Mariah Carey
Celine Dion
Radiohead
Ryan Adams
Daniel O'Donnell

Gotta say I enjoy most of your choices above ... do I have to worry?

C

Bruce Springsteen
Dave Gahan
Dave Matthews
Foo Fighters
Guns'n'Roses

Quote
Hairball
Sting
Bono
Springsteen
Mellencamp
Phil Collins

Guess you really hated the 80's then!

"No Anchovies, Please"

RADIOHEAD

This is a strange topic. Many of the respondents here are musicians. There will always be things that you don't like (which this thread seems to have digressed into) however, the "popularity escapes you part" should be a simple thing to figure out.

Successful artists are...

1. At the right place.
2. At the right time.
3. With the right product.

Punk Rock (New Wave) and Rap (Hip, Hop) filled a void made by the transition of Rock and R&B during the disco era. Quite a few branches resulted. The Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Parliament / Funkadelic all saw the writing on the wall and made the brief but necessary push closer to disco to remain competitive. Iggy Pop drew the Punk Rockers toward the hard driving, simple and dangerous place he and the Stooges already were. Even Iggy softened up a bit during the Bowie collaborations. The Hip Hop crowd exploded on the scene due to bringing to light the plight of the impoverished and downtrodden. Hip Hop told the story of the times for many young people.

We may not understand the popularity but understand the socio-economic and psychological motives behind a given artists popularity.

CBII

Quote
CBII
This is a strange topic. Many of the respondents here are musicians. There will always be things that you don't like (which this thread seems to have digressed into) however, the "popularity escapes you part" should be a simple thing to figure out.

Successful artists are...

1. At the right place.
2. At the right time.
3. With the right product.

yup - put another way: luck. i see and hear musicians all the time with as much or more "talent" that some of the most commercially successful acts out there - the stones, included.

Mick has been quoted as saying that the Stones popularity is down to:
80% luck
10% hard work
10% talent

= seems about right

M ick happens to be wrong. His praise for the very best RS albums is usually along the lines of 'It's awright...I don't remember most of it but it's got some good songs..." And who has 45 years of longevity without SOME talent or rather a lot. Sinatra, Dylan, Stones, Ellington, very few others manage without commercial dips or retirements/comebacks etc. Beginning w/ MTV & for past 25 years or so ('til the record industry started dying this decade) videos and endless (5, 6, 7) singles from a single blockbuster album stretched out careers artificially i.e. a record every 5 years (post Thriller M Jackson, Fleetwood Mac, Janet, Eagles if they even bother, bleh) - but Michael started out with talent to spare ABC its easy as do-re-mi...And when the Stones started out, or Dylan James Brown, Beach Boys, etc three albums a year was typical, plus a single every three months...
re Dave Matthews Band, well you get called a "jam band" sometimes because they can't write songs (Phish, ugh). I mean the Dead may have meandered on so-so nights but they (Garcia/Hunter to be precise, not Weir etc) wrote some fine songs.

Quote
T&A

Quote
CBII
This is a strange topic. Many of the respondents here are musicians. There will always be things that you don't like (which this thread seems to have digressed into) however, the "popularity escapes you part" should be a simple thing to figure out.

Successful artists are...

1. At the right place.
2. At the right time.
3. With the right product.

yup - put another way: luck. i see and hear musicians all the time with as much or more "talent" that some of the most commercially successful acts out there - the stones, included.

Absolutely, it's luck. There are musicians I know that can run circles around some very talented and famous people. However, they just had not been in the place to get the exposure in front of the right people. That's one thing I love about Youtube, Myspace and iTunes, anybody with a means of recording themselves can have a shot at it.

Instead of being at the mercy of large corporations, the individual band or artists can publish themselves and have a potential client base of millions of people. Luck is still the main factor, those vehicles just provide the means for increasing the odds in their favor.

I identify 'get' with being baffled. Hence Rush, Dave Methane, hell I don't get the Sex Pistols - on a musical level anyway.

I think CDII is into sumfin' here.
Its easier to "get" Pistols if ya "get" Genesis first or Supertramp,
or at least listen to them after each other.
Today we associate the 70s with qiality music; but there were incredibly
much mumbojumbo lowlife pop, disco & plastish "rock" out there.
Punk rock brought into the scene genuineness & flesh & blood.
Personally I lurv both punk rock and progressive rock.

How someone can listen to Elvis and not get him is amazing to me. At least, before he got all bloated. The dude was simply fantastic.

But there is always going to be someone, many, who are not in that sea with that boat.

A few more, ha ha:
Hootie And The Blowfish
Oasis
Radiohead - I used to get them; their first record. Since then...no idea.
KISS - they are downright awful - what is there to get? What, they dress up? Who gives a - what? Go to motherfuckin' Carnival is you want to see people dressed up.

Also have to had Frankie Goes to Hollywood. Never gotted them.

Is that the...dude...who did Rock Me Amadeaus or whatever?

Frankie was some kinda gayish type with a hord of co-singers in the mid-80s.
Really awful.
No the Amadeus dude was called Falco, never gotted him either.

Ha ha! So much for even getting the name associated with something that charted eh!?

Actually I have a real soft spot for chart hits.
But during mid-80s there were same years I didnt get along very
well the the chart toppers...

What a depressing thread. Scary/sad to see that so many people don't "get" some of these artists/bands. Some of these artists are flukes, but other capture the spirit of a generation (sex pistols, rap, et al).

josh.
np: wee who see the deep - the black crowes

U2
Bon Jovi
Dave Mathews



I do get Rush and Mr. Young

Rush - a total mystery to me. Is it possible to have such little soul or swing in one's playing? The band is technically good at...uh, whatever it is they are trying to do, but Geddy sounds like he should be on a broom.

Queen - good comedy act, but goofy music. Way over-rated.

REM - poor songs, poor singer. Band plays okay, but I can't see why they would have gone beyond the small club circuit.

Pink Floyd - music for insomniacs; not terrible, but I just can't see the reason for the huge following.

Garth Brooks - I can't believe the number of records that boring cowboy dude has sold! Why? I have no clue.

Quote
skipstone
Is that the...dude...who did Rock Me Amadeaus or whatever?

Frankie Goes to Hollywood's big hit song was "Relax (Don't Do it When you wanna...)" I actully like a lot of 80's but that song was pretty crappy IMO.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-06 07:05 by ryanpow.

Yeah, Queen is another way way overrated band. They copied The Sweet a lot and while The Sweet will always be remembered as a kiddies bubble-gum band (which they weren't after 1972) the Queen became one of the greatest rock bands of all time with their pompous goofy tunes.

I also don't like Van Halen. I don't like them with David Lee Roth nor with Hager. I just can't stand them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-01-06 08:18 by Bimmelzerbott.

Prince
Dave Matthews Band
The Grateful Dead
Iggy Pop
Just about any rap artist

1) U2
2) U2
3) U2
4) U2
5) U2

Quote
HEILOOBAAS
1) U2
2) U2
3) U2
4) U2
5) U2

Five groups calling themselves U2? No wonder you find them hard to grasp.

Dave Matthews
Coldplay
Pearl Jam
Nirvana
U2
Smashing Pumpkins
Eagles
Elvis
PS,I know thats more than five,I just got excited..

Coming Down Again

Rush is another one I've never understood why they're so damn popular.....every damn song sounds the same and for how long can you listen to that screeching?!

Quote
CBII

Quote
T&A

Quote
CBII
This is a strange topic. Many of the respondents here are musicians. There will always be things that you don't like (which this thread seems to have digressed into) however, the "popularity escapes you part" should be a simple thing to figure out.

Successful artists are...

1. At the right place.
2. At the right time.
3. With the right product.

yup - put another way: luck. i see and hear musicians all the time with as much or more "talent" that some of the most commercially successful acts out there - the stones, included.

Absolutely, it's luck. There are musicians I know that can run circles around some very talented and famous people. However, they just had not been in the place to get the exposure in front of the right people. That's one thing I love about Youtube, Myspace and iTunes, anybody with a means of recording themselves can have a shot at it.

Instead of being at the mercy of large corporations, the individual band or artists can publish themselves and have a potential client base of millions of people. Luck is still the main factor, those vehicles just provide the means for increasing the odds in their favor.

As far as the Stones are concerned, do you guys really believe that if this band has been on top of the game for fifty years it happend just by luck? I don't think so. I think they are the best.

Quote
Wild Slivovitz

Quote
CBII

Quote
T&A

Quote
CBII
This is a strange topic. Many of the respondents here are musicians. There will always be things that you don't like (which this thread seems to have digressed into) however, the "popularity escapes you part" should be a simple thing to figure out.

Successful artists are...

1. At the right place.
2. At the right time.
3. With the right product.

yup - put another way: luck. i see and hear musicians all the time with as much or more "talent" that some of the most commercially successful acts out there - the stones, included.

Absolutely, it's luck. There are musicians I know that can run circles around some very talented and famous people. However, they just had not been in the place to get the exposure in front of the right people. That's one thing I love about Youtube, Myspace and iTunes, anybody with a means of recording themselves can have a shot at it.

Instead of being at the mercy of large corporations, the individual band or artists can publish themselves and have a potential client base of millions of people. Luck is still the main factor, those vehicles just provide the means for increasing the odds in their favor.

As far as the Stones are concerned, do you guys really believe that if this band has been on top of the game for fifty years it happend just by luck? I don't think so. I think they are the best.

In the beginning it was a lot of luck. Later in their career it was a mix of luck, talent, image, reputation, and knowing the right people at the right time.