Who was the most average successful rock band in history?

Eagles, U2, Nirvana.

Has anyone else noticed that there is a chain of hair salons called Floyd's 99 Barbershop? Do they know the lyrics to "Floyd the Barber"? What did I miss?

 

I agree with the Cars, but only after their second album did they become average. First two albums are quite good.

 

At least in the case of PJ, that statement about "note perfect" from the albums couldn't be more wrong...

 

The natural assumption would be that your birthdate was late enough for you to have missed rock music and only know it from rhetoric and historical accounts. Which cannot possibly do it justice.

 

Bon Jovi

 

I didn't mean note-perfect as in flawless. I meant, all they could do live was replicate the songs from the album note for note.

 

Heart has one of the greatest female singers in the history of rock and roll. And her sister is no slouch on guitar either. Far from average.

 

U2.

 

I know what you meant - and I know it's wrong...

 

Well if you you "know", I must be wrong. I stand corrected.

 

To me they're overrated. Sorry if it offends you .

 

I don't think he was an average songwriter at all. I don't think he had matured at songwriting by any means, and he wasn't a very good guitarist or singer.
But had he lived, I think he would have ended up being to 80s and beyond pop music what Neil Young is to 70s rock.

 

Yeah, I see that. I think it was clear to all that he was rapidly outgrowing the Nirvana confines (for lack of a better word). I think he was saying as much right before his death.

 

Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band. Successful, with average musicians, tiring music that I don't like but somehow millions seem to dig. Probably my least favorite classic rock artist/band only because they've been played to death and there is nothing special about them in my opinion. If they weren't played to death then I'd probably think they were still average.

 

No, I was right in the heart of hit managing record shops in the early to mid 70's, going to tons of shows, some of them free, listened to music 10-12 hours per day. Heard new releases before most anyone else in the area I'm not saying some of those groups didn't include capable musicians just that I thought they were more show than substance. Rush, Kansas, Asia, Toto, Foreinger, REO, Journey and more. If they were all in the same room I couldn't tell them apart.

 

Perhaps so. For me I could never get past the FM radio done to death aspect of it all. FM radio programming destroyed the interest I once had in Jethro Tull as well-started with Aqualung. Same thing with Rush. And Bob Seger and of course The Doobie Brothers. I was always happy radio ignored the Grateful Dead. Maybe this a different thread topic ultimately but my point is that there are a ton of groups that we perhaps judged unfairly because we were sick to death of hearing one or two of their songs over and over again so that we would never go buy an album and maybe listen to something else they did. Some others who come to mind: the James Gang, Joan Jett and Heart. Some of the bands probably do suck but some of them were dissed because they had one or two excessively radio-friendly tunes.

 

What comes to mind are people like Huey Lewis, Jimmy Buffet, Hootie, and bands like Toto and the Eagles.

Artists that engender indifference, not any kind of strong emotion either way.

 

Wow, can't agree with Rush. Their music was and still is unique and inspired generations of musicians of all stripes. You may or may not like them, but for their first two decades they were anything but average.

 

It is possible to find fault with U2 for other reasons apart from the fact that they were successful. You do know this right? The Beatles get a lot of love around here and they were pretty successful.

 

This is a tough topic because it can easily make me just go with a band "I don't like" but a lot of others do.

I'd say you have a good enough example for me with Huey Lewis & The News.

 

It's just an opinion. Just one person's point of view. I wouldn't deny or criticize anyone else's appreciation but the fact for me remains. I really don't like them.

 

That's a good call for me personally. I'm one of those who really likes Dave Grohl, loved his drumming in Nirvana, and loves to hear him talk about music. When it comes to the actual music of Foo Fighters however I want to like them (and enjoy watching them play a live song or 2 for the sheer energy) but I'm usually "meh" after hearing most of their songs.

 

Nancy is an OK guitar player...I don't think she played much lead.

 

But that's just it, you may or may not like them but that should be rather irrelevant here. I don't like Alice Cooper but wouldn't call him "average".

Of course it's all opinion based - but I don't see how anyone familiar with rock music from the 70s to present could call Rush "average". They have an absolutely unique sound and were hugely influential.

 

White Stripes.

Ooops, sorry, they're well below average musically, when you take Meg white into consideration...