[New artist] is the new king of [insert genre here]
 

This has been something i've been curious about. Why are there people who say something along the lines of "[artist name here] is the new king of Pop". In my opinion, specific artists were heavily influential in whatever genre they were deemed king of, so why are we trying to find new artists to replace them with. It's the same as saying "[artist name] is the new king of Rock n Roll", or "Is [artist name] the new Elvis Presley?" Is it normal for people to replace those that have held an influence in a selected genre? I would think someone being deemed king of a genre would mean they were so heavily influential that they crafted the genre into something that other musicians can learn from. Maybe i'm wrong. Thoughts?

I feel like when people say such and such artist is the new king of w/e. They mean that they have a substantial enough catalog that they can be considered the new king based off of how much of a wide sweeping presence they have had currently. Not about how much they have influenced others. It's almost like saying how much they WILL influence others because of their extensive catalog and hard work/dedication.

Maybe it's just that every generation wants THEIR Elvis, Cobain, Springsteen or Jackson. Like for them to be properly invested in it and feel part of it their generation needs to be living through it, listening to it. For some people I would hazard calling, say, Elvis the king of rock is not really acceptable as they never got to experience his music firsthand, and so don't feel they had a say in that so they need to create their own? Makes them feel closer to the one they want to raise to icon status? Or they just don't want to be seen looking to the past?

Or as Niles Crane once said, "Oh who knows why anyone does anything?" :D

I agree with the Frasier sentiment.