Band with highest success/talent ratio?


Which bands do readers thinks have the highest success to quality ratio? In other words, which bands have been very successful yet deserve little success since their music is terrible?
I'll stir the pot right away with my #1 choice: Kiss. They were around for a while, made millions, dressed up in makeup because no one would've listened to them otherhwise, and maybe had one good song (but probably not).
My next choices would be Aerosmith and Dream Theater, although I'm not sure the latter were very successful. I hope not.
achilles

Showing 7 responses by mapman

The Archies?

Betty carried the band IMHO.

She could really whack that tambourine!
I looked at some lists of most successful rock bands..

Fact is most of them have substantial talent enough to justify their success. Success is easier to measure quantitatively. Units sold, dollars earned, whatever. Talent is a more qualitative assessment. fact is most acts that hit it big have talent, whether you like their act or not. How much they have is harder to assess.

So for me, the acts that had success but for the most part did not even write, help produce or perform their own material are the ones that are most likely the winners.

Actually, based on this, I would scratch "The Chipmunks" of the list. There was a real guy named David that produced and performed most of their hits under "The Chipmunks" moniker. He even won some Grammy's for his work in 1959, I think I read. So there was some unique talent there as well.

The Monkees actually did record and perform their material later on I believe, so there was even some real talent (albeit significantly supplemented behind the scenes) there as well.

Even with the Partridge Family, David Cassidy did sing lead and Shirley Jones backup vocals there.

Ever hear Shirley Jones sing in her "Oklahoma" prime? No doubt there was considerable talent there, abeit not a big part of "The Partridge Family's" success.

David Cassidy, not so much talent really IMHO.

So I'll stick with them as the winners, assuming animated acts performed by anonymous session musicians (who have real talent) do not count.
"Mapman, are you taking a swipe at Elvis?"

Hmm, no, but I suppose one could make an argument to earn him consideration.

He was not a "band" act though.

Neither is Yoko Ono or Michael Jackson.

I think "The Jacksons" would not warrant consideration for this particular notorious award.
How about rating on a scale of 1-10, 10 being most talented and most successful?

For example:

Beatles: 10/10 = 1
Partridge Family 4/1 = 4
Rolling Stones: 10/6 = 1.6
David Bowie: 8/5 = 1.6
Milli Vanilli = 4/1 = 4
Rush: 8/5 = 1.6
Genesis: 9/10 = .9
Kiss: 9/4 = 2.25
Elvis: 10/7 = 1.4
Monkees: 7/4 = 1.75
Me: 1/1 = 1

Hey I tied the Beatles!

Partridge Family and Milli Vanilli win!
I assess the talent level in Genesis as essentially equal to the Beatles.

The Beatles clearly edge Genesis out to some degree in success though neither were slouches by any stretch.

here's some others of interest to me in particular (I'm a progressive rock fan):

King Crimson: 6/9
Moody Blues: 7/8
Camel: 3/8
Pink Floyd: 9/9
Yes: 7/9
Procol Harum: 5/9.5
kansas: 6/5

That would make Kansas slightly overrated and Camel way underrated.