Whether due to tragedy, death of member(s), discord or other reason, what band's achieved ceiling came in the lowest compared to their potential?

There are so many examples of losses, Randy Rhoads, Jim Morrison, Keith Moon, Shannon Hoon, Ronnie Van Zant + the Gaines, Duane Allman, John Bonham, to name a few, and examples other changes to groups, like Syd Barrett, which loss made the greatest impact to the world of music?

Jimi Hendrix

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Badfinger
http://ultimateclassicrock.com...-pete-ham-badfinger/

Jim Croce. I had tickets to the show he was flying to when his plane crashed.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
Jimi Hendrix

Stevie Ray Vaughan

^^^^^These

Blind Melon was juuuuuust getting started.

Buddy Holly

Robert Johnson

For me, The Replacements could have been a much bigger band, all of the elements were there; chemistry, songwriting, etc. But due to their negative attitude with the industry, their hatred of conventional marketing & self-promotion, all fueled by self-destructive alcohol consumption, they alienated so many record industry folks that their potential rise in sales and stature was never going to go anywhere. Even though they always made the top 10 critic's lists each year, they barely sold any albums.

Another band that should have made it bigger was XTC.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
For me, The Replacements could have been a much bigger band, all of the elements were there; chemistry, songwriting, etc. But due to their negative attitude with the industry, their hatred of conventional marketing & self-promotion, all fueled by self-destructive alcohol consumption, they alienated so many record industry folks that their potential rise in sales and stature was never going to go anywhere. Even though they always made the top 10 critic's lists each year, they barely sold any albums.

Another band that should have made it bigger was XTC.

This, agree 100%. Love the band!
Also Sublime could have been something had the singer not Od'D

Boston. Due to mostly, I think, to management and contract disputes, "they" only produced three albums in ten years, despite the great success of their debut. (I put "they" in quotes because I think Boston was always very much a product of Tom Sholz work, above all others.)

Seems like such a lost opportunity to me.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Buddy Holly

Lots of good answers but this one makes me ask "What if?" more than any.

I'm regularly forced to listen to plenty of Syd Barrett era Pink Floyd. I honestly think 99% of that material is garbage and the band only benefited in every way from David Gilmour replacing him. It's too inaccessible. But if you have a hard-on for Frank Zappa and King Crimson, you'll love it. In the music world, that's akin to being a transgender vegan who does crossfit - everyone is going to know exactly how superior you are because you're going to tell them. At least, that's my experience with the people I've met and talked with who think Syd Barrett was a god amongst insects and sneered at anyone who likes The Division Bell because "that's not Pink Floyd."


Not in any way intended to be a slam on the OP. I have just developed some rather negative feelings for big fans of Syd Barrett based on negative experiences.

No slam. I just threw that one out as an example for discussion. I don't have a dog in that fight.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
For me, The Replacements could have been a much bigger band, all of the elements were there; chemistry, songwriting, etc. But due to their negative attitude with the industry, their hatred of conventional marketing & self-promotion, all fueled by self-destructive alcohol consumption, they alienated so many record industry folks that their potential rise

in sales and stature was never going to go anywhere. Even though they always made the top 10 critic's lists each year, they barely sold any albums.

Another band that should have made it bigger was XTC.

I saw the Replacements live in Fresno in 1989 and it totally changed my life. One of the great bands in my generation. I just finished reading "rough boys: the true story of the Replacements". Highly recommend it. But, both Paul Westerbeg and Tommy Stinson came across as just huge outright jerks. If they had just been nicer to the people trying to help them they could have been much more. But, they are now legends.

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
Boston. Due to mostly, I think, to management and contract disputes, "they" only produced three albums in ten years, despite the great success of their debut. (I put "they" in quotes because I think Boston was always very much a product of Tom Sholz work, above all others.)

Seems like such a lost opportunity to me.

True, but Boston has put out 3 more albums since Third Stage in 1986:

1994: Walk On
2002: Corporate America
2013: Life, Love & Hope

(and 1997: Greatest Hits)

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
[snip]Another band that should have made it bigger was XTC.

Agreed. I absorbed every minute of their material. From the In-Your-Face brash seventies, through the huge Todd Rundgren production on Skylarking, & on into mega-giants (IMO) Oranges & Lemons, and Nonsuch. I'll never fathom how they weren't more widely acclaimed.

The early or otherwise tragic death of all of them is sad, but some seem especially so for their forever unrealized and significant potential - and of all of them... I think both Buddy Holly and Hendrix were proven to be extraordinary and taken so early in their careers and are particularly tragic losses for it, with artists like Shannon Hoon and Jeff Buckley and Stevie Ray coming in close behind, if not equally.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
I'm regularly forced to listen to plenty of Syd Barrett era Pink Floyd. I honestly think 99% of that material is garbage and the band only benefited in every way from David Gilmour replacing him. It's too inaccessible. But if you have a hard-on for Frank Zappa and King Crimson, you'll love it. In the music world, that's akin to being a transgender vegan who does crossfit - everyone is going to know exactly how superior you are because you're going to tell them. At least, that's my experience with the people I've met and talked with who think Syd Barrett was a god amongst insects and sneered at anyone who likes The Division Bell because "that's not Pink Floyd.".

I basically agree.

But then again, I like Load and Reload better than most Metallica since.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
For me, The Replacements could have been a much bigger band, all of the elements were there; chemistry, songwriting, etc. But due to their negative attitude with the industry, their hatred of conventional marketing & self-promotion, all fueled by self-destructive alcohol consumption, they alienated so many record industry folks that their potential rise in sales and stature was never going to go anywhere. Even though they always made the top 10 critic's lists each year, they barely sold any albums.

Another band that should have made it bigger was XTC.

Yes.

And Tommy Keene should have been much, much bigger than he was and is.

I loved and miss Stevie Ray Vaughan. But I think we know what we would have gotten from him with a longer life. He seemed well down his musical path. Maybe it would have taken a surprise turn, and we'll never know, but . . .

Duane Allman was so young, who knows how a 24 year old might have developed? I wish he had lived longer, for sure.

Hendrix very well might have had surprises in him. He was so innovative. He is the one who raises the most questions as to where he was going.