Tell Me :
Talk
I realize not every gifted artist is recognized and appreciated. That's the point of this thread, to name some of those people. The other point I was trying to make is that if someone is not merely gifted, but is a GENIUS of the magnitude of a Townshend or a Brian Wilson or a Marvin Gaye, then it doesn't make any difference what combination of gifts and spirit and circumstances surrounds them. They CAN NOT HELP but be discovered. Whether they want to be or not.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-13 00:20 by tatters.
You think maybe there was some mythical bluesman who could put Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Son House, and Muddy Waters to shame, only we've never heard of him because his "success was not allowed"? How come no one told Alan Lomax about him? If he was THAT good, word would have gotten around. He would have been recorded.
good call
Absolutely. Terry Reid could (or should) have been a phenomenal success. Now he's "just a phenomenal performer" whose talent has not really been recognised by the masses.
When Mick Taylor joined Terry's band on stage last summer he walked to the microphone at the end of the show and said to the audience: "This guy is a national treasure, one of England's national treasures" (while pointing at Terry).
What do the masses know about real talent anyway. Just ask a couple of his peers that are familiar with his songs and his voice and they'll all say the same thing.
I've got a fairly recent example for you: Junior Kimbrough and RL Burnside were amazing bluesmen who played in total obscurity for decades. The fact that Dave Stewart got in touch with Robert Palmer and funded a low budget documentary about (then) contemporary blues that brought these guys to light in their old age was an extremely improbable happening.
I don't know that these guys were "better" than the greats but certainly in the case of Junior Kimbrough, you have a genius who completely reinvented blues guitar playing and nobody outside of North Mississippi cared until the last years of his life.
Also on a related note, think of all the fantastic local bands you have seen play live in clubs over the years who never got a record contract. I think the rock world is littered with talent but the stars have to align to get to the next level.
Finally, my nomination for well-known cult artist who is criminally under-appreciated is John Hammond. That guy is the real-deal, the whole package. Check out is latest record "When Push comes To Shove" or pretty much anything else he ever recorded.
I'm tired, I'm tired of doing what I'm told.
Things are moving way too slow.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: January 12, 2008 22:53
>> creativity DOES seem to go hand in hand with the desire to be noticed. <<
no, it doesn't. it can seem that way only if you only consider artists that people have heard of,
since those are ones who have that desire (and/or someone pushing them), and who have successfully navigated
at least some of the barriers between wanting to be noticed and succeeding at it.
(note too that "someone pushing them" is not going to get anyone very far as a performing artist
unless the artist also has his/her own motivation to succeed at it.)
in a way it's touchingly optimistic of you to imagine that every gifted artist is recognized & appreciated by the wider world;
in a way it seems quite callous to disregard what a peculiar combination of gifts & spirit & circumstances
is needed to make it as an artist.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-13 17:58 by with sssoul.
no, it doesn't. it can seem that way only if you only consider artists that people have heard of,
since those are ones who have that desire (and/or someone pushing them), and who have successfully navigated
at least some of the barriers between wanting to be noticed and succeeding at it.
(note too that "someone pushing them" is not going to get anyone very far as a performing artist
unless the artist also has his/her own motivation to succeed at it.)
in a way it's touchingly optimistic of you to imagine that every gifted artist is recognized & appreciated by the wider world;
in a way it seems quite callous to disregard what a peculiar combination of gifts & spirit & circumstances
is needed to make it as an artist.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-13 17:58 by with sssoul.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
stonesstein
()
Date: January 12, 2008 22:56
Syd Barrett
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: January 13, 2008 00:17
Quote
with sssoul
>> creativity DOES seem to go hand in hand with the desire to be noticed. <<
no, it doesn't. it can seem that way only if you only consider artists that people have heard of,
since those are ones who have that desire (and/or someone pushing them), and who have successfully navigated
at least some of the barriers between wanting to be noticed and succeeding at it.
in a way it's touchingly optimistic of you to imagine that every gifted artist is recognized & appreciated by the wider world;
in a way it seems quite callous to disregard what a peculiar combination of gifts & spirit & circumstances
is needed to make it as an artist.
I realize not every gifted artist is recognized and appreciated. That's the point of this thread, to name some of those people. The other point I was trying to make is that if someone is not merely gifted, but is a GENIUS of the magnitude of a Townshend or a Brian Wilson or a Marvin Gaye, then it doesn't make any difference what combination of gifts and spirit and circumstances surrounds them. They CAN NOT HELP but be discovered. Whether they want to be or not.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-13 00:20 by tatters.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: January 13, 2008 00:34
Quote
LukesterQuote
with sssoul
what about miles of gifted artists living in times/places where success was not allowed to anyone of their skintone?
.....of course, sssoul, great answer (also those artists oppressed by their governments for reasons other than "skintone")
You think maybe there was some mythical bluesman who could put Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Son House, and Muddy Waters to shame, only we've never heard of him because his "success was not allowed"? How come no one told Alan Lomax about him? If he was THAT good, word would have gotten around. He would have been recorded.
Re: myopia
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: January 13, 2008 19:41
LoFL: sure, if you imagine that musical talent was suddenly invented when the Lomaxes got their research grant,
and never cropped up in any areas outside the reach of their recording projects.
if you're not just being silly on purpose, your argument seems to be suffering from severe circularity:
of course you've heard of more acclaimed artists than unacclaimed ones - that's the nature of acclaim.
"putting [whoever else] to shame" has nothing to do with it (where did that come from?!),
but there are miles of wonderfully gifted artists you've never heard of, i promise -
just like there are miles of people you have heard of who are not very gifted artists.
that's because artistic talent and acclaim do not automatically go hand in hand.
they're two different things.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-13 22:44 by with sssoul.
and never cropped up in any areas outside the reach of their recording projects.
if you're not just being silly on purpose, your argument seems to be suffering from severe circularity:
of course you've heard of more acclaimed artists than unacclaimed ones - that's the nature of acclaim.
"putting [whoever else] to shame" has nothing to do with it (where did that come from?!),
but there are miles of wonderfully gifted artists you've never heard of, i promise -
just like there are miles of people you have heard of who are not very gifted artists.
that's because artistic talent and acclaim do not automatically go hand in hand.
they're two different things.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-01-13 22:44 by with sssoul.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
guitarbastard
()
Date: January 13, 2008 23:27
Quote
with sssoul
>> I don't know. Is it possible to be HUGELY talented and still be COMPLETELY unknown? <<
yeah. there's a guitarplayer called alan holdsworth. he is the craziest guy in the world. all the big technicians (like vai or satriani) look up to him. but his music is pretty weird and not for the masses. many other examples of course...
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: January 13, 2008 23:35
>> quote with sssoul <<
ahem: that's not me you're quoting there -
i'm the one who knows that there are talented artists that aren't acclaimed.
ahem: that's not me you're quoting there -
i'm the one who knows that there are talented artists that aren't acclaimed.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
Adrian-L
()
Date: January 13, 2008 23:40
Quote
Thommie
Paddy McAloon.
good call
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
LA FORUM
()
Date: January 14, 2008 16:37
Brian Jones in one way
On the other hand he was very successful with the Stones. Really pissed it away after 1967.
Ry Cooder, the genius.
George Harrisson?
The Sales brothers (bass and drums; Lust for life with Iggy, Tin Machine with Bowie)
On the other hand he was very successful with the Stones. Really pissed it away after 1967.
Ry Cooder, the genius.
George Harrisson?
The Sales brothers (bass and drums; Lust for life with Iggy, Tin Machine with Bowie)
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
Lightnin'
()
Date: January 14, 2008 20:24
Quote
I Wish I Never Met You
Terry Reid
Absolutely. Terry Reid could (or should) have been a phenomenal success. Now he's "just a phenomenal performer" whose talent has not really been recognised by the masses.
When Mick Taylor joined Terry's band on stage last summer he walked to the microphone at the end of the show and said to the audience: "This guy is a national treasure, one of England's national treasures" (while pointing at Terry).
What do the masses know about real talent anyway. Just ask a couple of his peers that are familiar with his songs and his voice and they'll all say the same thing.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
ROLLINGSTONE
()
Date: January 14, 2008 22:39
The other Gazza - Paul Gascoine.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
cosmoprim
()
Date: January 14, 2008 22:48
No proper credit then, no proper credit now:
Snooks Eaglin
Wilbert Harrison
Eddie Bo
The Heptones
James "Sugarboy" Crawford
Nico (solo)
Underappreciated/ignored in their time, but getting their due now:
GP/The Burritos
The Velvets
OV Wright
Snooks Eaglin
Wilbert Harrison
Eddie Bo
The Heptones
James "Sugarboy" Crawford
Nico (solo)
Underappreciated/ignored in their time, but getting their due now:
GP/The Burritos
The Velvets
OV Wright
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
bob r
()
Date: January 14, 2008 23:15
Roy Harper
Daniel Lanois
John Martyn
Sandy Denny
Daniel Lanois
John Martyn
Sandy Denny
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
cbtaco19
()
Date: January 14, 2008 23:38
Quote
tattersQuote
LukesterQuote
with sssoul
what about miles of gifted artists living in times/places where success was not allowed to anyone of their skintone?
.....of course, sssoul, great answer (also those artists oppressed by their governments for reasons other than "skintone")
You think maybe there was some mythical bluesman who could put Leadbelly, Robert Johnson, Son House, and Muddy Waters to shame, only we've never heard of him because his "success was not allowed"? How come no one told Alan Lomax about him? If he was THAT good, word would have gotten around. He would have been recorded.
I've got a fairly recent example for you: Junior Kimbrough and RL Burnside were amazing bluesmen who played in total obscurity for decades. The fact that Dave Stewart got in touch with Robert Palmer and funded a low budget documentary about (then) contemporary blues that brought these guys to light in their old age was an extremely improbable happening.
I don't know that these guys were "better" than the greats but certainly in the case of Junior Kimbrough, you have a genius who completely reinvented blues guitar playing and nobody outside of North Mississippi cared until the last years of his life.
Also on a related note, think of all the fantastic local bands you have seen play live in clubs over the years who never got a record contract. I think the rock world is littered with talent but the stars have to align to get to the next level.
Finally, my nomination for well-known cult artist who is criminally under-appreciated is John Hammond. That guy is the real-deal, the whole package. Check out is latest record "When Push comes To Shove" or pretty much anything else he ever recorded.
I'm tired, I'm tired of doing what I'm told.
Things are moving way too slow.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
canadian.sway
()
Date: January 15, 2008 00:46
bobbly blue bland
yeah he didn't play guitar or harp or have 'other talents' per se... but this guys voice and the force that he can emote from the hardest down and out blues to the most beautiful love song he more than any singer hits me.
yeah he didn't play guitar or harp or have 'other talents' per se... but this guys voice and the force that he can emote from the hardest down and out blues to the most beautiful love song he more than any singer hits me.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
mickschix
()
Date: January 15, 2008 01:18
Alex Chilton and the Boxtops. This 60's and 70's band had soul, talent, great albums and are rarely ever mentioned as great artists. Chilton's voice was gravelly, soulful and and live they were even better. Has anyone else ever seen them?
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
Shott
()
Date: January 15, 2008 01:19
Gram Parsons.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
keithfan64
()
Date: January 16, 2008 05:14
P.J. Proby
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
ilikemick
()
Date: January 16, 2008 08:38
there are many artists, most of them in classical music, who became famous AFTER their death. Mozart for example was "well known" while he was alive, but did not have that fame that he has now.
i think, there are many things that have to work together, like media, or people who give money while someone is still unknown...
i think, there are many things that have to work together, like media, or people who give money while someone is still unknown...
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: January 16, 2008 10:21
Arnold Abercrombie .
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
fleabitpeanutmonkey
()
Date: January 16, 2008 18:22
Warren Zevon
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
TrulyMicks
()
Date: January 17, 2008 05:18
It depends on how one defines success. I think the Stones fall into this category as far as record sales are concerned. They're records have done well, but the record sales have not been indicative of the greatness of their albums,imo.
Re: Least success with the most talent?
Posted by:
relicks
()
Date: January 25, 2008 21:03
PJ Proby- Ha, Ha, That's nasty.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Blueranger , Dan , daspyknows , DiegoGlimmerStones , IsakSun , Joce , jp.M , kv2915 , letitloose6 , midimannz , More Hot Rocks , PaintitBlue , philrock90 , Pvk2 , Racca1962 , Rik , Rokyfan , Sighunt , sister , Stoneage , StonyRoad , straycatuk , TumblinDice76
Guests:
1840
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10