Band with highest success/talent ratio?

Audiofeil,

David Bowie, really?

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, .....) ;-)

>>03-24-11: Kurt_tank
Audiofeil,
David Bowie, really?<<

Yup, really.

Yawn.

Hmmm... some interesting choices. While Bowie isn't my cup of tea, he does seem out of place in Bill's list.

Rush is 3 mindless 3 chord juvenalia? Love them or hate them, they are monster musicians. They might not have a 3 chord song in their catalog.

The Beatles were obviously a misinterpretation of this thread's concept, as they likely are the measuring stick with which to compare everyone else.

The Stones really need to hang it up before they become complete embarassments? 15 years late on that call, Tomcy6. :)

My addition to this list would be The Cars.

Cheers.

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.

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.)