Which act demands the least *creativity* from its members? *

Erm.........well, we're agreed she looked hot.......

 

I was reading an interview with the guy (Andy Fearn) and he himself was laughing about it - I guess what started off as a joke at local gigs became part of their shtick, and he was laughing about how he gets treated as an all-expenses-paid band member on foreign tours when all he does, as you say, is drink beer and hit "play" on his prerecorded tracks. I guess his presence up there makes it seem less like a shouty poetry reading, but still. Nice work if you can get it, eh?

 

Well, it was bound to come sooner or later.

As the OP said this thread is not about who has more musical talent but musicians not having a tough gig or playing under their talent. We can debate this is another thread at another time or, better yet, just agree to disagree.

 

Well, the guy - Paul Rutherford - provided some backing vocals as well.

 

They were one of those bands that was 'made' after their first album. And people have been fascinated enough by Morrison and the overall hippy-doom-vibe of their music to have renewed interest in the band every ten years. Nice work. Ray did exhibit a unique skill set for the time period, though - holding down the separate bass keyboard duties with his left hand and organ or piano with his right.

 

Damn!

I was typing silently, so as not to disturb the somber, serene mood of the piece.

 

This is maybe the most entertainingly dumb thread ever, a "Cretin Hop" of truly Spinal Tappish proportions. Forum fence posts, I salute you!

 

..and then there is the choreography, just like it was done back at the old homestead.

 

All of Sugar Ray!

 

I know what the OP said. I was replying to your quote directly discussing musicianship-which is why I bolded it.

Further, The Monkees were arguably the band that where demands were HIGHEST of all their members:

They had become a fully functioning band in a matter of months in order to do live tours.
They had the day job of working on a weekly television before recording in the studio afterwards.
Micky Dolenz had to learn drums, from scratch, while remaining the lead singer.
Davy Jones had to learn to play bass, on the spot as well as organ to play live. He also had to take over drumming when Dolenz became front man onstage.
Peter Tork, classically trained, had to keep it all together in this garage band set up.
Mike Nesmith was producing them in the studio (along with other outside producers, yes).
The band could hardly hear themselves on stage through all the screaming, while learning to coalesce as a group.
They put on longer shows themselves than most entire variety shows of the time.
Add all that to the promotional appearances they had to.

So whether you wanna argue musicanship or what was "expected" of bandmates, The Monkees were one of, if not THE hardest working band of their era.

If you can't see the hard work in that, I dunno what to tell you. The Monkees couldn't hide behind anything. Including makeup and smoke.

 

I realize you were responding to me and my comments.

My comment that you just responded to was me stating that I was off in terms of what the thread was about. I’m to blame for where it went from what the OP was asking to overall musicianship of certain bands.

I was simply saying that this debate (Monkees, whoever vs KISS or whoever in terms of MUSICIANSHIP should be discussed elsewhere). Does that make sense? This thread isn’t the place for it.

 

On that front, a great example is Missing Persons (an early '80s US new wave band, for you kids). The musicians in that band came out of prog/fusion backgrounds and played with guys like Zappa, but decided to try and go for the commercial gold by reining in their chops and playing more simple, straightforward new wave pop. And for a while it worked out OK for them.

 

Yeah, Bozzio, Cuccurullo, and O’Hearn were all great musicians. Was Chuck Wild in Zappa too?

 

Paul Simon might say Art Garfunkel, which is why he split the band up.

 

A quick search indicates that he at least recorded with Zappa on the Thing-Fish album. And of course, you didn't play with Zappa if you didn't know your instrument forwards, backwards, and inverted across four dimensions.

 

The Archies.

 

I'm not a U2 fan, although I do enjoy this performance of "One Tree Hill." Here the band is clearly playing to some sort of backing track/offstage keyboards which has the several elements of the studio recording on it.

 

I love the guy, but I would say Jeffrey Hammond during his time in Tull. The payoff must be huge. He was with them during their glory years and probably still collects a nice royalty check. He was never under pressure to sell his art work to earn a living.

 

But Tull, especially when Jeffrey Hammond was in the band, was very tough stuff to play. The bass lines were complex. He had to work his butt off to first learn the instrument to a professional level and then learn those very difficult songs on TAAB and APP (never mind the stuff before it and beyond it).

 

Boy, did I feel silly a few days ago, watching some clips of Miles Davis at the Montreal Jazz Festival back in either '84 or '86. Who's on bass? Darryl Jones...I was like, "Sh-t, I forgot Darryl played with Miles before he joined the Stones!" They opened with "Right Off" and Darryl is ripping it up on the bass in a way I've never seen him play before. I don't doubt he picks up a helluva paycheck touring/recording with the Stones but I imagine he (for lack of a better term) dumbed down his abilities a bit for them.

 

There are some of them who I don't what the hell they're doing on stage (the guy with a small synth or the turntable guy). Their drummer should receive 30-50% of the band salary per gig, though. Very exhausting to play in all that outfit.

 

Ed Van Halen would like to nominate Michael Anthony.

 

I feel John's underrated. He's really great in this.

Hall & Oates - She's Gone.

 

Good point. He may well have thought he was carrying the brunt of public expectations for material. He probably figured he'd fare better on his own. I would offer personally that his (exceptionally good) solo material never touched me as an admirer and listener in the same way that the classics from his partnership with Art did. I realise this might not be a universal view.