I came in to say Sid Vicious. Could not sing. Could not play an instrument.
Even Pete has a claim to being vital to the Beatles success. He was pretty much the sole booker for the band in the year leading up to Brian Epstein taking the reins. Off stage, the other three were lazy sods.
I doubt it. She may have, probably did, contributed a line or even a verse of the lyrics, but her husband basically wrote the song and many of their others.
For evidence, I’d suggest that we look closely at her career. It’s very unusual for a talented musician/singer to abandon music/song when their group breaks up, but that’s what she did. It’s very strange for a singer to sing as few solos as she sang. It’s downright wacky for a songwriter to write no songs after a few early successes.
I’m sticking to my eye-candy theory. She was very pretty.
Related thread from 2011: Who were some relatively untalented members of otherwise-talented bands?
To say nothing of his dancing talents, but musically Ben Carr contributes little to nothing to the Bosstones.
But she was the smartest Pussycat. They never would have survived their adventures without her.
If you’re gonna say Michelle Phillips, you should include Art Garfunkel.
However, without them, it would have been The Mama and Papas, and Simon And.
John Oates? Andrew Ridgely?
No, I think not. He’s put out some decent solo albums, on which he shows he has quite a good voice, and he sang lead on several S&G songs movingly and well.
Seconded. He was an okay guitarist, but Daryl Hall was the true talent in the duo.
I guess it depends how you set your criteria, but I think Ringo Starr is an excellent candidate, if our criteria is the musician who could most easily have been replaced, or musician furthest from the talent level of his bandmates.
He was a fine drummer. By all accounts, he was very good in studio work, always able to provide a consistent sound and never screwing up. But “fine studio drummer” describes many, many guys you’ve never heard of, and is, arguably, further below the band he was in than anyone else I can think of.
He may have been better than Pete Best, but Pete Best isn’t the comparison; the other Beatles are. Ringo could have been replaced by a lot of other guys and the Beatles would still be the Beatles.
However, if the standard is interpreted as simply “least talented person to ever have a significant musical career” than Ringo isn’t even in the conversation. I suppose the answer would probably be either some back row member of a bubblegum teen band that lasted awhile, or a member of the Sex Pistols or Kraftwerk or some other act not known for musical skill.
Van Halen doesn’t sound like Van Halen without Michael Anthony’s backup vocals, period. There’s also something to be said for being able to put up with the egos in that bunch.
I’d nominate everyone in U2 who isn’t Bono or The Edge. I seem to recall an interview with Adam Clayton where he said as much himself.
The answer was given back in Post #5 - Linda McCartney.
Ridgely is actually an excellent answer. He wasn’t exactly a waste of space with Wham!, but Ridgeley’s place in the duo was based on a long pre-fame friendship with George Michael.
Any doubts about Linda McCartney’s vocal talents can be reassessed here.
Oh god.
I agree that Linda was the least talented musically speaking, but I think most fans would say that we were all pretty lucky that she and Paul got together. After the Beatles broke up she provided a spark and motivated him to get out of bed and start working again.
I’d credit her with being instrumental (so to speak) in the composition of “Maybe I’m Amazed” to the same degree that I’d credit Patti Boyd with inspiring “Beautiful Tonight”: it would never have happened without her, but that don’t make her a musician.
Nitpick: Wonderful Tonight.
I don’t think Ringo qualifies. When the Beatles got him, he was already well known as a great drummer, and they thought he was a real catch. At the time Ringo joined the band, I’d say he was the best or second-best musician in the group after Paul. George got better over time due to dedication and the insane hours playing Hamburg and elsewhere, and became a good guitarist.
John was a decent guitarist, but no one would pick him as a session musician for his guitar skills. Ringo, on the other hand, has always been in demand to drum on other people’s songs. And he was very successful as a solo artist after the Beatles broke up, woth multiple charting singles in the 70’s.
He’s also still touring constantly at 82 years of age, and his all-star band packs quite a lineup of people happy to play with him.
My vote for least talented would probably be Andrew Ridgely or John Oates.
Yeah. I’m not a drummer but I always had the hunch that people who saw him as untalented were probably making the same mistake as non guitarists who think being able to play lightening fast scales is the sole criteria of a good guitar player.