I've never understood what people mean by that when it comes to music. I mean you either like someone's music or you don't. Just because someone hasn't released a record for five minutes doesn't mean their music is suddenly worth less than what it was when they were at their peak. And if the answer is No they're not 'relevant' then what, we don't listen to their music anymore or what? It just seems a daft question.

I heard someone the other day say a certain comedian is for people who 'don't get comedy'. FFS, they are funny or they aren't. The people who say these things are just pretentious idiots.

No matter how 'relevant' an act is, most people aren't usually discussing them twenty years after the fact unless they sold shed loads at the time, so it tends to become just another popularity related term used to bolster reputation. If I was always buying the music being cited as most relevant I'd have a pretty crap collection of stuff and one that people wouldn't want.

Yeh its annoying term seemingly Radio 1 decide who gets on their playlist by deciding who is still 'relevant'. According to them Blink 182 seemingly are still relevant but Green Day and Red Hot Chili Peppers aren't, yet Green Day have just made their best album in over ten years and it was a number one.

Surely if you weren't relevant you wouldn't sell out arena tours and have number one albums and I think many under 30s like them. It should be is their new music as good and in their case yes but in RHCP case no its not so fair enough but again they are still relevant as they headline festivals and again many under 30s like them so should still be in their remit even if their are old.

It's some damn buzzword concocted by the X Factor and that kind of audience. It means jack shit.

If Queen released an album tomorrow it would go to number 1, and the lead singer has been dead since 1991.

Usually around here it's because they crave a justification to drag the said person down.

Exactly.
It all started when the X Factor started. Viewers started copying Cowell and Co because they thought it made them sound like they knew what they were talking about when it comes to music. Before the X Factor started nobody ever said is so and so 'relevant'.

Same way people use words like over-rated, under-rated, legend, classic and other equally meaningless words, as if there's some universal definition against which artists can be bench-marked. Why people can't just be happy liking who they like and allow others to like who they like is beyond me.

In relation to this thread relevance simply means 'dated' or 'not dated.' And most people must know music that they think hasn't aged well and music which keeps getting played year after year, classics if you will. I don't think these terms are meaningless at all.

Critics have been describing the aesthetics of art forms since the Greeks. Perhaps, popular music isn't to be considered an art form, is that it?

In the past couple of days I've listened to great songs from old albums by the Soft Machine, Donovan and Focus. They didn't sound dated at all but are they relevant? Were they ever relevant to the average person's life? Or were they just good music?

No I'm not sure it does. Within the context of this thread and the thread that inspired it, surely relevance, or being relevant, is whether the artist has any sort of 'connection' with contemporary society. It's nothing to do with the music itself as such. Yes, some music styles date, but that doesn't necessarily mean the artist has dated. Many older artists experiment with modern styles and many younger ones experiement with older styles.

Focus are relevant as long as great musicianship is relevant. Maybe that's the only factor you need. Donovan is probably more relevant now with so many singer song writers around. Not so sure about his hippy counter cultural ideas.


So, is an artist relevant rather than just the artists music? I find the two hard to completely separate, the artist from their music. But I believe that pop music is positioned within pop culture and it is possible that a band or an artist becomes unfashionable.

Or fashionable, often this is through the hard work of listeners, writers and critics rediscovering something from the past and re-evaluating it. Which is why I think some of the terms about evaluation and classics are fine. Big Star were invisible to me until recently but now I appreciate their originality and greatness.

Well they are because if you ask if a band or singer is relevant (or dated) and the answer is Yes they sound old or dated then what do we do? Are we supposed to dismiss that band or singer? It's just a stupid question asked by people who watch the X Factor or The Voice. The truth is that EVERY band or singer that's ever existed is relevant because every band or singer that's ever existed will have a fan out there somewhere and to those people they're VERY relevant.

I long ago came to the conclusion that people start topics on this forum with the aid of a random word generator.

IIRC, they did, it's just that it was less the type of people who watched X Factor and more the type of people who read NME (or whatever)- as it was then- and half-seriously fancied themselves as journalists or critics.

Question. Is something being "relevant" relevant any more?

If people don't even know what random means they're bound to struggle with relevant.

Well you do accept the idea that some music and/or artist doesn't sound current anymore, why go beyond that?

What random means depends on context, random in a random word generator does not have the same meaning as a random in statement like 'that was random' to your mates.

The same applies to relevant.

Simple question: are the Rolling Stones as relevant to contemporary pop music as they were in the mid-60s?

of course not. they are considerably more relevant now due to the passage of time and much greater popularity. people listen to them today who werent born in the 60s and people listening to them in the 60s will still listen to them now. same with the beatles

Back then, the Stones took the form and style of the blues and adapted it to create a new, contemporary sound that was relevant to the music scene of the 1960s.

Now, the Stones take the form and style of the blues and adapt it to create a new, contemporary sound that is still relevant to the music scene of the 1960s.

well ive not played a stones track for many years now, and the only beatles track ive played is 'tomorrow never knows' . despite a huge collection of singles and albums from the last 50+ years, i seldom play any.


ill not be told by the media whats relevant to me and whats not, ill decide that for myself and i dare say thats the way most of you think.

But so what if they/he/she don't sound current. That doesn't mean they're not going to be an inspiration for a band getting together now.

Interesting, so no consideration of the Stones being the deviant, dangerous bad boys of the 60s and 70s turning into the pillars of the establishment they are today? That their gigs these days are largely nostalgia trips based on earlier success. They are just as relevant to young people today as they were in 1965?

Yes, there is an argument that they are relevant. I would have said The Stones are relevant as great songwriters, as survivors, as purveyors of notoriety (particularly, Jagger, Richards and Wood) and with the rise of celebrity culture, they fit right in. However, if they put out a grime inspired record about the experiences of modern youth, that might not work as well.

The people like myself who were fans of the Stones in the 60s. Great music is always great music and the Stones made a lot of it. I occasionally listen to them now just for nostalgia and because they made great music in the 60s and 70s. If I want to listen to something that is contemporary and relevant and maybe just as great, I"ll listen to Kendrick Lamar.

Yet two Stones albums (not inc compilations) have outsold 'To Pimp A Butterfly' in the UK in 2016.

But on the question. I'd simply say music is much less relevant these days.