[cheap]

So why the top bitches in the critically acclaimed area like Robyn, Bjork (my favourite of this gerls), Janelle Monae, MIA, Erykah Badu, PJ Harvey,etc are barely known by the general public?

Most people prefer the best food, the best cloths, the best pc,etc but the reason a lot dont have the best is because they cant afford it, so If these gerls produce the best music then wouldnt it be natural for most people to prefer them? and in this age you can listen to their music for the same price you can listen to katy perry: free.

[DejaVu]

Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time. imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.

The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.

[Jameson Teqkilla]

Because with the exception of Robyn, they don't make pop music.

The main problem with all of them is none of them have an "accessible" image. GaGa is about as "weird" as pop audiences will tolerate. These gurls (all Queens/Goddesses) are too committed to their art form to be popular.

It's too "weird" and too powerful not "fun" enough to be on the radio.

It's the same reason Bloody Mary is widely considered one of the best on Born This Way but will probably never be a single.

[ImpressiveInstant]

Because their music is not as acessible as Britney's, or Gaga's, for example.

[Monster]

What is considered the "best food" is usually not popular amongst the general public. It's a refined palate.

[Dephira]

Because music critics are hipsters. They enjoy a good wank after giving high marks to a gerl who is not well known to the general public who reads their publication (unless they work for Entertainment Weekly)

[Jameson Teqkilla]

Originally posted by DejaVu

Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time. imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.

The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.

How much Bjork have you listened to exactly?

And death at you calling Robyn untalented. Have you seen her live? Sings every song note-for-note flawless WHILE dancing and maintaining maximum energy/crowd interaction for an hour and 45 minutes. She literally paused once.

[Ace Reject]

Originally posted by DejaVu

Because critics are ****. What they say matters very little because it is only their opinion. Quality is subjective and I haven't met one critic that I agree with 100% of the time. imo Bjork is **** and Robyn is an untalented heaux. Nothing a critic says will change my mind.

The general public is a better indicator of what's "good" than critics imo.

The public likes Nickelback. Get the **** out of here with that.

[Stephen]

They aren't marketable brands, for the most part.

[ImpressiveInstant]

Originally posted by Jameson Teqkilla

Because with the exception of Robyn, they don't make pop music.

The main problem with all of them is none of them have an "accessible" image. GaGa is about as "weird" as pop audiences will tolerate. These gurls (all Queens/Goddesses) are too committed to their art form to be popular.

It's too "weird" and too powerful not "fun" enough to be on the radio.

It's the same reason Bloody Mary is widely considered one of the best on Born This Way but will probably never be a single.

This.

[Inter The Sonn]

You got to make pop music to be succesful?

[DejaVu]

Originally posted by Jameson Teqkilla

How much Bjork have you listened to exactly?

And death at you calling Robyn untalented. Have you seen her live? Sings every song note-for-note flawless WHILE dancing and maintaining maximum energy/crowd interaction for an hour and 45 minutes. She literally paused once.

They just aren't good. Get over it and stop going off topic xo

[Cap10Planet]

Erykah Badu was popular at one point in time.

A lot of their music isn't accessible, and a lot of it boils down to how they are marketed. The average consumer may not be aware of critical acclaim, and not everyone who does feed into it.

[Jameson Teqkilla]

Originally posted by Dephira

Because music critics are hipsters. They enjoy a good wank after giving high marks to a gerl who is not well known to the general public who reads their publication (unless they work for Entertainment Weekly)

Or they just genuinely like those gerls music. There's plenty of underground gerls who get TERRIBLE reviews.

The ArchAndroid, Body Talk/Robyn, Homogenic/Vespertine/Medulla, Arular/Kala, New Amerykah Pat 1/2, etc. are all just damn good albums.

I love this argument though. If an underground album is good, it must only be because the reviewers are "hipsters" or whatever, when they give underground music ****** scores all the time.

[Monster]

Originally posted by Ace Reject

The public likes Nickelback. Get the **** out of here with that.

Right? I'm not even into that kind of music, but I know the complete lyrics of some of their biggest hits just by rotation on the radio.

[DejaVu]

Originally posted by Ace Reject

The public likes Nickelback. Get the **** out of here with that.

Your point sis?

[KitKat]

It's simple, really:
No half naked girls + no stripper poles = no1currs.

[Jameson Teqkilla]

Originally posted by DejaVu

They just aren't good. Get over it and stop going off topic xo

Death at you not even attempting to back up your opinions.

If Bjork isn't good, how has she had a successful, critically acclaimed career for almost 20 years now?

[DejaVu]

Originally posted by Jameson Teqkilla

Death at you not even attempting to back up your opinions.

If Bjork isn't good, how has she had a successful, critically acclaimed career for almost 20 years now?

Do the sales match though? O okay.

[Monster]

Originally posted by Katie

It's simple, really:
No half naked girls + no stripper poles = no1currs.

Adele, Amy Winehouse, Norah Jones....