I Mother Earth - once Edwin split from the rest of the band, they were nowhere near as good as they were together. Although fair's fair - Edwin sure wasn't anywhere as good either when he went solo. One of those cases where the whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
I liked Van Halen with both Eddie and Sammy, but they REALLY should have quit before the Gary Cherone era. Although I personally think the band was simply spent by that point anyway.
Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Van Halen. David Lee Roth was 1/2 the attraction and Sammy Hagar's voice is like nails on a chalkboard.
Originally Posted by aragornmustdie /img/forum/go_quote.gif Queen + Paul Rodgers is ugly as well.
Queen + Paul Rodgers doesn't quite work right for Queen songs. Paul just doesn't have the vocal range that the songs need.
I've always wondered what it would have been if it was Queen + Tina Turner instead. I think she could do the songs and the diva showman bit that is necessary to do Queen. Would it have worked in real life? I don't know. But it's fun to imagine.
The first of these changes occurred when Stu Sutcliffe fell in love with Astrid Kirchherr and decided to remain in Germany and resume his art studies. Thus, when The Beatles returned from Germany for the first time, they were short a bass guitarist. Pete Best suggested Ken Brown, but feeling that there might be some hard feelings because of the past, the others rejected that suggestion. Pete next suggested Chas Newby. Chas had been with The Blackjacks (Pete Best's group), and was now attending college, but was on vacation and so agreed to play with The Beatles. He appeared with them for three engagements in December of 1960. John asked him to go to Germany, for the Beatles' second trip, but he chose to return to college and has never had any regrets. The Beatles started 1961 with the bass guitarist's position vacant, this was filled sometime before February 14, 1961 by Paul. Almost complete, the group now featured John on rhythm guitar, George on lead, Paul on bass and Pete Best on drums. Three other things that happened this year that had a significant effect on their careers -- the quitting in April of 1961 of their manager Allan Williams; their recording as a backup band for Tony Sheridan during their second trip to Hamburg; and their "discovery" by Brian Epstein, as a result of that recording.
With the advent of the British Invasion, a great number of rock groups were formed, split up and sometimes reformed as "super groups." On Oct 19, 1961, what could be looked on as one of the first "super groups" was formed for a one night appearance at Town Hall, Litherland, Liverpool. This first "super group" consisted of Liverpool's top two groups, The Beatles and Gerry and The Pacemakers who were both appearing that night along with The Crusiers. Someone suggested that the groups should do a set together, so along with Karl Terry of the Crusiers the two groups performed as "The Beatmakers." Although provided with a number of opportunities to reform, the Beatmakers were strictly a one-night stand band.
Our story of the early Beatles is now almost complete. One more personnel change occurred on August 15, 1962. Pete Best was sacked as the Beatles drummer and replaced by Ringo Starr. For the Beatles appearances on August 16 and August 17, Johnny Hutchinson sat in as drummer. While Ringo's first "official" appearance as The Beatles' drummer was on August 18 at Hulme Hall, Port Sunlight, Birkenhead. It was not the first time that John, Paul, George and Ringo had appeared together. This actually occurred on February 5, 1962. When Pete Best was unwell and unable to appear with the group, John, Paul and George's first choice as a replacement was Ringo Starr, whom they had known for two years. Ringo appeared with them at the Cavern Club in the afternoon and at the Kingsway Club, Southport in the evening.
With the addition of Ringo as their drummer The Beatles were now complete and the rest, as they say, is history.
For me, it depends a lot on whether or not they're doing new albums. If they're just touring, they're not adding to the catalog, so it doesn't affect their "legacy" for me. I can't begrudge someone for being excited to see an old act like The Who live, even though it's not the same as seeing them in their prime. I hate it when they charge outrageous prices though.
I have to wonder though, about groups like Queen which lose an absolutely vital member.
Originally Posted by Ham Sandwich /img/forum/go_quote.gif Queen + Paul Rodgers doesn't quite work right for Queen songs. Paul just doesn't have the vocal range that the songs need.
I've always wondered what it would have been if it was Queen + Tina Turner instead. I think she could do the songs and the diva showman bit that is necessary to do Queen. Would it have worked in real life? I don't know. But it's fun to imagine.
I wondered what if Queen + George Michael, the vocals are good, and you dont have to imagine, just see the The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert..
The Replacements, even though, ironically, I actually dig Pleased To Meet Me, the first record they made without guitarist-cofounder Bob Stinson. Kinda downhill after that, though.
O.K. It's about time I say it. David, you're insane! Sometimes I wonder if you are a polymath because your knowledge can be so obscure and eccentric. Hey, I'm not knocking you. On the contrary, kudos once again. Alas, I do not have the knowledge to contribute to this poll.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
