Are you implying that Elves don’t exist?
Well, I for one can’t listen to the Sundays and not think of Bjork.
And I’ve never heard Vitamin C, but you can’t say that the photo of her on This album isn’t Bjork-influenced.
Now Bjork is a skilled vocalist, and her music combines orchestral instrumentation with electronica beats which is interesting. That would make her better than most musicians in her generation (generation being born within ± 5 years by my estimation). She ain’t going to be seen as the best though.
I just can’t let this go. Just because you’re not familiar with any reggae besides Marley doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and his influence has gone far, far beyond reggae. Two things to keep in mind: 1) Bob Marley is the only pop musician who is also a saint in a world religion (Not counting Elvis, whose worship has not yet attained “world religion” status) and 2) Time magazine’s December 1999 issue named Exodus “Album of the Century.”
As for Bjork, I read that article and thought it was totally overblown. But, although I own none of her music after the Sugarcubes’ Life’s Too Good, I think she’s great.
Her music paved the way for the wider exposure artists like Sigur Ros have got.
I’d love to hear you try to play Roni Size’s Dirty Beats at a dinner party.
Besides, the artists you mention have made some great work. Sure, the bland chillout glurge that has followed them can be pretty terrible, but you can’t blame John Coltrane for MOR jazz.
I think you may have this backwards. While some of these bands have provoked an outburst of similar artists as a result of A&R guys looking to cash in on a trend, very few can be said to be influential. Puffy, Spice Girls and TLC have had a wider influence on the pop scene, but from your list, that’s about it. I have no idea what you credit (blame?) Alanis with, but I certainly can’t think of any lasting effect she’s had, save for keeping second hand stores in stock for years to come.
I didn’t even know this “Bjork” person was a “she”, didn’t know she was a pop musician (I think I thought Bjork was some kind of tennis player or something), and have no idea what generation she is “of”.
What genre, btw?
AHunter3 the genre is “Popular Music” I believe 
The tenis player was Bjorn of Borg.
Bjork is a small elfin female person, she sometimes wears a swan, or skirt and jeans. She sings in a manner reminicent of cash till barcode reader beeps.
I’m sorry but that is just crazy talk.
What has paved the way for the likes of Sigur Ros is the growing acceptance of alternative over manufactured music. This arguably started in the late 60s, gained momentum in the early to mid 70s and was the rule in the late 70s when punk broke. Since the mid 80s, with the likes of The Smiths, alternative music was no longer seen as something for the weirdos in society. It was de rigeur for the mainstream press to take note of what the alternative scene was doing.
And then the Sugarcubes (being the band that gave Björk any sort of recognition outside of Iceland) appeared in 1988, when all the hard work had been done.
Paved the way, my arse.
I see what you’re driving at, Mr2001, but the two of them have collaborated, so it makes sense to have him comment. It’s not really a judgment that he’s important.
Say what you will about Bjork, but “bland” she most certainly is NOT.
Music reviewers who say that a specific band or artist is “important” is about the same as film reviewers saying a specific film is so good that it’s “essential” or “necessary.” It’s a shorthand way of saying “I like this, and everyone else should damn well like it too.” It’s basically lazy writing, and of course, as others have already pointed out, it’s usually meaningless nonsense, as the definitions for what’s important/essential/necessary change from person to person.
Personally, I happen to really enjoy Bjork. Her early solo work show some real depth, lacking from most pop music, and her more recent releases (particularly Selmasongs, the soundtrack for Dancer in the Dark) are filled with haunting, unforgettably unique music. On my personal list of really talented, really individual pop musicians, Bjork is very high on the list, up there with Peter Gabriel and Tori Amos and Heather Nova. They get there (for me) because I feel that they take pop music conventions and make something unique and memorable out of them, making their own music in the popular market, while so many others are confined by the same market. So, yes, Bjork is a pop musician, but she doesn’t show it very well.
I also recognize that my own tastes don’t necessarily agree with that of others, and “important”? Hell, that’s just a weasel-word some reviewer is using.
And now, after all the above mostly drivel, the correct answer:
Bjork is among the most influential and important artists of her generation. I personall have been saying this for about six years now, and I feel vindicated that others are beginning to say the same thing.
Further, to all of you who have so pompously been mis-defining the term “pop” music.
“Pop” does not mean it’s inconsequential or disposable. Led Zepplin was pop; Elvis was pop; Hank Williams was pop; Johnny Cash is pop; Yes was pop; Rush is pop; Sonic Youth is pop; Radiohead is pop; Beastie boys are pop; etc.
The word “pop” comes from the word popular, but it doesn’t refer to how many people bought the record. It means popular, as in the popular vote: of the people. In music terminology, “pop” is an umbrella meta-genre that includes blues, folk, hiphop, heavy metal, punk, bubblegum, etc. Pop is music that is created by the people, i.e., outside of classical music academia. It’s any music–ANY MUSIC–this side of classical music. Mostly it refers to the pop form: usually 3 to 6 minutes long, usually with lyrics, usually verse-chorus-verse.
Peter Gabriel makes pop music, Kate Bush makes pop music, Bob Dylan makes pop music.
So yes, Bjork makes pop music. And Bjork is the most widely influential pop musician since Prince.
Yeah, probably, but that’s quite common for Icelanders.
lissener Morrissey probably still beats Bjork, but then again Morrissey’s influence is waining, whilst Bjork’s is still increasing.
lissener, I’m with you - Bjork is among the most important musicians of this generation (I never believe in a single “most”). But she represents something rather old, in addition to something new - she’s among the last musicians to create truly integral albums that stand as sum greater than their parts. Homogenic will, I think, stand as one the greatest albums in pop history, deeply influential for many years to come; but there will be few after it.
Bjork?
Bjork???
Hmmph…maybe they mistyped “Beck”
Now that I would believe
Of course…now that I think of it.
Beck cant be classified as anything…pop, rock, blues.
All I know is he truly is…genius
To answer the question, I would think that if you HAD to pick a musician of her generation that was individually influential on music, she would be in the running.
Some artists are influential, but most often they are part of bands.
Some solo artists seem influential, but often their career choices are determined by executive committee, so you can’t really call the “artists” themselves influential.
But despite being one of the more influential artists of her generation, I would agree that she isn’t all THAT influential: bands and record execs are more influential.
Hate to break it to you TigoleBitties, but Beck fits rather neatly into the pop set, just as Bjork does. He’s another good example of someone who doesn’t let the classification restrain him much, but pop he is nevertheless. Good stuff, though.
For what it’s worth, I think Beck is up there too, although I’d still have to favor Bjork if I had to choose one.