Export thread

Who do you guys think was the most important musician to show up after Michael Jackson made it big, say mid 80s onward? And, maybe as an addon, do you think there has been another musician that has been as singularly significant to the music industry as MJ, after he showed up (meaning no Beatles or LZ).

RUN DMC

I don't really see much influence that MJ had on other artists. He kinda did his own thing and was well respected by the industry, but he did not get many imitators. Justin Timberlake is about only person that I can think of that really sounds like MJ.
Added at: 15:47
Jay-Z is likely to be the new Quincy Jones.

In no particular order:
Madonna
Nirvana
N.W.A. / Dr. Dre
New Kids on the Block*
Metallica
Eminem
Jay-Z
Green Day*
Van Halen

*(you didn't say the influence had to be positive)

Wierd Al Yankovic.

R.E.M.
U2

Madonna by a longshot.

EDIT: And PLEASE don't Rickroll the thread.

jwhouk said:

Madonna by a longshot.

EDIT: And PLEASE don't Rickroll the thread.

Click to expand...

Are you arguing that that's NOT the most-viewed and widespread music video of the digital age?

It's not the most INTENTIONALLY viewed and widespread music video of the digital age.

jwhouk said:

It's not the most INTENTIONALLY viewed and widespread music video of the digital age.

Click to expand...

I think you're just unwilling to accept that its unique method of delivery allowed it to break boundaries and reach viewers who would have never even considered watching music videos before.

sixpackshaker said:

I don't really see much influence that MJ had on other artists. He kinda did his own thing and was well respected by the industry, but he did not get many imitators. Justin Timberlake is about only person that I can think of that really sounds like MJ.
Added at: 15:47
Jay-Z is likely to be the new Quincy Jones.

Click to expand...

m888888888

MJ is the single most succesful pop musician in world history, by a longshot. Pop musicians would be idiots NOT to be influenced by him.

But anyways. I like JayZ as a choice. I was thinking that someone from the Hip Hop movement deserved a nod (like the RUN DMC one as well.)

What about Trent Reznor? Granted it's an isolated genre, but it's effected a lot of other genres.

I only came into this thread to state that prolific is not the same as influential or important. Creed and Nickleback are both prolific, but this does not mean they are necessarily good.

Damnit. You are correct.

Your correctness is prolific.

Maybe not the most important by any stretch, but Rush is definitely one of, if not the most prolific artists of all time. They just released their 20th studio album.

Ravenpoe said:

I only came into this thread to state that prolific is not the same as influential or important. Creed and Nickleback are both prolific, but this does not mean they are necessarily good.

Click to expand...

Ravenpoe vindicates my choice!

The biggest problem with tracking sales is that, nobody tracks sales. It is only what the record label claims to have sold.

PS. the Beatles and Elvis sold a lot more records than Micheal.

Rebecca Black.

sixpackshaker said:

The biggest problem with tracking sales is that, nobody tracks sales. It is only what the record label claims to have sold.

PS. the Beatles and Elvis sold a lot more records than Micheal.

Click to expand...

P.S. he clearly asked for prolific artists after Michael Jackson, so Elvis and The Beatles aren't really relevant.

sixpackshaker said:

Jay-Z is likely to be the new Quincy Jones.

Click to expand...

Eeehhhh Jay-Z attracts talent, sure, but he's not exactly a producer. Dr.Dre or maybe RZA would more likely fill those shoes.

Don't forget that Usher is moving into the management biz and he brought fourth the unfortunate pop juggernaut that is Justin Bieber.

Bowielee said:

Don't forget that Usher is moving into the management biz and he brought fourth the unfortunate pop juggernaut that is Justin Bieber.

Click to expand...

I came in to say Bieber. His impact will probably be felt for decades to come.

Prolific? That would be this guy.

--Patrick

I'd also have to put Madonna up there for prolific artists after MJ. She's still pumping out albums. They aren't good, but she's pumping them out.

Frank Zappa puts all y'all to shame.

Prince is still cranking out albums as well. If you're just going by songwriting credits, Prince would win by a landslide. He wrote songs for practically everyone for 2 decades.

Milli Vanilli has had the largest impact on music today.

Nobody sings in concert anymore.

How you look became far more important than how you sound.

sixpackshaker said:

How you look became far more important than how you sound.

Click to expand...

Girl, you know it's true.

--Patrick

This is difficult to be objective with, since there is going to be a bias towards our personal preferences. I manage some record stores and worked in some others so I hear people debate this shit daily, sometimes talking over me while I try to usher them the fuck out of the store. If we're going to be petty would you count "post MJ" after his output ceased or after he died? A handful of years isn't a lot to show lasting importance or I'd just say reluctantly Lady Gaga.

She at least has been seen with G.I.S.M and Doom patches, points for that.

If it's post MJ's major contributions to pop culture sans kid fucking jokes the impact probably has been most felt by Nirvana. Bands like The Black Keys etc, while probably talking about 1970's garage rock as influences, wouldn't be as palatable to a lot of audiences if it weren't for Nirvana's breaking through in the 90's. Also helped a lot of people dig deep into the indie and punk scenes, sort of how coffee can gateway to coke. Sort of. Can we use meth as a metaphor for people with shitty taste?

Pretty much agree. If we're talking major revolutions in breaking through to new markets, Nirvana is probably one of the biggest catalysts post-MJ of taking the harder sound and finding gold in widespread masses. Beyond them, maybe Eminem? It's hard to think of anyone making such a giant splash as MJ--all these other bands pale in comparison to the major tectonic ship in pop-culture as Micheal.

Prefabricated pop acts have momentary cultural significance which will make them seem like they will have a direct hand in shaping the zeitgeist( I hope that means what I'm thinking) but that shit rarely stays relevant a year or two into it. I seriously can't think of much music post mid 90's that have had any kind of "movement" feel to them. I saw nu-metal impact our local mobile home culture but that fire's been contained and put out. I don't think anyone's going to base their cultural revolution on Nickleback. Counter cultures are so cleaned up and gentrified that anything deep is mostly preaching to the choir. And what the fuck are all these kids doing on my lawn?

I would like to point out that the title of this thread is who was most "prolific," not "influential."
Until then, I stand by my choice.

--Patrick
(semi-retired grammar Nazi)

PatrThom said:

I would like to point out that the title of this thread is who was most "prolific," not "influential."
Until then, I stand by my choice.

--Patrick
(semi-retired grammar Nazi)

Click to expand...

And I'd like to point out that the very first line says "important." So, you are wrong.

I know! And that was my dilemma, so I decided to go with the thread title. Because the answer to that one was less subject to debate than that other one.

--Patrick

Soliloquy said:

Ravenpoe vindicates my choice!

Click to expand...

Actually, just the opposite. A prolific artist is one who is hard working and produces a high volume of work. Rick Astley has one hit and only 5 albums.

Hardly prolific.

Bowielee said:

Actually, just the opposite. A prolific artist is one who is hard working and produces a high volume of work. Rick Astley has one hit and only 5 albums.

Hardly prolific.

Click to expand...

In the US, sure, but he was crazy popular in the UK. He's the only solo male to have 8 singles consecutively in the UK Top 10. According to Wikipedia he actually had 13 various songs in the top 30 worldwide. No MJ, but that's not bad for someone people consider a one-hit wonder nowadays. Reading over his bio it looks to me like he worked pretty hard up until he retired (at 27 years old, so he must have done pretty well) for 10 years.

Still, I wouldn't say prolific. 5 albums is quite a small amount for someone who's been producing music since the 80s. COULD he have been more prolific if he hadn't retired? It's entirely possible.

That's one of the reasons you can't really call Nirvana prolific. They only put out 3 albums before Curt Cobain offed himself.

Also, as for the UK, they regard Lulu as a national treasure, so grain of salt

Now if we're talking influential, important, or relevent, that's something entirely different.

Well, if we're talking just prolific, then enjoy: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extremely-disappointing-facts-about-popular-mus

CynicismKills said:

Well, if we're talking just prolific, then enjoy: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extremely-disappointing-facts-about-popular-mus

Click to expand...

8. Katy Perry holds the same record as Michael Jackson for most number one singles from an album

That is probably a good thing in comparison.

for the list in general... you always hear the music pundints wringing their hands about the death of rock an pop. But the people on top now are just selling far more records than ever. It is just in the past more bands sold more records, it was a diverse field. Just look back as recently as the 80's, where Punk, New Wave, Post Punk, Soul, R&B, Pop, Country, Disco (still holding on,) Heavy Metal, Hair Bands, Rap, Heavy Metal/Rap Fusion, on and on... were all viable and thriving music genres.

sixpackshaker said:

It is just in the past more bands sold more records, it was a diverse field. Just look back as recently as the 80's, where Punk, New Wave, Post Punk, Soul, R&B, Pop, Country, Disco (still holding on,) Heavy Metal, Hair Bands, Rap, Heavy Metal/Rap Fusion, on and on... were all viable and thriving music genres.

Click to expand...

If you're implying that the music scene has less diversity I am going to call complete and total BS on that. There is so much diversity in the music industry these days that I am honestly a little overwhelmed by it for the first time in my life. I would argue that it's gotten to the point that even trying to boil things down into genres is impossible as it's all one giant pulsating amorphous blob of art.

Part of this has to do with access. Musicians and their fans have completely unprecedented access these days. They don't HAVE to put themselves into a genre to get air time, because air time doesn't matter anymore.

Anyways, things are more diverse than ever, and there are currently more professional musicians out there than ever before.

Genres have split in to multitudes of niches to the point it's astounding. For example, this piece of art: http://mapofmetal.com/#/home

It's so beautiful I could cry.

Just because something sells a shitload doesn't mean it's better than something else; I think that's pretty obvious. Pop music is always going to outsell other bands...hence, popular music.

Bowielee said:

Prince is still cranking out albums as well. If you're just going by songwriting credits, Prince would win by a landslide. He wrote songs for practically everyone for 2 decades.

Click to expand...

Damn straight. Going by Wikipedia, he personally has 25 studio albums plus five soundtrack albums and at least one boxed set of original material along with four more internet only albums (before the internet ended, apparently). On top of that, he created the groups The Time (4 albums with his input, 3 of them where he did most of the recording himself), Madhouse (2 albums), The Family, Vanity 6, and Apollonia 6 (1 album a piece). He also produced whole albums for Sheila E. (3 albums), Mavis Staples (2 albums), Eric Leeds, Ingrid Chavez, Carmen Electra, Jill Jones, Mayte Garcia, Martika, and Chaka Khan. He has also contributed songs here and there for Sheena Easton, Mazarati, Tevin Campbell, and Patti LaBelle. He can also be credited with discovering folks like Sheila E. (arguably one of the finest drummers around), Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis ( founding members of The Time and fairly prolific record producers in their own right, with 16 #1 singles to their credit, with Jimmy Jam additionally being Chairman Emeritus of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences), Wendy & Lisa (founding members of The Revolution with a respectable solo career of their own, now spending most of their time as composers for television shows - they won an Emmy for the Nurse Jackie theme song), and a slew of artists who have been fairly successful outside the Prince camp.

Love him or hate him, Prince is one of the more influential and prolific musicians of the last thirty-two years.

I think the thing that most people just can't stand about him is his Tiger Woods-level of arrogance.
But, given the above, it's hard to call it unfounded.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

I think the thing that most people just can't stand about him is his Tiger Woods-level of arrogance.
But, given the above, it's hard to call it unfounded.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

It's more than that. The man has been off in his own little world since at least 1987, if not even earlier (good candidate would be 1985 or so, when he go the director of Under The Cherry Moon fired in order to direct it himself) and is therefore criminally out of touch (the internet is so over, theocracy is kinda cool, chem trails are real). He's ruthless when it comes to the business side of music (won't let but a few people record covers of his music, won't let The Time - consisting of dudes he's known for for than thirty years including his high school pal Morris Day - use their name anymore, takes videos of his music off of YouTube as fast as he can, etc, etc). He's just kind of a dick...but Morris and Wendy and various others all seem think of him as a good person who's a weird dude and hard to work with sometimes, so who am I judge him harshly?

Yeah, I watched Purple Rain last summer and fell down a Prince Hole that I have yet to climb out of.

It's a parody, obviously, but I think SNL's Prince Show with Fred Armisen pretty much sums up how people perceive Prince.

At the time, he out-Madonna'd Madonna as far as image control and manipulation. I'm kinda surprised Weird Al got permission to parody him in UHF, song or no song.

--Patrick

Bowielee said:

Don't forget that Usher is moving into the management biz and he brought fourth the unfortunate pop juggernaut that is Justin Bieber.

Click to expand...

I like Usher enough that I have forgiven him for this.

But as far as the most prolific? Prince for sure. I don't love all of his new stuff, but he is still recording and touring. I've seen him twice now, once recently, and he puts on a phenomenal show!! He has so much material that he didn't have time to finish many songs - it was a big medley. And he played for a really long time!

There's several other factors that go into why Katy Perry has as many #1 hits as Michael:

For one, there are more consumers out there than there were in 1982. There's also more means of getting Katy's content than there were in '82 (Basically, you could get Thriller on LP, cassette or on that new-ish technology known as "CD's" - though I think the CD version didn't come out until much later). Katy also did a MUCH better way of promoting her music - anyone remember her in the days of MySpace, when "I Kissed A Girl" took off? There's also more ways for people to hear Katy's stuff than there were in '82 for Michael. What Art Alexakis sang in "AM Radio" was still true in '82: "Had to listen to it all night long/just to hear my favorite song."

Does that mean Katy's stuff is better than Michael's? Probably not. It's different, that's for sure, but pop music is called that for a reason - it's popular at the time it's released. "California Here I Come" was popular when it was first released in 1924 - but then again, so was that little ditty, "Does The Spearmint Lose Its Flavor on the Bedpost Overnight?"

jwhouk said:

There's several other factors that go into why Katy Perry has as many #1 hits as Michael:

For one, there are more consumers out there than there were in 1982. There's also more means of getting Katy's content than there were in '82 (Basically, you could get Thriller on LP, cassette or on that new-ish technology known as "CD's" - though I think the CD version didn't come out until much later). Katy also did a MUCH better way of promoting her music - anyone remember her in the days of MySpace, when "I Kissed A Girl" took off? There's also more ways for people to hear Katy's stuff than there were in '82 for Michael. What Art Alexakis sang in "AM Radio" was still true in '82: "Had to listen to it all night long/just to hear my favorite song."

Does that mean Katy's stuff is better than Michael's? Probably not. It's different, that's for sure, but pop music is called that for a reason - it's popular at the time it's released. "California Here I Come" was popular when it was first released in 1924 - but then again, so was that little ditty, "Does The Spearmint Lose Its Flavor on the Bedpost Overnight?"

Click to expand...

More importantly, she wears a lot of latex dresses.

Also, I love you for referencing Everclear. One of my all-time favorite bands.

Art's gotten a lot of crap about being a "singer who's mad at his dad" (guess THAT quote), but he's actually got some pretty good songs in Everclear's repertoire.

Yeah, but then again you could say the same for most rock bands of the 90's and beyond. Dude had plenty of reason, though, and it made for some great, heartfelt music. If you listen to his re-recordings with the "new" Everclear, it's obvious he's moved on and isn't angry anymore, which sadly for the listener (but good for him!) takes away from the emotion in the songs.

CynicismKills said:

Well, if we're talking just prolific, then enjoy: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extremely-disappointing-facts-about-popular-mus

Click to expand...

Oh that younger generation. They just don't have as good taste as the older one.

Norris said:

Prince is one of the more... prolific musicians of the last thirty-two years.

Click to expand...

For nine years in the '90s "prince" didn't exist during which time he released over 5 albums. So you have to at least throw away the albums produced by the guy with the unpronounceable "the love symbol" name.

stienman said:

For nine years in the '90s "prince" didn't exist during which time he released over 5 albums. So you have to at least throw away the albums produced by the guy with the unpronounceable "the love symbol" name.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because him being legally barred from using his legal, given name by Warner Bros. changes who made the music.If he'd completely changed genres, hooked up with a new band (he's been calling his backing group the New Power Generation or NPG continuously since about 1987), or disowned that material upon expiration of his Warner Bros. contract, you'd maybe have a point. But he didn't. The eminently reasonable conspiracy theory about that period is that he chose the unpronounceable symbol specifically so people would be forced to keep calling him "Prince" even if he couldn't.

All the tickets and such that I saw always had him listed as TAFKAP.

--Patrick

Norris said:

Yeah, because him being legally barred from using his legal, given name by Warner Bros. changes who made the music.If he'd completely changed genres, hooked up with a new band (he's been calling his backing group the New Power Generation or NPG continuously since about 1987), or disowned that material upon expiration of his Warner Bros. contract, you'd maybe have a point. But he didn't. The eminently reasonable conspiracy theory about that period is that he chose the unpronounceable symbol specifically so people would be forced to keep calling him "Prince" even if he couldn't.

Click to expand...

Meh. I was just making a joke about the situation. He shouldn't have signed away the rights to his given name if he didn't want the legal entanglements they caused. He also released those several albums really quickly just to get out of the contract with Warner Bros, so an argument could be made that he didn't put his best work into them.

But it really doesn't matter, I was joking. You can still call him one of the most prolific artists.

jwhouk said:

Art's gotten a lot of crap about being a "singer who's mad at his dad" (guess THAT quote), but he's actually got some pretty good songs in Everclear's repertoire.

Click to expand...

Girl All the Bad Guys Want.

"She's into Godsmack and I like Agent Orange, her CD changer's full of singers that are mad at their dads..."

I think that was actually meant to be a dig against Korn, specifically the track "Daddy" on their debut album.

And boy does this thread suck.

Hey, you posted in it.

jwhouk said:

Hey, you posted in it.

Click to expand...

And it was aaaaaaaaallll downhill from there

Since prolific is pretty much a numbers game, I'll give that one a pass.
Influential/important?
Madonna
Nirvana
Notorious BIG (I'd say he's had more *influence* than Usher, but I admit my knowledge of the field is too limited to say)
Though he's had a lot of his better-known works before Thriller, I'd still say Bob Dylan - he's still making new songs and they're still damn influential. How many artists can you think of that don't list him as an influence?