The "luckiest" musicians ever

[KevShmev]

By this, I mean musicians who were fortunate enough to end up in a band that hit it big.  Not saying these have to be bad musicians, but examples of musicians who were lucky to have the success that they did because of the other members in the band.

Examples:

Michael Anthony - decent bass player and good background singer, but Van Halen would have been big thanks to EVH no matter what.
Ringo Starr - sure, Ringo is not as awful as some think he is, and he inspired a lot of drummers, but ending up with two of the best songwriters ever, and a third who was damn good as well, was pretty damn lucky)
Adam Clayton & Larry Mullen, JR - with all due respect to both, neither would have made a dent anywhere else if not for landing in a band with Bono and The Edge.  To their credit, I suspect both know this, which is why U2 has never really had any real drama; they know their places and how lucky they are.

[Adami]

Kirk Hammet.

[SoundscapeMN]

Andrew Ridgeley

[Bolsters]

Cliff Williams and Phil Rudd.

[erwinrafael]

Upon reading the title, I had an inkling that the rhythm section would be the frequent example. True enough 

I have to disagree with Ringo. He is integral to the Beatles sound. The Fab Four came to prominence because of pop, almost danceable, tunes, and Ringo's groove is a big part of that. If you listen to other drummers from that genre during that era, there is something different with Ringo's beat and fills, as if they are not exactly on the beat. It was uniquely Ringo because he was a lefty who learned to play on a right handed kitt.

He also handled well the change in the Beatles sound in the later years. A pop drummer who later handled songs with odd signature transitions and the other experimentations of later Beatles.

[TAC]

Alec John Such

Cliff Williams and Phil Rudd.

Nah, these guys are awesome!

[Kotowboy]

Liam. Gallagher.

Famous and rich exclusively thanks to his brother. Not once has he been grateful. And without oasis he'd be a nobody or in jail.

All he does is talk shit about the person who got him where he is today.

Ugly. Stupid. Can't sing live.

[Lowdz]

Liam. Gallagher.

Famous and rich exclusively thanks to his brother. Not once has he been grateful. And without oasis he'd be a nobody or in jail.

All he does is talk shit about the person who got him where he is today.

Ugly. Stupid. Can't sing live.

That's because he agrees with you

[Stadler]

I get the context of this thread (and love it!) and offer the following:

Ian Hill of Judas Priest
Jeff LeBar of Cinderella
Kirk Hammett of Metallica (yes I know he was mentioned, but we can't mention this enough, can we?)
Rod Evans of Deep Purple (and parlayed a lame-ass career AFTER Purple into a RaRHoF induction!)
Paul Di'Anno of Iron Maiden
Peter Criss of Kiss
Nick Mason of Pink Floyd
Mick Mars of Motley Crue


But I have to say, Ringo doesn't belong anywhere on here.   John and Paul have both been effusive over the years that he was the spark.  Getting him in - remember, he was older, and a veteran of both the Liverpool and Hamburg scene at that point - was the spark that lit the fuse and made them the hard-ass rock and roll band they were when they started out. 

Perosnally I wouldn't put Liam either, though I understand it very well.  I saw him in Beady Eye in Philly and even though he only played for one hour, he was SOOOO charismatic, it was amazing.   He is a dick, and he is ungrateful, and he is over-rated in the sense that Noel carries that band, but still. 

[ClairvoyantCat]

James Labrie

[erwinrafael]

How can James LaBrie be lucky when his voice is integral to what Dream Theater turned out to be?

[Lynxo]

Peter Criss of Kiss

Oh, so, so much this. To me, he's the worst drummer in a famous band I have ever heard. And from what I've read, has an insanely difficult personality. Talk about being lucky running into probably the only band who would accept him.

[mikeyd23]

Kirk Hammet.

That was my first thought.

[ReaperKK]

Adam Clayton & Larry Mullen, JR - with all due respect to both, neither would have made a dent anywhere else if not for landing in a band with Bono and The Edge.  To their credit, I suspect both know this, which is why U2 has never really had any real drama; they know their places and how lucky they are.

I agree with this. I was reading about Larry Mullen yesterday and apparently he was talking about how he never developed his bass drum technique from the time he was a teenager

Nick Mason of Pink Floyd

Agree with this one. I read his book Inside Out and it gave me the impression that he was more interested in the idea of being a drummer instead of actually being a drummer.

I'm torn on Kirk Hammet. He seems like he really gives zero fucks about Metallica and the recent making of videos left me feeling like he was in the band to collect a check.

[Cruithne]

David Ellefson. I was always amused by his "Making Music Your Business" book when it was clear he just piggy-backed onto Mustaine's talent (though I'll admit I haven't read it so I don't know its actual contents!).

Geoff Tate. Ok, this one might be controversial considering his eventual importance to the early success of QR... but we now know that Tate wasn't at all keen on joining QR and only eventually did so because the EP took off whilst Myth didn't look like ever getting a record deal. Those Myth demos put out on the QR Greatest Hits package are bloody awful and his solo efforts and some of the crap he wrote with his mates that made it onto later QR records have ranged between underwhelming and "oh my god pass me the mind bleach" bad, so had he remained steadfast about not joining QR early on, or had QR lost patience with him earlier and just gone looking for a different singer for their debut album, I don't think he'd have ever had success as a musician.

However, QR might not have been able to find anyone even close to as talented as Tate was and their career may have fizzled out far too soon. And obviously we'd never have had Mindcrime. However, they had complete songwriters in the band without needing Tate and may have gone on to reasonable success anyway - the suspicion is that if Tate wrote melodies for the lyrics he wrote then DeGarmo was largely responsible for shaping them into good melodies!

[gmillerdrake]

Every member of The Rolling Stones, just pick one or all of them. In my mind the single most overrated band ever in the history of music...they, like the Beatles just happened to hit at the right time.

[Train of Naught]

Every member of The Rolling Stones, just pick one or all of them. In my mind the single most overrated band ever in the history of music...they, like the Beatles just happened to hit at the right time.

I was thinking exactly this for all of The Beatles. But you're right, The Rolling Stones is an even better example.

[erwinrafael]

Every member of The Rolling Stones, just pick one or all of them. In my mind the single most overrated band ever in the history of music...they, like the Beatles just happened to hit at the right time.

The Beatles just happened to hit at the right time and you are implying that they are just lucky and not talented?

WOW

[El Barto]

I started this thread many years ago no another forum and because I began with Malcolm Young created a shit-storm of epic proportions. People lost their minds at that.. 

In any case, the answer's Janick Gers. Rather than just being a cog in the function of a tight machine, he's actually useless and occasionally even a detriment to their sound. And of course Ian Hill is the other obvious pick. Michael Anthony would normally be in the same boat, but contrary to what EVH thinks, his backing vocals were pretty damned important to the finished product.

[Stadler]

I started this thread many years ago no another forum and because I began with Malcolm Young created a shit-storm of epic proportions. People lost their minds at that.. 

In any case, the answer's Janick Gers. Rather than just being a cog in the function of a tight machine, he's actually useless and occasionally even a detriment to their sound. And of course Ian Hill is the other obvious pick. Michael Anthony would normally be in the same boat, but contrary to what EVH thinks, his backing vocals were pretty damned important to the finished product.

Good call on Gers.  I saw Maiden on a shed tour (Motorhead and Dio opened) and I was standing next to my friend Jim, and up on stage, Dickinson was in back with the flag, waving it like a madman, Dave Murray was soloing so hard his balls fell off, Adrian was head down, carrying the rhythm like a Sherpa climbing Everest....    and Janick Gers was at stage front - wearing an Iron Maiden shirt, which is tres gauche - twirling his guitar around his body like he was, well, Jeff LeBar of Cinderella.  Wasn't playing a fucking note.  Jim turned to me and said "is he okay? should we call a medic?"

[Stadler]

Every member of The Rolling Stones, just pick one or all of them. In my mind the single most overrated band ever in the history of music...they, like the Beatles just happened to hit at the right time.

I was thinking exactly this for all of The Beatles. But you're right, The Rolling Stones is an even better example.

I will try to say this as civilly as possible, but to dismiss either the Beatles or the Stones of "being in the right place at the right time" is woefully underinformed.   The Beatles MADE their time like no other act in history, even including the Elvis. 

When you've got artists of the caliber of the Beach Boys (well, Brian Wilson), Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Pink Floyd waiting to see what you do next, to see what the latest angle is, to MAKE the time, it's a hard putt to convince anyone that the Beatles were "of a moment".   

It is also ignorant of the fact that the Beatles were a cover band, a pop band, a pot band, an acid band, a prog band, a protest band, a 60's peace band, and a folk band, all in the space of 7 short years and ten albums. 

[Train of Naught]

Every member of The Rolling Stones, just pick one or all of them. In my mind the single most overrated band ever in the history of music...they, like the Beatles just happened to hit at the right time.

The Beatles just happened to hit at the right time and you are implying that they are just lucky and not talented?

WOW

Well yeah they are talented (even the drummer, to some extent). But so are countless of other musicians who are treading new ground musically to this day. They just happened to be recognized by a wider audience at the time. So yeah I would say luck was involved.

Every member of The Rolling Stones, just pick one or all of them. In my mind the single most overrated band ever in the history of music...they, like the Beatles just happened to hit at the right time.

I was thinking exactly this for all of The Beatles. But you're right, The Rolling Stones is an even better example.

I will try to say this as civilly as possible, but to dismiss either the Beatles or the Stones of "being in the right place at the right time" is woefully underinformed.   The Beatles MADE their time like no other act in history, even including the Elvis. 

Yep, because they got exposed to the main stream audience WHILE being inventive in the musical world. This happens all the time, but without the luck they had, no one would've cared and some other band would've been the "most important band in history" to every single music fan in the world.

[Kotowboy]

I'm torn on Kirk Hammet. He seems like he really gives zero fucks about Metallica and the recent making of videos left me feeling like he was in the band to collect a check.

Apparently he has had a lot of personal problems lately. Family stuff and one of his friends committed suicide.


Also - I'm no Ki$$ fan - but if Peter Criss is so poor - why does Lars get pretty much ALL the hate ?

Is it because 16 years ago or so he tried to stop people stealing music that was not finished ?

Then everyone went " You're trying to stop me stealing unfinished music for free ? fuck you ! "

Because trying to stop people hearing a song before it's finished - which was stolen from HQ - makes you a greedy egotistical asshole apparently.

[Stadler]

Yep, because they got exposed to the main stream audience WHILE being inventive in the musical world. This happens all the time, but without the luck they had, no one would've cared and some other band would've been the "most important band in history" to every single music fan in the world.

Well, I suppose in a meta-sense, it's ALL luck, but that's just not accurate.  There was very little "luck" involved.   They played six hour sets (six hours on stage, with a 15 minute break every hour) for weeks at a time in Hamburg, and word spread back to London and Liverpool about "this band".  That's not luck.   Maybe meeting George Martin was luck, but Martin seeing them for what they were - incredibly versatile musicians and strong writers - was not "luck".  The study that Lennon and (especially) McCartney put in to learning the craft of songwriting - unheard of at the time - was not "luck". 

if having someone "like" your music is "luck", then every musician ever was "lucky".   

[El Barto]

I'm torn on Kirk Hammet. He seems like he really gives zero fucks about Metallica and the recent making of videos left me feeling like he was in the band to collect a check.

Apparently he has had a lot of personal problems lately. Family stuff and one of his friends committed suicide.


Also - I'm no Ki$$ fan - but if Peter Criss is so poor - why does Lars get pretty much ALL the hate ?

Is it because 16 years ago or so he tried to stop people stealing music that was not finished ?

Then everyone went " You're trying to stop me stealing unfinished music for free ? fuck you ! "

Because trying to stop people hearing a song before it's finished - which was stolen from HQ - makes you a greedy egotistical asshole apparently.

Nah. Sixteen years ago was when people decided he's a douche. People have always thought he was overrated, and now see that he plainly doesn't care about being a decent drummer anymore.

[Kotowboy]

They have all been a lot more down to earth and less douchey since therapy.

[erwinrafael]

Yep, because they got exposed to the main stream audience WHILE being inventive in the musical world. This happens all the time, but without the luck they had, no one would've cared and some other band would've been the "most important band in history" to every single music fan in the world.

Well, I suppose in a meta-sense, it's ALL luck, but that's just not accurate.  There was very little "luck" involved.   They played six hour sets (six hours on stage, with a 15 minute break every hour) for weeks at a time in Hamburg, and word spread back to London and Liverpool about "this band".  That's not luck.   Maybe meeting George Martin was luck, but Martin seeing them for what they were - incredibly versatile musicians and strong writers - was not "luck".  The study that Lennon and (especially) McCartney put in to learning the craft of songwriting - unheard of at the time - was not "luck". 

if having someone "like" your music is "luck", then every musician ever was "lucky".   

My sentiments exactly. To call The Beatles lucky is to imply that they did not put in the work. George Martin was impressed with the band not just with the talent but also seeing how much effort the band was putting in coming up with original material, as many pop bands then were using external songwriters.

[bosk1]

Adam Clayton & Larry Mullen, JR - with all due respect to both, neither would have made a dent anywhere else if not for landing in a band with Bono and The Edge.  To their credit, I suspect both know this, which is why U2 has never really had any real drama; they know their places and how lucky they are.

First example I thought of even before reading your post (although I was thinking Adam more than Larry, but I don't disagree with including Larry as well). 

Jeff LeBar of Cinderella

Hmm.  Interesting.  I immediately thought of Fred Coury.  But I suppose you are right that Jeff fits the bill too.  Even though he really became an integral part of the band instantly, he really is easily replaceable.  But then again, that is also partly due to the band's own internal dynamics after the split as well.  I mean, it seems like it was always really Tom's band from the getgo.  But when Michael Kelly Smith was still in the band before they recorded Night Songs, my understanding is that Tom and Michael shared the lead guitar spot, and that Michael may have even had the lion's share.  After the split, Tom took it all.    And I don't think that is a reflection of Jeff not being capable; he's a VERY good player, and has been from the beginning.  That's just how it worked out in terms of band politics.

Mick Mars of Motley Crue

I disagree with that one.  Mick has a very distinct style that is part of the band's signature sound.  He may not be a flashy, charismatic player, but he has a very distinct style.  Now, maybe the argument could be made that the other three members were the image and charisma of the band, and even if they ended up having a different player that would have taken the sound in a slightly different direction, that wouldn't have impacted their success.  I don't think I could argue with that (kind of like CC in Poison, perhaps).  But I'd be interested in hearing you expand on the idea.


Here's another one, going in a slightly different direction (and I know Cruithne already mentioned him, but I will second it):  Ellefson.  That isn't to diminish his talent or his contribution to Megadeth one bit.  But Mustaine was talented and uniquely driven.  He was going to be successful no matter what, or die trying.  Whoever he got around him were basically going to be along for the ride.  Ellefson was in the right place at the right time to jump onboard, and just being in Megadeth made him a name.

Another:  Oz Fox in Stryper.  Michael Sweet's vision for their sound and Robert Sweet's vision for their image are what made that band.  Whoever they had accompanying them was always going to be secondary.  Of course, it didn't hurt that Oz is a really talented vocalist who was really able to help shape the band's signature vocal harmonies, and that he committed to upping his guitar chops when needed.  But I think the band could have easily had a revolving door in the second guitar department without anybody really noticing.

[Kotowboy]

Adam & Larry are a rock solid rhythm section.

[El Barto]

Mick Mars is an interesting one. I have to disagree with Bosk for a couple of reasons. For one, his style wasn't on display during the early years when they found their success. Shout at the Devil was a pretty generic guitar album and the monstrosity that followed, as well. It wasn't until later that his sound became an integral part of the band. Moreover, I don't think their music had anything to do with their success. Early Crue was an image based band more than anything else.

However, I think it's there that MM was actually somewhat important. Having a freak outlier in the band was actually important for that image. I'd certainly consider him deserving of Crue's success based on that.

[bosk1]

Adam & Larry are a rock solid rhythm section.

Oh, totally.  But two things in response to that:  (1) They were anything but "solid" when the band first formed.  As I recall the story, the first time they got together to play, Adam was so bad they basically had to stop, and told him to go practice some more.  Thankfully for his sake, he did.  But the point is, they had to become "rock solid."  They weren't that way from the start.  (2) Notwithstanding becoming a "rock solid" rhythm section, I can't help but feel that they are somewhat interchangeable from the standpoint of, if you had a completely different rhythm section in that band from the start, although it might have altered their sound somewhat, it would not have altered it drastically, and the charisma and sound of Bono and The Edge would have carried the band to success no matter what.

[Kotowboy]

Plus there's the fact that Larry started the band.

Also allegedly they kept Adam because he learned music terms to make it sound like he was better than he was

[bosk1]

  I don't remember that, but that's awesome.

[bl5150]

Realistically how many pop rock bands would sound drastically different with a substitute (but competent) bass or drum player?  Unless they are key songwriters.

[erwinrafael]

A lot of bassist names being bandied around. Poor rhythm section players, so unappreciated. 

I will come to the defense of Michael Anthony. If his work with Chickenfoot tells us anything, he's not just a simple root note player. It's just that that style of playing is what worked with Van Halen's music with Eddie's busy guitars taking up so much sonic space. Listen to Running with the Devil (which ironically started off with the bass) and imagine if another bass playing style would work.

Is Michael Anthony replaceable? Maybe. But would Van Halen have worked with a more "up front" bassist that is not willing to take the backseat, especially with all those other egos in the band? My reading is that it won't as Michael Anthony seems to be the source of stability in that band. Which is no wonder why they really went nowhere after firing him.