DS Forums

 
 

Why do people say is someone 'relevant'?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-10-2016, 17:30
ItsNick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,180

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.
ItsNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-10-2016, 17:40
mooghead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 572
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.
mooghead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2016, 18:48
scrilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,643
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 any more or what? It just seems a daft question.
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.
scrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2016, 19:09
Thorney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 730
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.
Thorney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2016, 23:54
BelfastGuy125
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,697
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.
BelfastGuy125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 03:14
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,461
Usually around here it's because they crave a justification to drag the said person down.
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 07:50
ItsNick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,180
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.
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'.
ItsNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 09:41
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,446
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.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 10:23
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
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?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 10:51
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,324
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?
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 11:27
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,446
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?
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.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 16:05
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
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?
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.

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.
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.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 17:59
ItsNick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,180
I don't think these terms are meaningless at all.
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.
ItsNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 20:31
barbeler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,708
I long ago came to the conclusion that people start topics on this forum with the aid of a random word generator.
barbeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-2016, 22:20
Kodaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
Before the X Factor started nobody ever said is so and so 'relevant'.
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?
Kodaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 00:12
barbeler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,708
If people don't even know what random means they're bound to struggle with relevant.
barbeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 01:54
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
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.
Well you do accept the idea that some music and/or artist doesn't sound current anymore, why go beyond that?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 01:57
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
If people don't even know what random means they're bound to struggle with relevant.
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.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 02:00
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
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?
Simple question: are the Rolling Stones as relevant to contemporary pop music as they were in the mid-60s?
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 07:03
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
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
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 07:53
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,324
Simple question: are the Rolling Stones as relevant to contemporary pop music as they were in the mid-60s?
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.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 07:54
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,765
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


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.
mushymanrob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 07:55
ItsNick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,180
Well you do accept the idea that some music and/or artist doesn't sound current anymore, why go beyond that?
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.
ItsNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 08:19
mgvsmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,287
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
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.
mgvsmith is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2016, 08:53
Soupietwist
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 781
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.
Soupietwist is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:50.