart blanche. zeppelin are not icons to me. and i don't fool with any of the others on the list either but i understand they at least have the catalogue. but are you kidding. madonna and bruce but no prince. smh. its all opinions anyway. but...why did i even chime in. i'm bored i guess

skywalker said:

MotownSubdivision said:

As for the topic, Prince is an icon and is very popular but there is a hierarchy here and at the absolute top will always be Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson (arguably in that order). Everyone else falls underneath those 3 entities to varying degrees; P himself, would probably rank somewhere on the latter half of the Top 10.

I tend to agree with this. Do you think we will have another musician/group that has the impact of these 3?

I wholeheartedly agree with MoSub.

An act's status as an icon is usually decided by that act's generation. So it could happen.

That said, it's going to be awfully hard for any 21st century act that can have a Beatles/Elvis/MJ impact for a few reasons:

- few of them could even hope to approach the success of those 3 when it comes to actually selling music.

- each of those 3 rode the wave of revolution in pop music or created it.

- each of those three had impeccable timing: with Elvis and the Beatles, it was broadcast TV. With MJ, it was MTV.