Worst second group for artists

[Guest Steve J. Rogers]

One comes to mind right away;

 

Wings.

 

How this group was popular other than having the name "Paul McCartney" attached to it during the hard edged 1970's is beyond me. Seemed too much like a hippie trying desperatly trying to hang on to the "Summer of Love" with all the darkness of glam, punk, hard, disco, classic close in.

 

Some good songs, but nothing stands out and side-by-side with Paul's Beatle material and most fit seem if they were done for a solo artist rather than a group

 

Granted it was a glorified ego-fuck for Paulie (The Triple H of rock and roll?) but there is a difference between crediting a group as "Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band" or "Buddy Holly and The Crickets" and putting the group name as just "Wings" at first, its been since the breakup that Paul changed the name to "Paul McCartney and Wings" or "Wings Featuring Paul McCartney" During Wings' time it was just "WINGS" and should be listed as such in music bins.

 

(Believe it or not I'm not this Anti-Paul it just seems that Wings has become over-rated over the years)

 

The Goo-Goo Dolls might count, I don't think they ever achieved the world wide acclaim and influence that Nirvana did

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

Big Audio Dynamite, Mick Jones' second band after the Clash, really fucking sucked.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

The Goo-Goo Dolls might count, I don't think they ever achieved the world wide acclaim and influence that Nirvana did

?

 

You're talking about the Foo Fighters, right?

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Probably the Foo Fighters, and that's my answer too. I don't care for them much at all.

[Guest FeArHaVoC]

He must have meant Foo Fighters. For the record, I like Foo Fighters alot more then Nirvana.

 

Can we say the time the Black Crowes teamed up with Jimmy Paige as a super due/group or whatever you people are calling it? No one better say Coverdale/Paige either.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

What about PiL?

[Guest razazteca]

Van Halen 3

Motely Crue 2

 

Both tried to replace the singer but failed.

[Guest WrestlingDeacon]

I love Wings. I like a lot of Wings stuff more than I do a lot of the Beatles stuff. Band on the Run is one of the greatest songs ever. Sure, the Wings aren't even close to being as good as the Beatles, but what would be?

 

In my mind, Joe Wash joining the Eagles after the James Gang was a step down and he was just plugged into a role without any real say in the band. The same could be said of Ron Wood going from the Faces to the Stones.

[Guest saturnmark4life]

I'm not bothered about the Foo Fighters. I thought the first album was ok. But then, I was never bothered about Nirvana, so they weren't really a disappointment.

 

My Vote goes to P, featuring Johnny Depp and Gibby Haynes of the Butthole Surfers. 'Michael Stipe' is a great song however, and he didn't leave the BHS, so it was fairly harmless.

[Guest BAR]

Queens Of The Stone Age (Kyuss)

Slash's Snake Pit (Guns n' Roses)

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

Pornos for Pyros

[Guest redbaron51]

Pornos for Pyros

I agree with that.

 

Jane's Addiction is a tremendous band, but Porno for Pyro's really blew.

 

The new Jane's Addiction CD is pretty damn good.

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

What about PiL?

 

PiL is awesome, bite your tongue.

[Guest godthedog]

One comes to mind right away;

 

Wings.

 

How this group was popular other than having the name "Paul McCartney" attached to it during the hard edged 1970's is beyond me. Seemed too much like a hippie trying desperatly trying to hang on to the "Summer of Love" with all the darkness of glam, punk, hard, disco, classic close in.

 

Some good songs, but nothing stands out and side-by-side with Paul's Beatle material and most fit seem if they were done for a solo artist rather than a group

 

Granted it was a glorified ego-fuck for Paulie (The Triple H of rock and roll?) but there is a difference between crediting a group as "Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band" or "Buddy Holly and The Crickets" and putting the group name as just "Wings" at first, its been since the breakup that Paul changed the name to "Paul McCartney and Wings" or "Wings Featuring Paul McCartney" During Wings' time it was just "WINGS" and should be listed as such in music bins.

 

(Believe it or not I'm not this Anti-Paul it just seems that Wings has become over-rated over the years)

 

The Goo-Goo Dolls might count, I don't think they ever achieved the world wide acclaim and influence that Nirvana did

dude...no. don't ever compare paul mccartney to triple h again. i don't care how much he's sucked for 30 years, nothing triple h has ever done (or could ever do) will be comparable to what paul did with the beatles.

 

oh yeah, worst second group...eh, zwan is pretty damn bad.

[Guest La Parka Es Mi Papa]

I have a soft spot for Honestly. I think it's the guitar part.

[Guest Steve J. Rogers]

One comes to mind right away;

 

Wings.

 

How this group was popular other than having the name "Paul McCartney" attached to it during the hard edged 1970's is beyond me.  Seemed too much like a hippie trying desperatly trying to hang on to the "Summer of Love" with all the darkness of glam, punk, hard, disco, classic close in.

 

Some good songs, but nothing stands out and side-by-side with Paul's Beatle material and most fit seem if they were done for a solo artist rather than a group

 

Granted it was a glorified ego-fuck for Paulie (The Triple H of rock and roll?) but there is a difference between crediting a group as "Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band" or "Buddy Holly and The Crickets" and putting the group name as just "Wings" at first, its been since the breakup that Paul changed the name to "Paul McCartney and Wings" or "Wings Featuring Paul McCartney"  During Wings' time it was just "WINGS" and should be listed as such in music bins.

 

(Believe it or not I'm not this Anti-Paul it just seems that Wings has become over-rated over the years)

 

The Goo-Goo Dolls might count, I don't think they ever achieved the world wide acclaim and influence that Nirvana did

dude...no. don't ever compare paul mccartney to triple h again. i don't care how much he's sucked for 30 years, nothing triple h has ever done (or could ever do) will be comparable to what paul did with the beatles.

 

oh yeah, worst second group...eh, zwan is pretty damn bad.

Okay, the Hulk Hogan maybe?

 

I was being sarcastic though. I'm sure I can find worse backstabbing, behind the scenes politicans and all around egomaniacs than Sir James Paul McCartney

 

At least Paul was the one that really wanted the group to stay together and not break apart, but he was part of the posion that killed one of the greatest bands to ever walk God's Green Earth

[Guest Steve J. Rogers]

I love Wings. I like a lot of Wings stuff more than I do a lot of the Beatles stuff. Band on the Run is one of the greatest songs ever. Sure, the Wings aren't even close to being as good as the Beatles, but what would be?

BTW, yeah I meant Foo Fighters. Don't ask why I said Goo Goo Dolls...

 

Yeah I see your point, but Wings essentially was a Paul McCartney supporting band (i.e. Jimmy Buffett's Coral Reefers and Bruce Springsteen's E-Street Band) that Paul recorded with and toured with.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

I like Foo Fighters much better then Nirvana. And Wings had their moments.

[Guest cabbageboy]

I'll go with Foo Fighters here as well. They aren't bad or anything, but let's face it: Dave Grohl ceased being any sort of important figure in rock about 8 years ago. They are also overplayed on the radio about as much as Alice in Chains where I live.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Anyone remember when Geezer Butler formed that mini band called GZR with Burton C Bell from Fear Factory, and a cast of characters from the early 90's metal scene?

 

Well, it wasn't as good as any of the members' original bands.

 

The mother of 'em all for me...

 

Max Cavalera: Sepultura to Soulfly.