Bands that could have been successful, but weren't

The Dark Elf wrote: I've always thought that The Rolling Stones could have become more popular if they had released a few more albums. I just don't think the music-buying public got an idea of who the band really was after only releasing 30 studio albums, 28 live albums and 26 compilation albums.

I've always thought that the Beatles could have been more popular than Jesus had they lived about 2000 years ago, been crucified, sealed in a cave, and then an angelic Brian Epstein appeared before a groupie outside the tomb and told her that she should tell everyone to pre-order tickets for a Beatles Revival concert cause, praise God, they are getting better, better all the time -- so they had better be ready for this, the ultimate come-back concert. The faithful are still waiting, but think the concert is imminent.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: moshkito wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Genesis during the Peter Gabriel era(and just before Steve left). They should have been just as big as Yes or ELP but in the US at least they weren't.  Hi, By that time, the US market in the FM radio was already starting to wind down, and it became about songs, not the longer pieces of music ... and the only great example I had, was TLLDOB, when it came out ... on that evening, Guy Guden went on the air and played both albums back to back, and got such an incredible audience attention and reaction that he did it again a bit later! The rest of the station? They couldn't figure out which song to play because there wasn't a "hit" defined for them! Laugh you doggies! That makes no sense. If you use that logic to apply to Genesis then it would have to apply to Yes and ELP also and those two were big. Genesis were doing pretty much the same thing Yes and ELP were doing and in in a lot cases were more song oriented than Yes or ELP. So the fact that Yes and ELP got big and not  Genesis just tells me that they were doing something wrong in the marketing department or were on the wrong label and imo had nothing to do with the music itself unless you want to say that PG's voice or appearance(ie the stage costumes)were too weird or quirky for the american public but even that is probably pure bs.

FatherChristmas wrote: Aren't the Kinks one of the biggest bands of the 60s?? Maybe that's just for Britain.

Kinks career started to go down in the middle of sixties also in UK, their albums didn´t sell well, also they even hadn´t got high charted singes until Lola in 1970.

Mortte wrote: SteveG wrote: I think that Giles and McDonald could have been bigger if they put more effort into their eponymous debut album. A strong vocalist and/or guitarist could have done them wonders. I don´t think there is nothing wrong with that great album. Both singing really great way and there really are too many "guitar"-albums from that period. I think they just left in the shadow of KC (really don´t believe record company promoted that album much), also that was a year a lots of great albums.

Well, the proof is always in the pudding. It was a flop as far as sells go and is not held high regard, except for the most diehard of the early era KC fans.

chopper wrote: richardh wrote: Blacksword wrote: A Alan says it does depend how you define 'successful' but if we're talking bands that deserved to be HUGE commercially, then three spring to mind. Renaissance, The Enid and It Bites. Renaissance and the Enid made near perfect music for a respective run of albums, and both had the components of would could have been a very successful formula. Renaissance had the beautiful voice of Annie Haslam, and the striking piano work of John out. The Enid fused rock with classical in the same way as ELP (but obviously different!), with the occasional ambiance of Floyd. It Bites had the look, the sound, the musical chops, the melodies, but they were simply too prog for pop, and too pop for prog. They tried to prog people without them knowing, but the music press kept pointing out their prog credentials and steering people away. The only magazine that seemed behind them was, bizarrely the heavy metal mag Kerrang! The problem with the first two was 'timing' . They started to get a bit of a buzz at the wrong time(punk /new wave) so they were swimming against the tide . It Bites - Calling All Heroes got a stack of airplay but then it went quiet. Unlike Marillion who built on Kayleigh it seems that It Bites got a bit lost in the ether. Its a bit similar to IQ although they never had a big hit (apart from bizarrely in South America with Drive On) . Both bands were as you say too 'pop' at this time for prog fans but far too interesting for pop audiences to digest.   It Bites are a strange one. "Calling All The Heroes" was a big hit at the time but I never really thought of them as a "prog" band (although musically the song is way more complicated than the average pop song). I can't really put my finger on why they weren't bigger, they were popular amongst my friends.

They had a string of singles after that, all of which were better than Calling all the Heroes, from a prog perspective, which is probably why they didn't do so well. I expected Kiss like Judas to do well, but it kinda flopped despite good reviews, but Old man and the Angel was absolutely slated by the mainstream music press. The extended album version is their best song IMO, and frankly better than anything I was listening to by neo prog acts at the time. I remember reading an interview with them in my cousins Smash Hits magazine, and Frank Dunnery was saying how much they liked Zeppelin, Genesis and Yes, much to the interviews disbelief and apparent disappointment. Great band, but a bad fit at the time I guess. I've seen them live more than any other band.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: I've always thought that The Rolling Stones could have become more popular if they had released a few more albums. I just don't think the music-buying public got an idea of who the band really was after only releasing 30 studio albums, 28 live albums and 26 compilation albums. Actually, I think if anything too many albums can dilute a band's career. If you look at Led Zeppelin or the Beatles they were huge but only had a decades worth of material(if that)in them. Even if you look at Queen or Pink Floyd and to some degree also the Doors and The Police their popularity is hinged upon 5 or 6 albums at the most. So ultimately it's about quality over quantity. As for the Stones they are known mainly for their 60's and 70's output. The same is True of the Kinks and the Who. Who really cares much about the 80's material(or later)by these bands?

Some have said that Clouds, or in the earlier incarnation, Clouds 1-2-3, could and should have found much greater success. I haven't heard any of the music.

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 think that Bobby Beausoleil could have been very successful had things gone differently. He created the soundtrack, I think it brilliant, for Kenneth Anger's short film Lucifer Rising (he had years before that been in the film). He recorded the soundtrack with the "Freedom Orchestra" while in prison for murder (part of the Charlie Manson "Family" saga).

If we want to venture into prog-related, the fact that Kings X never broke big is a damn shame.