That's not a bad idea, Mapman.
I would add that since the Beatles were rightly asssigned maximum talent and success, no one can use 10 for a numerator or denominator anymore; both are reserved for the Beatles.
So your Genesis score would really have to be different. But they will not have a high score no matter whether they're given a 8/7 or 7/6.
Let me try a few:
Jimi Hendrix: 7/9 = 0.78
The Doors: 8/9 = 0.89
Lady Gaga: 8/3 = 2.7
Kiss: 8/3
Neat system, I like! |
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. |
|
Genesis needs two rankings. The Peter Gabriel era and the Phil Collins era.
Peter Gabriel era: more talent, less success
Phil Collings era: less talent, more success |
Elvis Presley
Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Bruce Springsteen
U2
REM |
|
Styx, Foreigner, almost every Hair Metal Band, Limp Bizkit...WTF: Kiss |
Elton's John....or is it Elton John?? Someone needs to explain to me why he is so famous. And knighted? It's just me, I'm sure. |
Kiss has to be about number 1, I dont think ACDC has any real talent either but I like them more then Kiss by a mile.
Any good band doesnt need makeup, ask yourself if they would have had the initial success if dressed like Blue Oyster Cult?
Insert most any hair metal band in this aswell, your Warrant, Poisen and others fit nicely here.
Never thought much of the Dead either, who wants to listen to a 4 hour soundcheck? |
I'm with Paul. The Dead. There's not enough weed in the world to make them listenable. |
The Dead had their moments. I suspect people who don't get them haven't heard the good live stuff. If you're willing to suspend judgment for about 15 minutes, listen to Help on the Way / Slipknot! & Franklin's Tower on their CD One From the Vault. It's a good recording and great song cycle. You can download them at amazon for $1.98.
If that doesn't warm you up to them, nothing will. |
the dead were immensely talented musicians, regardless of if you like their music or not.
kiss? poison? warrant? skid row? well, not so much. |
Not a huge Dead fan myself but it's tough not to like "American Beauty" and "Workingman's Dead".
IMO. |
Methinks personal feelings have crept in with some of the 'talentless' bands being mentioned.lol. |
>>>"is it Elton John?? Someone needs to explain to me why he is so famous"<<<
Really? No raving fan here, but, are you serious? Ever seen some of his early playing, singing? Not arguing differing tastes in music, but his body of work is pretty compelling.
Same with the Dead. No talent? C'mon man. I don't listen to their music but they were undeniably talented.
|
Welp (i think this came up before), the hinge might be how "talent" is defined... could be:
-Ability to execute very complex and difficult stuff on an instrument, (making Yngwie, Dream Theater, EVH, Rush and a few others mentioned ineligible as targets for this thread).
-Ability to transport or emotionally impact an audience, (this gets a lot of otherwise pretty mediocre artists who were named off the hook ...R&R hall of fame (hack ... gag) provides many examples).
-Someone who has advanced an art form or expanded the vocabulary of an instrument, (probably puts Miles Davis, Beatles and EVH off limits).
|
Achilles,
I'm with you on all three. |
Soundgasm,
I'm with you. Garcia's Dead, and I'm Grateful. |
hey folks we're really looking for con-ten-ders on the scale from 1 to 10.
They're John Bon Jovi and Paul Simon. I'll give 'em 10/small fraction of one. |
Sure, I'm sick to death of Elton John, too. But no talent? That's just foolish. Remember, he wasn't always a 60-something noodling around with broadway shows.
And I continue to be surprised at the sheer number of people who mentioned the Grateful Dead. Sure, their style doesn't appeal to everyone (whose does?), but they were certainly the best in the style they chose to work in. |
I think a big obstacle to this kind of discussion is the ability to divorce one's dislikes from one's gauge of talent, as several have eluded to concerning the Dead and Elton John.
As an exercise I tried to think of a few artists I dislike but think were talented. It was easiest to do this in genres I'm not so beholden to like jazz and classical. For me it was easy to identify Mozart and Charlie Parker. I don't care for their work but have no trouble admitting their prodigious talent. In rock, however, it's more difficult for me to be objective... The closest I can get is maybe Bob Dylan. I like a few of his songs but fail to understand his immense influence. Yet I can see he's a talented songwriter and lyricist.
Who can you admit is or was talented but whose music you can't stand? |
You've hit upon it, Achilles. Most just post their dislikes without questioning whether the artist was good at what they did. For instance, 2 artists that I really don't care for at all, but I surely acknowledge their great talent:
Steely Dan
Eric Clapton
I would never describe those 2 as low on talent, however much their music bores me. |
Agree with TFKAUDIO. Most post their dislikes.
I will add The Go Go's and The Bangels. I will second the Loverboy vote although I like Loverboy. What about Night Ranger? |
Have to agree with those who mentioned the Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson, Def Leppard, Boston, and Bon Jovi.
I can't believe no one mentioned Robert Palmer. He seems to be the definition of this list.
I'll also add:
Judas Priest
Scorpions
Devo
REO Speedwagon
Lenny Kravitz
Journey
Ricky Martin
Ted Nugent
Jefferson Airplane
Spin Doctors
Phish
Toto
Steve Winwood
I'd put Elton John on there in a second as he's about as bad as it gets for me, but even I have to admit he has some talent. |
MJ had talent. Best crotch squeeze ever. |
