I got into this debate the other day after seeing new releases from REM and Madonna get loads of press.
The 80s are considered a musical wasteland especially compared to the 90s, yet when you look at acts that survived each decade the 80s might be winning the war (especially when considering the 80s have that handicap of an extra ten years of fading into obscurity to fight).
Now this only relates to acts that can still have a mainstream impact on the charts and get press coverage/video airplay when they have a new release. If they're touring state fairs and mall openings, it doesn't really count, they still have to be somewhat relevant. They had to have had a number of hit songs in their heyday.
Here are some of the ones we came up with to compare, let me know of others:
80s Acts: U2 REM Madonna Prince Red Hot Chili Peppers Metallica Depeche Mode Sting Beastie Boys Bon Jovi Bruce Springsteen
90s Acts: Dave Matthews Green Day Foo Fighters Counting Crows Offspring Weezer Mariah Carey Christina Aquilera Jay-Z Snoop Dogg
Radiohead started up in the (early) 90s, yet they don't seem like a "90's band." Similarly U2, REM, RHCP and Metallica all started in the 80s but in the 90s they still felt current (and U2 is sorta still current now). That ability to stay current through multiple waves of musical taste is a different phenomenon from bands like Aerosmith, Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stones, which still sell records and tickets, but are "nostalgia acts".
this is all i can think of. also, is the offspring still doing anything?
80's: morrissey janet jackson duran duran? is bruce springsteen from the 80s? metallica beastie boys public enemy i guess you could kind of say paula abdul. she has a new song.
90s: SHAGGY oasis alanis morissette r. kelly beck sheryl crow bjork modest mouse missy elliott belle and sebastian outkast
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 10:53 AM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Radiohead started up in the (early) 90s, yet they don't seem like a "90's band."
Yeah, they belong on the list too, though I absolutely think of them as a 90s band mostly because that's where they had the most critical and commercial success. They recent CD got more press for the method of release than for the music itself (though it was their most mainstream release in years.)
Pearl Jam came up in the original debate and they were hard to classify too. Since part of the criteria was mainstream impact mostly to weed out hundreds of bands from both decades who are still putting out music fairly regularly that you don't hear about unless you are a fan: Collective Soul, New Order, Pet Shop Boys, Live, Social Distortion, The Wallflowers, Garbage, Tom Petty, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins. Though Pearl Jam would probably get a fair amount of exposure if they released another CD so they probably belong on the list.
from bands like Aerosmith, Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stones, which still sell records and tickets, but are "nostalgia acts".
I wouldn't put Aerosmith into the Nostalgia category yet, but they're getting close. But those are all 70's/60's bands though so they don't qualify for the 80s vs. 90s. I'd put Van Halen, The Eagles and Kiss into the nostalgia category though too as far as acts that don't sell many CDs or have hit songs but can still headline arena/stadium tours.
this is all i can think of... - mandee
Aside from the ones I already named, most of those don't qualify as commercial successes. Acts like Belle & Sebastian and Modest Mouse (Float On aside) are known in the hipster/college radio crowd, but they fall into the same category as like Live or New Order where new releases don't really have a mainstream impact.
R. Kelly and Sheryl Crow absolutely. Beck is hard because he doesn't fit the commercial criteria. I knew Bjork would come up (though I expected a certain couple to enter her name) but like Beck, she doesn't fit the commercial angle. I'd put her slightly below Beck on the scale (I could see him putting out another hit, I'm not sure if she's ever had one). You could make a case for Moby, too.
Public Enemy is putting out records anymore, are they? If so, it's not exactly making any waves. Same with Oasis, I know they're still putting out music but I can't remember the last time I heard a new song from them. I thought of Outkast, but they have essentially disbanded from what I've read and heard in interviews. Has Alanis put anything out in seven or eight years other than the My Humps goof?
How about Seal?
i did too much thinking. — mandee
You and me both. This started out as a simple happy hour discussion and has consumed way too much time.
The 80s are considered a musical wasteland especially compared to the 90s, yet when you look at acts that survived each decade the 80s might be winning the war (especially when considering the 80s have that handicap of an extra ten years of fading into obscurity to fight).
I'd argue with some of the lists here, but I'd rather talk about the labeling of the decades. The 80's wasteland label holds because the ratio of good to bad was pretty low while for awhile in the 90's it was higher than it had been in a long time. I'd say from '91 to '94 there were a bunch of people releasing some incredible work.
public enemy just put out a new album this year. i assumed people knew about it because i have it. i also had oasis's newest album. it was pretty mainstream because they used to play a song from it when i worked at old navy. beck is relatively commercial. he had 'where it's at', 'sexx laws', and 'loser'. his albums are usually in the top 50 or whatever. bjork also had 'it's oh so quiet', which i thought was mainstream. alanis is about to put out a new album and i think it's pretty mainstream. this is a promo pic:
It's very subjective of course, but the fact that I heard nothing about Oasis and Public Enemy (both of whom I like) and I am incredibly mainstream mean they are flying under the radar these days.
Similarly, I had Depeche Mode, but I don't think many people know they put out a new CD about a year ago. They haven't had a true impact commercially since probably the mid-90s, if that. They don't really belong on the list. Though I think Beck does.
Isn't that Bjork song about five or six years old? Offspring (which I admit are borderline) has had more recent hits than that.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:30 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:32 PM
i know that bjork song is older. it's from the 90's, isn't it? the point is that she's had a mainstream hit. you said she wasn't mainstream, i'm saying she was. i also don't really know what is mainstream because i don't listen to the radio. all i know is that one miley cyrus song. has the offspring had any hits that weren't in the 90's?
I just realized how similar in nature this thread is to the recent "B List" celeb thread. Which means it's only a matter of time before MF goes on a long about how stupid the whole concept is stupid and flawed and then something about the bourgeois (which I look forward to).
It's to hard to set the criteria and remove personal bias to really get anything definitive, but I'm curious about other people's perspectives on this, especially different ages. Like if anfernee or ABM have heard of the bands on my lists and, whether or not they like their music, think of them as current or just nostalgia acts would tell me a lot.
i know that bjork song is older. it's from the 90's, isn't it? the point is that she's had a mainstream hit. you said she wasn't mainstream, i'm saying she was. i also don't really know what is mainstream because i don't listen to the radio. all i know is that one miley cyrus song. has the offspring had any hits that weren't in the 90's? — mandee
I see your point. I'll give you Bjork, she's hard to define as mainstream or not (though her music definitely isn't), but she's well-known enough and I could see her still getting the cover of Rolling Stone or a write up in like the Time Magazine entertainment section.
Yeah, I looked up the Offspring and their last CD of note was 200/2001. It seemed more recent than that. They have one supposedly coming out this year. The Wallflowers or Garbage (who both put out CDs and got video/radio play in the last couple of years) are probably more valid to the list than they are.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:55 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 12:57 PM
WHAT AM I TO YOU?!
Because, my dear mandeemoo, I see you as more well-rounded than ABM. You having actually knowledge of musical selections by acts such as the aforementioned Bjork, Belle & Sebastian, Morrissey, Modest Mouse does not surprise me in the least. If ABM brought up these bands, I would have been floored and it would tell me that they have penetrated the mainstream more than I realized. Same thing applies to Derek and Lexie.
(Uh, no offense, ABM.)
you don't care about me. oh god! i hate you. i hate you so much.
You're right, I don't like the decades concept, and I did say so in the James Woods thread.
I have a different perspective on what is mainstream. There are acts on your list like Dave Matthews Band who have never been big here. They're one of the biggest examples of an act that is huge in the States and irrelevant everywhere else. Then there are your country artists. I think the only country artists you guys have that have ever exploded internationally are Willie Nelson, Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers. Anyway, sure an act can be mainstream in the States and not care that much about the rest of the world, but world fame is more mainstream than USA fame.
So by your own criteria, and based on when they got big in Australia/overseas (not always the same thing but on this kind of level almost always, for non-Australian acts):
REM, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica didn't get big until the 90s. (Losing My Religion, Under The Bridge, Enter Sandman).
Prince hasn't had a hit since 1994. Back then he had a number one with The Most Beautiful Girl In The World. It's been cult and oddness ever since.
Depeche Mode haven't been big since the early 90s at the latest. In March 1997 their new album was being pushed on Triple J, the alternative station. It still was the alternative back then. They would play The Perfect Drug by Nine Inch Nails several times a week, during the day(!).
Sting hasn't been big since at least 1993. He crashed at the same time as Billy Idol, in the same way. Sting did a song for Demolition Man, Idol did a song for Speed. Both songs flopped on the charts and they haven't been played outside of a nostalgia concept in the mainstream since.
Beastie Boys have never been bigger than alternative internationally, and arguably not even in USA.
Bruce Springsteen seems 70s to me, but maybe he didn't blow up until the 80s.
Dave Matthews, never mainstream.
Counting Crows have had precisely two big hits: Mr Jones at the end of 1993 and Big Yellow Taxi with Vanessa Carlton around 2003.
Weezer are the same as the Beastie Boys.
Morrissey has always been a cult favourite. Never mainstream, surely.
Duran Duran had a brief mainstream comeback in 1993.
Public Enemy were never mainstream and stopped being big after their 1994 album (which is the one I love most; Muse Sick-N-Hour Mess Age).
R Kelly had one big international hit, I Believe I Can Fly.
Bjork hasn't had any big hits but her albums always go to number one in this country and her name is famous. Her music isn't mainstream though, never.
Modest Mouse?
Missy Elliott is only mainstream as a producer, you may as well say Linda Perry is mainstream then.
Belle and Sebastian? I only know their name from High Fidelity.
Outkast are mainstream one hit wonders. No wait, 2 hits. Both in this decade. (Ms Jackson and Hey Ya!)
Pearl Jam haven't been big since their first two albums. Every article since about 1995 has been about how big they used to be and about how none of their fans realise they've released a new album.
I have a perspective on the relatively frightening difference in, well, perspective of younger people. I have a sister born in 86 and a brother born at the end of 89 and the difference between their pop culture knowledge and mine and my brothers (80 and 81) is staggering. We know about a heap of music, movies and tv going back to the 40s and before; they're clueless about anything before 1995. I think part of it is the way the media and art industries have mobilised themselves over the last 20 years. They've put a different emphasis on new product. As a kid I would see shows like Lassie and Star Trek (60s) along with old Warner Bros cartoons, spliced in with 70s and 80s live action and cartoon shows. Then in the ads I would see compilations for "Greatest songs from the 50s" etc and movies like The Magnificent Seven and Roman Holiday were standard fare of a weekend. My younger siblings grew up with an endless procession of technically new artistically recycyled work, plus videogames to keep them more in the now than the past. It's not like I'm their parents, so it's werid that I have such a different cultural view. I mean, I don't even like The Beatles but I've known who they were since I was little. My 18 year old brother doesn't know who Paul McCartney is.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 2:22 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Like if anfernee or ABM have heard of the bands on my lists and, whether or not they like their music, think of them as current or just nostalgia acts would tell me a lot.
I've heard of all the bands/artists on your list. I don't know if I would fit in as a "fan" if I showed up at a Metallica show though. From the 80's, I would say that Madonna is the only artist that I can relate to. If I told people that I listen to Madonna they would believe me... Metallica not so much.
and yes I've heard most of Bjork's songs but I'm not a fan like Lexie is.
When it comes to 90's music, I would say that I'm a fan of early Snoop, but again I don't fit in with the whole gangsta rap crowd.
i don't think grammy's really matter to people in australia. i'm sure they have their own awards. i guess if we said kylie minogue, ben would be able to relate more.
The 80s are considered a musical wasteland especially compared to the 90s, yet when you look at acts that survived each decade the 80s might be winning the war (especially when considering the 80s have that handicap of an extra ten years of fading into obscurity to fight).
This is a really interesting statement. I think people are starting to reevaluate their opinion of the '80s, especially since we now realize how hard the nineties sucked. It's true that when I think of '80s music I tend to think of really godawful hair bands, but many of the popular '80s artists survived - or, to perhaps put it more eloquently, many of the '90s artists got their start in the '80s and they remain popular to this day. I wouldn't say that U2 had its heyday in the '80s, but somehow they managed to break through. R.E.M. I also think of as being most popular in the '90s; Madonna I think has genuinely been a star through multiple decades. Perhaps less so now. RHCP is definitely more popular now than they were then. Maybe it took a certain breed of cat to make it through the '80s.
Kylie Minogue is a wax corpse. Ew. Sad, she used to be insanely beautiful, now she's just insane. She's won plenty of arias. Australians don't care much about music awards at all. Oscars are about the only awards that make waves in this country. If you win a lot at once it can be a headline. Delta Goodrem one like 9 won year so that was news. But still, who gives a fuck. Midnight Oil were definitely big here until about 10 years ago. Did you know that Peter Garrett is our current Minister for the Environment? INXS were only big in the 80s here. They were fading into nothing up until 1997. Any more Australian acts that y'all want to now about know laugh out loud?
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:11 PM
^ I saw some Where Are They Now show about ten years ago and one of them is a science teacher or something. Of course, Colin Hay is still putting out music and, thanks to Zach Braff, occasionally people get to hear it.
We know about a heap of music, movies and tv going back to the 40s and before; they're clueless about anything before 1995.
I found the same thing to be true for me and people of that age. And I think you nailed the reasoning for it.
I've heard of all the bands/artists on your list.
Which kind of proves my point that they are still somewhat relevant. Are you aware that they are still putting out music or do you think of them as having mostly faded away?
I didn't think you'd have as much knowledge of some of the bands from Mandee's list that I pointed out.
Kylie Minogue is a wax corpse. Ew. Sad, she used to be insanely beautiful, now she's just insane.
Like Britney Spears?
Are you aware that they are still putting out music or do you think of them as having mostly faded away?
Madonna is obviously still making music. The last time I heard about Metallica was back in 2004. They put out that one movie. Bon Jovi has that "Lost Highway" song out now.
I think Prince definitely has faded away, even though he performed at the last Superbowl. He can't seem to recreate himself and make some contemporary music like Madonna.
I had no idea that RHCP was an 80's band. I always thought they came out in the early 90's. I just learned something new.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Crowded House are Australasian. It's a distinction I want to make rather than any of you needing to make. Not taking credit for a mostly New Zealand band, you see. Anyway, the other day I was watching the DVD of their finale concert at the Sydney Opera House at the end of 1996. They did solo stuff for the next few years until 2005 when the drummer killed himself. About a year later they announced a reunion tour. They're doing new stuff. Still big in Australia. Neil Finn and his brother Tim are prolific songwriters, they'll never be nostalgia artists even if they don't stay popular. At worst they'll have Neil Young popularity until they stop. Actually, Crowded House haven't been singles charting lately but their album is selling and they play on all the shows and their tour is advertised everywhere.
AC/DC haven't had a hit here since Thunderstruck. That song was huge. Huge huge huge huge huge. Huge. I also hate them. "They're such a good band hey," no they fucking suck! They're like Nirvana and Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones and every other shitty generic act touted as genius by egotistical culturally isolated people.
The Wiggles are basically artistically dead since the lead guy in the yellow retired for medical reasons and was replaced with a new yellow guy.
The Seekers have been nostalgia since they split up in the 60s. Or was it 70s?
Men At Work didn't sound much like The Police. I used to hear all their albums as a little kid. I even remember once, when kids in my grade were playing one of those run-back-and-forth music quiz games, volunteering to come up with questions and producing questions entirely about the track listings from Men At Work albums. Failure. I was so naive when I was six. They haven't been big since the 80s, and their singing voices are incredible. I still can't mimic that style but hopefully within the next couple of years.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I wouldn't say that U2 had its heyday in the '80s
I would disagree here. I think MUSICALLY, the 80s WERE their heyday, but that they (specifically Bono) were better-known in the 90s and this decade, but for political-type stuff.
I guess we're working under different definitions of heyday? I wouldn't consider being musically superior a heyday unless you are more successful/well-known. You could say that they peaked musically in the '80s, but that's different.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:00 PM
I would disagree here. I think MUSICALLY, the 80s WERE their heyday, but that they (specifically Bono) were better-known in the 90s and this decade, but for political-type stuff.
That's another tricky thing that can be defined several ways. Is it when the band formed (which would make U2 a 70s band really)? Or when they charted their first single in America? Or in their home country for international acts? Or when they had their biggest success (which would then make Aerosmith arguably an 80s band)?
I would say it's not necessarily their biggest commercial success, but when they enter the general public consciousness. Most bands have a single or album that does this and that's the easiest starting point I think.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:08 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:11 PM
That's kinda what I meant about U2. Think about The Joshua Tree (1987), largely considered their masterpiece (or at least one of two or three), both artistically and commercially. I (and most, if not all, of my peers) had already been well aware of them for several years by this point.
Granted, their next HUGE album was Actung Baby (1991), which, technically was released in the 90s (barely). After this particular album, while I was still constantly HEARING about them, I wasn't familiar with any of their new music. As a musical act, then, I'd say their heyday was the 80s, and, since this thread seems to be about the longevity of musical careers, who gives a rat's ass what their political views and/or activities are? It's irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:13 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:14 PM
^ True, though Achtung Baby (1991) was put on that level as well by many people. (EDIT: This was done previous to Dusty saying the same thing essentially.)
For them though, I consider War (1983, I think) as their starting point since it had New Year's Day & Sunday Bloody Sunday which is when they started getting attention on MTV and radio.
For them though, I consider War (1983, I think) as their starting point since it had New Year's Day & Sunday Bloody Sunday which is when they started getting attention on MTV and radio.
Fully agreed...
...although, just as personal opinion, one of my favorite of their albums is their first, Boy (1980).
U2 took some time off at the end of the 80s, I think 1989, having toured more or less continuously for that decade. Then they came back with Achtung Baby at the end of 1991 (I remember being amazed at the time that everyone was buying an album that was brand new; how did they know they would like it?) and a distinct de-emphasis on politics. When you look at the first single, The Fly, there is a lot of political stuff but it's more subtle. I know this because at 11 I didn't see anything but artsy stuff in that song and clip, whereas it's a bit hard to mistake videos like Sunday Bloody Sunday, even at a young age, as anything but political. My single most favourite U2 song is still Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me from 1995 so I can't say they peaked in the 80s for me. Actually, their music got less subtly good and more subtly political. Songs like New Years Day seep into your consciousness before they give you chills, whereas Hold Me... is immediately a mindfuck awesome song to me.
Really Lena, you have a Lamb Of God album? People are surprised I love PM Dawn. This was true when I had short hair and a clean face and it's true now that everyone assumes I'm a metal head drug addict.
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 8:14 PM Edited Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Men At Work didn't sound much like The Police.
I always thought they based their entire sound off of The Police's early 80's stuff and apparently I'm not the only one. I would also toss Wang Chung into that category. Most people think of the Police based on their greatest hits collection and forget what a weird ass band they were which is why their concerts are total buzzkills for about 60% of the people who shell out $200 to go.
Aerosmith is one of the most overrated bands ever. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy many of their songs. But they certainly don't live up to the hype. This classic rock station I used to listen to (it went off the air 2 years ago) had its listeners vote on the top 100 classic rock bands of all time. Aerosmith came in 8th place, ahead of The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Creedence Clearwater Revival and a bunch of other solid bands. It made me sick to my stomach and dissapointed in classic rock fans. >:(
Aerosmith is one of the most overrated bands ever.
As much as I'd like to hate on them, I can't call them overrated. It's hard because they have so many bad songs, but they have a lot of really good ones too. They should all agree never to do another ballad again.
I'm going to assume you're referring to that abortion of a song from the equally crappy movie Armageddon. In which case, yes, they are no longer allowed to record ballads. Their last good ballad was "What It Takes."
I like that song. I think it's a good example of a song that you all would like if it hadn't been flogged to death back when it came out. There've been songs I already know that have come out as singles that I've almost started to hate from the exposure.
I personally think Dream On is a bigger abortion than Don't wanna... and I have been crucified by many people in many places for thinking so. How can I not love lyrics like "dream on. dream on. dream until your dreams come true." Fuck you, that's how.
I like that song. I think it's a good example of a song that you all would like if it hadn't been flogged to death back when it came out.
It's one of those songs I don't like to admit I like...probably because it's been crammed down our collective throat, as you've mentioned. Also, I've primarily heard it on crappy stations; that doesn't help either.
Plenty of people perform at events like the Olympics. More often than not they're not famous, yet. Bjork is actually from the 60s. We're talking about when her music got hugely famous. She barely did any solo stuff at all between the end of Sugarcubes and the beginning of 1990, did she?
I know she was born in the 60's but she became internationally known when birthday was released in 87.
maybe she's not mainstream but a good number of people have known who she was since the 80s and she has continued to provide releases that sell extremely well.
She is still able to headline music festivals across the world. My step-dad's grandma in Slovakia knows who she is and they live in a tiny village of like 100 people and she's like 80.
Dude, festivals are for music fans. She's still not really mainstream, anywhere. [My brother, friend, and their girlfriends went to the Sydney Big Day Out in January just to see Bjork and she didn't play! They felt so gypped.] Check out the crowd The Afghan Whigs were playing to in 1994. No-one's heard of them.
I didn't hear of Birthday or The Sugarcubes until 1998 and I used to see Bjork played on the ABC every afternoon back in 1992. Our ABC is like the BBC or PBS, if you don't know. I hated Human Behaviour and Venus As A Boy. When I'd see Big Time Sensuality I would think "who likes this?" Change huh wow. Bjork is borderline mainstream here but the Sugarcubes never were. Which, again, suggests, rightly, that they were never big anywhere. Well, except Iceland. And Europe. And Britain. But not the whole world. And not for very long. I mean fuck, she's just like Nick Cave. Huge, in a way, but still never mainstream. Nick Cave is so famous in Australia now but he still has no chance of having hit singles. Wait... I think I heard There She Goes, My Beautiful World on a mainstream radio station a while back... imagination? Maybe one of the other Abattoir Blues songs.
Bjork and Nick Cave, never been mainstream famous. Never will be until long after they're dead. When they're dead they hopefully will be quite famous and loved.
Monday, April 7, 2008 at 5:03 AM Edited Monday, April 7, 2008 at 5:08 AM
Someone being known in every single country has no bearing on how mainstream they are. And if it were, then wouldn't performing at something like the olympics, which people from across the world participate in and watch, be significant?
Edit: Earth Intruders is # 75 right now on the Billboard charts which is decent for a less mainstream singer nearly a year after the single was released. Volta is at #25 for top electronic albums and was at #1 for 30 weeks.
Monday, April 7, 2008 at 5:10 AM Edited Monday, April 7, 2008 at 5:13 AM
Ah, there's the Bjork patrol coming to her defense.
MF covered it pretty well, but here's my angle. I remember hearing the Sugarcubes for the first time in 1989 and they were a curiosity with one song in semi-regular rotation, not at all a mainstream success. As far as I was aware, Bjork didn't go solo until the early 90s. The first I remember hearing about "the girl from Sugarcubes with the weird name" going solo was the video where she's chased by a bear or something and then eats him (right? maybe?) which I think was "Human Behavior."
I hate to pull the age card, but you weren't even alive then, yes? Believe me, aside from what you may have heard or read (likely from fans who want to inflate her impact), she wasn't a big deal until the late 90s when "It's Oh So Quiet" and Dancer in the Dark and the Oscars swan dress.
As MF said, she has never truly been mainstream. Yes, she sells records, but I don't remember them ever charting for any length of time if at all.
And the original question was really is more of a question of the American public at large (mostly because, other than acts I personally follow, I can't speak for who is popular where other than here), not who's rocking the charts in Slovakia. Michael Jackson is still huge all over the world, so it's a wash. It's interesting though to hear MF's take on acts that are huge here that barely register with him.
There are a ton of 'niche' acts who do well in their respective charts but to the overall consciousness don't even exist. Bjork is fine, she has a nice career going. But she doesn't really relate to the question here, as much as you love her and her music. In relation to say, Sheryl Crow (who I personally can't stand), she's not in the same commercial league.
I hate to pull the age card, but you weren't even alive then, yes? Believe me, aside from what you may have heard or read (likely from fans who want to inflate her impact), she wasn't a big deal until the late 90s when "It's Oh So Quiet" and Dancer in the Dark and the Oscars swan dress.
I'd put her in the same category as Aimie Mann and Til Tuesday--minor radio play followed by a 90-00's solo career. In the 80's the Sugarcubes were barely a blip on the radar
How can I not love lyrics like "dream on. dream on. dream until your dreams come true." Fuck you, that's how.
I lol'd. Also attn yog etc.
There is a terrible version of Dream On that I keep hearing. I think it must be new, or something. I heard it in Planned Parenthood and at a few stores and it just won't go away. It's some woman singing. It's awful, just awful. I really don't like Aerosmith, I have to be honest. Steven Tyler is a mutant, although he turned out a few ok-looking daughters. Yes, even the fat one.
