Have you even considered the possibility that some musicians are artists rather than glory-hunters?

Most people want to do the best they can and go as far as they can. I think every artist has the intention of making it in the mainstream. Some may be happy either way but I really don't think any low key artist can say hand on heart that they don't want to be successful.

Yeah but recognition is a pleasant after-thought. Most musicians are making music because they enjoy performing, not because they want success.

Oh come on.

Every artist wants to do great but not all of them aim for the charts. It's complete bull to say that they do. Take a look at some of the Bloodhound Gang's back catalogue. Do you honestly think singles like I Wish I Was Queer So I Could Get Chicks were designed with heavy mainstream radioplay in mind?

They have sold six million albums. Six million. Your not a one hit wonder just because you have only had one hit single. It's an absurd notion. It takes a combination of different things to be a one hit wonder.

Let's take Trent Reznor as an example. One of the finest artists of his generation who is very successful at what he does.

Do you think he is aiming for the charts?

Not a chance.

and a lot of musicians want to go as big as they can possibly get. Why play for a pub with 100 people when you can play to over 10,000 at Wembley?

6 million may not be a flop ... but your definition is stupid. Using your definition Steve Brookstein wasn't a one hit wonder.

Steve Brookstein wasn't a musician so that's a pointless comparison anyway.

He was an artist who fell out with Simon because he couldn't write and release his album, instead it had to be covers.

Most artists make a living out of performing, and money comes hand in hand with success.

I'm loving all your comments here, considering I have not actually given you a definition yet, only what a one hit wonder isin't.

Seriously, what a shocking comparison. Ditto for the Wembley/Pub stuff.

Not quiet sure what to do with you my man.

Beat me to it;P

What your failing to realise though is that there are different types of success.

Pink Floyd are one of the biggest selling and one of the most critically acclaimed bands in the world. Using your definition they are almost a one hit wonder, having just two charting singles - Money and Brick In The Wall II. They certainly failed at the ol' aiming for the charts, but were they a faliure of a band? Hell no.

This:P

Its natural to assume that you think what is a one hit wonder is the direct opposite to what isn't.

Yes, there are varying degrees of success and Pink Floyd is a crap example to use because they shifted a hell of a lot of albums.

Wut, man?


No, that's exactly what makes them such a good example to use. They shifted a lot of albums. They put on amazing live shows. They had incredible longevity. Acts like these are thus immune from one hit wonder status.

Using your very strict definition of what a one hit wonder is, Pink Floyd would be regarded as one hit wonders if it were not for Brick In The Wall II.

Sorry, but I couldn't even process that thought with a straight face, let alone type it.

It's simply not as strict as 1 hit = 1 hit wonder. Other things need to be taken into consideration.

I'm sorry but what utter bollocks. Using that thinking means the likes of Amy Winehouse is a complete failure.

As you said later in the post there are other things to consider- huge album sales but poor singles doesn't doesn't equal one hit wonder. Far from it.

And I never had a strict definition. You've got selected reading where the definition I did give is concerned anyway.

Pink Floyd's career is over and thus is subject to overall critical and commercial evaluation. The same can't be said for Amy Winehouse.

Huge album sales but poor singles doesn't doesn't equal one hit wonder. Far from it. Your right. That was my only point. That you have to use some common sense and rational thinking to judge a one hit wonder. In which case The Bloodhound Gang are certainly not one hit wonders, which is what you said.

This is the ****.

But 6m albums weren't born in the UK though were they? Would you consider The Nolans a one hit wonder or a success considering they were huge in Japan? BHG aren't big in the UK, they never have been, and as we live in the UK I think its fair to evaluate bands as a one hit wonder based on their success here.

On what basis are Bloodhound Gang not big in the UK? Their albums have always sold steady in the UK, they do a lot of shows in the UK, they have a lot of fans in the UK, they are well known throughout all the alternative rock mediums in the UK, just like they are in the U.S.

The fact that one of their songs saw fit to break into the charts in a big way hardly makes them a one hit wonder automatically.

Besides which The Ballad of Chasey Lain also charted.

Oops.

... at 15. Hardly an earth shattering success. Some people have been dropped for less. they have a cult following in the UK, they are big in certain circles but not on the whole. If we're talking about one hit wonders then its people in the mainstream, otherwise actual one hit wonders are very few and far between. The majority of people mentioned in this thread are still performing.

It was still a charting single though. Meaning they had two charting singles. Meaning they are not a one hit wonder band. Unless there is a certain magic number in the charts you need to reach?

I wouldn't call Bloodhound Gang's following in the UK as being 'cult' really anymore than I would of them in the U.S. They are well known if you are into that type of music. Besides which you just provided an argument against yourself, unless I'm mistaken. Only people in the mainstream can be one hit wonders? And The Bloodhound Gang are not mainstream. So ...

Guide to TiBB, volume 4, chapter 6, verse 2:
- Tom cannot accept he was wrong, so will instead argue tooth and nail about irrelevant ****e to cover it up.

The Nolans. Big in Japan, baby.

Well again, most one hit wonders are one hit wonders because their second single charted poorly. So if the single did chart in the top 100 then that no longer makes them a one hit wonder. That means most in this thread are not one hit wonders.

You have to be into that type of music to know who they are. Therefore you're going against what you said earlier in the thread, that most know who they are anyway. And no I'm not arguing against myself, they were once in the mainstream, they aren't anymore. If we're judging one hit wonders it is off whether they're commercially successful or not, because as I say a lot of the artists in this thread are still performing!

Verse 3: Shaun cannot accept a differing opinion and thinks he's right about everything. Instead, when someone makes a shred of sense he dismisses it by trying to undermine it in attempts to be funny.

So Shaun, enlighten me. Where in what I've said is wrong? And what is irrelevant ****e covering it up?

Have you any understanding of the music business whatsoever? Your arguments are so incredibly erratic that I honestly do not know where to begin. Or end.

Charting at #15 is not a faliure for an alternative rock band whose main lyrical themes involve piss and tits. In fact, it's pretty darn good. 100 - 1 is a big, big scope of numbers, Tom. 100, in fact. Charting at #77 after your #1 single may make you a one hit wonder but charting at #15? Nah, brah.

The Bloodhound Gang still sell albums in the UK, still tour in the UK, and still write about piss and tits. They had done so before The Bad Touch and continued to do so. The fact that they managed to chart with the afformentioned song does not suddenly make them a one hit wonder. It takes more than that.

Whats so erratic about them? If we're discussing ONE HIT WONDERS then first we ought to define what a one hit wonder actually is instead of throwing the rule book about saying who is and isn't one.

You seem to be exchanging 'one hit wonder' for 'not successful'. Thats two completely different kettle of fish. They're obviously a band you like, but seriously you need to take an objective view in this kind of thread. Its no good saying "its successful for them" when people are being posted in here that are just as commercially successful.

You want to define what a one hit wonder is? Well it's certainly not a band who have had two high charting hits in the UK along with six million album sales and consistent touring since 1992.

I'm not exchanging any terms here. Nor are my an active fan of The Bloodhound Gang. They are simply not a one hit wonder band. That's all my point is. They are an alternative rock band and it just so happens that one of their songs saw fit to drip in to the mainstream and before you know it a lot of people bought it.

Then, a few months later, it happened again.

So does that go for any other artists who has 1 or 2 mainstream hits then disappeared into the background?

You're avoiding my question though.

Sorry if I am being a bit of a nomad here with my thinking but the term one hit wonder to me signifies ... you know ... one hit.

Apart from that, a certain degree of common sense needs to be upheld in addition with regard to perceptions. The Cheeky Girls? One hit wonders. The Bloodhound Gang? No.

The former were a novelty pop act who aimed for the charts, hit the mark, than buggered off. The latter are an alternative rock group who have always been popular with a certain market, and just happened to have had two hits with a wider mainstream appeal. They didn't dissapear into the backround. They just continued on with the sizeable, loyal fanbse they always had anyway.

The Cheeky Girls have been more commercially successful than Bloodhound Gang having achieved a number 2, 2 #3's, and a 10. Not one hit wonders and more commercially successful than BHG ;) They did disappear into the background after mainstream appeal even if it was going back to where they started. Background = being active away from the mainstream.

One hit wonder is what sticks in the mind of the majority of music listeners, not amongst circles. Again you're confusing "not successful" with "one hit wonder" and this is going around in circles.

Okay then, assume I named a better example. Even still, most people would consider the Cheeky Girls one hit wonders before they consider The Bloodhound Gang to be. Goes back to what I was saying about perception. And again, I'm not confusing anything. Not at all. I'm not a confused being because my opinion differs to yours.

Your knowledge of the Cheeky Girls obviously far surpasses mine.

I checked their Wikipedia discography :joker:

It sounds about right though, I can vaguely remember their songs

Discography :shocked:.