Stevie's legacy compared to janis's

[mike_nh]

I was thinking about this the other day and was curious to get some opinions on it.
First off not to take anything away from janis joplin but what she was known for was within only in the span of a few years and i'm not sure you want to be remembered more for your drug intake than your songwriting skills. Plus Stevie's songwritng skills and original music output alone is so much more than janis's was back in the day.

So i guess my question is when history looks back at the true legends will stevie's legacy be more than what janis's has been. because even 42 years after her death people still talk about janis and radio still plays her music. i'd just like to see stevie get the same respect.

[Macfanforever]

I never got into Janis 's music.But she is a legend.The same goes for Jimmi Hendrix.

[louielouie2000]

Early/unexpected death catapults many people to a higher realm of celebrity than they enjoyed while they were living. Just look at Elvis... he was a washed up has-been when he died. Same for Michael Jackson. Look at how massive their estates are now. Cult artist Nick Drake was never heard of during his lifetime. Sublime didn't hit major fame until their lead singer died shortly before their third album was released, then they became a platinum selling band.

Just look at the acting realm; actors such as James Dean & River Phoenix had very short careers, and neither were particularly well rounded or prolific in their roles. Yet in death they're viewed as patron saints of acting.

I've often wondered how Stevie's legacy would be now if she had died when she was on top (for instance, what if she died during the Rock A Little tour versus going to Betty Ford?). Because revered artists like Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, etc all went out on top, and have stayed there in death. But would these artists be in the same hallowed arena had they lived and began slowly declining in quality & sales? I tend to think they wouldn't be viewed the same way at all.

[mike_nh]

intresting point but if stevie died let's say in 1980 or before i think her status as a rock ''legend'' would be the same as janis,jim,or jimmi because i don't think (and still don't) stevie's solo carear was given the same respect as her years with fleetwood mac. so if she did pass away during the rock a little tour i doubt it would have the same impact because at that time in 1985 fleetwood mac was not together at that point.

But with that being said god forbid if we lost her today i think she would be remembered in a way such as jerry garcia was when he passed.

[WildHearted]

Early/unexpected death catapults many people to a higher realm of celebrity than they enjoyed while they were living. Just look at Elvis... he was a washed up has-been when he died. Same for Michael Jackson. Look at how massive their estates are now. Cult artist Nick Drake was never heard of during his lifetime. Sublime didn't hit major fame until their lead singer died shortly before their third album was released, then they became a platinum selling band.

Just look at the acting realm; actors such as James Dean & River Phoenix had very short careers, and neither were particularly well rounded or prolific in their roles. Yet in death they're viewed as patron saints of acting.

I've often wondered how Stevie's legacy would be now if she had died when she was on top (for instance, what if she died during the Rock A Little tour versus going to Betty Ford?). Because revered artists like Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, etc all went out on top, and have stayed there in death. But would these artists be in the same hallowed arena had they lived and began slowly declining in quality & sales? I tend to think they wouldn't be viewed the same way at all.

I agree.

As of right now,I think one could safely make a claim for Stevie in the "living legend" category. At this stage in her career, I don't think there's anything that she could do to really tarnish that - it's just a matter of how well it holds up over time. Who knows.

Now as for her legacy being bigger than Janis's... I find it really hard to compare the two at all, mostly because of the fact that Janis died young and that leaves its own sort of legacy.

Obviously as a fan, I'd like to think that in another 50 years radio (or whatever way people are listening to music then) will still be playing FM/Stevie, but I don't see a way of logically predicting whether or not that will be the case.

intresting point but if stevie died let's say in 1980 or before i think her status as a rock ''legend'' would be the same as janis,jim,or jimmi because i don't think (and still don't) stevie's solo carear was given the same respect as her years with fleetwood mac. so if she did pass away during the rock a little tour i doubt it would have the same impact because at that time in 1985 fleetwood mac was not together at that point.

But with that being said god forbid if we lost her today i think she would be remembered in a way such as jerry garcia was when he passed.

Certainly FM is more popular than Stevie solo. But had something terrible happened in the 80's, that still would have been Stevie dying before her time, etc. To harken back to the Elvis/MJ reference made in a previous post, Elvis wasn't so respected at his time of death, and of course MJ was about to go on tour but he still hadn't been a huge force musically or favored publicly in quite some time. But because they died young and tragically, it ironically had a very positive effect on the way they are remembered and the status to which they are held. Stevie in '85 was still popular (this isn't '94 we're talking about here - Rock a Little had some success) and while Fleetwood Mac weren't touring, they were still a band.

All that said.. I really hate speculating about Stevie dying.

[mike_nh]

i think if radio today was like it was in the old days when you heard 3 or 4 singles from an artist i think stevie's legacy would be much much bigger in terms of her solo carear as it is now. if radio really played the singles off of iyd and her past hits she would be as big as elvis,michael jackson ect.

[Macfanforever]

I don't want to even think about that "D" word.To bad it happen to those artists in their prime.They were all to young to go.

In the last 6 years that "D" word came here to home with 3 family members.

[Macfanforever]

i think if radio today was like it was in the old days when you heard 3 or 4 singles from an artist i think stevie's legacy would be much much bigger in terms of her solo carear as it is now. if radio really played the singles off of iyd and her past hits she would be as big as elvis,michael jackson ect.

I think radio stinks as It goes for the regular top 40 and easy listening stations.
So far .I have not heard a peep out of Stevie's IYD tunes.They play the same ole 20 tunes over and over again.I can do that with my Ipod.

On the other hand .The oldies stations treat Stevie and FM great here.

[Jondalar]

I think that people loved Janis but didn't want to be her.They knew she had a hard life. Stevie was just the opposite. People wanted to be her.

[MikeInNV]

Early/unexpected death catapults many people to a higher realm of celebrity than they enjoyed while they were living.

Totally agree. I can think of a couple of people held in much higher regard than they probably deserve simply because they died prematurely. (No point in naming names in case they have fans here).

But back to the original topic, I think Stevie's legacy is far greater than Janis's. It's a bit like apples and oranges right now with one alive and one dead, but in 50 years....I don't think there will be any question.

[mezzoforte]

Janis is more of a household name, but I would Stevie's discography is worth considerably more.

[MikeInNV]

Janis is more of a household name.

I'm not even sure that's true. Everybody from Janis Joplin's time knows who Stevie Nicks is. On the other hand, with Rumours' resurgence, the enduring appeal of Landslide, and Stevie's high profile, lots of kids know who she is while never having heard of Janis.

[mikephxaz]

Great Thread Question...Janis, Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, Elvis, Jimmy Hendrix, Jimmy Dean, etc..dying young helped them all to become legends ...I think Madonna may debunk that theory (I'm not a fan but she has seemed to uniquely recreate herself successfully for 30 years). IMO Elvis and Marilyn were overweight drug addicts at their deaths, Michael and Janis were complete messes when they died but history will be kind to all of them. I don't think Stevie will reach their legend status..she deserves it but I think the loss of her higher regester in the 80ties really hurt her among casual music listeners.

[BombaySapphire3]

Great Thread Question...Janis, Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, Elvis, Jimmy Hendrix, Jimmy Dean, etc..dying young helped them all to become legends ...I think Madonna may debunk that theory (I'm not a fan but she has seemed to uniquely recreate herself successfully for 30 years). IMO Elvis and Marilyn were overweight drug addicts at their deaths, Michael and Janis were complete messes when they died but history will be kind to all of them. I don't think Stevie will reach their legend status..she deserves it but I think the loss of her higher regester in the 80ties really hurt her among casual music listeners.

In the case of Elvis he was a seminal figuure in the history of rock every bit as popular and important as the Beatles.He would be a legend no matter when he died that is just fact and I am not even that much of a fan.Michael Jackson was nearly as huge as Elvis and the Beatles but the child molestation allegations and freaky behavior badly tarnished his image. Somehow alot of that was washed away after his death.Madonna I won't even comment on except to say that talentwise she does not belong on any list of greats.

[michelej1]

In the case of Elvis he was a seminal figuure in the history of rock every bit as popular and important as the Beatles.He would be a legend no matter when he died that is just fact and I am not even that much of a fan.Michael Jackson was nearly as huge as Elvis and the Beatles but the child molestation allegations and freaky behavior badly tarnished his image. Somehow alot of that was washed away after his death.

I would agree. Death did not make Elvis or Michael Jackson legendary. The length of their careers and extraordinary achievements throughout their hey day sealed the deal. It wouldn't have mattered when they died. Not like the stars who showed great talent, but only lived to express it for a short time, before they suddenly died. The 50 London shows that Jackson was slated to do proves that. He had no money because he wasn't working. If he had started touring again, even if his albums were flops, he could have made as much money had he lived as his estate has made.

I mean, it's like Marlon Brando, he lived to be a fat old guy, the butt of jokes, but he achieved so much during the pinnacle of his success that whether he was productive or meaningful at the end meant absolutely nothing. Orsen Welles, same thing. Judy Garland too. Early death is not what made their legacy live on. I think it was always going to be that way.

Clint Eastwood is another one. It doesn't matter what he does the rest of his life. He's already immortal.

Yes, Amy Winehouse's star rose higher because of death, but there are some people whose peak is eternal, even if they survive long past it.

Yeah, I suppose death in the eighties or so would have helped Stevie's legacy.

Michele

[mikephxaz]

In the case of Elvis he was a seminal figuure in the history of rock every bit as popular and important as the Beatles.He would be a legend no matter when he died that is just fact and I am not even that much of a fan.Michael Jackson was nearly as huge as Elvis and the Beatles .

I agree with most of this but I think what makes the thread question interesting is...if Elvis or Michael had grown old in front of us and their life would have continued to spiral down, out of control, would they have died with as big of a legacy??? I have to guess that had Elvis died on the toilet at 80, still eating bannana sandwiches and habitual pill popping mess instead of dying in his early 40ties - he may have still been considered an early rock and roll legend but, like Michael, he was getting to be considered to be a real messed up joke at 42...what would have happened if he had survived another 35 years spiraling downward..it could have been messy....His gospel music fans would certainly not have stuck around...

[michelej1]

I agree with most of this but I think what makes the thread question interesting is...if Elvis or Michael had grown old in front of us and their life would have continued to spiral down, out of control, would they have died with as big of a legacy??? I have to guess that had Elvis died on the toilet at 80, still eating bannana sandwiches and habitual pill popping mess instead of dying in his early 40ties - he may have still been considered an early rock and roll legend but, like Michael, he was getting to be considered to be a real messed up joke at 42...what would have happened if he had survived another 35 years spiraling downward..it could have been messy....His gospel music fans would certainly not have stuck around...

But if you look at profitability as distinct from legend, I think the answer is clear. Maybe Elvis would not have continued to have new gospel fans at 80, but would that make people think less of the accomplishments he enjoyed in his twenties?

I don't think there is anything he could have done that would have made the memory of him swiveling his hips on the Ed Sullivan show seem less groundbreaking. But if the question is "would so many people still be making pilgrimages to Graceland raking in money for Priscilla and Lisa Marie, if he'd live to be 80," I guess I see your point: maybe they wouldn't.

But money and legacy are different things to contemplate. There are some people whose talent is only fully appreciated when their sudden death calls attention to it. There are some people whose death leads to more commercial success than they would otherwise have garnered.

As the question applies to Stevie, what are we really asking? Is it (1) would she be more respected and be considered more of a pioneer if she'd died early or (2)would she have sold more records as people clamored to gather mementos, if she'd died at 40?

They're 2 different queries.

Personally, I'd say the answer to both is no. I don't think Stevie's premature death would have propelled her to Joplin, Marley or Hendrix status, if that's the question. In fact, I think she's more appreciated now than she would have been if she'd been erased from the canvas 20 years ago. I was reading about the Saint Laurent Paris collection today and some critics were saying it was too Stevie Nicks. I think more people are becoming aware of what Stevie Nicks represents musically and fashion wise today because she persists. If she'd passed away, other than a brief, temporary pop in sales, I believe her star would have faded and she wouldn't be remembered by as many who admire her now.


Michele