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."


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.

I have to agree.. PF post Barrett IS PF. Before that point it was noise.

RMD

quote:

Originally posted by Hume:
Arthur Lee, Bryan MacLean, Johnny Echols, Ken Forssi, and Michael Stuart: This ensemble is the classic line-up for the band Love on its third album Forever Changes (1967). The album still ranks high on "best of" lists today.

According to John Einarson's detailed biography of Arthur Lee, the original band imploded in early 1968 because of drugs, mistrust, and conflicts over money. Arthur Lee went on with "Love" as composed of backing musicians. The magic of the original line-up was gone for good.

Lee was a royal jerk. He had felony convictions, did prison time, and alienated everyone who tried to help him. I remember him as a guy still hanging around the Sunset Strip in the 1970s. It was an unfortunate display of talent wasted. Lee was his own man, but this angle was not in a good way.

The band Mazzy Star recorded one of his songs, "Five String Serenade" in the 1990s. This recording probably sold more than everything else Lee wrote or recorded.

As for the album, Forever Changes, it has probably gone gold, but its record label, Elektra, has never submitted it for certification because it has gotten lost in the many ownership changes the label has gone through in the last 40 years.

Yes.

IMO, your post best answers the OP's question:"what band's achieved ceiling came in the lowest compared to their potential?"(some of the persons, groups mentioned in this thread had pretty well reached rock/super star status and/ or peaked at the time of their demise so you wonder just how high they would actually have gone-no pun intended).

Love's Forever Changes is one of the most hauntingly beautiful rock albums to come out of the 60s-or any decade.

Another masterpiece: Moby Grape's first album.

Moby Grape-from the Bay Area-were a tragic example of a band that its "achieved ceiling came in the lowest compared to their potential".

Each of the 13 songs on this album is absolutely amazing-and each has stood the test of time-they are timeless-unlike other songs/hits from bands like the Grape that were part of the San Francisco/psychedelic sound(the awful "White Rabbit" comes to mind. They can't seem make a movie about that era without this dirge on the soundtrack).

One reason for this is that the Grape album has no songs on it that would be considered "psychedelic" What it does have is the earliest example of what later would be called "country rock"(even preceding the Byrds/Gram Parsons "Sweetheart of the Rodeo"), blues, and pure, unadulterated rock-every song original, all written by the band members.

What caused this band's failure to reach their potential? Aside from the usual suspects plus some serious mental problems of one of its members-very bad management.

Phil Lynott and Thin Lizzy

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
Stevie Ray Vaughan

+1 for SRV

quote:

Originally posted by JD83:

IMO, your post best answers the OP's question:"what band's achieved ceiling came in the lowest compared to their potential?"(some of the persons, groups mentioned in this thread had pretty well reached rock/super star status and/ or peaked at the time of their demise so you wonder just how high they would actually have gone-no pun intended).

Love's Forever Changes is one of the most hauntingly beautiful rock albums to come out of the 60s-or any decade.

Another masterpiece: Moby Grape's first album.

Good points and great examples, I agree about both groups. I have Moby Grape's album, a few tracks can be found on our vehicles' "mix-tapes" (thumb drives and SD cards). Excellent comparison to "Sweetheart of the Rodeo", another long time favorite found on the mix-tapes.

Along those lines, that time, that place I'll throw in Quicksilver Messenger Service, quintessential acid rock and John Cipollina, nice.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by JD83:

IMO, your post best answers the OP's question:"what band's achieved ceiling came in the lowest compared to their potential?"(some of the persons, groups mentioned in this thread had pretty well reached rock/super star status and/ or peaked at the time of their demise so you wonder just how high they would actually have gone-no pun intended).

Love's Forever Changes is one of the most hauntingly beautiful rock albums to come out of the 60s-or any decade.

Another masterpiece: Moby Grape's first album.

Good points and great examples, I agree about both groups. I have Moby Grape's album, a few tracks can be found on our vehicles' "mix-tapes" (thumb drives and SD cards). Excellent comparison to "Sweetheart of the Rodeo", another long time favorite found on the mix-tapes.

Along those lines, that time, that place I'll throw in Quicksilver Messenger Service, quintessential acid rock and John Cipollina, nice.

Bo Diddley's "Mona" from Quicksilver's "Happy Trails"(headphones or computer speakers, please and up the volume):

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.

I disagree. I don't know how Boston could have been bigger. Yes, Tommy Scholz was the artist behind it all, but it was yuge. All three albums were great, but I agree that the first was the best as a whole.

I think that they fell into a time period when music changed away from what they were good at and the style of music they played. The mid to late 80s brought with it the hair bands and then the 90s crap. Boston was classic rock and had no place in that time through no fault of their own.

I often wonder what would have happened had the Beatles managed to find a way to work it out. How would their music continue to evolve? IMO, neither Lennon nor McCartney were nearly the equal of Lennon and McCartney. In one respect, it allowed Ringo and George the freedom to have their moments, but still imagine the Beatles with the longevity of the Stones.

XTC and Little Feat are a given, but two big ones for me are Nick Drake (mental illness) and Gerry Rafferty (mental illness, alcoholism, and legal battles with the music industry).

When I think about Family Style by SRV and his brother Jimmy, I think there was still a lot variety and potential left in him. Especially since he had just gotten clean. Him and his brother playing together still puts a lump in my throat, at least he fulfilled one of his wishes before he left us.

The Jam, Joy Division, The Clash.

I saw The Replacements in Winter Park in 1985 and it was the worst live show I had ever seen. I asked for my money back from the doorman. They were simply too drunk to perform. Immature idiots.

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
The Jam, Joy Division, The Clash.

I saw The Replacements in Winter Park in 1985 and it was the worst live show I had ever seen. I asked for my money back from the doorman. They were simply too drunk to perform. Immature idiots.

You must have caught them on an off night .

I have seen them a dozen times, and half of the shows were like you described; too drunk to play, playing half finished covers, antagonizing the crowd, etc. One show was in front of an industry-heavy crowd in L.A. and the band just basically threw the show, intentionally sabotaging it all because they hated the whole notion of showcase gigs, hated playing the game.

Then there some shows that were great. And then there were a couple of shows that were simply amazing, some of the best shows I have ever seen, better than the Clash shows I have seen (one a club show in 1978, one on their London Calling tour). Better than or as good as The Who shows, Stones, Bowie, etc. I have witnessed. Yes, they were that good.

Which brings us back to the point of the thread; if they can be that good, why haven't they become more famous? This is the band's legacy.

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
The Jam, Joy Division, The Clash.

I saw The Replacements in Winter Park in 1985 and it was the worst live show I had ever seen. I asked for my money back from the doorman. They were simply too drunk to perform. Immature idiots.

Joy Division, lots of potential but that suicide thing ,,,

those left did go on as New Order,

the Jam, excellent band, not sure what the behind the scenes for the breakup,
style council did some good stuff, but no where near as good as the Jam,
Weller seems to be doing well on his own,

the Clash, one that got away from me, never got to see them live,

Joe Strummers stuff in the 2000's is fantastic, and very under rated,

Guns & Roses....

The Nails

The Hooters

The The

The Jam

Tommy Bolin comes to mind. Amazing guitar player
with two solid albums. Died way too young.

Huey Lewis and The News.

Their early work was a little too new wave for my taste. But when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.

Could have been bigger IMO.

--------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
They were simply too drunk to perform. Immature idiots.

I saw Gordon Lightfoot in Spokane once and he was too drunk to perform. He made up for it as I saw him about 25 years later and he put on a great show.

quote:

Originally posted by lbsid:
Tommy Bolin comes to mind. Amazing guitar player
with two solid albums. Died way too young.

Saw him once, when he was still with Zephyr

As good or better than the Who Oddball?

Granted, they've had concerts that the didn't finish, at least one that a teen in the crowd, Scott Halpin, had to come up and finish the gig with them, but... the concerts I've seen of theirs have all been above average, and the best were transcendent.

I've gotta say Duane Allman too.

I've been listening to some of his "side work" recently (e.g., Boz Scaggs, Wilson Pickett) and it really makes think music lost a huge talent when he died.