Stevie's legacy compared to janis's

[mikephxaz]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

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]

Originally Posted by mikephxaz

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