Biggest mistake a band ever made

[Papalampraina]

Here's where you tell me any of the solo stuff by anyone post Floyd was noteworthy.....

Only Syd's solo albums were good and felt like they were not missing anything. Gilmour's albums are light, Waters' are dull and gloomy, Wright's were weird (probably another good contender) and Mason's were unworthy of even mentioning. Long story short, once you spend more than 10 years playing with other people, your solo albums will sound lacking.

 

[JMacBass65]

Roger's show was an audience focused multi-media event.

Dave's was a few dudes standing on stage with an outdated light show.

You needed to see them to understand the gap. You didn't.

This. Of course, my frame of reference is the mid to late 80s. Saw Waters on the RADIO KAOS tour, then Floyd on whatever tour that was. Same summer. No comparison - Waters's show was FAR superior!

 

[Sandman64]

-Black Sabbath fired Ozzy and then Ozzy went and kicked their ass for a decade or two before reconciliation measures brought them back together.

I'm not sure about that one? The Dio stuff was excellent and the Tony Martin recordings were pretty good as well.

 

[tbz]

I wrote a very big reply, but then I saw that you wrote Gilmor and Gilmore, so I'm not sure that the whole subject was about Pink Floyd, and deleted it. Plus this is not a PF forum where we can fight about who has better hair or nicer cars, Roger or David.

Uh. Ok?

I've seen them both live. One guy was happy to be there, energetic, spent a ton of his profits in putting on a good show, and genuinely was engaged with the audience.

Ther other acted like he didn't want to be there. Spent none of his profits on presentation. Had a smaller band. Was not engaged in the show at all.

I was in the Gilmour camp until I saw them both in action. Now I can't be.

If you'd like to post the complete reply now that somehow contradicts my experience and their balance sheets, now that I've wrestled with auto correct to have his name appear to your liking, I'm all ears.

Imo it's weird how everyone forgets that Gilmour was a hired gun that then usurped the band he was brought into. Or what a complete d-bag move that was.....

 

[the yeti]

So, what are the biggest mistakes other bands have made..???

firing the drummer doesn't work as well as most assume...

 

[swafran]

Here's where you tell me any of the solo stuff by anyone post Floyd was noteworthy.....

No, actually, from the start I was pretty straight up that the tragedy was that Waters needs Gilmour as much as Gilmour needs Waters. I don't like either of their solo careers, and am a huge fan of what they did together in Pink Floyd.

 

[blue4]

Stopped reading right there.

It's clear you didn't see the Wall show. So while I can see you have an opinion, it's not informed by factual experience.

Roger's show was an audience focused multi-media event.

Dave's was a few dudes standing on stage with an outdated light show.

You needed to see them to understand the gap. You didn't. So you don't. You didn't see how budget Gilmor's setup was so the money grab concept is lost on you.

Gilmore would lose money if Mason was involved. It wouldn't double profits, and he'd want his half. So that argument is invalid.

Also not clear how spending more on your huge band and extensive stage show, and then charging the same for tickets as the guy that does neither, is being *more* focused on money. That literally makes no sense.

Yeah someone's starting to get butthurt over a different opinion.

Sure you schooled me on the merits of ex Pink Floyd members and their shows. Have a nice day.

 

[tbz]

No, actually, from the start I was pretty straight up that the tragedy was that Waters needs Gilmour as much as Gilmour needs Waters. I don't like either of their solo careers, and am a huge fan of what they did together in Pink Floyd.

Seeing them live I can say that Waters does not need Gilmour.

Before I couldn't and would not have. Ymmv I guess.

 

[JMacBass65]

Uh. Ok?

I've seen them both live. One guy was happy to be there, energetic, spent a ton of his profits in putting on a good show, and genuinely was engaged with the audience.

Ther other acted like he didn't want to be there.

And back in the late 80's....this too.

 

[tbz]

Yeah someone's starting to get butthurt over a different opinion.

Sure you schooled me on the merits of ex Pink Floyd members and their shows. Have a nice day.

Projecting much?

 

[58kites]

Here we establish that, with or without makeup, they wrote songs that you acknowledge are good enough that people like them 40+ years later.



Your argument kind of goes off the rails here.

1) they were capable of making records as a band. Just not in an efficient timely manner, and not to Ezrin's expectations.

2) Your second paragraph essentially destroys any potential arguments you'd make about "good" musicianship.

When you hear anything from KISS from Destroyer on you're generally hearing high caliber musicians backing Paul and Gene. So the input of those high caliber musicians is somehow diminished because they were hired to do a job?

So....Steely Dan is bad too? And all of mowtown. And The Beach Boys.....and...and....



TBH I'm seeing a lot of people presenting facts that dispute your opinion. You even do above. You asked what KISS had left without the makeup then acknowledge they had some decent tunes.

Your decision to ignore those facts and call them an opinion is a choice, imo.

I acknowledge that some people still listen to records they took a liking to when they were 10-11 year old boys.
I don't dislike the band because they are bad musicians, there have been some good bands with some less than stellar players, I dislike the band because they were developed by Gene Simmons as a money vehicle and nothing else, therefore devoid of any artistic value...in my opinion.
Yes, I think the high caliber backing musicians were there to do a job for a buck playing music that would have been pretty difficult for them to care about or enjoy much, so there is no way the music is going to have any of that real magic or chemistry that flows into great rock records.
Early Steely Dan was a band and sounded like a rock band, later Steely Dan sounded like hired studio musicians trying to satisfy a perfectionist, in my opinion.
Don't care for a lot of Motown for a number of reasons, I think some not being bands is a reason.
The Beach Boys are overrated in my opinion, Brian Wilson had some good ideas and did create a pretty good record once with the wrecking crew as his tools.
Pretty sure that most of what is in this thread is opinion, even the opinions that use sales figures as proof of whatever.
What we like or don't like and what we think are mistakes are all subject of opinion, sales figures and number of units sold are facts, but those things don't prove Kiss is good music or the Beach Boys Pet Sounds record is worthy of the praise many Beatles records receive.
I've known people who think Beatles records are schlocky crap, and a few who think Led Zeppelin contributed nothing positive to rock music.

 

[KillerEddie]

Disagree completely re: KISS. Creatures of the Night and Animals were two of their best albums. I dare say they did better work sans makeup as it meant they had to focus on music. They did it not just for show but to move on from Criss and Frehley. Peter Criss in particular was a mess that made late 70s Ozzy look like a damn choir boy.

Also re: Sabbath, it was the only logical choice. Ozzy was a wreck and had they kept him they'd have just road on their first four albums for eternity. Ronnie was an amazing singer and really had things been done differently he could have breathed new life into the band.

Now for my controversial opinion: in terms of Van Halen, Sammy was the FAR better singer than Roth. Note that I didn't say he had better SONGS but as a talent there is no question. Sammy had a VERY successful career pre and post VH. And while Eddie focused more on keyboard work during those years, their music was still stellar it was just different. I look at the first two eras of Van Halen the way I look at 70s Heart and 80s Heart: both good but in different way. Or go back and look at Mop Top Beatles and Trippy Beatles.

On that note, the Beatles were really nearing the end of the lnie anyway. I fear had the continued they'd have fallen into the mold of just riding on their classics, throwing out an "experimental" album every few years to stay busy,. And I think all four of them really did great branching out, Harrison and McCartney in particular but even Ringo's solo stuff was great I thought.

 

[tbz]

I acknowledge that some people still listen to records they took a liking to when the were 10-11 year old boys.
I don't dislike the band because they are bad musicians, there have been some good bands with some less than stellar players, I dislike the band because they were developed by Gene Simmons as a way to make money and nothing at all else, so devoid of any artistic value...in my opinion.
Yes, I think the high caliber backing musicians were there to do a job for a buck playing music that would have been pretty difficult for them to care about or enjoy much, so there is no way the music is going to have any of that real magic or chemistry that flows into great rock records.
Early Steely Dan was a band and sounded like one, later Steely dan sounded like a hired studio musicians trying to satisfy a perfectionist.
Don't care for a lot of Motown for a number of reasons, I think some not being bands is a reason.
The Beach Boys are overrated in my opinion, Brian Wilson had some good ideas and did create a pretty good record once with the wrecking crew.
Pretty sure that most of what is in this thread is opinions, even the ones that use sales figures as proof of whatever.
What we like or don't like and what we think are mistakes are all subject of opinion, sales figures and number records sold are facts, but those things don't prove Kiss is good music or the Beach Boys Pet Sounds record is worthy of the praise of many Beatles records.
I've known people who think Beatles records are schlocky crap.

Clearly, the line between fact and opinion, and how to differentiate them, is blurrier in your world than mine.

 

[Inky13]

Remember there was also Muscle of Love in between--it was a decent album, but not as good as the ones from Love it to Death through to Billion Dollar Babies.

As I have heard it--the idea was the others wanted to get back to less fancy stage stuff--more straight forward stuff, Alice & Shep wanted to go bigger--so Alice was going to do a solo album & things stayed that way.
GB likely wouldn't have been part of things after Muscle of Love anyway--the other three did form a band called Billion Dollar babies & released one album.

When Alices' band backed Lou Reed, It was the best that he ever sounded. (IMO) Don't know if that was the NY Vampires, or a different iteration.

 

[KillerEddie]

The mistake with KISS was not sorting out a way for Peter and Ace to remain in the band. The contrast is music, attitude, interest and 'what they brought to the band' was what made the band such a beast...once SimStan took full control, the band became reactive and focused on trying to mimic what was popular...and then we end up with World Without Heroes while makeup is worn.
Vinnie Vincent's big mistake was that terrible 'throwing motion camera point' just before the chorus on the Lick It Up video....you would think that by the time the world had reached post nuclear Holocaust, guys in street gangs wouldn't throw like girls.
Ace should have considered joining as Tom Snyder's Ed McMahon...there was legit chemistry there as well as an appreciation for laughter and fish related puns...empires have been built on less!

I disagree. Criss was a mess, even he grudgingly accepts that. He was impossible to work with and couldn't keep a beat during most shows at the end due to his substance issues. Ace was the same. Say what you will of Gene and Paul but thy did what they had to do. They focuses on the band not individuals. Yeah it sucks but that's life. In terms of Ace, the consensus is he's a genuinely great person, he just had a lot of crap going on. He's for the most part fought past it but had KISS kept him around he'd probably be dead.

Anyone who has ever been in a band has been there: sometimes someone, regardless of talent, becomes a liability. There is no I in TEAM.

 

[Papalampraina]

Uh. Ok?

I've seen them both live. One guy was happy to be there, energetic, spent a ton of his profits in putting on a good show, and genuinely was engaged with the audience.

Ther other acted like he didn't want to be there. Spent none of his profits on presentation. Had a smaller band. Was not engaged in the show at all.

I was in the Gilmour camp until I saw them both in action. Now I can't be.

If you'd like to post the complete reply now that somehow contradicts my experience and their balance sheets, now that I've wrestled with auto correct to have his name appear to your liking, I'm all ears.

Imo it's weird how everyone forgets that Gilmour was a hired gun that then usurped the band he was brought into. Or what a complete d-bag move that was.....

I've seen them both live. Wall tour 2010 and Rattle That Lock tour 2016.
Waters decided to do a second tour with pre-1983 material and a third with mostly pre-1983 material. Also his new "Us and Them" tour is going to be 75% Floyd stuff and 25% solo. This means that he is not happy with his solo records or that people don't know him as a solo artist, so he's depending on the Floyd name to get a big audience. Don't forget the title "The creative genius of Pink Floyd", because "One of the two singers and one of the bassists of Pink Floyd" just doesn't cut it. I agree that the Wall tour was astonishing, but he's done it before. Upgrading the effects to the 2010s and adding a couple indifferent songs, is not bringing the Wall up to speed. It is just him trying to be relative again, because no one's paying attention to him, and I mean this lyrically, not as an artist.
In the meantime, Gilmour is just playing guitar. And a little bit of singing. Yes, he's enjoying his time while he is alive, he's not giving a dime about politics (I disagree but that's what he wants) and he still promotes his solo stuff. I didn't like On An Island or Rattle That Lock, but seeing him do some Floyd stuff was awesome. But he is not stage effect heavy any more. He's too old for this poopie, plus his solo stuff don't require effects like Waters' shows.
I don't like their solo works. I love them up to Animals, because that was the last album they produced as a band.
About that Gilmour and usurping, you have your info wrong. Gilmour was a friend of Barrett's and he was actually the person who showed him a lot of stuff on the guitar. Waters, who wanted to be famous, decided that an unstable Barrett was a liability, so decided to bring in Gilmour to cover for Syd, while Syd was on stage, without singing or playing guitar, just standing there, staring at the audiences. And guess who decided to kick Barrett out of the band. Yep. Waters, not Gilmour.

 

[I am Soma]

i love threads with anger.

 

[blue4]

Projecting much?

Sure whatever.

You might want to stop using the YMMV in your posts though. Clearly you've too much invested in internet discussions.

 

[Papalampraina]

i love threads with anger.

Don't you mean "St. Anger"?

 

[tbz]

I've seen them both live. Wall tour 2010 and Rattle That Lock tour 2016.
Waters decided to do a second tour with pre-1983 material and a third with mostly pre-1983 material. Also his new "Us and Them" tour is going to be 75% Floyd stuff and 25% solo. This means that he is not happy with his solo records or that people don't know him as a solo artist, so he's depending on the Floyd name to get a big audience. Don't forget the title "The creative genius of Pink Floyd", because "One of the two singers and one of the bassists of Pink Floyd" just doesn't cut it. I agree that the Wall tour was astonishing, but he's done it before. Upgrading the effects to the 2010s and adding a couple indifferent songs, is not bringing the Wall up to speed. It is just him trying to be relative again, because no one's paying attention to him, and I mean this lyrically, not as an artist.
In the meantime, Gilmour is just playing guitar. And a little bit of singing. Yes, he's enjoying his time while he is alive, he's not giving a dime about politics (I disagree but that's what he wants) and he still promotes his solo stuff. I didn't like On An Island or Rattle That Lock, but seeing him do some Floyd stuff was awesome. But he is not stage effect heavy any more. He's too old for this poopie, plus his solo stuff don't require effects like Waters' shows.
I don't like their solo works. I love them up to Animals, because that was the last album they produced as a band.
About that Gilmour and usurping, you have your info wrong. Gilmour was a friend of Barrett's and he was actually the person who showed him a lot of stuff on the guitar. Waters, who wanted to be famous, decided that an unstable Barrett was a liability, so decided to bring in Gilmour to cover for Syd, while Syd was on stage, without singing or playing guitar, just standing there, staring at the audiences. And guess who decided to kick Barrett out of the band. Yep. Waters, not Gilmour.

I'm confused. How is Waters and their management hiring Gilmour and then having Gilmour take the band from Waters, years later, not a d-bag move?