#1
(Searchbar'd)
I keep seeing this phrase in arguments about music (most recently in the massive aerosmith/led zeppelin poop throwing contest on the news article), but it only ever seems to come from elitists shouting "Band X is not musically relevant and never was". It is never said why band X isn't relevant, the only apparent factor defining whether an artist is relevant or not is whether they are "classic" enough, "big" enough or sometimes "underground/indie" enough. Anyone care to define what makes an artist musically relevant? And what do you think of the phrase, reasonable argument for why one band is better than another or elitist pricks being elitist?


Tl;dr: How is musically relevant defined and is it a legitimate argument when comparing artists?
Quote by CV334

Sir, the contents of my mouth just blew all over my keyboard, desk, and part of my monitor. For the record, it was slightly chewed Keebler cookies and coffee slurry.

The average pitmonkey's response to my jokes.
#2
Any measure of "enough" is subjective, and I doubt any two people have the same definition of "musical relevance".

"Musically relevant" to what, if I may ask? I don't even understand the term. It's awfully vague.
#4
Quote by Crofty89
(Searchbar'd)
I keep seeing this phrase in arguments about music (most recently in the massive aerosmith/led zeppelin poop throwing contest on the news article), but it only ever seems to come from elitists shouting "Band X is not musically relevant and never was". It is never said why band X isn't relevant, the only apparent factor defining whether an artist is relevant or not is whether they are "classic" enough, "big" enough or sometimes "underground/indie" enough. Anyone care to define what makes an artist musically relevant? And what do you think of the phrase, reasonable argument for why one band is better than another or elitist pricks being elitist?


Tl;dr: How is musically relevant defined and is it a legitimate argument when comparing artists?

Relevence varies from person to person. Honestly I hate those elitist pricks. It's one thing to be a fan of someone or their music. It's something quite different to take that to a level of saying that X band/artist is better than Y band/artist. Relevence, tallent, good music, etc. is all in the eye of the beholder.
Quote by Geldin
Junior's usually at least a little terse, but he knows his stuff. I've always read his posts in a grouchy grandfather voice, a grouchy grandfather with a huge stiffy for alternate picking.
Besides that, he's right this time. As usual.
#5
I'm assuming it means they're current, popular and original enough to still be an influence on music.

Still a shitty phrase, as a new band playing 50s rock and roll are probably less musically relevant than some kind avant garde noise band, for the completely arbitrary reason that the former is a bit like something someone did 60 years ago and the other is a bit like something someone did one or two years ago.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
Last edited by whalepudding at Aug 10, 2010,
#6
Sometimes relevance doesn't mean "popular" or "has had many albums sold through the years." A band/muscian might not be relevant to me, but maybe to someone else. Assuming you mean by relevant as in "level of importance."
#7
any music that is heard by anyone is "relevant"

anyone can hear any song by any artist and be influenced/changed/moved by it. it's art. it speaks to different people in different ways. who is anyone to say that any of it is "bad" without knowing everything about everything that went into the creation of the song?
#8
In my opinion, musically 'relevant' is a load of shit.

If they're referring to the lyrics, someone like Bob Dylan is timeless, while other politically fueled lyrics might just fade away. But the music itself is never irrelevant, as long as it's good.
#9
None of them are relevant and all of them are relevant. It's just music. It's all music.
Today I feel electric grey
I hope tomorrow, neon black
#10
I saw the argument and i think the point being made is that Aerosmith had just re-hashed old ideas unlike Led Zepllin who were 'inovators'. People use the term relevant just to make the other artist sound as if they haven't made anything meaningful and are not important to Music. Tbh alot of elitist pricks use this term, there's only very few cases where music being relevant or not is actually applicable imo.
#11
It's mostly elitism, people saying a band isn't "relevent" to music just because they don't like them or their particular genre. They think X band sucks and therefore has done nothing significant for music, thinking that whatever bands they like have been so innovative that modern music would suffer if not for them. Honestly how relevant a band is to music is subjective. Different bands seem more relevant to different people, so whose to say who is the most relevant to something as broad as music?
#12
Between the Buried and Me is always relevant.
Lord Gold feeds from your orifices and he wants to see you sweat.
Lord Gold probes you publicly and makes your pussy wet.
Now say his name.....
#13
Quote by lordofthefood1
Between the Buried and Me is always relevant.


Dammit, someone else had to get there first
R.I.P. My Signature. Lost to us in the great Signature Massacre of 2014.

Quote by Master Foo
“A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers it and burns his hand.”


Album.
Legion.
#14
I suppose its subjective but I would call some music irrelevant.

For example, if someone released a track like 4'33" nowadays it would be irrelevant in todays society. Music like Def Leppard or the Spice Girls is also almost irrelevant. Sure, people derive pleasure from it and I can usually find time to rock out to Two Becomes One, but it has all dated badly whereas music like Bob Dylan's Like A Rolling Stone is still relevant, I feel.

Even a band like the Beatles, whom I love, has lots of music which has dated badly. I would never call them musically irrelevant, but some of it is on its way. Could you imagine listening to This Boy or And I Love Her in the 2100s?
#15
It's a pretty meaningless term, really. It's a fancy way of saying that the people that like Band X are "not as smart as I am."
"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#16
i really love your avatar ts.

there really is no scale for any artist or band being relevant, it's all subjective and circumstantial and a matter of perception

i consider no artist musically irrelevant however because they may be considered otherwise by another individual.
obvious answer really...
#17
If I'm listening to it it is relevant to me. I don't know nor care what's relevant to anybody else.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.