Overstaged

True! Perhaps, I couldn´t find a better phrasing for the thread title. Maybe "novelty acts that came back after being forgotten and became novelty acts again", or "artists who have been one-hit wonders more then once". Most of the times, it´s due to an artists career taking different ways in different countries, but in Shaggy´s example, he had various re-incarnations as a novelty act in the same country. Another example could be Kylie Minogue. Altough she had a consistent career as a popstar in UK/Aus, in USA she was pretty much a one-hit-wonder/novelty act with "The Locomotion" (peak #3) in the 80´s. Then in the 2000´s when nobody remembered her she came back with Can´t Get You Out Of My Head/Fever, getting a top 10 hit and a platinum album. She had 3 other minor chart entries in the Hot 100, and her subsequent albums weren´t sucessful with the big public, altough this time around she seemed able to maintain a small following as some kind of cult diva.

I always had him as a novelty act, since he was never a big album seller. In the 90´s, this was how we differentiate acts who had serious fanbases and novelty acts: the album sales. Of course, in the streaming era this doesn´t make sense anymore, since any act who has big hits will automatically chart with its album too, since the album chart has basically become a track playlist chart. But in the physical albums era, it was pretty common to enjoy huge sucess with singles and fail miserably with the album. Most novelty acts followed their huge smashes with 1 or 2 moderately sucessful hits anyway. But their largely still considered one hit wonders, since these other hits are largely forgotten and managed to chart off the back of their previous smashes. Shaggy´s 1993 album Pure Pleasure only peaked at #67, despite having a #1 single. His 1994 follow-up didn´t even chart, proving that he was just a novelty act with no actual fanbase. Then in 1995 he enjoyed an even bigger novelty hit with Boombastic, but its parent album only peaked at #37. His 1997 album failed to chart basically anywhere. Proving that his sporadic hits failed to build him any fanbase at all. Then in 2000 it seamed everything had changed. Not only he had 2 smash singles with It Wasn´t Me and Angel, but he had a huge selling album. Hot Shot was a million seller in UK and 6x platinum in USA. It seemed that he was finally being able to move on from novelty act to serious pop star. Then his 2002 follow-up only peaked at #54 in the UK, #24 in USA. Not many acts can follow-up a million selling album with one that fails to even go top 40 in UK, or a 6x platinum album with one that fails to go Top 20 in USA. Then anything else he released failed to achieve any sucess. Well, in 2018 he had another UK top 10 album, but in collaboration with Sting, a household name. I know many popstars go trough flop eras in between some of their smashes, but they still maintain a fanbase enough to sell their albums at least in the debut week. In the case an artists has a huge #1 smash, and then the next album fails to chart or merely scrap at the bottom of the chart, we can definitely say it´s a novelty act.

Can you name artists that were either one hit wonders, or maybe had just a few hits in different countries, but with different songs? Whigfield was obviously huge in the UK in 1994 with "Saturday Night". She experienced 2 other top 10 hits in 1994/1995 with Another Day and Think Of You, then gradually disappeared. None of these tracks ever made a dent into the australian charts (Saturday Night peaked at #78, the other 2 didn´t even chart). Then in 1996 she had a huge hit in Australia with "Sexy Eyes" (peaked at #6, certified platinum). That song was also big in a few more countries, but only made it to #68 in UK. Similarly, Natasha Bedingfield was big in the UK in 2004 with "These Words" (a # 1 hit), that made #17 in the USA. By 2008, her career in the UK had already faded, but she experienced a huge US smash with "Pocketful of Sunshine" (#5) which didn´t even chart in UK. Then what about Shaggy... had a #1 in the UK in 1993 with Oh Carolina, then disappeared. Felt like a one hit wonder. Then in 1995 had another #1 smash with Boombastic, then disappeared. Felt like it was one of those rare ocasions when a one hit wonder fights back and has another hit. The in 2000 he had absolute smashes with It Wasn´t Me and Angel. The next album bombed hard. It´s like he experienced 3 one-hit wonder eras, since in between them he had released albums that didn´t even chart of charted very low. Can we expect another one hit wonder from the past to ever comeback and experience sucess again?

Not to mention Melanie C´s First Day Of My Life. I remember that song being huge in german speaking countries, even tough her career was already dead at the time in the UK.

But they should not be ilegall... if two or more consenting adults love each other, why should the law forbid it. Why shouldn´t we demand "equal rights" for adult daugthers who are in love with their fathers or grandfathers?

# 5 with what... 25k sold??? I don´t expect much more then that. MAJOR FLOP!!! She´s losing so many markets where she used to be massive... I remember No Angel and Life For Rent were both smash albums in Australia, multi-platinum certification, lots of weeks at #1... GWGA debuts at #12 there and probably will fall out of the Top 40 in its second week. This is the result of deliberately not caring.

The new album is out in 5 days, and yet no music video and no sign of real promo except radio interviews nobody cares. Anyway, what are interviews for? People will buy an album if they like the music, not because they like answears in an interview. The new single peaked in the lower Top 100 of itunes and is now falling. It won´t even make the UK Top 75 singles. What a fiasco this new era will be. It´s incredible how did she came from being the biggest british artist in the world to such a z-lister and a nobody... can´t say it wasn´t deserved. For the last 10 years she didn´t seem to give a f*** about her career.

Well, reading the article, the cardinal actually seems to be a lot more enlighted and have a much better cultural background then yourself. In fact, I doubt your opinions actually have any background on reading or researching, you just vomit from your mind whatever you think is right and then vomits insults on anyone else that disagrees. In fact, your posts in this forum since years make the catholic church and even the bible belt evangelicals look like amateurs in the art of discrimination. Since 5 years or even more, it seems that the only thing you know about christianity and the catholic church is that priests rape children[/i]. That´d be alright if you were a teenager rebelling against your parents religion, but as an adult men you still have this shallow, superficial views of the world? Guy, seriously: grow up!

I´d say let people do what they want with their lives, but why call this marriage? You don´t give birth to children off you butt, your butt is not a sexual organ. Marriage has always been between a men and a woman, and this pre-dates the catholic church and even the most ancient monotheistic religions. The cardinal is spot on everything he says. People who hate the church will no doubt use ad-hominem arguments, since the cardinal represents the church. Tough the cardinal has not mentioned God or any particular religious belief in this article. There are a lot of people who are not particularly religious, and even atheist people, who can see, for obvious reasons, the union between people of the same sex should not be designated by the same word that designate the union of people of opposite sex - as has always been. Even the ancient greeks, who supposedly tolerated and/or even supported sex between men, have never called or classified those unions in the same league as those unions on which families and the whole society was based, a.k.a., the unions between men and woman, which enabled children to be born and secured the continuity of our species. They might aprove a law sayng that an union between a men and an elephant, or a men and a banana tree is a "marriage" but it still wouldn´t be.

Probably they want to give her time to release at least 2 singles before the next album comes out. She´s not the type of artist that sells albums based on her credibility alone, people only buy her albums when they have multiple hits. And obviously, the album has to come in November to benefit from the seasonal period. Her pattern in America is pretty much what Girls Aloud used to do in the UK a few years ago. Milk the most from the album during November/December, have some hits during the following year but without astonishing album sales, then the followup comes in the next November.

Or maybe if she has a few more million selling / #1 albums over the years, even if they don´t sell 15 million each? The Spice Girls had not sustained it. Specially in the USA. First album sold 8 million, second album sold half that, third album just scraped the Top 40. That´s what you call "sustain"? I call it going downhill very quick! I think Adele has far bigger probabilities of sustaining it over the years the the SG. She doesn´t need to sell 10 million copies of all her albums. Alanis Morissete sold 30 million copies of "Jagged Little Pill" and she is not bigger then Madonna (who never had an album selling that much). The fact that Adele´s 2008 debut album is among the Top 10 albums of 2011 worldwide is a good indicator that she will last longer. Her debut album didn´t sell 20 million, but 4 years on it´s still hot... Where were the Spice Girls 4 years after their debut? They were reuniting with an album peaking at #39, and having local UK sucess with their solo albums. Except from Geri who flopped at #42 with her solo album in America, none of them was even able to scrap the BB Hot 200 albums. You don´t measure cultural impact just by the intense popularity an artist has on TV and among teenagers. Unless your definition of "culture" embraces just the young people who watch MTV. Someone like Bob Dylan, for example, never caused the same fever as the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys did in their peaks. But the fact that he is still respected and people still care whenever he releases new material means his cultural impact IS bigger then theirs. And for the last time... how on earth do you say the Spice Girls have "sustained" it? They only had a few months of sucess. "Spiceworld" came out only a year after "Spice" (in America, it was just a few months in between). It didn´t even manage to go #1 in USA and sold only a half of its predecessor. Then anything they did after "Spiceworld" was an epic fail. They certainly are the last name to use as an example of acts that sustained sucess over the year. Even the BSB, N Sync and other teenage acts are better examples then them!

The Spice Girls came at a time albums sales were much bigger. If you compare their chart runs, tough, there is no way Adele´s "21" can be less sucessful then "Spice". It already had 12 weeks at #1 there... and the album is only on its 2nd single. Not to mention Adele has a much brighter future then the Spices had... There´s no chance in the earth her 3rd album will only peak at #39 in USA like "Forever" did! Even if it´s a massive flop, it might debut at #1 based on the hype of its predecessor alone. And in the UK, 21 has already surpassed the sales of "Spice" in a much shorter space of time. Of course Adele will not sell this year as much albums and singles as the Spice Girls sold in the year of their peak, but over time she won´t have a career as shortlived as the Spice Girls had. Her 3rd album will sell in one day more then the Spice Girls 3rd album sold in its entire history. The Spice Girls was a huge phenomenon but lasted for a minute. We don´t know if Adele will remain popular for a long time, but even if her popularity decreases, it will be gradual, not like what happened with the Spice Girls. And how many digital tracks have the Spice Girls sold??? I know that when they were active the digital market was nowhere near as big as it is today (that´s if it even existed!), but acording to your logic "it doesn´t matter"... "Rolling In The Deep" sold 5 millions in the USA and still counting. It would be as stupid to compare its sales to the sales of "Wannabe" as it is to compare sales on an album from 2011 (when you can get to #1 with 40k sold in some weeks!) then an album of 98 (when anything that grasped the top 10 sold over 100k). And the most remarkable fact is that the Spice Girls sucess lasted for 2 years. In 10 or 20 years, the Spice Girls will not be regarded as bigger then Adele. They will be regarded as a teen act who was popular for 2 years in the 90´s, while Adele might be regarded as a sucessful singer who had dozens of #1 albums. I know it´s just speculation, but isn´t it speculating anyway that in 20 years people will look at the Spice Girls as bigger then Adele? Even 3 years after they debut people weren´t looking at them when they came back and released an album that nobody bought. Let alone 20 years!!!

It will sell in USA 2 times more then what Femme Fatale has sold in its entire chart run. In the UK it already sold almost twice as FF in just 1 day! Britney Spears is nothing these days.

OMG, it´s f***ing hilarious how predictably shallow this guy is. The whole movie thing was nothing but an excuse for you to vomit the whole "religion is evil" speech that you use in 99 out of 100 topics in here. You definitely need to wake up and stop being a freaking FANATIC, cause you don´t seem healthier then any religious fanatic I know. That´s seriously sick. Yet, they were all published... which makes your whole argument about Golden Compass sound like bull$h!t once again. Of course, catholics can say whatever they want to whatever movie. I know that sick fanatics like you aren´t able to live in a world were people with different opinions then yours can voice them, but that´s where we live in. Because you are a fanatic, period. The topic is about a flopping movie that, acording to you, wasn´t released because of the catholic church... the source of all evil in the universe. B)

One further proof that this topic is nothing but ridiculous paranoia. Of course Grimly Fiendish is a narrow minded who thinks everything that goes wrong in the universe has something do to with religion. And he uses strong words like "censorship" and "fascism" just because they sound cool even tough his topics prove that he has no clue what they actually mean. Next he is going to blame the Pope for global warming or something like this. Then he and his friends consider themselves the soldiers of pure reason... Of course, hollywood would skip anything that made them money even if Jesus, Buda and Krishna came all in flesh an asked them to do so. But of course, sayng that your movie has been canceled because of a conspirancy of the Pope sounds cooler then admiting it bombed because there wasn´t real interest.

Don´t you realize how ridiculous you are? You have not written anything close to an argument, you just ATTACK. No, it clearly demonstrates that english is only my 3rd language. How many languages do you speak, and do you even read books in your own language? If so, then why you prefer to simply attack, instead of show us what you know. But then again, what difference that make? No God = no right or wrong. No need to act "right", since "righteousness" is just a man made fiction. No solid basis for a behaviour, except convenience. And so did Isaac Newton, Plato, Augustinus, and dozens of other genius of humanity, who believe there was a God. But they were obviously to uneducated and mental compared to an average brainswashed normal guy of the Richard Dawkins generation. I don´t need to sugest that... your actions prove by themselves. Atheists in this forum are bitter... there is not need for me to sugest that cause it´s plain. Just read the first post on this topic. It´s basically a bitter cry-out. A mourn. With manifestations like that, it´s really not necessary to say anything. My existence is based on the same thing as was Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mother Thereza, etc. Your existence is based on denying what they lived for. That´s pretty much like living in the shadows of someone else...

SO your whole criticism is laughable. I cannot, will not, take serious someone who lives his life to criticize a book he has not even read. Yes, the VAST MAJORITY of scholars, and that´s not my opinion, is FACT. Anyone who is barely interested in history knows this. And your insistence of the supposed fact that Jesus has never existed just shows how illiterate you are about it, and instead of basing your arguments on serious stuff, you seem to base it in word-of-mouth "Da Vinci Code" type of "science". Hilarious. Mate, I firmly believe that quote... You don´t care what science says, you just use it as an excuse for your trolling against religion, when its convenient to yourself. You are entitled to your opinion, but nobody is going to take serious your wishful thinking over what dozens of serious and impartial historians have concluded.

f***ing wrong. How many of the religious threads in this forum have been opened by religious people tryng to convert atheists??? There were dozens of threads about religion in this forum, and NOT ONE of them have been opened by a religious person, but ALL OF THEM have been opened by a closed minded atheist voicing that "if you can´t proove byscience it´s not worth...", the most shallow and empty principle to live your life based on. An why do you do that??? Simply because you can´t live with the fact that other people (in fact, the majority of the whole world...) believe in something that you can´t agree. If your life is based on that, then it´s empty. You should base it on what you DO believe, and simply ignore what you don´t believe. It´s insane to concentrate so much time on something that doesn´t exist, acording to your beliefs. It´s like devouting your whole life to the non-existence of aliens: if they don´t exist, what importance do they have at all? Creating associations and reuniting people around the NON-BELIEF in something is utter stupid. But you said in the first paragraph that life doesn´t have a meaning at all... what a contradiction. May I ask what institution are you talking about??? It´s typical from a person blinded with prejudice to make judgements about people you don´t even know... You don´t even know if and what institutions am I member of, so stop talking bull$h!t. That´s what I refered as "closed-minded": talking about something you know NOTHING, and acting as if your conclusions, based on nothing, are plain truth. Oh again, the Pope of atheists... lol. Another one who wasted his whole life basing it on a non-belief. Yes, but the vast majority of christians won´t bother the fact some believe in Krishna or Budda, as most hindus won´t bother christians believe in Jesus, and so on... But atheists ALWAYS have to be bitter about what other people believe. To me, the things I don´t believe are simply irrelevant... they are nothing to me. And it´s not like I keep my whole life thinking and talking about the non-existence of stuff. A health atheists could be just indiferent to the idea of God, and in fact simply not thinking about it at all. I think most people who live that way would call themselves "agnostic". But militant atheists cannot spend 1 day without thinking about the non-existence of God, and that´s delirious!

I know it hurts. To know that you are useless, your life is ending fast and it acomplished nothing. That´s why I understand your bitterness. I´m very sorry for people who can´t have a meaning on their lives, cause that equals pretty much to have a cancer in your soul. And that sort of justifies some atheists agressiveness towars anyone who disagrees their closed-minded world view.

One thing I have always asked myself is, why are atheist usually obsessed about religion, and turning every discussion into a religious discussion? Why are atheists so obsesse to depose christianity and all other religions, and get so easily irritated about the fact people will hold to their beliefs regardless of atheists attacks over and over? Surely, one cannot base his life in what he DOES NOT believe. If I don´t believe in horoscope, I´d simply ignore it, and not live an entire life obsessed about the fact that I just HAVE to convince the whole world that horoscope doesn´t work, and turn every possible discussion into an attack against horoscope-believers. Basing your life on something you DON`T belive is simply not healthy. So, instead of just basing your lives on prooving God does not exist, atheist should sugest an alternative reason to base your life on. A positive one, not one based on denial. You can never escape the fact that your life is empty and meaningless. That´s the reason I think many atheists are bitter. There is nothing left they can base their lives on, it´s a huge waste. They might end up like a depressed nihilistic, in case they have the same philosophical depth as Nietzsche (which most obviously don´t).

I have read it several times and never noticed the Bible ever sugest Jesus was the only crucified person back then. In fact, it even says he was crucified among 2 other criminals. So that argument, along with all your typical hate-speech against religious people, is just ignorant nonsense... Plus, I think it´s very pathetic to criticize a book when you give proof, over and over, that you haven´t actually read it and even your general knowledge about is superficial, to say the least, ignoring basic facts that even an average iliterate person would easily be aware of. And about Jesus existence, I prefer to stand by the majority of scholars, including secular and atheist, who support He was an historical character. I find it very pathetic that a person who claims to be science-oriented would happily ignore the majority of serious scholars in order to base a speech only on personal frustrations and a passional hate towards christianity. Your posts are a joke.

I can imagine how many people would have left drugs in case they knew there were trilobites billions of years ago. How many people would have given up on suicide in case they knew about the bacteria and dinosaur stuff... Families would have been reconstructed, people would be given new hope. How could the Bible ever omit something as relevant as the trilobites? Surely, one can never fill its existential whole knowing about the life in the paleozoic oceans. We have been conned. I bet if Mother Theresa had known about the trilobites, she wouldn´t have consider becoming a nun at first place.

I´ll answear that after you answear what I asked for. You pretend to only believe in stuff proven by science, but actually believes in a mystic "free will", which is against any type of science known. It seems that you are only adept of science when it´s convenient to you. -_- I have never mentioned the Bible to "prove" predestination (altough it certainly teaches it...), but only scientific and philosophical arguments. So this is not a religious discussion really... Don´t even mention "God", it´s just the material world we were talking about, so if you want to advocate free will then do it using science and reason, and not just the boring and predictable "the Bible is bull$h!t" argument. In fact, the brightest determinist thinkers where atheists. :wacko:

I never said christianity has the monopoly of spirituality. I haven´t even mentioned it. But what the hell are these "universal truths" or "natural laws"??? "Natural law" (meaning a natural morality, a natural right...) is more And I haven´t implied that... Nobody knows exactly what did Hitler believe, and he had a very diverse religious background, altough what we know is HE DID use religious symbols, including the Church, for his purpouse. Using religion for a diverse purpouse is very common in history. So WHAT really is the problem? Who the hell is "forcing" you to believe anything... In fact, I think you are closer to "forcing" other people to believe your shallow materialism then anything else. Just look at this topic. The article in the 1st post doesn´t even mention religion at all. It was only a small comment who ruined it all: "So how do we think the religious nuts will react to this then?", implyng that all religious people are nuts who ignore or deny anything that science develops, which is rather bull$h!t. The idea of this new discovery being a serious offense to religion is a joke. My purpouse here is only defense. I have never started ANY of the religious topics in this board... I just defend from the shallow ridiculous stupidies like this. In fact, it seems that you both are just trolling, linking religion to just every possible evil in the world just to make any "religious" people inferior. Once again, the shallow dicotomy RELIGION/SCIENCE. They are 2 different things with different objects.

No. That´s why it doesn´t talk about complex scientific theories. Only an "intelectual elite" can understand complex scientific theories, even tough "normal" people can agree with them depending on the varying degrees of trust they have in scientists. No, because it´s "meaning" have nothing to do with scientific theories. That´s bollox. Wether the world has 10k or 10 billion in years, in doesn´t make a slightest difference to a "normal" guy´s life... The dicotomy between "science" and "religion" is shallow. They are 2 different things. "Different" doesn´t mean "opposite" or inconciliable. Just like YOU! You grew up in a heavily secularized country, even if from a nominally christian family, or a sunday morning christian, YOU have been raised in an anti-religious culture. You just confirm what I´ve said about being materialistic... "it´s all there is". An afterlife is not "my hope", I barely think about it, because my life is already complete and full of meaning at this moment.