I don't mean this as a drag because she's obviously still one of the biggest pop stars alive, but I've been wondering if Ariana has kind of entered that stage where her name, catalogue and past eras are doing more of the heavy lifting than the actual current pop cycle.

From My Everything through thank u, next, it felt like every Ariana era immediately became a major pop event. Huge singles, constant radio presence, performances, memes, looks, controversy… she was basically unavoidable for years.

Now she still charts, still has an enormous fanbase and obviously has enough name recognition to make anything an event, but does she still feel like she's actively defining mainstream pop in the same way? Or has she moved into more of a Beyoncé/Gaga type position where the career itself is bigger than needing to dominate every current pop conversation?

Would you consider Ariana a legacy act at this point, or is that way too early?

Edited August 30Aug 30 by chicbitch

She just had one of the biggest and longest hits of her career with her previous album and a huge cultural moment with Wicked, so no.

Even the new era which has been very muted, for reasons we might as well not get into, produced a legit #1 smash that's still top 15 on Spotify, five months later.

Just now, Truth Teller said:

She just had one of the biggest and longest hits of her career with her previous album and a huge cultural moment with Wicked, so no.

Even the new era which has been very muted, for reasons we might as well not get into, produced a legit #1 smash that's still top 15 on Spotify, five months later.

I think you misunderstood what I meant a little .. I'm not saying she's unsuccessful or incapable of getting hits. Obviously she can still pull a #1 and Wicked was enormous.

I mean "legacy act" more in the sense that Ariana herself is now bigger than any individual era. At this point she has such an established catalogue, image and cultural presence that a new album doesn't really need to redefine her career or dominate for two years straight anymore.

That's kind of what I meant with Petal feeling a little filler-ish in her overall trajectory despite being a very good album. It can be successful without necessarily feeling like another Dangerous Woman / thank u, next-level chapter that changes how people see Ariana Grande.

i don't think so. she might've released a dud album but she's still a main pop girl

she needs to dust off the ancient texts though for AG9

1 minute ago, gelato said:

i don't think so. she might've released a dud album but she's still a main pop girl

she needs to dust off the ancient texts though for AG9

I mean I agree she's still a main pop girl, but that's kind of my point.. her status is so secure now that she can release a dud and nobody seriously questions her place anymore, which is both a good thing and a bad thing... no pun intended.

Is Taylor Swift one to you?

Just because her album is underperforming doesnt mean she's a LEGACY Act

Just now, chicbitch said:

I mean I agree she's still a main pop girl, but that's kind of my point.. her status is so secure now that she can release a dud and nobody seriously questions her place anymore, which is both a good thing and a bad thing... no pun intended.

oh I thought you meant legacy act as in her new projects don't do well but her catalogue is still a big draw

no, what you're describing is just being a MPG

if her next few projects are all frontloaded flops then maybe she will become a legacy act

Just now, Busty Woman said:

Is Taylor Swift one to you?

I think Taylor can be considered a legacy act at this point too, her catalogue and status are obviously completely cemented.

She has established herself enough to the point where her name alone can carry hits without promoting them. Despite petal "underperforming" she was still in discussion (however you want to look at it..).

She is past the days where she has to go to every event to promote her music, and clearly her 2013-2019 years of hard work paid off.

Just now, Sailor Moon said:

She has established herself enough to the point where her name alone can carry hits without promoting them. Despite petal "underperforming" she was still in discussion (however you want to look at it..).

She is past the days where she has to go to every event to promote her music, and clearly her 2013-2019 years of hard work paid off.

Yes exactly, I agree. I think that's part of why I'm looking at her more as a legacy act now too. She's established enough that her name alone can carry a release, and even when an era underperforms, she's still part of the conversation because the career itself is already so cemented.

And with all the retirement rumors, it makes me think this might be how she sees her career now too.

4 minutes ago, gelato said:

oh I thought you meant legacy act as in her new projects don't do well but her catalogue is still a big draw

Basically like she's reached the point where the legacy is already established, whether the current era smashes or not.

6 minutes ago, FrederickGa said:

Just because her album is underperforming doesnt mean she's a LEGACY Act

I mean more the trajectory around it, the retirement talk, constant scrutiny, body commentary. It feels less like "she flopped" and more like she's gradually outgrowing the machinery of pop stardom and positioning herself as this "legacy act".

No. She isn't reliant on her legacy work to remain relevant since she's still getting hits with her new material. As shown by the fact that HTIMYLM and petal are currently her #1 and #2 most streamed songs daily.

It's also just a given when you have 8 bodies of work and a back catalogue of global hits that your recurrent streams are going to be good. She's in a pretty good position in that sense.

LEGACY Acts are Madonna, Mariah, JLo, Katy Perry

Definitely not Ariana

3 minutes ago, Jack! said:

No. She isn't reliant on her legacy work to remain relevant since she's still getting hits with her new material. As shown by the fact that HTIMYLM and petal are currently her #1 and #2 most streamed songs daily.

It's also just a given when you have 8 bodies of work and a back catalogue of global hits that your recurrent streams are going to be good. She's in a pretty good position in that sense.

HTIMYLM is actually kind of what I mean. I like it, but take Ariana off that record and I'm not sure there's much about it that couldn't have come out of a Max/Ilya writing camp for another major pop girl. It's very polished, very competent, but also quite safe.

And I don't mean that Ariana had no hand in it obviously. I mean that Ariana Grande is doing a lot of the event-making now. At her peak, the material felt like it was defining her career in real time; now she can put out something relatively understated, barely campaign for it, and her name alone gives it enormous weight.

1 minute ago, FrederickGa said:

LEGACY Acts are Madonna, Mariah, JLo, Katy Perry

Definitely not Ariana

I do think Ariana is a legacy act.. just a younger one. If anything, being able to drop a relatively low-maintenance "problematic" era and have the career remain completely intact is what legacy status looks like.

why are you always trying to redefine and reinterpret terms that have established meanings

legacy acts do NOT get hits with new releases, they can only coast off their recurrents ala Katy Perry and Pink

simply having a legacy does not equal "legacy act"

Edited August 30Aug 30 by HonourableVomit

My point is that Ariana has reached a stage where the career itself is bigger than the current pop cycle. She can still chart and have huge hits, but her status no longer depends on every era being culturally dominant. Her name, catalogue and past eras already carry enough weight on their own.

That's why I compared her more to Beyoncé/Gaga.. still completely capable of having current success, but established enough that they don't need to dominate every pop conversation to remain major figures.

Personally, I don't really think you can be a legacy act at 33. Plus, every single Ariana album has been successful, so where would we draw the line and also why? I kinda see what you mean in the sense that she had major cultural moments in music that people are always gonna think back to, but that applies to so many artists. Olivia Rodrigo will always be remembered for Sour as well, but she's neither a legacy act nor does it mean that her follow-up albums aren't successful.

1 minute ago, HonourableVomit said:

why are you always trying to redefine and reinterpret terms that have established meanings

legacy acts do NOT get hits with new releases, they can only coast off their recurrents ala Katy Perry and Pink

That's a much narrower definition than the term actually requires though. "Legacy act" doesn't mean an artist becomes constitutionally incapable of having another hit. It means their legacy has become the primary framework through which the career is viewed.

Yes but mot because of her but because the industry now is a catalog/legacy game

1 minute ago, musiclover15 said:

Personally, I don't really think you can be a legacy act at 33. Plus, every single Ariana album has been successful, so where would we draw the line and also why? I kinda see what you mean in the sense that she had major cultural moments in music that people are always gonna think back to, but that applies to so many artists. Olivia Rodrigo will always be remembered for Sour as well, but she's neither a legacy act nor does it mean that her follow-up albums aren't successful.

I think that's fair, especially on the age point. But Ariana also condensed what is usually a much longer MPG trajectory into roughly a decade .. several major eras, a substantial hit catalogue, a fully formed pop identity, and enough cultural equity that she no longer needs constant visibility to reinforce her status.

3 minutes ago, LittleStarmen said:

Yes but mot because of her but because the industry now is a catalog/legacy game

THANK YOU !! This is basically what I was trying to get at. It's not even necessarily about Ariana "aging out" ..the industry itself is much more catalogue-driven now, so once you've built that level of career equity, the old work starts carrying way more of the overall conversation.

8 minutes ago, chicbitch said:

That's a much narrower definition than the term actually requires though. "Legacy act" doesn't mean an artist becomes constitutionally incapable of having another hit. It means their legacy has become the primary framework through which the career is viewed.

you might be like 16 years old and not know why the term was coined but pop culture vocabulary terms exist to describe observable phenomena and not theoretical ones you reach by interpreting the words literally

will you call Sabrina Carpenter a "nostalgia act" because people feel nostalgia when they hear Espresso? ridiculous

every single artist new or old is judged in the context of what work they have done or not done previously

Edited August 30Aug 30 by HonourableVomit