Phil Lynott's Grand Slam - Nineteen

This is the version of "Nineteen" that Grand Slam performed before Lynott did his solo version in 1985. This is taken off of Twilight's Last Gleaming because the sound quality is better from there than the bootlegs I own, but TLG claims to have been taken from the 12/4/1984 show at the Marquee, while my 'Final Slam' bootleg claims the same thing, but the versions of several songs are different. Anyway, enjoy this rendition of "Nineteen".

Category:

Music

Tags:

• Phil
• Lynott
• Grand
• Slam
• Nineteen
• Thin
• Lizzy
• Laurence
• Archer
• Irish
• Rock
• 1984
• Twilights
• Last
• Gleaming
• Final

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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."

[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.