Band with highest success/talent ratio?


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.
achilles

Showing 9 responses by achilles

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!!!
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!
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!
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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?