You are not logged in. Please register or login.

James
 Rep: 627 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

James wrote:

Liz Phair - I like the idea of Liz getting huge in that 93-95 timeframe...but I don't think it was possible. She didn't really know what she was doing, making it up as she went along, and then lost the plot completely after 1995.

Lindsey Buckingham - Obviously a huge success with Fleetwood Mac. He really wanted a successful solo career. He deserved it.  His mistake....and he admitted this years later...was focusing too much on Fleetwood Mac when he should've kept that material himself. Hell...the last Fleetwood Mac album from that lineup, Tango in the Night, started out as a solo album. He brought in some of the band to contribute, Mick convinces him to do Fleetwood Mac, he immediately regretted it but by then it was too late.

Easily the most underrated guitarist and songwriter. He could never separate himself from the pack.

Sinead O'Connor - It's her own fault. Don't rip up the picture of the Pope, her career goes on a completely different path.


Til Tuesday - In hindsight it's hard to believe they were practically a one hit wonder and were only a band four years.


Blondie - Yeah they were big. Should've been even bigger. I'm not sure what they could've done...hire outside songwriters, change the lineup...do something. She was incredible... should've been at Madonna's level. The late 90s comeback, which was amazing, was ten years too late.

Veruca Salt - Not sure what happened here. Got lost in the 90s shuffle.


Tiny Masters of Today - In 2010 David Bowie raved on them in an interview. I downloaded the album. I had it in heavy rotation for awhile. Nothing groundbreaking...just kids playing short pop/punk songs...but they were good. Looked them up and I can't believe they never recorded anything else. A shame. They definitely needed a name change.

FlashFlood
 Rep: 47 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

FlashFlood wrote:
James wrote:

Liz Phair - I like the idea of Liz getting huge in that 93-95 timeframe...but I don't think it was possible. She didn't really know what she was doing, making it up as she went along, and then lost the plot completely after 1995.

Lindsey Buckingham - Obviously a huge success with Fleetwood Mac. He really wanted a successful solo career. He deserved it.  His mistake....and he admitted this years later...was focusing too much on Fleetwood Mac when he should've kept that material himself. Hell...the last Fleetwood Mac album from that lineup, Tango in the Night, started out as a solo album. He brought in some of the band to contribute, Mick convinces him to do Fleetwood Mac, he immediately regretted it but by then it was too late.

Easily the most underrated guitarist and songwriter. He could never separate himself from the pack.

Sinead O'Connor - It's her own fault. Don't rip up the picture of the Pope, her career goes on a completely different path.


Til Tuesday - In hindsight it's hard to believe they were practically a one hit wonder and were only a band four years.


Blondie - Yeah they were big. Should've been even bigger. I'm not sure what they could've done...hire outside songwriters, change the lineup...do something. She was incredible... should've been at Madonna's level. The late 90s comeback, which was amazing, was ten years too late.

Veruca Salt - Not sure what happened here. Got lost in the 90s shuffle.


Tiny Masters of Today - In 2010 David Bowie raved on them in an interview. I downloaded the album. I had it in heavy rotation for awhile. Nothing groundbreaking...just kids playing short pop/punk songs...but they were good. Looked them up and I can't believe they never recorded anything else. A shame. They definitely needed a name change.

I am a HUGE Veruca Salt fan. Could have been bigger but got lost in the shuffle. If they stuck with the poppier Nina Gordon style, probably could have had a bigger impact, but I love that Louise wanted to rock it up. Shutterbug is thunderous. Their reunion album last decade was pretty good.

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

PaSnow wrote:

Natalie Merchant. Always surprised 10,000 maniacs didnt have a big reunion.

Edie Brickell - definitely an early Pearl Jam, Mother Love Bone vibe going on there.

Blondies interesting, wish they had a few more punk hits to establish themselves like the Ramones did. I think it was just bad timing. Blondie, 2 years later MTV, 1 year later Madonna.

Till Tuesday not sure what happened, Aimee Mann was a talent and did alot of Magnolia movie soundtrack. She skipped alternative i suppose, jk.

Liz Phair had a bit underwhelming/lacking hits followup to her impressive college rock Exile In Guyville. In fact i think that may have had production/remixing done before release.

Id add in Concrete Blonde?  4 Non Blondes kinda stole her schtik a bit. Also Juliana Hatfield?


Basically, what we're saying is, it was hard for women in rock & music back in the day. Now, it seems the women rule it (Taylor, Gaga, Beyonce  Rihanna, Katy Perry, Kacie Musgraves)

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

PaSnow wrote:

To answer your list:

1. Lindsay Buckingham
2. Blondie
2. Till Tuesday

James
 Rep: 627 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

James wrote:

Natalie Merchant. Always surprised 10,000 maniacs didnt have a big reunion

Shit timing ruined their legacy. Just as they were on the verge of breaking through, she bailed out on them to go solo. Without her, nobody cared. So many years went by that they slipped through the cracks of time.


Edie Brickell - definitely an early Pearl Jam, Mother Love Bone vibe going on there

Once again....bad timing. She hooked up with Paul Simon(translation: she's hella rich) and they waited a few years to release another album.

Lightning wasn't going to strike twice.

Till Tuesday not sure what happened, Aimee Mann was a talent and did alot of Magnolia movie soundtrack. She skipped alternative i suppose, jk

Label issues is why she was AWOL during the height of alternative/grunge. She couldn't restart her career until that was dealt with.

It's really unfortunate. She should've tried getting into acting back then.

I couldn't stand Concrete Blonde or 4 Non Blondes.


Another one that seemed like they would be bigger is Jane Child. She came out the gates swinging....

Neemo
 Rep: 481 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

Neemo wrote:

Of that list defo Veruca Salt and Sinead

I'm surprised u didn't include Mazzy Star tho

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

PaSnow wrote:

Anyone remember a 90s band Frente?  Not saying they belong here, but they were kind of a smaller Mazzy Star, with a smaller hit or two. ( I bought a CD of theirs lol)

I think Sinead was what she was in a way. Personally, I think Nothing Compares 2 U is one of the best songs of the 90s (Top 5/Top 10, oddly along with fellow pre-Nirvana song She Talks To Angels), but in the 90s, and music as a whole, there's pre-Nirvana and post-Nirvana, and she fell into "pre". Too many other acts were being hunted & placed onto MTV and the radio,  The Cranberry, Lisa Loeb etc. She was alternative, but not "90s alternative enough".  Ripping up the picture of the Pope didn't help her career either.

That Jane Child video wow!  I forgot about her. I didn't have MTV growing up but saw bits of that video here & there I think. If you mute it, you'd swear it was NIN type stuff. A bit too dancey, but yeah maybe she could had an early 90s followup like Janet Jackson did in 93ish.

James
 Rep: 627 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

James wrote:

I think Sinead was what she was in a way. Personally, I think Nothing Compared 2 U is one of the best songs of the 90s (Top 5/Top 10, oddly along with fellow pre-Nirvana song She Talks To Angels), but in the 90s, and music as a whole, there's pre-Nirvana and post-Nirvana, and she fell into "pre". Too many other acts were being hunted & placed onto MTV and the radio,  The Cranberry, Lisa Loeb etc. She was alternative, but not "90s alternative enough".  Ripping up the picture of the Pope didn't help her career either

In all fairness to her, she didn't get the chance to move forward into '90s alternative'.

Remember...as far as the mainstream goes, she's done in 92. She also didn't help things by having her follow up album be a set of jazz standards. Without the SNL incident and controversy over refusing to play the national anthem ruining her career, the cover album would've just been a slight misstep. She could've recovered from it.

Speaking of pre/post Nirvana, this was on her fourth album....

I've wondered if her rendition of All Apologies merely a year after Cobain's death was an attempt at trying to get things back on track a bit. If it was, it didn't work. Her label didn't really push it.

Her first two albums are amazing. She deserved a legit comeback based on that alone.

Never heard of Frente. I'll check them out.


Neemo....I love Mazzy Star but like Pasnow said about Sinead I'll say for them....they got as far as they were going to.

They're actually lucky Fade Into You became an unlikely hit. They could've easily been one of those amazing bands that never breaks through.

They had two things going against them....

Songs kinda sound the same....no positive, catchy tunes either.

Hope Sandoval has the charisma of a comatose heroin addict.

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

PaSnow wrote:

lol, she did a minor alt hit duestting with Jesus & Mary Chain ' Sometimes Always' like a year before too. Cool song, definitely that downer vibe.

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: Who should've been bigger?

PaSnow wrote:

That All Apologies cover is ok. I'll say this, I think its better in hindsight. In 95 or so, I don't think youth was prepared for a really wanted a Nirvana cover. Sortof still don't, maybe a tribute from Eddie Vedder or Cornell or something back then, but Sinead wouldn't have gone over well. She also would've cemented herself as a 'cover singer', pigeonholing her career a bit anyway. Plus, the song already had 2 radio releases in the album, and unplugged version.

25 year later, it sounds ok tho. A bit haunting.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB