Top 10 Overrated Bands of All Time [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Erloas

2007-06-22, 06:36 PM

I think a few of the bands on the list are right, but I have to disagree on most of them, along with a few suggestions posted here.

Overrated means they weren't as good as they where hyped up to be. But many of these bands have long passed the "hype" stage, they no longer have companies selling their name, they are no longer going on tour, they are no longer something you do to irritate your parents. They are bands that, after everything else has faded, people are still listening to and loving their music.

The overrated bands are the ones that everyone at the time thought where going to be huge, that everyone whorshiped at the time, and now after time has passed no one listens to them any more. The bands that maybe have 1-2 songs across several albums that people put on their MP3 players but the majority of the songs that people claimed to love before they don't like anymore now that there is no social aspects tied to them anymore.

There is nothing left of the Beatles besides their music, and if the music wasn't good then 30-40 years later people would have stopped listening to it, but they haven't. That doesn't happen by being overrated and overhyped, that happens by being amazingly good.

FdL

2007-06-22, 06:41 PM

The problem is that the "music industry" is too hype-driven. They don't care for content, for artistic merit or value. They just want to sell you records, so they create their own monsters. But these are hardly them.

Also, when the 1st article gets to Dylan and The Beatles, you gotta admit it was a joke. I looked for the punchline but apparently my Firefox didn't load it up.

To sum it up, a waste of electrons, hot air or whatever this article was created into.

I thought Metallica lost like 40% of their fans during the whole napster thing.

I thought Metallica lost over 50% of their fans with the awful records they put out after the black album :p

Tengu

2007-06-22, 06:56 PM

There is nothing left of the Beatles besides their music, and if the music wasn't good then 30-40 years later people would have stopped listening to it, but they haven't. That doesn't happen by being overrated and overhyped, that happens by being amazingly good.

Only the people who claim that The Beatles are better than Queen overrate them, and only in this aspect.

Okay, it's my personal taste speaking more than anything.

Catch

2007-06-22, 07:14 PM

The Beatles are not overrated. It is impossible to overrate the Beatles. That would imply they are not the Rock Gods that they are.

Except they played pop, not rock.

For money.

Jorkens

2007-06-22, 07:15 PM

Okay, it's my personal taste speaking more than anything.
Well, it's all a matter of taste, so it's not something to be taken too seriously.

On the other hand, it's quite nice to find that someone apart from yourself doesn't think that album X or band Y is the best thing since sliced bread.

And even if it's about a band you do like, if it's well written then you can get an entertaining polemic out of it if it's written as a rant, or something that actually challenges you to think about why you like stuff if it's written more soberly.

Jorkens

2007-06-22, 07:18 PM

Except they played pop, not rock.

For money.
Better than anyone else. Ever.

I take back what I just said about matters of opinion... :smallbiggrin:

Setra

2007-06-22, 07:21 PM

I thought Metallica lost over 50% of their fans with the awful records they put out after the black album :p
Well 40% of the remaining fans then :smalltongue:

At this point their more insulted than overrated, I'd think.

The only songs of theirs I like are Unforgiven, Master of Puppets, and No Leaf Clover.

Edit: Oh, and Nothing Else Matters.

Catch

2007-06-22, 08:04 PM

Better than anyone else. Ever.

I take back what I just said about matters of opinion... :smallbiggrin:

It is a matter of opinion. Here's mine.

They were cute. They wore matching suits and pranced about in silly movies. They made it on Ed Sullivan, so the world loved them.

Paul wrote lousy saccharine love songs and Ringo couldn't keep a beat if his life depended on it. At least George was at least a half-decent guitarist and songwriter, but it was John that made the Beatles, and he acted like he was Jesus H. Christ reborn to peddle protest songs. Add in a codependent relationship, a moderate amount of drug abuse, some band drama, then garnish with a bullet. Voilà! Now you're immortalized forever.

I recognize the Beatles as the pop icons they were. They sold a disturbing amount of merchandise and cultivated a fanbase that glosses over any criticism with undiluted, starry-eyed adoration. They didn't invent long hair or multi-track recording or saving the world. They just made it popular and stuffed their pockets with cash while doing it.

Kraggi

2007-06-22, 10:05 PM

Dude... Ringo kept beat amazingly. He didn't do fills, but he was good at what he did, and that was keeping the beat. Call him technically unskilled if you wish, but don't say he can't keep time.

Catch

2007-06-22, 10:13 PM

Dude... Ringo kept beat amazingly. He didn't do fills, but he was good at what he did, and that was keeping the beat. Call him technically unskilled if you wish, but don't say he can't keep time.

At his best, Ringo was on-par with an automatic drummer. And that doesn't make him a world-famous musician. Riding Lennon's coattails, however, does.

Kraggi

2007-06-22, 10:17 PM

Ummm..And automatic drummer keeps beat perfectly. To be that is pretty impressive. And you clearly havent heard him on George Harrison's solo album All Thing's Must Pass, where he actually has some rather good drumming. And, where are John's protest songs he peddled so much on Abbey Road, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album(Which I will admit has revolution), and any other albums really? Peddling protest songs? I really don't think so.

Catch

2007-06-22, 10:27 PM

Ummm..And automatic drummer keeps beat perfectly. To be that is pretty impressive.

To be that means your musical "talent" can be synthesized by a machine.

And, where are John's protest songs he peddled so much on Abbey Road, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album(Which I will admit has revolution), and any other albums really? Peddling protest songs? I really don't think so.

... and cultivated a fanbase that glosses over any criticism with undiluted, starry-eyed adoration.

Kraggi

2007-06-22, 10:27 PM

Or you could, you know, actually provide evidence instead of calling me a foolish sheep.

Gales

2007-06-22, 10:49 PM

That article is whole lot of doo-doo. I don't think that stuff like this is a valid arguement:

Sonic Youth
My personal all-time favorite band. And just about every rock critic thinks they’re incredible. So there’s got to be something wrong with them. I just can’t see it because I’m blinded by love. A guy I know who hates them says they sound like the musical huffing of paint thinner. He’s probably right.

He ain't giving any reason why the band is overrated. Or why it sucks. Or any reason to anything.

Setra

2007-06-22, 11:05 PM

He ain't giving any reason why the band is overrated. Or why it sucks. Or any reason to anything.
The sad thing is, is that's how a lot of people decide things are overrated.

Harry Potter
World of Warcraft
Final Fantasy 7

Afterwards people come up with excuses, but in the end a lot of people will dislikes things that "are liked by a lot of people".

I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, of course.

Reinforcements

2007-06-22, 11:33 PM

The sad thing is, is that's how a lot of people decide things are overrated.

Harry Potter
World of Warcraft
Final Fantasy 7

Afterwards people come up with excuses, but in the end a lot of people will dislikes things that "are liked by a lot of people".

I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, of course.
Well, yeah. I mean, a lot of people have to like something for it to be overrated. That's how it works.

The article started off so strongly, but ultimately failed. U2? Absolutely. Metallica? GOD YES. Nirvana? Definitely. Then... the Doors? And it's all downhill from there.

Also, Pearl Jam and Green Day are conspicuously absent.

Setra

2007-06-23, 12:14 AM

Well, yeah. I mean, a lot of people have to like something for it to be overrated. That's how it works.

The article started off so strongly, but ultimately failed. U2? Absolutely. Metallica? GOD YES. Nirvana? Definitely. Then... the Doors? And it's all downhill from there.

Also, Pearl Jam and Green Day are conspicuously absent.
I gave some bad examples, I think. What I mean is..

Overrated is when something is rated higher than it is, by definition. Just because something is popular does not mean it is overrated, many people however tend to call something overrated, just because a lot of people like it.

If there was a perfect movie, and everyone loved it.... there'd be at least a million people who call it overrated, even if it was perfect.

Tengu

2007-06-23, 04:22 AM

I couldn't agree more with Setra! I personally think there are three stances where it comes to liking something:

1. Conformism: you go with the flow, if something is popular you like it.
2. Counter-conformism: you go against the flow, if something is popular you don't like it.
3. Non-conformism: you like things you like, there is no voice inside you telling you "dude, but so many/few people like it, it's a piece of crap!".

Needless to say, non-conformism is the way to go. Conformists don't like it, counter-conformists think they are non-conformists.

In politics, you could call conformists Useful Idiots and counter-conformists Idiotariants.

Dragor

2007-06-23, 04:52 AM

That list fails to include the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.

Blasphemer! :smalltongue:

Rolling Stones.... probably ovverated. Led Zeppelin? Ehhhh, they're my favourite band, but some people give them more credit than they're worth. In the end, they were just in it for the money, but they did write some beautiful music.

kasubot

2007-06-23, 05:20 AM

I think the problem with music, expecally now, is that all musicians are getting overrated and over-hyped. The real reason is that today, music's popularity is dictated by Image not Talent.

Bands will change their music style just to fit into the popular fad, Bands come and go with one hit wonders and sub par songs, and the pretty boy front man gets more attention than the band that actually writes good songs.

(this is getting a bit ranty) I personaly keep away from the main stream because i think it all sounds the same. Nirvana clones and emo bands complaining about problems they never had, Rap stars all taking about the same shallow things, and new metal swallowing their microphones and screaming while playing detuned guitars.

It is very rare that a good band pops into the mainstream, but every now and then it happens and when it does they should get the recognition they deserve.

(got a bit off topic...sorry)

Jorkens

2007-06-23, 07:54 AM

The article started off so strongly, but ultimately failed. U2? Absolutely. Metallica? GOD YES. Nirvana? Definitely. Then... the Doors? And it's all downhill from there.
I think the trouble was that it was only one bloke. Since anything that's overrated is only overrated in your opinion, this one guy had to convince us that a) he doesn't like ten of the most critically acclaimed bands ever and b) he doesn't like them for genuine musical reasons not just because he's being contrary. And while ten individual people could probably each convince you that they genuinely don't like one of U2, the Beatles, the Clash, the Doors and so on - in fact quite a lot of people could reasonably do that for several of them - when it's just one guy it starts to get a bit thin.

That's kind of why I prefer the grauniad piece.

Penguinsushi

2007-06-23, 09:11 AM

Why people feel the need to bash specific bands is beyond me. It's one thing to dislike a particular genre or style, but I can't help but roll my eyes at people who hate 'group x', but love 'group y' when both are classified similarly.

I mean, so you don't like them - big deal. Chances are you like something relatively similar.

Chances are also pretty good that it's really the image/hype/popularity/whatever of the band that you dislike more than the music itself.

~PS

soozenw

2007-06-23, 09:26 AM

I completely agree with that author about the Beatles. Ugh, I can't stand their music. Everyone says how wonderful they are, and how music wouldn't be where it is without them---yeah it would. Someone else would have come along and done the same thing.

But as for the rest, I think they are good bands/artists and that music reviewers generally have no idea what they are talking about. Just like movie and book reviewers.

Lord of the Helms

2007-06-23, 10:35 AM

Heh. I like the Metallica one, because it's so true, except it fails to mention outright that among the entire thrash metal scene of their time, Metallica was below average at best.

Wolfgang

2007-06-23, 12:49 PM

Kurald Galain

2007-06-23, 05:56 PM

Well it's kind of funny to read because of the witticism, but it is really a very badly written piece of journalism, if it even is that. Just saying that a well-known popular band sucks without bothering to explain why you think so doesn't strike me as particularly mature.

Rare Pink Leech

2007-06-23, 06:09 PM

Heh. Even though I'm a huge fan of The Beatles and The Doors, I'm not offended in any way by the article. Why? It's pretty obvious he's writing just to get a reaction. Best way to deal with people like that is to just ignore them, and they lose their power over you.

Quirinus_Obsidian

2007-06-23, 11:45 PM

What is their definition of overrated? When you rate something, you need to have 3 something else's to define the rate. Below, above, and equal. This is not stated in the article from what I can see. The writer of the article is obviously biased (well, more so than any other "journalist") and a imbecile. He does not state what the "correct" rating, or even what the "under rating" is.

Take it with a grain of salt. If you like Metallica, or Nirvana, or whomever else is mentioned in that piece of biased BS; then that is your personal taste.

I personally love Metallica's music. I do not agree with the direction they are headed, or some of the other things they have done; but their music does stay true to it's message; do something and have fun doing it.

Quirinus_Obsidian

2007-06-23, 11:46 PM

Amotis

2007-06-23, 11:59 PM

That article was a lot more entertaining to read than the millionth list of why certain groups are the best bands ever. And therein we find the point. It's a piece of entertainment, not a perfectly thought-out logical proof of why those bands are overrated.

Exactly.

But then I was disappointed at the sub par insults and the easy takes on talking about nothing much.

I don't really like harsh (unless properly backed) over zealous commentary, but some (a bit mostly of the "indie" variant) music critics can be awesomely witty and even way over in the third party you can hear the crunch of the bones and just laugh at each twist of the implanted dagger and even when it's just flexing the 'ol organ of self gratification and it's mostly just a bunch of overblown poo poo, well sometimes it's entertaining. I wanted something scathing. Something funny. New. But nah, he just wanted to piss some people off. Or prove...um something.

Jalor

2007-06-24, 12:23 PM

That is, without a doubt, one of the worst articles I have ever read. I'm sure, part of my opinion is because I like most of the bands he listed, but also because he overlooked music that is really overrated. The Rap, Hip-Hop, and Pop that is so popular now. Just listen to some. It's so crappy, it makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound appealing. The lyrics are all crap, without exception, and none of the "musicians" have any talent. The music is mostly synthesized(sp?) now, and the songs all sound the same. I can hardly stand going to most parties now, because the music is so bad. I really don't understand how anyone can call U2 overrated after hearing crap like Eminem. And don't even get me started on the horrible abomination that is SexyBack. I hear that song at every party I go to, not to mention in many people's cars, and it's so bad it makes me want to shove lit matches up my nostrils.
[/rant]

LCR

2007-06-24, 01:10 PM

How can you overrate the Beatles? That's not possible, they ARE Gods. Okay, maybe not Gods, but the most influential rock band to ever have existed.

He could be right about Nirvana, though. I guess they wouldn't be that much of a deal, if Kurt Cobain hadn't blown his head off.

ZeroNumerous

2007-06-24, 01:13 PM

How can you overrate the Beatles? That's not possible, they ARE Gods. Okay, maybe not Gods, but the most influential rock band to ever have existed.

This is exactly why they're overrated. They're a bunch of British men who played in a rock band. Rock would still exist without them.

LCR

2007-06-24, 01:15 PM

This is exactly why they're overrated. They're a bunch of British men who played in a rock band. Rock would still exist without them.

Maybe, but it would be utterly different.

JabberwockySupafly

2007-06-24, 01:50 PM

Meh. The lists didn't impress, depress, or any other "press" me. as many have said, it was written to shock, and thus, has no real basis or enjoyment. If they made valid points, I may have agreed with more of them. I did agree with some (Metallica, U2) of them but still meaningless whinging and griping. Pure opinion and no actual statistic fact makes the list a little bit of fail.

That is, without a doubt, one of the worst articles I have ever read. I'm sure, part of my opinion is because I like most of the bands he listed, but also because he overlooked music that is really overrated. The Rap, Hip-Hop, and Pop that is so popular now. Just listen to some. It's so crappy, it makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound appealing. The lyrics are all crap, without exception, and none of the "musicians" have any talent. The music is mostly synthesized(sp?) now, and the songs all sound the same. *SNIP*
[/rant]

that's a really broad generalisation. People need to realise that hip-hop is not one genre. Like metal, or rock, it has countless subgenres. Party, Underground, Hardcore, Gangsta, Pop. I will agree most pop Hip-hop from the current day & age is absolute crap. I mean, what in the name of Glod is the point of the My Humps song? But, to generalise that all hip-hop is crap, is just sad. You're lumping some amazing lyricists, nay poets!, into the same categories of people who literally do it just for the fame and the money. Lumping Underground Hip-Hop into the same category as Pop or Gangsta, is like lumping Mastodon in with Metallica simply because they share the over-arcing genre. I mean, you're putting someone like Aesop Rock (example follows) in with Eminem or Ja-Rule or some other worthless artist?

A good example:

this is an excerpt from a song called Battery by Aesop Rock (i Put it in a spoiler to help keep it relatively small, it's only about half the song):

[Aesop Rock]
Yo, change the ****ing channel.
I burn a coma candle.
When the flame fades, consider my flat line a soldier sample.
We them cats talking noise behind that New York trash heap where the stench of commuter briefcase replaces a bad sleep.
And it's the work of zig-zaggers versus piggy badge flashers training generation fallout.
Waterfall, bricklayer, pincushion crawl out.
There's smoke in my iris, but I painted a sunny day on the insides of my eyelids so I'm ready now.
(What you ready for?)
I'm ready for life in this city and my wings have grown almost enough to lift me.
I'm a dinosaur with Jones Beach in my hourglass passing the time with serial killer coloring books and bags of marbles.
Don't tell me you ain't the droid that held the match to the charcoals.
Don't tell me Lucifer and God don't carpool.
(This is our school)
I'm not trying to graduate to life with a personalized barstool,
head in a jar on the desk, feet dangling in a shark pool.
(Man please) Man please
My name stands for my being and my being stands for the woman who stood and braved the storm to raise the seedling.
(Brother sun, sister moon, mother beautiful)
Yeah, middle sibling suitable but far from son of excellence.
Beckoned a long time ago I was, to where the wishers wish but missers miss, I slept through my appointment.
Saw the liquid dreams of a thousand babies solidify and picked a rose.
It wilted the second I introduced myself as nervous.
Well, it appears the scars of learning have spoken.
Some are burning, some are frozen.
Some deserve tall tales, some wrote 'em.
Some are just a brutal reprecussion of devotion.
Mine are all of the above cuz everything leads to erosion.
Now where I live there's a homeless man.
He sits upon a crate
Yeah, He makes a rusty trumpet sound like the music that angels make.
Now if you ever come and visit me, I suggest you watch the show
Tell him Aesop Rock sent ya just to hear his horn blow like this

There are some amazing songs in rap and hip-hop but you'll rarely, if ever, hear then on the radio. Artists like Aesop Rock, Atmosphere, Eyedea & Abilities, and Illogic. These artists thrive on trying to achieve a new level of social consciousness and understanding in the world, instead of talking about how every woman they slept with is a "ho" or how much dope they smoke, or how many people they've shot (or they've been shot at).

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying don't generalise something like that because it makes you look close-minded, and you could be horribly wrong in the process. I would have thought the same thing about 5 years ago until one fateful day I decided to buy, of all things, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 and heard a track called Labor. Funny where a view-altering experience can come from, eh?

Oh yeah, and as for Overrated Bands that should be included on those lists... Tool. I like them, sure but they are far from the greatest band of all time as so many other people would like to believe. With metal musicians like Mastodon (can you tell I like them?), Nightwish (R.I.P.), and Lamb of God, there are far better choices to fawn over.

Jack Squat

2007-06-24, 04:01 PM

Maybe, but it would be utterly different.

Not really...There was still plenty of bands like them from around the same time. and besides, I still hold that Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Chubby Checker, and the like influenced rock more than the "british invasion."

What The Beatles, Herman's Hermits, Beach Boys, The Monkees, and everyone else like that did was change the face of pop, not that of rock.

ZombieRockStar

2007-06-24, 04:11 PM

So what's the difference between rock and pop, then?

As far as I see it, genre is mainly a marketing tool; a system for people to classify what they hear and so they can easily tell if they're supposed to like something so that the music industry can properly market a given artist to a given demographic. So people don't have to, say, actually listen to it to see if it's any good. You can't evaluate something based on which rack it sits in the music store.

If you want to say that the Beatles are overrated, fine. Just, could you do it on the basis of their body of work instead of just writing them off as "pop" (whatever that is), as if shoving them into a different category suddenly explains it all.

FdL

2007-06-24, 09:33 PM

Sure. If the tag "pop" is being used here as a demeaning term, well, you'll have to look elsewhere, because it doesn't get any more "rock" than the Beatles. And I'm not talking about one single frozen sound or style (ie, the Stones or AC/DC or whatever). Besides rocking with the best of them, The Beatles embodied what's important about rock music: creativity, defiance of the establishment (yes, you've heard me right) and making an artistic statement.

psychoticbarber

2007-06-24, 09:51 PM

I don't know, but something about this tells me he's not exactly serious.

Somebody said "I think this is a joke, but where's the punchline?"

I'm pretty sure it's in his description of Sonic Youth.
Don't believe everything you read just because it comes from a "credible" source.

bosssmiley

2007-06-25, 01:09 PM

Also, when the 1st article gets to Dylan and The Beatles, you gotta admit it was a joke. I looked for the punchline but apparently my Firefox didn't load it up.

But FdL, Dylan is over-rated. He wrote a few interesting songs in the 60s that Jimi Hendrix performed better than he did (tell me with a straight face that the Dylan version of "All Along the Watchtower" is superior to the Hendrix version, I dares ya!), and since then...nadda.

As with Denis Leary and Bill Hicks: Dylan's career died when Hendrix did. :smallwink:

This is exactly why they're overrated. They're a bunch of British men who played in a rock band. Rock would still exist without them.

Rock would, but would arguably have been the poorer for it.

Please Please Me 1963 - the Beatles were another "Sha-la-la" band.
With The Beatles 1963
A Hard Day's Night 1964
Beatles For Sale 1964
Help! 1965 - the Beatles capture the sound of Swinging London
Rubber Soul 1965
Revolver 1966
A Collection of Beatles Oldies 1966
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1967 - the Beatles capture the sound of psychedelia
Magical Mystery Tour 1967
The Beatles (The White Album) 1968 (2 disc)
Yellow Submarine 1969
Abbey Road 1969
Let It Be 1970 - the Beatles were the face of their generation, almost universally admired and respected.

Imagine a manicured, manufactured teeny band N*SYNC, or some college radio band, becoming the single biggest band on the planet through the sheer breadth, catholicity and inclusiveness of their musical reach. Look at how profoundly their music changed in a mere 7 years.

Ask anyone: in pop music there's BB (Before Beatles) and AB (After Beatles). Heck, they've been split up for nearly 40 years, and we're still debating their merits. Now that's stature. :smallamused:

ZombieRockStar

2007-06-25, 01:23 PM

Dylan's version is better. [/straightface]

The fact that Hendrix came along and added some pretty effects does not change the fact that the original version was rawer, more pure.

(Although I admit that Hendrix gave the song a unique character, which is why it's still one of the best covers of any song around)

But I respect those who say they like Hendrix's "Watchtower." As opposed to liking GnR's "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" better.

FdL

2007-06-25, 01:32 PM

But FdL, Dylan is over-rated. He wrote a few interesting songs in the 60s that Jimi Hendrix performed better than he did (tell me with a straight face that the Dylan version of "All Along the Watchtower" is superior to the Hendrix version, I dares ya!), and since then...nadda.

Oh, well, he was only the guy who wrote it!!! :p And countless other songs fabulous song. If Hendrix had wrote as many songs and albums up to present time as Dylan has, eventually he would have sucked big time. Probably more than Dylan.
And still I have to say that I think Dylan's artistic legacy surpasses that of Hendrix in terms of expressive power and quality. But you know, that's hard to measure really and in the end is just an opinion in the messageboard of a webcomic... :p

Catch

2007-06-25, 01:37 PM

And still I have to say that I think Dylan's artistic legacy surpasses that of Hendrix in terms of expressive power and quality. But you know, that's hard to measure really and in the end is just an opinion in the messageboard of a webcomic... :p

Bob Dylan didn't die at 28. That tends to lend itself to your career.

Mr Horse

2007-06-25, 01:45 PM

Sonic Youth is not overrated. Anyone who says so has no concept of... well, very much at all.

Unless they're kidding :P

my_evil_twin

2007-06-25, 01:53 PM

Arnen

2007-06-25, 02:01 PM

I have to say, who cares if a band's overrated? I happen to like some of the bands on that list, and think that quite a few more should be up there, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're bad. Music these days is too band-driven anyway - even I like an occasional song from a band I generally dislike. You can't even search for songs by name on MySpace, only by band.

(No, I don't like MySpace, before anyone goes off on that.)

Erloas

2007-06-25, 02:03 PM

It is impossible to try to remove a major band from music history and try to figure out what would have happened without them. What the Beatles did was much more then just their music too, they influenced an untold number of other bands, bands that may not have known the legacy leading up to what they were doing.

There are a lot of major albums that were done in the studios made by the Beatles and bands that got produced by companies that existed just because of the Beatles. The Beatles are what caused a lot of American companies to look to England for artists to promote, something that happened exceptionally rarely before then. The Beatles admit they were influenced a lot by the earlier bands too.

There were other bands out doing similar things to the Beatles but record companies weren't looking at them because they didn't think it would sell. They wouldn't take a chance on a band with an unusual sound because they didn't know what it would do. The Beatles did the same things and everyone seemed to love it, making the companies look to different places and look for different sounds.

Bob Dylan didn't die at 28. That tends to lend itself to your career. Actually a well timed death is often one of the easiest ways to extend the artistic life of someone. Maybe not in this case but there are a lot of cases where people seem to forget something sucked just because the person that made it is dead. I'm pretty sure Tu-Poc has put out more music after his death then he did before.
(if Michel Jackson had died 10 years ago he would be remembered as an artist rather then just some rich freak)

Jack Squat

2007-06-25, 04:37 PM

So what's the difference between rock and pop, then?

In how I have come to understand it, Pop is a subsection of rock, the same as Alternative or Metal.

If you want to say that the Beatles are overrated, fine. Just, could you do it on the basis of their body of work instead of just writing them off as "pop" (whatever that is), as if shoving them into a different category suddenly explains it all.

I'm not saying they are pop, and they still contributed much to music. What I'm saying is that they influenced more of the pop music rather than rock as a whole. I don't really see the Beatles influence specifically in much of rock. I more see the influence of the bands that the Beatles themselves (and most of the bands of the time) had been studying. I see the Beatles influence more in the pop-rock sector, what with the driving beat, and the catchy, upbeat lyrics. Plus, before the Beatles, pop music was more of "how much is that doggy in the window". Quite a change, if you ask me.

I would like to note that what you influence doesn't neccessarily reflect your area of music either. Southern Rock bands are a huge influence on modern country for instance.

Sure. If the tag "pop" is being used here as a demeaning term, well, you'll have to look elsewhere, because it doesn't get any more "rock" than the Beatles. And I'm not talking about one single frozen sound or style (ie, the Stones or AC/DC or whatever). Besides rocking with the best of them, The Beatles embodied what's important about rock music: creativity, defiance of the establishment (yes, you've heard me right) and making an artistic statement.

But many other bands also embodied that; actually, that seems to be a take over from folk music just prior to the "creation" of rock. It's not exactly like that attitude wouldn't be around without them.

Again, I don't argue the fact that the Beatles are rock, just that they didn't neccesarily influence as much of the music scene as they are given credit for. They just helped catalyze the changes that were already happening.

FdL

2007-06-25, 08:52 PM

Bob Dylan didn't die at 28. That tends to lend itself to your career.

This is exactly why I was careful to include the word "quality" in my post. We could never tell how great music Hendrix could have written if he hadn't died, that's for sure. Plus I guess that not dying counts as a winning point for anyone (Darwin said it, not me).

@Jack Squat: Well, the fact is that "rock and roll" as a style never evolved much beyond the 50's/60's. I do think though that the Beatles did have an influence on everything that came after them, only it's not really tangible most of the times (ie, otherwise there would be millions of bands that sound like Teenage Fanclub of anything from Elephant 6. Which wouldn't be a bad world to live in, mind you).

Jorkens

2007-06-25, 10:16 PM

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Where the influence of the Beatles is biggest (and it's huge) isn't in the music that bands play so much as in what being a successful band actually involves - the idea of the album as being the definitive piece of 'art' rather than a few singles and some filler, for instance, or the idea that writing your own songs is the normal thing to do, or that having a high degree of artistic control is normal.

In terms of people actually sounding a bit like them, I think there are a lot of other bands of the time who have more obvious influence - a lot of the more basic british invasion bands for example, or the early heavy rockers or whatever.

Oh yeah, and the other obvious point is that regardless of how much influence they had, they had dozens of absolutely cracking tunes, from the early pop perfection through to the crazy stuff like Tomorrow Never Knows.

FdL

2007-06-25, 10:55 PM

And unlike most bands blessed/cursed with a universal degree of success, they dared to make challenging, interesting music as part of the process of growing as musicians. And what's most interesting, their audience grew with them and embraced their art, no matter how far out it ventured.

Still, if you listen today to the early albums, you can tell they had mastered "pop song" writing. They would have been legends with that alone, I'm sure of that. The way they play, it's really something else. It's a special kind of electricity.

And their success probably had a lot to do with the cultural changes taking place in the world at the time, but still, they did bring a revolution to music and it happened because of them. It's not like "anyone else would have made it if it wasn't them". That sounds really bad, like a slacker's philosophy of letting the world pass you by and not raising a finger to change anything, because someone will do it anyway... :s
'Cause you know, it's not like there are "slots" in life, waiting for you to fill them. You just have to punch them yourself.

dehro

2007-06-26, 02:22 AM

there are 2 categories that I can gladly do without...and frankly consider overrated to be polite.
heavy metal and metal in the various forms...
come on, you guys may hate me for it, but whenever I listen to it I have the impression that all that happens is 1 guys shouting something uncomprensible at the top of his voice, and several "musicians" of dubious quality, each playing a different tune, possibly on some kind of drugs.
there are, admittedly, a few exceptions, songs of rare beauty and musical quality, and a few groups who manage to actually get more than one of them..but that really is a minority

the other category is that of "boy/girl bands" of the "pop" scene.
they are more famous for looking nice and filling erotic dreams and setting an example of how to get famous, rich, and rise to stardom without having actually worked for it...wich is always appealing to... about everybody...than for the quality of their voice.
they are put togheter and sometimes barelly know each other, get a song written by some ghostwriter of quality (hence the succes, the tunes and the words are product of people who know the job but probably lack the looks or the voice to sing them themeself)...go on a stage build with the money of some big record company that invest a shamefull sum in promotion...and bingo, suddenly they are showered with money, compliments and female underwear.
then they fall appart and start living a life of moderate succes and excessive drug abuse... (ok, probably they fall appart when the 1-2 actually talented guys get the point that they'd be better off as a solo)... but since nothing has got to be wasted in this recycling society, the record companies keep them handy for whenever their ghostwriters come up with something good that needs to be sung by more than one voice.
bands that release a "best of" after having had 1 or 2 hits are a joke to music and an insult to people who work real hard and have 10-20 years of practicing and pursuing a carreer in the music field but lack the connections to succeed right away.

Matthew

2007-06-26, 07:24 AM

Well, you see, that's called musical preference. Everybody is entitled to it and it doesn't make a lick of difference to what other people think of the music that someone else likes. Frankly, I could do without Hip-Hop, Rap, House, Dance, blah, blah, blah... but guess what? I do, do without them. I pretty much stopped subjecting myself to music I don't like, though I very occasionally am accidently exposed.
If somebody recommends something to me, I will give it a listen, but I know what I like and I know what I don't like; it doesn't matter at all to me what people think is 'overrated', because I don't rate things by the opinions of other people, I rate things by my own preferences. As it happens, I can see where those articles are coming from, but it just doesn't matter to me that U2, for instance, are overrated. I knew that, that's why I don't use the opinions of other people to rate a band (though I will listen to their opinions respectfully and seek to understand why they think X is crap or Y is great).
People like different stuff to different degrees. If we all agreed about everything, life would be boring.

dehro

2007-06-26, 08:13 AM

it's not as much a point of not liking a particular genre...I do like metal when there is some quality and I actually like pop (but, again, when there's quality)...I just am not prepared to appreciate everything that's brought to me just because it's metal, pop, rap, hip-hop or any other musical genre that I might fancy at that particular moment of life..

I appreciate some singers, bands and "musical styles" more than others, but I never have the feeling that "since it's a song by x or since it's a balad in the x genre, it has to be good". I go for a healty dose of criticism, when it comes to music.
if a metal band manages to sing and play the same tune untill it's finished, and there is some quality in how they sing and play, I'm as happy as can be and will be glad to buy the record... (yes, I'm one of those idiots who still buys CDs)..same goes for a folk musician, african tribal stuff, popsingers, classical music or anything else...I just can't stand poor texts, scarce quality and unprepaired musicians who are famous nevertheless because they've been busted using crack or because they look good or are frequently on TV thanks to their solid contracts with the major editors.

I have a soft spot for people who have a career span that covers decades, because it means that they at least know business when it comes to music and have probably had the time to improve any poor technique they might have started with along the way.
(also, let's face it, because they look funny as hell on the cover of the latest teen magazine, being old enough to be the gramps of the main reader:biggrin: )
Also I am deeply influenced by songs that have a text with a meaning and that speak to the soul or to the conscience, other than just being random words that look pretty put toghether and happen to rhyme.
songs that have changed the way of thinking of people, songs that have accompanied or are a perfect soundtrack to those special moments of life...no matter what the genre, are things that I deeply cherish.

ZombieRockStar

2007-06-26, 10:41 AM

FdL

2007-06-26, 02:10 PM

See, personal tastes aside (because I dislike both metal and hip hop too), the thing is that genres are made up to sell crap. Saying you like music of a genre doesn't say anything about it's quality or even commerciality (sometimes not even about its sound).

Catch

2007-06-26, 02:16 PM

...mainstream alternative...

Oddly, that's not an oxymoron anymore.

Aston

2007-06-28, 06:24 AM

Agreement with you guys about how you can not judge a genre.

But, I am, probably due to the examples lumped in that genre, less likely to try something labelled as "rap", "hip-hop" or "dance" (for example). Because it is put in a genre where I dislike pretty much all of it that I have heard (which, because I dislike it, I do not listen to much of it). So the genre idea is backfiring in a way. I am not going to try wade through a sea of what I am more likely to not like to find a few nuggets of gold than I am to settle for something labelled as "rock" or "metal". I still prefer it to be good and will not bother listening to it if it is not, but the label it has been given grants them about a minute or two of play time which I am unlikely to give even the best rap artist.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-28, 04:24 PM

The Doors!?!?!?!?!

dehro

2007-06-28, 05:45 PM

The Doors!?!?!?!?!

:durkon: blasphemy!

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-28, 07:07 PM

:durkon: blasphemy!

My thoughts exactly!

zeratul

2007-06-28, 07:15 PM

It's all perception. Everything is overrated. Nothing can appeal to everyone. I'm a Nirvana fan, and I agree with his statement in the article.;

Tor the Fallen

2007-06-28, 10:21 PM

Has anyone pointed out that the author took possibly the 10 most widely acclaimed and enduring rock bands, then said they weren't so great?

"Hmmm, let's make a list of possibly the 10 most poular rock bands, then say they suck!"

Not um, exactly hard to do.

Maerok

2007-06-28, 10:27 PM

My answer is easy: U2.

ZombieRockStar

2007-06-28, 10:32 PM

Well, aside from the fact that Bob Dylan isn't a band...

Of course. If you want to say a band is overrated, it does actually have to be liked by most people and that any given person would like at least a few bands on that list. I don't think much of U2 or Metallica but otherwise every other band on that list numbers among my absolute favourites.

*shrug* It's just some column attempting to be funny and kinda failing at it. And misspelling "DiFranco."

Tor the Fallen

2007-06-28, 10:38 PM

Of course. If you want to say a band is overrated, it does actually have to be liked by most people and that any given person would like at least a few bands on that list. I don't think much of U2 or Metallica but otherwise every other band on that list numbers among my absolute favourites.

His selection could have been based on rock bands/musician that were actually overrated, and not hugely, wildly, popular and successful. He's just equating longevity with being overrated.

Take Shakira (or any of hundreds of yesteryears popstars). She's sold a ton of albums, and is a really great pop artist. But despite that popularity, she's not overrated, because no serious music listener claims her to be anything but a talented pop artist.

She's not on the list because, despite her popularity, she's not rated as much of anything. Thus, our dear author cannot play iconoclast and write "overrated, next."

DudeGolem

2007-06-28, 10:56 PM

New Metallica, yeah I think its terrible. But do people really hate, say, cliff burton? Youtube him he is pretty sick on bass.
I know people (not saying I agree with them at all) that dig U2....

point being, my POV i freaking hate U2, beatles, Led Zeppelin (wish it was on that list), Dylan past time out of Mind...
BUT
can anyone come up with a band that can be regarded as "overrated" in pretty much everyone's eyes?
Go ahead, see if you can top U2.
Its not enough for me to say Chili Peppers because I know thats just because I think the funk/rock stuff sounds terrible, doesnt mean it actually is.
Going after, say, Hanson is no fair either: middleschool girls said they were cute, not that they rawk.

My personal instinct is to go for Phish, I freaking hate the hippy scene (but im not ballsy enough to call grateful dead overrated, because frankly they arent THAT overrated, if at all) and those goons do nothing but noodle.

Any other ideas?

Closet_Skeleton

2007-06-29, 07:29 AM

Except they played pop, not rock.

For money.

Everyone you can buy a recording of is playing for money.

Pop is a pretty dodgy genre. You could just say all rock is pop anyway.

Rasumichin

2007-07-03, 11:30 AM

This guy doesn't have a clue.
How can you not include the Stones, Led Zep, Pearl Jam and the Ramones on that list?:smallbiggrin:

Samurai General

2007-07-03, 11:48 AM

Beatles!?!?1?!?!?! Overrated!?!?!?!? It- How- Do- You- Say- That!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Sye216

2007-07-03, 12:40 PM

Hmm... I can't really give my opininon about my POV on this article because The only bands I know of on the list are Metallica and The Beatles. I kinda like Metallica, but I don't listen to them regularly, so I didn't take any offense. And the Beatles....Meh.
All this talk about music not being judged by genre makes me see that people share my opinion that rap is the most vile tipe of crap-music to ever crawl it's ways out of the sewer. I have a friend who is an Eminem fan, and when we talk about music, we have to kick her out of the conversation because she'll start rapping the crap by Eminem. Ech. Also, I went to a birthday party when I was young, and the only music they had was Gwen Stefani. I had to stay outside the whole time to keep my eardrums from imploding.

Jorkens

2007-07-03, 01:35 PM

All this talk about music not being judged by genre makes me see that people share my opinion that rap is the most vile tipe of crap-music to ever crawl it's ways out of the sewer.
That said, most people think that anyone who posts on a webforum based around roleplaying games is an antisocial basement dwelling troll with poor personal hygeine. Doesn't mean it's true...

Argent

2007-07-05, 03:08 PM

The problem with lists like this one (well, one of the many problems) is that we're trying to debate subjective opinion. If I think Bob Dylan is and was a talentless hack, and someone else thinks he was a seminal influence on music as a whole, who's right? (The answer being both and neither of us... very Zen, now that I think about it.)

The other problem is the change of a band and their music over time. Let's take U2 as an example. I'd say that their earlier music (around the time of The Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum) was pretty darn good stuff and influenced the course of popular rock music that followed it. So at that point, they weren't overrated at all, in my opinion. However, in the last few years, they've become parodies of themselves -- their music's become a lot more poppy and inoffensive. So I wouldn't have called them overrated in 1990 but I would now.

Umbral_Arcanist

2007-07-05, 04:48 PM

I only read about the two groups/people i cared about, Dylan and The Beatles.. his beef with Dylan is i suppose entirely a personal opinion (That his new stuff sucks) But it seems like he put the Beatles on the list just to put the Beatles on his list...

Jorkens

2007-07-05, 04:55 PM

The problem with lists like this one (well, one of the many problems) is that we're trying to debate subjective opinion. If I think Bob Dylan is and was a talentless hack, and someone else thinks he was a seminal influence on music as a whole, who's right? (The answer being both and neither of us... very Zen, now that I think about it.)

The trouble is, if you reduce discussion of music to objective facts only, it gets a bit dull. "So, the Rolling Stones. Used guitars. And drums. Made a number of albums..."

Also, I guess talking about subjective opinions at least helps you, in some sense, to learn something about the people who hold those opinions.

But yeah, there's not much sense in getting shocked every time you don't agree with someone else's 'top 10 whatevers' or '10 worst whatevers.'

Jerthanis

2007-07-05, 05:47 PM

BUT
can anyone come up with a band that can be regarded as "overrated" in pretty much everyone's eyes?
Go ahead, see if you can top U2.

That's an interesting philosophical question... "If everyone agrees that U2 is overrated, does U2 STILL count as overrated?" I mean, I know die-hard fans of U2 who've said they suck these days... is there a distinction between the bands which were never good and everyone said they were great and those who produce music that doesn't endure (sounds good in the early 90s, bad in the late 90s), and between the artists who started good and got terrible? Dylan's one of my favorite artists ever, but I don't really pick up his new stuff.

For the record, I totally throw my lot in with Led Zeppelin being overrated.

Dragor

2007-07-05, 05:49 PM

For the record, I totally throw my lot in with Led Zeppelin being overrated.

Everyone keeps on saying Led Zep are ovverated, but I haven't heard WHY yet.

Jerthanis

2007-07-05, 06:04 PM

Everyone keeps on saying Led Zep are ovverated, but I haven't heard WHY yet.

I could say that I don't like the vocals, but after admitting to Dylan being one of my favorites that argument wouldn't hold a lot of water.

What it essentially boils down to though is that I don't like the way their songs sound, which is sort of the problem with ANY musical debate. Boil it down far enough and it's all "this sounds good, this sounds bad". Aside from the chorus of "All my love" and the last 20 seconds of Stairway to Heaven, nothing about any of their songs appeals to me in the slightest. It just sounds dischordant, poorly paced and annoying to me. I guess I could say, "Why do you like it?" because I've never understood that.

ZombieRockStar

2007-07-05, 06:14 PM

Overrated, based on what I think the list is saying, basically means creating more acclaim (not popularity) than the band/artist is due.

This of course happens with anything that people consider significant in any way. Of course Dylan is overrated because he is musically significant and nearly every music guru agrees as such, but that acclaim doesn't line up with how many popular musicians are influenced by Dylan (Avril Lavinge and GnR's butchering of "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" aside), so Dylan is, by that definition overrated.

He's just picking the most popular targets. So many other bands deserve the label "overrated:" Queen, Radiohead, Oasis, Pink Floyd, R.E.M., Rolling Stones, the Sex Pistols, Johnny Cash, the Velvet Underground...(I am, by the way, listing you most of my favourite "classic" bands/artists)

My posts on this subject have been all over the place...have I shown any consistency?

Argent

2007-07-06, 07:53 AM

But yeah, there's not much sense in getting shocked every time you don't agree with someone else's 'top 10 whatevers' or '10 worst whatevers.'

That's exactly it -- in this thread, I keep seeing a lot of "These guys stink!" "HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT, THEY ROCK!" That's the kind of discussion that goes nowhere.

But even if we're discussing subjective opinion, if people back up their arguments, that makes a world of difference. If someone thinks the Beatles sucked, I'm much more likely to understand their POV if they tell me it's because they were derivative and that a particular song was a ripoff of previous work, instead of just saying "THEY SUCK AND YER WRONG."

Jalor

2007-07-06, 12:32 PM

There are some amazing songs in rap and hip-hop but you'll rarely, if ever, hear then on the radio. Artists like Aesop Rock, Atmosphere, Eyedea & Abilities, and Illogic. These artists thrive on trying to achieve a new level of social consciousness and understanding in the world, instead of talking about how every woman they slept with is a "ho" or how much dope they smoke, or how many people they've shot (or they've been shot at).

If I remember, I said "...that is so POPULAR now..." I was talking about the mainstream garbage that passes for music now. Some rap is good. And I'm actually willing to admit that some pop groups are/were sort of good. But most of it is not.

AtomicKitKat

2007-07-06, 12:47 PM

No Oasis? Load of crock.

Dragor

2007-07-06, 12:58 PM

I could say that I don't like the vocals, but after admitting to Dylan being one of my favorites that argument wouldn't hold a lot of water.

What it essentially boils down to though is that I don't like the way their songs sound, which is sort of the problem with ANY musical debate. Boil it down far enough and it's all "this sounds good, this sounds bad". Aside from the chorus of "All my love" and the last 20 seconds of Stairway to Heaven, nothing about any of their songs appeals to me in the slightest. It just sounds dischordant, poorly paced and annoying to me. I guess I could say, "Why do you like it?" because I've never understood that.

Well, that's the kind of reason 'Why I don't Like This' which is good. It's when people just say "This band is overrated" and leave it at that which annoys me.

Why do I like Led Zep? I don't know. I can't say it was because someone influenced me to like them, because I hadn't heard of them until I randomly heard "Immigrant Song" on my Media Player on my Dads computer, which was set to random. I like the fact that they are quite heavy, both with singing and with guitar, and are to me the quintessential developers of the 'Hard Rock' genre.

Of course, some people are going to disagree with me, but, as they say, each man to his own. :smallsmile:

Capt'n Ironbrow

2007-07-06, 01:49 PM

Frankly, maybe because he's old or something, the writer slacks of some veteran dinosaur bands and artists of which some seem to be a teeny bit responsible of the "death of scenes" (as: popularity spills out of local area/underground).

Funny thing is that for all his "Indie-recordstore" past, he leaves Bon Jovi out of the list. That is strange, 'cause it's the only band that really belongs on such a list. Oh, and Duran Duran, and ehm... DEREK AND THE DOMINOES! (or rather, Eric Clapton-led bands of any kind if there's no other blues/rock heroes involved)
People only bought that record when it was labeled Derek=Eric.

what Sonic Youth is doing there I fail to understand, almost no one knows that band's music, only the name, and then say "but it is such awfull noise!" Overrated? Maybe the writer feels he personally overrated themn in some way or another...
They're just arty, so arty people tend to like them and talk complicated about it. :smallamused:

The bands in this list did more than spawn awfull copy-cats and isell a lot of records (except sonic youth by comparison) they also preached an attitude towards music. Their successors and heirs are not the imitators, they're the emulators... like these people where themselves.

Actually almost any artist/band mentioned in a "back to the year 19..." tv-show should be on that list safe a few exceptions who did matter artistically.

Pop= umbrella term for any music but classical or jazz...

Bands who are copied and emulated and talked about half a century since are difficult to overrate 'cause they're allready at their peak... true some bands can never do wrong in the eyes of one person and commit warcrimes in the eyes (ears) of another.

FdL

2007-07-06, 04:17 PM

Overrrated...It means that they are bands which are held to be very good, but they actually don't deserve it.

I don't know if there's any room for subjectivity in this. I don't know if you can be taken seriously when applying this term to artists like The Beatles or The Velvet Underground. I think they are beyond analysis, beyond scrutiny. Such is the importance of their artistic legacy.

In any case, this statement of a band being overrated has to be supported with an opinion based on actual facts. With The Beatles, it's really beyond taste. You don't like The Beatles? Well, it's your problem, in any case that still doesn't mean you shouldn't agree about their importance, that they are actually really good. Even if you don't like them.

Now, if it's an excercise in bashing established artists, in order to question them as examples and break with the past to create new things...well, it's still quite childish, and shows ignorance above all.

Changing the subject slightly, the case with Sonic Youth is a different one, and one that's worth analyzing. Unlike The Beatles they were never popular. They never aimed for popularity.

Any critic will tell you they're great...But yeah, they do have a different approacho to music, most of the time...So it's difficult to bunch them with other rock musicians. In any case, what they bring to popular music is so refreshing and so radical it can only be though of as art.

Is it overrated? Again, can your liking or disliking something rob it from it's value, it's cultural importance? I think not, there are things that are beyond that.

U2, on the other hand... :s