losthighway wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 2:43 pm

Krev wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 5:12 pm Collective Soul had some hits, but were second-tier horseshit, at best. These fucking songs were ubiquitous at the time.

They were proto-Creed.

Like, "Hey dudes, I got a guitar. Righteous long hair. I can yarl like Eddie Veddar. But guess what? We're rockin' for God, bro!".

bleecchhh, even better (or worse) than the awful 90's megahit are the washed up dudes playing the songs today.

enframed wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 1:06 pmWe tend to be celebrity driven, as a culture (America) so it's not surprising that cults of personality are more appealing than a band. We want to know people without ever having met them.

This got me thinking about one-man "bands" like, say, Papa M, or even Magnetic Fields, or Songs:Ohia. These were bands but very much in the control of one person, who eschewed "self" in a way that Swift does not. Could any band like that, of any genre, ever been/be as big as Swift? Hard to say. I think not, though.

Swift does have a long-time drummer and bass player, both have been with her 15 years or more. Dunno how much creativity they provide, but I can't imagine it's negligible. I'm not a fan of Swift (I don't hate her music, either), but I went down a rabbit hole recently when I heard she sold out nine days at a football stadium here in LA and has the highest grossing tour in history, over $1B last year.

Right. The discussion also focused on how much more efficient and simpatico these solo acts are for "business" than say, four people who are shaping a group in a bunch of different directions simultaneously, whether that's musically, aesthetically, or financially.

Of course, solo acts were some of the rock'n'roll OGs (Elvis, most notably). But you also had this trend towards small-band music making celebrities (or, at least, dominating the charts), starting in the '60s and then not really disappearing until the rise of portable-device technology, streaming, and social media.

That said, even during the so-called golden era of small bands, your Billy Joels, Elton Johns, David Bowies and later, Madonnas, Michael Jacksons, and Princes tended to command the most attention. But you also had a ton of more democratic small-band-format groups that were almost or just about as big. And your average Guns'N Roses or Metallica fan tended to geek out as much about Slash and Lars than he or she did about Axl and Hetfield. Sometimes more. Shit, even the Revolution (backing up one of the bigger reported megalomaniacs in pop history) seemed less faceless than the backing musicians behind today's solo stars.

About the only one-man band I can think of that approached Swift levels of huge was maybe Nine Inch Nails in the '90s. But even that was a much smaller thing comparatively. And, despite touring lineups, the NIN focus was way more on Reznor compared to say, Pajo's borderline-shy public persona or the Magnetic Fields being a stable four-person outfit for really a long stretch.

That's interesting about Swift having these long-serving sidemen. Kinda admirable and unexpected, I guess. Although I wouldn't imagine they have half the creative input of even those others goons behind the singers in Creed or Third-Eye Blind or whatever. (Hell, they're probably viewed as far less significant than someone like Mick Ronson was to Bowie or Fernando Saunders was to Lou Reed. I'm making assumptions but Swift's management, on the other hand, has probably been an outsize voice in her music and marketing compared to her actual collaborators.)

Wood Goblin wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:36 pm

Krev wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:27 pm Aerosmith was Desmond Child's fucking cash cow.

He co-wrote all of Bon Jovi’s big hits too.

No Doubt also brought in ringers, though it was after they’d already had their own hits (all of which could easily be poll options here).

See also: Late era Alice Cooper

I saw that Rick Beato has a video on the top 20 one-hit wonders of the 1990s. A couple songs mentioned in this thread popped up: “Closing Time” and (dear god) “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” Also that “Steal My Sunshine” song that I swear I’d never heard before this thread.

The La’s song made his list. That one is pretty good.

I will also cop to liking that New Radicals song, which also made his list and which I fully recognize is horrible.

Wood Goblin wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:31 pm
I will also cop to liking that New Radicals song, which also made his list and which I fully recognize is horrible.

I like that song too. Years ago during a book sale I got that album at my library for a buck. It's actually pretty good.

zircona1 wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:54 pm

Wood Goblin wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2024 4:31 pm
I will also cop to liking that New Radicals song, which also made his list and which I fully recognize is horrible.

I like that song too. Years ago during a book sale I got that album at my library for a buck. It's actually pretty good.

Plus, it got under Marilyn Manson’s skin!

Yo, the Semi-Charmed Life AND Breakfast at Tiffany's songs are both industrial-grade poison. And it says something about the universality of art that many people independently get pissed off by the same songs, I suppose.

It seems that anything catchy can be a hit. But writing something catchy is easy. What's hard is creating something catchy that isn't fucking annoying.

Anthony Flack wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:57 amBut writing something catchy is easy. What's hard is creating something catchy that isn't fucking annoying.

I agree. Unless something that's catchy and annoying also happens to be funny. But it would have to be pretty funny.

Also challenging: Creating something that isn't annoying but isn't dull. It's easy enough to be inoffensive, but harder to be so without being "in one ear, out the other."

Anthony Flack wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:57 am Yo, the Semi-Charmed Life AND Breakfast at Tiffany's songs are both industrial-grade poison. And it says something about the universality of art that many people independently get pissed off by the same songs, I suppose.

It seems that anything catchy can be a hit. But writing something catchy is easy. What's hard is creating something catchy that isn't fucking annoying.

Both songs are "catchy" far past the point of being annoying after repeated listens, but the reason why "Breakfast at Tiffany's" sucks so bad are the fucking awful lyrics. The guy is trying to make an argument to not have his girlfriend break up with him because they have one thing in common: they both "kinda" liked that film. What total shit. It makes me want to break something or set my own foot on fire, it's so bad.

Call me a Stephan Jenkins apologist but "Semi-Charmed Life" does not suck nearly as bad.

Man, I hated almost all of these at the time. I just relistened to all of these and you know what, they aren’t that bad. There are a LOT worse songs out there. In fact, most of these are some decent songwriting. Just wasn’t my taste. They all have a good hook in one or more parts of the song.

Of all of them, I’ve turned around on Wonderwall the most. And if I’m being truly totally honest with myself, I kinda like it. And boy did I hate that song for two decades.

So… Lightning Crashes is probably the one I’d least like to listen to. But I don’t think it’s terrible.