IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Name: Keno
E-Mail:
Subject: RE: Hall and Oates/others (ssc)
Date: Friday, October 12, 2018
Time: 3:54:11 AM
Remote Address: 97.107.69.29
Message ID: 318168
Parent ID: 318166
Thread ID: 318132
Yeah, Oats can play some guitar, but nothing great, yet who wrote 90% of all their songs and 100% of their hits? Who sang 90% of all of the lead vocals (and 100% of their hit singles)?.... and who drove the girls crazy in the duo? It was Hall by a light year. Plus who was the real all around musician out of the 2? All Oaks ever played was rhythm guitar (and maybe some lead?), that was it, but on most of the albums he wasn't the lead guitarist. Plus Hall not only played guitar too on every LP, he played several different instruments, including all the keys - and all the synthesizers; he was a big time mandolin player, playing that instrument on every LP they put out, and also perhaps the only regular mando-guitar player around, playing that on most of their LPs, too. He also played other instruments, including the drums on many songs, too. This was the case on almost all of their known LPs, (not counting the ones released after '00, as I know nothing of who played what on those few LPs). Oaks only played rhythm guitar.
With a music duo, the 2 are suppose to both be equals and clearly that wasn't the case with these 2. How would a duo like Simon and Garfunkel be remembered and loved if only Paul Simon sang 95% of the songs and 100% of their hits, while being the only musician and true songwriter in the duo? The second half of that is true, Art never play an instrument and rarely wrote any songs, but even he wrote at least one or 2 of their hit songs, but more importantly he sang lead on as many songs a Paul did including sing lead on many of their hits. Paul may have wrote their biggest hit and one of the biggest hits ever made by anybody, that being "Bridge Over Trouble Water", but Art was the only singer on that song. So the other guy in a duo at least has to also be the lead singer - or be the lead singer on half the songs. But you can count on your hands how many songs Oats sang lead on, usually 2 per LP - yet can you name a single one of them? Hall was really a solo act with another guy pretending to be his equal, who wasn't.
Yet it is interesting how the name helps sell LPs, even if the band or in this case the duo was mainly just one guy. Besides Wham, which started this talk, I can think of 2 bands off hand that stand out where it was really just one guy who did everything to make that band special. One group was Creedence Clearwater Revival. As a band they were so damn big and had so many hits. But 99% of the songs were written by and sung by their lead guitarist John Fogerty (other than the very last LP made after brother Tom left and John demanded the other 2 write some songs), but without John, CCR was nothing at all. Yet John had few solo hits, since the fans only wanted to hear the band (the very same case with Hall and Oaks).
Then you had the Heartbreakers, with Tom Petty singing 100% of the lead vocals of all their songs along with writing most of them. Now in this group yes, the others were all good musicians, but it was really just solo Tom with the same backing musicians on most of their LPs. I mean, what was the difference between Tom Petty and Elton John and his backing band? EJ had the same backing band for every one of his hit LPs, and today both lead guitarist Davey Johnstone and drummer Nigel Olsen are still playing for him, with only bassist Dee Murray missing, but Dee passed away many years ago from cancer, the only reason he left the band. Yet the group was never billed as a real group (it didn't even have a name!), it was only billed as solo Elton John, and had it been billed as a group, you gotta wonder just how popular EJ would have been years later as a true solo artist.
Then on the over side of the coin, the Stones were never "Mick Jagger and the Stones", they were "The Rolling Stones" - period. As soon as Mick Jagger tried to go solo, he flopped - not because he had no talent or because he couldn't sing solo, but only because us fans wanted the Stones playing with him as an equal. So the fact that Daryl Hall didn't sell well as a solo act, didn't have a thing to with Oaks - other than he needed Oats' name and it was missing from the solo product - but that was it. I mean, would people still buy Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream if they sold it as only 'Ben's ice cream' and even if it still tasted the same? Nope, they won't. Remember the "New Coke" vs "Classic Coke" and how that went over? some names once they are hits you just can't change years later and expect them to sell just the same. Hall needed Oaks - not for his talent - which he lacked compared to Hall - but for his name only.
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2022 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.