surprising that they are popular

maybe?

I don't really know what popular means anymore, cos I just heard Interpol in best buy today...

Flaming Lips are "important" and get tons of coverage from big magazines. I'd venture they're almost as much of a household name as Bjork or Radiohead, but definitely not as popular in terms of how many records they sell. But they're top critics darlings.

When I was younger, and heard Master of Puppets for the first time, it seemed so heavy. Then, two years later, "One" was being played on pop radio. It's just strange that what seems to be pushing boundaries one year is status quo the next.

Because they were gothic brilliance with a pop edge that was also arena rock that was pure wonderful genius OH GOD I LOVE THEM SO AND I CARE NOT WHAT ANYONE SAYS.

Um, that's why. They were always pretty great live too, no matter how strained Billy's voice was.

(even someone like the fall — whose popularity, if you can call it that, stems from unstinting longevity — consciously derive their aesthetic from groups like the troggs, who had 60s chart hits BECAUSE of their sound, not despite it)

bjork, sonic youth and beck all have a very straightforward gift for a hook: also none of them assumes uncritically that "small audience = we are doing something right", so they've never hobbled themselves with anti-musical moralising, which is the curse of consciously minority music ("we happy few are so DISCERNING dontcha know")

haha i cd never understand why flaming lips are as popular as they are either: luckily it is not especially popular

top critical darlings = popular is wrong of course.

They had a one off hit in the mid 90s and then it was only until soft bulletin that some ppl noticed (including me) which is only right because it is by far their best alb and one of the great psych pop recs.

mark s is OTM

As for The Flaming Lips, it really is astonishing how gigantic the gap between ppl who read music magazines and ppl who don't is- when I was record shopping in Boston, I saw that girl in Boston hold up the new Flaming Lips album and quip "Hey, it's the new FLAMING LIPS album! Remember 'She Don't Use Jelly'"? like she had just found the latest Vannila Ice album or something. Now, I've never owned a Flaming Lips album and have no intenions of doing so, but still I had to control myself not to answer that with "The Flaming Lips are still the 'She Don't Use Jelly' group for you?? Have you been living under a rock these past few years or something???"

Later, I realised that if you don't read the music press, there really would be very little chance of having heard about "The Soft Bulletin", and The Flaming Lips really could justifiably be called "That 'She Don't Use Jelly' band".

If jazz would be included in the "music surrounding" rock, then I don't agree that rock was more emotionally complex. I don't know too much about music from the 50's (but at least I am almost equally ignorant about 50's jazz as I am about 50's rock), but from what I have heard, I just don't hear this greater emotional complexity in rock. I am not a heavy jazz fan, but I do hear it as, generally, more emotionally complex than rock. I don't think this is merely because I have been swayed by pro-jazz propaganda. For that matter, I don't see how rock was more emotionally complex than, say, Nat King Cole. Likewise, I don't see how rock or rap were more demanding than a number of other musical forms "surrounding them." (I'm not sure exactly how broadly to take "surrounding them" though. If it only means something like, "likely to be listened to by the same audience that ended up listening to rap/rock," then I might be more inclined to agree, but there's something sneaky about defining it that way.) I think "exciting" is probably even more subjective than "emotionally complex" or "challenging," so I am not going to even attempt to argue with that one.

I realize your knowledge on these matters is more encyclopedic than mine, but I don't see how you can claim that rock was more emotionally complex than jazz.

(And incidentally, I am not necessarily defending the assumption of the original post.)

*

Also, even assuming that rock and rap were more exciting, more challening, and more emotionally complex than the musics surrounding them, how can you be so sure that's why they became popular, when there are other examples of things becoming popular because they are less emotionally complex and less challenging.

Having a good PR department. A lot of people are sheep. There are more than enough people who can be persuaded to like something if they are bombarded with it and told by the right people that it's good.
I live right down the street from 2 people in one of the bands mentioned in this thread. The only time that I see more than 10 people come out to see music that isn't popular on the mainstream or indie scene is when these folks are involved or also playing the show. The next time these bands through and they are not there,no one goes to see them..

the sugar hill gang were pioneers of rap, yes, but they're not the people who put it into an unassailable position (proobably for the reason you actually give: they belonged alongside disco and R&B): assume the operations that did are run dmc >> public enemy >> nwa (haha and also the beastie boys)... i'm not suggesting that these these were more emotionally complex/exciting/demanding than *any* music being made in their time, i'm saying that the reason that they put a stamp on these times — chart-wise, and in terms of becoming a cultural nexus for the future — doesn't support the argument that they were by definition LESS emotionally complex/exciting/demanding than the music surrounding them on the radio

(is this sneaky? i think i'm just saying something super-obvious, though maybe not saying it very well)

I'm not sure how this helps the discussion, but there it is.

nat king cole is a perfect counter-example to the assumption i'm criticising: he didn't get popular because he was less emotionally complex/exciting/demanding than the music surrounding him < / sneakiness >

(i thing using the term "musics" may have been a bit misleading: i wasn't arguing "this whole genre trumps that whole genre", a position i think i'm constitutionally inacapable of taking)

I think it is lovely but odd that Scooter have been making the same record for eight years and have now started getting in the Top Ten with it.

How do you tell the difference between "bombarded with it" & "being made aware of it"? & yr def of "persuaded" seems v. sinister.

(haha as a New Zealander I can assure you that there are significant differences between people & sheep etc)

Not with me. Nor with the Muppets either.

This kind of goes with brg30's "good PR department" point, but yeah, all these artists (in the US at least) are on major labels. Good distro and publicity are key. Some people will obsessively seek out music, but most people (including the previously mentioned obsessives) will pick something up if they are interested in it and it happens to appear right in front of their faces in the store. Anyone here work in retail or distribution here and can support me on how important placement is to the majors?