Week 21: 50 Albums That Changed Music

[MindGoneHaywire]

You miss the point also. They didn't make more $, at least not from record sales. They actually sold less than NKOTB had some 7 or 8 years previously. But this record impacted music more, far more, and that's the point of the article, not who was or wasn't, as you say, 'better than everyone else making music in the 90s.' (Do take a look at Dusty's post from last night referencing one of my earlier posts in the thread) And the fact that this is a UK publication holds far more validity than any point regarding marketing or the Archies.

[3-LockBox]

The Spice Girls did not change music with their music. It could be argued that their MARKETING Svengali's changed music, but the reality is that they took an already established marketing strategy (see: The Archies, Monkees, Tiffany, Back Street Boys etc.) and simply spun it into overdrive utilizing the relatively new, all pervasive, world-wide media machine.

My point as well. They don't get credit for what was an incredible job of market saturation and media blitz, in an already established business model. That's like giving Dale Ernhart credit for inventing the wheel. Anyway, to mention these guys in the same list as some of music's pioneers is a sham. Credit does go to anyone but the artist in this case. Sh!t, put the Wiggles on the list too.

[Troy]

No, I didn't miss the point. They moved the target way out for just how far marketing could go in crreating a frenzy of consumerism. They changed pop culture (but only for a minute) and they did it by utilizing music to get their foot in the cultural door. They were not really about music. They were about female empowerment. Grrl Power was their M.O. (I still say this list was compiled by a woman.)

But the music itself? Nope. It's pure rehash. It had zero impact on music itself

Even if you are saying that the marketing angle WAS their ONLY contrbution to music I see them as just an offshoot of what the Monkees started.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Of course you did. All the marketing in the world doesn't mean a darned thing unless people like the music enough to buy it. Marketing fails often, most of the time in music, as a matter of fact. It's the successes that capture the mass imagination & create discussion among sophisticates like us about how the success is not based on anything of substance. It looks plain as day to us that the music was secondary to the marketing. It looked anything but that way to the people who bought the stuff, for whom the music was in fact the primary product, and the most important aspect of what they did. That's the truth, no matter how clearly we see dancing & other bells & whistles as being more significant than the actual music.

That's why I don't argue with the idea that they changed music, because it's downright foolish to argue against the sheer magnitude of units sold by the people whose teen pop records became successful within a year or two of the album chosen for the list. When it was all said & done, the Spice Girls are the most successful girl group of all time. But while of course examining the impact of an act relative to whether or not they 'changed music,' is about far more than sales...they pass the test, whether you guys are willing to admit it or not. But it doesn't hurt that they sold 35 million albums in what, four years? Less?

I'm not getting how it is that you guys choose to conveniently ignore the wave of the stuff that emerged in the wake of the Spice Girls. You can rattle off names like NKOTB all you like but the fact is, in spite of similar but slightly better sales figures, their records did not change music the way the Spice Girls' did. If the power of marketing could sell records by the Archies, Tiffany, the Monkees, etc etc, then why didn't teen pop become the worldwide phenomenon it did to the extent it did until a year or two after the first album by this outfit? Why is it that all of a sudden there were something like half a dozen outfits simultaneously selling in the millions and tens of millions in the genre?

That never happened before, and it's directly attributable to a synergy that was largely forged by the fact that lots and lots of people liked the Spice Girls' records enough to pay for them, AND those of the up-and-comers in the genre also. Again, that didn't happen following the Monkees, or Debbie Gibson, or anyone. It changed the genre like nothing had in decades, except the numbers were far more staggering.

Do you guys really think that if not for an act that did what they did, that teen pop would've or even could've exploded as it did? I don't. And while WE may hear very little difference in the actual music when compared straight up to acts that seem similar from the few years prior, it would seem a lot of people heard plenty of difference. They liked the music better, end of story. It may seem odd to consider that the genre was relatively dead after NKOTB, but then it shouldn't be difficult to argue the point. Right?

[Dusty Chalk]

Even if you are saying that the marketing angle WAS their ONLY contrbution to music I see them as just an offshoot of what the Monkees started.

Well, then it could be argued that everything done after the Beatles isn't important because it's all just an offshoot of what the Beatles started.

Suffice it to say, I disagree. Importance cannot be thrown out simply because someone else has done it before. If they have done it better (or even best), then it is still important.

And I have to agree that the Spice Girls were important in that they were seemingly first in this recent trend of manufactured, magnate-produced, Milli-Vanilli-mocking, non-own-songwriting, glamour-fronted, technologically-prettied-up pop drivel. Personally, I thought it was Britney Spears, but looking back at the dates, I have to admit that the Spice Girls were first in this recent trend (the one that hasn't ended yet).

I wonder what the first "electroclash" record was, and if it's on the list. Or was that trend/fad over too quickly?

[Troy]

All the marketing in the world doesn't mean a darned thing unless people like the music enough to buy it. Marketing fails often, most of the time in music, as a matter of fact. It's the successes that capture the mass imagination & create discussion among sophisticates like us about how the success is not based on anything of substance. It looks plain as day to us that the music was secondary to the marketing. It looked anything but that way to the people who bought the stuff, for whom the music was in fact the primary product, and the most important aspect of what they did. That's the truth, no matter how clearly we see dancing & other bells & whistles as being more significant than the actual music.

Nope, I don't buy that. Most people are sheep. Especially children. They buy what they are told to buy by the media. The Spice Girls music was innocuous and easy to digest light dance pop. It was very safe and calculated to offend the fewest people. At some point early on it became de rigueur for every 9-14 year old girl to own this or risk being ostracized by all the other kids.

Of course, the people that buy into this stuff would never think they are being manipulated into buying it by media and peer pressure.

Spice Girls was music for people that don't really like music. It's for people who think that personality and fashion is more important than the music itself.

That's why I don't argue with the idea that they changed music, because it's downright foolish to argue against the sheer magnitude of units sold by the people whose teen pop records became successful within a year or two of the album chosen for the list. When it was all said & done, the Spice Girls are the most successful girl group of all time. But while of course examining the impact of an act relative to whether or not they 'changed music,' is about far more than sales...they pass the test, whether you guys are willing to admit it or not. But it doesn't hurt that they sold 35 million albums in what, four years? Less?

I'm not getting how it is that you guys choose to conveniently ignore the wave of the stuff that emerged in the wake of the Spice Girls. You can rattle off names like NKOTB all you like but the fact is, in spite of similar but slightly better sales figures, their records did not change music the way the Spice Girls' did. If the power of marketing could sell records by the Archies, Tiffany, the Monkees, etc etc, then why didn't teen pop become the worldwide phenomenon it did to the extent it did until a year or two after the first album by this outfit? Why is it that all of a sudden there were something like half a dozen outfits simultaneously selling in the millions and tens of millions in the genre?

Because the technlogy of world media directed at teens and pre-teens had improved to the point where it was all pervasive and inescapable.

The idea of teenybopper groups has existed for decades already. All the SG did was take advantage of the media to exploit themselves better than anyone else ever had.

This is fundamentaly why I think they didn't change music. They simply took an already existing business model and improved it.

And that's if you honestly think that improving marketing techniques actually constitutes "changing music."

That never happened before, and it's directly attributable to a synergy that was largely forged by the fact that lots and lots of people liked the Spice Girls' records enough to pay for them, AND those of the up-and-comers in the genre also. Again, that didn't happen following the Monkees, or Debbie Gibson, or anyone. It changed the genre like nothing had in decades, except the numbers were far more staggering.

You are talking about 9-14 year old girls, ok? That was 90% of who bought the SG albums. Oh sure, they liked it fine. But WTF do THEY know about music? What OTHER music have they heard? What life experience and emotional depth to they bring to the table? Do ANY of them actually STILL listen to their SG discs? LOL.

These kids were duped into buying this junk. It was just done on a larger scale than at any time previously. You really think that has ANYTHING to do with music?

Do you guys really think that if not for an act that did what they did, that teen pop would've or even could've exploded as it did? I don't. And while WE may hear very little difference in the actual music when compared straight up to acts that seem similar from the few years prior, it would seem a lot of people heard plenty of difference. They liked the music better, end of story. It may seem odd to consider that the genre was relatively dead after NKOTB, but then it shouldn't be difficult to argue the point. Right?

It didn't have to be the SG. It could have been anyone with thier finger on where pop-culture for pre-teen girls was at.

J, I just disagree that selling a bazillion albums due to intensive marketing strategy constitutes "changing music." It changed BUSINESS, not music.

[MindGoneHaywire]

>Most people are sheep. Especially children. They buy what they are told to buy by the media. The Spice Girls music was innocuous and easy to digest light dance pop. It was very safe and calculated to offend the fewest people. At some point early on it became de rigueur for every 9-14 year old girl to own this or risk being ostracized by all the other kids.

Of course, the people that buy into this stuff would never think they are being manipulated into buying it by media and peer pressure.

Spice Girls was music for people that don't really like music.


Gee...substitute "Beatles" for "Spice Girls" and delete "light dance pop." And try to do it without suggesting that I'm offering a musical comparison with that suggestion.

Oh, and peer pressure, in my experience, applies less to music, even to teenagers, than it does to other areas of pop culture such as movies and television, but more especially, material possessions and clothing, i.e. fashion & style. But in any case, it was the album that was the end product.


>WTF do THEY know about music? What OTHER music have they heard? What life experience and emotional depth to they bring to the table?

So now you're saying it's not possible for music to be changed unless the people who buy it fit into a demographic that you approve of?


>It changed BUSINESS, not music.

Well, it's been clear that you've gone way overboard within the context of this particular discussion in how you're separating those two instead of acknowledging that they're actually closer to being one and the same than you'd like to admit. By this logic, and within the context of this discussion, you cannot point to ANY record ever released to justify the suggestion that it might've changed music. Because none is defensible from the damning you just applied to this one due to the bias you have against it & the people who bought it...and the inability to see that it led directly to an explosion in sales of a product that most people do in fact understand to be "music," even if they don't like it.

[Troy]

Most people are sheep. Especially children. They buy what they are told to buy by the media. The Spice Girls music was innocuous and easy to digest light dance pop. It was very safe and calculated to offend the fewest people. At some point early on it became de rigueur for every 9-14 year old girl to own this or risk being ostracized by all the other kids.

Of course, the people that buy into this stuff would never think they are being manipulated into buying it by media and peer pressure.

Spice Girls was music for people that don't really like music.

Gee...substitute "Beatles" for "Spice Girls" and delete "light dance pop." And try to do it without suggesting that I'm offering a musical comparison with that suggestion.

LOL, I love the way you make me sound like an old fart Pat Boone fan in 1964 with that comparison. Cute.

Wanna compare them? Will the Spice Girls have any legs? The Beatles created an entirely new artform that changed the direction of all popular music for decades to come. That sea-change is still being felt generations later. The Spice Girls music was all but forgotten in less than 10 years. Just a blip in the mid-90s screen.

But OK, let throw out the music entirely for a second (even though this whole list is supposed to be about the "top 50 albums that changed music.") and talk strictly about cultural differences between the 2. Did SG shape an entire generation in any lasting way? Were they ever politicized the way The Beatles were? As controversial? Could they even crossover into an appreciable male audience? How about an older audience?

Sorry, your attempted comparison just doesn't hold water.

Oh, and peer pressure, in my experience, applies less to music, even to teenagers, than it does to other areas of pop culture such as movies and television, but more especially, material possessions and clothing, i.e. fashion & style. But in any case, it was the album that was the end product.

LOL, you're kidding, right? Do you even KNOW any teenagers? Peer Pressure about everything is gigantic and music is right there at the top with all the other media like movies, TV and games. It's the #1 driving force in why crap like SG sells.

WTF do THEY know about music? What OTHER music have they heard? What life experience and emotional depth to they bring to the table?

So now you're saying it's not possible for music to be changed unless the people who buy it fit into a demographic that you approve of?

Oh please Jay. Don't answer my questions with questions. Or attempt to put words in my mouth. Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

I stand by my original assertion that we should not let 13 year-old girls be the final arbiters of musical taste. Go ahead, deny it.

It changed BUSINESS, not music.

Well, it's been clear that you've gone way overboard within the context of this particular discussion in how you're separating those two instead of acknowledging that they're actually closer to being one and the same than you'd like to admit. By this logic, and within the context of this discussion, you cannot point to ANY record ever released to justify the suggestion that it might've changed music. Because none is defensible from the damning you just applied to this one due to the bias you have against it & the people who bought it...and the inability to see that it led directly to an explosion in sales of a product that most people do in fact understand to be "music," even if they don't like it.

Fine, set aside the fact that I think SG music is empty and just plain lame for a sec here.

The words MUSIC and BUSINESS should have a little distance between them. Big business is what ruined music over the past 20 years. Corporate conservatism is what has crushed the art out of so much of music (and all entertainment) today. Is it good to sing the praises of musical groups who are created soley for the principle of making money? Of turning what's supposed to be art into a pure comodity like pork bellies? Praising SG for changing music in like praising Clearchannel for changing radio. Dig?

[MindGoneHaywire]

Why does inclusion on this list constitute praise? I can't recall if this is the 3rd or 4th time I'm making that point.

[Troy]

Why does inclusion on this list constitute praise? I can't recall if this is the 3rd or 4th time I'm making that point.

Having never looked at the original list (with no intention of doing so as it would ruin this weekly thing for me) I can only assume that appearing on this list constitutes praise. The original quote directly from the magazine positively glows about the "Spice" album. A mainstream publication like this would not be being sarcastic, ergo, it IS being praised.

Reaching for straws?

[3-LockBox]

I can only assume that appearing on this list constitutes praise. The original quote directly from the magazine positively glows about the "Spice" album. A mainstream publication like this would not be being sarcastic, ergo, it IS being praised.

That's the conclusion that I reach as well. Sure, the article could be a very clever, back-handed compliment, suggesting that the way they changed music may not neccessarily be for the better, but that level of sofistication is way beyond the creators of this list.

FYI 'J': its not the 50 albums that changed business

But at least they stuck to actual album

[MindGoneHaywire]

Wrong. Not sure why you figure me for someone who either doesn't know, or needs to hear, the rap about Clear Channel & the music business, but since you feel it necessary to preach to the converted, I guess it's necessary for me to once again repeat the following:

It's 50 albums that changed music, NOT 50 albums that changed music FOR THE BETTER.


>The original quote directly from the magazine positively glows about the "Spice" album.

You obviously read something from a different publication. The quote posted at the beginning of this thread, from the newspaper that ran the piece, would have to be interpreted in a way somewhere between irony, sarcasm, paranoia, insanity, impairment, stupidity, and intoxication to be construed as a 'positive glow' or anything remotely like it from where I sit. Go back & take another look, and this time try not to ignore the remark about how the 'music business has been cynically creating and marketing acts since the days of the wax cylinder,' or the only actual reference to the music, which is characterized as 'unoriginal' 'Motown-lite.' Then come back & tell me how that constitutes praise again?

[MindGoneHaywire]

That's the conclusion that I reach as well. Sure, the article could be a very clever, back-handed compliment, suggesting that the way they changed music may not neccessarily be for the better, but that level of sofistication is way beyond the creators of this list.

FYI 'J': its not the 50 albums that changed business

But at least they stuck to actual album

Please tell me if you think that the teen pop acts that followed the Spice Girls--Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, 98 Degrees, Christina Aguilera, 'NSYNC, Avril Lavigne, et al, what were they known for? The sales of music, or stocks?

[BradH]

Big business is what ruined music over the past 20 years.

Well, then that means there were a series of sucky, derivitave albums along the way that changed the face of music, right? It can happen. My point was I just don't hear that much musical difference overnight between the Spiceheads and the teen dance-pop that came before, not that I'm closely attuned to it. And maybe that gets to Darius's point. But changing the face of music with one album would imply that album was radically different or took a wholly unique approach to what was currently in vogue and became influential. I don't see that in the terms used to defend this choice like "lessening of quality controls". Rather, it's one or two degrees of difference in style with mega-sales left to carry the argument about influence, followed by some progeny with a degree of difference in style with mega-sales as proof of the original influence, etc. Take away the marketing and the videos and the dance choreography and you've got more of the same dance-pop it's always been with no more than a tweak here or there. The difference is in the image and promotion and units sold, not the music. I've heard this same argument from people who love corporate 70's FM arena rock. When I claim there's not a dime's worth of difference between most of those bands they come back with descriptions of how different one mullet-headed guitarist's style is from another's. They're not getting the big picture and neither do most twelve-year olds who buy Britney Spears. Do they enjoy it? You bet. Puppy love is always real to the puppies. And, frankly, I don't have a problem with that like I did when I was an uptight teenage music freak. Get your groove on however you like, I say. But that doesn't mean what they're hearing is "new music" no matter if every kid on the planet buys it. It's new product, not new music.

[BradH]

Btw, Jay, I'm not implying your musical knowedge equates to that of a twelve year old or the average BTO Starwagon fan. I know what your argument is, I just don't buy the formula that says huge sales alone changes music itself.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I understand that, but it's not all about that & I never made it completely about that. I was the one who pointed out that the Spice Girls actually sold less than NKOTB.

And I don't think that it's necessarily a matter of major differences in the music, either. It doesn't matter if the only difference in the ingredients was a half a teaspoon of molasses instead of a half a teaspoon of honey: one deserves to be seen as the one that carried influence, and others do not.

What I was referring to so far as quality controls had to do with a never-before-seen shift as less emphasis was placed on the decisions of those whose expertise was considered to be music, as opposed to those whose expertise was considered to be business, or marketing. But that's only part of the story, and the ultimate issue is the end product, in this case being the album in question. 10 years ago was a time when there was a lot going on in terms of consolidation, beginning for radio businesses like Clear Channel & other media outlets, but also well underway for record labels, as they became subsidiaries of much-larger entertainment conglomerates.

But that's not even the point. The way I see it, there are straws to be grasped at when it comes to the musical aspect of this. The base was dance pop, but it was specifically teen dance pop. NKOTB had fizzled out, and, unlike the Spice Girls, there had been no explosion that had taken their place. In fact, at the time, the genre of teen pop, like hair metal, became passe practically overnight with the impact of Nirvana, grunge, Guns N' Roses, Seattle, and rave music (not to mention the eventual crossover of rap). It took a reinvention, and that's what the Spice Girls represent. Not necessarily new music, but music nonetheless, and influential music at that. How? Madonna was certainly an influence, though, as discussed, she was not, and never was, 'teen pop'. If anything, I think there was a conscious decision to be as little like Debbie Gibson & Tiffany--and Taylor Dayne, for that matter--as could be. There was some careful consideration to incorporate the Madonna-esque elements that could be realistically marketed to teens & pre-teens, with just a little of Alanis Morrissette's vinegar thrown into the mix: attitude, but of a specifically G-rated variety. I never said it was all that different from anything else, only that it led to an explosion that was unprecedented in music. Or, if you must, the music business. But the music business does not exclude 'music,' as 'business' all by itself does. That's just plain inaccurate.

Part of the problem is that the explosion I'm referring to took place in a genre that it simply not taken seriously. But I refuse to accept that it's ONLY marketing because the arguments that the 12-year-olds who buy the stuff have the taste of sheep & no knowledge, insight, or experience. They're still people buying music, and that so many of them did, so many copies, of so few records, by so few acts, in such a short period of time...how does one seriously argue that this does not constitute influence on music just because they're disdainful of teen pop?

Besides, it is successes like these that lead to the music industry's cynical version of R&D, and records that would otherwise never, ever see the light of day are put together by outfits that would never have been able to dream of a contract...if not for the money that the companies' business models restrict for new signings. Teen Pop sold HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of albums, and should be looked at as something that funded a new wave of signings, diverse signings that should've included roster depth that would've satisfied a lot of us. But this didn't exactly happen, now, did it?

No, and it's not likely to, at least not in the form that we recognize the music business, because, for the first time, they saw something that suggested that they wouldn't make a return on their investment enough to justify a new trip through the cycle that should've included higher A&R budgets, and more releases. The X-Factor that nobody saw coming was file-sharing, specifically Napster. From what I can see, one of the last major names that could be traced to the impact of the MUSIC of the Spice Girls, Avril Lavigne, saw great success about a year and a half prior to the RIAA unleashing a wave of suing their customers, which is something that has impacted on the music business in ways that I think 50 years from now may be viewed as being as significant as the impact of ALL of these picks COMBINED. Maybe that's a stretch, but we're about 7 weeks out from Vista...any of you follow DRM watch? Troy, I bet you'll be surprised to know that I'm now a MAC user. But it shouldn't surprise you that what I've read about DRM had as much to do with that decision than anything else.

But, while there are some arguments against the stance of the RIAA on illegal file-sharing that still make perfect sense, a cursory glance at the figures for weekly sales now, vs. weekly sales five years ago, are startliing. A good week a few years ago was a million or two, now it's maybe 1/10 that? I think there was a week recently where the #1 album in the country sold something like 87,000 units. So it's tough to accept that downloading didn't impact on sales, even if it didn't happen the say the RIAA said, and didn't happen that soon. It appears to have happened at this point.

The most successful period ever enjoyed by music, or the music business if you must, was during that teen pop explosion, when never before had so few sold so many in so little a period of time. If it was the marketing, then you have to levy the same charge at the Beatles. Even with an asterisk, it was the music, whether we'd like to admit it or not. That's what the kids were willing to buy. Oh, and I spoke with plenty of teenagers, Troy--nephews & nieces, but also some of my wife's former students, as well. And I'm telling you that the choices were wide enough to support my theory that peer pressure in having to have this or that teen pop album were was just not as much of a factor as something like having not missed this or that television show, or movie. Quotes from that sort of thing always, always had more of an impact, than lyrics, period.

Arguing a Beatles comparison is silly, I know. But I maintain that the music industry was impacted, changed, influenced, and massively, in the years 1997-2000, and maybe a year or two after that, by the impact of this album. They were the most successful years that the music business ever saw, and I say it wouldn't have happened if the Spice Girls didn't have the right combination of influences--specifically, influences from more adolescent & even adult musics made accessible to a teen and pre-teen audience--to see their potential impact fully realized. Oh, and then there is that other issue that I'll bring up one more time since it doesn't seem to have made much of a dent, either--this is a UK paper.

Anything else?

[Dusty Chalk]

Nope, I don't buy that. Most people are sheep. Especially children. They buy what they are told to buy by the media.

Explain "Grunge", then.

[BradH]

And I don't think that it's necessarily a matter of major differences in the music, either.

Then what the hell is the point of this list?

But I maintain that the music industry was impacted, changed, influenced, and massively, in the years 1997-2000, and maybe a year or two after that, by the impact of this album.

Yes, a large impact on the industry with just a little change in the music itself, that's my whole point.

What I was referring to so far as quality controls had to do with a never-before-seen shift as less emphasis was placed on the decisions of those whose expertise was considered to be music, as opposed to those whose expertise was considered to be business, or marketing.

I never said it was all that different from anything else, only that it led to an explosion that was unprecedented in music. Or, if you must, the music business. But the music business does not exclude 'music,' as 'business' all by itself does. That's just plain inaccurate.

My point was that description is not a musical one, it's all industry related. The Guardian itself was rather dismissive with phrases like "Motown-lite" but they put it on the list because it sold. It's as if the more an album sells the less relevant the music is to the discussion. But if the discussion is about music, not the industry, then the music is what's relevant. And yeah, you CAN separate the music from the industry. Not exclusively, of course, but it's essential in determining, or at least discussing, what is worth a damn and what is not.

But I refuse to accept that it's ONLY marketing because the arguments that the 12-year-olds who buy the stuff have the taste of sheep & no knowledge, insight, or experience. They're still people buying music, and that so many of them did, so many copies, of so few records, by so few acts, in such a short period of time...how does one seriously argue that this does not constitute influence on music just because they're disdainful of teen pop?

Because the music was not significantly diffferent or better or worse than the teen dance pop that came before, it was basically more of the same. I'm not as dismissive of twelve year olds as Troy. Hell, he and I were listening to Yes & Jethro Tull and all kinds of stuff at that age. I was listening to Zeppelin and Steppenwolf and the Beatles when I was nine in 1970. As life went on I found out that was a rare exception. Somehow I instinctively knew this music was new and different, I suppose largely because my grandparents weren't listening to it. But when you combine the relative naivety of youth with the influence of visual imagery you've got a powerhouse combination. That was my point about Duran Duran and how the kids heard it but didn't buy it unless they saw the video. So yeah, you CAN sell crap music with a video because the purchaser is also buying into the visual imagery. And that's not always a bad thing, either. Without the much despised flash-cut editing that arose from MTV there would never have been a film trilogy like Lord Of The Rings, the damn thing would've been 24 hrs long. So, put the right package together and you can sell a ton of music that's not significantly different than what came before. And if that spawns more teen pop that sounds very similar then you're only two degrees from where you started no matter how much it sells. In other words, you can be influential and still not "change music". As for the careful calculation that undoubtedly went into the Spice mix, I see it more as the culmination of the whole Cool Britannia pop culture movement than anything musically distinct. I hate to defend Madonna but at least in her case you've got Camille LaPaglia saying she culturally liberated an entire generation of Japanese girls and historian Garry Wills writing an essay on how she was not a true artistic leader. But what do we get with the Spice Girls? Industry analysis.

[3-LockBox]

Please tell me if you think that the teen pop acts that followed the Spice Girls--Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, 98 Degrees, Christina Aguilera, 'NSYNC, Avril Lavigne, et al, what were they known for? The sales of music, or stocks?

Sales

[3-LockBox]

Explain "Grunge", then.

Same thing really, though no one in the Puget Sound area called it 'grunge'; it was just 'underground'. Media called it grunge. Hell, there are certain circles which hold the music I like in the same contempt that I hold for top-40-pop. Not all top-40-pop is bad. But the stuff that's obviously prefab like N*SYNC and Spice Girls, et el...

"This horse is not only beaten past his expiration, he's now a fine paste suitible for a tasty equine sandwhich spread."

[Dusty Chalk]

Same thing really...

Whut? You lost me. Same thing as what?

Grunge came out of nowhere -- no-one in the music industry predicted that grunge was going to get as huge as it got. I mean, don't get me wrong, there were a lot of scouts looking for the next big thing, and some of them picked Nirvana and Pearl Jam and etc., but no-one predicted it was going to totally dominate the way it did. That was virtually unprecedented in this day and age of targetted marketing driven sales. I.E. that the amount of sales is almost directly proportionate to the amount of advertising that a given album receives.

[3-LockBox]

Grunge came out of nowhere.

I guess on a national scale it did, but by the time Nirvana hit it big, a lot of bands were a tad disgruntled that Nirvana was representing the Seattle music scene and not bands like Mudhoney or the Melvins, who'd been around since the mid '80s, when the Seattle underground movement really started. Label execs were looking for something new anyway, since the hairy metal thing was on the wane. I guess since I was living here at the time, it didn't seem like an explosion for me like it does others.

"Same thing" as in, got co-opted by suits who eventually started pushing some very bad imitations of the Seattle sound. I knew some guys who were in bands around the early nineties who said that it was hard to get a gig if club owners didn't think you were grunge enough; everyone and there brother were moving to Seattle to try to be discovered as the next big grunge thing. No, it wasn't prefab like top-40-pop, but a lot of what came after it hit was a near parody of it (StoneTemplePirates). But besides, grunge stayed on the national consciousness how long? 3 to 4 years? It ran its course and was starting to become a joke. Espresso stands lasted longer than most Seattle 'grunge' bands. Between 'grunge' and the considerably large lesbian population in the Puget Sound area, you couldn't find a new flannel shirt if your life depended on it in the mid '90s.