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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
>>>"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.
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.
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?
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!
Achilles, The denominator of Beatles is finite. It started growing as their ages correspondedly. Their latest albums are substantially better than their debut. The nominator started going the other way trying to stand against Rolling Stones. I recalled another winner/loser hero PAUL SIMON! Oh god as Tbromgard mentioned
While I love the Beatles, what's infinity/infinity? Is it possible that their riches exceeded their talent? I don't think so, but I can understand the argument. They probably had more success than any other artist in any medium ever has. But I personally think they had more talent than anyone since Beethoven. Perhaps since Bach. (Sorry, Mozart.)
Sorry Bojack, Nicks' voice is far from unique, and her limited skills and range shows in song after song. After the other gal left, all that was heard was Nick's insipid warbling and the band, became, well, nothing. Having some flowing bedsheet around on a stage trying to having some nonsense "witchy" way isn't talent, it's just gratuitous bs. She can get me to move too - out!
Rush - puleese. lyrics that could only make a 12 year old proud but so embarrassing to listen to otherwise. As much as Yes sometimes went off the deep end, they had some skill. I'll give you that their drummer can find his way around a kit, but that band could only have made it by getting the obligatory Canadian airplay, otherwise they'd still be playing high school gyms for pimply sophomores trying to believe the words have some deep meaning. It would be giving them credit to even call them the Wal-Mart of prog rock.
Like this started with - even Kiss had an entertaining stage show - talent no, showmanship yes.
Oh yeah - Chicago was mentioned. What are they up to now Chicago 243? All with the same nondescript tunes, and even if you've never heard them before you know exactly where the horns will go - beep, beep beep, beep, beep beep beep. So far with so little talent. Who buys that dreck?
Michael Bolton - yes, yes. My ex used to think everything he did was "deep" because of his insipid tune renderings. And the hair - what was up with that? - gawd. Thankfully his 15 minutes appears to have been up some time ago. Thankfully.
Didn't see Grand Funk up here yet. Certainly a contender for one of the least talented ever. Saw them at the Yale Bowl a few decades ago. Yes opened for them (right after the Yes Album came out). Needless to say, Grand Funk couldn't have been too pleased with the audience response.
Some mentioned the Dead, the Stones and the Beatles? Guys, get a grip. Please.
The rest of your list I could gladly live without, but David Bowie is a cut above the rest. ("Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars" alone gets him off this list, IMHO anyway.)
But then again, I guess everyone gets to shove someone they really dislike onto the list, much like me with Madonna, U2 and Radiohead, (and Elvis and Sting and The Pretenders and The Smiths and The Cure, .....) ;-)
Whoa, Snofun3. Stevie Nicks has an incredible voice that is wholly unique, pitch perfect, and can move an audience. And Rush? Their live shows are unbelievable, really. I encourage you to read Neil Peart's books as well...his lyrics are not inane. Now, Steve Miller...
Fleetwood Mac - how can anyone take Stevie Nicks half octave voice seriously - like fingernails on a blackboard.Can't turn the radio off fast enough.
Rush - oh yes, senseless prog rock with inane lyrics, screechy voices and mindless three chord juvenalia. They show the danger of quota's in Canada's 35% Canadian content rule on the radio.
I have to defend the Stones. Yeah they've been coasting since the early 70s and really need to hang it up before they become complete embarassments.
However, very few rock bands have put out a string of 4 albums equal to Beggar's Banquet through Exile on Main Street. Their early albums were killer as well.
So they have made the music to deserve their success, they just need to understand that they're diminishing their early work by not knowing when it's time to call it quits.
Timrhu, You spelled leopard correctly, thereby spelling the name of the band incorrectly. Roxy54
Funny. I thought about looking up the band's name for spelling, and actually put one of these (sp?) behind it but my wife called me to answer the phone. As I have never owned or even looked at anything by them, please forgive me.
I'm going with Michael Buble and I actually like the guy. For reasons beyond the scope of this post, I've seen him perform live twice. He's charming and entertaining but his success is WAY out of proportion to his talent
Nick-You're a bloody fool. Had to say it. The Beatles have stood the test of time and will continue to do so. The Beatles had, without much argument, 3 of the greatest musical minds in rock history. All in 1 group. No group even comes close.
Any of the big hair bands of the 80s (Bon Jovi, Cinderella, Great White, White Snake, Dokken, Ratt, etc...too many to chose from), boy bands of the 90s (Back Street Boys, New Kids on the Block, 98 Degrees...yech), girl bands from the 80s/90s (Spice Girls, TLC, etc...). I am just keeping this to bands. Individual performers opens up a whole additional category.
Marakanetz, You hit it! Bon Jovi is a great example. Had a very big hit album, which now sounds embarassingly dated, and has put out crap for years now. It's apparently just his good luck that a lot of grown women get all hot and bothered looking at him.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
