Bands that could have been successful, but weren't

I bet it was cold. 

^ That's big by my standards.

verslibre wrote: I bet it was cold.

So cold the beer froze, but Canadians are used to it. If you've never seen Rush on ice (the Rush Capades), then you haven't really lived -- Geddy Lee looks lovely in a figure skating dress, even better than in a Kimono. Good thing the hockey players weren't on the ice at the time, that might have been a puck-ing bad gig.

"Ooh, and Alex gets body-checked hard and loses the guitar. But there goes Neil in the fight beating them off with his sticks, and Geddy is shrilly screaming, sounds like he might have taken a hit in a soft, vulnerable place. Ahh, but he's okay, that's just his singing style." And the crowd goes crazy. ;)

It's actually quite fitting.

"To taste my bitter triumph
As a mad immortal man
Nevermore shall I return
Escape these caves of ice" ("Xanadu" off A Farewell to Kings).

Edited by Logan - July 26 2020 at 18:18

^ I know well how frustrating it can be to feel like you need to keep repeating yourself. A lot of my frustration happens when I feel that I can't seem to get my ideas across. I write something, someone objects, I try to explain my perspective and approach.. Another objects without seemingly having read my explanation. I explain again and so on -- it's like being on a perpetual roundabout. Then I am like, "Please read the thread, I addressed this already." To which they are like, "No, I have better things to do and besides, you probably smell bad" (okay, I probably just imagine that last part). And then I think "Screw you guys, I'm going home." I then realise that I am already home, grab a snack, put on some phat tunes, then chill. Then check the forum and get irritated all over again.    Posting at webforums can feel like an exercise in masochism. I do get tired feeling like I have to explain myself again and again sometimes. Mostly it is enjoyable, though. I try to be easy-going and keep a sense of humour, but sometimes that is easier than at other times. I usually realise that, ultimately, it's not that important, and for a long while it isn't. Then I forget the lesson. *repeating to myself "it's only a webboard, it's only a webboard..."* :)

The Dark Elf wrote: Logan wrote: Not Prog nor a band, although Prog Folk related to my mind, but I think that Nick Drake could have found much success in his lifetime had his life not been so short and tragic. It was only after his death that he gained quite a large following (the sad circumstances would play a part in the following to some extent). He was very withdrawn and didn't want to make public appearances, interviews or do live concerts, to promote his music and himself, and withdrew from recording and performing music during the last two years of his life. He died at age 26. I agree about Nick Drake. How eminently tragic that it took a Volkswagen commercial over 25 years after his death to bring him to prominence. Prior to that, his music was strictly underground, passed from person to person. I think you mentioned the sadly prophetic song "Fruit Tree" in another thread. I can't think of a more apt epitaph for Drake.

Nor can I. Such a beautiful, poignant song, and as you say, sadly prophetic song.

"Safe in your place deep in the earth
That's when they'll know what you were really worth."

Edited by Logan - July 26 2020 at 19:17

We don't disagree Rush was successful — more like when they were successful.

Ken, I'm not sure if your familiar with this latter day Rush song, but I think it is one that you might like.

FatherChristmas wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Logan wrote: Sorry if I caused you offence. I make mistakes often, it's no big deal (except for when it is), I check them, then try to correct them. My memory is not what it was even a few years ago -- deteriorated quite badly. I only mentioned it because I thought verslibre might have not understood the context since he seemed to be referencing Micky's small theatres comment which referred to your recollection. Despite being such a confusing writer, I'm a big one for clarity, transparency and particularly context. By the way, Rush did play an arena in London in I think about 1978. The London Gardens Arena in London, Ontario, Canada. It's not a very big hockey arena, though. Rush playing hockey arenas, how stereotypically Canadian, just add back-bacon, maple syrup and beer and an apology, eh? Peace - Greg the kooky Canuck. It's ok. It just seemed like I kept repeating myself on here and so I got a little defensive. No biggie. Anyway, my original point was that Rush were still fairly well known(I won't use the word "big" since it seems to cause confusion and spark debate)even before they were played much on the radio. I was mainly thinking of the US though. They had gold albums in the US before the end of the 70's. I don't think many bands go gold without much support from the radio. I'm sure there are others from that time period but I can't really think of many off the top of my head.  Since this is such a divided topic (whether Rush were successful or not) someone should make a poll on it.

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - July 27 2020 at 13:33

cstack3 wrote: Two of my favorite bands that could have had a different trajectory include Captain Beyond and Flash.  Both were hampered by mercurial band members, uneven label support and lack of vision.  If Flash had retained a permanent keyboard player, they might have excelled.  Flash bassist Ray Bennett once told me that they were trying to hire Patrick Moraz, but it was not to be.  However, both bands did leave an impressive catalog.  RIP Peter Banks, Lee Dorman and Rhino Reinhardt.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: FatherChristmas wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Logan wrote: Sorry if I caused you offence. I make mistakes often, it's no big deal (except for when it is), I check them, then try to correct them. My memory is not what it was even a few years ago -- deteriorated quite badly. I only mentioned it because I thought verslibre might have not understood the context since he seemed to be referencing Micky's small theatres comment which referred to your recollection. Despite being such a confusing writer, I'm a big one for clarity, transparency and particularly context. By the way, Rush did play an arena in London in I think about 1978. The London Gardens Arena in London, Ontario, Canada. It's not a very big hockey arena, though. Rush playing hockey arenas, how stereotypically Canadian, just add back-bacon, maple syrup and beer and an apology, eh? Peace - Greg the kooky Canuck. It's ok. It just seemed like I kept repeating myself on here and so I got a little defensive. No biggie. Anyway, my original point was that Rush were still fairly well known(I won't use the word "big" since it seems to cause confusion and spark debate)even before they were played much on the radio. I was mainly thinking of the US though. They had gold albums in the US before the end of the 70's. I don't think many bands go gold without much support from the radio. I'm sure there are others from that time period but I can't really think of many off the top of my head.  Since this is such a divided topic (whether Rush were successful or not) someone should make a poll on it. No offense but in my opinion that would be a pretty ridiculous thing to do. That Rush were successful is pretty much beyond debate imo. You can do the poll if you want but to me that's just absurd. I gave you numerous examples of Rush being successful. The facts speak for themselves. However, if you insist on saying Rush weren't successful you are entitled to your opinion but I can pretty much guarantee you are in the minority with that belief. By the way, just to be clear I mean in general not in the late 70's. If you want to think they weren't successful then then that's understandable and I won't debate that(even though I even disagree with that) but to me the conversation went beyond that. At least it's more understandable for me if someone says they weren't big or even successful(for that matter)in the 70's then to make the blanket statement(that you seemed to)that Rush were never successful. Ok, that's it. I really have nothing further to say on this matter.

FatherChristmas wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: FatherChristmas wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Logan wrote: Sorry if I caused you offence. I make mistakes often, it's no big deal (except for when it is), I check them, then try to correct them. My memory is not what it was even a few years ago -- deteriorated quite badly. I only mentioned it because I thought verslibre might have not understood the context since he seemed to be referencing Micky's small theatres comment which referred to your recollection. Despite being such a confusing writer, I'm a big one for clarity, transparency and particularly context. By the way, Rush did play an arena in London in I think about 1978. The London Gardens Arena in London, Ontario, Canada. It's not a very big hockey arena, though. Rush playing hockey arenas, how stereotypically Canadian, just add back-bacon, maple syrup and beer and an apology, eh? Peace - Greg the kooky Canuck. It's ok. It just seemed like I kept repeating myself on here and so I got a little defensive. No biggie. Anyway, my original point was that Rush were still fairly well known(I won't use the word "big" since it seems to cause confusion and spark debate)even before they were played much on the radio. I was mainly thinking of the US though. They had gold albums in the US before the end of the 70's. I don't think many bands go gold without much support from the radio. I'm sure there are others from that time period but I can't really think of many off the top of my head.  Since this is such a divided topic (whether Rush were successful or not) someone should make a poll on it. No offense but in my opinion that would be a pretty ridiculous thing to do. That Rush were successful is pretty much beyond debate imo. You can do the poll if you want but to me that's just absurd. I gave you numerous examples of Rush being successful. The facts speak for themselves. However, if you insist on saying Rush weren't successful you are entitled to your opinion but I can pretty much guarantee you are in the minority with that belief. By the way, just to be clear I mean in general not in the late 70's. If you want to think they weren't successful then then that's understandable and I won't debate that(even though I even disagree with that) but to me the conversation went beyond that. At least it's more understandable for me if someone says they weren't big or even successful(for that matter)in the 70's then to make the blanket statement(that you seemed to)that Rush were never successful. Ok, that's it. I really have nothing further to say on this matter.

FatherChristmas wrote: Nothing to do with prog, really, but I think Ocean Colour Scene deserve a mention. Not that they weren't successful - they had a number one album in '97 - but after that they sort of disappeared. It's a shame, they had loads of potential.