Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is it possible that all artist dead or alive will/would eventually lose their greatness?

For example:

Micheal Jackson
Kurt Cobain
Jimi Hendrix
Aretha Franklin
Beethoven
Tupac Shakur
The Beatles
Bob Marley

Feel free to add or remove anyone you believe is or is not washed up

These people are pioneers in music. Their influence will last as far as I can see.

Michael Jackson is the only one I can maybe see as losing his greatness, but I don't think he will.

Cobain is the god of grunge.

Hendrix is the guitar god. He is considered the greatest guitarist ever by a lot of people and helped revolutionize the wah-wah pedal which will be in use for a very long time...

Aretha Franklin is one of the greatest soul artist of all time and is a monument of success for woman in the industry.

Beethoven has already lasted a long time. The Moonlight Sonata and the 5th Symphany will be timeless as far as I can see.

Tupac Shakur is the god of rap.

The Beatles are perhaps the most influential band of all time. They helped popularize rock and roll. And with over a billion albums out there it will be hard for them to fade away.

As long as reggae exists Bob Marley will be around.

I can see lots of popular artists disappearing over time, but none of these because they are so influential and are cultural icons of their times.

I understand that these artist greatly influenced music and will never be forgotten. Barring their influence, wouldn't/have any of these artist "fell off?"

led zeppelin
pink floyd
the doors
bob marley
jimi hendrix

...with any luck most classic rockers will be good and forgotten by the year 2020. the stuff sounds so bland, so unnecessary these days.

Tupac is not the god of hip hop and Cobain is not the god of grunge, there were and are better artists in both genres.

-AC

In your humble opinion. Cobain is who brought grunge to the forefront and popularized. Nirvana was incredibly successful and Smells Like Teen Spirit was/is considered the anthem of Generation X. Therefore, I can't see him ever fading into obscurity.

Tupac is the greatest selling rapper of all time, so it's hard to say that he isn't one of the best and is definitely one of the most influential rappers there are.

Saying they aren't gods of their respective genres is pointless coming from you because you would never use that term to describe anyone.

Also, just answer the question... You are boring when all you try to do is argue semantics.
Originally posted by SlimYout
I understand that these artist greatly influenced music and will never be forgotten. Barring their influence, wouldn't/have any of these artist "fell off?" What do you mean by "fell off"? As in fallen out of mainstream popularity? Then I can definitely see that happening.

i think that the fact that some of those people mentioned died at what may have been the peak of their careers in terms of creativity and cultural relevancy

you only need to look at artists like Bob Dylan to see where someone who had the songwriting ability to capture the mood of a certain era has become stale and almost comedic...his voice is gone...his ability to play has diminished...and while he and artists that have continued over many decades can still pull on the crowds...their newer songs aren't as highly regarded as their old stuff...hence when crowds go to see them...they want the old material

so if most of those artists were alive today...time would most likely have taken a serious toll on their reveered status

Jeff Buckley...



Get it?

Originally posted by Nellinator
In your humble opinion. Cobain is who brought grunge to the forefront and popularized. Nirvana was incredibly successful and Smells Like Teen Spirit was/is considered the anthem of Generation X. Therefore, I can't see him ever fading into obscurity.

Who's denying that? I said he wasn't the god of grunge, which implies he was beyond the likes of Staley, Cornell, then Alice in Chains, Soundgarden etc.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Tupac is the greatest selling rapper of all time, so it's hard to say that he isn't one of the best and is definitely one of the most influential rappers there are.

It's not hard for me. He isn't one of the best ever. He's one of the most famous and influential in the same way The Beatles can be influencial. He's a name to drop that nobody dare question because it was repeated enough.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Saying they aren't gods of their respective genres is pointless coming from you because you would never use that term to describe anyone.

If I was going to, those two would not be the ones I chose, because they're not good enough. There are and were better artists in those areas.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, just answer the question... You are boring when all you try to do is argue semantics.

I'm not here to be entertaining.

What does one mean by "Losing" greatness? When Jimi Hendrix is, hypothetically, 80 years old, he's not going to be able to crack out certain songs is he? So what's the cut off point?

Losing acclaim is different to losing greatness. Prince isn't as acclaimed now as he was in his Purple Rain days, he hasn't "lost" greatness. He's still scoring number one albums with massively positive reviews.

-AC

Originally posted by Nellinator

Tupac is the greatest selling rapper of all time, so it's hard to say that he isn't one of the best and is definitely one of the most influential rappers there are.


who cares how much you sell. that doesn't make you the best. if you rank by selling, then 50 cent would easily be top 10

Cobain is beyond Staley to be sure, Cantrell is what made Alice in Chains great. Besides that, Alice in Chains isn't really that grungy. They have some grunge influence on the vocals and lyrics, but they are more metal than grunge instrumentally. And I think Chris Cornell is mediocre at best, so yes I would say that Cobain is beyond both of them. He is was very innovative instrumentally and lyrically. Chris Cornell has nothing in songwriting or lyrics compared to Cobain. He has a more powerful voice, but even at that Cobain had a powerful voice and was a good singer. Personally, I think Cobain's timbre much better. I'd say there was a very good reason that Soundgarden was popular until Nirvana and Pearl Jam opened the way for them. Which one you like best is all opinion, but undoubtedly Cobain was a god of grunge.

You may not consider Tupac the greatest but many people would disagree. His popularity and the fact that he a lot more legitimate than most the idiots in hip-hop nowadays makes him definitely high up there. Personally, he is my favourite hip-hop artist and the fact that millions of people in the industry and outside agree means that he belongs in the pantheon of hip-hop whether or whether not you agree.

You missed the point. My comment had nothing to do with entertainment value. Read the between the lines and you might see it.

Originally posted by Healing Artisan
who cares how much you sell. that doesn't make you the best. if you rank by selling, then 50 cent would easily be top 10 I never said it makes him the best. There is far more to it than that. However, album sales do indicate whether you are good and what you do or not.

Originally posted by manorastroman
...with any luck most classic rockers will be good and forgotten by the year 2020. the stuff sounds so bland, so unnecessary these days.

That's your opinion not fact.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Cobain is beyond Staley to be sure, Cantrell is what made Alice in Chains great. Besides that, Alice in Chains isn't really that grungy. They have some grunge influence on the vocals and lyrics, but they are more metal than grunge instrumentally. And I think Chris Cornell is mediocre at best, so yes I would say that Cobain is beyond both of them.

He's a lesser singer than Cornell and Staley, whether you like his voice more or not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
He is was very innovative instrumentally and lyrically. Chris Cornell has nothing in songwriting or lyrics compared to Cobain.

Hahahahaha. Chris Cornell is one of the single greatest lyricists in rock music, Cobain's can't touch his.

He's also a brilliant guitarist.

One of Cobain's most famous riffs was stolen from Killing Joke, and he has The Melvins and Meat Puppets to thank for most of his ideas and sound. Innovative? Yeah, sure, to people who didn't know better.

Originally posted by Nellinator
He has a more powerful voice, but even at that Cobain had a powerful voice and was a good singer. Personally, I think Cobain's timbre much better. I'd say there was a very good reason that Soundgarden was popular until Nirvana and Pearl Jam opened the way for them. Which one you like best is all opinion, but undoubtedly Cobain was a god of grunge.

Why act like Cobain was factually the "god of grunge."? No, not to me he wasn't. He wasn't even in the best band of that era.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You may not consider Tupac the greatest but many people would disagree.

Many would disagree with my opinion of Britney Spears too.

Originally posted by Nellinator
His popularity and the fact that he a lot more legitimate than most the idiots in hip-hop nowadays makes him definitely high up there.

He's not better than any of the hip hop I listen to. Not sure how much you actually know about hip hop in the first place.

What do you know outside of Tupac, Biggy etc?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Personally, he is my favourite hip-hop artist and the fact that millions of people in the industry and outside agree means that he belongs in the pantheon of hip-hop whether or whether not you agree.

It doesn't mean that, it means they believe he does. He wouldn't be there if me and many others had our way. There are better and more deserving hip hop MCs, whether or not you are aware of them doesn't change this.

Originally posted by Nellinator
You missed the point. My comment had nothing to do with entertainment value. Read the between the lines and you might see it.

It's the net, all we have is lines. It's best to put what you mean IN them, not between them.

Fred Durst is "good" at "what he does", right? So he deserves to be in the pantheon of rock? No, he doesn't.

-AC

Not really. Are you really arguing objectively? That would be rather hypocritical of you.

No, Cobain was innovative. If you don't realize why you don't know a lot about music theory. Well, actually I've known this for a while. You don't know a lot about musical theory, so you can't really comment. Stealing the riff for "Come as You Are" does not equal a lack of innovation. Not being the first person to use dirty guitar doesn't mean that he wasn't innovative. Being influenced by other people doesn't mean that you lack innovation. Can you play guitar with standard notation instead of tabs? If you can't you won't understand. I don't suspect you have any idea what you are talking about.

Cornell is a good lyricist, but Cobain is better. Your laughter is ill-placed. Cornell suffers from being generic too often. Cobain did not. Cornell isn't a brilliant guitar player in the least, he is very mediocre. Cobain is mediocre as well. Neither one has an edge here.

I never meant that he was the god of grunge factually. Are you kidding me? It is blatantly metaphorical for the fact that he made grunge popular and was a major contributor to grunge music. If you took more than that out of it you are an idiot, plain and simple.

He's not better in your opinion. Once again you are trying objectivity and being hypocritical. In your opinion there are better more deserving MCs, sadly that doesn't change the fact that Tupac was great and memorable and influential. I don't know a lot about Hip-Hop and it isn't my listening preference, but I am not ignorant of its history. I'm specifically referring to rap here because I am rather ignorant of the history of dance hip hop. I'm not sure what you're looking for me when you ask me what I know... I could start talking about griots and New Orleans area jazz music, or are you looking for a list of people I listen to? Because it would be rather empty. I list of people I've heard would be rather long, but pointless.

It simply went over your head. I wasn't that hard to see. But whatever, this isn't going anywhere.

Durst doesn't belong on the pantheon of rock, but when it comes to rap influenced vocals in rock, yes he does. I hate him but he does.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not really. Are you really arguing objectively? That would be rather hypocritical of you.

Cornell is a better singer, if that's what you mean. If we're talking ability.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, Cobain was innovative. If you don't realize why you don't know a lot about music theory. Well, actually I've known this for a while. You don't know a lot about musical theory, so you can't really comment.

This from the man who babbled on in the greatest guitarist thread cos he didn't have a clue. Evidently you know nothing about me to make that conclusion. He wasn't the god you're praising him as, is my point.

He had innovative production ideas, and he did great things with a guitar despite being nothing technically amazing. He most importantly wrote great songs. What I disagree on is that he was the "god of grunge.", and yes, that's up for debate.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Stealing the riff for "Come as You Are" does not equal a lack of innovation. Not being the first person to use dirty guitar doesn't mean that he wasn't innovative. Being influenced by other people doesn't mean that you lack innovation. Can you play guitar with standard notation instead of tabs? If you can't you won't understand. I don't suspect you have any idea what you are talking about.

I never said not being the first means you aren't innovative, I've often argued that. My point was, he wasn't as innovative as you're giving him credit for.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Cornell is a good lyricist, but Cobain is better.

No, he's not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Your laughter is ill-placed. Cornell suffers from being generic too often. Cobain did not. Cornell isn't a brilliant guitar player in the least, he is very mediocre. Cobain is mediocre as well. Neither one has an edge here.

In your opinion, but wait, you dare to say Cobain didn't write anything lyrically generic?

Cornell wrote every Soundgarden song worthwhile, he's an excellent guitarist, maybe not technically, but otherwise.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I never meant that he was the god of grunge factually. Are you kidding me? It is blatantly metaphorical for the fact that he made grunge popular and was a major contributor to grunge music. If you took more than that out of it you are an idiot, plain and simple.

I took nothing out of it than you saying it matter of factly and that it he was "undoubtedly".

Originally posted by Nellinator
He's not better in your opinion. Once again you are trying objectivity and being hypocritical. In your opinion there are better more deserving MCs, sadly that doesn't change the fact that Tupac was great and memorable and influential.

THE FACT that Tupac was "great"? It's not a fact he was great. Influential? Sure, but his influence is overestimated.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I don't know a lot about Hip-Hop and it isn't my listening preference, but I am not ignorant of its history.

Then stop going around making claims as if you do.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm specifically referring to rap here because I am rather ignorant of the history of dance hip hop. I'm not sure what you're looking for me when you ask me what I know... I could start talking about griots and New Orleans area jazz music, or are you looking for a list of people I listen to? Because it would be rather empty. I list of people I've heard would be rather long, but pointless.

Why are you babbling? I simply said he's not what you're making him out to be outside of you liking his music.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It simply went over your head. I wasn't that hard to see. But whatever, this isn't going anywhere.

It wasn't there, or you forgot to put it in as evidenced by:

Originally posted by Nellinator
Durst doesn't belong on the pantheon of rock, but when it comes to rap influenced vocals in rock, yes he does. I hate him but he does.

He doesn't, Zack de la Rocha does.

-AC

Ability wise, yes, Cornell is more powerful and has a better range. I'm talking timbre because that's all that really matters.

Actually I was right on the guitar thread. You may continue to pretend that I wasn't, but quite simply you'd be wrong. That argument is actually what I base my perception of your lack of music theory knowledge on.

I'm not giving Cobain an object measure of innovation, so I'm not sure how you can say I am giving him too much credit.

Yes, he is.

I never said Cobain never wrote anything generic. He simply didn't do it that often, which is what I did in fact say. Cobain was generic less often than Cornell is what I am saying. That, I truly believe. I understand that you like Cornell better, so I can't see this being productive, but I do think Cornell was very good in Soundgarden, but was fairly generic with Audioslave.

Everything else would be songwriting according to you I assume? In which case Cobain is at least his equal. Personally, Id' say Cobain has the edge in songwriting. Ability wise, I'm not sure, I tend to watch Thayil and Morello more and I haven't seen Cornell's solo stuff live...

Tupac's was great as measured by his influence and popularity. Whether or not you like him is entirely different. It might be overestimated, but I'm not convinced that it is. Rappers don't seem to talk about their influences as much as other genres.

When did I claim to know a lot about hip-hop? I didn't.

No, you simply said that you like others better. That means absolutely nothing. You then asked me what I know about hip-hop which was a rather vague question considering the context, so this isn't blabbering at all. Interesting that you called it that though...

No, it was definitely there, but you missed it. That's the point.

Zach de la Rocha also belongs, yes. They both do.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Ability wise, yes, Cornell is more powerful and has a better range. I'm talking timbre because that's all that really matters.

I was talking ability.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually I was right on the guitar thread. You may continue to pretend that I wasn't, but quite simply you'd be wrong. That argument is actually what I base my perception of your lack of music theory knowledge on.

So the three of us providing reasonable, sensible information that proves you wrong regarding the dumb claim "Anybody can play anything.", were wrong? No, you were wrong. You got to the desperate point of saying Eric Clapton was wrong about his own ability.

That's idiotic/

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm not giving Cobain an object measure of innovation, so I'm not sure how you can say I am giving him too much credit.

In my opinion.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, he is.

No, he's not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I never said Cobain never wrote anything generic. He simply didn't do it that often, which is what I did in fact say. Cobain was generic less often than Cornell is what I am saying. That, I truly believe. I understand that you like Cornell better, so I can't see this being productive, but I do think Cornell was very good in Soundgarden, but was fairly generic with Audioslave.

I think Cornell has the better lyrics from any point of analytical lyricism.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Everything else would be songwriting according to you I assume? In which case Cobain is at least his equal. Personally, Id' say Cobain has the edge in songwriting. Ability wise, I'm not sure, I tend to watch Thayil and Morello more and I haven't seen Cornell's solo stuff live...

Thayil played what Cornell wrote, if Cornell wrote almost all the music for Soundgarden.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Tupac's was great as measured by his influence and popularity.

Great in a size sense? Because quality wise that's subjective. He influenced 50 Cent and was popular among people who thought they had to like him as much, too. That isn't great.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Whether or not you like him is entirely different. It might be overestimated, but I'm not convinced that it is. Rappers don't seem to talk about their influences as much as other genres.

Exactly, cos hip hop...mainstream hip hop anyway, is...to quote MC Run; "A brag and status game.". Who would say "Yo, I love MF Doom.". What MTV kid cares? MF Doom is a superior MC though.

Originally posted by Nellinator
When did I claim to know a lot about hip-hop? I didn't.

I suggest slowing the all-encompassing claims down then.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, you simply said that you like others better. That means absolutely nothing. You then asked me what I know about hip-hop which was a rather vague question considering the context, so this isn't blabbering at all. Interesting that you called it that though...

You were saying who Pac is and isn't better than implicitly. You shouldn't do that without a knowledge enough to judge.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, it was definitely there, but you missed it. That's the point.

I didn't miss it, I get your point, it's just a shit point.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Zach de la Rocha also belongs, yes. They both do.

Explain to me why you feel he does. He did nothing besides what previous acts had done, but much worse.

-AC

cobain can't touch cornell as a singer, but i think he's a better lyricist, and nirvana is the only band from that movement that doesn't sound terribly dated to me. cobain did cop a lot from bands, though, like the bartlebees (he covered them on the unplugged album).

tupac is not near the most talented in hip-hop history. very famous though.

Nirvana to me is the most dated of the main 'grunge' bands. It's very much of its time.

Precisely.

I can listen to Outshined by Soundgarden and not think "90s grunge.". I can't do that with Nirvana.

-AC

Having said that, they did stop making music the furthest back.

Originally posted by SlimYout
Is it possible that all artist dead or alive will/would eventually lose their greatness?

For example:

Micheal Jackson
Kurt Cobain
Jimi Hendrix
Aretha Franklin
Beethoven
Tupac Shakur
The Beatles
Bob Marley

Feel free to add or remove anyone you believe is or is not washed up

Under the right circumstances, No, none of the listed artists would have become washed up. If they were all still alive or hadnt been disbanded. They would have contued to create great music.

However, I do not understand how you can put Beethoven in a catagory like this. The man was always considered washed up LOL He did not get his fame and recognition until the end of his career. Which may have been found by sheer happenstance. Many speculate that it was his deafness That caused him to over and under compensate his composures of the romantic era.

Kurt Cobain, Was nothing more than an half hearted, half talented artist that gained his fame by the legend which was created around his death

Tupac, Another example of the legend preceeding the man

Micheal Jackson, Well, I guess the boy was talented and started a pop movement so yeah he always has that, but yeah, he's washed up

Every artist that has appeared on the Surreal life, except Da Brat.

Originally posted by Triple Six
Every artist that has appeared on the Surreal life, except Da Brat.

Robert plant ?

Nobody can truly say where any of the artist that passed on would be today. But going back to what another poster said, "Did those artist reach their peak?" Or would the first few albums they made be their greatest work, never to be duplicated?

Also who do you believe deserves more credit. The artist who has the most influence, or the artist who creates good music consistently?

nirvana is more timeless to me because--when you strip away the "grunge hype"--they were actually just a really good punk band. soundgarden and especially alice in chains had to much of the man voice/over distortion for me to accept them beyond the early nineties.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I never said it makes him the best. There is far more to it than that. However, album sales do indicate whether you are good and what you do or not. not at all. not sure if you've listened to enough hip hop music to judge.