Pickle's Pics: CONFESSIONS OF A FANGIRL

I recently hopped into my hot tub time machine and went back to the 80s. Rock The Park music fest was a blast from my past with all the 80s hair, outfits and “totally bitchin” rock music. Not that revisiting my teenage years was a bad thing; I always enjoy being around and meeting passionate music fans, no matter what era. When the lead act, Sammy Hager and Friends, was about to go on stage, I had the fortune of meeting a fellow music geek. Our mutual love for music and music trivia lead a passionate debate about Hagar. I love a good trivia challenge! The conversation started to get heated when I suggested that Sammy was influential not relevant. With the stellar lineup Sammy had on stage with him, my new friend seemed shocked bordering on offended that I could even suggest he wasn’t relevant. Sammy Hagar, relevant or influential, we both had a legitimate point but which one of us was right? My fellow music geek had me thinking about the difference between influential vs. relevance when it comes to music.

The difference between influential and relevant boils down to whether a musician is destined to be a steady burning success or rise and fall quickly in a blaze of glory. In other words, influential music rises slowly, relevant spikes and dies out, quickly. Take for instance, Elvis Presley's hip gyrations or Michael Jackson’s moonwalk. Both dance moves are still being impersonated at sold out shows around the world, 30 plus years later. Ok, so impersonating dance moves might be a bit of a stretch for an analogy, however, it does point out the impact and influence of their music. Elvis and Michael didn’t hinge on one small part of the population to cement their influential classification. Influential music possesses some longevity and audiences grant permission for these musicians to cross current platforms while maintaining authenticity. Case in point, Sammy Hagar going from Montrose to solo to Van Halen, Sammy and Friends, there was even some Chickenfoot in there, all while maintaining his loyal fans.

Influential musicians, for the most part, don’t have the sizeable faction of die-hard supporters that relevant music does (think Justin Bieber’s “Beliebers,” sorry for going there). Relevancy is driven by an emotional need, often based on hype and idealistic musician perceptions. The relevant musician only has a limited amount of hits and limited appeal outside of one narrow audience segment. Dare I compare relevant music to a fad? Much like a fad, relevant music requires rapid adaption. Audiences hop on the bandwagon so the music experiences rapid growth but with a weak level of long-term commitment. The music is often ill conceived, rarely if ever delivering what audiences want and quickly fizzles. Albums disappear from the shelves and the singer that lead the pack has been reduced to publicly begging their wife to come back to them.

In the influential vs. relevant debate our opinions are fuelled by personal preference. Imagine if you will any musician from today, sitting in the hot tub time machine and heading 30 years into the future. Where do you see them? Selling out concerts and not just performing but performing at the top of their game like Sammy Hagar does? Your personal choice will dictate your answer and at the end of the day music really should be a personal choice. Music is about listening to something you love, whether it’s the most influential song of all time or the most over played one hit wonder.