I don't know about anyone else, but I think lots of times bands get famous for songs that aren't really good even though they have a whole host of other songs in their catalogs that are really good. Sometimes it's bands who you knew of before they got very famous.

A couple of bands that come to my mind are INXS and Jane's Addiction.

INXS had infinitely better material than what became very popular. (Though that stuff was pretty good too.) Songs like Don't change, love is (what I say), red red sun and biting bullets are some of my favorite songs of all time but some of the songs that were "hits" weren't that powerful. (think "suicide blonde")

Jane's Addiction is another band who's fame can be partially laid at the feet of one of the worst songs they ever wrote (imo): been caught stealing. They have written so many other excellent songs that I have to wonder who thought it would be a good idea to release that song for heavy promotion. Oh well, I guess it worked, but I'd take had a dad, ted just admit it, whores, or any number of other JA songs over been caught stealing anyday.

Because of cases like these, I wonder if I might be missing some other truly good bands because I don't like their "hit singles"?

Does anyone else have thoughts like these or want to talk about bands that you think deserve more fame based on their work but less on their hits?

The Flaming Lips. The Soft Bulletin and Yoshimi were un-hit.

__________________
"Hey Ram, doesn't this cafeteria have a no-fags-allowed rule?"

I can't think of any bands like that. If a band doesn't have a hit there's usually a reason, they suck.

A-Ha
Depeche Mode

would liz phair count? never said and supernova were alright but nowhere near as lovely as a majority of the rest of her songs. and the big hit, why can't i, was mostly annoying.