I'm always amazed by this - I think they got quite a lot of traction in the US compared with other bands of that era, and are still going. These charts also favour artists with sustantial back catalogues, which Placebo have (5 albums?) compared to a lot of other bands. That doesn't explain all of these charts, but it does explain a lot.
And, I think, they represent the acme of proto-emo, even more than the Manics or Everclear do.
Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 02:27 pm (UTC)And, I think, they represent the acme of proto-emo, even more than the Manics or Everclear do.
Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 02:28 pm (UTC)Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 02:37 pm (UTC)Battle of the back catalogues: Led Zep but no Stones? And were Queen really big in America?
Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 02:42 pm (UTC)I am actually quite surprised by the Beatles.
Stones at #43
Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 02:49 pm (UTC)Now you mention it, the lack of Stones in that list is quite a surprise.
Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 07:57 pm (UTC)That's the way I always explained it. It hasn't changed so much, you know.
See also: Jimmy Eat World.
Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 08:01 pm (UTC)Exactly! But the road from Jimmy Eat World to My Chemical Romance is beyond me. Where did the goths sneakily insert their genes?
In fact Pete Wenz: what's that all about?
Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-10 08:06 pm (UTC)Re: Other questions
Date: 2007-07-11 03:41 pm (UTC)