1. deidre

    I think there’s a difference between being a one-hit wonder and being known (by most people) for one song. Gnarls Barkley falls into the latter category if only because the band itself is at least as famous as the song. I tend to think of one hit wonders as bands I’ve long forgotten but songs that are immediately recognizable.

  2. There is no logic to be concerned about here Leor, though I like all your points. Bluntly stated, Billboard Magazine is a steaming pile of shit. While industry folks might care about their opinions, and music industry PR people tout the hell out of these lists, Billboard is the McDonald’s of music mags.

  3. Leor Galil

    Absolutely. A friend of mine said Gnarls Barkley’s smash hit and after-effect is similar to Radiohead and Beck’s break-outs. Not every band can replicate the success of, say, “Creep,” but they can build one hell of a career otherwise.

  4. Leor Galil

    You know, I always considered Rolling Stone as the McDonald’s of music mags: Nothing but low-grade meat made from endlessly recycled “why The Beatles are the greatest thing ever” articles.

    Yeah, I go back and forth about lists myself. They’re fun to make, but don’t take them to seriously, which is a fatal mistake for all of those magazines. What’s worse with the Billboard list is that they try to create some mathematical equation to calculate their top one-hit wonders list, which is sort of an underlying theme in the piece: The equation is innately flawed.

    But, as you said, I knew there wasn’t much logic there. But, I’d hate to be the PR guy who has to advertise their band/musician as having toped that list!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *