Got to have space in the rotation now

I went to see Gilberto Gil a few days ago. It was an uneven show, I thought, but the highlights were worth the price of admission.^[1] Among those highlights were covers of a couple of Bob Marley tunes. Which reminded me of two things. First, Bob Marley recorded a whole bunch of great tracks. And second, that I never much listen to Marley's music.

Relatedly, Yglesias posted this yesterday about Nirvana:

In general, for a much-praised and undoubtedly influential band, Nirvana strikes me as shockingly little listened-to in practice. Perhaps that's because the band actually sucks and people don't like them, but in my experience people are almost always surprised by how good Nirvana actually is when their stuff comes on. In short, they're not just a band that people say was great -- they're actually great

That all seems right to me, and I'm wondering what other musical artists fit this paradigm: widely known, widely recognized as great, influential, actually quite good, but not much listened-to in practice.

Nominations in comments.

-----------
1 - Although there are opportunity costs to consider. Willy Nelson played the next day, and I couldn't go to both shows, so I had to pick.