Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: Artists with terrible popularity-to-legacy ratios

65 by Krev
zorg wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2024 2:50 pm
Krev wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2024 1:57 pmRam Jam
That's more like a "One Hit Wonder". A Lead Belly cover even. I think you need to have at least a couple of singles to qualify as popular....checked on Wikipedia, but no, nothing else. Though I did learn this great factoid....
The band was originally known as 'Creekside Killshack'.
which is indeed badass.
While I don't disagree on the criteria, Black Betty is played at every sporting event, county fair, and bowling alley nationwide. They've left a legacy far exceeding their Ted-Nugent-esque musical output.

Creekside Killshack is a cool name, though it sounds like a local death metal band.
We're headed for social anarchy when people start pissing on bookstores.

Re: Artists with terrible popularity-to-legacy ratios

67 by Dudley
Wood Goblin wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:51 am Moby is an extremely good one. Play was inescapable for a year or two; Wikipedia says that it sold 12 million copies.

He has released 17 records since then.
He's a weird one, because the ubiquity that he briefly achieved was kinda ahead of its time, with him/his management focusing on selling his songs to adverts rather than singles. He was maybe one of the forerunners in doing that as a career-launching move, rather than cashing in on sales. His music was inescapable for a year/18 months. He hit (in the UK at least) that "coffee-table dance music" sweetspot. Maybe that was his downfall. He was a longform syndrum, and everyone grew tired of him. Of that distinctive sound, which was initially exciting but quickly just triggered a "Yes, we've got it, thanks" reaction. Plus the creeping on young women probably didn't help.

He'd been around a bit before "Play". When it hit big, I wonder if he thought "Yes, it will always be like this from now on" or "Damn, this could be brief, let's rinse it for all I can."

Re: Artists with terrible popularity-to-legacy ratios

69 by penningtron
LuciousSandwich wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2024 12:42 am
jfv wrote: Sun Aug 11, 2024 1:38 pm Not sure if this band qualifies but the first one I thought of was Blood, Sweat & Tears. Their first album (with Al Kooper) seems like it was well-loved. Their second (s/t) album (with David Clayton Thomas) was a huge hit. And then they went on to release a bunch of mediocre albums and disappeared after Chicago became *the* band with horns.
from a recent Rolling Stone article about bands with no original members that I somehow followed a link to:

"Blood, Sweat & Tears
NASHVILLE, TN - OCTOBER 13: Bo Bice performs with Blood, Sweat and Tears during the Paradise Artists Party at the IEBA 2015 Conference - Day 3 on October 13, 2015 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Photo by Jason Davis/Getty Images for IEBA)
Former 'American Idol' contestant Bo Bice performs with Blood, Sweat & Tears in 2015.
Jason Davis/Getty Images

What Happened? Blood, Sweat & Tears were one of the most popular groups of the late Sixties and early Seventies, scoring big hits like “Spinning Wheel,” “You’ve Made Me So Very Happy,” and “And When I Die.” They won Album of the Year at the 1970 Grammys over the Beatles’ Abbey Road, the first Crosby, Stills, & Nash record, and Johnny Cash’s At San Quentin. Their popularity took a big dip when they went on a U.S. Department of State-sponsored tour of Eastern Europe in the summer of 1970. Their lineup also changed quite a bit, with singer David Clayton-Thomas sticking around the longest. When he left in 2004, the group no longer had any authentic members.
Just watched this mildly fascinating doc about the band, largely centered around that Iron Curtain tour:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13693964/

It didn't really occur to me while it was happening that the tour could be perceived as making them look like right wing puppets, though I can see how a tour of, say, North Korea now could be problematic. The band had a very questionable manager who made several boneheaded moves, including opting out of the Woodstock movie because the festival couldn't afford the licensing fees on the spot. (several other notable bands opted out too, like CCR)

But also, while the band was talented and put on a tight live show, they were very... dorky. The singer came off like Tom Jones in way worse outfits. It doesn't really fit future generations' image of the late '60s, and became an Oldies station staple and that's about it.
Music
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shananiganz and 3 guests