|
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
It means his incidence with currently popular trends, which is usually an important part of both measuring and maintaining success. Nobody talks about Carl Cox - there's no journalistic features by him, no threads about him, no artists mention him in interviews, he doesn't seem to feature highly on popularity polls, no matter who is being polled. I don't see his records in shops anymore, he doesn't come up on Beatport or Amazon. He seems to be completely irrelevant to everything happening in dance music, which would normally mean his popularity would go down. Certainly if I were just getting into dance music in 2011 Carl Cox would not register as a major DJ.
This was a guy, don't forget, who was once #1 on the DJ Mag poll, who spent so much time on the front cover of Mixmag he took out a mortgage on it, who had cameos in films like Human Traffic and It's All Gone Pete Tong. In the late '90s, you couldn't get away from Carl Cox. Compared to those days, he's totally invisible. How do people know he "he causes large masses of bodies to move non stop" when nobody talks about him? Is he just drawing the same crowd every year? |
thanks for that explanation. i now know that relevancy is irrelevant to me (as in, not important to me).
he's probably still popular because he does a good job keeping a dancefloor moving without resorting to cheesy vocals, or churning out releases that aspire to be innovative but end up not being actually good music. it sounds like carl cox's story is a great one that says: even in this day and age, word of mouth and actually doing a good job as a dj carries more weight in the long run, than what magazines and media choose to cover.
it sounds like relevancy = putting out releases or pioneering a new sound, because that's what grabs the media's attention and gets you mentioned in interviews and gets people talking about you. skrillex is a good example of that.
|