3 ms·
Two comments - one snarky and one not. (1) I have problems with a "great artist" and "Laura Branigan" used in this context. Assume you need 2-3 hits to demons
by jleyank 18y ago
Two comments - one snarky and one not. (1) I have problems with a "great artist" and "Laura Branigan" used in this context. Assume you need 2-3 hits to demonstrate you're not just lucky... (2) I think the Beatles remain more than two standard deviations beyond the mean. More than 15-20 hits, and how many bands have done 2-3 albums/year for more than one year?
- noonespecial 18y agoHa! Touche! FTR: I typed in "One Hit Wonder" into google to get "Laura Branigan". And the Beatles, yeah, complete outlier. Probably shouldn't be categorized in the same universe as todays commercial music acts. A Beatles album is something you can put in and listen to in its entirety and its a work in and of itself. Theres a few others like that (Pink Floyd maybe?) but they are so extremely rare and, (I assume so very difficult to produce) that they should have their own category. The point of it all was that I'm looking forward to a shift in the market that allows me to here more peoples' best shots and less big-label bands' mediocre filler.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- ojbyrne 18y agoYou (and the parent comment) seem to have conflated "hits" and "good songs." which some of us would violently disagree with. Anyway I can think of dozens of bands with more than 15 good songs (and often they have done 2-3 albums/year for more than one year). I don't want to turn this into a music discussion, so I'll just pick one band I love - The Jam, who actually had hits (in the UK) - 18 of them between 1977 and 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jam). There's plenty more, which I'm sure others can contribute.