Initially Drum Theater had vice-versa, but their talent on the scale from 0 to 100 is far away from zero. Check out Liquid Tension Experiment with members of DT and UK. Same I could say about Joe Satriani who eventually became popular artist. |
|
|
|
I'll add John Bon Jovi where mentioned ratio approaches infinity with exception of actually having a talent to blast terrible music and have huge success. |
Remembering that this a ratio....my picks would be:
The Beach Boys
Barbara Streisand
The Osmonds
The Eagles - Pre Joe Walsh....good music, sure.....the best selling cd of all time.....not so much!
Nearly any 80's hair band.....take your pick |
"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. |
This thread is begging for someone to to wax philosophical on the meaning of success and talent ;o) |
Mapman, are you taking a swipe at Elvis? |
In their heyday I would say Chicago. |
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. |
I don't care that he's not a group but Justin Beiber has least talent I've seen in a long time. I could go on a rant but I think it's self evident. The Monkeys are deserving of mention. |
Really, Michael Jackson? Interesting choice! At least mathematically, that numerator (success) is pretty large. So it would be hard for his talent to measure up to his success, but I think in some ways it does. Or did. |
Tocchet, it's that recovery "with more success than ever" than lands them on my list. What was their last great song? Janie's got a Gun? Hardly... It was Walk this Way, approximately, a good decade before their newfound success.
I agree with you about Sprinsteen. I've often felt Springsteen is for people who don't like music but feel the need to tell people something when asked what kind of music they like.
BTW This whole thread is going to be very subjective. I can't stand Aerosmith (after 1980) or Kiss. Maybe you can't stand Radiohead. That doesn't mean either of us is wrong. Just different tastes.
I thought it would be interesting to see who other people thought were undeserving of wild success, and it has been so far.
Keep 'em coming! |
How you could ever think that Aerosmith's music is terrible is ridiculous.Aerosmith is absolutely America's greatest rock n roll band.Toys in the Attic is one of the most complete album's ever.In my opinion it is the best album of all time.Aerosmith has an incredible catalogue of albums and hits spanning many decades.
Steven Tyler and Joe Perry are right up there with some of the best ever rock n roll songwriter's.
Most every song they ever covered (Come Together,Baby Please Don't Go,Roadrunner,Train Kept a Rollin',etc.)was done better than the original version.
Steven Tyler is the best frontman ever.He turns 63 this week and can perform like no other.Plays drums,harmonica,piano,etc. like no other frontman can.Oh yeah, and he has incredible vocal range.
Columbia records released Aerosmith's debut album and Springsteen's debut album on the same day in 1973.For every dollar they put into Aerosmith they put a hundred into Springsteen.Although Columbia hit the jackpot with both a couple of year's later(Born to Run and Toys in the Attic),Aerosmith's debut was much better with hits like Dream On,Mama Kin,One Way Street,Movin' Out and a great cover of Walkin' the Dog.The best thing to come from Springsteen's debut was Blinded by the Light which was made most famous by Manfred Mann (#1) five years later.No offence,Springsteen is a favourite of mine.Just making my point that Aerosmith had to work hard touring,and recording.
Yeah they did self destruct,but later recovered and returned with more success than ever.
|
Rolling Stones is an interesting choice, but based on their 60s and 70s output, I think their talent is prodigious. So they've slacked off for a few decades? There's always the 2020s! |
The Archies?
Betty carried the band IMHO.
She could really whack that tambourine! |
Well, by most measures, Michael Jackson's "Thriller" is the top-selling album of all time. Was he talented? Sure, he was quite talented. But if the question is about success vs. talent, I'd have to think that the King of Pop deserves consideration for a prominent place on that list. |
Pebbles and Bamm Bamm were way overated, IMO. |
|
Kurt tank, I agree Aerosmith was a stretch. Their 70s work was very good. I love Walk This Way and Back in the Saddle. But what have they for us since? Nothing!
Of course I'm letting my musical tastes get "in the way". This whole exercise is about taste. You should put radiohead on your list if you don't like them. They're very successful. I love them. But I think they're super talented. Is that what you're saying, that if I can see someone is talented they shouldn't make this list, even if I can't stand their music?
I suspect I don't have respect for the talent behind the music I dislike, but it's possible I guess. Like Yngwie Malmsteen is arguably talented, but he's awful. So should he not be included in this discussion because of his guitar talent? I would argue no, guitar talent is irrelevant if he's got no songwriting talent.
Thanks for the discussion!!! |
The Monkees?
The Partridge Family?
The Jonas Brothers? |
Not including a lot of their earlier material, which was good to average, with a few greats, I would say the last 20 years of the Rolling Stones has been very poor. I agree about Kiss. Aerosmith has had a similar career to the Rolling Stones in a way. They had a couple of really good efforts,(e.g. Rocks)but I find their music for the last 20 years or so to be boring, even annoying. Now I need to think of some others... |
|
I can somewhat agree that Kiss should be on your list.
(They were not very talented musicians/songwriters, but they were showmen first, and musicians second, so that is understandable. A lot like Madonna, IMHO.)
I don't know anything about Dream Theater, so I will not comment upon them.
However, your choice of Aerosmith is way off the mark. I think you are letting your taste in music get in the way of your logic here. They have way too many good songs and albums for you to come to that conclusion.
That would be like me choosing U2 and Radiohead for your list. I dislike both of those bands, and could care less if I never heard them ever again. (Please, oh Please, make it so!). However, I would never state that they have little to no talent as you have done.
So, for my list, I would nominate the aforementioned Madonna, but even she only comes in a distant second to the true number one, which is, (Drum roll please).....
Yoko Ono!
How she has maintained any sort of pretense as a musical artist is beyond me. The utter lack of talent is unbelievable to me. (Apparently being married to John Lennon was enough for some people to think that being close enough to a talented person conveys talent to that person.)
My two cents worth anyway. |
