Often, I can't believe the dislike for Nick on this board, it makes no sense whatsoever, but again that's just my opinion.
It's obvious if you actually analyse it. Nick is divisive for a number of reasons; some people are critical of these reasons, but for others they're not a big deal.
Firstly Nick's perceived lack of playing ability. Let's be honest - a lot of this is subjective in the first place. Not many people really know how good a player Nick Rhodes truly is, and the ones that have the best and most educated idea, aren't venturing their opinions any time soon (well not if they want to work with Duran in the future at least).
But perception is reality, and you hear a lot more rumours that Nick is not a great player, rather than that he has impressive keyboard skills.
Here's the thing - Nick himself doesn't care too much about what he can and can't play; to him it's about ideas, rather than performance. If he needs something complicated played, he'll hire somebody to do it.
To some people - that's fine. They have the attitude "if that's good enough for Nick Rhodes, then that's good enough for me". But to others - that is lazy. They have the attitude "oh come on, Nick Rhodes has been playing this instrument for over 40 years, you telling me he hasn't had the time to come up with these great ideas, plus also learn how to play them himself, rather than hiring other musicians to do it for him"?
And you know what - both of those points of view are valid, but it will mean the proponents of each will be critical of each other, and disagree on internet forums
Secondly it is reported that Nick Rhodes owns the Duran Duran name. Not Nick and John, who started the band, not Nick, John, Simon, Andy, and Roger who made it famous, and not Nick, John, Simon, and Roger who chronologically have been the longest serving unit. Just Nick himself.
For some people - that's cool, how Duran Duran organise their "business" is their business. If it works - great! But for other people - this gives Nick too much control and influence. Perhaps they worry that he'll always get his own way in band discussions, and that the others may be scared to stick up for themselves? Maybe they prefer to think of Duran as being four (or however many members it has at the time) equal members, rather than thinking there's a legal "boss of the group"?
Who knows what adversaries to that idea think? But what it does mean is that the two different groups are going to be arguing again at various times.
And now the "elephant in the room" at number three - some Andy fans, or maybe just guitarist fans in general, blame Nick for Andy leaving the band twice. The "pro-Nick" group will point out that Andy is not a team player, and put himself before the band twice. While the "pro-guitarist" group will say that on both Seven & The Ragged Tiger, and Astronaut, that Andy was not given as much licence to thrill, plus was quite low in the mix at the expense of the keyboards, and this was intentional to diminish the role of the guitar on those albums.
Once again both of those views are correct - for various reasons it appears Andy does not always play well with others (depending on whom the "others" are), plus Duran has slowly been diminishing the importance of the lead guitar for some time.
Nick has great ideas, is a very good song-writer, and is intelligent and forthright. He is an asset to Duran Duran. But it appears he can also be stubborn. Quite simply - he can be divisive. I actually think Duran Duran made better music earlier on when Nick was learning his craft; the better Nick has gotten, the more keyboard layers he has added, and the (just slightly) worse the music has gotten as a result.
Compare Nick to Roger. Roger is quiet and unassuming - the "everyday" man of the band. What negatives can you say about Rog? Not many. Funnily enough, like Nick, I don't think Roger's drumming skills over the past 40 years have advanced as much as they should have either. But for some reason Roger gets a free pass on this, while Nick gets crucified.
In terms of divisive band members in Duran Duran, it goes Nick then Simon, then a large gap to John then Roger. When it comes to personalities you wouldn't want four Nicks in the band, as they would constantly be at each other's hypothetical throats. But you wouldn't want four Rogers either, as not enough hard and fast decisions would be made when required.
I actually think the personalities in Duran match each other well, and the band obviously agrees as they have been together for most of this century.
So there you have it - the reasons why there is dislike for Nick Rhodes on a Duran Duran forum. Thankfully there is also love for him as well
Anybody else have questions to the universe they need answered? No it's not 42. If so, PM me and I'll let you know the answer plus my bank account details.
There's some great points there CB, I enjoyed the read.
I often think of similar points and what helps me understand Nick & DD to a greater extent is the "look deeper into the bigger DD picture" and what I mean by that is the knowing of DDs art for many years which I'm sure people have heard me say before.
What I know of DDs art and what many of us on this board know is that DD have an art school type mentality and Nick is untrained too. Sure he's gained experience over the years yet it's this untrained way of how he envisaged it. Both he and JT have said you didn't need to know how to play you just needed a desire.
Whether or not the others are taking lessons he's probably thinking good for them yet it's not for me. I see how it can come across as lazy for some yet for me personally, music either moves me or it doesn't and the buck stops there. I love approx 80-90% of what DD do, it's like two or three tracks from a DD LP that I can't listen to.
Of the stuff I love I don't think to myself "did nick play it 100%" or "did he not?" Did he program it? did he not?" "At the gig will he program more or actually play live more".
For me the buck stops at whether the song actually moves me or doesn't. It's ok if people want specifics and it's ok that we're all different. Yet my driver is emotion and once ignited to that extent (eg the music has moved me) there ain't no going back. How it was created is then irrelevant coz for me it's struck a nerve and I can't undo this thing that's grabbed hold me even if I tried via any type of analysing coz it ain't my brain doing the thinking here it's my heart being the decider or is that "the controller" such as it is (no DD pun intended).
DD are still IMO similar to an art school project, and despite their years of experience they're mostly untrained (like the sex pistols) as they create their own form of musical magic. You make a great point with RTs growth drumming development.
Now AT may have been trained yet I'm not sure to what extent. I do know that he had experience playing in cover bands before joining DD and that in his book he mentioned showing Nick a note or two.
Re Warren I'm not sure either but he may have been professionally trained or simply trained by Frank Z ?
I expect that many serious fans would understand DDs art school project thing however I get that some may not be aware or forget that their "art school project thinking" which is DD's creative essence as it was in their initial instance.
Had DD been musically trained way back then or should certain members begin their training now for that matter, it would kill (or perhaps change is a better word) their chemical spirit & essence including their music creating DNA process such as it is IMO.
It's hard to explain yet the fact is the world accepted them as they were with minimal or no training.
Here's how I see it, why would I go back to uni, study and take lessons in my 30s or 40s or 50s when I never had to while I catapulted my success.
I'm certain that I would feel different if I hadn't ever tasted success or haven't found what Im looking for and therefore I still am chasing success due to not having achieved my personal expected potential. In which case it then makes sense to engage in further study.
What we know of Nick Rs case is that he never had to in the first place and I tend to look at it from his perspective.
DD's goal was to play the Odeon by 82 Wembley Arena by 83 and NYCs MSG by 84.
Now lucky for DD, they're playing not one but 2 debut shows at Madison square gardens while nicks at the ripe "old age of 22" & once he's done with that tour, he's got married, had his honeymoon in Greece + other holidays I'm sure, brought a perfect Art Deco type mansion in a posh London suburb, become a millionaire etc.
I personally can't see his art school project inclined brain thinking "OK now I'm now going to take keyboard lessons, to get better or because I'll sell more LPs". Seriously like what for? DD have sold a shit load of them by 84 without him ever attending keyboard training school or neither had he ever held a proper day job for that matter.
I imagine he would have once upon a time thought, "I like Eno from Roxy Music (who's a hero of DD's let alone just nicks), and Eno began his career twiddling knobs. I can play phase type strings on the keyboard synth while twiddle knobs too eg the Wasp, especially on Save A Prayer" or why not record the sound of dropped steel rods onto the grand piano's key strings then play it backwards and record it for RIOs intro or let's tear and rip up large sheets of paper and distortedly record its sound effect for the NMOM dramatic storm type sound in the middle 8.
Personally I'm not sure but I doubt keyboard school or piano lessons wouldn't have taught nick how to do the paper ripping effect, give him the idea to drop steel rods on to the grand piano or twiddle the nob of a wasp synth (you know what I mean).
This may sound arrogant but here's what I think nick would be thinking.
"If people like DDs music they'll buy it regardless of whether I'm trained or not, let's face it, they have previously
If they don't like it they won't purchase even if I'm trained".
He'd may also be thinking
If people like what DD do on stage including my programming great go ahead attend the gig
If they're wanting to listen to the LP at home for the music's studio's created sake, again go ahead however keep in mind that it's awfully likely that I programmed that too.
My thoughts remain the same, does the music move me or not? coz whether its created in a lazy manner or active manner is irrelevant regarding its effect on whether or not the music will either move me or it won't !
The Human League have been known to say that they use technology to make up for the fact that they have no musical skills including use computers when lacking in keyboard players and use sequences for rhythms rather than use a drummer.
I saw them live 3 years ago and they were great despite the shite load of programming. Should they take music lessons these days? Would they make more money if they did? One things for sure and that is it would effect thier creative process like how could it not. Like from a trained perspective to non trained experimentation. Id rather they keep doing exactly what they always have been co I love it even tho I know what I know about their creative or live process.
In additionif I was to say that SLB sings and also plays the live guitar on SAP including LALO while Phil only sings and doesn't play any live guitar and with that come to a decision on who's the better quality artist is a ridiculous thing IMO.
I love the fact that DD consider themselves an art school type project in essence because it results in more experimentation and a methodology much like what Bowie and Roxy Music did with their sound. Eg formalised training doesn't dictate the outcome in this case which is their unique sound. Besides it's an appreciation of the avant guard.
However it's ok if one disagrees and believes that should they all attain "a musical degree" so that their albums would be so much better despite them having achieved success without a musical degree.
If JT wishes to learn music in order to extend his range good for him, whereas Nick I imagine would feel that there's a likelihood that his experimental outlook may wane, be hindered, be dictated to or lost. Including your valid point of him thinking why not outsource why I can't and pay someone else to do it, which is likely.
After having met the guy on numerous occasions (and I don't mean as a friend) but going by what I see time and time again in the awfully brief moments when I get lucky in that lobby/airport, Nick is the most approachable DD member, will happily take a photo and stand close enough (on his own accord) like a good friend does (even tho he obviously ain't) nothing's ever to much for him when it comes to autographing memorabilia and more importantly I suppose is the fact that the first ever "non trained" sound I ever heard from DD was his creation and that was the intro to a song called Planet Earth. Ever since hearing PE, I remain intrigued with every DD release coz nicks usually there and in many cases in the first immediate instance of the song, if that makes any sense.
So when taking into account the above mentioned paragraph like all collated together within this soul of mine, it's is exactly why the soft spot for Mr Rhodes is as soft as it is and has been for some time.