Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    Many band breakups have been justified and, as in any other 'work' situation, bands may ultimately run their course and a split is inevitable.

    Another line of reasoning, however,  often causes the unfortunate band breakup.  

    Weigh in as to which was more ridiculous, needless and (perhaps) dumb:

    The Pink Floyd feud between David Gilmour and Roger Waters OR the decimation of Deep Purple due to the bitterness (hatred?) between Ian Gillan and Ritchie Blackmore?

    Now, if I have this slightly off, or you see it another way, that's what this discussion is for.   Was it actually Roger Waters vs. the entire band ("my way" or "no way)?    Are there as many people who feel as bad about DP's demise?   Probably not, and since there are thousands of fans that would *still* like to see the *real* Pink Floyd play, that might feel like the more idiotic, and frustrating feud.    Fans love Ritchie Blackmore, but are they (and you ...) disappointed in him at the same time?

    Any thoughts?

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?


    I could never be disappointed with Richie Blackmore. By Deep Purple splitting up we ended up with two great groups, Whitesnake and Rainbow. This was not destructive, as two wonderful things were created. The original Whitesnake was Coverdale, Lord, Paice, Neil Muray and two really good guitar players, Marsden and Moody, It was basically Deep Purple without Blackmore and Glover. Richie later recruited Glover to play bass in Rainbow , we got the best of both worlds with two super bands.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    I'm not sure there weren't any good reasons in either of those breakups any more than there was with, say, The Beatles or David Byrne.

    (Leaving aside a band-mate dying, of course.)

    Monogamy and rock n' roll don't seem very compatible.  A huge generalization, I know, but ego can be a tough thing to deal with.

    So, I think it's all pretty relative.  As much as I would like to see (or have seen) the original lineup of Genesis, I likely would not want to trade Gabriel's solo career for it.

    Or, to paraphrase zilla's point: we can still be happy with what we get out of the 'divorce'.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:


    I could never be disappointed with Richie Blackmore. By Deep Purple splitting up we ended up with two great groups, Whitesnake and Rainbow. This was not destructive, as two wonderful things were created. The original Whitesnake was Coverdale, Lord, Paice, Neil Muray and two really good guitar players, Marsden and Moody, It was basically Deep Purple without Blackmore and Glover. Richie later recruited Glover to play bass in Rainbow , we got the best of bost worlds with two super bands.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells



    This is a response to a thread called, "The Upside of a Band Breakup" -- and it's fine, and I like your attitude, believe me.    What you're saying is the breakup resulted in "lemonade" but while it's more than fair of you not to judge Blackmore, I still don't know if you felt there was a prevailing attitude that could have prevented the split, at the time.   No one knew the split would result in two new generation bands of such quality.   

    I said in the OP, band breakups are inevitable, and the probability is high.   My question has more to do with the the attitudes of the musicians in the mix causing the extent of the damage (at the time); looking back, were those attitudes worth the breakup of these bands?  I used these two front and center examples b/c the "feuds" are well-known to the forum members and I know a little about them, too.   =)

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    It should be noted that Blackmore's split with Deep Purple was on-again, off-again, on-again.  The full Mark II lineup reunited starting with the Perfect Strangers album in 1984.  Ritchie stuck around for 3 more albums after that one before leaving again.  Now he is making medieval folk music with his wife doing vocals.

    From all I have read on Purple, the impression forms that Ritchie could be a little, shall we say, 'difficult'.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    Blackmore , I think it's safe to say was a difficult person to work with....example B - Rainbow had a very volatile lineup , changing almost with every new LP.

    Ever get the impression that talented, artistic geniuses are all "difficult" to some degree?

    Dylan- he can be abrasive as hell at times, and who else would show up at a folk festival and "torture" the crowd with electric intruments and amps?

    Lennon- I love the video of John with Al Capp at the "BED IN FOR PEACE."

    McCartney- I believe there is an audio tape of him telling Harrison how to play his guitar and p*sssing George off bigtime.

    Waters- His introspective and psychotic songs ( The Wall and The Final Cut) pushed out most of the Gilmour songs....notice the sharp change in songwriting style in the albums without Waters ( Division Bell, etc.)

    Clapton- He drifted from Yardbirds to John Mayall to Cream to Blind Faith beofre finding he wasn't ever going to stay in a group for very long....if ever a man was meant to be a solo act , it was Clapton.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    Blackmore , I think it's safe to say was a difficult person to work with....example B - Rainbow had a very volatile lineup , changing almost with every new LP.

    Ever get the impression that talented, artistic geniuses are all "difficult" to some degree?

    Dylan- he can be abrasive as hell at times, and who else would show up at a folk festival and "torture" the crowd with electric intruments and amps?

    Lennon- I love the video of John with Al Capp at the "BED IN FOR PEACE."

    McCartney- I believe there is an audio tape of him telling Harrison how to play his guitar and p*sssing George off bigtime.

    Waters- His introspective and psychotic songs ( The Wall and The Final Cut) pushed out most of the Gilmour songs....notice the sharp change in songwriting style in the albums without Waters ( Division Bell, etc.)

    Clapton- He drifted from Yardbirds to John Mayall to Cream to Blind Faith beofre finding he wasn't ever going to stay in a group for very long....if ever a man was meant to be a solo act , it was Clapton.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells




    The one thing about Clapton was why he left each group because there were different reasons for each. The Yardbirds went in a different direction -- too much pop, rather than their blues roots. He left Mayall because he wanted to form a power-trio group, which is how Cream came about. Cream imploded because of Jack Bruce's and Ginger Baker's feuding. He left Blind Faith simply because the hoopla of the group on the heals of Cream was too much for him. Delaney and Bonnie was a soft landing where he could play out of the limelight.

    Derek and the Dominoes was supposed to be the same -- just a group of great musicians playing, which is why it was Derek and not Eric. But that group imploded because of Duane Allman's death and Clapton's depresson over poor reviews, both of which caused Clapton's drug problem to get worse. Had Allman not died, that group might have lasted longer.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

     

    Blackmore , I think it's safe to say was a difficult person to work with....example B - Rainbow had a very volatile lineup , changing almost with every new LP.

    Ever get the impression that talented, artistic geniuses are all "difficult" to some degree?

    Dylan- he can be abrasive as hell at times, and who else would show up at a folk festival and "torture" the crowd with electric intruments and amps?

    Lennon- I love the video of John with Al Capp at the "BED IN FOR PEACE."

    McCartney- I believe there is an audio tape of him telling Harrison how to play his guitar and p*sssing George off bigtime.

    Waters- His introspective and psychotic songs ( The Wall and The Final Cut) pushed out most of the Gilmour songs....notice the sharp change in songwriting style in the albums without Waters ( Division Bell, etc.)

    Clapton- He drifted from Yardbirds to John Mayall to Cream to Blind Faith beofre finding he wasn't ever going to stay in a group for very long....if ever a man was meant to be a solo act , it was Clapton.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     




    The one thing about Clapton was why he left each group because there were different reasons for each. The Yardbirds went in a different direction -- too much pop, rather than their blues roots. He left Mayall because he wanted to form a power-trio group, which is how Cream came about. Cream imploded because of Jack Bruce's and Ginger Baker's feuding. He left Blind Faith simply because the hoopla of the group on the heals of Cream was too much for him. Delaney and Bonnie was a soft landing where he could play out of the limelight.

     

    Derek and the Dominoes was supposed to be the same -- just a group of great musicians playing, which is why it was Derek and not Eric. But that group imploded because of Duane Allman's death and Clapton's depresson over poor reviews, both of which caused Clapton's drug problem to get worse. Had Allman not died, that group might have lasted longer.

     



    "Different reasons" aside and considered, Clapton was neurotic; that might be coupled with the "creative genius" core and persona, too, of course.     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    Blackmore , I think it's safe to say was a difficult person to work with....example B - Rainbow had a very volatile lineup , changing almost with every new LP.

    Ever get the impression that talented, artistic geniuses are all "difficult" to some degree?

    Dylan- he can be abrasive as hell at times, and who else would show up at a folk festival and "torture" the crowd with electric intruments and amps?

    Lennon- I love the video of John with Al Capp at the "BED IN FOR PEACE."

    McCartney- I believe there is an audio tape of him telling Harrison how to play his guitar and p*sssing George off bigtime.

    Waters- His introspective and psychotic songs ( The Wall and The Final Cut) pushed out most of the Gilmour songs....notice the sharp change in songwriting style in the albums without Waters ( Division Bell, etc.)

    Clapton- He drifted from Yardbirds to John Mayall to Cream to Blind Faith beofre finding he wasn't ever going to stay in a group for very long....if ever a man was meant to be a solo act , it was Clapton.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells



    Okay, now this is more like it.  Smile   I can see you concur with Hfx re: Blackmore; very funny.

    RE: artistic, creative geniuses tending toward being ..."difficult" ?   Sure, we can find countless examples, and that may be part of it, but many musicians also are good with "going with the flow" and are more than happy to oblige their band mates  -- or at least, compromise.  Funny, too, but many people with musical talent are dominant left brainers (analytical, good at reasoning), not dominant right brainers (abstract, more out of the box thinkers).   I've worked with some real doozies re: difficult, too.   We all have.  =)

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

     

    Blackmore , I think it's safe to say was a difficult person to work with....example B - Rainbow had a very volatile lineup , changing almost with every new LP.

    Ever get the impression that talented, artistic geniuses are all "difficult" to some degree?

    Dylan- he can be abrasive as hell at times, and who else would show up at a folk festival and "torture" the crowd with electric intruments and amps?

    Lennon- I love the video of John with Al Capp at the "BED IN FOR PEACE."

    McCartney- I believe there is an audio tape of him telling Harrison how to play his guitar and p*sssing George off bigtime.

    Waters- His introspective and psychotic songs ( The Wall and The Final Cut) pushed out most of the Gilmour songs....notice the sharp change in songwriting style in the albums without Waters ( Division Bell, etc.)

    Clapton- He drifted from Yardbirds to John Mayall to Cream to Blind Faith beofre finding he wasn't ever going to stay in a group for very long....if ever a man was meant to be a solo act , it was Clapton.

    "Advertising is legalized lying."- H.G.Wells

     



    Okay, now this is more like it.  Smile   I can see you concur with Hfx re: Blackmore; very funny.

     

    RE: artistic, creative geniuses tending toward being ..."difficult" ?   Sure, we can find countless examples, and that may be part of it, but many musicians also are good with "going with the flow" and are more than happy to oblige their band mates  -- or at least, compromise.  Funny, too, but many people with musical talent are dominant left brainers (analytical, good at reasoning), not dominant right brainers (abstract, more out of the box thinkers).   I've worked with some real doozies re: difficult, too.   We all have.  =)



    I've lately come to believe that the one who survive are those who play it close to the vest, under the radar, et al.

    Truly talented musicians will always find work, I think.  For the posers, wannabes, flame-outs and also-rans, it's more difficult.  Look at someone like Slash, who's never really slowed down after GnR by forming new bands, playing cameos, etc.

    Then, there are people like Kristin Hersh and Ben Harper who can't seem to stop making music.  The compulsion to create is much stronger than the compulsion to be "famous" or in the limelight.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    Aw heck, all the stories about bands splitting and crashing and hating each other's guts are just part of the lore of the music.  Creativity and chaos seem to go hand in hand.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    In response to NedNiederlander's comment:

    The drugs excuse is annoying especially when some band members start pointing fingers.

    The ego problem is the most obvious one, but it's also enhanced by drugs/alcohol.  I always felt like band managers needed to step in earlier and crack the whip before the problems festered.

    It's ruined so many bands.

    Also, songwriting credits and how those are managed. That can do it, too. So avoidable.



    How many band managers were fired because they wielded too much authority?

    Ultimately , it is up to the band members to either work as a unit or go solo. Jagger and Richards have to be the all time perfect working relationship...there was ego and drugs involved and yet they have survived a long time with Charlie. Ronnie and Bill W. had very long stints in the band. The Stones have very little turnover for a band with as long of a run. Also , the brothers Davies of the Kinks fought ( literally fought...punches thrown , sometimes on stage) yet held the Kinks together for a very, very long time.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    Many band breakups have been justified and, as in any other 'work' situation, bands may ultimately run their course and a split is inevitable.

    Another line of reasoning, however,  often causes the unfortunate band breakup.  

    Weigh in as to which was more ridiculous, needless and (perhaps) dumb:

    The Pink Floyd feud between David Gilmour and Roger Waters OR the decimation of Deep Purple due to the bitterness (hatred?) between Ian Gillan and Ritchie Blackmore?

    Now, if I have this slightly off, or you see it another way, that's what this discussion is for.   Was it actually Roger Waters vs. the entire band ("my way" or "no way)?    Are there as many people who feel as bad about DP's demise?   Probably not, and since there are thousands of fans that would *still* like to see the *real* Pink Floyd play, that might feel like the more idiotic, and frustrating feud.    Fans love Ritchie Blackmore, but are they (and you ...) disappointed in him at the same time?

    Any thoughts?

     



    I was discussing exactly this issue on the way home tonight from a gig (will post about it next) with my great friend and flatmate who is in a very successful (indie band, no money) band.  Great git player, plays bass in this band, doesn't compose (yet, I push and nag him to try almost daily).

    We agreed part of it is money, a big part i.e. mechanical and performance royalties.  Also the natural desire to be recognised for your personsal creation.  And being in a band is as stressful as a relationship, but without the sex.  ;-)

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    BTW, "Pocahontas" is at 13:20 of the vid I posted.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Which was more unfortunate, dumb, destructive (and for no good reason)?

    I'm not a HUGE Clapton fan.  I rate him highly, but as DD knows all too well I'm a composition snob and IMO Clapton just hasn't written enough music to excite me.  Even Cream - IMO the best thing Clapton ever did by a wide margin - was like the Husker Du of the 60s i.e. Husker Du, my favourite band of all time, is often, ignorantly thought of as "Bob Mould's band".....when, in fact, Grant Hart, much like Jack Bruce in Cream, was at least 50% of the creativity.

    Ask one of the Great Unwashed to name some great Clapton songs....they'll say:

    • Cocaine (nope, JJ Cale)
    • White Room (nope, Jack Bruce)
    • Swlabr (nope, Jack Bruce)
    • I Feel Free (first song played on WBCN, BTW) (nope, Jack Bruce)
    • Sunshine and Strange Brew?  Clapton was one of 3 composers.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share