|
Post by Jesse on Jul 16, 2011 7:06:57 GMT -5
7That is apples and oranges. Sure, he did better without Maiden than Maiden did without him, but he never did better than when he was IN Iron Maiden. Otherwise, why did he return? I thought this thread was about solo artists making it, not the band they fronted BEFORE they went solo? Of course he was bigger in Maiden but he was not overshadowed by them when he went solo. Now Adrian Smith is a different story. It IS about solo artists making it, but I only have room for 10. Your arguments for Dickinson are the same that can be used for Stevie Nicks. I had to draw the line somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 14, 2011 11:47:19 GMT -5
I'm not even gonna give my line of thinking on this one, just gonna list IMO.......
The Top Ten Instrumental Songs
10-
9-
8-
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 14, 2011 11:34:23 GMT -5
For Pete's sake Sammy Hagar is worth more than a mention. Well, have at it! This isn't the Jesse Blog, it's a discussion forum. Tell us about Hagar's great solo career. I only have a limited sphere of knowledge and I did mention that Hagar would be among my next 3 and that it could be argued that he belongs in the top ten. So, go ahead, make the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 14, 2011 11:31:02 GMT -5
[quote author=jesse board=TALK thread=15726 post=107204 time=1310321152Bruce Dickinson had some success as a solo artist, but hardly got out of Iron Maiden's shadow. That is not accurate as Dickinson had more success than Iron Maiden did with Blaze Bayley. Dickinson did five solo albums which ALL outsold the two Blaze Bayley-fronted Iron Maiden albums. Hardly in Maiden's shadow. [/quote] That is apples and oranges. Sure, he did better without Maiden than Maiden did without him, but he never did better than when he was IN Iron Maiden. Otherwise, why did he return?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 12, 2011 17:33:29 GMT -5
Oh my, WE AGREE!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 11, 2011 17:33:00 GMT -5
I thought I just read somewhere that album...er...CD sales were up for the first time since around 2002. I do agree that today's download technology forces bands to make better albums for fear that fans will just download the best song or two and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 10, 2011 13:05:52 GMT -5
Before I put this list to rest, I should mention the "best of the rest". ;D
Stevie Nicks. Had a good solo career for much of the 1980's, but I started counting up the hits that I remember of hers and I couldn't get past one hand.
Robert Plant. I had him on my initial list, but then thought of others who were more worthy. Plant had a decent solo career, but ultimately, when you think of Plant, you think of him more for "Black Dog", "Whole Lotta Love", "Kasmir" and "Rock'n Roll" than for "29 Psalms", "Big Log" or "Tall Cool One". Ozzy and Dio are known as much for their solo works as for what they did in Black Sabbath, Plant will always be thought of as Led Zeppelin's singer.
Jackson Browne. Technically, I could've made him #1 on my list as he was an original member of The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band in 1966, but he left them before they made it out of the garage. The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band had ZERO success during Browne's tenure in the group, therefor, I eliminated him from contention.
Bruce Dickinson had some success as a solo artist, but hardly got out of Iron Maiden's shadow.
Rod Stewart, Sammy Hagar and Joan Jett are all good mentions. Probably 11, 12, and 13 for my list, but a case could be made for each of them to be in the top 10.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 10, 2011 10:53:26 GMT -5
Here's a youtube clip from the other night. As I said, Helluva guitar player, kinda bland songwriter. This song was pretty typical of the night, his best soloing was on the more boring songs. The more upbeat songs, didn't quite have the guitar dazzle. I dunno, the more youtube clips I'm seeing of him, the more he's reminding me of Bryan Adams...for better or worse. His fans seem to be in the same demographic as Adams'.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 8, 2011 13:53:58 GMT -5
I saw Keith Urban in concert last night. Good show, but not great. Probably would be great if you like Keith Urban, but I'm very lukewarm about his material. Too vanilla for my tastes, but his guitar playing is anything but. Outstanding guitar player, pretty good showman. Allowed his band to shine quite alot for a solo artist. He's a big Country star, but there wasn't a whole lot of anything to do with Country music at this show. Basically Arena Rock with some occassional banjo plucking. If you're into that thing, it was great, I just found it a bit bland. No less than three of his hits, until last night, I thought were the same song! Still, if you're bummed out that nobody really does the Arena Rock thing anymore, check out Urban, he's carrying the torch of Arena Rock bands of yore....unfortunately, he's more Cutting Crew than Foreigner or Styx. The guy can play guitar though.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 8, 2011 13:40:22 GMT -5
I never did # 1 did I? Well, #1 is actually a 4 way tie that will surprise many of you. #1 Best Artist Gone Solo:The Beatles! John, Paul, George and Ringo. All had a mountian to climb as solo artists and each had an outstanding career AFTER the Beatles. George had the first #1 hit of the four, then went on to create a border-line Hall of Fame career on his own. Ringo didn't do too bad either with a surprisingly long string of hits to his own credit. John became an even greater legend outside the Beatles shadow and Paul had an inarguable Hall Of Fame career after leaving the Beatles. One that still goes on today. Hey, I may not like the Beatles, but they were a no-brainer for this list. Actually, my dislike may have made them #1 as I really didn't want to use up 4 spaces of my top ten on them, so I combined them all to form #1.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 8, 2011 13:32:07 GMT -5
I can't believe I, of all people, forgot about CDB! Notice all the bands WE mentioned are still selling out concert venues across the nation and getting significant airplay some 30 years after the fact. It's only been a few years and I'll be damned if I know what the hell happened to many of these bands on the list. The Strokes? Kings Of Leon? Pixies? Los Lobos? Sonic Youth? REALLY? I'm not saying if or where they should be on the list but don't want you to have to make your arguments from an admitted base of ignorance. The Strokes were on a haitus and have just come out with or coming out with this summer a new album to critical acclaim and they still sell out concert venues. The Kings of Leon are one of the most popular rock bands of the last few years. Going platinum in the U.S. and in multiple countries. Their last album in 2010 sucked but they can still draw a large crowd they sold out our amphitheater here which is around 20,000. Los Lobos have been making albums and selling out concert venues for 30 years. They may not get tons of radio play besides labamba but remain very active. Sonic Youth has also been playing, making new albums and doing very well touring on and off. The Pixies were short lived but every 90s band and their brother listed The Pixies as their influence. Fair enough, but I hardly think that makes those groups more worthy of making the list than......any of the bands Equinox and I mentioned. Again, most of the bands we mentioned have a 30-40 year track record.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 6, 2011 15:54:29 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly. It's like they go out of their way to find these obscure bands to list, while the bands you mentioned are staring them right in the face. I'll look it over again, but I don't think I saw Marshall Tucker Band, Megadeth, or Grand Funk Railroad either. Good calls. Marshall Tucker came into my head right after I shut down my computer that night. And if they're gonna play the Elvis and the blue Moons and Zappa and the Mothers card.... Bob Seger and the Silver Bullst Band Edgar Winter Group The Charlie Daniels band I can't believe I, of all people, forgot about CDB! Notice all the bands WE mentioned are still selling out concert venues across the nation and getting significant airplay some 30 years after the fact. It's only been a few years and I'll be damned if I know what the hell happened to many of these bands on the list. The Strokes? Kings Of Leon? Pixies? Los Lobos? Sonic Youth? REALLY?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 3, 2011 10:14:24 GMT -5
Another joke of a list IMO. They act like the 2nd half of the 70's never existed. No Styx, Kansas, Molly Hatchet, Blue Oyster Cult, Boston, REO, Heart? But they have room to pretend Elvis was in a band, some bands that were one hit wonders, and some the were no hit wonders... My thoughts exactly. It's like they go out of their way to find these obscure bands to list, while the bands you mentioned are staring them right in the face. I'll look it over again, but I don't think I saw Marshall Tucker Band, Megadeth, or Grand Funk Railroad either.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 1, 2011 7:42:18 GMT -5
3-Ozzy Osbourne. Like Dio, Ozzy didn't really cement his Metal God status until going solo, but he did so on a much bigger scale than Dio. Dio is a well known amongst Hard Rock/Metal fans, whereas Ozzy is a household name.
2-Eric Clapton. Begining in the Yardbirds, then hitting it big with Cream, plus Blind Faith and Derek And The dominos, Clapton still manages to over shadow those bands with his solo work.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 1, 2011 7:35:40 GMT -5
I think the degree of how much you like the Beatles depends on where you rank songwriting in you hierarchy of importance when it comes to music. Those who prefer style or the ability to play an instrument (like Steve Vai) over songwriting (like Dylan), isn’t going to rank the Beatles all that high on their list. Also, people who focus on “heaviness” won’t be the biggest fan either. It’s kinda like when you are checking out a chick. What do you like best? Eyes? Boobs? Legs? Booty? Hair? Depending on what you like best, will determine where you rank certain girls. This may be the smartest post on this thread yet. However, I'd like to point out that it's not just about songwriting, it's also about the style of songwriting. For whatever reason, I am just not into their style of songwriting even though I am a songwriting-minded when it comes to my tastes. U2 is another band lauded for their songwriting and I really don't like them at all. With music it's ALL about personal likes and dislikes and what you grew up with. You can't tell me I should love the Beatles any more than I should be telling you that you should love Molly Hatchet.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 1, 2011 7:29:56 GMT -5
Look, I love the Pistols. never Mind The Bollocks is one of my all time faves....but if you guys can't see the talents of Elvis or the Beatles i don't know what to tell you. Sounds like you are haters ;D Please don't lump me in with BlueCheer and DR Jones. While I see their points to an extent, I believe they are overstating their case. The Beatles had p[lenty of talent, were innovators and influenced Rock music like no other band before or since.......I just don't care for them all that much. For the record, I know I USED TO talk like they do about the Beatles, but in talking to folks who grew up with the Beatles, I am more inclined to see YOUR point of view. I am trying to see both sides here and am not sure why this has to be such a divisive issue.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 1, 2011 7:24:42 GMT -5
The BEATLES did the exact same thing for music when they came out. You have to remember when that was. You have to remember that until the Beatles 50's style rock was the top dog. Every band after the Beatles took one aspect of their music and made a career out of it. Only Sabbath comes close to influencing as many bands. They may not be my FAVORITE but they certainly are NOT overrated. Evry member of the Beatles had hit songs AFTER leaving the Beatles. The BEATLES have more music sales in the 2000's than any band. That's right, 41 years after they broke up they still sell more albums than EVERY ACT out there. This is because most of their fans that grew up with them are still alive. Secondly, selling albums doesn't mean you are talented. Mozart had more talent than the Beatles, but does he sell as many albums? No. Not nearly as many. If you opened the dictionary and searched for pop music, the Beatles would have their picture in there. People are brainwashed. Tell people over and over again that the Beatles are god and the best band ever, and people buy into it. There are plenty of artists that came before and after the beatles that are rolling over in their graves by the way because of this. You know who else sells alot of albums but isn't talented? Elvis. He wouldn't know how to write a song if it kicked him in the ass. He was chosen because of his good looks and singing ability. When it came to being an artist, he is about as overrated as they come. Now I'm not saying the Beatles are not talented. They are! But, alot of people buy their albums because they have been brainwashed to believe that the Beatles are the holy grail of music. I think you are overstating your point.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jun 30, 2011 8:19:40 GMT -5
I see he's deleted his profile. He was just here the other day. Anyone know? I miss his input.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jun 30, 2011 8:16:54 GMT -5
5-Don Henley. While his solo career didn' quite measure up to the Eagles, he wound up with more than enough hits for a quality "Greatest Hits" album. When I saw the Eagles a few years ago, they played about 4 Henley solo songs because...well, the HAD to. 4-Micheal Jackson. SHOULD be #1, but I can't bring myself to do it. After going solo from the Jackson Five, he became the biggest selling solo artist in the world. According to Speedy's logic, that means he can't possibly be overrated . I put him on my list, because you really cannot NOT include him, but I think he sucks, so I refuse to put him any higher than #4.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jun 30, 2011 8:10:25 GMT -5
You made my point. ;D With statements like that, I don't know how they can NOT be overrated.
|
|