|YMMV • Radar • Quotes • (Funny • Heartwarming • Awesome) • Fridge • Characters • Fanfic Recs • Nightmare Fuel • Shout Out • Plot • Tear Jerker • Headscratchers • Trivia • WMG • Recap • Ho Yay • Image Links • Memes • Haiku • Laconic|
- Okay can someone tell me what this trope actually means? I've seen it vary from its actually definition of "Character that receives equal billing but is incidental to the point of irrelevance." to "Character I don't happen to recognise", "Character I don't happen to like" "Character who isn't as loud as the other character". I've seen the M Cs of Run DMC put in as examples because they didn't write any music and Dave Stewart and Vince Clarke put in because they didn't sing. Then there's examples like "Genesis: Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins get most of the recognition, but Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford were arguably the real musical talents behind the band (and the only two members who were in it from start to finish).". So does that mean that Phil/Pete were the Garfunkels (both of whom where the main lyricists/stylistic drivers of their respective eras?) Or that Tony/Mike where the Garfunkels? And there's
Subverted with the Sex Pistols (yes, the English band from the 1970s). Sid Vicious did not play any bass whatsoever, had no input in the actual music, and his bass part was played by his band member (who could play bass) for the recordings. Yet, he is second only in infamy, speculation and attention to dear old Johnny (who has been around the music scene so long that he can mock and deconstruct entire genres with the interviewer remaining completely oblivious). Even Sid admitted that he was pretty much there for eye candy
Surely if Sid did not play any instruments and had no input into the music then he is not a 'subversion' but the very definition of this trope?
- Not all groups have Garfunkles. It means that the person who added those exampled didn't understand the trope.