>

I don't like a lot of their albums, but Ten is a jam
Nah 10 would have been just as popular if the band was called Opal Preserves >

Pearl Jam were enormous in the 90s. Think of their music what you want, but they were hugely popular.
To argue that their success hinged entirely upon a well chosen band name is absurd. >

Well that’s the cross I bear >

The band "Hoobastank", which is the worst band name I can think of, still managed to have some mainstream success, in spite of their terrible band name. It's not like their music is good enough either.
Band names mean little to success. Change my mind. >

Rocking to Polka Tulk Blues Band is not the same as rocking to Black Sabbath.
Anyway, back in the 90s, I doubt I would have cared about a band called “Mookie Blaylock” >

Doubt all you like: Hoobastank is evidence that a band could succeed in the 90s without a good band name or music.
I can say, "I doubt the earth is round", but that does little to undermine the mountain of evidence that exists in contrast to by doubts.
If the band Black Sabbath had a different name, I suspect they'd have enjoyed all the same successes, aside from the part in the story where people talk about the ironic contrast between their cutesy sounding name, and heavy sound. "That Ozzy, what a character."
King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard enjoy great success, in spite of a silly band name. Nobody takes them less seriously for it.
Khurangbin seem to enjoy great success in spite of their band name being a Thai word that most Westerners will be unfamiliar with.
Mogwai take their name from the cute critters in a bad 80s B-movie. It hasn't undermined their capacity to be regarded as one of the hardest rocking bands on Europe. >

Neither of the bands you mentioned are particularly topping the popularity charts, tbh. 
Transport yourself to 1998, watching TRL. Do you see Carson Daly announcing  the music video for Iris, by “The Sex Maggots”? Nah. >

Now you're shifting the goalposts in two ways:


Chart topping was never a prerequisite. The question was popularity in general. Popularity relative to where that band ever could be.


Profanity in band name was never a part of the question. None of the examples you gave above involved profanity. The band Tropical Fuck Storm isn't getting announced on mainstream daytime television. The Sex Pistols didn't have any trouble being mainstream though. >

Even if we leave the top charts out of the question, Mogwai is hardly “popular in general” (post-rock as a whole ain’t that big)
All the bad names I’ve used are actual former names of these bands.
A good name alone won’t make a band popular, but a bad one will definitely hinder them. >

I don't like Pearl Jam at all but your opinion is whacked. >

They could’ve been named Primus Tool and they still would’ve had the first few albums and tours see mega hot sales. It was the right sound for the time. >

Shut up King Jeremy >

I like Moonstone Jelly's music better but their name just didn't cut it >

Same thing goes for Mineral Marmalade >

r/arguablybetter >

lemon yellow sun >

They're in my top 10 lol. Maybe you had to be there. Either way, no amount of arguing will change your music tastes 😂 >

You're either under 25 years old or are addicted to hardcore illicit drugs. >

You seriously like the name "Pearl Jam" more than their music? They could have been called anything and would have had the same success. >

You mean Mookie Blaylock wouldn't be as famous? >

Friendly reminder that Pearl Jam were briefly named Mookie Blaylock back in 1990 >

What if they changed their name (back) to Temple of the Dog? >

I like their album Yield