I mean she’s OK and has produced some nice songs and videos, but the “most important pop musician of her generation”? Is there some validity to this?
Right.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
She isn’t even in the Top 100.
Certainly sounds like unjustifiable hype to me. Good, yes. Different, yes. Most important? Nope.
You’d have to load her down with an awful lot of qualifiers to call ehr the “most important” anything. I’d say pop musicians are gauged by how many other well-known musicians are influenced by them; in Bjork’s case, I’m drawing a blank.
She might be called the most important pop musician of her generation to come from Iceland.
Which is equivilent to being King of Nothing.
As my lactose intolerant cat would say after drinking some milk:
::hulk…hulk…huuulllk…bleaachhh:: There, all better now.
That kind of reductionism is meaningless. Most important in what regard? No one would agree on the criteria.
Well, in the “screeching, generally unintelligible lyrics” department, then, yes, she is the most important singer of her generation.
Touche.
UGH.
I think that pretty much covers it for me.
Yeah, might is the key. Sigur Ros might actually contend for the title of best pop musician from Iceland. If you can’t be the most important in Iceland, I tend to doubt world domination is eminent.
No, Kate Bush is, unless you count her as from the previous generation. 
Well, I think she is the most important person ever to wear a swan.
I think the veracity of that statement depends entirely on how much you like Bjork. Apparently, it is true for whoever wrote that article. For the rest of us, not so much.
I don’t really like Elvis, but he was obviously the most important music artist of his time. I’m not all that fond of Michael Jackson, but you could say the same thing about him.
But Bjork? As Krokodil points out, the only real measurement of “importance” in pop music is how much you change the industry or influence other musicians. She’s had basically no big impact that I can discern.
Bjork is weird, Bjork is different, that’s about it. I really like Human Behaviour, but beyond that, I find her songs amusing. Her VIDEOS are really, really good, however… she definitely goes the extra mile to show what she wants to show.
But most important? Nah. That title is reserved for Wesley Willis, God bless his immortal soul.
The only album I ever bought of hers I returned. I don’t think I’ve ever returned an album other than that one.
So in my book, she is one of a kind at something at least.
I dunno, but the Sugarcubes song “Birthday”, where she got that low growl/high pitch wail thing going on, sends shivers down my spine.
Like her or not, you’ve got to give her credit for having an amazing voice.
RickJay, Michael Jackson is probably the most irrelevant pop musician of my generation.
Commercial success isn’t a measure of importance and influence. Look at the Velvet Underground and Iggy Pop. Their influence didn’t hit pop culture untill 92 or so, and when it hit, it hit in a big way.
All the thousand of garage bands who put out 45s in the pre-hippy days are influencing countless garage bands (and those faux garage bands like White Stripes) today just like the Velvets and Iggy inspired Nirvana and Sonic Youth in the last decade. I think Bjork’s influence will be heard more in the future.
Anyway, Bob Marley’s the most important pop musician of all time. He’s a prophet to millions of people around the world.
Elvis might have been more important if he croaked when he was still skinny and rockin’. 
Jon
Well, I like how nitroglycerin put it. I have no idea how you measure the importance of a musician. Is Bjork important politically or socially, like Bob Marley is or U2 might be? I’m gonna say no. Has she influenced a great number of other musicians, like a Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Elvis, etc? Not I can think of. I don’t know of anyone who even tries to sound like Bjork.
“Most important pop musician” strikes me as one of those things a music critic says to demonstrate how smart he is. It’s a grand, sweeping prouncement that’s totally subjective.