What are musicians worth these days?
- Thread starter Voley
- Start date
34 pence at current exchange rates
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
There were plenty of drummers in well known 60-70s bands that were equally as good but did not become multi millionares because the other band members were good musicians but were not able to produce the sort of work that made the bands as big as the Beatles or Fleetwood Mac. Both these bands contained other members that caused that to happen. The drummers just got lucky. With the Beatles it was Pete Best who became a civil servant & Ringo got the gig.
In the first incarnation of Fleetwood Mac it was Peter Green who was the true genius the other 2 were just compentant drummer & bassist. It all went wrong when Peter Green got ill. You could make a comparison with the Jimi Hendrix Experience. Bassist Noel Redding & drummer Mitch Mitchell were never able to hook up with such a talent again whereas Fleetwood & McVie managed it twice.
editor
hiraethified
Being a great musician does not make someone a great band member and there's enough examples of shit bands full of supertalented musicians to prove that. It's about the chemistry and the understanding and playing what's appropriate, even if it is dead simple.
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
Yes all of that but many bands do have one or more members who's supreme talent has propelled them to superstardom spanning decades & I think plenty of these supreme talents would have done equally well with any group of competant musicians behind them.
editor
hiraethified
I disagree. Why else would some supremely talented musicians singularly fail to find superstardom until they arrive at a certain mix of musicians, with a certain look, attitude, style and personality, all combining to make a certain sound that the public want to buy into?
*obviously things are different for solo artists
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
I'm not saying Ringo was a bad drummer, just that he was as good as any other. The Beatles would still have been successful without Ringo but not without Lennon & McCartney & this is true with many other bands. Paul Weller could have managed with another bassist & drummer but not the other way round. Some musicians just got lucky, right place right time.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
So you're saying that the Jam would have been just as successful with two old session musicians? You're saying that Ringo Starr had no influence on the music or the appeal of the Beatles?
And as for this myth that he wasn't very good...
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
Stop bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator, I am not suggesting any of the band members were bad nor are session musicians bad either. The Beatles might not have succeeded without Lennon & McCartney but they could have succeeded without Ringo & so on. Some musicians achieve great riches because they have unique talents which makes their band unique but other members of that band might only achieve those riches because they were lucky enough to be in the same band. They may be good musicians but other good musicians could have done the same job in their place. Very few bands have all members equally responsible for that bands success.
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
I'm saying some are & some are not, plenty of top bands have had plenty of lineup changes, some have stayed the same. Bizarrely Ronnie Wood was supposed to have got the Stones job because he was a worse guitarist than Keef who didn't like the brilliant Mick Taylor because he was a far better player than Keef. If you watched the Stones Glasto Gig that still showed when Taylor played a song with them. I think the Jam were purely based on one individual's strength though.
Similar threads
