Various reasons, drugs, personal problems, general dickheadedness ect. ect.

For me its Stone Temple Piolts. I know they had some awesome songs, but I think they could of done so much better if Scott had stayed out of trouble.

I love STP so much. I remember everyone used to talk so much **** about them and I'll never figure out why

Alice in Chains. Heroin is a nasty drug.

without a doubt, guns n roses. if they had a lil better drumming, and if axl could ever get his **** together then they had the potential of being the next led zepplin.

Yea Gnr Iowned

Alice in Chains. Heroin is a nasty drug.



Yes, there is another band that could of been a legend. I still listen to some of thier stuff. No excuses and them bones are two of my favorite songs.

Rage.

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Nirvana yet.

Definitely Nirvana.

I think Squeeze is the only person that really posted something I was looking for. While the other bands did have set backs, they probably ended up helping them become well known than anything else. I don't think Nirvana would have the clut following it does now if Kurt hadn't died and they broke up. Blowing his head off was the best career move he ever made. GnR is already a legendary band, how much better could they of hoped to do?

-GnR could have kept it going. they quit right when they were at their prime.

-agree with you on nirvana

-alice in chains had been around for awhile and never really did anything too legendary. what makes you think they woulda just blown up had the overdose never happend?

-i'd also like to throw in Sublime.

Sublime is definitly a band that had talent and never got the chance to really show us what they could of done.

I think STP and Alice in Chains.

i disagree with the STP also. sure weiland had the drug issues, but it never really stopped them from making albums. they made dozens of albums for well over a decade. so how would they have just rocketed into legendary ****?

i disagree with the STP also. sure weiland had the drug issues, but it never really stopped them from making albums. they made dozens of albums for well over a decade. so how would they have just rocketed into legendary ****?

Everytime they toured, Scott would go into rehab. Part of what makes a band legendary is how they are live. Take a band like U-2. When you hear U-2, do you think of thier music.....or Zoo T.V?

i disagree with the STP also. sure weiland had the drug issues, but it never really stopped them from making albums. they made dozens of albums for well over a decade. so how would they have just rocketed into legendary ****?

Also, if you disagree with STP using that logic, how can you say anything about Guns and Roses?

when i think ofU2, i think of their music and political involvements.

i also had the misfortune of seeing STP live once. trust me.....they're better off cancelling as many tours as possible.

Did you ever see U-2 live?

And STP being band live.....I guess thats what happens when you fry your brain on drugs. You write awesome music, but you can't hold it together in front of 10,000 people.

I think sunblime would have had a huge cult following too if kurt hadn't done it at the time he did. It took alot of the focus away from them. Aleast Sublime didn't made like one album and that was all we got we got alot of great albums.

Also, if you disagree with STP using that logic, how can you say anything about Guns and Roses?

because STP has never seen the popularity that GnR saw during their use yer illusion era.

yes i saw u2 live when rage against the machine opened up for them. all they had were giant screens and pyrotechnics. which is cool and all BUT it doesn't mean that the majority of U2 fans think "awesome tours" the moment you mention the band name.


....unlike kiss. but the only reason people think "awesome tours" when you mention kiss is because their music is so ****ty.


i was about to comment gman's post but, as always, i can't understand what the **** he's trying to say.

because STP has never seen the popularity that GnR saw during their use yer illusion era.

yes i saw u2 live when rage against the machine opened up for them. all they had were giant screens and pyrotechnics. which is cool and all BUT it doesn't mean that the majority of U2 fans think "awesome tours" the moment you mention the band name.


....unlike kiss. but the only reason people think "awesome tours" when you mention kiss is because their music is so ****ty.


i was about to comment gman's post but, as always, i can't understand what the **** he's trying to say.

I don't know man, a lot of U2 fans think of huge tours when you say U2. I saw them live in toronto and it was AWESOME.

Funny you guys are talking STP.

I saw the topic of this thread, and that's the first band that came to mind... although No. 4 did suck mad ass.

Rage Agianst The Machine!!!