If the singer/rapper didn't die, would they still be relevant in today's music?

I'm surprised Bradley Nowell and Sublime didn't get immortalized like Nirvana did when Kurt (or Love?) blew his brains out. Personally I think Sublime sounded better than Nirvana.

 

2pac wouldn't be rapping right now if he was alive.


You could tell that he was moving on to bigger and better things. Rap would have been what he did in his 20's

 

So he'd be the next Will Smith?

 

Finally someone mentionin the god-producer.
Would've really influenced the sound of today's hip hop.

 

JFC, someone is completely clueless as to what they speak/type. Not you Shroopy, but the one you had to correct.

 

I could have seen him getting into acting and possibly going back to his social activism roots.

It seems he was going back that way.

 

I was just going to mention Brad Nowell. I don't think you can really compare Sublime and Nirvana. Apples and oranges...

That said, as a big Sublime fan, I'm not sure they were relevant enough to warrant becoming irrelevant. He was already dead before the album "Sublime" was released. That helped sales quite a bit.

Blind Melon was starting to make headway in the jam band genre. I think they would have been huge in time...in the way String Cheese Incident, Widespread Panic, et al are.

 

this reminds me of ton loc, i think it was the funky cold medina video. at the beginning, he's like what would it be like if i was still rapping about 30 years from now.

he does a flash forward deal where he's in a piano bar with a tux on, singing wild thing like an old sinatra tune

 

Wow, that might be the most interesting hypothetical in this entire thread.

I think he would have eventually got bored and started composing modern classical music specifically for orchestra. Or he could’ve just decided that he’d had enough of it all and just become a total recluse, as a lot of geniuses do later in life.

 

I think Shakur was too depressed and antagonistic to do much more than write lyrics and do some decent urban crime films. Snoop by contrast had a similar/possibly worse background and rap sheet, but seemed to have a sense of humor or just a little less anger.

 

How is Freddie Mercury not relevant? Queen would be one of the best music bands out there, if he was still alive. He would still making songs, and wonderful music, and the concerts would be always full, wherever they go.

 

he did kill it in "Nothing but Trouble"

 

havent listened to Beck's new album and i dont live in the states. as far as relevancy i was taking into consideration pop value. ask a 15 yo what he's listening to and chances are it isnt Beck. Trent Reznor/NIN has more staying power but he hasnt done anything NIN wise lately. in fact he's trying to get away from that. movie soundtrack scoring doesnt count imo. i dont rock out to danny elfman nor would i to the social network soundtrack.

artists get bored, outgrow their genre, or just become stale or a moment frozen in time. bands that have remained relevant for decades are like Aerosmith, Stones, U2, Depeche Mode, Jay-Z, Weezer, Radiohead. (although some of those are no longer relevant).

i love Pink Floyd but they are not relevant. just because a bunch old ppl who listened to u when they were kids go to ur concert doesnt make u relevant in the progression of music today. but with the recycling of music i can see how some old bands can ressurect themselves. i just dont see John Lennon doing it. nobody wants to be old guy trying to make pop music. you evolve and become a producer or label owner or do movie soundtracks.

john lennon would be doing video art or leading greenpeace. not making music.

 

I thought thats what you meant, the pop spotlight. Also, I did consider there could be regional relevance for artists strong in one continent and weaker in another, such as Queen. And can agree on the soundtrack stuff. After I mentioned Social Network, I naturally thought of Brian May from Queen who does soundtrack stuff but isnt relevant in the MAIN music scene.

It just depends on the definition of "RELEVANT" to begin with.

I think "relevant" for its use here also means "relative" to prior success. Artists that can still earn a following or success in the current music scene without falling off TOO much.

 

Yet another incoherent scene in that horrible, horrible movie. And so much airplay on HBO back then, premium cable really used to suck before they started making their own shows.

 

okay. in that case i rescind my lennon comment. i still feel like he would be more politically/environmentally involved over music though. he and yoko would be divorced also.

plenty of old bands and artists including B.I.G. would still be relevant then.

 

lol yeah its within reason of course. Just having fun with this. Our criteria is different in being "hip" to the 15 to 29 year olds. I don't consider that too much. Older artists that can make NEW material such as Bruce Springsteen - Plenty older people buy up his albums by the gobs. The younger crowd won't listen to him. But if he outsells Rihanna, I say he's got "scoreboard" and therefore "relevant".

I'm not flip flopping, I can see how fading out the main spotlight is irrelevancy. Its a matter of perspective.

You say Trent Reznor is not relevant. My version of that would be Korn.
You say Pink Floyd is irrelevant, more a "catalog album" fixture. My version of that would be The Bee Gees or Chicago.

(And just me, on John Lennon - he's a BEATLES frontman. That is automatic relevancy just by association.)

 

i agree with everything except placing Pink Floyd in the same sentence with Chicago and the BeeGees. Gilmour and Waters were more influential to my musical development than the Beatles. but that's just me. The Beatles were possibly the most influential band ever. Chicago and the BeeGees made good dating music but nothing mind-blowing.

 

i meant to mention this when this thread was first started, the most recent Texas Monthly has a great article on Bill Haley, The guy who sang "Rock Aronund the Clock"