Phil Lynott's Grand Slam - Nineteen

[fukinblowme]

Laurence Archer is a better lead guitar player than John Sykes, you can clearly hear it here. His playing has more technique than John's two dimensional blues box playing (and John's rhythm playing is terrible). He sounds a bit like Gary Moore/Dave Murray. I would have loved to have seen a Scott Gorham/Laurence Archer version of Thin Lizzy in the mid to late 80's.

[blacksabfan]

It would be better if you could actually elaborate on what you mean by two-dimensional, rather than throwing out ambiguous terms. I play guitar, but how is any sort of playing two-dimensional, one, three, etc. What does that even mean?

I mean I'm not trying to be rude, but your assessment sounds like one based more on a personal preference. I've always liked Sykes' playing, and Archer, to me, seems more limited. If Archer is so much better, how come he never really made it in any band?

[fukinblowme]

I refuse to argue with someone who has posted the best videos on youtube. Still give me a day or so to find the time to elaborate. I do like John Sykes as a lead guitar player. Thunder and Lightning is one of my favorite Thin Lizzy albums and his work on the self titled Whitesnake album is nothing short of brilliant. He did ruin my summer though, as I was in the process of booking a flight and hotel in Chicago to go and see the band at the House of Blues when I found out John had quit the band.

[blacksabfan]

Yeah, he handled that like a bitch. Sykes lost a few points in my book for that.

And for the record I don't care if you argue me. I like a good discussion now and then. So don't think you did anything wrong. Think about it and come back on it because I'm genuinely interested on what you said.

[denztheviking]

Anyone with any knowledge of the guitar would know that:

a) Sykes plays in way more than blues boxes. For someone who rates Dave Murray he is strangely unaware that Sykes plays a lot of the scalar running licks that Murray does.

b) His rhythm is far from terrible.

However, the retort that is Archer was good why didn't he make it has no substance whatsoever.

[blacksabfan]

Why doesn't it have substance? Usually if you're in the upper-echelon of guitar players, you'll end up making it, one way or another. Guys with tremendous talent (more so than Mr. Sykes even) make it either as a great session musician or continue to make good albums even without a lot of notority (think Rory Gallagher). Archer practically dropped off the face of the earth, and his only claim to fame besides GS is a retooled bar-version of UFO. Sure he has some talent, but not THAT much.

[denztheviking]

It has zero substance because it's a BS point. Fame is never a case of how good you are but who you know and are you in the right place at the right time.

We all know bands & musicians who made it whilst having little talent whilst stellar guitarists & singers wait tables.

I know of some great session guys and some mediocre ones. I know a phenomenal guitarist who has a fiery temper and is labelled "difficult to work with."

[denztheviking]

The cry of "if so good, why not made it" is BS because it's never in the hands of the individual - but chance, market forces and most of all - other people.

Think of the great singers (even those that get to the latter stages of American Idol and X Factor) who disappear yet Posh Spice is the one with the platinum albums and the millions.

And if it's hard for bands and singers, just think how hard it is for backing musicians.

Talent doesn't equate to success. never has and never will.

[denztheviking]

And then you have those who don't have the drive or desire - but are happy playing pubs and clubs.

And there are those with family commitments and a good job who cannot take the financial risk. I know a great bassist who was a copper and a dad of 3, he couldn't risk that to go touring in a van on the hope he might make it big.

In short, many, many reasons. But as I said, the retort of "if you are so good why aren't you famous?" is the most highly flawed.

[blacksabfan]

And that would be fine, but Laurence Archer obviously did take that risk...he was in a few bands that had potential. Laurence Archer isn't in the same boat as someone that has "family commitments/a good job".

So, basically I agree with what you're saying, but that logic doesn't apply to Laurence Archer, because he wasn't in that situation...he was a 21 year old kid in 1984.

[blacksabfan]

So again, I don't think it's BS in the situation as it applies to Mr. Archer. That explanation is perfectly valid if we are going to apply it 'unknowns' and those who haven't been discovered. But Archer was discovered. He was in several acts and he knew a lot of people, but for whatever reason he didn't ever hit the big time. I personally think it's because he sounds quite generic for the time. That's just my opinion.

[denztheviking]

Come on man, I gave you loads of different scenarios, not just age.

At the end of the day, like it or not, talent does not equal reward. not in music, acting or even in the average office. Who you know, does your face fit, and luck are all much bigger deciding factors.

You can take the best guitarist in the world and stick him in a naff band, or one the labels aren't interested in, and he won't make it.

And truth is, guitarists are marginal. The band as a whole, or the singer, is key.

[blacksabfan]

And NONE of those senarios have to do with the point I've made the whole time. Laurence Archer wasn't some unknown who had obligations to take care of, a family to feed, whatever scenario you want to use as an excuse...he actually played with three fairly well-known bands, not including Grand Slam. He knew other musicians. There's been a lot of people less talented who would of killed to be in his position. Point is, he never had that much success. I already gave my opinion why.

[blacksabfan]

Secondly, I don't completely agree "talent doesn't equate to success" you keep mentioning. Yes, it's true that there's a lot of stuff I don't personally like that is popular with other people, and likewise, there's stuff I really like that isn't that popular, but I don't think people signing artists completely disregard 'talent' when they sign people. Someone has to like it, or at the very least, they have to know someone WILL like it so that any product produced makes money.

[blacksabfan]

So again, I see your points, but I don't see how they apply to Laurence Archer. My only regret is perhaps I should of said "I don't think he was successful because he sounded too generic' rather than 'because he wasn't famous', despite the fact that I think one leads to the other.

[jcane28eatsfatpuss]

This is what Thin Lizzy would have sounded like circa 84-85. It truly is a shame that Phil couldn't pull it together and keep Thin Lizzy going. Rock was as big in the 80's as Hip Hop is now. They had a second chance to really break America as Whitesnake did. They easily could have gotten video play on MTV in the States and toured with the hair bands that filled arenas during that period. Most of the bands from that genre have tons of respect for Phil and Thin Lizzy. They'd of been huge here.

[SoldierofFortune07]

true enough, they were starting to come into their own again after Thunder & Lightning and they were regaining popularity.

[blacksabfan]

Yeah, that's the huge drawback. I'm not sure why they couldn't clean it up a little more.

[SoldierofFortune07]

I suppose when you´re tryin to get off heroin you´re priorities are a little mixed up :(

[RatherStupid]

cool, I got that album to.. quite good.. though the quality could be better (of couse) :-)