artist of the decade - Mariah, Madonna, Or. . .
Redbow17
Who do think should be artist of the decade?
I think it should be someone who was relevant and remained popular in the music
world throughout the whole decade.
So my pick is Mariah Carey. Last decade my pick was Madonna. I stopped liking
Madonna's music around the Erotica album and started liking Mariah's music more
around 1993.
I was looking up Mariah's sales through the decade they've been pretty good.
Madonna is still selling records now but not near what Mariah sold this decade.
I know Madonna will be the pick of many because it's her group here.
I'm sort of biast since I like Mariah's music more than Madonna's right now.
So maybe some unbiast people can pick who they think best represented this
decade and who should be the artist of the decade in the music world?
Courtney
Aaron
and best (if not the best) albums in a genre of music that has dominated the
90's charts and culture. And two members have put out exceptional albums on
their own that improve even on what they've done together.
After that.... who's had the combined critical and commercial success this
decade to rival them?
L21480
Sales have nothing to do with artist of the decade. If that's the case, MJ
should've been your pick for the 80's. Madonna, 2Pac or Nirvana have had more
impact than any other artists this decade.
L21480
>and best (if not the best) albums in a genre of music that has dominated the
>90's charts and culture.
I don't get the hype over The Score. Highly overrated.
LDC
Brittany
Garth..
If your considering imagery, I cant think of anybody at the moment that
has really stood out and will say to me this is someone who represents
the 90's. There just is'nt anybody I can think of.(Maybe Alanis?) Not
even Madonna,she has'nt really put forth any images that anybody other
than the fans that can remember for this decade. 'note' I used image and
not song. I think the sex book is really the only image Madonna has had
for the 90's that people remember.I mean who remembers the "Bedtime
Stories" years? Oh wait Blond Ambition was in the early 90's was'nt it?
But I still think shes the best candidate in my mind for artist of the
decade,because sales do not represent anything to me.. Everything that
Mariah,Celine and Garth have done this decade are all forgetable as well
as most of Madonna's 90's stuff,excluding Evita and Ray of Light.
Btw I like Mariah, Celine and Janet as much as I do Madonna.Just my
opinions!
TATA for now,
Brittany
Michael Bishop
remakes, "Killing Me Softly" and "No Woman No Cry" even "Ghetto
Suparstar" from Pras, had elements from another hit. Only Lauryn Hill's
"Doo Wop (that thing)" is not a remake (As far as I know) and one song,
from one album. does not an artist of the decade make.
Check out Bishop's MADONNA Page at
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9307
Michael Bishop
1990's, I fell that sales are not the most important aspect. I think it
should be someone who has stood the test of time, while saying something
with their music, while still selling enough records to get that message
out.
That is why my choice is Madonna. She has tackled many topics in her
music, crossed genres (Showtunes (I'm Breathless), R&B (Bedtmes Stories)
Musicals (Evita), An electronica type music (Ray Of Light) and
dance/club type music (Erotica),) while never forgetting the music and
style that got her where she is...pop.
She has transcended music, into acting, heading her own label
(Maverick), she is a fashion trendsetter, she writes her own material,
and is an all around smart and savy business woman. Who else could have
survived 15 years in this business with all the scandal in her career
(mostly brought upon herself). She has brought popular music to a new
level, and opened the door for the Janet's, Mariah's and Celine's of the
world. Don;t get me wrong, the women I have mentioned are all fantastic
at what they do...But, they are no Madonna.
Michael
W0NDERBEAR
She doesn't create things and put herself out on the edge trying to push the
envelope of music a little further. She employs the sound of the time, goes for
the safety net, and is totally predictable. And Im not saying that is a bad
thing. It just doesn't tend to be very interesting for very long. And yes, it
may sell a gazillion albums, but have you checked the used CD stores recently?
You can find every Mariah album, in mass quantity, at all of them. So even
though they may sell a truckload, the shelflife is about as long as that of a
loaf of bread.
And how does Madonna factor into this, you ask? You may have stopped
liking her at the Erotica stage, but in my opinion, that was when she started
taking what it meant to be an Artist seriously. She did what she wanted people
to hear, not what the people wanted to hear from her. And even though a lot
didn't like it, she did. and it did sell. Maybe not as much as Mariah, but then
again someone like Tom Waits doesn't sell many albums, but is one of the most
influential artists to many many musicians and lay people alike.
Erotica evoked the deafening sound of the world in the midst of AIDS.
Bedtime Stories was the music of the black community being sang by a white
woman, as well as bringing the sound of Bjork (almost) to the top 40.
Something To Remember brought the mujsic back into focus. Evita brought out the
beautiful form of the musical again. And Ray of Light has Brought her full
circle in a way, and taken an old 60's/new electronica and made it pliable for
the masses. And to have done these things, and remain in the public eye as
much as ever isn't a fluke, or just "marketing"...it is talent. and
imagination, and a vision of what you wnat the world to be...that takes an
artist, not just a singer.
thya...@sol.com.br
about quality music, my vote goes for Bjork. Adventurous, fresh, inventive -
the most unique stuff put out this decade by any artist. Not that I expect the
boneheads at MTV to recognise that :)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
zpet...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
Aaron, I would like you to see the Fugees from my point of view:
On Fri Dec 11 Aaron wrote:
>The Fugees, because they've put out one of the biggest (if not the
>biggest) and best (if not the best) albums in a genre of music that has
>dominated the 90's charts and culture.
They became popular because of a REMAKE. Yes, there first single off that
album was ok, as their previous albums, BUT their copying of another
artist made them popular just like Puff Daddy or MC Hammer.
> And two members have put out
>exceptional albums on their own that improve even on what they've done
>together.
Again, Wy Cleff already had 2 REMAKES in the last year.
The heavily sampled song "We trying to stay alive" and
the Queen song "another one bites the dust"
Same with Layrn, released another REMAKE(at least it's played in Canada
allot) of "I can't take my eyes off of you".
>After that.... who's had the combined critical and commercial success
>this decade to rival them?
Well if you like artists who "borrow" from other artists.
How about Mariah Carey
Emotions
I'll Be There
Fantasy
Honey
SweetHeart
etc...
In conclusion, a group with such a short career shouldn't have that many
remakes, neither should Mariah either. A cover here and there such as
Madonna "I Want You" and Fever" is a good choice.
Zal
radi...@sprintmail.com
well said...thanks :)
Aaron
Michael Bishop wrote in message
<20490-36...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Neither do I, the Fugees are ok, but their biggest hits have been
>remakes, "Killing Me Softly" and "No Woman No Cry" even "Ghetto
>Suparstar" from Pras, had elements from another hit. Only Lauryn Hill's
>"Doo Wop (that thing)" is not a remake (As far as I know) and one song,
>from one album. does not an artist of the decade make.
Fu-gee-la
Ready Or Not
Gone 'Til November
all great, original songs.
so anyone who's had hits with cover songs and samples is disqualified? the
Fugees are an album-driven group. that is where their strength and
greatness lie, and that's what i'm basing my vote on.
Aaron
zpet...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron, I would like you to see the Fugees from my point of view:
>
>On Fri Dec 11 Aaron wrote:
>
>>The Fugees, because they've put out one of the biggest (if not the
>>biggest) and best (if not the best) albums in a genre of music that has
>>dominated the 90's charts and culture.
>
>They became popular because of a REMAKE. Yes, there first single off that
>album was ok, as their previous albums, BUT their copying of another
>artist made them popular just like Puff Daddy or MC Hammer.
>
>
>
>> And two members have put out
>>exceptional albums on their own that improve even on what they've done
>>together.
>
>Again, Wy Cleff already had 2 REMAKES in the last year.
>
>The heavily sampled song "We trying to stay alive" and
>the Queen song "another one bites the dust"
>
>
>Same with Layrn, released another REMAKE(at least it's played in Canada
>allot) of "I can't take my eyes off of you".
>
>
"popularity" does not a great artist make. so what, their first hit was a
remake. have you heard the rest of their album(s)? excellent work,
beginning to end. TRUE artists.
the rest of your post is irrelevent, because Mariah Carey is no artist, and
critical praise of her ended sometime around "Music Box".... that, and I'm
not basing my choice on whether or not someone borrows from others or makes
cover songs. otherwise, I would've counted Madonna out long ago for all the
sampling and borrowing on BS and ROL
R2...@webtv.net
1. Janet
2.Madonna
3.Alanis
Era Of Tin
while I am not too huge of a Fugees' fan and all, and I agreed that THE SCORE
was too overhyped. They might possibly be the act of the 90's simply due to
the offspring solo crossover success that Lauryn Hill,Wyclef and Pras (the
album flopped, but the song GHETTO SUPERSTAR was still a bonafide hit) made in
BOTH r&b AND pop fields.
While NWA and Wu-Tang Clan both had many offspring successes as well, only Dr.
Dre of those two was able to have some mainstream pop success as well. (ICE
CUBE, EASY E and METHOD MAN all had hit albums too, but none of them really had
the amount of success OUTSIDE of the rap community that Dre or any of the
Fugees had)
Era Of Tin
MISEDUCATION..). I think they are FAR ahead of crap like Puff Daddy and MC
Hammer. Lauryn Hill has one hell of a voice and she can shine when coming
across the right song. Whereas Puff Daddy has about as much excitement as a
corpse in his rap.
>Aaron, I would like you to see the Fugees from my point of view:
>
>On Fri Dec 11 Aaron wrote:
>
>>The Fugees, because they've put out one of the biggest (if not the
>>biggest) and best (if not the best) albums in a genre of music that has
>>dominated the 90's charts and culture.
>
>They became popular because of a REMAKE. Yes, there first single off that
>album was ok, as their previous albums, BUT their copying of another
>artist made them popular just like Puff Daddy or MC Hammer.
>
>
>
>> And two members have put out
>>exceptional albums on their own that improve even on what they've done
>>together.
>
>Again, Wy Cleff already had 2 REMAKES in the last year.
>
>The heavily sampled song "We trying to stay alive" and
>the Queen song "another one bites the dust"
>
>
>Same with Layrn, released another REMAKE(at least it's played in Canada
>allot) of "I can't take my eyes off of you".
>
>
>
>
Michael Bishop
However, 3 of their last 5 singles as a group have been remakes. And of
the 5 only the 2 remakes "No Woman No Cry" and "Killing Me Softly..."
were monster hits, on radio and at retail.
As for them being an album group, ok, if you say so, but if their they
are an album group, relying heavily on remakes for success, I'll pass!
bke...@epix.net
The question is subjective. It really depends on who decides, and
on what criteria the title is given.
I admit, Mariah has perfect timing. Being that she hit big in the first
year of th decade, and didn't decline until... well, last year.
But, as someone mentioned before, Mariah is not an artist. She is more like
some other artists' puppet. She came across as witty, strong, and dignified
in
the early nineties, but now... it's clear that she's immatured with age.
Her beautiful ballads have lost their perspective. She no longer has
anything
smart to say about love/loss etc. it's just "Oh I'm floating here on a
cloud, and
my daydream lover is going to come riding on a unicorn and we'll be
together
forever, and it's so lovey dovey." or "Boo, hoo, you left without you I'm
nothing,
I'd give everything for you. Cry/tears/sadness, blah, blah, blah"
We don't need a sleazy, GAP girl, "rather be the Homecoming Queen than the
cutting edge of music" attitude winning any more awards.
Like I've said many times before, Mariah just uses sex to sell records in
the
stupid sense of the act. Kinda like when people make a bad joke but it has
sex in it just to try to get people to laugh and you're sitting there
thinking how
dumb it is(ahem, SNL 4 yrs ago, Bob Saget especially).
Madonna, on the other hand, had a statement to make about sex and she
stated with the intention of opening people's minds, not making herself
look
like the "in thing".
I could go on and on, but I think this will be the last time I restate the
obvious.
-BPK
Redbow17 <redb...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981211093832...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
> Okay it's getting near the year 2000, the decade is up in about a year.
> Who do think should be artist of the decade?
> I think it should be someone who was relevant and remained popular in the
music
> world throughout the whole decade.
> So my pick is Mariah Carey. Last decade my pick was Madonna. I stopped
liking
> Madonna's music around the Erotica album and started liking Mariah's
music more
> around 1993.
> I was looking up Mariah's sales through the decade they've been pretty
good.
Maverick
Aaron wrote in message <36717...@nt.dave-world.net>...
>Fu-gee-la
>Ready Or Not
>Gone 'Til November
>
>all great, original songs.
Though Ready Or Not was only partially original - a major part of the song
was a sample from one of Enya's songs.
L21480
>the
>stupid sense of the act.
How is she using sex to sell records? Wearing shirt skirts? She sold 3x's more
when she was covered up.
>Madonna, on the other hand, had a statement to make about sex and she
>stated with the intention of opening people's minds
Uh huh, sure.
L21480
>was a sample from one of Enya's songs.
Fu-Gee-La lifted parts of Teena Marie's Ooh La La La.
EuroRomeo
sales. Sales alone don't make an Artist. Image, Songs, Albums, Tours, Videos
make an Artist. Madonna qualifys for all the above reasons. Great songs
Vogue, Justify my Love, Secret, Take a Bow, Don't Cry for Me Argentina, Frozen,
Power of Goodbye, Albums: The Immaculate Collection, Erotica, Bedtime Stories,
Evita, Something to Remember, Ray of Light. Tours: Blonde Ambition & Girlie
Show. Videos: Justify my love, Erotica, Fever, Bad Girl, Rain, Deeper &
Deeper, Secret, Bedtime Stories, Human Nature, Frozen, Ray of Light Her videos,
music, albums, tours and everything she does she continues to fascinate us, and
inspire other more than 15 years after she came onto the scene. No other
artist could ever compare. Mariah can try but she will never make it. No
will. Madonna Rules!
Era Of Tin
>the
>stupid sense of the ac
hmm, I don't agree with it, but I could SWEAR that I've heard a lot of people
use THAT SAME THING to describe Madonna.
Aaron
Maverick wrote in message <74s8kv$5ep$1...@newsreader4.core.theplanet.net>...
>
>Aaron wrote in message <36717...@nt.dave-world.net>...
>>Fu-gee-la
>>Ready Or Not
>>Gone 'Til November
>>
>>all great, original songs.
>
>
>was a sample from one of Enya's songs.
>
>
yeah, i was just reading that off the "Ready Or Not" import.
Still, their covers and use of samples and borrowing have been done really
well. Paying tribute to the originals, but making something new (and
GOOD -- something you don't get from Puff Daddy) out of them. At least
that's my feeling about Wyclef and Lauryn. Pras is another matter
altogether. But 2 out of 3 ain't bad.....
Jeremy Channel
I certainly think she was a big help making it take off...
treyk...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <19981211110751...@ng40.aol.com>,
> l21...@aol.com (L21480) wrote:
>
> I think if you got this selection of artists to represent the 90's music you
> could come up with:
>
> Madonna
> Tupac
> Smashing Pumpkins
> Pearl Jam
> Nirvana
> Beck
> Prodigy
> Snoop Doggy Dogg
> Spice Girls
> Janet
> Bone Thugs N Harmony
> Whitney Houston
> U2
> Garth Brooks
> Bjork
> Fugees
>
> I don't like all of these artists but I can respect how they've been major
> influences in their respective genres. Each one either took music to a new
> direction, or really nailed what the country wanted to hear in an original
> way. Some, like Whitney and Garth, just proved that in their genre, they
> really have what it takes. Others, such as the Spice Girls, show different
> movements that music took in the 90's. The Spice Girls made pop popular again
> paving the way for Aqua, Backstreet Boys, N-Sync and the like.
>
> The rappers I mentioned, to a rap-hating person, seem to represent the major
> influences of that genre and the pioneers of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Smashing Pumpkins really changed alternative music
> (unfortunately for someone who's a big fan of the Smiths-Cure-New
> Order-Depeche Mode scene) and spawned many many imitators.
>
> Some like Madonna, Janet, and U2, maintained their superstar status by
> exploring new types of music and taking their art into new directions.
>
> Where are Celine and Mariah? They were definitely noticeable but I just
> don't see any of them doign anything groundbreaking unlike everyone else on
> this list. --
>
> Thoughts? Comments?
>
> Trey
> "Express Yourself, Don't Repress Yourself"--Human Nature
> treyk...@hotmail.com
> "Next phase, next stage, next craze, next wave"
treyk...@hotmail.com
redb...@aol.com (Redbow17) wrote:
Mariah hasn't done anything groundbreaking. Performer of the decade?
Possibly, I'd accept an argument for that. *Artist* of the decade? Nope.
That said, I don't know if it would be Madonna. She certainly would be in the
running. Janet has also moved in many directions. Course there have been
lots of other influential groups in totally different music genres that coudl
spring to mind such as Smashing Pumpkins so it's difficult to choose.
The 90's have been so polarized in terms of music, more so than the 80's
where everything has been set into more of these sub-genre's that it woudl be
really difficult to pick *one* artist that would represent 90's rock and pop.
Madonna could be one of a group of artists representing a cross section.
But you can't deny the impact of (for lack of a better name) "Alternative"
music of which Madonna really can't be associated with.
Trey
--
treyk...@hotmail.com
Thoughts? Comments?
Trey
L21480
>influences in their respective genres.
I agree with the list.
>The rappers I mentioned, to a rap-hating person, seem to represent the major
>influences of that genre and the pioneers of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As far as that goes, I'd add Puff Daddy (like him or not, he's been behind most
of the biggest hits the last four years) and Dr.Dre (The Chronic really started
the west coast trend in '92. Yeah, there was NWA, but this album took it to the
next level.) to the list.
A.
its purest form. She does not produce art; she produces entertainment,
and it's a pretty bland, homogenized brand. She has contributed no
social impact except prehaps to bring the tube top back into style. For
that, she should be shot.
To select Madonna as the "artist of the decade" would also be silly.
She has produced some very good music - much of it worthy of the word
"art" - but her social impact has been almost non-existent, especially
after 1992. Yes, Madonna is most representative of the 1980's.
So, to decide which artist to chose as the vanguard of the 1990's, one
must find the one overriding trend in music this past decade. And that
trend is the fracturing of popular music. Pop, rock, and R&B fractured
into subgenre after subgenre in the 1990's, with several new and
formidable genres being created and/or coming to the forefront, most
notably alternative, gansta rap, and techno. Each genre is unique and
worthy of separate recongition, and so I propose three "artists of the
decade."
1. Nirvana - This is the premier alternative band, considered the one
which took the genre to the mainstream. All others - Pearl Jam, The
Smashing Pumpkins, Alanis Morissette - followed Nirvana's wake, and
alternative has changed pop music and rock considerably.
2. Dr. Dre - The most significant rap label of the 1990's was Death
Row, and of Death Row's many significant artists - most notably Tupac
Shakur and Snoop Doggy Dogg - Dr. Dre was the architect of the Death Row
sound. Puff Daddy and RZA have risen to prominence since Dre's heyday,
but they can't overshadow him.
3. Björk - While many other DJs and artists made more challenging or
more electronic techno, no other artist made it as human as has Björk.
Her music takes a genre which can often feel like an ice-cold speculum
and make it lyrical and emotional. Her music is a vision of the future.
If I had to chose only one, I would probably go with Nirvana. Yes, they
are overrated, but their impact is nonetheless enormous. (Personally,
Björk has my vote.)
A.
CrAzYHuMaN
>more electronic techno, no other artist made it as human as has Björk.
>Her music takes a genre which can often feel like an ice-cold speculum
>and make it lyrical and emotional. Her music is a vision of the future.
>
>If I had to chose only one, I would probably go with Nirvana. Yes, they
>are overrated, but their impact is nonetheless enormous. (Personally,
>Björk has my vote.)
>
>A.
I second that. Bjork's work may not be popular but it is deep and very
different from the norm.
PHILisHome
Proposing three "artists of the decade" discussed the merits and cons of
Nirvana, Dr Dre and Bjork.
You forgot one artist who has arguably had the more impact on the music
industry during the past decade than anyone else: Garth Brooks. Love him or
hate him he singlehandedly ushered in the country craze of the early nineties
(remember Billy Ray Cyrus?) and has continued to be a major force in music and
culture.
And lets not forget that the man is ever closer to fulfilling his
meglomanical dream of more album sales than anyone else in music history. (Or
is his goal simply world domination?)
I think any "artist of the decade" title would come down to him or Nirvana.
A.
>
> You forgot one artist who has arguably had the more impact on the music
> industry during the past decade than anyone else: Garth Brooks. Love him or
> hate him he singlehandedly ushered in the country craze of the early nineties
> (remember Billy Ray Cyrus?) and has continued to be a major force in music and
> culture.
Your use of the word "craze" - which was used correctly - is exactly why
I would NOT consider Garth Brooks for artist of the decade. The
public's fleeting interest in country in the middle portion of the
1990's was not a trend but, rather, a fad, a craze. Country has slinked
back from its sales peaks and returned to its initial niche market, not
blossomed and transformed the mainstream as rap, techno, and alternative
have. (Rather, country has simply become bastardized in attempts to
gain pop music status, and, once one leaves the country fold à la kd
lang, one can never return.) In my mind, nominating Garth Brooks for
artist of the decade is akin to nominating "Macarena" as song of the
decade.
> And lets not forget that the man is ever closer to fulfilling his
> meglomanical dream of more album sales than anyone else in music history. (Or
> is his goal simply world domination?)
Yes, Garth Brooks has made a whore out of himself in the name of big
sales. But he is essentially the Mariah Carey of country: big sales,
little artistic value. Aside from a few supposedly catchy cornpone
ditties, his music is rather indescript. He is no Willie Nelson, George
Jones, Lyle Lovett, or even George Strait. If his artistic quality was
anywhere near his sales, it might be a different story. And anyway,
everyone knows he has essentially cheated to sell his large number of
records, cutting prices deeply and releasing multi-disc sets every six
months attached to supposedly collectible merchanidizing, so his
seemingly impressive sales figures are grossly decpetive.
In short, no, Brooks does not deserve to be awarded in such a fashion.
And, when music historians speak of country's great artists, I don't
believe Garth Brooks will be listed in that roll. I think it's time he
cuts a duet wit Mariah now...
A.
treyk...@hotmail.com
"A." <awoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> 1. Nirvana - This is the premier alternative band, considered the one
> which took the genre to the mainstream. All others - Pearl Jam, The
> Smashing Pumpkins, Alanis Morissette - followed Nirvana's wake, and
> alternative has changed pop music and rock considerably.
>
Have to disagree here a bit. Can't say for Alanis but I know that Smashing
Pumpkins and Pearl Jam were all contemporaries with Nirvana so you can't say
that Nirvana paved the way for them.
THeir influence was enormous but they didn't spawn PJ or SP. In my opinion,
Smashign Pumpkins is the most representative of the 90's of these three
because they have embraced other forms of music. All of Nirvana's music was
the same but Smashing Pumpkins incorporated all sorts of things from
orchestral strings to electronica ornmanetation on their latest album.
Trey> A.
>
--
Xeva438
question - becuayse if this was a serious querstion asked --- hardly anyone
would consider either. I mean, there was the same exact thread at one of RS's
message sites, and all were debating over PJ and Nirvana or Pumpkins or Snoop
or Dre or Tupac or Radiiohead even --- to choose Madonna would be ridiculous
since she simply hasn't been as important as these acts in terms of scope and
influence in the daily life of the 90s. Besides, wake UP people, she already
one won -- there's more chance of Barney wnning an artist-of-decade award then
Madonna even if she still WAS socially and musically central to the American
post-modernist . culture (which she iisn't). To Gen X - which came of age in
the 90s - she was and usually still is seen as a symbol of the 80s, along with
Michael Jackson.
I would have to rteally bring it down to 2 - Alanis and Nirvana, if we're
talking about rock, and society in general. ((For hip-hop, I would say Tupac or
Dr. Dre, or Biggie. Biggie WAS biig and his influence is also pretty
huge))True, Pearl Jam were out at the same time as Nirvana -- bt cold you ever
argue that "Ten" had as big an impact as "Nevermind" ?? If it wasn't for
Nirvana's enormous poular success in '91, - if they were total flops - I don't
think Pearl Jam wold have been recieved either. True, you could say : "Isn't
the opposite also ytrue" - but if you think about it it isn't , since Nirvana's
first commercial smash, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was all over the airways (and
changed radio forever) in '91, and Pearl Jam's first greatest hit "Jeremy" -
which made them known to everyone - didn't come out until at least a year
later.
Nirvana's music (and now this is common knowledge) - weilded such a large
musical and cultural influence - that it came to define the life of pop culture
itself in the early 90s.
1) Musically it exposed alternative to the oublic, and brought the invasion of
the punk sound to the radio and MTV. This led to the decline of the great
"hair-bands" of the 80s - which were declining anyway ( a la Guns & Roses and
Motley Crue) and led to the successes of many alternative acts, such as
Smashing Pumpkins (yes --- could they have been such an underground hit, w/o
Nevermind's exposure?), Soul Asylum, Blind Melon, Live, Soundgarden, - even
NIN to an extent --- remember all these alternative acts folks -;) ..and most
notable Hole (the hooks - all from Kurt, also some lyrical help).
2) Culturally - did you madoinnaholics sincerely forget the word "grunge" ?
This bband put Seattle on the music map - and made it the center of early 90s
culture, from the re-emergence to marijuana, to dress -- flannel, to
coffee/starbiucks -- Grunge became a way of life. Usually, popular culture
affects the teenage group the most. Werll ask me - I WENT to junior high/ high
school in earlyto-mid 90s, I felt the impact - everyone wore flannel, played
hacky sack, and the "extremre" grungers never showered, since it wasn't in ! My
friend Seattle herself told me this! And some of you adultts think Erotica had
a mind-blowing cutural impact on 90s way of life? Please
This Seattle band revolutioned the youth clture by bringing back the
punk/stoner/slacker connventions from 2 deacdes ago - the 70s - and soon
(combining with the gangsta/ghetto influence that was growing) NO ONE WORE
THEIR PANTS TIGHT anymoore - loose fit pantts were in ! Just as big, almost as
Madonna's influence was on the wannabees a decade earlier - the "grunge"
culture affected the youth of the 90s more than anything else...and this was
all due to the altenatrive msic scene, based in Seattle...and its success was
all initally due to Nirvana. What else defined the 90s? and Generation X (and I
clearly take it that most of you are post - Baby Boomers!).
3) The death. This is the strongest point of debate against why its Nirvana and
not Pearl Jam was more culturally relevant -- Kurt's suicide rose him up to be
a mega-"star" of such propoortion, he was being called by Time/Newsweek as the
"spokesman of his generation". It literally canonized him and he was being put
in the same league as Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison as the martyr or troubled
youth f his generation...etc, etc, who certainly influenced the other
angst-ridden musical acts of the day.
4) Which leads to this point - the simple content of the group's albums: Gen X
angst - lead to so many inferior bands singing sappy sonngs on lithium and
suicide, etc. But the influence of Noirvana cannot be discredited - it spread,
lyrically - everywhere in the male- music world (Alanis did the same tto the
female. world).
5) In the later 90s, the musical nfluence continues - acts such as Radiohead
or the Verve all owe their success, in one way, to Nirvana's, as do punk acts
as Green Day and Offspring, and rock-techno hybrids like Garbage. But not only
do altenative acts, but also acts that are totally opposite - in the "grunge
backlash" we can say - such as Backstreet Boys?! can owe their success to them,
since if alternative didn't get all popular would the "pop" backlash ever be
here now? (Its all yourr fault Kurt!) The recent emergence of rock as opposed
to alternative - such as metal Korn r Moster Magnet, Deftones, Fuel, etc, are
also examples of backlash against the grunge. It is this that has spawned the
ever-increasing obsession/interest with punk, pop, and techno today (for those
of us who don't want to turn to the sappy sick r&b garbage on the radio).
So there you have it -- those are my reasons why Nirvana certainly ARE the
artist of the decade, whether a media whore liike MTV chooses them to be or not
makes no difference. From "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to "All Apologies" Nirvana
influenced nearly everything that was to come afterwards in the rock/pop world
after them - 85% of what you hear on the radio today (on rock stations of
course) - can be traced back to them.
And you can't really use the argument that if Kurt had lived then they might
have gotten worse and gone down the drain, since "In Utero" wasn't as
successful as "Nevermind" - because the death itself adds to the myth
surrounding the group, and only extends the influence. You can't separate the
death from the argument - because that is what happened and you can't changew
that (this is in response to those who say that Pearl Jam is a bettergroup
since Nirvana was going downhill, and would continue to if Cobain had lived).
Finally - coing to Alanis, her breakthrough had the same effect, since before
her there was no great outlet of FEMALE Gen X angst, or strong negative
emotion. True, Liz Phair was out before her -- but can Exile to Guyville
compare to Jagged Little Pill in terms of influence?? This was the artist that
was EVERYWHERE - all over radio, TV media - in mid - 90s, and the public
seemingly couldn't get enough of her. (As opposed to Mariah - which some of you
suggested; she has already become a carciture). Alanis was what lead to Paula
Cole and Meredith Brook's god-awful "Bitch," and Tracy Bonham and Jane?
Osbourne, and Fiona Apple (now THERE'S talent) Lillith Fair and all those
whiny songs you hear constantly on the radio. I don't know if I can include
Jewel here, since their styles are so far apart -- and Sarah McLachlan did
haver a wonderful record called Fumbling Towards Ecstasy before Jafgged came
out, as did Tori Amos -- but it took Alanis to break the mold of male-dominated
rock world and help establish the female market (which is greater than the
males' these days). Alanis's Pill did much to female artists what Nirvana's
Nevermind did to male bands - exposure led to mass acceptance of other artists
in the same genre, and it is these genres that have dominated the musical
landscape of the 1990s (as far as rock is concerned, at least).
If you want to look at the hip-hop/r&b culture (one that I am REALLY sick of)
that has dominated the nation since the post-grunge backlash started dominating
in 1996 -- then you'd have to count the Notorious B.I.G. as a contender for
Artist of the Decade, besides the obvious choices of Dr. Dre and Tupac, who had
infiltrated Gangsta Rap to the public back in '93. "The Chronic" is such a
breatktrough record -- merely because it was the first to win such universal
critical praise as well as commercial, with the "ghetto" sound. And of course
it influenced everyone from Coolio to Puff Daddy himself - but I shouldn't say
more since I don't know muchabout rap. Besides them the only very notable acts
there are are the Wu-Tang Clan, who have many considerable recordings to date,
and while the Fugees do show promise as being a great group -they have not had
as much materia l out yey, as a group together, for one to judge there musical
significance (even though now they are focusing on thier soo careers - and the
resultsar brilliant). Jagged L:ittle Pill was also Alanis' only release - but
of course its influence was greater than The Score's since it impacted the
entire female - song-writting generation, while the Fugees have influenced only
a few hip-hop artist. Couldn't we say that Lauryn Hill was inflluenced, to a
mild extent at least - by Alanis, as far as expression of female emotion is
concerned? IMO, yes, to a mild degree (Mary J. Blige would of course be a much
bigger influence on Hill before Morisette).
So it comes down to those two for me - Nirvana and Alanis --- and who do I
choose? Nirvana, but only because - if you look at it this way: If Nirvana was
the archetypical, prototype alternative group - and if Alanis is considered an
"alternative artist" in any way, instead of a norma "rock" one - Alanis owes
her success to alternative's popularity --- wehich again leads back to Nirvana.
Therefore, I would definitely pick Nirvana as the Artist of the Decade, over
either Madonna Mariah, or someone like Janet Jackson. There is a whole world
out there beyond these limited pop females guys....maybe I shouldn't raise THIS
issue in a Madonna newsgroup.
RAGE2LOVE
or decide if one work of art is more important than another?
Why is it that music as an art form can be reduced so cheaply into popularity
contests?
Notice how no one ever talks about how Picasso is so much better than Monet?
It's ridiculous-how could you even begin to compare one artist's work with
another's?
The media ( award shows, magazines, radio, TV, and eMpTV) has brainwashed us
into believing that if a record hits number one, it's the biggest and the best-
and as for the so-called "impacts" these artists have made; where did you come
to this conclusion? Did you actually meet people who were personally "impacted"
by an artist's work? or did a magazine tell you that this artist made an
"impact"?
and was every artist's "impact" on their listeners investigated?
The guy whose life was changed by listening to Bjork's latest album may live
next door to a girl whose life was changed by the latest Backstreet Boys album.
Despite personal tastes, how can you deny the "impact" they may have had on
their listeners?
I'm getting in way too deep here, but the point is, music and artists shouldn't
be compared to each other. If you think about it, it's pointless, and a waste
of time. Let the award shows tell you what the best music is- in the
meantime, listen to what YOU love- that's really the best music of all...
Era Of Tin
the early 1990's. If it was, why are Garth Brooks and Shania Twain still two
of the hottest artists around now? Plus, Faith Hill and The Dixie Chicks have
also made fairly successful crossovers lately too.
BUT.... I think calling country a "fad" is like using the same word for rap.
Era Of Tin
>the 90s - she was and usually still is seen as a symbol of the 80s, along
>with
>Michael Jackson.
>
can't disagree with you there, even tho I think it's a shame, because Maddy has
put out some of her best work out in the 90's.
>True, Pearl Jam were out at the same time as Nirvana -- bt cold you ever
>argue that "Ten" had as big an impact as "Nevermind" ??
maybe not THE impact NEVERMIND did (nor nothing in the quality of NEVERMIND,
although TEN is still the best Pearl Jam album ever), but it still sold a few
more million copies as well as lasted on the charts for nearly five years.
>Nirvana's
>first commercial smash, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was all over the airways
>(and
>changed radio forever) in '91, and Pearl Jam's first greatest hit "Jeremy" -
>which made them known to everyone - didn't come out until at least a year
later
I agree in a way, but ALIVE was a huge hit for PJ's standards (the only songs I
really consider "hits" for Pearl Jam are ALIVE, EVENFLOW, JEREMY, BLACK, I GOT
ID and DAUGHTER, funny that 4 of the 6 come from TEN) and that came out in the
same late 91/early 92 timeframe that SMELLS LIKE TEEN SPIRIT was huge
>This led to the decline of the great
>"hair-bands" of the 80s - which were declining anyway ( a la Guns & Roses and
>Motley Crue)
I think GUNS N ROSES could've stood a chance at lasting, but their downfall was
NOT the invasion of alt music (as their biggest video, NOVEMBER RAIN, came out
in summer 92, AFTER Nirvana had hit #1 and Red Hot Chili Peppers and Pearl Jam
had inched their way into the top 10), it was because Axl was a total dick and
has spent the past 6 years working on an album.
what I hate is that the "grunge backlash" came HERE earlier than everywhere
else, I mean, by 96, it wasn't "in" to like to alt bands and it was cool for
"wiggers" (white kids who believe that they really could survive for more than
10 minutes in Harlem or Compton) to make fun of grungers, as all the white
suburbanites moved on to rap (which is pathetic, watch the PRETTY FLY video by
the Offspring and you'll see what the people at my school look like, and the
sickest thing is that the kids who're all into Master P now were listening to
Smashing Pumpkins and Green Day and crying about Kurt Cobain JUST 3 years ago).
Which was pretty bad, because I've actually preferred the alt music from
1995-on to the older stuff (aka Garbage, Barenaked Ladies, Semisonic, Alanis, a
lot of the one hit wonder acts like Superdrag and so on..., and a lot of the
ska crossover bands from last year). While the older stuff was good for it's
time, I have to admit that I am so burnt out and sick of Soundgarden, Alice In
Chains, Smashing Pumpkins, STP, Pearl Jam, Soul Asylum and so on songs that I
don't care if I never hear again (HOWEVER I think the Nirvana albums STILL
sound great and songs like SLTS and HEART SHAPED BOX still rock after listening
to them a million times)
I agree that Nirvana were the band who ushered in the grunge scene to a massive
audience, but they weren't the only one (tho arguably STILL the best Seattle
band).
Aaron
treyk...@hotmail.com wrote in message <74t8cf$926$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <3671F7...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "A." <awoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. Nirvana - This is the premier alternative band, considered the one
>> which took the genre to the mainstream. All others - Pearl Jam, The
>> Smashing Pumpkins, Alanis Morissette - followed Nirvana's wake, and
>> alternative has changed pop music and rock considerably.
>>
>
>Have to disagree here a bit. Can't say for Alanis but I know that
Smashing
>Pumpkins and Pearl Jam were all contemporaries with Nirvana so you can't
say
>that Nirvana paved the way for them.
>
>THeir influence was enormous but they didn't spawn PJ or SP. In my
opinion,
>Smashign Pumpkins is the most representative of the 90's of these three
>because they have embraced other forms of music. All of Nirvana's music
was
>the same but Smashing Pumpkins incorporated all sorts of things from
>orchestral strings to electronica ornmanetation on their latest album.
>
They were Nirvana contemporaries, but nobody cared until Nirvana came along.
br...@caverock.co.nz
Country sales are up 12% on last year. Garth has sold 85 million albums in
the usa alone. His songs such as The dance, the River, We shall be free,
Unaswered Prayers, Its your song, If tomorrow never comes have universal
appeal, he could be considered for artist of the decade.
MAXX
BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
Astrolabe
I couldnt agree more!!!
fred
Fabulous Lulu
>Your use of the word "craze" - which was used correctly - is exactly why
>I would NOT consider Garth Brooks for artist of the decade. The
>public's fleeting interest in country in the middle portion of the
>1990's was not a trend but, rather, a fad, a craze. Country has slinked
>back from its sales peaks and returned to its initial niche market, not
>blossomed and transformed the mainstream as rap, techno, and alternative
>have.
What? Hrm. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong charts, but country hits top
twenty more than techno/alternative, and is certainly rivalling rap in its
'niche-market yet mainstream' dominance. It's an enormous sales force in
the US; it's probably telling about just how important certain country
artists are to the US scene in that country isn't big anywhere else.
I'd probably say that 'alternative' music is the most bastardised, with
rubbish like Matchbox 20, a tired southern-rock redux, topping the modern
rock charts. Virtually none of the 'modern rock' stars bear resemblance to
the niche genres that originally made up 'alternative' music, and the
people who do resemble it aren't famous.
>(Rather, country has simply become bastardized in attempts to
>gain pop music status,
Different from rap/techno/alternative how, though? Rap and country do have
some 'pure' artists hitting the charts, sure, but the best known artists
are people like Will Smith or Shania Twain, blends of their genres and
pop. And techno and alternative have virtually no non-bastardised stars;
indeed, ask 99% of people to name a techno album, and if they can place
the term, they'll talk about Madonna or the Prodigy.
>In my mind, nominating Garth Brooks for
>artist of the decade is akin to nominating "Macarena" as song of the
>decade.
I'm up for it. It was just a damned *song*, and it spawned a bizarre
cottage industry. That's got to be worth something ;)
>> And lets not forget that the man is ever closer to fulfilling his
>> meglomanical dream of more album sales than anyone else in music history. (Or
>> is his goal simply world domination?)
>Yes, Garth Brooks has made a whore out of himself in the name of big
>sales.
I'm just curious: since when has promotion and consumer-friendly sales
tactics made an entertainer inherently BAD?
As someone who can't stand Garth Brooks's music, let me just go on the
record as being perplexed by this NG's hatred of him, and Mariah Carey. I
mean, what, exactly, is wrong with the way they go about selling their
music? God forbid an artist prices their singles reasonably and undercuts
album sales. It makes Maverick/Warner look bad, considering how anti-low
price they seem to be. It's truly bizarre. These two should be
congratulated. Not for their music, but for their intense use of
consumer-friendly marketing.
>Aside from a few supposedly catchy cornpone
>ditties, his music is rather indescript. He is no Willie Nelson, George
>Jones, Lyle Lovett, or even George Strait.
But, as I will grudgingly admit, he is an amazing entertainer. It's very
hard to watch his enthusiastic stage show and say that he seems like he
doesn't want to be there. That charisma and charm will take you far. He
earns his money. He puts on spectacular shows and tries hard to be
fan-friendly and accessable. Most of his music might be nondescript (it's
probably a bad sign that the only song of his anyone *at his concerts*
seems to know is Friends In Low Places), but he's got a helluva circus
going for him.
>In short, no, Brooks does not deserve to be awarded in such a fashion.
>And, when music historians speak of country's great artists, I don't
>believe Garth Brooks will be listed in that roll.
Of course he will be. As was said before -- he basically *started* the
country-pop crossover. You cannot write a history of music without
mentioning that fact, and acknowledging it as a good thing. It'd be like
me writing a history of music and omitting the Beatles as a great
influence purely because I don't like their music.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
"If you see one movie next summer, see Star Wars. If you see TWO movies next summer, see The Spy That Shagged Me." - the trailer for Austin Powers: The Spy That Shagged Me
Fabulous Lulu
>I think if you got this selection of artists to represent the 90's music you
>could come up with:
>Madonna
Why? Her music HASN'T been representative of the 90s. She is the
personification of the 80s, and while I think certain work in the 90s has
been much better than the 80s work, she hasn't made a huge impact on the
scene. Indeed, it can be made a case of that she waits to tag onto the end
of already established trends throughout the 90s, as opposed to being as
trailblazing as her reputation is.
>U2
Again, they probably should be left off and put as a contender for Artist
of the 80s. While Achtung Baby is their best album (IMO), their subsequent
albums haven't done particularly wonderful -- in sales or press, IIRC --
and they've resorted to releasing retrospectives t oget attention. Not the
stuff 90s influence is made of. Unfortunately, considering they're a
wonderful band.
>The rappers I mentioned, to a rap-hating person, seem to represent the major
>influences of that genre and the pioneers of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Personally, I wouldn't list the Fugees. There's just too many very
influential artists (I like how NO ONE HERE will admit to the influence of
the omnipresent Sean Combs purely because they don't want anyone to think
they like him ;) to put in a band that seems to amount to a covers band in
the minds of half the world. Otherwise, you're on the right track, don't
worry. Tupac probably isn't a bad choice.
>Where are Celine and Mariah? They were definitely noticeable but I just
>don't see any of them doign anything groundbreaking unlike everyone else on
>this list. --
Celine...hmmm. I can't decide if I'd nominate Celine or not. Mariah would
not make my personal list, because despite her recordbreaking status, she
really hasn't done anything influential to *other* artists. Celine, OTOH,
seems to have unfortunately spun off a thousand and one cheesy ballads
(Aerosmith, shut up, your time has past).
Anyways, I don't think your choices are half bad. Certainly better than
the people who are picking artists purely because they like them,
seemingly ignoring public influence and fame in the importance of being
THE artist of the decade.
Fabulous Lulu
>BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
>BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
>BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
>BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
>BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK BJORK
And thus concludes this week's episode of Cooking With Swedish Chef!. Tune
in next week for Swedish Chef's recipe for crepes francais.
A.
>
> They were Nirvana contemporaries, but nobody cared until Nirvana came along.
Exactly. I didn't mean that Nirvana were artistic influences on The
Smashing Pumpkins or Pearl Jam but, rather, that they opened the door
for alternative bands commercially.
A.
A.
>
> What? Hrm. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong charts, but country hits top
> twenty more than techno/alternative, and is certainly rivalling rap in its
> 'niche-market yet mainstream' dominance. It's an enormous sales force in
> the US; it's probably telling about just how important certain country
> artists are to the US scene in that country isn't big anywhere else.
Country artists are important to their niche market, though. The only
true country crossovers lately have been Shania Twain and LeAnn Rimes,
and neither of them have put out what I would consider true country
music. They use country like Madonna uses techno on RAY OF LIGHT: a few
sonic trappings are scattered about the straightforward pop music.
Garth Brooks does not get played on Top 40 radio, adult contemporary, or
another other format but country, so he hasn't crossed-over. And yes, a
few artists get into the top 20 album chart, but, Twain and Rimes aside,
only Garth Brooks, Reba, George Strait, and Brooks and Dunn can expect
to catapult an album that high. That's six artists; the number of
rap/R&B artists that can debut that high in a single month is greater.
> I'd probably say that 'alternative' music is the most bastardised, with
> rubbish like Matchbox 20, a tired southern-rock redux, topping the modern
> rock charts. Virtually none of the 'modern rock' stars bear resemblance to
> the niche genres that originally made up 'alternative' music, and the
> people who do resemble it aren't famous.
Alternative is dead; it no longer exists. Modern rock is simply the
rock-leaning side of pop, not as hard as Tool or Metallica, not as
squishy as the Backstreet Boys. Alternative was bastardized to the
grave, yes. Anyway, Matchbox 20's J. Crew-hillbilly crap should be
considered country to my mind.
> I'm just curious: since when has promotion and consumer-friendly sales
> tactics made an entertainer inherently BAD?
Garth Brooks' sales tactics are bad because of the ends. He isn't
deeply slashing prices as a favor to his customers; he's doing it to get
himself a sales record to gratify his ego. (Why? He's probably been
stuffing those tight Wranglers all these years.) But he's cheating, not
playing fairly, and to give this man the record he so desperately craves
mocks the whole charts-and-records system.
> But, as I will grudgingly admit, he is an amazing entertainer. It's very
> hard to watch his enthusiastic stage show and say that he seems like he
> doesn't want to be there.
Every time I've had the mispleasure to witness one of Garth Brooks'
performances, the man looked demon-possessed. This, of course, is just
something I feel when watching him. I get a very evil vibe off of him.
> Of course he will be. As was said before -- he basically *started* the
> country-pop crossover.
Dolly Parton was crossing over with songs like "Here You Come Again" and
"9 to 5" in the 1970's and 1980's, and she certainly wasn't the first to
cross over from country to pop. And, as I've said, Garth Brooks isn't
even played on top 40 radio, not even here in Texas, so he really hasn't
crossed over.
A.
Czaeryth
erao...@aol.com (Era Of Tin) wrote:
> it was because Axl was a total dick and has spent the past 6 years working
> on an album.
I think Axl spends more time as a businessman than he does as a music
artist. That's what I think.
- CZ
skyf...@mindspring.com
Redbow17 wrote in message <19981211093832...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
>Okay it's getting near the year 2000, the decade is up in about a year.
>Who do think should be artist of the decade?
>I think it should be someone who was relevant and remained popular in the
music
>world throughout the whole decade.
>So my pick is Mariah Carey. Last decade my pick was Madonna. I stopped
liking
>Madonna's music around the Erotica album and started liking Mariah's music
more
>around 1993.
>I was looking up Mariah's sales through the decade they've been pretty
good.
>Madonna is still selling records now but not near what Mariah sold this
decade.
>I know Madonna will be the pick of many because it's her group here.
>I'm sort of biast since I like Mariah's music more than Madonna's right
now.
>So maybe some unbiast people can pick who they think best represented this
>decade and who should be the artist of the decade in the music world?
>
> Courtney
Flemming
1 Madonna
2 Boy George
3 Tori Amos
4 George Michael
--
Flemming S. Nielsen "Did you ever ask those strangers
<cul...@post3.tele.dk> What they're searching for
Did they laugh and tell you
by George O'Dowd ---> They're not really sure...?"
L21480
>4 George Michael
Is this a joke?
Era Of Tin
>
>>4 George Michael
>
>Is this a joke?
well, I didn't come up with the list, but I think that if people can use 80's
artists like Madonna, Bjork (she was in The Sugarcubes in the 80's) and Janet
Jackson on the "best 90's artists", why not use two other artists who've also
improved with time, except with not as much mainstream success? As one girl I
know's profile says "Boy George - A TRUE 90'S DIVA, not just that fad you
remember from the 80's", plus most fans agree that George Michael's stuff in
the 90's have been better than the pop he did in the 80's.
Flemming
---> l21...@aol.com (L21480) wrote:
> >2 Boy George
>
> >4 George Michael
>
> Is this a joke?
No it's not a joke, maybe Boy George has not had that much
succes in the 90's but he has been making great music all
the time, and in my opinion that is what that counts, and
George Michael has had tons of hits during the 90's maybe not
in USA but here in Eourope, and here in Denmark the Older
album is the best selling album of all his career...
Aortiz71
>critical praise of her ended sometime around "Music Box"....
Actually, critical praise for Mariah didn't BEGIN until after Music Box....Her
first 2 albums were not highly praised. Critics all agreed that her voice was
amazing, but they did not like her choice of material and called it boring.
Even Music Box was widely panned as being bland and unimaginative. However,
Daydream was most highly praised album, which is perplexing to me because, by
then, IMO, her songs were definitely starting to sound remanufactured.
Era Of Tin
>succes in the 90's but he has been making great music all
>the time, and in my opinion that is what that counts, and
>George Michael has had tons of hits during the 90's maybe not
>in USA but here in Eourope, and here in Denmark the Older
>album is the best selling album of all his career...
>
I agree man, both are the George's of music if you ask me.
I'll continue to support both artists no matter how little success they have
statewise. And you can't say that the last year or so hasn't been a good
payoff for everyone who stood by the Boy for the past 12 years or so (the CC
reunion, the Storytellers special, 2 solo singles, several other miscellanious
tracks on various soundtracks and so on, and last, but not least, the top 5 hit
in the UK. I live in the US, but I was still in a good mood that week, only
in the UK could George Michael and Culture Club both have top 4 hits the same
week)
E-mail me anytime, I love talking to fellow George (either one) fans.
Aaron
Aortiz71 wrote in message <19981213160425...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>>the rest of your post is irrelevent, because Mariah Carey is no artist,
and
>>critical praise of her ended sometime around "Music Box"....
>
>Actually, critical praise for Mariah didn't BEGIN until after Music
Box....Her
>first 2 albums were not highly praised. Critics all agreed that her voice
was
>amazing, but they did not like her choice of material and called it boring.
Yet she managed to win a Grammy. She really racked them up with Daydream
and Butterfly.
Fabulous Lulu
<awoo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Fabulous Lulu wrote:
>> What? Hrm. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong charts, but country hits top
>> twenty more than techno/alternative, and is certainly rivalling rap in its
>> 'niche-market yet mainstream' dominance. It's an enormous sales force in
>> the US; it's probably telling about just how important certain country
>> artists are to the US scene in that country isn't big anywhere else.
>Country artists are important to their niche market, though.
So are alternative/techno artists and rap artists. So what?
> The only
>true country crossovers lately have been Shania Twain and LeAnn Rimes,
>and neither of them have put out what I would consider true country
>music.
Well, technically, no one has done 'true country music' in its old
defintion for at least a decade, at least not no one who had any modicum
of success with it. So what do you want? You CAN'T be pure ANYTHING and
get a hit, basically. You need to blend into several markets and appeal to
various people. You aren't going to be true anything music. Your argument
makes no one important.
>Garth Brooks does not get played on Top 40 radio, adult contemporary, or
>another other format but country, so he hasn't crossed-over.
Anyone who lived through the Thunder Rolls (or whatever it was again)
horror will tell you quite opposite, but anyhow -- no one sells 8 billion
albums, or whatever he's sold, selling purely to a niche market, even if
they do 'cheat' and release limited edition stuff.
>That's six artists; the number of
>rap/R&B artists that can debut that high in a single month is greater.
And your point is...? Basically, you've decided to exclude arguably the
most important pop star of AN ENTIRE GENRE because another genre is
somewhat more successful. That makes about as much sense as nominating
Bjork as artist of the century or decade or what have you. What exactly
are you trying to achieve by what you're doing? Your theory seems to be
that since no famous country artist is 'true country', they are
unimportant to country, and since they are not quite as big as the biggest
rappers, they are unimportant to music. Please correct me if this is a
vast misinterpretation of what you keep saying.
>> I'd probably say that 'alternative' music is the most bastardised, with
>> rubbish like Matchbox 20, a tired southern-rock redux, topping the modern
>> rock charts. Virtually none of the 'modern rock' stars bear resemblance to
>> the niche genres that originally made up 'alternative' music, and the
>> people who do resemble it aren't famous.
>Alternative is dead; it no longer exists.
...and hasn't for a long, long time. So why did you bring it up?
>Anyway, Matchbox 20's J. Crew-hillbilly crap should be
>considered country to my mind.
Well, then there's another artist to add to those six you mentioned before... ;)
>> I'm just curious: since when has promotion and consumer-friendly sales
>> tactics made an entertainer inherently BAD?
>Garth Brooks' sales tactics are bad because of the ends. He isn't
>deeply slashing prices as a favor to his customers; he's doing it to get
>himself a sales record to gratify his ego.
So WHAT? Who cares *why* someone does something? Do the people of
Argentina care that the only reason Evita Peron did squat for them was for
her own ego and power? Do Clinton fans care that the only reason he
searched out political office was to get laid? And does it really matter
that half of the Beatles later work was written purely to show up other
members of the band? No, because they all get the same results for the
people these things matter to. So who cares why he's doing it? You'd think
ego-gratification was tantamount to genocide. As I said before: he's
hurting no one, the low prices benefit fans, and he's incredibly nice to
his fans. So what does it matter? If he was doing this to feed starving
inner city children, what would the real difference be in the result?
Last I checked, Madonna wasn't donating her pay cheques to Feed Ethiopia.
>But he's cheating, not
>playing fairly, and to give this man the record he so desperately craves
>mocks the whole charts-and-records system.
No, I think they're doing a lovely job of mocking themselves with their
singles charts. They don't need Garth/Mariah's help.
>> But, as I will grudgingly admit, he is an amazing entertainer. It's very
>> hard to watch his enthusiastic stage show and say that he seems like he
>> doesn't want to be there.
>Every time I've had the mispleasure to witness one of Garth Brooks'
>performances, the man looked demon-possessed. This, of course, is just
>something I feel when watching him. I get a very evil vibe off of him.
Indeed. Which is the fun of his performance.
It's all the same in this NG. People refuse to admit the importance of
very successful people -- those more successful than Madonna -- seemingly
purely because they don't want to come across as they LIKE said person.
It's bizarre.
Franz De Matas
relevance to the music scene. Even if you subtract those six-CD sets etc
you'd be left wth an artist who has an impressive sales track record.
And he must be doing something right to have fans loyal enough to buy
sets which has songs that they already have from his albums. Everybody
talks about how "artist loyalty" is history in the US. Well Gath is an
exception then, right? (and maybe Celine lol)
Madonna is an icon of the music industry. Entertainers like her come
along once in a generation. I'm not too convinced that any entertainers
of the 90's can match the mania that Madonna and Michael Jackson caused
in the 80's...(Spice Girls? lol)
The music trend changed in the 90's and it was mostly a shift away from
the music that made Madonna a megastar. But Madonna has survived that
shift because of her pop culture genius. But artists like Nirvana,
Babyface and Puff Daddy, even Alanis are more representative of the 90's
music scene than Madonna... of course this can change anytime... a
couple major Grammys for ROL could make her more relevant in the court
of public opinion. Not that she has anything to prove becuz I think few
would argue that she is in fact a living legend.
Franz
L21480
>you'd be left wth an artist who has an impressive sales track record.
RIAA lists his sales at 83 million and there aren't any certifications for the
6-cd set there. So if you add those in, he's closer to 100 million than people
think.
Xeva438
>of the 90's can match the mania that Madonna and Michael Jackson caused
>in the 80's...(Spice Girls? lol)
Try Nirvana. There were reports of quite a few suicide attempts in April 1994,
after Cobain's untimely death.
A.
I'd better write the date down on my pad. It must have something to do
with that new Spice Girls single floating about.
While reading your posts, I began to realize that you were simply
defending Garth Brooks "artistry" and splendiferous sales. Yes, he's
sold a lot of records. Good for him. He's a major figurehead in
country music, obviously Lulu's favorite genre. Whoop-dee-doo. My
original post was not an attack on his music or his sales for the sake
of attacking his music or his sales; it was merely my case against
labelling Garth Brooks as the greatest single artist of the 1990's.
He's been neither musically influential or groundbreaking (unless you
actually DO find his music particularly awe-inspiring), and so to label
him "artist of the decade" would be to do so almost solely on his sales
record, which, as of late, has began to look rather spurious to many
observers. The award is for an artist, not a salesman, and Brooks is
clearly too much of the latter and not enough of the former. Do you
really feel it necessary to debunk that statement?
I am not debunking Brooks' status as a country music star. He is a
star, and he has pushed a lot of records. But judging solely on the
artistic merit of his rather uninspired work, his sales do not, to my
mind, override the fact that his music - even to country standards - is
crap. If I indeed had to choose one country artist over all others, it
would most likely be either George Strait or Reba McEntire, who can both
sell a lot of albums and stay closer to a true country vein than can
Brooks. (My personal choice would be Mary Chapin Carpenter, who is
about as close to good writing most country fans will get close to.)
As for my considering Björk to be worthy of an "artist of the decade"
nod (something which really seems to bother you), I chose her because
she is the most prominent, most centrist artist of a musical genre I
think will be highly influential in the next decade. She is not worthy
of the "star of the decade" or "big-seller of the decade" awards, no,
but I personally think she deserves recognition. I am a big fan of
Björk, just like you're a big fan of Garth Brooks. And you should
understand that, Lulu, my dear. Yes, it's personal and partisan, damn
it, but it's my post and I'll write what I want! If you don't like it,
you can just turn in your Union Jack miniskirt right now, bitch! (Ooh,
I think I was just possessed by the spirit of Mel B. for a second...)
A.
Wink8199
open-minded.
bke...@epix.net
L21480 <l21...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981211183635...@ng26.aol.com>...
> >Like I've said many times before, Mariah just uses sex to sell records
in
> >the
> >stupid sense of the act.
>
> How is she using sex to sell records? Wearing shirt skirts? She sold 3x's
more
> when she was covered up.
You misunderstand.
Mariah's decline in sales are probably due to the fact that her style is
getting
stale, and because she tries to be something we all know she's not
(ghetto-girl).
Little kids like her, only because MTV portrays her as "hip" and "cool",
but
note that she's no longer viewed as intelligent, dignified, or strong.
She's weak, ditzy, and lacks perspective.
> >Madonna, on the other hand, had a statement to make about sex and she
> >stated with the intention of opening people's minds
>
> Uh huh, sure.
If you can't tell the difference between Madonna's Erotica and Mariah
Carey's
Butterfly, well then, you're obviously the one with the problem.
bke...@epix.net
Era Of Tin <erao...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981211185026...@ng100.aol.com>...
> >Like I've said many times before, Mariah just uses sex to sell records
in
> >the
> >stupid sense of the ac
>
> hmm, I don't agree with it, but I could SWEAR that I've heard a lot of
people
> use THAT SAME THING to describe Madonna.
Key Phrase - "in the stupid sense of the act".
Think about it.
Melanie Cockerell
L21480
>thing he did was die! I'm not just trying to sound mean, it's also true.
Then you have no idea the kind of impact on the rap community.
Astrolabe
> So that really makes her the artist of *this* decade how? Basically, she
> puts vocals on music that isn't particularly innovative (something you're
> enormous on), ie it's been done before. Very nice job of it, and obviously
> a huge influence of Ms. Ciccone, but hardly anything that should seem to
> meet your gigantic, overwhelming 'artistic merit' judging.
>
what on earth are you talking about LULU? Bjork not inovative....no one i
have know, to this date, has mixed strings and electornics together due
the degree of perfection as Bjork did on homogenic..you just dont see
that in music, and im not talking about that feux crap techno that
violinist Vanessa Mea makes...Eumir Deodato and Mark Bell on the same
track..pretty aamzing. Not to mention the stark sheer emotion of her
voice..i know its a love or hate thing...but its amazing to me.
the acid industrial hip hop of Army of Me, th amazing ballad that is
actually at about 130 bpm (Hyperballad), the lush strings and underwater
beats of the most beautiful song ive probably heard, Joga.
no one i know have mixes tabla,electornics,wine glasses, exhaust pipes
into such Aural bliss....long live Bjork...and Nellee, Mark Bell,
(nellee defineitely the producer of the decade..from Nothing Compares to
You, form Soul to Soul, to U2, to Bjork, to Madonna,)
fred
Deconstructing Damian
>
> A. wrote:
[I'm regretfully snipping the rather entertaining cattiness these
two can cook up. ;)]
> > The award is for an artist, not a salesman
Which award has this bloated thread been discussing, anyhow? Or
is it a theoretical "Artist of the Decade" proclamation? I think
what's at issue here is whether said title refers to either the
most successful ($$$- & chart-wise) or most influential/innovative
artist of the 90's (which of course is much tougher to determine). As
we know it's either one or the other, not both. =P So which is it?
Sadly, M falls under neither category.
Damian
Aaron
column. she finds me tiresome and unfunny too :(
A. wrote in message <367728...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Fabulous Lulu wrote:
>>
>> indulging your horribly
>> unfunny tendency to quote jokes that other people have said that were
>> really only funny the first time.
>
>Well, since you've gotten this personal, would you mind giving me an
>example of this? I apologize for being such a crashing bore, but it's
>at least good to see your true colors come shining through.
>
>> >While reading your posts, I began to realize that you were simply
>> >defending Garth Brooks "artistry" and splendiferous sales.
>>
>> What posts were you reading again...?
>
>Well, my dear, it arguably would be very easy for me to get confused,
>given the yo-yo nature of your debasements/defenses of Brooks. "He
>sucks, yet he's the greatest!" While you did pay lip service to Brooks;
>insipidity, you spend much more time supporting him.
>
>> What's the difference, exactly?
>
>I think this statement completes my argument. It must be a very good
>world for you, Lulu, one in which every schlemiel working in the
>appliance department at Circuit City is on the same par as Berthe
>Morisot.
>
>As for the merits of Björk's music, I shall simply direct you to Fred's
>post. After all, you've had to endure so much of my lack of originality
>already.
>
>> Oddly, I've already said at least twice that I can't stand Garth Brooks.
>> Your ability to read has failed you, son. As pointed out to me by someone
>> else, it's rather funny that you chose to snip my entire post and just
>> pretty much fabricate paraphrases that are rather opposite of things I've
>> said (this technique also gives you the convenience of actually agreeing
>> with other things I've said about Garth Brooks' importance in the country
>> community, without actually admitting that you're an idiot with an
>> apparent irrational hatred of those who go out and sell without the
>> pretense of 'artistry' a la Madonna).
>
>Well, here's a snippet for you, and yes, I read your posts. Yes, I
>realize you claim to dislike Garth Brooks before you so eloquently make
>a defense of his music, performances, and sales behavior. And, as for
>my labelling you a fan of Brooks', that was simply my unfunny,
>unoriginal, irrationally idiotic attempt at humorous hyperbole. But
>fear not, I'll make sure no more of it is aimed in your direction.
>
>A.
A.
Oh, wait, that must be yet another unfunny joke I've again ripped off...
A.
A.
A.
>
> gee, A., i guess you'll be joining me in the "former friend/ally of Lulu"
> column. she finds me tiresome and unfunny too :(
I'm not going to comment on this any further; I wouldn't give anyone
the satisfaction. I only hope that I get to be as innately humorous as
to think up magnificent witticisms like "Bitchy Spice" one day...
A.
A.
>
> it's quite enough to have one of me running around. No need for two.
I'm currently inclined to think there's no need for one...
A.
Deconstructing Damian
[snip]
> Otherwise, Jon Spencer is artist of the decade simply because I'm
> listening to him and he's rather cute. I suppose IMO I like for these
> sorts of discussions to be very objective. So there's your answer to
> your question :)
I have perfectly objective reasons for nominating Tori Amos, then.
Really! You don't want to hear them? ;) Btw, my only criterion for
this arbitrary "artist of the decade" title would be that the artist's
work must have pervaded a goodly chunk of the 90's. Which would mean
they'd have to have been around since at least '93, IMHO.
Damian
bke...@epix.net
> Actually, I'm pretty sure you misunderstand. You can't use sex to sell
> something if you do WORSE as a 'sex symbol' than you do as a squeaky
clean
> sort. If she was using sex to sell her music, she'd have stopped long
ago,
> since it's, um, not working.
Well, yes she did do worse as an end result.
But she really wasn't this bad till Honey came out.
I'm sure she wasn't expecting a decline at the time, cause she didn't know
whether or not it would work.
> Mind you, I'm not quite sure WHAT she's trying to do dressed like that,
> because she looks awful these days, but if it was a marketing ploy, she'd
> have toned it down long ago.
She wants to be down with the crowd. I guess the one word that could really
sum up Mariah Carey would be cheap.
Patrick Huey
HysteriaZZ
than likely receive that honor. They usually top the MTV "Best of" video
countdowns and Nirvana even managed to make it to #60 something on the Vh1 100
greatest artists of rock 'n ' roll (even higher than Madonna's spot on that
countdown) ....If Nirvana doesn't grab MTV's award, I would think Madonna would
be next up. Possibly Janet Jackson and Mariah.
However, if we're talking about an artist outside of the MTV channel and just
talking music in general...Mariah will probably get it. Depending on how much
they count the sales aspect to this honor.