Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chicago recently became a rap heavyweight. And that’s not even really true. It bubbles before their Drill movement was taken over by- you guessed it New York. And that’s where it been at home ever since Prior to 2012 I knew more artist from Boston than Chicago.
In 2012 the only artist I knew from Chicago were Twista Kanye and Common: only one of which makes hits.
Where as Boston has had New Edition Aerosmith Donna Summer Tavares and New Kids on the Block.
I really don’t know any non rap Chicago artists. But I must acknowledge it’s history as a Jazz capital again like 80 years ago..although Boston’s jazz scene was underrated.
Chicago has an edge but NYC is wayy wayy ahead of it.
I think Chicago has more than just an edge on Boston and in this aspect is much closer to NYC. With time, this will probably fade somewhat, but Chicago's musical legacy throughout the 20th century, which isn't that far in time and especially isn't that far in influence given how much remixing and covers there are, is way, way up there. This is especially true since much of the 20th century was US cultural exports and prestige to the rest of the world at arguably a maximum and a rapid acceleration of globalization. This is one of the few, somewhat narrow categories where I think Chicago is much closer to NYC than Boston.
House music is incredibly influential on a global level even though it didn't have as much of a following in the US and this by itself should put Chicago above Boston. A good chunk of the blues greats that people would be able to name if they are able to name any at all are Chicago artists like Muddy Water, Howlin' Wolf, and Willie Dixon with a really good run from Chess Records. Popular R&B artists like Sam Cooke, Curtis Mayfield, Earth Wind & Fire, Chaka Khan, and much later, water closet aficionado R. Kelly. Steve Albini and associated bands basically developed the sound heard on "alternative rock" radio and popular music charts through the 90s though the most popular Chicago musical act of that time and genre was whiny but popular Smashing Pumpkins. A lot of the weird alternative music critical sites were based in Chicago, most notably Pitchfork Media.
There was also a band named Chicago from Chicago. Funnily enough, there was a band called Boston from Boston. I don't really know which is better, and there should be a poll. There is no well-known group called New York or NYC or New York City.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-14-2023 at 03:48 PM..
It doesn't seem like he was referring to LA is a flash in a pan city that only "that generation" would care about. I must've missed something.
If you read post 715 the last two paragraphs are squarely directed at LA being some fad of the last 15 years.
Which is just not accurate to history. Right around 1945 is when LA became a peer to Chicago and clearly passed it by 1970.
But Chicagoans don’t want to talk about history either because only the 1940-1980 range is when “New York” is the correct answer to this question.
If you read post 715 the last two paragraphs are squarely directed at LA being some fad of the last 15 years.
Which is just not accurate to history. Right around 1945 is when LA became a peer to Chicago and clearly passed it by 1970.
But Chicagoans don’t want to talk about history either because only the 1940-1980 range is when “New York” is the correct answer to this question.
Got it! I did indeed miss that one, and agree that's totally wrong.
Los Angeles was already a major name via the movies in the silent movie era of the 1910s and 1920s, well before it was the second largest metropolitan area by 1980. Its weather was just too good and the camera and lighting equipment at the time just too ****ty for rain or snow to really build up the US movie industry elsewhere. It's too bad historic preservation was so bad in subsequent years, that most of the pre-war city was wiped out. At least we got those freeways.
Bruh Boston Calling is not *actually* popular. Its claim to fame is how everyone tries. It’s lineup every single year It’s claim to fame is how everyone tries. It’s lineup every single year for being boring and still an old.
Not at all like Lollapalooza it’s highkey a niche event for white college age LOCAL people. Nowhere near as racially diverse, big or nationally appealing as Lollapalooza. Probably closer to electric zoo for real…
The only artists you mentioned that really had any long-lasting musical impact are Donna Summer and New Edition. And Donna Summer wasn’t a Boston musical artist. She just happened to grow up there. Her music career took place entirely in NYC.
So many important groundbreaking artists developed their career in Chicago including Muddy Waters, Sam Cooke, Kanye, Liz Phair, Chaka Khan, Tortoise, Wilco, Frankie Knuckles, Steve Albini, etc…
House music originated in Chicago. There are few cultural movements in music that have a legacy as influential as house music. Nearly all popular music genres today are influenced in some way by 70-80s house.
Pitchfork Magazine (as much as people hate to admit it) were highly influential in the indie music scene. Before the acquisition by Condé Nast, a single Pitchfork review could literally make or break an up-and-coming artist. This is another example of why Chicago has had an outsized impact on the music landscape at large.
I’ll raise you Donna Summer and trade you Tracy Chapman who’s still winning awards for her music 35 years later. Some of those artists ar ones I know, some I don’t some I never knew were from Chicago.
House music is real though.
I’m hip hop the Source was bigger than pitchfork was. And The Source was founded by a Bostonian in Boston.
Lollapalooza's such a large and long music festival that there ends up being a larger lineup for any specific genre than Boston Calling has for the entire thing even if it does swing towards pop and rock.
Pitchfork is at 60K this year. Riot Fest was at 50K. Sueños was at 80K. Chicago Blues Festival at 180K, but this is a free event.
Lollapalooza's such a large and long music festival that there ends up being a larger lineup for any specific genre than Boston Calling has for the entire thing even if it does swing towards pop and rock.
Pitchfork is at 60K this year. Riot Fest was at 50K. Sueños was at 80K. Chicago Blues Festival at 180K, but this is a free event.
One major issue the preventing Boston from holding these festivals is the transit and space its why the patriots play in Foxborough. It’s why our large outdoor concert venue is 20 miles outside the city in Mansfield MA (which is technically the Providence area). Hard to get a couple hundred thousand people to any venue even outdoor in Boston without them getting splayed over water and bridges as they do for major events first night and Boston pops. No nice flat land area like you see near Soldier Field and Millennium Park
White Stadium is a bit too small- aside from it being borderline condemnable as a venue. Fenway can’t hold that many,Suffolk downs probably could’ve but now it’s slated for 10k units of housing- a smallish outdoor venue has opened there in the meantime.
I’ll raise you Donna Summer and trade you Tracy Chapman who’s still winning awards for her music 35 years later. Some of those artists ar ones I know, some I don’t some I never knew were from Chicago.
House music is real though.
I’m hip hop the Source was bigger than pitchfork was. And The Source was founded by a Bostonian in Boston.
Notably the most famous composer of our time, John Williams, during the peak of his career, was the conductor of the Boston Pops
Also the Boston pops are responsible for the 1812 overture being a 4th of July staple as well as created the idea of a Pops Orchestra which is spread across the Country and world.
Last edited by btownboss4; 11-14-2023 at 05:20 PM..
Also the Boston pops are responsible for the 1812 overture being a 4th of July staple as well as created the idea of a Pops Orchestra which is spread across the Country and world.
One major issue the preventing Boston from holding these festivals is the transit and space its why the patriots play in Foxborough. It’s why our large outdoor concert venue is 20 miles outside the city in Mansfield MA (which is technically the Providence area). Hard to get a couple hundred thousand people to any venue even outdoor in Boston without them getting splayed over water and bridges as they do for major events first night and Boston pops. No nice flat land area like you see near Soldier Field and Millennium Park
White Stadium is a bit too small- aside from it being borderline condemnable as a venue. Fenway can’t hold that many,Suffolk downs probably could’ve but now it’s slated for 10k units of housing- a smallish outdoor venue has opened there in the meantime.
Yea, Chicago really put in the work and had good conditions for setting aside public venues. Boston supposedly could have done it with parts of the Seaport and even now has massive waterfront surface parking lots close to downtown that could be used better, but it has not. Chicago definitely does quite well on the music festival front, but it's also a fairly minor point.
Sort of related to this is the conversation about symphony orchestras and this one's interesting because implicit to this topic is the idea that NYC is on top and the question is whether Chicago is closer to NYC which would be considered above both Boston and Chicago and that Chicago is generally above Boston. In this narrow field, it's almost universally agreed that Chicago is well above the other two and also somewhat commonly acknowledged that Boston is above NYC, so it's a funny case where being closer to NYC rather than Boston in this instance would actually be worse.
I do wish transit was better in all of these places. I think Chicago has a really low hanging fruit in terms of making Metra or at least large parts of Metra run more like a S-Bahn. In this sense, Chicago has the easiest pathway to doing this, NYC next but has a lot of not technical but political issues with having this, and then Boston having much less in political issues but expensive technical issues. If the Chicago Hub station plan actually gets funded and Metra continues to keep with its recent spate of making Metra run more frequently within the urban core, then Chicago can pretty rapidly find itself with a transit system in its urban core closer to that of NYC than that of Boston.
Also, Chicago has rapid transit access to both of its major airports which is something that Boston and NYC completely eat **** at.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
