DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: bosk1 on November 21, 2019, 09:20:48 AM
-
Is there such a thing as "supergroup stigma," for lack of a better term? And if so, how much of a problem is it?
This occurred to me while thinking about Sons of Apollo. But I've had this thought many times in the past, and I wonder whether or not it's just me. Let's try not to get TOO into the weeds about parsing what is and isn't a "supergroup." I'm using it loosely to describe whenever established musicians get together to form a band.
To me, there's a really interesting dynamic where, when I hear about a supergroup that either has musicians I like or is in a genre I like, I typically feel two simultaneous emotions: I am excited about it because it is something I "should like." But at the same time, I cannot help but feel a bit skeptical and feel like it somehow is less...I dunno..."genuine?" than an organically-formed band. Does that make sense? So it's almost like I place an additional hurdle in front of the band and feel like I need to be wowed before I will really give the music a chance as anything more than a novelty, or will view the band as truly a band and not simply a novelty side-project.
Do other people feel similarly? And do you guys think it can sometimes be a barrier to these types of bands being successful on a larger scale?
-
There are certainly some that seem to be "purpose built," which does diminish what they're trying to do, but I don't really have any problem with the concept of the supergroup. I give them all the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I like the music and maybe I don't. Where it does make a difference is that I'm generally pretty inclined to see them live. Even a pre-fab band like SoA, where I'm not particularly interested in their music, puts so much talent on the stage at one time that I'm certainly going to want to see them play together. Those five guys couldn't really perform and not be entertaining.
-
A major part could be Expectations from the members involved. It's a reason why I've come to put expectations aside from hearing new music, regardless of who's creating it.
For these Supergroups, I look at who's the one who had the idea to begin with. Could be a musician, producer, or record label (Frontiers). From there, we can get an idea of where the music might go.
I get hesitant at the groups formed from Record Labels and producers, because they usually have a set reason/agenda/purpose for forming said group.
Individuals whom start a group or get guys together because they want to do something different, I enjoy a lot. A good example is Night Flight Orchestra. These groups are the ones that have potential to be successful.
-
I'm not sure about stigma, but I feel like there is diminished interest due to the large amount of ones forming.
Part of this is happening in music in general, where musicians are getting older and need that cash. They're too old to form new groups that would get anywhere, so they just grab big names and hope that brings in the fans.
On this side of the music world, MP is definitely guilty of this. New super group? COOL! Wait....every new band is a super group? And there's 5 or 6 of them in the last 10 years?
It just becomes way less special. It's no longer a super group, it's just older musicians looking to ride their popularity to get fans they know they couldn't get otherwise.
-
I think bands are aware of this, because they're starting to market themselves as "not another supergroup, just guys who wanna play together".
Ten years ago, I was excited about "supergroups", and they were high on my to-check-out list, even when I didn't care about any of the members, simply because they spiked curiosity. Now? I know it's something that's gonna last for two album cycles, play every festival date and then fall apart. No excitement.
-
My first reaction to hearing "supergroup" is almost this: ::)
Many are great, but it always seems like it is "concocted" rather than a band organically forming. Playing devil's advocate though, the thing is, these days, musicians know one another much better than they ever did before, just through social media connections. The industry is bigger in size, but smaller in terms of people knowing other people. So a "supergroup" is much more common, just because of the connections artists have with one another.
-
It's too case-by-case for me. I don't view any of Mike's projects as "supergroups", because I know Mike well enough that it's largely organic in the sense that it's people he wants to play with. It bugs me though that Eddie Trunk somehow takes "credit" for getting The Winery Dogs together.
But then there's something like Revolution Saints. I should LOVE that. Jack Flippin' Blades, man. One of my top five or so favorite musicians. Deen Castronovo. Incredibly singer and drummer. Doug Aldrich. Not exactly John Sykes or whatever, but a decent enough player and writer. And yet; I've listened to some of the material and... eh. That one smacks of pre-fabrication to me. A way to fulfill an agenda.
-
It's too case-by-case for me. I don't view any of Mike's projects as "supergroups", because I know Mike well enough that it's largely organic in the sense that it's people he wants to play with. It bugs me though that Eddie Trunk somehow takes "credit" for getting The Winery Dogs together.
And that's why it's a little heard to discern between prefabricated and organic. Two guys decide they'd like to do a project together. They have to figure out who's going to play bass. "I've always been a big Tony Levin fan." Next thing you know it's a supergroup. I think you're right that it becomes a problem when they're trying to do a specific thing. I think we all knew what SoA was going to sound like before we heard it, and it's exactly what they were going for. Same with the Jack Blades thing. I'm guessing he's trying to recreate Damn Yankees and make another gazillion dollars. Yet that's really all a function of the music they create. I wouldn't really hold it against them. Black Country Communion was very likely one of those purpose built bands, and by and large I dig their music.
-
it often comes down to can you write a song/compose a piece of music?
And do people collaborate well with the others, or is it 1 person doing the writing/composing?
Why the idea of when a bunch notable name musicians create music in a new group or project often doesn't really matter. Most of those musicians have worked best when they write the song/compose the music themselves. So when they are collaborating to write the song/compose the music, it often doesn't work as well because they're not used it.
I.e. too many cooks in the kitchen.
-
I would guess there is, yes. Cream and Blind Faith and Derek And The Dominos (remember these three?) had to face it. Sons Of Apollo may have to as well at some point. (or I misunderstood the question, that may happen here and there)
-
But then there's something like Revolution Saints. I should LOVE that. Jack Flippin' Blades, man. One of my top five or so favorite musicians. Deen Castronovo. Incredibly singer and drummer. Doug Aldrich. Not exactly John Sykes or whatever, but a decent enough player and writer. And yet; I've listened to some of the material and... eh. That one smacks of pre-fabrication to me. A way to fulfill an agenda.
That's because that first album wasn't written by the band. And I am guessing that the newest one isn't written by the band either (except for a track or two).
-
But then there's something like Revolution Saints. I should LOVE that. Jack Flippin' Blades, man. One of my top five or so favorite musicians. Deen Castronovo. Incredibly singer and drummer. Doug Aldrich. Not exactly John Sykes or whatever, but a decent enough player and writer. And yet; I've listened to some of the material and... eh. That one smacks of pre-fabrication to me. A way to fulfill an agenda.
That's because that first album wasn't written by the band. And I am guessing that the newest one isn't written by the band either (except for a track or two).
Other than a song or two, neither of the first two were written by the core members. I don't know about the third one.
I agree with Black Country Communion, as they were "put together" by Kevin Shirley, but for each album, Glenn and Joe, either together or separately, sat down and created songs, internal to the group.
-
Anytime a supergroup does happen to pop up, I am more than happy to give them a chance and am pretty excited to see what they come up with. That being said, a lot of times its kinda underwhelming, but still if they knock it out of the park then that's just one more kick ass album to add to the collection.
-
As someone who has some "Supergroups" in his all-time favorite bands, I'd say there is a BIT of a stigma, but it largely depends on who is involved and how they get together. With Transatlantic, it really was out of an urge to get Mike and Neal to play together with Jim Matheos, but when that fell threw, they kept going because Mike and Neal genuinely wanted to play together - not having Jim didn't set them back, so it felt a bit more genuine for them to continue on and recruit Roine and Pete.
Of course, some supergroups fare better than others, even in the realm of prog. ELP is a prime example where the supergroup has more or less outshined any of the member's previous bands. One could argue that Asia had done the same thing, gaining huge hits and radio airplay, probably more than the members' "parent bands" had done up to that point.
I do think that there are some that are gimmick-bands that only form because the label or manager wanted to put them together, but I think that happens more often in pop music, where a group is Frankenstein'd together to create a hit sensation.
Personally speaking, I like the idea of supergroups, it's like the NFL Pro Bowl, getting to see and hear some of the best, or your favorite musicians come together to make music. It's a bit of a spectacle, but because of that, I think expectations are often high for these groups and so they are held to higher scrutiny than most "organically formed" bands.
-Marc.
-
I've been thinking about this. While I recognize Bosk very clearly said "I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of what constitutes a supergroup", I can't really avoid that; the one thing I've sort of kept coming back to is exactly the opposite: I'm not sure there's a stigma with "supergroups" - even though they can be mishandled - but I know for me, it bugs the crap out of me when the touring guitarist from Ratt gets together with the guy who filled in for Vince Neil when he had strep and the drummer for Jack Russell's Great White and the bass player for the west coast touring troupe of Rock of Ages and THEY call it a "supergroup".
-
Jazz artists do this all the time, and it's not a big deal. Maybe the difference is that Jazz often focuses more on the individual, whereas Rock tends to focus more on the band, the ensemble. Yeah, there are exceptions, but I mean in general. If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
If four Rock guys get together, it's almost a given that they'll come up with a band name and promote it that way. And because no one has heard of this band before, the promotion is more about letting people know who is in the band, which leads to lists of what bands they've each been in and who they've played with. I agree with Stadler that to some extent, the word "supergroup" is often overused, but it's gonna happen when the bassist from some band and the singer from another and the drummer who played on a bunch of people's solo albums all get together. The hype is a weird blend of the persons themselves and the bands they've played with.
Asia was my first supergroup disappointment. King Crimson had broken up again, Yes had broken up again, ELP was gone as far as we knew, but suddenly here's this band with Wetton, Howe, Downes, and Palmer. Holy Shit! Blind buy for me. I took it home, put it on, and listened to a bunch of "regular" rock songs no better than anything by any other band out there, and I've tried a few times over the years to get into the album, but it's just boring. No adventure, no fun, no prog.
That was the early 80's, and because of that, I've never bought into the "supergroup" hype. Don't be impressed by who they are and who they've played with. It still comes down to the music. It could be great, or it could suck. I think the fact that some of my favorite guys are in the band might lead me to check them out sooner, but that also leads to disappointment more often than not. If it sounds like old-school stuff I love, people will cry about them being stuck in the past or just cashing in on the old sounds. If it's newer-sounding, people will cry that they're trying too hard to be modern and relevant. The "perfect blend" of old and new that I'd probably find the most interesting is also the most difficult to achieve, and that mix will be different for everybody.
-
I've been thinking about this. While I recognize Bosk very clearly said "I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of what constitutes a supergroup", I can't really avoid that; the one thing I've sort of kept coming back to is exactly the opposite: I'm not sure there's a stigma with "supergroups" - even though they can be mishandled - but I know for me, it bugs the crap out of me when the touring guitarist from Ratt gets together with the guy who filled in for Vince Neil when he had strep and the drummer for Jack Russell's Great White and the bass player for the west coast touring troupe of Rock of Ages and THEY call it a "supergroup".
You mean you didn't like The Great Ratt of Ages?
-
Jazz artists do this all the time, and it's not a big deal. Maybe the difference is that Jazz often focuses more on the individual, whereas Rock tends to focus more on the band, the ensemble. Yeah, there are exceptions, but I mean in general. If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
To a large degree, jazz is about interpretation and improvisation. Rock is about composition and re-creation. The jazz supergroup could play the most tired of jazz standards and still end up with an exciting result. On the other hand, the rock guys will fail if the chemistry or writing talent just isn't there to create decent tunes, no matter how good they may be at playing whatever unconvincing music they've come up with.
-
This occurred to me while thinking about Sons of Apollo. [...] I am excited about it because it is something I "should like." But at the same time, I cannot help but feel a bit skeptical and feel like it somehow is less...I dunno..."genuine?" than an organically-formed band. Does that make sense?
It totally makes sense. And let's stick with that example, cause I think it's a good one. Mike has played with Billy Sheehan in his The Who cover band. He played with him in PSMS, when they were doing prog and fusion covers. He played with Billy Sheehan in The Winery Dogs, who were playing pretty standard rock. And now he's playing with Billy Sheehan in Sons of Apollo, who are playing shreddy prog metal. Now, I won't say Billy can't play any of that - obviously, he can play basically anything technically. But sorry, I'm just not buying that for all of these situations, he was the ideal choice musically in terms of what he would contribute. So there's an element of "he was picked for the name recognition".
-
Jazz artists do this all the time, and it's not a big deal. Maybe the difference is that Jazz often focuses more on the individual, whereas Rock tends to focus more on the band, the ensemble. Yeah, there are exceptions, but I mean in general. If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
To a large degree, jazz is about interpretation and improvisation. Rock is about composition and re-creation. The jazz supergroup could play the most tired of jazz standards and still end up with an exciting result. On the other hand, the rock guys will fail if the chemistry or writing talent just isn't there to create decent tunes, no matter how good they may be at playing whatever unconvincing music they've come up with.
I was literally going to write that very same thing. I think that's exactly correct.
(By the way, I have to note: as a huge fan of Yes and ELP - I wasn't yet into Crimson - I actually LOVED Asia. I'm a melody/song guy, and I love that warm tenor voice that Wetton - and Lake before him - have as well, and so for me it was a really neat, and in my mind, courageous, diversion from what they all had done before.)
-
I loved Wetton's voice, and Lake's as well. But I guess it's the setting that really makes it for me, not just the voice. With King Crimson, you had this improvisional element, and Fripp's tendency to go to extremes just to do it, so a rich tenor voice was a glorious contrast. Lament, Fallen Angel, Starless, etc. But with Asia, yeah it's that same great voice, but doing nothing more than any other boring singer could do. Our drummer said "Yeah but listen to Steve. Power chords!" Right, so one of the most unique guitarists in rock, and you're excited because he's playing power chords? Asia had a shitload of talent, but for me they came together to much less than the sum of their parts. They did, however, answer the question no one had asked thus far: "What if four guys from hugely successfully prog bands got together to make boring radio-friendly rock?" The answer was Asia.
Different can be interesting, but it still has to be both interesting and good to keep my attention. I thought Asia was very good, just not very interesting. It was different from what those guys had done before, which I suppose was interesting, but the music itself was so boring. Anyway, it was just one example.
-
I was initially quite excited for The Sea Within. One of my favourite guitarists (Stolt) collaborating with a singer I was intrigued by, if not fully aware of (Gildenlow), his trusted bass partner (Reingold), the drummer from one of my top 3 albums of all time (Minnemann; Wilson's ...Raven...), and a keyboardist who around that time guested on a podcast I listen to and delivered one of my favourite-ever performances from that series (Brislin, who performed Jason Falkner's Afraid Himself to Be on Band Geek). I still don't really know what to make of the album. Maybe I've OD'd on Flower Kings stuff in the last two years. But it's an example of a supergroup I theoretically should be massively into, but the album just hasn't delivered that ultimate knockout blow that I feel it should.
-
I loved Wetton's voice, and Lake's as well. But I guess it's the setting that really makes it for me, not just the voice. With King Crimson, you had this improvisional element, and Fripp's tendency to go to extremes just to do it, so a rich tenor voice was a glorious contrast. Lament, Fallen Angel, Starless, etc. But with Asia, yeah it's that same great voice, but doing nothing more than any other boring singer could do. Our drummer said "Yeah but listen to Steve. Power chords!" Right, so one of the most unique guitarists in rock, and you're excited because he's playing power chords? Asia had a shitload of talent, but for me they came together to much less than the sum of their parts. They did, however, answer the question no one had asked thus far: "What if four guys from hugely successfully prog bands got together to make boring radio-friendly rock?" The answer was Asia.
Different can be interesting, but it still has to be both interesting and good to keep my attention. I thought Asia was very good, just not very interesting. It was different from what those guys had done before, which I suppose was interesting, but the music itself was so boring. Anyway, it was just one example.
Look, Orbert, nothing personal here at all (more band updates!!), but words like "boring" when it comes to music are really hard words to respond to, since they are so subjective. If the comparison is between Asia and Crimson (or even classic ELP) you're probably looking for something different than someone else, or the band's intent. When I want crazy demonic improvisations, there clearly isn't a better band to go to than King Crimson. And that wasn't at all what Wetton and Downes were going for (I have it in my head that initially the songs on Asia were for a publishing tape, but I could be confusing that with something else). But I also like catchy melodies, solid songwriting and good ensemble playing. So while Steve Howe's power chords may not be special in the context of "Gates Of Delirium", how he delivers those in conjunction with the rest of the group is pretty cool (I'm not making the argument for "power chords" specifically, though, since I'm not sure exactly what that means!). Like the way that Carl turns the beat around on Sole Survivor.
I remember seeing John sing "The Smile Has Left Your Eyes" and it was both moving and heartbreaking. Really emotional moment, and it would have been ruined by more. Think KC's "Trio" and Bill's writing credit (for choosing to not play at all).
I also find myself singing "Heat Of The Moment", and Midnight Sun", and "Here Comes The Feeling" in my head far more than any Crimson, ELP, or Yes song, combined.
-
Look, Orbert, nothing personal here at all (more band updates!!), but words like "boring" when it comes to music are really hard words to respond to, since they are so subjective.
I generally agree. But, honestly, that's the best word that would have described my reaction to Asia back then too.
-
Stigma? Yeah I think so. Supergroups were ruined for me when Mad Season came out. I was really excited about the album and when I bought it, I listened to it once and never again.
I haven't given any supergroup the time of day since.
That is until SoA realeased Goodbye Divinity. But if the rest of their new album sounds like their first, then I will can them too. :)
-
Stadler, I am with ya regarding Asia. I love that first album and they have done some good stuff since.
As for supergroups in general, it feels like an overused description nowadays, since any band with members who have been in another band prior can be called a supergroup.
-
That first Asia album was anything but boring.
-
Asia was very good music, played well, produced well, nothing really wrong with it. I can't denigrate anybody who likes it. For all the talent in that band, somehow there's very little about their music that keeps my interest. Yes, "boring" is subjective. Completely subjective. But for me it's the first word that comes to mind.
-
All music discussion is subjective anyway, unless we're going to stick to strictly factual observations, like "This song features a guitarist," "That note was an E flat." And then it's not even a discussion. It's just a bunch of assholes saying some boring-ass facts at each other, and who the hell would enjoy that?
-
Asia was very good music, played well, produced well, nothing really wrong with it. I can't denigrate anybody who likes it. For all the talent in that band, somehow there's very little about their music that keeps my interest. Yes, "boring" is subjective. Completely subjective. But for me it's the first word that comes to mind.
I get why prog fans back then would have been disappointed, seeing all of those prog guys come together to make music that was more mainstream rock with a dash of pop instead of going full-on prog, but I grew up seeing Heat of the Moment on MTV and loving it, and didn't know what in the world prog was till years later, so as often is the case, it can depend on when and where. :biggrin:
-
This occurred to me while thinking about Sons of Apollo. [...] I am excited about it because it is something I "should like." But at the same time, I cannot help but feel a bit skeptical and feel like it somehow is less...I dunno..."genuine?" than an organically-formed band. Does that make sense?
It totally makes sense. And let's stick with that example, cause I think it's a good one. Mike has played with Billy Sheehan in his The Who cover band. He played with him in PSMS, when they were doing prog and fusion covers. He played with Billy Sheehan in The Winery Dogs, who were playing pretty standard rock. And now he's playing with Billy Sheehan in Sons of Apollo, who are playing shreddy prog metal. Now, I won't say Billy can't play any of that - obviously, he can play basically anything technically. But sorry, I'm just not buying that for all of these situations, he was the ideal choice musically in terms of what he would contribute. So there's an element of "he was picked for the name recognition".
I would have to say that there is no player today who sounds more like John Entwistle than Billy Sheehan and I'm surprised he wasn't contacted by The Who for the tour they did a few years ago. Billy and Tony Mac go back a ways so I would say that had a lot to do with the line up as it was. As far as Winery Dogs and SOA , that does seem to indicate some sort of partnership or something. But I would say that even Old Man Bill is more technically able than most.
-
I loved Wetton's voice, and Lake's as well. But I guess it's the setting that really makes it for me, not just the voice. With King Crimson, you had this improvisional element, and Fripp's tendency to go to extremes just to do it, so a rich tenor voice was a glorious contrast. Lament, Fallen Angel, Starless, etc. But with Asia, yeah it's that same great voice, but doing nothing more than any other boring singer could do. Our drummer said "Yeah but listen to Steve. Power chords!" Right, so one of the most unique guitarists in rock, and you're excited because he's playing power chords? Asia had a shitload of talent, but for me they came together to much less than the sum of their parts. They did, however, answer the question no one had asked thus far: "What if four guys from hugely successfully prog bands got together to make boring radio-friendly rock?" The answer was Asia.
Different can be interesting, but it still has to be both interesting and good to keep my attention. I thought Asia was very good, just not very interesting. It was different from what those guys had done before, which I suppose was interesting, but the music itself was so boring. Anyway, it was just one example.
Look, Orbert, nothing personal here at all (more band updates!!), but words like "boring" when it comes to music are really hard words to respond to, since they are so subjective. If the comparison is between Asia and Crimson (or even classic ELP) you're probably looking for something different than someone else, or the band's intent. When I want crazy demonic improvisations, there clearly isn't a better band to go to than King Crimson. And that wasn't at all what Wetton and Downes were going for (I have it in my head that initially the songs on Asia were for a publishing tape, but I could be confusing that with something else). But I also like catchy melodies, solid songwriting and good ensemble playing. So while Steve Howe's power chords may not be special in the context of "Gates Of Delirium", how he delivers those in conjunction with the rest of the group is pretty cool (I'm not making the argument for "power chords" specifically, though, since I'm not sure exactly what that means!). Like the way that Carl turns the beat around on Sole Survivor.
I remember seeing John sing "The Smile Has Left Your Eyes" and it was both moving and heartbreaking. Really emotional moment, and it would have been ruined by more. Think KC's "Trio" and Bill's writing credit (for choosing to not play at all).
I also find myself singing "Heat Of The Moment", and Midnight Sun", and "Here Comes The Feeling" in my head far more than any Crimson, ELP, or Yes song, combined.
Apples and oranges. Love both though.
-
That first Asia album was anything but boring.
The second and third was more of the same. Until the reunion, it all ended for me after Live and Moscow and Live in Nottingham. Asia was dead to me when Payne joined after those live albums.
-
I loved Wetton's voice, and Lake's as well. But I guess it's the setting that really makes it for me, not just the voice. With King Crimson, you had this improvisional element, and Fripp's tendency to go to extremes just to do it, so a rich tenor voice was a glorious contrast. Lament, Fallen Angel, Starless, etc. But with Asia, yeah it's that same great voice, but doing nothing more than any other boring singer could do. Our drummer said "Yeah but listen to Steve. Power chords!" Right, so one of the most unique guitarists in rock, and you're excited because he's playing power chords? Asia had a shitload of talent, but for me they came together to much less than the sum of their parts. They did, however, answer the question no one had asked thus far: "What if four guys from hugely successfully prog bands got together to make boring radio-friendly rock?" The answer was Asia.
Different can be interesting, but it still has to be both interesting and good to keep my attention. I thought Asia was very good, just not very interesting. It was different from what those guys had done before, which I suppose was interesting, but the music itself was so boring. Anyway, it was just one example.
Look, Orbert, nothing personal here at all (more band updates!!), but words like "boring" when it comes to music are really hard words to respond to, since they are so subjective. If the comparison is between Asia and Crimson (or even classic ELP) you're probably looking for something different than someone else, or the band's intent. When I want crazy demonic improvisations, there clearly isn't a better band to go to than King Crimson. And that wasn't at all what Wetton and Downes were going for (I have it in my head that initially the songs on Asia were for a publishing tape, but I could be confusing that with something else). But I also like catchy melodies, solid songwriting and good ensemble playing. So while Steve Howe's power chords may not be special in the context of "Gates Of Delirium", how he delivers those in conjunction with the rest of the group is pretty cool (I'm not making the argument for "power chords" specifically, though, since I'm not sure exactly what that means!). Like the way that Carl turns the beat around on Sole Survivor.
I remember seeing John sing "The Smile Has Left Your Eyes" and it was both moving and heartbreaking. Really emotional moment, and it would have been ruined by more. Think KC's "Trio" and Bill's writing credit (for choosing to not play at all).
I also find myself singing "Heat Of The Moment", and Midnight Sun", and "Here Comes The Feeling" in my head far more than any Crimson, ELP, or Yes song, combined.
Apples and oranges. Love both though.
Well, yeah, that's my point. If they are apples and oranges, then they shouldn't be compared. I don't compare Asia with Yes/ELP/Crimson, and I don't listen to one when I'm in the mood for the other. I LIKED - and still like - that those musicians were comfortable enough in their own skin to stretch out and try something new and different for them.
-
That first Asia album was anything but boring.
The second and third was more of the same. Until the reunion, it all ended for me after Live and Moscow and Live in Nottingham. Asia was dead to me when Payne joined after those live albums.
I saw the Payne-led Asia in concert and it was abysmal. It had NONE of ANY of the things we're talking about here. It didn't have the playing, the prog-chops, the songwriting, the performance... I really struggled with what the point was.
-
I would have to say that there is no player today who sounds more like John Entwistle than Billy Sheehan and I'm surprised he wasn't contacted by The Who for the tour they did a few years ago. Billy and Tony Mac go back a ways so I would say that had a lot to do with the line up as it was. As far as Winery Dogs and SOA , that does seem to indicate some sort of partnership or something. But I would say that even Old Man Bill is more technically able than most.
You misunderstood me. I didn't say he was a strange pick for each of these. You can definitely make the case that he was a good one for some of them. My point was: Just not really *all* of them.
-
I would have to say that there is no player today who sounds more like John Entwistle than Billy Sheehan and I'm surprised he wasn't contacted by The Who for the tour they did a few years ago. Billy and Tony Mac go back a ways so I would say that had a lot to do with the line up as it was. As far as Winery Dogs and SOA , that does seem to indicate some sort of partnership or something. But I would say that even Old Man Bill is more technically able than most.
You misunderstood me. I didn't say he was a strange pick for each of these. You can definitely make the case that he was a good for some of them. My point was: Just not really *all* of them.
Nah it's cool man I get it. Everyone has their favorites and Billy Sheehan is mine , the guy from Talas 1980's Billy Sheehan. The guy can flat out play anything though , he can't write it but whatever someone needs him to play he does so with authority. But yeah the Winery Dogs should be MP joining Mr. Big or something like that. Edit : and SOA their are probably other guys who fit better.
-
If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
If four Rock guys get together, it's almost a given that they'll come up with a band name and promote it that way.
I was thinking about this the other day while listening to some Levin Minnemann Rudess. Great stuff. I tried to think of other, similar bands, and thought of Bozzio Levin Stevens. Ha ha, Tony Levin in both bands! But Tony has played with like 95% of everybody in the world, so no real surprise.
But in each of these projects, there's a lot of focus on the playing, in a way it's focused more on the individuals than the ensemble, maybe because it's all instrumental. More of a "Jazz attitude" to it?
-
If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
If four Rock guys get together, it's almost a given that they'll come up with a band name and promote it that way.
I was thinking about this the other day while listening to some Levin Minnemann Rudess. Great stuff. I tried to think of other, similar bands, and thought of Bozzio Levin Stevens. Ha ha, Tony Levin in both bands! But Tony has played with like 95% of everybody in the world, so no real surprise.
But in each of these projects, there's a lot of focus on the playing, in a way it's focused more on the individuals than the ensemble, maybe because it's all instrumental. More of a "Jazz attitude" to it?
Are they really comparable? (Honest question, since I've never heard LMR). I really like BLS, so that might influence my decision...
-
I've never heard BLS, but Stadler, you should totally check out LMR... there are some tracks that I just adore. Plus, the second album is called 'From The Law Offices Of LMR' - they're all dressed in suits on the front and some titles are lawyer-y in a funny way :) They're finally on Spotify, dunno about YouTube, but you should totally check out the songs 'Lakeshore Lights,' 'Marcopolis,' and 'Mew' from the debut record. Think Liquid Tension Experiment, but more Rudess-y. IMO it's way more enjoyable than LTE.
-
I liked the first LMR album, and it definitely had a few killer tunes, but the lack of a regular guitar player was a detriment. Minnemann does a good job all things considered, but when you have killer drums, killer bass, killer keys and merely good guitar, the balance is way off.
-
I'm a keyboard guy myself, so it never bothered me that the guitarist was "just okay" but I see what you mean. Actually I was wondering if that was guitar or Jordan with a patch that sounds exactly like a guitar.
-
I can't help but remember the supergroup called DAMNOCRACY. Featuring Sebastian Bach, Ted Nugent, Scott Ian, Evan Seinfeld, and Jason Bonham. That didn't last long.. :facepalm: :lol
-
If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
If four Rock guys get together, it's almost a given that they'll come up with a band name and promote it that way.
I was thinking about this the other day while listening to some Levin Minnemann Rudess. Great stuff. I tried to think of other, similar bands, and thought of Bozzio Levin Stevens. Ha ha, Tony Levin in both bands! But Tony has played with like 95% of everybody in the world, so no real surprise.
But in each of these projects, there's a lot of focus on the playing, in a way it's focused more on the individuals than the ensemble, maybe because it's all instrumental. More of a "Jazz attitude" to it?
At least that Bozzio Levin Stevens one has a strong "jazz attitude", if I remember correctly they just met and jammed in the studio with no pre-written material, so it's very improvisational.
-
I didn't know that. I actually had the second album first (Black Light Syndrome) and liked it, and didn't realize until after that that it was the second album, so I grabbed the self-titled later. A lot of it does sound improvised, or at least something that was originally improvised and later worked into something a little more structured. I found the contrast between the two rather interesting, but I like them both.
-
I remember listening to Black Light Syndrome many years ago and not liking it at all. Might need to give the band another chance.
-
I like the openness of a trio. Each guy has a lot of space to work with, and there are so many ways to interact. With a quartet or larger, you almost have to have more structure to things. Two guitars, it's pretty much a given that there are things that have to be worked out. Guitar and keyboards, you probably still have some space but things can get crowded. With a lead instrument or vocalist, they'll tend to take the spotlight when they're there, and the rest of the time things feel empty without them. This is all generally speaking, of course.
But with just three guys, all instrumental, so much more feels like it's riding on the virtuosity of the players and their command of their space within the group. You put top-shelf players together in a band, I want to hear what they can do.
Black Light Syndrome is different from the first album in ways that I'm just now figuring out. Maybe I'm fortunate to have discovered it first, since I liked it a lot and was able to get into the first album. It might not have worked out the same the other way around.
-
Black Light Syndrome is the first record, Situation Dangerous the second one.
I like Black Light Syndrome a lot but it isn't your normal instrumental record. It's very lose because of the improvisational nature. It's a little bit like a jazz record with a rock band sound. And it's interesting what Steve Stevens can play outside of Billy Idol's band.
Haven't really listened to the second one, so I can't compare the two.
-
Speaking of supergroup trios, anyone listened to Niacin? It's Dennis Chambers, Billy Sheehan and a Hammond organ player. It was cool at first, but every track sounded the same to me.
-
Yes, I've got four of their records, I enjoy them all from time to time, Deepmis my favorite, but you're right, it can sound a little bit samey after a while.
-
Black Light Syndrome is the first record, Situation Dangerous the second one.
I like Black Light Syndrome a lot but it isn't your normal instrumental record. It's very lose because of the improvisational nature. It's a little bit like a jazz record with a rock band sound. And it's interesting what Steve Stevens can play outside of Billy Idol's band.
Haven't really listened to the second one, so I can't compare the two.
You're right, of course. I was completely confused. I was thinking that the first album was self-titled and the second was Black Light Syndrome, which is bad because I do have both of them. The only part I got right is that I did get the second album first and liked it, so I checked out the first album and liked that, too.
I only checked out BLS in the first place because I always thought Steve Stevens was the best part of pretty much any Billy Idol song, and with Terry Bozzio and Tony Levin, I was hoping for some great results, which I got.
-
I think that there is a stigma but I tend to just judge it on the material. Unlike Stadler I do enjoy Revolution Saints despite the obvious agenda and them being hugely derivative of Journey. I can’t get new stuff from the actual Journey anymore so this fills a gap for me, classic Journeyesque AOR done really well. Transatlantic is another obvious one that works.
I can sometimes have this suspicion that people who have their own successful bands or solo careers aren’t going to give up their best stuff for a side group and that’s one of the reasons I’m not too bothered that Rev Saints don’t write their own stuff. Someone else writes it so Frontiers can have a Journey style band as Journey aren’t giving them anything. Transatlantic are a different thing purely because Neal is a freak with a seemingly endless amount of amazing music pouring out from him so I never think he’s holding back.
-
I think that there is a stigma but I tend to just judge it on the material. Unlike Stadler I do enjoy Revolution Saints despite the obvious agenda and them being hugely derivative of Journey. I can’t get new stuff from the actual Journey anymore so this fills a gap for me, classic Journeyesque AOR done really well. Transatlantic is another obvious one that works.
I can sometimes have this suspicion that people who have their own successful bands or solo careers aren’t going to give up their best stuff for a side group and that’s one of the reasons I’m not too bothered that Rev Saints don’t write their own stuff. Someone else writes it so Frontiers can have a Journey style band as Journey aren’t giving them anything. Transatlantic are a different thing purely because Neal is a freak with a seemingly endless amount of amazing music pouring out from him so I never think he’s holding back.
I might have to revisit that.
-
Some won’t like them as they are pretty much a carbon copy of Journey and not quite in the same class. I’ll be honest though, if the current Journey line up had released the last two Revolution Saints albums, I’d have been pretty happy with them even as actual Journey albums, the first one especially, 2nd was a bit patchier.
-
My favorite recent "supergroup" (if that term even applies) is Nova Collective. That shit slaps. Prog jazz. So tasty.
-
My favorite recent "supergroup" (if that term even applies) is Nova Collective. That shit slaps. Prog jazz. So tasty.
Loved their album! Hope a 2nd is on the way.
-
If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
If four Rock guys get together, it's almost a given that they'll come up with a band name and promote it that way.
I was thinking about this the other day while listening to some Levin Minnemann Rudess. Great stuff. I tried to think of other, similar bands, and thought of Bozzio Levin Stevens. Ha ha, Tony Levin in both bands! But Tony has played with like 95% of everybody in the world, so no real surprise.
But in each of these projects, there's a lot of focus on the playing, in a way it's focused more on the individuals than the ensemble, maybe because it's all instrumental. More of a "Jazz attitude" to it?
That stuff is definitely in my wheelhouse. Of course my rule of thumb is that if Tony Levin is involved, I'm going to like it. I generally treat Billy Sheehan the same way of course (except for Mr. Big.)
-
If four well-known Jazz guys decide they want to get together and make an album, they just put all four names on the cover and put it out there. If you're a fan of any of them, you'll hear about it and check it out.
If four Rock guys get together, it's almost a given that they'll come up with a band name and promote it that way.
I was thinking about this the other day while listening to some Levin Minnemann Rudess. Great stuff. I tried to think of other, similar bands, and thought of Bozzio Levin Stevens. Ha ha, Tony Levin in both bands! But Tony has played with like 95% of everybody in the world, so no real surprise.
But in each of these projects, there's a lot of focus on the playing, in a way it's focused more on the individuals than the ensemble, maybe because it's all instrumental. More of a "Jazz attitude" to it?
Are they really comparable? (Honest question, since I've never heard LMR). I really like BLS, so that might influence my decision...
I don't think you'll like it. It's a bit more imrov than you might be comfortable with based on what you've said you dig.
-
I liked the first LMR album, and it definitely had a few killer tunes, but the lack of a regular guitar player was a detriment. Minnemann does a good job all things considered, but when you have killer drums, killer bass, killer keys and merely good guitar, the balance is way off.
I don't know. I really enjoy Marco's playing on both Levin, Minnemann and Rudess albums (He does a really good job on the half-dozen or so solo albums I have too) He just isn't very flashy most of the time.
-
Black Light Syndrome is the first record, Situation Dangerous the second one.
I like Black Light Syndrome a lot but it isn't your normal instrumental record. It's very lose because of the improvisational nature. It's a little bit like a jazz record with a rock band sound. And it's interesting what Steve Stevens can play outside of Billy Idol's band.
Haven't really listened to the second one, so I can't compare the two.
I really like what he does outside of that band. Have a few solo albums and the two Black Light Syndrome albums. That Flemenco a Go Go album is really cool even though I stuck it in the jazz section. Had no idea the guy was that capable but I read a review way back when and took a chance on it.
-
Speaking of supergroup trios, anyone listened to Niacin? It's Dennis Chambers, Billy Sheehan and a Hammond organ player. It was cool at first, but every track sounded the same to me.
I LOVE Those discs! Hammond B3!!!!!! (John Novello) Mostly listen to Blood, Sweat and Beers (the live album) but I've probably pulled out all of them within the last year. Really dig that stuff. Probably my favorite band that Billy Sheehan has ever been in. I'll never forget the look on Billy's face after a Winery Dogs gig when he saw all of the Niacin booklets. I asked if he would just sign his favorite album but Billy being Billy he signed them all!
I was so blown away I forgot to ask him if the band was still active. Should probably look that up.
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
I knew that but I still didn't make the connection.
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
That was like the first thing mentioned in every review and group info I came across. ;)
-
Anyone know where "Niacin" comes from? Sounds like a drug, but Sheehan isn't known for that.
-
Anyone know where "Niacin" comes from? Sounds like a drug, but Sheehan isn't known for that.
Niacin is Vitamin B3. (and their pianist uses a B3 as well, so there's your humourous bit)
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
That was like the first thing mentioned in every review and group info I came across. ;)
I've never even seen a review on this band. Found one of the CD's in the used bin about 20 years ago, saw who was in the band and bought it without hearing a note. Based on that, I've been buying whenever I see one I don't have and have never been disappointed..
It looks like the band hasn't been active for at least 10 years. No idea why they aren't together anymore. Organik was the last album and that was released in 2006.
-
Anyone know where "Niacin" comes from? Sounds like a drug, but Sheehan isn't known for that.
Niacin is Vitamin B3. (and their pianist uses a B3 as well, so there's your humourous bit)
(Nah, I got it, boss; I was making a joke about ... ah, it wasn't that funny.)
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
That was like the first thing mentioned in every review and group info I came across. ;)
I've never even seen a review on this band. Found one of the CD's in the used bin about 20 years ago, saw who was in the band and bought it without hearing a note. Based on that, I've been buying whenever I see one I don't have and have never been disappointed..
It looks like the band hasn't been active for at least 10 years. No idea why they aren't together anymore. Organik was the last album and that was released in 2006.
They released an album, Krush, in 2013.
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
That was like the first thing mentioned in every review and group info I came across. ;)
I've never even seen a review on this band. Found one of the CD's in the used bin about 20 years ago, saw who was in the band and bought it without hearing a note. Based on that, I've been buying whenever I see one I don't have and have never been disappointed..
It looks like the band hasn't been active for at least 10 years. No idea why they aren't together anymore. Organik was the last album and that was released in 2006.
They released an album, Krush, in 2013.
Thanks. Guess I need to track that one down. How is it?
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
That was like the first thing mentioned in every review and group info I came across. ;)
I've never even seen a review on this band. Found one of the CD's in the used bin about 20 years ago, saw who was in the band and bought it without hearing a note. Based on that, I've been buying whenever I see one I don't have and have never been disappointed..
It looks like the band hasn't been active for at least 10 years. No idea why they aren't together anymore. Organik was the last album and that was released in 2006.
They released an album, Krush, in 2013.
Thanks. Guess I need to track that one down. How is it?
Haven't listened to it, honestly.
-
Fun fact, Niacin is another name for Vitamin B3. I listened to three albums of music featuring the Hammond B-3 and the connection still had to be pointed out to me. :facepalm:
That was like the first thing mentioned in every review and group info I came across. ;)
I've never even seen a review on this band. Found one of the CD's in the used bin about 20 years ago, saw who was in the band and bought it without hearing a note. Based on that, I've been buying whenever I see one I don't have and have never been disappointed..
It looks like the band hasn't been active for at least 10 years. No idea why they aren't together anymore. Organik was the last album and that was released in 2006.
They released an album, Krush, in 2013.
Thanks. Guess I need to track that one down. How is it?
Haven't listened to it, honestly.
Still going to try and track it down. I'm sure it will be as good as the others.