Measuring the importance of each band member to his or her respective band

[Wazmankg]

Creedence Clearwater Revival is a great example of "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Without Fogerty, CCR would have never existed. But without CCR, Fogerty never achieved the same level of success he had with the band. However, the historical context in which bands like CCR played has a huge influence. I'm currently reading Roger Daltrey's autobiography, "Thanks A Lot Mr. Kibblewhite," and he touches on the unique chemistry in bands. Great read.

I suspect Fogerty would have achieved similar success with others and that his (imo lackluster) post-CCR output was due more to the creative well just running dry, rather than any inadequacies of his band mates. I think that's true of a lot of artists.. they only have so much in them and when it's gone they're done.

Otoh.. you mention Daltrey, the Who should have packed it in after Moon died, like LZ did after Bonham died. They just were not the same band without him.

 

[Omar 382]

But as a guy who has never been a fan of the Beatles(gone as far as to say that their only good song was a Carl Perkins cover), and as a millenial, George Harrison is by far my favorite Beatle. I really like a lot of his solo work, and I like the Traveling Wilburys. I won't put a percentage on his importance to the Beatles since I'm not a fan of the band, but just sharing my thoughts on who the coolest Beatle was.

George also played at Carl Perkins' funeral, and this right here is what first got me looking into his stuff:

He's my favorite Beatle too (and I am a fan of the band), so I was just surprised when @Clayton made one of his usual slightly-autistic, but almost always dead on the money observations about millennials viewing Harrison the most favorably.

And yeah, when George joined the Beatles, he used the pseudonym Carl Harrison in honor of Perkins.

 

[Omar 382]

Lol.. and it turns into yet another "post random videos of albums I like" thread. Can't ever have enough of those, eh ? Good effort anyway.

He's the most fucking annoying tool on this board. As you said, goes from "assigning percentage of importance to each band member" to posting random fucking videos of "jazz fusion" groups, whatever the fuck that is.

Anyway, I was surprised you say that the RS are Keith's band. I defer to you obviously, but I've always thought that Keith and Mick had the ultimate creative control in the band, but that Mick's was slightly larger. Maybe I'm thinking that solely because he was the lead singer.

Interesting that you had Jones so low. I guess I agree with you, but there are a lot of RS fans on Youtube comment sections who, by the looks of their comments, believe that Jones should get like 70% of the credit of the Stones' early success. They think he was the true creative force behind the band.

Anyway- you're a Velvet Underground fan, right? How would you assign those percentages? I'm just curious if it was all Lou Reed or whether others (Cale namely) had a significant influence.

 

[Wazmankg]

He's the most fucking annoying tool on this board. As you said, goes from "assigning percentage of importance to each band member" to posting random fucking videos of "jazz fusion" groups, whatever the fuck that is.

Anyway, I was surprised you say that the RS are Keith's band. I defer to you obviously, but I've always thought that Keith and Mick had the ultimate creative control in the band, but that Mick's was slightly larger. Maybe I'm thinking that solely because he was the lead singer.

Interesting that you had Jones so low. I guess I agree with you, but there are a lot of RS fans on Youtube comment sections who, by the looks of their comments, believe that Jones should get like 70% of the credit of the Stones' early success. They think he was the true creative force behind the band.

Anyway- you're a Velvet Underground fan, right? How would you assign those percentages? I'm just curious if it was all Lou Reed or whether others (Cale namely) had a significant influence.

I've gotten into it with Jones groupies in the YouTube comments sections before. They're a special kind of stupid. He never wrote a song, contributed next to nothing after 1967 and was dead before their peak, but somehow their success was all due to him. From nearly all accounts he was a world class asshole too, not that that really matters with respect to his value. If Keith & Mick don't start writing great songs, the Stones wouldn't have lasted 5 years. They were nothing but a great R&B cover band without the songs.

When I say Keith is the leader of the band I mean with respect to instrumental sound. Aside from some occasional acoustic guitar and harmonica, Mick doesn't contribute much to that. But they're equal and dual leaders of the group.

I'd have to give Cale at least 30% credit for VU's sound.. maybe more. He was responsible for their more avant garde, experimental direction. Reed wanted to be .. well maybe not a pop star, but at least commercially successful. That's why they finally dumped Cale.

 

[Godstree]

Little Feat Lowell George 90% and Bill Payne 10%

ZZ Top Billy Gibbons 70% Dusty Hill 15% and Frank the one without the Beard 15%

 

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

Rush
- Geddy & Alex - 25% each
- Neil - 50% (he wrote the songs, you see)

 

[Wazmankg]

He's my favorite Beatle too (and I am a fan of the band), so I was just surprised when @Clayton made one of his usual slightly-autistic, but almost always dead on the money observations about millennials viewing Harrison the most favorably.

And yeah, when George joined the Beatles, he used the pseudonym Carl Harrison in honor of Perkins.

I wasn't really conscious of how much Harrison's popularity has grown in recent years until I read the link @Clayton posted. But it's true.. I just didn't realize it. I do hear more Beatles and post-Beatles Harrison music now than I do songs by either Paul or John.

I don't buy the "popularity based upon era" theory though. That's a stretch.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Jesus, get the fuck out of my thread

Wow. I’m not worthy.
I appreciate that, but it’s not necessary.
No need to go to extremes,dude.
My handle is yoga surfing, or just “yoga”, for short.

 

[Chewbaccer]

I'm not great at things like this, but I'll give it a go.

The Byrds:

Gram Parsons- 35%
Chris Hillman- 25%
Roger McGuinn- 25%
The rest- 15%

To me, Gram Parsons is one of the best musicians and songwriters of all time. And personally, The Byrds weren't that great until Parsons came around. Shame he died so young, The Flying Burrito Brothers are one of my favorite bands too.

 

[Chewbaccer]

I saw this incarnation several years ago at a local place that was building a reputation for bringing in quality acts. My wife and I literally got up and walked out after 30 minutes. The owner asked me if I enjoyed the night. I told him "you have a nice place here but as a fan of Marshall Tucker, I have to say that was the worst show I've ever attended."

Just as you said - a joke.

It's a shame really. My grandpa took my dad to see them in the early 80's, and both say it was one of the best shows they ever went to, and my grandpa mostly just listens to mountain music and bluegrass.

 

[Sir Robin Of Camelot]

It's a shame really. My grandpa took my dad to see them in the early 80's, and both say it was one of the best shows they ever went to, and my grandpa mostly just listens to mountain music and bluegrass.

My dad was as old school country as they get. Old school is what I was brought up with and still prefer along with the old school practitioners such as Strait and the like. But the first time I played “Where We All Belong” for him, he was hooked. Those first 6 albums by them are the gold standard. I never got to see them back then. Wish I had.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

The Doors:

Jim Morrison - 50%
Ray Manzarek - 25%
Robbie Krieger - 12.5%
Jim Densmore - 12.5%

 

[Chewbaccer]

Lol.. and it turns into yet another "post random videos of albums I like" thread. Can't ever have enough of those, eh ? Good effort anyway.

Keith - 40%
Mick - 40%
Brian Jones - 10%
Everyone else - 10%

Mick & Keith are the Stones. Ultimately, everyone else was/is a replaceable part, which is not to dismiss their contributions to their music, though I guess it does. But they wrote the songs and their songs are what made them the success they were. Keith is the leader.. it's basically his band and they sound the way he wants them to sound. It's also impossible to imagine them having nearly the success they've had with anyone else as a singer/front man.

I gave Jones his own 10% for getting the band together. He was their best musician and he did add some interesting colors to their early sound, but ultimately, and obviously, he was replaceable as they went on to make some of their greatest and most popular music for years after he died.

Just me personally, I'd give Keith a little more than Mick.

 

[Wazmankg]

Just me personally, I'd give Keith a little more than Mick.

I actually should have given Charlie at least 5% as I thought about it later but never added that. I used to think like you, but everything I've read suggests that Mick had as much to do with creating their music as Keith, and not just the lyrics. Keith's playing is the engine that drives their sound but without Jagger as their singer/frontman, they aren't the Stones. Giving Keith a bit more credit is perfectly reasonable, though.

 

[blindbaby]

Rap:

The drum machine or drum loops - 75%
The sampled instrument loops - 24.99999%
The "singer" - 0.00001%

 

[gohusk]

Meh, that's the line of thought that ruins a band. Yes, Roger Waters did the bulk of the lyrics/song writing but he has no sense of melody and I couldn't stand a single thing he did without Waters. Same thing with Sting and the Police. He did the bulk of the "work" but Stewart Copeland was a huge part of their sound and feel. Same thing with Hendrix and Mitch Mitchell.

 

[shopson67]

Lol.. and it turns into yet another "post random videos of albums I like" thread. Can't ever have enough of those, eh ? Good effort anyway.

Keith - 40%
Mick - 40%
Brian Jones - 10%
Everyone else - 10%

Mick & Keith are the Stones. Ultimately, everyone else was/is a replaceable part, which is not to dismiss their contributions to their music, though I guess it does. But they wrote the songs and their songs are what made them the success they were. Keith is the leader.. it's basically his band and they sound the way he wants them to sound. It's also impossible to imagine them having nearly the success they've had with anyone else as a singer/front man.

I gave Jones his own 10% for getting the band together. He was their best musician and he did add some interesting colors to their early sound, but ultimately, and obviously, he was replaceable as they went on to make some of their greatest and most popular music for years after he died.

Charlie Watts deserves a lot more credit. The Stones would sound completely different with another drummer.

 

[shopson67]

I suspect Fogerty would have achieved similar success with others and that his (imo lackluster) post-CCR output was due more to the creative well just running dry, rather than any inadequacies of his band mates. I think that's true of a lot of artists.. they only have so much in them and when it's gone they're done.

Otoh.. you mention Daltrey, the Who should have packed it in after Moon died, like LZ did after Bonham died. They just were not the same band without him.

Again, I think that's a bit of the well running dry, as well as changing times.

 

[shopson67]

Interesting that you had Jones so low. I guess I agree with you, but there are a lot of RS fans on Youtube comment sections who, by the looks of their comments, believe that Jones should get like 70% of the credit of the Stones' early success. They think he was the true creative force behind the band.

Jones was only with the band for their recorded output from '64 to '69 (and he's only on two of the songs on Let It Bleed in '69). He was a huge part of the group back then, but they've continued for 50 more years and even in retrospect he only had writing credits on about 10 songs (that's including corrections for many that were originally credited as Jagger/Richards). He was a "glue" guy, a multi-instrumentalist that added a lot of flavor to the early songs.

If he gets credit for 5-6 years of recording, Taylor had another 5-6 years after that. What about Ronnie Wood's 45 years recording with the band (and 43 as an official member)? Ronnie is always the forgotten man for some reason, yet has played with the Jeff Beck Group, the Faces, and the Stones.

 

[gohusk]

Honestly, I can't say that ANY member of any jazz or jazz fusion band that I'm into is any more or any less important than any other player in that band. I suppose you could make an argument for importance with someone like Coltrane or Miles, but I really do think it's the equal collective sum of all parts that make recordings and performances so special.

I definitely don't agree with that. Elvin Jones was just as good at playing drums as Coletrane was at playing sax/clarinet and just about everybody that started playing with Miles Davis ended up on the all time who's who of jazz list. Part of being a great bandleader is picking the best to play for/with you. Sure, the stuff with larger ensembles then there's a few seats you can fill with a competent session guy but both of those dudes released quite a bit of stuff with small ensembles.