Relevance

[tbaker3]

Maybe I'm misreading, or I'm seeing comments like this on other websites, but I am sick to death of people (especially fans) spouting off that Stevie is no longer relevant. Says who? She's relevant to me. And considering that there are those of you that check the ledge multiple times a day, she's relevant to you as well. And isn't that all that matters?

I realize that radio doesn't play her much anymore, but that has nothing to do with relevance now days, thats corporation, and I wish people would realize that. Yeah, Kesha has number one songs on the chart. But not one of those songs is profound. They are party anthems crafted by and marketed by a team of people in suits, paid to be played on the radio by those same suited people for a demographic of party hungry kids to make a profit. In 30 years will they be covered by ANYONE? Doubtful. In 20 years will there be any up and comers who site their inspiration as, "this total trainwreck slut who's chorus' went 'blahblahblah' and she couldn't really sing."?

Before people start talking about what is and what is not relevant today, I'd like for them to stop a moment, think about what IS relevant today, then ask themselves, "Is what's relevant actually good? And is that what I really want to listen to?

Stevie's mainstream relevance was EARNED. Let's not forget that...

Sorry if this sounded fragmented. So many thoughts at one time can make things sound choppy when I write them.

[Bandon]

Now tell us how you really feel.

No, but seriously..good for you. She is relevant to me too.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by tbaker3

Maybe I'm misreading, or I'm seeing comments like this on other websites, but I am sick to death of people (especially fans) spouting off that Stevie is no longer relevant. Says who? She's relevant to me. And considering that there are those of you that check the ledge multiple times a day, she's relevant to you as well. And isn't that all that matters?

I realize that radio doesn't play her much anymore, but that has nothing to do with relevance now days, thats corporation, and I wish people would realize that. Yeah, Kesha has number one songs on the chart. But not one of those songs is profound. They are party anthems crafted by and marketed by a team of people in suits, paid to be played on the radio by those same suited people for a demographic of party hungry kids to make a profit. In 30 years will they be covered by ANYONE? Doubtful. In 20 years will there be any up and comers who site their inspiration as, "this total trainwreck slut who's chorus' went 'blahblahblah' and she couldn't really sing."?

Before people start talking about what is and what is not relevant today, I'd like for them to stop a moment, think about what IS relevant today, then ask themselves, "Is what's relevant actually good? And is that what I really want to listen to?

Stevie's mainstream relevance was EARNED. Let's not forget that...

Sorry if this sounded fragmented. So many thoughts at one time can make things sound choppy when I write them.

Your right. There are soo many artist that more than borrow from the past, such as Lady Gaga, Adele, Duffy... Doesn't seem like they are that relevant. How is there music going to change things.

And Stevie has earned respect... these guys haven't yet.

[JohnL]

Im with ya bud. 95% of todays music bites the big one if you ask me anyway. I dont care who thinks what is relevant...I like what I like....and I like Stevie.

[used karma]

I feel like you're just reaffirming what some people have been saying. She's relevant to us, but to the general public? Not so much. Of course her fans love her, but how many people know that Stevie has an album coming out? How often is her new stuff played?

[On Ice]

After 36 years, Stevie's still as relevant to me as ever, and I'm getting the same kind of excitement I got when I brought Tusk home for the first spin (although it was "leaked" and I listened to it on the radio in its entirety

I think she's gonna leave a lot of smiles on faces next week. I've got my fingers crossed for just one adventure into the falsetto world.

[bluefox4000]

More then half the people I listen to are not relevant in the public eye....but don't worry, keep rocking...Screw da public

Mick

[used karma]

Originally Posted by bluefox4000

More then half the people I listen to are not relevant in the public eye....but don't worry, keep rocking...Screw da public

Mick

Exactly. I don't listen to music because it's popular. I listen to be it because I like it.

[markolas]

I'm not really sure what "relevant" means in this context. Then again, most of the people I listen to were dead before I was born.

[tbaker3]

Originally Posted by used karma

I feel like you're just reaffirming what some people have been saying. She's relevant to us, but to the general public? Not so much. Of course her fans love her, but how many people know that Stevie has an album coming out? How often is her new stuff played?

That is what I'm talking about. It doesn't. Not because it's not good. But because it hasn't been manufactured for the purpous of being played. It hasn't been sung by a 20 something blonde, only to be autotuned into oblivion. What I'm saying is "Relevant" music today, isn't REALLY relevant at all. It's disposable crap.

[Artemis]

Here here! Excellent post.

My little brother is in the most annoying teenage group of all time. Anything released before they were born is "ancient" and therefore "rubbish". Example. I was listening to California Dreamin' the other day, and my brother says "Hey, that's a pretty cool song!" and then when he found out it was released in the 60s... instantly - "Blech! It's rubbish". I think the earliest song on his iTunes is TLC's Waterfalls. (Admittedly, a fantastic song)

Anyway. Before I go off on a tangent. I don't give a rat's ass if Stevie is relevant to anyone else. She's very relevant to me. Her lyrics are timeless. She was the first singer who's music I really connected with on an emotional level. I'd rather have a collection of meaningful, personal songs, than an ever-rotating collection of "relevant" songs.

[used karma]

Originally Posted by tbaker3

That is what I'm talking about. It doesn't. Not because it's not good. But because it hasn't been manufactured for the purpous of being played. It hasn't been sung by a 20 something blonde, only to be autotuned into oblivion. What I'm saying is "Relevant" music today, isn't REALLY relevant at all. It's disposable crap.

But disposable or not, whats being played now, IS whats relevant.

[tbaker3]

Originally Posted by used karma

But disposable or not, whats being played now, IS whats relevant.

Disagree.
10 characters

[used karma]

Originally Posted by tbaker3

Disagree.
10 characters

I'm not sure you know what 'relevance' means. No offense.

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by used karma

I'm not sure you know what 'relevance' means. No offense.

I'm not sure YOU do.

You are defining "relevance" purely in commercial sales terms. If something isn't a current hit, it's "not relevant". While that may be one definition it isn't by any means the only one or even the definitive one.

Relevant means having a bearing on the matter at hand. Nicks has been a huge influence on women in music, ranging from Hole to Dixie Chicks. In that context, she is relevant.

Back in 2001, at the age of 50-something, she scored a top 5 album with Trouble In Shangri-La. That certainly indicates chart-performing relevance.

Nicks has had recent #1 ("Planets of the Universe") and #2 ("Stand Back") dance hits. The dance chart can be considered much more youth-oriented than say Adult Contemporary, so again, this argues in favor of her relevance.

The one thing that you point out which I think is true is that radio tends to not play artists that are older or have been around for awhile. I agree. But that doesn't automatically make those artists "not relevant".