the 'almost made it" bands.

[LG]

Many of the ones I thought of are mentioned already.

As far as defining "made it" depends on many factors. I consider Uriah Heep, Saxon, UFO to be rated up with their more successful peers, seeing they never quite reached those lofty heights they fall into the "almost..." category.

Here's one for Nolo...Barclay James Harvest. A fabulous band but hardly anyone even knows about them over here.

 

[Nololob]

I totally agree on BJH. They were huge in Germany during 1976 - 1982 period, but surely they are now in the 'forgotten' category as well as Nazareth and Uriah Heep. They did have some success in the 70s indeed, but it's hard to see them on any comment or list saying they changed rock.

 

[Big Ears]

No they weren't hard rock at all. Wikipedia says "Post-punk, New Wave, alternative rock" which sounds about right to me.

I never knew what 'alternative rock' meant. Alternative to what?

 

[LG]

^^Done that dance before Martin, all those "classifications" were as much to do with marketing angles as any substantial change in music.

I know many younger fans dispute that with me, but I have yet to hear a rock band from the 90's that sounds totally unique to their predecessors. Subtle differences I can agree with, but otherwise straight forward and simple a way to "tag" bands so new music fans would feel they have their own generation of artists.

 

[Aero]

I never knew what 'alternative rock' meant. Alternative to what?

Yeah, it's a dumb title for classification purposes.

It's not straightforward rock like Springsteen, but it's not synth-heavy to classify it with synthpop or electronica either. One things for sure, it deserves a better title than that.

 

[Big Ears]

Psychedelic Furs are a group who released lots of versions of their tracks (Pretty in Pink), which makes it confusing to know what you are buying. They are not alone in this and they couldn't have foreseen digital remasters.

 

[Big Ears]

^^Done that dance before Martin, all those "classifications" were as much to do with marketing angles as any substantial change in music.

I know many younger fans dispute that with me, but I have yet to hear a rock band from the 90's that sounds totally unique to their predecessors. Subtle differences I can agree with, but otherwise straight forward and simple a way to "tag" bands so new music fans would feel they have their own generation of artists.

Good point. I think you're right.

 

[Death on Credit]

In 1973, Townes Van Zandt was working on his 7th album in 6 years, tentatively titled "Seven Come Eleven." After a disappointing first album, his career and subsequent records were gaining momentum, and a lot of underground water-cooler talk. His single 'Pancho and Lefty' was a minor success, and many believed that 'Seven Come Eleven' would be his big break and earn him the recognition that he deserved.

However, it was not to be, as his manager (fearing that he would lose Townes if he became too successful) refused to pay for the sessions, and the album was not released for 20 years. This destroyed Van Zandt's forward momentum, and he never quite recovered.

 

[LOU/REALM]

CLASIKROKR lives up to his name by mentioning the 2 most greatest and underated rock bands of all time ANGEL and STARZ !!! ..........Of course Im in TOTAL agreement

 

[LG]

^^I like Starz myself, Attention Shoppers! is one of the best sounding CD's I have in the collection.

Another band that "almost" made it to the top, Little Feat. I am dumbfounded when I listen to their albums why they never became bigger, easily as talented as Steely Dan, plus they actually Toured and released one of the best and most unheralded live albums ever, "Waiting for Columbus". After Lowell George left and his drug addiction claimed his life too early I lost track of them, but according to fans in the forum they carried on and were a top notch live band, but never on the Big Stage.