Relevance

[Jondalar]

She lost her so called relevance in the late 80s. However, people forget how strong her songs are and what they invoke. She is around today because her music, voice and image were so powerful, that she never became irrelevant. Influence is relevance. Sorry, but the woman is 63 years and Stevie is still in the magazines and musicians are still singing her praises.

Screw radio. Lets face it. This generation dropped the ball.

[Macfanforever]

Oh todays tunes.artists from the last 15 to 20 years will be forgoten in 20 to 30 years from now.Artists from the 1920's to the 1980's will live forever.The junk now will be forgoten in 5 years.Of course some artists will shine from the current ranks.I remember at the end of Stevie's shows she always say please save the music industry.

[mikephxaz]

hey, tbaker
I'm new to The Ledge and I wanted to say thank you for expressing my thoughts....I have begun reading these threads and actually can't understand why there is so much discussin of relevance...discussing her music, her history, her uniqueness and her effects on our own lives seems like what this forum is about....the constant complaints about marketing, promotion, rod stewart(?) and etc. seems misplaced and, frankly, odd. Stevie is an amazing performer and an incredible songwriter...lets "enjoy the ride" for the next few months...she wont be putting out many more cds!

[tbaker3]

Originally Posted by tabruns

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".

my hero

[used karma]

Originally Posted by tabruns

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".

Every example you've given is about how she WAS relevant. Influencing Hole and the Dixie Chicks, a top five album in 2001. Exactly my point. What about NOW? Really, the only thing recently is the Glee episode, and it's an episode based on Rumours.

[Jondalar]

Originally Posted by used karma

Every example you've given is about how she WAS relevant. Influencing Hole and the Dixie Chicks, a top five album in 2001. Exactly my point. What about NOW? Really, the only thing recently is the Glee episode, and it's an episode based on Rumours.

What about Florence and the Machine. They are now. So is Talor Swift and Miley Cyrus.

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by used karma

Every example you've given is about how she WAS relevant. Influencing Hole and the Dixie Chicks, a top five album in 2001. Exactly my point. What about NOW? Really, the only thing recently is the Glee episode, and it's an episode based on Rumours.

But that kind of relevance is on-going. She did and continues to influence women in rock. The top 5 album was her most recent studio release. The #1 and #2 dance hits were some of her most recent singles. I mean, what else can you expect than this?

The *one* thing that has changed is that she used to score Top 40 hit singles and she no longer does. Neither do the Rolling Stones, but I doubt that any music critic would tell you that they are "irrelevant". Its simply a fact of life that eventually your day in the sun on Top 40 radio fades (Madonna is perilously close to her sunset as well) but that doesn't change the influence one may have had on other artists or recent chart performances in other areas like the Album or Dance charts.

[carrie721]

Definition of RELEVANCE

1
a : relation to the matter at hand
b : practical and especially social applicability : pertinence
2
: the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1303876902

in order to argue someone's relevance, you must identify the matter at hand. obviously you are talking about personal relevance, while these others you're getting your panties in a wad about are talking about more broad relevance in culture. you sound pretty defensive. there is a handful of popular artists who cite her as an influence, but she hardly has the broad, pervasive clout of, say, madonna or the artistic respect of lou reed or david bowie.

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.

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by carrie721

Definition of RELEVANCE

1
a : relation to the matter at hand
b : practical and especially social applicability : pertinence
2
: the ability (as of an information retrieval system) to retrieve material that satisfies the needs of the user

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1303876902

in order to argue someone's relevance, you must identify the matter at hand. obviously you are talking about personal relevance, while these others you're getting your panties in a wad about are talking about more broad relevance in culture. you sound pretty defensive. there is a handful of popular artists who cite her as an influence, but she hardly has the broad, pervasive clout of, say, madonna or the artistic respect of lou reed or david bowie.

I agree that "the matter at hand" makes a difference, and I was identifying the context. This is why used_karma considers Nicks irrelevant because she doesn't get radio play or Top 40 hits while I consider her relevant because of her influence on many artists and her performance on the Album and Dance charts. This isn't defensiveness, I simply think that used_karma's "context" isn't the only one or even the most important one. "Panties in a wad" was a rude and unnecessary comment, and employing the classic internet move of "shrugging" after you said something inflammatory is very predictable.

As for your other point, that's completely your opinion. If anything I would say that Nicks has been *more* influential than Madonna (and I admire Madonna greatly)...even Madonna went "Nicks-esque" in her "Frozen" video. That being said, the point wasn't that Nicks has been more influential just that she clearly has been and is influential, that's all.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by tabruns

I agree that "the matter at hand" makes a difference, and I was identifying the context. This is why used_karma considers Nicks irrelevant because she doesn't get radio play or Top 40 hits while I consider her relevant because of her influence on many artists and her performance on the Album and Dance charts. This isn't defensiveness, I simply think that used_karma's "context" isn't the only one or even the most important one. "Panties in a wad" was a rude and unnecessary comment, and employing the classic internet move of "shrugging" after you said something inflammatory is very predictable.

As for your other point, that's completely your opinion. If anything I would say that Nicks has been *more* influential than Madonna (and I admire Madonna greatly)...even Madonna went "Nicks-esque" in her "Frozen" video. That being said, the point wasn't that Nicks has been more influential just that she clearly has been and is influential, that's all.

i didn't say you sounded defensive. i was quoting & responding to the first poster. none of my comments were directed towards you.

[tbaker3]

Originally Posted by carrie721

i didn't say you sounded defensive. i was quoting & responding to the first poster. none of my comments were directed towards you.

Ok then. They were directed towards me. And while I appeciate your opinion, your tact was off. And my boxer briefs are just fine.

[tabruns]

Originally Posted by tbaker3

Ok then. They were directed towards me. And while I appeciate your opinion, your tact was off. And my boxer briefs are just fine.

*cheers for your boxer briefs*

[mezzoforte]

Of all of the things people say about Stevie, "irrelevant" doesn't bother me that much. Sure, I want her to be relevant to other people because she is to me--I love her and think she has a lot left to say. But even I have to admit, she's not relevant the way she used to be.
Is relevance the most important thing, though? Tusk wasn't when it came out (at least, not on the level that Rumours was). And it went on to be hugely influential! Irrelevant doesn't mean it isn't great music that will inspire new artists, just that it doesn't currently capture the zeitgeist. And let's be honest--IYD will not send 12-year-olds into joyful hysterics or be played at frat parties. That's not disparaging--it's realistic.
But does that have to be the end of the world? She's a freakin' icon--she's kind of transcended relevance.

[tbaker3]

Originally Posted by tabruns

*cheers for your boxer briefs*

lol. I, and my boxer briefs, thank you. And thanks, tabruns for so eloquently expressing what I was trying to convey. Relevance has a wider net than top 40. Stevie has inspired 2, almost 3 generations of singer-songwriters by now. Even when Madonna first started out, her look was an edgier Stevie laced look. Her songs live on leaving a legacy. And a legacy, in my mind = relevance.

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by tbaker3

your tact was off.

you're new here.