I was listening to "Real Time" a live CD by Richard LLoyd, the "other" guitarist to Tom Verlaine in Television. It occurred to me that, while I like Verlaine's style, I ultimately prefer Lloyd's playing. I just didn't really appreciate it till he left the band and crawled out from Verlaine's shadow. This got me thinking. Until he left to start World Party, Karl Wallinger was obscured by Mike Scott while they were bandmates in The Waterboys. Now, I'll take Wallinger over Scott.
Some would say George Harrison suffered this fate, too. I think he was overshadowed by Lennon/Macca for many fans until "All Things Must Pass" and "Bangladesh". Any others come to mind?
A good bit late but YES, great idea for a thread Marty (as others have already commented). Find myself agreeing with many of the nominations... John Paul Jones - Zeppelin. Campbell & Tench - Heartbreakers, Mick Taylor - Stones. Two I'd like to see "get some love" (don't think they've yet been mentioned) are Tony Kaye of Genesis and Corky Laing of Mountain. A lot of the "classic" Genesis sound is due to Tony's arrangements and keyboards...but obviously, he was in the shadow of Peter and Phil, not to mention Steve Hackett and Mike Rutherford. As far as Corky Laing... to my mind, he's right up there (or should be) with some of the rock drummer greats...Baker, Moon, Bonham. Take a listen to his playing on "Never In My Life"...it is just ferociously propulsive. But he was overshadowed (and understandably so) by Leslie & Felix and, further, in a band that never got the kind of respect it deserved. OK...relinquishing the soapbox now. Ciao.
I attended the tribute show for Gram Parsons at The Universal Amphitheater in 2004. Unbelievably, Chris Hillman was not there (though Emmylou was), but Keith closed the show. He also performed "Love Hurts", a song associated with Gram though his version was merely a rather weak imitation of the great Everly Brothers original, as a duet with Norah Jones. Keith was kind of pre-occupied with Norah, doing his whole "lascivious Uncle" shtick on her. VERY leeringly, too. Really creepy.
I recently watched the Keith documentary on Netflix. It was enjoyable and I liked Keith as a person, but I was underwhelmed by his playing. I guess his value is higher as a songwriter than as a player. I used to admire his guitar solo on Heart of Stone, but apparently that's John McLaughlin and not Keif.
Agree again Marty---Mick Taylor's playing is excellent on the Stones albums, but not quite in the same spirit as everybody else---too sober!
Nick Lowe is a long-time favorite of mine as well (and Rockpile the only "Super Group" I really like, though The Traveling Wilburys would be were it not for Tom Petty, who seems oddly out-of-place), and I just got some news on him. He's going to be doing a U.S. tour, and his backing band will be Los Straitjackets, the Instrumental Band on the same label as Nick, Yep Rock. What makes this of particular interest to me is that I used to be in a Band (The Hillbilly Soul Surfers) with their bassist, Pete Curry. We've known each other since the first day of 7th grade!
Here's a Ry Cooder/Keith Richards/Stones story ya'll may find interesting: Brian Jones had died, and he had yet to be replaced (by the way, one of those who auditioned for his job was none other than...Dave Edmunds!). Cooder got a call to come over to England to do some jamming with them. He went in and played along on some new songs they had ready, finding it odd that Keith wasn't around. One day he showed up early, only to discover Keith playing along with the tapes that had been recorded with Ry playing, learning Ry's parts! He packed his bags and returned home. I'm tellin' ya, Keith has been coasting for a long time, trading on his legend and image.
Trivia question, on Get Yer Ya Yas Out, in Sympathy for the devil there is a long guitar break with two different guitars. Which one is Keith Richards and which one is Mick Taylor? The first solo is from right channel, the second from the left one.
Good to see all the Mick Taylor love here, he definitely fits this thread, IMO. However, Ronnie Wood is a terrific player, too and - in some ways - may be a better fit for the Stones, IMO. He's got a kind of rambling, stumbling looseness to his soloing that fits the Stones perfectly, especially when they're in their drunken bar band mode. Mick may be the more accomplished player, but I think Ronnie's a great choice for that gig.
Wood's last studio album "I Feel Like Playing" is a great example. It won't be everybody's cup of tea, but I love it.
I agree that the Little Village album was disappointing on first listen - largely because I had such high expectations. As noted, I'm a big fan of Nick Lowe. Beyond that, I really like Ry Coder and was in the middle of a very intense John Hiatt infatuation at the time. I'd probably seen him a dozen times or so in the six or seven years prior to the LV debut release.
After several years, the LV record began to grow on me as a loose, fun, and engaging (if lightweight) collection. Very good, if not quite what I expected. As noted, the SHF record was IMO better than that.
BTW (per your earlier post), I do think we have a similar take on a lot of music. Half of your posts feel like they could have been written by me.
I am in complete agreement with gdoodle and hifimaniac. Mick Taylor was way better than Woods or Richards, and Gdoodle is spot on when he states that Sway from Sticky Fingers illustrates that point. His playing is inspired, clean and elegant. One of my favorite things solos in rock, and I'm not a Stones fan.
I recently picked up a copy of the SHF album Marty, but haven't heard it yet. The Little Village album was a little disappointing to me, considering how great they were on John Hiatt's Bring The Family album. I think it may have been because the ground rules were that no one was allowed to bring in any already written songs, the songs they recorded were written on the spot. Not necessarily the best way to write! Plus, it was too democratic---drummer Jim Keltner got to provide material, and it sucks!
I saw them live, and the contrast between their solo-written songs and those collaboratively-written was stark. But their playing was just what you would expect---world class. Cooder's solo on Hiatt's "Lipstick Sunset" was the best I've seen/heard live! He had a pile of about a half-a-dozen little combo amps and as many guitars, but, as usual, played mostly his pale-blue Strat.
Plus one for Chris Hillman. Also really love the Souther, Hillman, Furay band. Kinda like Little Village, a supergroup that never gained traction despite great talent and a really good (better than that in the case of SHF, IMO) album.
Let me second Audiofeil's listing of Chris Hillman. His Byrd's songs were some of their best, and his post-Byrds output is just amazing. He made a bunch of great solo albums (on Bluegrass-label Sugar Hill), and was the leader of The Desert Rose Band, who made some real good music.
What a great topic! Lots of great answers, too. Most of my examples have already been mentioned, the most significant being Johnnie Johnson (Chuck Berry's pianist. Someone interviewed in the movie Hail, Hail, Rock n' Roll, noted that a lot of Chucks songs are in "piano keys", not those written on guitar. Get it?), John Entwistle (you can't tell how good he was from The Who's recordings, but live he was astounding), and Mick Taylor (also in the movie is a scene in which Chuck and Keith are rehearsing "Oh Carol", and Chuck notices Keith is incorrectly playing the guitar figure that precedes a couple sections of the song. He shows Keith that the first note is played with the strings bent up (sharp), the second note played with the strings unbent. Those two notes, back and forth between bent and unbent, in that order, several times. Try as he might, Keith just can not play it! Any 16-year old should be able to, and Keith cites Chuck as his main influence. Lame!).
Being overshadowed varies by degree, and though well known amongst this crowd, there are a couple of guys I can add:
Matthew Fisher of Procol Harum. His organ playing was very much responsible for their original sound (including his infamous J.S. Bach quote in "A Whiter Shade of Pale"), which changed quite a bit after he left (the A Salty Dog album was his last). He subsequently made a few good solo albums on RCA, fairly easy to find on LP for cheap.
James Jamerson of "The Funk Brothers", the Motown house band. Yes, he's well known, but his contribution to not only recordings, but the very playing of electric bass itself is inestimable, and still under-acknowledged (though not by McCartney, who has said that hearing James' playing changed his conception of what bass playing could be). The bass part in Jimmy Ruffin's "What Becomes of the Broken Hearted" (one of the handful of greatest songs ever written, by the way) sends shivers up my spine!
Mapman, I did not know that--it makes up a bit for finding out that some of my favorite Harrison solos were played by McCartney (notably, Drive My Car and Taxman).
I've been admiring George Harrison's bass playing on "old brown shoe" of late. 🎸. In an interview he once said that was him going nuts on bass basically playing it like his guitar. Very cool.
John Frusciante of Red Hot Chili Peppers. When he left the band to enjoy heroin full time, the song quality significantly deteriorated. They brought him back and went on to make great stuff.
Frankly, I'm sure the Beatles would have achieved the level of popularity they did without Ringo. What other drummer would have performed better?
Nor was he totally overshadowed though. He drew a lot of attention with the Beatles however more so as a personality than as a drummer.
Because he actually does have an amiable personality, I think the ultra hip and somewhat snotty rock music media of the day tended to give him the short shift as a drummer. I think he has garnered greater respect as a drummer over the years as peoples hindsight becomes more like 20/20.
The Beatles could not have achieved the success they have without a drummer that helped catalyze things and that's exactly what he did. He was a key ingredient in the soup and not overshadowed nearly as much as most good drummers out there probably.
"Ringo's steady and reliable drumming became essential in their studio sessions, as well as in their numerous and exhausting live performances across the world. Ringo's positive disposition as well as his drumming style played the pivotal role in shaping the famous image and music style of The Beatles as they are now known to the world,"
I know I mentioned this in another post and here I go again. When the Beatles stole Ringo from Rory Storme and the Hurricanes, he was regarded as the best drummer in England. It was only after some very talented virtuoso drummers appeared, probably around 1967, that people thought it cool to bash Ringo or Charlie. They were the right drummers foe their bands.
Ringo is not a technical drummer, but he has an impeccable sense of serving the song. The beatles might have been very different without his sense of style. Therefore, afeil, not only is you statement not undisputable, it is actually disputed.
Sometimes the dominant bandmates are the catalyst that inspires the overshadowed one to grow. Maybe that's one reason that band's split up. One I didn't see mentioned was Dave Grohl. As far as song writing, he was definitely overshadowed by Kurt Cobain. After Cobain died and Nirvana was history, he came into his own with the Foo Fighters. He started writing really good songs and playing guitar as well as the drums.
My comments about less than stellar rhythm sections was in response to Shadrone's earlier post.
Drummers and bass players are most often overlooked - to me they form the foundation for much of modern music. IMHO, a good drummer and bass player can carry the whole band with a solid foundation of great grooves even if the antics of lead guitar and vocalist typically get all the spotlight attention.
I agree that Charlie Watts or Ringo Starr may not have been the most talented members of their respective bands. Or to put it another way, we would have heard of Lennon/McCartney Jagger/Richards even if there were no Watts or Starr. That said, the internal dynamics of bands are both mysterious and volatile. It's an unprovable point, but there is no guarantee that a Watt-less Rolling Stones would have achieved greatness. We just don't know. I believe it was McCartney who said that Ringo wasn't a better drummer than Pete Best, but he was a far better Beatle. Being a bandmate can trump the musicianship/talent thing.
>>05-18-09: Gawdbless My simple point (seems to have also missed by some) is every band depends on its drummer to keep an accurate (as humanly possible) beat<<
Well then you should have stated that more succinctly as your original quote is "A band is only as good as its drummer".
Your simple point (as you state) and the original quote address separate issues.
Don't blame the readership for your own inconsistencies.
Copeland did a lot of soundtracks - he's got some recognition in that vein. Summers has quite a range outside of the Police as well - his 'Geeen Chimneys' is an interesting listen among others. I've always liked the Police, Sting by default - however Summers and Copleand deserve a lot of credit. Got me through college with a bag of green and a tasty malt anyways. By the way, Roxy Music is a great band - Eno got more credit than Manzanera (he was a roadie at one time) - still great a great group. Good thread to reflect on (under) appreciated talent anyways.
I agree with the Copeland assertion. I don't listen to the Police as I did during the 80s but when I do I can't help but notice the percussion work going on.
My simple point (seems to have also missed by some) is every band depends on its drummer to keep an accurate (as humanly possible) beat whether they are good as Gene Krupa or as good as The Drummer in AC/DC, or me!, that is not say other members' are any less important. Funnily enough Jools Holland (amateur piano and not very good) has mentioned that a 'bands is only as good as its drummer', so I am to assume that Mr Holland is not a real 'pro'(although I do not know why the word 'pro' has crept into this discussion, I mean I am a keen cyclist and just because I am no Lance Armstrong does that mean I know nothing about bicycles?) or that Mr Holland knows schock-all about music?
>>Charlie Watts is tremendous. Don't underestimate the man<<
I agree but perhaps you too missed my point. That is, he is not the most talented or most creative or most important member of the Stones. Ditto Ringo Starr.
IMO that is indisputable.
Keep in mind this mini-discussion concerns the assertion "A band is only as good as its drummer". If that were the case the Beatles would only be as good as Ringo and the Stones as good as Watts.
U2 and Radiohead are major bands that I think are exceptions to bands requiring a stellar rhythm section. They are solid, but no better. You could also put Pink Floyd into that group.
Charlie Watts is tremendous. Don't underestimate the man.
The quote was "A band is only as good as its drummer".
I'm not diminishing the role of a drummer but it's quite clear both the Stones and Beatles would have done just fine without Watts and Starr respectively. The Stones would not have been as good with Gawdbless as their drummer as he says but then again he's probably not a professional musician. Or understands music for that matter but there were plenty of competent drummers in England at that time. Some bands like the Who and Zeppelin were more dependent on their drummer. Not the case for the Stones and Beatles. I hope you understand better now.
Audifeil- Music is all about time and timing (amongst other things), If a band does not have a a metronomic drummer regardless of good or badly they do all the show off paradiddlypoms triply rollies and flashy off-beats blah etc blah then you might as well have a drum beat machine. Then again I can keep a beat, and even on time, occasionally, I wonder if The Rolling and a Stones would be as good If I were their drummer?The money would be nice. I agree with Lindisfarne. The fork is in your posterior,lol........
Audiofeil-Watts and Starr are not "impressive" drummers BUT they swing like mad and don't miss a beat. You are dead wrong on this one. However, I really did like your picks earlier in this thread.
Regarding Charles Lloyd, "Love-In" recorded live at the Fillmore West was the first recording I bought of him when it came out in LP in 1967. His band for the recording included Keith Jarrett (piano); Ron McClure (bass); Jack DeJohnette (drums).
John Cale (VU) and the late great Gary Thain come to mind. Cale's "Paris 1919" still stands as one of the truly great records of all time and, while Uriah Heep was never a great band, they became amazingly tight when Thain came on board. I've still not heard a better rock bass player.
Hi Jaybo, I agree with you. The band kicked &%#$ because Charles surrounded himself with awesome talent.He had a keen ear,but the band, imo, outshined it's leader.Check out Miles 1991 autobiogphy.He loved to pilfer from Lloyd's band!
Drummers and bass players are most often overlooked - to me they form the foundation for much of modern music. IMHO, a good drummer and bass player can carry the whole band with a solid foundation of great grooves even if the antics of lead guitar and vocalist typically get all the spotlight attention.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
