Gunnar & Matthew...Lightning Strikes Twice

[Saint John]

The JETS rock! (if you can get past the fact that the one girl sings with a lisp).

My girlfriend bought me a Sansa Sandisk and it came loaded with about 300 songs from various eras. Well, under the "80's" genre Cross My Broken Heart by The Jets was on there and it really took me back. I hadn't heard that song in a very long time. Because of that, I decided to start youtubing all of their other music. Great stuff.

[DrFU]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

[Don]

The JETS rock! (if you can get past the fact that the one girl sings with a lisp).

My girlfriend bought me a Sansa Sandisk and it came loaded with about 300 songs from various eras. Well, under the "80's" genre Cross My Broken Heart by The Jets was on there and it really took me back. I hadn't heard that song in a very long time. Because of that, I decided to start youtubing all of their other music. Great stuff.

That was the time of that whole Latin /Asian Islander/ mixed race thing vibe going on back then. Sheila E, El Debarge and more. There were all these artists outside of the usual White/ Black groups that had dominated the charts before then.

[Saint John]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

I'm a believer that things generally come out in the wash, and the fact that the vast majority of those bands, some after 20 or 25 years, have neither a hit nor a following speaks volumes. Sorry, but I can't bury my head in the sand and wonder why these guys never got a "break." The fact remains, they just weren't good enough to warrant one.

[Saint John]

The JETS rock! (if you can get past the fact that the one girl sings with a lisp).

My girlfriend bought me a Sansa Sandisk and it came loaded with about 300 songs from various eras. Well, under the "80's" genre Cross My Broken Heart by The Jets was on there and it really took me back. I hadn't heard that song in a very long time. Because of that, I decided to start youtubing all of their other music. Great stuff.

That was the time of that whole Latin /Asian Islander/ mixed race thing vibe going on back then. Sheila E, El Debarge and more. There were all these artists outside of the usual White/ Black groups that had dominated the charts before then.

I loved that music back in the day and I still do. I think the roots of the majority of that music, "freestyle," came out of Miami and New York. Really cool, feel good club music.

[kgdjpubs]

Does this mean picky eaters are lazy, too? I have no interest in brie. I don't see how that's relevant to my personal productivity.

no, I'd use the following comparison...

Say person A loves ribeye. However, they have no interest in trying ribeye prepared with new way X with these ingredients (even though there is nothing in the ingredient list that they dislike). It wouldn't be a big change from what they are used to, but it requires trying something new and they see no reason to do so. They are satisfied with what they have as is.
Kevin <-- raises hand for picky eaters club

No, no... it's semi-on par. It's cheese. I like cheese. I just don't have the interest in trying every type of cheese that exists to see what my opinion of it is. There's a lot of cheese out there. I may like brie. I may not. But the lack of affiliation with brie is not enough impetus for me to seek brie out to clear up the matter. There may come a time when I am offered brie in a moment where I'm open to it. But if brie is being shoved in my face against my wishes I'm not going to give it a chance. Everyone gets to discover cheese, and taste in bands, in their own time and how they wish. My love of cheese is in no way threatened as less knowledgeable if someone thinks it's myopic that I haven't sampled their roquefort.

It's not like we're all on this site praising Velveeta (Bieber for comparison) and pretending cheddar doesn't exist.

saying that you like cheese and debating about different types of cheese is relevant. Talking about your eating habits and casually mentioning cheese isn't necessarily the same thing. I have no idea what your eating preferences are or are not, and therefore what you like to eat, don't like to eat, prefer to suck on, think this sucks, devour, nibble or otherwise consume by any other method not previously mentioned. That would be similar to saying you like music, and someone suggesting you try genre X without any presumption of what appeals to you. That is a shot in the dark--this would be slightly closer to attempting to be on target.

Your appearance on a (mostly) Journey forum would suggest a generalized style of preferred music, of which recommendations can be made. Now, being force-fed different bands (or brands in the cheeseworld) against your will would likely suggest a close-mindedness and general disregard of said item, but I don't think anyone here is forcing you to try any band. We're just trying to open your mind and broaden your horizons.

btw...somewhat off topic, but does anybody else see the irony of using a discussion that is literally about types of cheese as a metaphor of talking about Journey's music, which has been called cheesy by more than one critic?

[kgdjpubs]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

I'm a believer that things generally come out in the wash, and the fact that the vast majority of those bands, some after 20 or 25 years, have neither a hit nor a following speaks volumes. Sorry, but I can't bury my head in the sand and wonder why these guys never got a "break." The fact remains, they just weren't good enough to warrant one.

and Britney Spears, New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys and others were somehow considered worth getting that "break"? Musical ability is about the LAST thing one looks for in finding new talent these days. Having "the look" and ability to sell that talent is much more relevant.

[Jana]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

I'm a believer that things generally come out in the wash, and the fact that the vast majority of those bands, some after 20 or 25 years, have neither a hit nor a following speaks volumes. Sorry, but I can't bury my head in the sand and wonder why these guys never got a "break." The fact remains, they just weren't good enough to warrant one.

I agree with you.

[Jana]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

I'm a believer that things generally come out in the wash, and the fact that the vast majority of those bands, some after 20 or 25 years, have neither a hit nor a following speaks volumes. Sorry, but I can't bury my head in the sand and wonder why these guys never got a "break." The fact remains, they just weren't good enough to warrant one.

and Britney Spears, New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys and others were somehow considered worth getting that "break"? Musical ability is about the LAST thing one looks for in finding new talent these days. Having "the look" and ability to sell that talent is much more relevant.

Pop is different from rock. Pop is about a team of people surrounding those acts that produce and write or co-write them some catchy hook-driven dance pop songs and market them a certain way re look. Rock is a whole different ballgame and, for the most part, age group. Apples to oranges. Youre better off to compare successful melodic rock groups to the melodic rock groups that don't make it big or have a small following.

[Saint John]

and Britney Spears, New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys and others were somehow considered worth getting that "break"? Musical ability is about the LAST thing one looks for in finding new talent these days. Having "the look" and ability to sell that talent is much more relevant.

Apples and oranges, amigo. The majority of the bands I was referring to didn't warrant a look or gather a following when their type of music was popular and the scene was melodic-friendly. There's gotta be a reason for that, wouldn't you say?

[Rhiannon]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

I'm a believer that things generally come out in the wash, and the fact that the vast majority of those bands, some after 20 or 25 years, have neither a hit nor a following speaks volumes. Sorry, but I can't bury my head in the sand and wonder why these guys never got a "break." The fact remains, they just weren't good enough to warrant one.

If you operate under the delusion that all musicians' goal is to be uber famous celebrities. Fact is, a good many artists (even more today with our intantaneous connectivity) choose to not chase that "break". Which I presume is the general big label/massive tour/world renowned/fame & fortune equated with most "successful" acts.

They choose instead to not compromise their art (let us not forget music is and should always be art and not a brand name) and retain their freedom by pursing avenues of production/performance that cultivate that. Then it becomes a matter of absolute talent across the board. And there's successful fame talent and crap, and there's obscure talent and crap. The lack of perceived success is not a marker for good music.

It's music for the love of it.

[Jana]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

I'm a believer that things generally come out in the wash, and the fact that the vast majority of those bands, some after 20 or 25 years, have neither a hit nor a following speaks volumes. Sorry, but I can't bury my head in the sand and wonder why these guys never got a "break." The fact remains, they just weren't good enough to warrant one.

If you operate under the delusion that all musicians' goal is to be uber famous celebrities. Fact is, a good many artists (even more today with our intantaneous connectivity) choose to not chase that "break". Which I presume is the general big label/massive tour/world renowned/fame & fortune equated with most "successful" acts.

They choose instead to not compromise their art (let us not forget music is and should always be art and not a brand name) and retain their freedom by pursing avenues of production/performance that cultivate that. Then it becomes a matter of absolute talent across the board. And there's successful fame talent and crap, and there's obscure talent and crap. The lack of perceived success is not a marker for good music.

It's music for the love of it.

I agree with a lot of what you said, Rhi, but all bands want to be successful to a degree. Maybe not uber successful and all that comes with it. Tears for Fears hated the fame and rebelled against writing another album in the same vein as Songs From the Big Chair just to be multi-platinum and proceeded on doing what they wanted for their artistic growth. But without songs that hit the radio you don't get a record deal next time to even get your music out there. There's some quality albums that are put out independently, but that's in the minority not the majority. Most are uneven or appeal to a smaller type audience, which is fine. It's not easy to write an album that is solid all the way through. That's why only so many bands hit it big and stay there for a while or even for decades, if lucky. The record industry is a mess anymore, anyway.

[kgdjpubs]

and Britney Spears, New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys and others were somehow considered worth getting that "break"? Musical ability is about the LAST thing one looks for in finding new talent these days. Having "the look" and ability to sell that talent is much more relevant.

Apples and oranges, amigo. The majority of the bands I was referring to didn't warrant a look or gather a following when their type of music was popular and the scene was melodic-friendly. There's gotta be a reason for that, wouldn't you say?

I don't disagree with that point at all within the exception of the fact that management and promotion has more to do with it than songs. Luck plays a factor in there also, and timing most of all. I can name you 15 bands with better playing, singing and songs than the pick-your-random-hair-metal band that got released in the late 80s/early 90s--and I'm talking about the ones that sold gold and platinum records.

At the same time, if Journey had released Infinity in 1996 as their first album, and released Escape in 2001, it would have sold about 5-10k copies like most every melodic rock band since has done--which was the original point of the debate. Quality doesn't matter once the radio changed what it would play. Good stuff is still out there, but nobody pays attention to it.

[Saint John]

If you operate under the delusion that all musicians' goal is to be uber famous celebrities. Fact is, a good many artists (even more today with our intantaneous connectivity) choose to not chase that "break". Which I presume is the general big label/massive tour/world renowned/fame & fortune equated with most "successful" acts.

They choose instead to not compromise their art (let us not forget music is and should always be art and not a brand name) and retain their freedom by pursing avenues of production/performance that cultivate that. Then it becomes a matter of absolute talent across the board. And there's successful fame talent and crap, and there's obscure talent and crap. The lack of perceived success is not a marker for good music.

It's music for the love of it.

Good post. Too bad it's chock full of bullshit.

[Jana]

If you operate under the delusion that all musicians' goal is to be uber famous celebrities. Fact is, a good many artists (even more today with our intantaneous connectivity) choose to not chase that "break". Which I presume is the general big label/massive tour/world renowned/fame & fortune equated with most "successful" acts.

They choose instead to not compromise their art (let us not forget music is and should always be art and not a brand name) and retain their freedom by pursing avenues of production/performance that cultivate that. Then it becomes a matter of absolute talent across the board. And there's successful fame talent and crap, and there's obscure talent and crap. The lack of perceived success is not a marker for good music.

It's music for the love of it.

Good post. Too bad it's chock full of bullshit.

Most bands when they start out do want success and a large fanbase that loves their music. Financial security is nothing to sneeze at and not playing your whole life to small, half-filled bars or having to be on the road year after year, not because you want to, but because it's to pay the bills. Financial success early on actually enables acts to march to their own beat as they age, like Steve Smith and Gregg Rollie. Their early success set them financially and when it wasn't fun any more they could step back and follow their heart artistically, as the years go on, in a low-key way.

[Rhiannon]

Guys, just trying to illustrate "success" is not a formula and neither is talent. There are means to financial security and accomplishment that also cater to those artists that wish to maintain independence. And those artists aren't always shitbands.

[kgdjpubs]

one more point on this "if they were good enough, they would have been more popular" debate....

how do you account for an album doing gangbusters in one country, but either doing poorly (or not even getting released) somewhere else. Music is pretty universal, and I've found that I can listen to an album written by a bunch of Brits or Aussies or Germans and it appeals to me just as much as a band based out of the US. For a good example, take Def Leppard's Pyromania. It was a hit in the US, and did nothing in the UK. The follow-up, Hysteria, did well in both places.

The next album proved the Brits loved Def Leppard as much as we did, so it's not like they were writing Anti-UK songs or something. The album did well here, so it's obvious there was some good song. The people aren't that different, so it has to boil down to timing and promotion, right?


Even better example would be the one and only Sherriff album. It was released around 1981 and the single went #1 in most countries other than the US. Seven years later, a Las Vegas DJ starts playing the song, and it gets so much a response that it leads to the single being reissued--despite the fact that the band disbanded years before. The single goes to #1 in the US this time. The song? When I'm With You. Not all that different to a bunch of ballads that topped the charts at the original time of release. That one boils down EXCLUSIVELY to promotion.

[Jana]

Guys, just trying to illustrate "success" is not a formula and neither is talent. There are means to financial security and accomplishment that also cater to those artists that wish to maintain independence. And those artists aren't always shitbands.

Absolutely. I never meant to imply 100 percent bands that never made it big are shit. I have favorites that aren't well-known, but know it is hard for them to continue to put out music if it doesn't sell enough to make it profitable to go through the recording process. I always support them.

[S2M]

one more point on this "if they were good enough, they would have been more popular" debate....

how do you account for an album doing gangbusters in one country, but either doing poorly (or not even getting released) somewhere else. Music is pretty universal, and I've found that I can listen to an album written by a bunch of Brits or Aussies or Germans and it appeals to me just as much as a band based out of the US. For a good example, take Def Leppard's Pyromania. It was a hit in the US, and did nothing in the UK. The follow-up, Hysteria, did well in both places.

The next album proved the Brits loved Def Leppard as much as we did, so it's not like they were writing Anti-UK songs or something. The album did well here, so it's obvious there was some good song. The people aren't that different, so it has to boil down to timing and promotion, right?


Even better example would be the one and only Sherriff album. It was released around 1981 and the single went #1 in most countries other than the US. Seven years later, a Las Vegas DJ starts playing the song, and it gets so much a response that it leads to the single being reissued--despite the fact that the band disbanded years before. The single goes to #1 in the US this time. The song? When I'm With You. Not all that different to a bunch of ballads that topped the charts at the original time of release. That one boils down EXCLUSIVELY to promotion.

Yep....and once Curci saw that - he changed the name to Alias and the rest is history......

[kgdjpubs]

one more point on this "if they were good enough, they would have been more popular" debate....

how do you account for an album doing gangbusters in one country, but either doing poorly (or not even getting released) somewhere else. Music is pretty universal, and I've found that I can listen to an album written by a bunch of Brits or Aussies or Germans and it appeals to me just as much as a band based out of the US. For a good example, take Def Leppard's Pyromania. It was a hit in the US, and did nothing in the UK. The follow-up, Hysteria, did well in both places.

The next album proved the Brits loved Def Leppard as much as we did, so it's not like they were writing Anti-UK songs or something. The album did well here, so it's obvious there was some good song. The people aren't that different, so it has to boil down to timing and promotion, right?


Even better example would be the one and only Sherriff album. It was released around 1981 and the single went #1 in most countries other than the US. Seven years later, a Las Vegas DJ starts playing the song, and it gets so much a response that it leads to the single being reissued--despite the fact that the band disbanded years before. The single goes to #1 in the US this time. The song? When I'm With You. Not all that different to a bunch of ballads that topped the charts at the original time of release. That one boils down EXCLUSIVELY to promotion.

Yep....and once Curci saw that - he changed the name to Alias and the rest is history......

well, Alias (which was singer Freddy Curci and DeMarchi of Sherriff plus new people) was already in formation by that time, but generally, Alias had a much easier road from that point forward as they had already had a "hit" very recently.

[Deb]

#1 Mr Big weren't good when they were good.
#2 Firefest is laughable. Mediocre talent and hardly worth traveling across the Atlantic.
#3 Those bands do well in Europe because that's all Europe gets. Get the bigger, better bands in Europe and the likes of Mr. Big would be playing in the park for free with Soto.
#4 You're right, the fests here that you mentioned suck assholes.

Dan-O, you persist in conflating popularity with talent ...

And you are wrong.

I'm a believer that things generally come out in the wash, and the fact that the vast majority of those bands, some after 20 or 25 years, have neither a hit nor a following speaks volumes. Sorry, but I can't bury my head in the sand and wonder why these guys never got a "break." The fact remains, they just weren't good enough to warrant one.

Puh-lease, being good enough has very little to do with it, you think Justin Beiber is good enough to warrant a break? Even though he's a Canadian boy, Mr Big has more talent in one of their kneecap's then Beiber does. His talent comes from the people around him (and his haircut ). But yet his new single has 3 million youtube hits since friday?? Nope people aren't spoon fed in North America at all. Having the freedom of creativity and ability to make a living at it for 25 years says something too. I'm just glad that a couple of my faves have the creativity and freedom to put out whatever music they want and still make a living at it after 25 years. Break or no break.

PS: Great pic of you and your boy, Fufu! Gorgeous as always darlin.

[Saint John]

Puh-lease, being good enough has very little to do with it, you think Justin Beiber is good enough to warrant a break? Even though he's a Canadian boy, Mr Big has more talent in one of their kneecap's then Beiber does. His talent comes from the people around him (and his haircut ). But yet his new single has 3 million youtube hits since friday?? Nope people aren't spoon fed in North America at all. Having the freedom of creativity and ability to make a living at it for 25 years says something too. I'm just glad that a couple of my faves have the creativity and freedom to put out whatever music they want and still make a living at it after 25 years. Break or no break.

You, too, are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not talking about today's music scene. I'm talking about a collection of artists that couldn't make it in the mid and late 80's. You know, the time when anybody with a scintilla of talent and hair below their shoulders made it. Heck, even Mr. Big scored a monster hit, but I wasn't really talking about them, anyway.

You guys and gals can continue with the ad nauseum excuses, but the fact remains that these B-side artists are worshiped and revered here because you've had access to them and/or their slide into obscurity has allowed for signed CDs, hugs, pictures and other general forms of stalking that you really can't get from the bigger acts. And I love how insignificance is being masked as "creativity and freedom." Like it's something that they've chosen.

[DrFU]

Puh-lease, being good enough has very little to do with it, you think Justin Beiber is good enough to warrant a break? Even though he's a Canadian boy, Mr Big has more talent in one of their kneecap's then Beiber does. His talent comes from the people around him (and his haircut ). But yet his new single has 3 million youtube hits since friday?? Nope people aren't spoon fed in North America at all. Having the freedom of creativity and ability to make a living at it for 25 years says something too. I'm just glad that a couple of my faves have the creativity and freedom to put out whatever music they want and still make a living at it after 25 years. Break or no break.

PS: Great pic of you and your boy, Fufu! Gorgeous as always darlin.

Thx, Deb; hiking in the Rockies this weekend; viewing the aspen show. I had a great time, even though 300 million other people weren't there with me authorizing it as being something good that it was okay for me to enjoy.

[Ehwmatt]

You guys and gals can continue with the ad nauseum excuses, but the fact remains that these B-side artists are worshiped and revered here because you've had access to them and/or their slide into obscurity has allowed for signed CDs, hugs, pictures and other general forms of stalking that you really can't get from the bigger acts. And I love how insignificance is being masked as "creativity and freedom." Like it's something that they've chosen.

lol, I don't agree with everything you say in this general category, but there's quite a nugget of truth in this bolded statement.

[S2M]

I can't believe SJ is being so Obtuse....in order the get a 'hit' (a point you seem intent on ramming down our throats) a band needs exposure, radio play and/or a video in on a huge outlet - like MTV or VH-1....it has NOTHING to do with talent, or 'obscurity' (as k-pubs stated). When the whimsical tastes of the music listening public change, due to the powers that be seeing something 'new' on the horizon that they can exploit and become rich over, the previous 'in thang' (in this case melodic rock, sleaze, glam, hair bands....etc) is pushed aside. and as K-pubs further stated - there hasn't been an industry-wide 86 of a whole genre since disco. Not only does music satisfy the ears, but it defines the current generation. It influences EVERY aspect of culture...whether it is parachute pants, madonna bracelets, headbands, ripped jeans, or hairstyles....Currently, the music industry is in a cycle of making that quick goldmine....that one hit single that can rake in the cash. If they are lucky, two hit singles....I guarantee you no act that is out now will be still relevant in 4 years....they may have an album out to satisfy a contract, but on top of the charts will be a thing of the past....gone are the days of a group putting out 25 albums over 30 years....The industry has programmed the public into being a fickle entity that is very easy to influence and control into liking whatever the radio plays.....

[Rocker Chic]

btw...somewhat off topic, but does anybody else see the irony of using a discussion that is literally about types of cheese as a metaphor of talking about Journey's music, which has been called cheesy by more than one critic?

What is truly scary is that I witnessed fans at a Journey concert where those in the 1st & 2nd rows (I was in the 3rd) were holding up, passing around, and posing with a jar of Cheez Whiz... And behaving quite excitedly about it!

[Rocker Chic]

...I had a great time, even though 300 million other people weren't there with me authorizing it as being something good that it was okay for me to enjoy.

I wish there was a "LIKE" button here!

[Rhiannon]

btw...somewhat off topic, but does anybody else see the irony of using a discussion that is literally about types of cheese as a metaphor of talking about Journey's music, which has been called cheesy by more than one critic?

What is truly scary is that I witnessed fans at a Journey concert where those in the 1st & 2nd rows (I was in the 3rd) were holding up, passing around, and posing with a jar of Cheez Whiz... And behaving quite excitedly about it!

That's hilariously ironic.
(The cheese metaphor was intentional, by the way, but not necessarily directed at any band/individual in totality.)

[Deb]

Puh-lease, being good enough has very little to do with it, you think Justin Beiber is good enough to warrant a break? Even though he's a Canadian boy, Mr Big has more talent in one of their kneecap's then Beiber does. His talent comes from the people around him (and his haircut ). But yet his new single has 3 million youtube hits since friday?? Nope people aren't spoon fed in North America at all. Having the freedom of creativity and ability to make a living at it for 25 years says something too. I'm just glad that a couple of my faves have the creativity and freedom to put out whatever music they want and still make a living at it after 25 years. Break or no break.

You, too, are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not talking about today's music scene. I'm talking about a collection of artists that couldn't make it in the mid and late 80's. You know, the time when anybody with a scintilla of talent and hair below their shoulders made it. Heck, even Mr. Big scored a monster hit, but I wasn't really talking about them, anyway.

You guys and gals can continue with the ad nauseum excuses, but the fact remains that these B-side artists are worshiped and revered here because you've had access to them and/or their slide into obscurity has allowed for signed CDs, hugs, pictures and other general forms of stalking that you really can't get from the bigger acts. And I love how insignificance is being masked as "creativity and freedom." Like it's something that they've chosen.

Maybe for some, but I was into all 3 of my faves vocals/music long before I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to meet each.....ok, Soto, maybe only a year.....but it's not like I met them then became an instant fan of their music. Saying that, finding out that all 3 are very down to earth and fan friendly was great to see. And have never met Mr Big or seen them live, but yet they are easily one of my favorite bands.....popular or not. Stats/popularity/radio hits have zero to do with how I chose what music I like. Hell if I hadn't delved into Mr Big's back catalogue and just went on their radio hit To Be With You, I probably wouldn't still be a fan today. And I know exactly who you were talking about, that's why I said break or no break, ya gotta be doing something right to be able to make a living at something you love doing for over 25 years. But nice try.

[Pelata]

You, too, are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not talking about today's music scene. I'm talking about a collection of artists that couldn't make it in the mid and late 80's. You know, the time when anybody with a scintilla of talent and hair below their shoulders made it. Heck, even Mr. Big scored a monster hit, but I wasn't really talking about them, anyway.

Even back then, there was scene-flooding. People can't buy everything. Just because Mr. Big did not have as many hits as Motley Crue doesn't speak to Crue's talent level over Mr. Big as much as it speaks to timing, radio/TV presence, competition and (overall) luck. Having a hit is mostly luck and has almost nothing to do with the level of talent within the band.