If you could strip one musician of their fame thus negating all of their contributions who would it be?

Question

This is a conversation that has come up a couple times with my wife and I recently. A couple angles we've run with have been:
1. Obviously you would get rid of any annoying singles.
2. Never have to hear about them again
or the one that is taken for granted,
3. If they created a movement in music, you could reverse it. Although this opens a whole can of worms with what would have happened, who would have emerged in their place?

Nice selections Sookie. And a particularly nice Back to the Future reference.

Hi GK. I fundamentally agree with your point, but I have to admit I closetly enjoy a few of Timberlake's tunes. It kind of plays on the nostalgic enjoyment of early Michael Jackson and a little Stevie Wonder.

Hi Rocket Queen. Unfortunately you'd have to chop off a couple pretty cool heads to erase emo. Although, I could certainly live without Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance.

Hi 80s Man. You know I'm a Nirvana fan and I considered picking them at one point because they basically destroyed alternative music. I love Nirvana, and if it wasn't them it would've been someone else, but they sure left a ton of crap in their wake.

Kenny J, I think you're currently the leader in the clubhouse. Great idea going to Pearlman and Starr. That's definitely ripping the tree out at the roots.

Hi Dan C, the smooth jazz part is awesome. I agree, it probably was Satan. Also, as much as I would be incredibly sad to live a Beatle free existence your argument is very well stated.

Hi Buzzkill. Wow, that is incredibly messed up. You know Prince though, totally digging for meals in a trash can because he's hurting for cash so badly.

Hi Spooky and Lovenrckts. Nickleback is certainly a tempting choice. They...well it's Nickleback, not much more needs to be said, and you guys definitely have it right, the branches of their tree are particularly criminal.

Oh man, when I'm in the club...which I'm totally always in the club nothin gets my freak on like when they bump Rock Your Body. (Realistic translation: they played it at my wedding and at that moment I realized I can't dance and should never try).

Sexy Back could have been ok, but that hook is beyond weak. I do appreciate his attempt at a PJ Harvey impersonation, and the "Yeah" track sounds just like a friend of mine, cracks me up.

Rocket Queen, Ian Mackaye is largely credited for the birth of the emo genre and he is far too valuable. Although, I'm not sure what band was the beginning of emo going bad but they deserve an angry letter for what they have caused.

Well played sdmf. I did not know about that track.

Great call on Creed too. Although I get to make fun of my sister for liking them, which is pretty fun.

Hi Dani. Great list, but come on... Wham is totally hilarious. Toni Basil is a great selection that I didn't think of.

Answer 1

I would suggest the total elimination and annihilation of "boy bands". That damn Maurice Starr started the trend and the perv Lou Pearlman and the infamous New Kids on The Block, the Backstreet Boys and uh N'Sync.
Get rid of that genre forever.

Some might wanna blame the Monkees, and I am not defending them, but at least they didn't have the chorographed dance moves and acted like they could play guitars.

Answer 2

This might be The Prof's closet confession that he rocks out to "SexyBack" when no one is around. Don't worry, your secret is safe in this forum.

If I can only pick one, it would have to be an artist or group that has tortured me with their music for a long time. So that eliminates MCR right off the bat, time will take care of them. I would choose Nickelback. Not only do you get rid of one of the worst groups in history but all the other creations of Nickelbacking like Hinder, Puddle of Mudd and Theory of a Deadman. That's too good to pass on, although I was tempted to say Richard Marx and his permed mullet.

Good choice, Spooky, lol.

Answer 3

Well, as a fan of punk, I'm obligated to say the Beatles if solely for the purpose of Sgt. Pepper's never happening and the years and years of crappy boring old man rock that everyone generally agreed was "real music". Sucked all the youth out of rock 'n' roll in one fell sweep. I mean look what happened to the Rolling Stones, they were a bunch of young guns making good rock 'n' roll, then Sgt. Pepper's came and look at the cover of Her Satanic Majesty! And this all replaced fun with "progressive" rock that ironically didn't really progress very far besides the solos getting longer. But then to prevent that maybe Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton would have to be swept from existence as well.

And consistent with my profile I'll also say whoever the first smooth jazz (aka retirement home elevator music) musician was. But I don't know nearly enough about it to say who that might be, I'm guessing it was Satan?

Edit: I'm thinking it would probably be a good idea to mention that I think the Beatles put out almost all good material and I actually really love some of their stuff, it's the trends they created I'm against, just to make that clear. Although I do think they're terribly overrated, they were a pretty good pop group, there have been better I think.

Answer 4

Oooohhh...this is like Marty McFly going back in time and punching Biff out. Things were so much better after that!

One of my choices would be Celine Dion. She really didn't cause a "movement" but I would love to get rid of the horrible singles. It would be nice to get her away from the soundtrack stuff too.

Another one is Kenny Rogers. Again, eliminating the singles are a plus but I think he's partially responsible for some of the really bad modern pop-country stuff that's out. That's just my opinion, though.

Edit: you're right, Prof. There are some solid answers here.

Answer 5

The Monkees and the Archies.. The whole genre of bubblegum pop and fake musicians paved the way for frauds like milli vanilli and took away from our true evolution. Jimi Hendrix had to go to England to put out a record!

Answer 6

How about a group of "musicians"? I was thinking Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Avril Lavigne, Jennifer Lopez, 50 Cent...all those worthless "artists" that put out such easy music and get credit for it. Their music does nothing, it's just mindless slop for those who listen to Top 40 radio and like what they're told. If they were stripped of their fame and accomplishments, the musical world would be no different, except slightly less annoying.

Answer 7

It would have to be Neil Diamond for me. Okay, the Monkees' version of "I'm a Believer" has some kitsch value, but having worked in a pub years ago where ND was one of the "free-play" artists on the jukebox, I'd love to be able to erase his stuff from my memory.There was a live version of "Sweet Caroline" which made me feel particularly nauseous

Answer 8

Well, I think that U2 ruined rock's reputation after their 2nd or 3rd album. The 1st album was pretty unknown and good, almost sounding like the velvet underground. But after then, they started some strange rock/ pop genre to be called alternative. If 1 band was forgotten, I choose U2. Without them, their would be no FOB, P!ATD, MCR, etc.

Answer 9

Whoever started MCR (cannot think of one person, but the start of "emo" in general). all those little pop "emo" bands are really bugging me. I cant stand how a thriving genre has emerged from such horrid music. Those are the type bands we should be hating, not rewarding, buying, and worshiping.

Answer 10

I would take out Anthrax.

Why Anthrax, who doesn't seem to have a whole bunch of influence, you might ask?

Ever hear the song "I'm the Man" or their collaboration with Public Enemy on "Bring the Noise?" Well that started the whole rap rock genre.

Without Anthrax there would be no Limp Bizkit, Korn, Papa Roach and countless other nu-metal and rap/rock acts.