The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Side 1, Track 2 - Round 2

Poll ended at 11 Jul 2020, 6:45pm

Lene Lovich, "Lucky Number"
4
19%
Chumbawamba, "Timebomb"
3
14%
The Breeders, "Cannonball"
7
33%
ABBA, "Dancing Queen"
7
33%
 
Total votes: 21

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 89301
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Dr. Medulla »

revbob wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:05pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:53am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:30am
gkbill wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:18am

Hello,

It strikes me that unconventional songs having shots at wide-spread exposure and appeal is a good thing. Thus, please understand me when I say I miss that era.
Yep, completely (even tho I was too young and unexposed to experience it at the time). The trauma experienced within the record industry provided a rare opportunity, and one that won't come around again because the structure is utterly fragmented now.
That gay black cowboy song that's like a minute and a half long being the biggest thing of 2019 shows we can still have weird hits. Probably not as prevalent now, but social media has a way to circumvent a lot of industry pull today that wasn't a thing back then.
But the reach of hit songs is much less than it once was. The structure of mainstream is much smaller than it once was, as the industry is guided more by genre and delivery method now. Back in 1980, it was radio and only radio, and Top 40 reached a larger percentage. Today, it's easy to be a heavy consumer of music and never sniff the mainstream. (Television is the same way.) We'll never have huge star like Michael Jackson or Madonna or the Beatles again. The landscape just isn't conducive to that kind of mass appeal.
I see what you mean but arent there plenty of "new" mega artists right now, not strictly in the rock realm but more pop and/or hip hop.
That capture the public's imagination in a way that even non-music fans couldn't help knowing about Elvis or the Beatles. There are still artists that sell millions—the mainstream industry is wholly reliant on a few mega sellers at the expense of a wider team—but the notion of a huge figure that commands attention from music fans and non- alike, nah.
Back off, or I'll blow the roof off—with sound!

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 33643
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Heston »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:14pm
revbob wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:05pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:53am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:30am


Yep, completely (even tho I was too young and unexposed to experience it at the time). The trauma experienced within the record industry provided a rare opportunity, and one that won't come around again because the structure is utterly fragmented now.
That gay black cowboy song that's like a minute and a half long being the biggest thing of 2019 shows we can still have weird hits. Probably not as prevalent now, but social media has a way to circumvent a lot of industry pull today that wasn't a thing back then.
But the reach of hit songs is much less than it once was. The structure of mainstream is much smaller than it once was, as the industry is guided more by genre and delivery method now. Back in 1980, it was radio and only radio, and Top 40 reached a larger percentage. Today, it's easy to be a heavy consumer of music and never sniff the mainstream. (Television is the same way.) We'll never have huge star like Michael Jackson or Madonna or the Beatles again. The landscape just isn't conducive to that kind of mass appeal.
I see what you mean but arent there plenty of "new" mega artists right now, not strictly in the rock realm but more pop and/or hip hop.
That capture the public's imagination in a way that even non-music fans couldn't help knowing about Elvis or the Beatles. There are still artists that sell millions—the mainstream industry is wholly reliant on a few mega sellers at the expense of a wider team—but the notion of a huge figure that commands attention from music fans and non- alike, nah.
Correct. There are people who shift millions of units that I've never even heard of.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

revbob
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 13032
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 12:31pm
Location: The Frozen Tundra

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by revbob »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:14pm
revbob wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:05pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:53am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:30am


Yep, completely (even tho I was too young and unexposed to experience it at the time). The trauma experienced within the record industry provided a rare opportunity, and one that won't come around again because the structure is utterly fragmented now.
That gay black cowboy song that's like a minute and a half long being the biggest thing of 2019 shows we can still have weird hits. Probably not as prevalent now, but social media has a way to circumvent a lot of industry pull today that wasn't a thing back then.
But the reach of hit songs is much less than it once was. The structure of mainstream is much smaller than it once was, as the industry is guided more by genre and delivery method now. Back in 1980, it was radio and only radio, and Top 40 reached a larger percentage. Today, it's easy to be a heavy consumer of music and never sniff the mainstream. (Television is the same way.) We'll never have huge star like Michael Jackson or Madonna or the Beatles again. The landscape just isn't conducive to that kind of mass appeal.
I see what you mean but arent there plenty of "new" mega artists right now, not strictly in the rock realm but more pop and/or hip hop.
That capture the public's imagination in a way that even non-music fans couldn't help knowing about Elvis or the Beatles. There are still artists that sell millions—the mainstream industry is wholly reliant on a few mega sellers at the expense of a wider team—but the notion of a huge figure that commands attention from music fans and non- alike, nah.
Ive always tended to ignore the likes of Michael Jackson, Madonna and the like so my perspective is definitely skewed. Plus Im way fucking older and holy shit probably way more like my dad than I thought. But seriously from the perspective of a 50 yo I really don't have a way of measuring it. I hear a lot of artists names thrown around just like I used to hear Madonna and Michael Jackson but I have less sense than before as to how big these artists are on an overall cultural level.

Hoy is a youngster with an eye on what the kids consider hip and cool. Id like to hear his perspective.

revbob
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 13032
Joined: 16 Jun 2008, 12:31pm
Location: The Frozen Tundra

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by revbob »

Heston wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:17pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:14pm
revbob wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:05pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:53am

That gay black cowboy song that's like a minute and a half long being the biggest thing of 2019 shows we can still have weird hits. Probably not as prevalent now, but social media has a way to circumvent a lot of industry pull today that wasn't a thing back then.
But the reach of hit songs is much less than it once was. The structure of mainstream is much smaller than it once was, as the industry is guided more by genre and delivery method now. Back in 1980, it was radio and only radio, and Top 40 reached a larger percentage. Today, it's easy to be a heavy consumer of music and never sniff the mainstream. (Television is the same way.) We'll never have huge star like Michael Jackson or Madonna or the Beatles again. The landscape just isn't conducive to that kind of mass appeal.
I see what you mean but arent there plenty of "new" mega artists right now, not strictly in the rock realm but more pop and/or hip hop.
That capture the public's imagination in a way that even non-music fans couldn't help knowing about Elvis or the Beatles. There are still artists that sell millions—the mainstream industry is wholly reliant on a few mega sellers at the expense of a wider team—but the notion of a huge figure that commands attention from music fans and non- alike, nah.
Correct. There are people who shift millions of units that I've never even heard of.
See that's tended to be my default all along. I hear some of them because I have kids but couldn't identify a song from one or another to save my life.

matedog
User avatar
Purveyor of Hoyistic Thought
Posts: 21948
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: 1995

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by matedog »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 12:05pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:53am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:30am
gkbill wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 11:18am
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 9:47am


That was my thought. It's a solid song, and it being a hit was very reflective of the era when all kinds of unconventional songs somehow found traction in the charts.
Hello,

It strikes me that unconventional songs having shots at wide-spread exposure and appeal is a good thing. Thus, please understand me when I say I miss that era.
Yep, completely (even tho I was too young and unexposed to experience it at the time). The trauma experienced within the record industry provided a rare opportunity, and one that won't come around again because the structure is utterly fragmented now.
That gay black cowboy song that's like a minute and a half long being the biggest thing of 2019 shows we can still have weird hits. Probably not as prevalent now, but social media has a way to circumvent a lot of industry pull today that wasn't a thing back then.
But the reach of hit songs is much less than it once was. The structure of mainstream is much smaller than it once was, as the industry is guided more by genre and delivery method now. Back in 1980, it was radio and only radio, and Top 40 reached a larger percentage. Today, it's easy to be a heavy consumer of music and never sniff the mainstream. (Television is the same way.) We'll never have huge star like Michael Jackson or Madonna or the Beatles again. The landscape just isn't conducive to that kind of mass appeal.
Beyonce perhaps doesn't count as her rise started in the late 90s, but I'd say Taylor Swift is as big a star as Madonna.
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 89301
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Dr. Medulla »

matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:29pm
Beyonce perhaps doesn't count as her rise started in the late 90s, but I'd say Taylor Swift is as big a star as Madonna.
I'm skeptical. Madonna was a cultural force at her peak, drawing all kinds of mainstream news coverage and think pieces. I'd say Beyonce has a greater claim, tho even there I question how large a figure she cuts for the mass.
Back off, or I'll blow the roof off—with sound!

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Woody Allen
Posts: 53520
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Wolter »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:39pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:29pm
Beyonce perhaps doesn't count as her rise started in the late 90s, but I'd say Taylor Swift is as big a star as Madonna.
I'm skeptical. Madonna was a cultural force at her peak, drawing all kinds of mainstream news coverage and think pieces. I'd say Beyonce has a greater claim, tho even there I question how large a figure she cuts for the mass.
I do not in any way think Taylor Swift is close to as famous as Madonna at her peak. Beyoncé...maybe? But even then I don’t think so. Much closer though.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

gkbill
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 2029
Joined: 23 Jun 2008, 9:21pm

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by gkbill »

Wolter wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:54pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:39pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:29pm
Beyonce perhaps doesn't count as her rise started in the late 90s, but I'd say Taylor Swift is as big a star as Madonna.
I'm skeptical. Madonna was a cultural force at her peak, drawing all kinds of mainstream news coverage and think pieces. I'd say Beyonce has a greater claim, tho even there I question how large a figure she cuts for the mass.
I do not in any way think Taylor Swift is close to as famous as Madonna at her peak. Beyoncé...maybe? But even then I don’t think so. Much closer though.
Hello,

Madonna had a large social impact for a while.

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 33643
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Heston »

Wolter wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:54pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:39pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:29pm
Beyonce perhaps doesn't count as her rise started in the late 90s, but I'd say Taylor Swift is as big a star as Madonna.
I'm skeptical. Madonna was a cultural force at her peak, drawing all kinds of mainstream news coverage and think pieces. I'd say Beyonce has a greater claim, tho even there I question how large a figure she cuts for the mass.
I do not in any way think Taylor Swift is close to as famous as Madonna at her peak. Beyoncé...maybe? But even then I don’t think so. Much closer though.
Agreed. I only really know of Taylor Swift through my daughter, I would be struggling to name many songs otherwise. And now I think about It, I'm not even sure what she looks like. I've seen a video or two but would probably struggle to pick her out in an identity parade.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Mimi
User avatar
Goddess of the Underworld
Posts: 6278
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:36pm
Location: Down in the pit

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Mimi »

gkbill wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:07pm
Wolter wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:54pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:39pm
matedog wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 1:29pm
Beyonce perhaps doesn't count as her rise started in the late 90s, but I'd say Taylor Swift is as big a star as Madonna.
I'm skeptical. Madonna was a cultural force at her peak, drawing all kinds of mainstream news coverage and think pieces. I'd say Beyonce has a greater claim, tho even there I question how large a figure she cuts for the mass.
I do not in any way think Taylor Swift is close to as famous as Madonna at her peak. Beyoncé...maybe? But even then I don’t think so. Much closer though.
Hello,

Madonna had a large social impact for a while.
Thank you. I just came here to say the same thing. Madonna was a tsunami; Taylor Swift an F5 tornado. Madonna owned the 80s and was a cultural phenomena that we haven't seen since. Taylor is merely a pop star.

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 89301
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Put another way, Madonna represented and encouraged discourse about the nature of American life in the 80s. She was said to represent the very complicated legacy of second-wave feminism and post-sexual revolution life, as well as Reagan era hedonism and materialism. I struggle to think of any musician now who can credibly play that role. And it's not, I maintain, because Madonna was such a special personality—tho she was that—but the nature of the media was a funnel that allowed her to become a centralized figure. Our relationship with media now is (I keep using this word) fragmented that people can't command the same kind of attention, certainly not for the same length of time.
Back off, or I'll blow the roof off—with sound!

Wolter
User avatar
Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Woody Allen
Posts: 53520
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Wolter »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:28pm
Put another way, Madonna represented and encouraged discourse about the nature of American life in the 80s. She was said to represent the very complicated legacy of second-wave feminism and post-sexual revolution life, as well as Reagan era hedonism and materialism. I struggle to think of any musician now who can credibly play that role. And it's not, I maintain, because Madonna was such a special personality—tho she was that—but the nature of the media was a funnel that allowed her to become a centralized figure. Our relationship with media now is (I keep using this word) fragmented that people can't command the same kind of attention, certainly not for the same length of time.
Right. It’s no judgment on who is more talented or more charismatic. It’s just the circumstances. A group 10 times as talented and willing to experiment as the Beatles were in the 60s simply could not have the same impact today because pop culture just isn’t the monoculture it was then.
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson

"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 89301
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Wolter wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:35pm
A group 10 times as talented and willing to experiment as the Beatles were in the 60s simply could not have the same impact today because pop culture just isn’t the monoculture it was then.
That question came up not long ago when that movie came out about the guy time travelling or something to a world where only he knew the songs of the Beatles and introduced them to that world to great acclaim (sorry, never actually saw the movie). My nephew, a Beatles fan, asked me whether I though the Beatles and their music could command the attention of people today as they did in the 60s. Not a fucking chance. Genius is contextual. We hate to think that, but the individual human is not bigger than their historical context. We properly appreciate the Beatles for having the will and ability to dramatically influence their times, but they also needed their times to be that post-50s repressive hangover mixed with narcissistic young people who had lots of cash. That's the cardinal rule of any historian—the when matters as much as the who and where.
Back off, or I'll blow the roof off—with sound!

gkbill
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 2029
Joined: 23 Jun 2008, 9:21pm

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by gkbill »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:43pm
Wolter wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:35pm
A group 10 times as talented and willing to experiment as the Beatles were in the 60s simply could not have the same impact today because pop culture just isn’t the monoculture it was then.
That question came up not long ago when that movie came out about the guy time travelling or something to a world where only he knew the songs of the Beatles and introduced them to that world to great acclaim (sorry, never actually saw the movie). My nephew, a Beatles fan, asked me whether I though the Beatles and their music could command the attention of people today as they did in the 60s. Not a fucking chance. Genius is contextual. We hate to think that, but the individual human is not bigger than their historical context. We properly appreciate the Beatles for having the will and ability to dramatically influence their times, but they also needed their times to be that post-50s repressive hangover mixed with narcissistic young people who had lots of cash. That's the cardinal rule of any historian—the when matters as much as the who and where.
Hello,

Damn! This has gotten a lot deeper than "Vote for Lene Lovich!".

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 89301
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia

Re: The Ultimate Women's Album - Side 1 Track 2 Vote - Round 2

Post by Dr. Medulla »

gkbill wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:50pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:43pm
Wolter wrote:
13 Jul 2020, 2:35pm
A group 10 times as talented and willing to experiment as the Beatles were in the 60s simply could not have the same impact today because pop culture just isn’t the monoculture it was then.
That question came up not long ago when that movie came out about the guy time travelling or something to a world where only he knew the songs of the Beatles and introduced them to that world to great acclaim (sorry, never actually saw the movie). My nephew, a Beatles fan, asked me whether I though the Beatles and their music could command the attention of people today as they did in the 60s. Not a fucking chance. Genius is contextual. We hate to think that, but the individual human is not bigger than their historical context. We properly appreciate the Beatles for having the will and ability to dramatically influence their times, but they also needed their times to be that post-50s repressive hangover mixed with narcissistic young people who had lots of cash. That's the cardinal rule of any historian—the when matters as much as the who and where.
Hello,

Damn! This has gotten a lot deeper than "Vote for Lene Lovich!".
Small bursts of more intellectual discourse to justify the 95% of GNDA.
Back off, or I'll blow the roof off—with sound!

Post Reply