One-hit wonders, egregiously so.

[BurtReynolds]

Beyonce

[warehouse]

I don't know over there, but over here, for the mainstream audience, the White Stripes definitely are.

what is the 'mainstream audience'?

[Angus]

I don't know over there, but over here, for the mainstream audience, the White Stripes definitely are.

what is the 'mainstream audience'?[/quote

That's a good question. According to google image search, it's this:

[EJ]

white stripes, beck, and radiohead, eh?

Really depends on what your definition of "hit" is. In the context of a U.S. mainstream pop chart, then, yes, one could argue they were.

[conoalias]

white stripes, beck, and radiohead, eh?

If we're talking real life people and not internet, I'm 99% sure I don't know anyone who could name songs by these bands that aren't Seven Nation Army, Loser and Creep.

[warehouse]

cono knows some terrible people in real life

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Beck had at least three songs that got a ton of radio play from what I remember.

[@SkitchP]

I can see Radiohead meeting the criteria.

But White Stripes (fell in love with a girl & 7 nation army) and Beck (where it's at and loser) have 2 pretty recognizable hits.

[conoalias]

cono knows some terrible people in real life

the best part is that they probably couldn't even actually name the songs

[Norah]

white stripes, beck, and radiohead, eh?

If we're talking real life people and not internet, I'm 99% sure I don't know anyone who could name songs by these bands that aren't Seven Nation Army, Loser and Creep.

That doorbell song was huge. Where It's At was pretty big, and Karma Police.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

I can see Radiohead meeting the criteria.

But White Stripes (fell in love with a girl & 7 nation army) and Beck (where it's at and loser) have 2 pretty recognizable hits.

And Girl for Beck.

[Jorge]

Yeah, calling those artists "one-hit-wonders" is silly. Having ONE GIANT HIT and then a few lesser hits is not the same as having a career based entirely on the popularity of a single song.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Yeah, calling those artists "one-hit-wonders" is silly. Having ONE GIANT HIT and then a few lesser hits is not the same as having a career based entirely on the popularity of a single song.

Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?

[Jorge]

Yeah, calling those artists "one-hit-wonders" is silly. Having ONE GIANT HIT and then a few lesser hits is not the same as having a career based entirely on the popularity of a single song.

Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?

thuss65

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Yeah, calling those artists "one-hit-wonders" is silly. Having ONE GIANT HIT and then a few lesser hits is not the same as having a career based entirely on the popularity of a single song.

Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?

thuss65

You are thuss65, aren't you?

[Rob]

Maybe "one-hit wonder" should be better defined. Those 3 bands in question have each been around a long time, all have multiple critically acclaimed albums, and all had extended periods of relevance.

[Jorge]

Yeah, calling those artists "one-hit-wonders" is silly. Having ONE GIANT HIT and then a few lesser hits is not the same as having a career based entirely on the popularity of a single song.

Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?

thuss65

You are thuss65, aren't you?

Yup.

[EJ]

Maybe "one-hit wonder" should be better defined. Those 3 bands in question have each been around a long time, all have multiple critically acclaimed albums, and all had extended periods of relevance.

I agree with you. I was thinking more in terms of actual mainstream pop charts. It doesn't seem right to label any of those bands as one-hit wonders.

[McParadigm]

Well, the important thing is that we sat around on the internet discussing this distinction.

[EJ]

I'm at work. I'll click on anything.