Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:19 pm
Beyonce
what is the 'mainstream audience'?Angus wrote:I don't know over there, but over here, for the mainstream audience, the White Stripes definitely are.
Red Mosquito
One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Page 2 of 8
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:22 pm
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:32 pm
what is the 'mainstream audience'?[/quotewarehouse wrote:Angus wrote:I don't know over there, but over here, for the mainstream audience, the White Stripes definitely are.
That's a good question. According to google image search, it's this:
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:41 pm
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.stip wrote:white stripes, beck, and radiohead, eh?
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:42 pm
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.stip wrote:white stripes, beck, and radiohead, eh?
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:44 pm
cono knows some terrible people in real life
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:47 pm
Beck had at least three songs that got a ton of radio play from what I remember.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:47 pm
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.
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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 8:47 pm
the best part is that they probably couldn't even actually name the songswarehouse wrote:cono knows some terrible people in real life
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:05 pm
That doorbell song was huge. Where It's At was pretty big, and Karma Police.conoalias wrote: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.stip wrote:white stripes, beck, and radiohead, eh?
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:07 pm
And Girl for Beck.@SkitchP wrote: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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:10 pm
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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:11 pm
Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?theplatypus wrote: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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:13 pm
thuss65lennytheweedwhacker wrote:Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?theplatypus wrote: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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:13 pm
You are thuss65, aren't you?theplatypus wrote:thuss65lennytheweedwhacker wrote:Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?theplatypus wrote: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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:14 pm
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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:14 pm
Yup.lennytheweedwhacker wrote:You are thuss65, aren't you?theplatypus wrote:thuss65lennytheweedwhacker wrote:Which RMers would you consider one-hit posters?theplatypus wrote: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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:16 pm
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.Rob wrote: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.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:28 pm
Well, the important thing is that we sat around on the internet discussing this distinction.
Re: One-hit wonders, egregiously so.
Posted: Mon January 14, 2013 9:28 pm
I'm at work. I'll click on anything.