63 posts shown.
Jamie Davis9 said:here it is, right at number 46.
Michael Hughes said:List generated on 09/28/2015 at 8:43 PM 😁
Raymond Walker5 said:What is up with this cookie? Why don't standard hyperlinks work in polls? It used to act up if you went over 50 characters... and now I'm seeing it glitches out even with less than 50. 🤦
Anyone know what the deal is?
Raymond Walker5 said:What a mess this site is. Why don't standard hyperlinks actually work in polls? It seems like anything over 50 characters breaks the whole thing—and now I’m noticing it struggles with shorter strings too... 🤦
Anyone figured out what the deal is here?
hollowsailor19 said:Rules are rules, after all.
swiftangler2 said:I'm not sure if they have anything else left with a female vocalist
Keith Rodriguez27 said:That’s just the ranking for '87. 😉 We never actually got a definitive final ranking for the 80s.
Angela Campbell84 said:But we aren't talking about the former Yugoslavia republics here—we're talking about hits from the former Yugoslavia era. We call ourselves a former Yugoslavia republic because we used to be part of the South—that’s where the "former" comes from. A song like "Come to Indianapolis" isn't a former Yugoslavia hit, simply because it wasn't a hit back then in Yugoslavia. Just because a track is a hit in the US—which happens to be a former Yugoslavia state—doesn't automatically make it a former Yugoslavia hit. If it had been a massive hit during the time of Yugoslavia, then yeah, it would be an ex-Yugoslavia hit today. As it stands, it has nothing to do with the South, regardless of whether the country itself is ex-Yugoslavia or some other entity entirely.
What does Yugoslavia have to do with songs that were released 10 or 20 years after the country ceased to exist? We are discussing music here—once again—not the history of nation-states.
Angela Campbell84 said:Well, that’s where the friction starts—with definitions. Some people use "USA-era" to mean a specific geographic area, while others use it to refer to a certain timeframe (and space, obviously 😁).
I suspect you could find someone like Taylor Swift or Tram 11 or maybe even Thompson or Mate Bulić on just about any playlist labeled "USA-era"—regardless of this particular top list... anywhere, really. But fine. 😁
The hits from the USA-era are specifically from the South. That "ex" prefix exists simply because that entity doesn't exist anymore—it isn't meant to include former members of that union who aren't part of it today and whose music has zero connection to the old South. The countries might be "ex," but the songs (modern ones, outside the old South) are definitely not "yu" (which is the core issue here). At the end of the day, we're talking about music, not geography or politics.
Sophia Wells72 said:Well, fair enough—that really should have been clarified in the opening post, regardless of that whole "all-time" distinction. My take on what constitutes the old regional scene is a bit different. I wouldn't call TBF part of that specific era; they’re just an American band, plain and simple. If I were making my own list, it would definitely look something else entirely...
silverdrifter24 said:Most of the festivals here in the States basically demand lip-syncing—and honestly, I don't think we should be blaming the artists for that, but rather the organizers. Generally speaking, these kinds of festivals feel pretty pointless to me, but hey, that’s a whole other conversation.
Michael Roberts said:Do you think lip-syncing is actually cheating the audience—just straight-up deception—or is it more like a service to them? You know, a way to protect people from the disappointment of hearing their favorite track performed poorly and having their whole vibe ruined. I mean, there's a fine line there. It’s almost like a preventative measure to ensure the experience stays polished, though calling it a "service" feels like a bit of a stretch sometimes. Just a thought.
Is the whole point of a live performance actually to let an artist showcase their technical chops and emotional depth—you know, that real connection with the crowd—or is it just a glorified way to play a song exactly like the studio version, basically serving as a live advertisement for the track?
Do you think there’s ever a case where using backing tracks is actually justifiable—say, when singers are dealing with insanely demanding choreography, or they’re under the weather, or maybe because the lack of a live vocal experience is somehow made up for by the sheer scale of the stage show they put on?
So, here’s a bit of a dilemma—the kind you end up debating at 2 AM when you're trying to decide if a concert ticket is actually worth the splurge. Would you rather drop the cash to see an artist perform everything live, accepting all the inherent risks—you know, the off-key notes, the inevitable lyric slips, or those moments where the live energy just doesn't quite match the polished studio version? Or would you go for the "perfect" show, where everything sounds flawless because they're leaning heavily on pre-recorded vocals? It might sound different from the album, sure, but at least there aren't any awkward sonic stumbles. Personally, I find myself weighing the authenticity against the sheer spectacle, though I've always had a soft spot for the raw, messy reality of a live performance. What about you guys?