Poor Man's Version Of

Maybe. Who knows? Funny thread though

 

When Terence Trent D'Arby came along to first break the UK market, it was himself who talked up the Prince comparisons with his singing, dancing, and artistry. As his first album Introducing the Hardline According to Terence Trent D'Arby was pretty good & successful, he got away with it, despite making such "modest" claims that it was the most important album since the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper.

But for his second album Neither Fish Nor Flesh

his pretensions got the better of him, and he rightfully got buried and slaughtered by the music press for claiming this album was "better than the best of Parade; Sign O' The Times; & Lovesexy if combined into a single album".


The album stalled at UK #12 & USA #61 a far cry from his global #1 debut album.

 

I thought that was Counting Crows.

 

That still won’t get him in my record collection.

 

Yes! Good call!

 

I take it that you're not a hair metal fan?

The four bands you mention sound nothing alike to me and others - White Lion, Warrant, Ratt, Dokken etc - have their own approach too. Eddie Van Halen may have had an influence on some of the bands' guitarists (though certainly not all of them) but none of them sound enough like VH to be regarded as poor man's versions. At least to my ears.

 

Didn't Bob start out professionally before Springsteen. I thought Bob's first "hit" Ramblin Gamblin Man came out in '68. Although they both write from a working class point of view, stylistically I think they're very different.

 

Definitely don't equal the MIGHTY Van Halen that's for sure

 

My awful band director in high school happened upon a couple of us listening to the Kinks which he called "a poor man's Beatles." Absolutely ridiculous.

 

I don't think Mr. Buble would bless you with cement shoes ;-)

 

The Black Crowes are the poor man’s Aerosmith, who are the poor man’s Rolling Stones, who are the poor man’s Chess masters.

 

Wow wonder what your band director's credentials were...idiot

 

Always thought they were more of a poor man's Faces rather than Stones (which the Faces were the poor man's Stones hehehehe)

 

That’ll work.

 

Well, it's all a matter of preference. I don't like Van Halen very much. Not too keen on a couple of the bands I listed either although others are excellent.

Regardless, I think they all have their own sounds.

 

I don't understand this at all. Aside from both being black American male singer/songwriters, there is nothing that Kravitz's music has in common with Hendrix's. Lenny doesn't even play lead guitar in his band.

 

I happen to agree with him.

 

What does that mean exactly? Is it because John didn't attain the same level of notoriety (sales, image, blah, blah, blah) and was deemed inferior as such? I'm a fan of both guys and certainly don't think that one is the superior or inferior of the other.

 

Only superficially; JM is more "heartland."

 

A quote from Kurt Cobain about Nirvana:

"I'll be the first to admit that we're the 90's version of Cheap Trick or The Knack but the last to admit that it hasn't been rewarding."

Cheers,
Paul

 

. . . more of a rich man's shallow vision . . .

 

I would have said Frank Marino.

 

Not even if they were the only two bands in the history of the world.

 

Rush was far heavier than Yes ever ventured. At the time, I think they were more likely to be accused of copying from Zeppelin.

 

America predates the Eagles.