Heya all

I'm gonna start the ball rolling with Queen, The Smiths and AC/DC :gag:

I'm sure many of you would disagree but hey- this is what this thread is for.

Post bands that you think were/are overrated in our great (or not so great) music history......

OK...pretty heroic thread to kick off!

Can I suggest :

Stone Roses
Happy Mondays (although Bez could be immensley enteratining)
Jethro Tull

Joe

Originally posted by ianmitchell

I'm gonna start the ball rolling with Queen, The Smiths and AC/DC :gag:


I'll second Queen! And throw in the Beatles!

I'll now stand back and dodge the brickbats! :thumbsup:

StarSparkle

PS Great thread!

Beatles errr Hello? Oh well there's no accounting for taste.

Ok

Pink Floyd (utter ******)
Bob Dylan (whiney ass little tuneless muppet)
Rolling Stones (One hit - then repeated it) (Include Oasis here):rant:

Originally posted by miniminch
Beatles errr Hello? Oh well there's no accounting for taste.


Each to their own, Mini.

Well, that response to mention of the Beatles came even quicker than I expected! :thumbsup:

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
And throw in the Beatles!



Clever - throw in the Beatles (the most influential band in pop music ever) just to get people going? Let's face it, if it wasn't for the Beatles this thread wouldn't even exist.

My three are:-

Oasis
Nirvana
The Smiths

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Each to their own, Mini.

Well, that response to mention of the Beatles came even quicker than I expected! :thumbsup:

StarSparkle

NOTE: I didn't say the Beatles weren't a good band, I said they they were OVERRATED.

I think that the fact that some of you think that The Beatles are overrated actually implies that they are underrated. I'm sure pop music would have die a death if it wasnt for them - like it has now!!! So Please, please, please let them be!

Originally posted by Killian
Clever - throw in the Beatles (the most influential band in pop music ever) just to get people going?

I refer you to my previous post, where I point out I wasn't saying the Beatles weren't a good band, I said they were OVERRATED, and I stick by that.

I'm sorry you feel I said the Beatles just to get people going - let me assure you I don't say things I don't mean.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by Killian
Clever - throw in the Beatles (the most influential band in pop music ever) just to get people going? Let's face it, if it wasn't for the Beatles this thread wouldn't even exist.


Surely the whole idea here is for people to debate things.

If the Beatles hadn't happened we'd have had the Rolling Stones. There was still Elvis Presley. There were the Beach Boys. There were bands like the Pirates. Bands didn't start off because of the Beatles - they were just highly influential and well managed.

Of course they had a big influence on popular music, but had they not been around there would have been many other bands who would have filled the gap.

But, with deference to miniminch, It's been a hard days night, I've been working like a dog and I will let it be. It's a long and winding road from me to you, and, after all, I want to be a paperback writer, not an IT bod. :)

Joe

Originally posted by StarSparkle
I refer you to my previous post, where I point out I wasn't saying the Beatles weren't a good band, I said they were OVERRATED, and I stick by that.


StarSparkle

Well, they have been called the greatest and most influential music artists ever. Their music was prolific, varied and influenced thousands of artists and is still doing so to this day. Lennon and McCartney are recognised as the greatest song-writers in the history of pop music.

They are obviously not overrated by the music industry and countless music fans worldwide, who recognise their achievements, so in what way would you say they are overrated exactly?

The beatles were brilliant but they weren't the best artists that ever lived- led zeppelin fills that void :D :headbang:

Also I'd like to throw in iron madien, they are terrible

Wading in about the Beatles, they've been highly influential but it is possible to see someone as overrated whilst they are influential.

There is something called the 'halo effect' in which the good traits of someone or a group are allowed to overwhelm any weaknesses that the person or group may manifest. For example, someone may be an excellent actor but might be terribly cruel to his wife. Fans of the actor, when the information about the wife comes out, may try and excuse their hero by drawing on the brilliance of his acting, etc.

Anyway.....

The Beatles put together a reasonable string of work between 1963 and 1969 as an entity. Lennon and Macartney contributed more after the demise of the band, the other two members less so. They were influential on a wide range of bands in the UK, considerably fewer in the US and Europe. The songs that L & M put together were good, solid, well written and occasionally totally briliiant pieces of music, particularly from Revolver onwards.

If you look at the body of work that, to me, is the best Beatles stuff - Revolver, Sergeant Pepper, The White Album and Abbey Road and Let It Be - then you have some highly influential pieces in there - A Day in the Life, Eleanor Rigby, etc. However, there's little there that has actually spawned a genre of music - everything the Beatles did was being done by other bands concurrently with what they were doing.

For example - Sergeant Pepper was mirrored by the abortive 'Smile' (only just released) by the Beach Boys.

The 'trippy' songs like 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' and 'Tomorrow never knows' were matched by any number of psychedelic songs from people like Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, etc.

While the Beatles were undoubtedly influential, the DEGREE of their influence down to the present is less clear. The early to mid 1970s - immediately after the Beatles - was full of progressive rock and general 'rock' and soft rock bands like Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Peter Frampton, Kansas, CSNY, ELO, Slade, Mud, Status Quo and any number of soul, pop and whatever else bands - none really showing a vast influence from the Beatles.

Name people directly influences by the Beatles today and you come up with Oasis. Name people who've been directly influenced by, for example, the Velvet Underground, Ne York Dolls, MC5 and you can trace all sorts of bands.

So - influential, undoubtedly. But perhaps as time goes by the longer term impact of the Beatles will diminish.

Joe

It never ceases to amaze me the wealth of knowledge and expertise people have on this forum. I am extremely humbled by your wealth of knowledge and self-belief on just about any subject one would care to mention, Mr P. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would consult the multitiude of so-called music experts in the music media or experts in any other field of human endeavour when Sheffield Forum has it's own resident expert par excellence. What do you do for an encore?

P.S. Deep Purple, soft rock?

If a group or band are still on the go after ten years or so or even are still having their music played on the radio then good for them. Any group of kids that pop into the top 40 when they sell a paltry few thousand singles now they're the over-rated bands, can't play an instrument, can't mime, definitely can't sing or dance and then they have the cheek to think they're the best thing since sliced bread. Whoever thought up Pop idols should be beaten with a stick

Originally posted by JoePritchard
bands like Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Peter Frampton, Kansas, CSNY, ELO, Slade, Mud, Status Quo and any number of soul, pop and whatever else bands - none really showing a vast influence from the Beatles.


ELO not showing any influence of The Beatles......pull the other one. And without The Beatles, The Stones would have stayed as just another blues covers band.

Here's my favourite quote about my favourite group -

"When you get to the top, there's nowhere to go but down, but The Beatles could not... there they remain, unreachable, frozen, fabulous". Philip Larkin 1983

I have to say that the music of the Beatles is overrated, but the effect they had on music is not. Macartney is definatly overrated, musically.

Queen, overrated.

Nirvana, overrated. (But I loved them at the time)

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Wading in about the Beatles, they've been highly influential but it is possible to see someone as overrated whilst they are influential.

There is something called the 'halo effect' in which the good traits of someone or a group are allowed to overwhelm any weaknesses that the person or group may manifest. For example, someone may be an excellent actor but might be terribly cruel to his wife. Fans of the actor, when the information about the wife comes out, may try and excuse their hero by drawing on the brilliance of his acting, etc.

Anyway.....

The Beatles put together a reasonable string of work between 1963 and 1969 as an entity. Lennon and Macartney contributed more after the demise of the band, the other two members less so. They were influential on a wide range of bands in the UK, considerably fewer in the US and Europe. The songs that L & M put together were good, solid, well written and occasionally totally briliiant pieces of music, particularly from Revolver onwards.

If you look at the body of work that, to me, is the best Beatles stuff - Revolver, Sergeant Pepper, The White Album and Abbey Road and Let It Be - then you have some highly influential pieces in there - A Day in the Life, Eleanor Rigby, etc. However, there's little there that has actually spawned a genre of music - everything the Beatles did was being done by other bands concurrently with what they were doing.

For example - Sergeant Pepper was mirrored by the abortive 'Smile' (only just released) by the Beach Boys.

The 'trippy' songs like 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' and 'Tomorrow never knows' were matched by any number of psychedelic songs from people like Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, etc.

While the Beatles were undoubtedly influential, the DEGREE of their influence down to the present is less clear. The early to mid 1970s - immediately after the Beatles - was full of progressive rock and general 'rock' and soft rock bands like Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Peter Frampton, Kansas, CSNY, ELO, Slade, Mud, Status Quo and any number of soul, pop and whatever else bands - none really showing a vast influence from the Beatles.

Name people directly influences by the Beatles today and you come up with Oasis. Name people who've been directly influenced by, for example, the Velvet Underground, Ne York Dolls, MC5 and you can trace all sorts of bands.

So - influential, undoubtedly. But perhaps as time goes by the longer term impact of the Beatles will diminish.

Joe

Looks like you've been reading a beginners guide to rock music Joe. What a pity you shot yourself in the foot so early on in the piece. So, "The Beatles put together a reasonable string of work between 1963 and 1969 as an entity" did they?

Only "reasonable"? Hmmm, damned with faint praise indeed.

ELO and CSN&Y showing no Beatles influences? That's about as wrong as you can get.

In fact just about everything in your unnecessarily long post is incorrect or irrelevant.

Thanks Mojoworking - no need for a beginner's guide to music - I'm actually quite a fan. The best Beatles stuff ws, for me, the latter things they did, and I do like what they did. But the issue at hand was are they over-rated, and I still maintain that whilst highly influential they have been over-rated.

Thinking about it I was wrong about ELO - but I stand by what else I said. There did seem to be quite a 'break' after the Beatles between what they did and what bands following did, to my ears, anyway.

Sorry it's a long posting. I try to put together my thoughts in one lump, and that does end up being long sometimes.

Anyway, it's nice that we can chat again - we always manage to wind each other up! T'was religion last time, I think!

Joe

Originally posted by Killian
It never ceases to amaze me the wealth of knowledge and expertise people have on this forum. I am extremely humbled by your wealth of knowledge and self-belief on just about any subject one would care to mention, Mr P. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would consult the multitiude of so-called music experts in the music media or experts in any other field of human endeavour when Sheffield Forum has it's own resident expert par excellence. What do you do for an encore?

P.S. Deep Purple, soft rock?

I put Deep Purple in a sentence involving other bands there - not inferring they're soft rock. Badly structured sentence!

I like to contribute when I can, Killian. I have strong opinions on things and like to debate a point. I hope people will read what musical experts say - that's what they're there for, after all.

Now, what's your issue with me. You seem now to be spending a lot of time just throwing personal insults around - I dislike comments about my name, especially as you've not got the guts to post under your own full name on here.

Do, I suggest that you leave the petty insults in the playpen and debate the point. I have no issues with people disagreeing with me at all - that's what we're on this forum to do, after all, but petty, juvenile comments about my name that I haven't heard since junior school aren't part of the normal cut and thrust of adult debate.

Joe

MOD: Please refrain from petty name calling. People are entitled to their opinions and should be free to express them.

lol this was kinda getting out of control!

Any other bands, how about present bands?

I would have to say the pixies are far too overrated....

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Thanks Mojoworking - no need for a beginner's guide to music - I'm actually quite a fan. The best Beatles stuff ws, for me, the latter things they did, and I do like what they did. But the issue at hand was are they over-rated, and I still maintain that whilst highly influential they have been over-rated.

Thinking about it I was wrong about ELO - but I stand by what else I said. There did seem to be quite a 'break' after the Beatles between what they did and what bands following did, to my ears, anyway.

Sorry it's a long posting. I try to put together my thoughts in one lump, and that does end up being long sometimes.

Anyway, it's nice that we can chat again - we always manage to wind each other up! T'was religion last time, I think!

Joe


Hi Joe,
By over-rated, do you mean that the Beatles' stature as the greatest band the world has ever seen is not justified?

Consider this. As of last year, the Beatles had sold in excess of one billion records worldwide

They recorded approx 200 songs during their recording career which ran from late 1962 to 1970. Of those 200 songs, it's accepted that the number of duff (ie below average) tracks they produced can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That's a pretty phenomenal strike rate, especially as they were recording in a time when albums usually consisted of a couple of singles and a lot of filler.

In 1963 they wiped the pop slate clean and re-wrote the rule book. After the Beatles, it wasn't enough to simply be in a band, you had to write your own songs as well. That still applies today.

Speaking of which, Yesterday is the most covered song in history with over 1600 different versions and counting.

I could go on quoting Beatles superlatives all day (how they smashed virtually every chart statistic imaginable etc), but I'm sure you don't want to read them.

I'll simply say that they massively influenced just about everyone of note, from Bob Dylan down. And you can still hear their legacy in almost every guitar band around today.

Over-rated? I think not. If anything, their influence and stature grows stronger with every passing year.

Hi Mojoworking,

They've got an excellent statistical record - and like I said, extremely influential - but in terms of how music evolved I still feel that things would have panned out in a similar way had the Beatles not been around. I suppose it's 'first mover advantage' - they did it first and so have been hailed.

Statistical superlatives aren't all that matters - what also matters is the influence on artists from the point of view of forming bands, creating music - there have been other bands just as influential as the Beatles in that respect.

Joe

Just to mention. John Lennon would have been 64 on Saturday.

Overrated bands for me are:

The Clash
The Who
Sex Pistols

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Hi Mojoworking,

They've got an excellent statistical record - and like I said, extremely influential - but in terms of how music evolved I still feel that things would have panned out in a similar way had the Beatles not been around. I suppose it's 'first mover advantage' - they did it first and so have been hailed.

Statistical superlatives aren't all that matters - what also matters is the influence on artists from the point of view of forming bands, creating music - there have been other bands just as influential as the Beatles in that respect.

Joe

Well, the only other bands I can think of who inspired as many kids to form bands as the Beatles did are the Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols. Both of those bands sold almost no records at the time and their classic songs number no more than a handful in both cases. But what they did have was a do-it-yourself ethic which proved hugely influential.

In their early years, the Beatles had that ethic also, but what was unique about them is how quickly they progressed and left everyone else behind. From Love Me Do in 1962, to Strawberry Fields Forever just 5 years later is a quantum leap by any standards. No other band/artist has ever developed so fast and changed so quickly. After their first LP, they weren't copying anyone. They were literally inventing musical forms and styles with every record they made.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Well, the only other bands I can think of who inspired as many kids to form bands as the Beatles did are the Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols. Both of those bands sold almost no records at the time and their classic songs number no more than a handful in both cases. But what they did have was a do-it-yourself ethic which proved hugely influential.

In their early years, the Beatles had that ethic also, but what was unique about them is how quickly they progressed and left everyone else behind. From Love Me Do in 1962, to Strawberry Fields Forever just 5 years later is a quantum leap by any standards. No other band/artist has ever developed so fast and changed so quickly. After their first LP, they weren't copying anyone. They were literally inventing musical forms and styles with every record they made.

Now there we can agree (mostly!)

I'd probably add the New York Dolls and The Beach Boys to the influential list, the latter being a 'maybe add'. I'm not sure about 'Love' - 'Forever Changes' was quite interesting.

The progression of the Beatles was amazing - however I would say that in their later years they weren't necessarily inventing musical forms, but they were popularising them. The rapid change was quite amazing - I think today bands wouldn't manage to make that level of change so quickly because the management / fans wouldn't like the changes.

What they were able to do is take something and turn it to be their own - they were combining influences from lots of sources and popularising them. For example, the 'sing along psychedelia' of Lucy in the Sky WIth Diamonds' is more accessible than some of the more strunkout psychedelia created in the same year (67??) by The Doors and Jefferson AIrplane - but all three bands had been influenced by other artists and each other.


Joe

lol I should have known that this would turn into a debate over the beatles.

I have the same discussion with my friends frequently

You could argue to put any band in here, just cos someone sometime in history someone has described them as the second coming.

I'm sure lots of people have over-rated the beatles but they were an extraordinarily influential band and very talented in many ways. Don't criticise just cos someone once said they were bigger than Jesus! - wonder who that could have been!

Originally posted by mojoworking
Well, the only other bands I can think of who inspired as many kids to form bands as the Beatles did are the Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols. Both of those bands sold almost no records at the time and their classic songs number no more than a handful in both cases. But what they did have was a do-it-yourself ethic which proved hugely influential.



I think the sex pistols sold a considerable amount of records at the time. Granted they are still selling now, but they were never shifting the small insignificant numbers the velvets were. Who in my opinion have more than a "handful" of classic tracks.

Most over-rated. I find this quite hard, I mean under-rated I could go on all day.

Originally posted by JoePritchard

Now, what's your issue with me. You seem now to be spending a lot of time just throwing personal insults around

Joe

Because you called me a thief and, in that respect, instigated the personal insults. I take great exception to being called a thief. I will pm my real name to you if you're that interested. I have never come across a forum before where people use their 'real' names (vanity springs to mind) and would say that this practice is in the minority. After all, what is the term 'username' supposed to mean?

Congratulations must go to Mojo (probably not his 'real' name) on his superb debating skills here. He managed to say what I was trying to say much more convincingly and won his case hands down. And, yes, I did notice the capitulation on your part, Joe

Originally posted by Killian
Because you called me a thief and, in that respect, instigated the personal insults. I take great exception to being called a thief. I will pm my real name to you if you're that interested. I have never come across a forum before where people use their 'real' names (vanity springs to mind) and would say that this practice is in the minority. After all, what is the term 'username' supposed to mean?

Congratulations must go to Mojo (probably not his 'real' name) on his superb debating skills here. He managed to say what I was trying to say much more convincingly and won his case hands down. And, yes, I did notice the capitulation on your part, Joe

I use my own name as a user name because I alwys have done online - I also want to stand behind my words. Yes, it is a minority position, but it's a valid one and not yet forbidden by the Mods.

As for debating with Mojoworking - we've had several debates on other subjects and we often seem to find areas of overlap. If you wish to view my agreement on some areas as capitulation, so be it. Whether he's won his case - well, I don't know about that but then again I would say that, wouldn't I?

The thing I enjoy about discussing things with people like Mojoworking is that we may disagree ferociously on numerous issues and we may also each walk away with a new perspective on what's been said. I'll take on board some of the comments that people have posted, but I'll also keep some of my own views. I don't know whether Mojoroworking will think more widely about some of the other issues raised during the debate, but, who knows. Perhaps we'll both get some new ideas!

Joe

Duran Duran. :P

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
Duran Duran. :P

Chris.

I agree heavily with duran duran lol

Bay City Rollers. What the hell were they all about?

lol the bay city rollers-with a guitarist called ian mitchell!

what's all that about :P

Originally posted by ianmitchell
lol the bay city rollers-with a guitarist called ian mitchell!



Own up - it's you, isn't it. Don't be embarrassed.

lol yes it's me!

OK, ill go for...

The Beatles- as said before, they were good, they sold loads of records, but , in my opinion, they werent anything like as amazing as everyone seems to think

Travis-dreary, boring, dull

Coldplay-see Travis

Radiohead-one decent album, then they dissapeared up their own arses

Franz Ferdinand-good, but not brilliant. Not as original as everyone seems to think...they sound just like Talking Heads

Manic Street Preachers-Another band who started off well then dissapeared up their own arse

Marilyn Manson-musically nothing special, but he knows how to manipulate the media

Oasis-see reason for Radiohead and the Manics

The Streets-lets face it, just crap

slh73

I agree with
Radiohead
MSP
Marilyn Manson just.... sucks
The Streets are the worst bunch of musicians- no they're not even musicians, they should be ashamed to call themselves musicians.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
lol this was kinda getting out of control!

Any other bands, how about present bands?

I would have to say the pixies are far too overrated....

I like The Pixies - only heard two tracks from them, they don't seem to be too bad.

Alex

My opinions you mentioned on the ones there: Travis - bit dull. Coldplay - Parachutes good album
ROTB - OK
Radiohead - like all albums (Kid A/Amnesiac/HTTT A BIT weird)
Oasis - they're OK
The Streets - their CDs are good frisbies.

Alex Originally posted by slh73
OK, ill go for...

The Beatles- as said before, they were good, they sold loads of records, but , in my opinion, they werent anything like as amazing as everyone seems to think

Travis-dreary, boring, dull

Coldplay-see Travis

Radiohead-one decent album, then they dissapeared up their own arses

Franz Ferdinand-good, but not brilliant. Not as original as everyone seems to think...they sound just like Talking Heads

Manic Street Preachers-Another band who started off well then dissapeared up their own arse

Marilyn Manson-musically nothing special, but he knows how to manipulate the media

Oasis-see reason for Radiohead and the Manics

The Streets-lets face it, just crap

Originally posted by boyface
I think the sex pistols sold a considerable amount of records at the time. Granted they are still selling now, but they were never shifting the small insignificant numbers the velvets were. Who in my opinion have more than a "handful" of classic tracks.

Most over-rated. I find this quite hard, I mean under-rated I could go on all day.

The Pistols' influence was evident even before the NMTB LP was released. Don't forget they'd been sacked by EMI and A&M before Virgin took them on. So for quite some time before their solitary big selling LP appeared, they were all over the newspapers/TV etc.

Their other albums were simply cash-ins, so in real terms they only had the one LP and even that didn't sell in huge numbers.

As for the Velvets, they only made 4 studio LPs and great though they were, I still maintain that no more than 2 or 3 tracks from each could reasonably be called "classics"

Originally posted by slh73

The Beatles- as said before, they were good, they sold loads of records, but , in my opinion, they werent anything like as amazing as everyone seems to think


You have to look at it in context. The Beatles may not seem all that revolutionary now, but look at what was happening in music when they came along: Very little.

It's not like the Beatles were working alongside other bands who were making similar music. That may have been the case in their formative Cavern days, true, but once they got into their stride there was nobody within light years of what they were doing.

Until the Beatles took off in 1963, the best we could offer in Britain was Cliff and the Shadows. In America the first wave of rock & roll had passed, Elvis was making easy listening pop music and the crooners ruled the charts.

Into this void stepped the Beatles and swept all before them. They changed literally everything: music, clothes, haircuts, the way we looked at life even. After the Beatles it was cool to have a regional accent. They were funny, irreverent, cheeky - everything the stuffy world of BBC-style showbiz wasn't. For British teenagers growing up in the early 60s, the world was generally a miserable, black and white place. After the Beatles arrived everything snapped into glorious Technicolor.

Bob Dylan was an acoustic folk singer until he heard the Beatles and went electric and it's a fact that the Rolling Stones started writing their own songs as a direct result of seeing Lennon & McCartney at work.

Like I say, it's a matter of context.

Over-rated? Surely it's got to be the legendary "big in their own back yard" Boy on a Dolphin.

I can't believe the local papers still interview and promote this band.

Ok... hmmmm...

Beatles - They were big, because of the marketing and timing involved. They wrote some good songs, but heh, so have many other bands since.

Nirvana - Some devoted fans, along came a bullet, closley followed by its conspiracy, the fan base multiplys like gremlins on a rainy day!

Scooter - Germany think scooter are the greatest thing since Abba. They churn out song after song using samples from everywhere. If they were british, they would have been a one hit wonder.

I'm horrified Queen have been mentioned.

The Beatles I'd agree with, they were good, but certainly very over-hyped. I prefer their earlier stuff, and possibly my favourite Beatles song is Twist and Shout, which was a cover. :loopy:

I also understand why people say Oasis are overrated, but to me, the excellence of Defiantely Maybe and Morning Glory means I will never ever dislike them.

I am going to say.... Westlife. (May as well play it safe ;) )

Originally posted by Lickable
Ok... hmmmm...



Scooter - Germany think scooter are the greatest thing since Abba. They churn out song after song using samples from everywhere. If they were british, they would have been a one hit wonder.

They also think David Hasslehough is the best solo artist since Elvis….

Originally posted by Sidla


I am going to say.... Westlife. (May as well play it safe ;) )

Westlife may be a high unit shifter, but nobodys ever actually rated them have they?

Originally posted by boyface
Westlife may be a high unit shifter, but nobodys ever actually rated them have they?
Lol, true.

Ok then, The Darkness.

Originally posted by Sidla
Lol, true.

Ok then, The Darkness.

lol I'm going to see them at the arena in december, they're not really highly rated in my book but I'd go see them :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Lickable
Ok... hmmmm...

Beatles - They were big, because of the marketing and timing involved. They wrote some good songs, but heh, so have many other bands since.

Nirvana - Some devoted fans, along came a bullet, closley followed by its conspiracy, the fan base multiplys like gremlins on a rainy day!

Scooter - Germany think scooter are the greatest thing since Abba. They churn out song after song using samples from everywhere. If they were british, they would have been a one hit wonder.
i cant agree on the beatles but can almost agree on nirvana but im 100 % with you on scooter lets face it scooter are about as hip as status quo dance music for kids

now wheres my masters at work cds:clap: :clap: :clap:

My opinion on the Beatles is that they have sone decent sing-along tunes,but they were in the right place at the right time.

Overrated to me.

Bob Marley.Like Cobain,he would have faded into insignificance if it wasn't for his death.

Originally posted by Sidla
Ok then, The Darkness.

I'm endlessly impressed with The Darkness - I didn't think anyone could take the p*ss out of cock-rock - and then along they came and showed it could be done!

The Spice Girls
Westlife
Nirvana

As for the most overrated person - Robbie Williams. Cretinous.

Originally posted by uncleheed
Bob Marley.Like Cobain,he would have faded into insignificance if it wasn't for his death.
You cannot compare Bob Marley to a junkie.

Chris.

G4 - the band from X Factor!
Most overrated piece of ****e ever..

Roll on the voting.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
You cannot compare Bob Marley to a junkie.

Chris.

One was a junkie and the other was a major Ganja user/advocate.

Directly or indirectly, their drug habits killed them both.

There's your comparison.

Originally posted by mojoworking
One was a junkie and the other was a major Ganja user/advocate. [...]
I'm not debating their drug use. My point is that while Kurt will always be remember for his angst and self-pity, a man like Bob Marley did much more than glamourise depression.

Chris.

ive always thought that BLUR are very overated i once had the misfortune of seeing them at the arena in 92 or was it 91 on the rollercoaster tour saying that the cartoon band thing they do is quite good in a strange kind of way:D

Originally posted by Sidla
I'm horrified Queen have been mentioned

*sigh* I am so glad I am not alone, I was reading the thread with mounting dread (!) thinking I can't be the only person who likes Queen in the whole of Sheffield (and I like the pixes too)

Over rated? Sex Pistols def, if you actually listen to it its pretty shoddy stuff.

How about under rated? I say The Specials....

And now I am ducking off and hiding before anymore shouting kicks off ;-)

sorry but queen are over rated from what I've heard.

The Sex Pistols are ok, don't think they were over rated though...


No one is going to kick off maddy, this is a nice peaceful thread :rolleyes:

Maddy,

You missed the fun and games on this thread...nothing to see now, move along...;)

Joe

Originally posted by Maddy
Over rated? Sex Pistols def, if you actually listen to it its pretty shoddy stuff.
Musically the Sex Pistols offered very little, a band like The Clash were far superior on every level, but the cultural influences that the Sex Pistols have had are huge. I think thats why they're highly rated. You can't talk about punk rock and not mention the Sex Pistols - it'd be impossible.

Chris.

I'd say it's not Queen that are over-rated, but Bohemian Rhapsody definately is. I can't stand the song personally. If I'm listening to QGH I skip straight to Another One Bites the Dust.

I like bohemian rhapsody, lol I think that the rest of it is ****e though.

Especially 'we are the champions' how can they call that song a classic where 80% of it is a drum beat "dum dum tsch" and is only played at the end of cup finals :P

Originally posted by ianmitchell
Especially 'we are the champions' how can they call that song a classic where 80% of it is a drum beat "dum dum tsch" and is only played at the end of cup finals :P
I think you're referring to We Will Rock You, which IMO is another overrated song. We Are The Champions is a classic.

sorry yeah we will rock you, :P my mistake

coldplay, oasis, manchester scene in general, joy division, boy bands, darkness

overrated doesnt mean rubbish (although many of the above are rubbish in my opinion)

queen were a little bit overated ... but did some great songs. just got a bit too commercial and then tv got a hold of their tunes and played them to death (gladiators any1 ? haha)

how about bob dylan, prince & james brown??

can you name 10 songs of theirs put together?... its harder than you think. when you think about it they havent really had that many big hits. but still are well regarded and in my opinion overrated.

i could go on forever...but i'll save everyone that agony

p.s. underated = harem scarem & kmfdm

Queen, Smiths, radiohead and Talking heads

Originally posted by JoePritchard
OK...pretty heroic thread to kick off!

Can I suggest :

Stone Roses
Happy Mondays (although Bez could be immensley enteratining)
Jethro Tull

Joe

Gotta disaree about Tull, 30 odd years on an' still could fill Madison Square Garden. Overrated...I don't think so.

At the risk of repeating / rehashing old battles, there's a difference between being over-rated and popular.

Knowing quite a few Tull fans, I appreciate that they're a fine bunch of musicians who have managed to maintain lots of popularity over the years.

But they've not exactly spawned musical genres or stimulated thousands of people to form bands, like others mentioned in this thread have.

If, on the other hand, there are thousands of flute soloists who would never have lifted a flute were it not for Tull, I heartily apologise....:)

Joe

OK, throwing in my wrinkly, grey haired, 2 pennorth. Over rated groups:

Sex Pistols, over hyped and talentless bunch of kids in the right place at the right time.

Bay City Rollers, see above.

Oasis, Let's re hash a lot of Beatles tunes.

Rolling Stones, same tunes changed round a bit

Monkees, ?????

The Worzels ????????????????

Souxie and the Banshees. Jumped on the no talent band wagon.

Every boy band since Take That

Anybody that's ever been on Pop Idol

Not in any particular order, just as I thought of them

Oh No
How could I have forgotten the dreaded Spice Girls.
Because I try to forget them as having anything to do with music.
Absolutely the Queens of over-rated. One who could sing a bit, and the rest to cover every permutaion of what the kiddies could relate to. YYYYYEEEEEUUUUKK

The spice girls didn't even deserve a rating in my book....

Originally posted by pitsmoorlad
Oasis, Let's re hash a lot of Beatles tunes.
I've never understood the Beatles/Oasis comparison. I can only name one Beatles song that sounds like Oasis ('Rain'), and it isn't their best work.

Chris.

The Beatles and Oasis used the same kind of open chord structure in most of their songs.

That's why they sound similar and perhaps why Oasis sound boring now. But Definately Maybe and WTSMG are brilliant albums.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
The Beatles and Oasis used the same kind of open chord structure in most of their songs.
I'm a music student and i have no idea what an "open chord structure" is. You've made the term up.

The Beatles evolved their song-writing style where Oasis have just stagnated. Plus there is more to music than structures, Oasis have more in common with The Who and The Jam than with The Beatles.

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
I'm a music student and i have no idea what an "open chord structure" is. You've made the term up.

The Beatles evolved their song-writing style where Oasis have just stagnated. Plus there is more to music than structures, Oasis have more in common with The Who and The Jam than with The Beatles.

Chris.

Presumably he means chords played in the first position which use open (unfretted) strings as well as fretted notes?

If so, the term could apply to virtually any style of guitar-based music, except perhaps heavy rock.

I've always had it in for Oasis. They strut around as if they are the greatest band in history. I personally find their material extremely derivative, and the lyrics are pathetic. Too many of their songs are rip -offs of some Beatles tune, and there is little space in the music. Liam sings far too much for my liking, and his "hard man" act doesn't come across. There is also a tendency in much of their material towards the anthemic; stadium rock is not my thing. They seem to me to be a kind of second-rate living guide to rock cliches of the past 40 years. Why bother with them when you have the original records they are plagiarising?

Oasis were inspired by the Beatles, they've never tried to claim otherwise.

Originally posted by MTheo

how about bob dylan, prince & james brown??

can you name 10 songs of theirs put together?... its harder than you think.

Might be hard for you!!!!!!!! Says more about your musical taste than these artists.

Dylan changed the face of popular music, still huge today.

Prince, best guitarist/songwriter of his generation. Go see him live, he is electrifying.

James Brown......nothing has to be said.

Do a little research and you will find that several of Dylan and Princes hits have been recorded by other people.

Sidla, I am aware that they acknowledge the influence of the Beatles, but for me the influence is far too apparent in their music. It lends their material a "haven't we been here before" feel. I don't like art where the intentions are too clear, and this puts me off Oasis. Perhaps, as Brian Eno once said, innovation is an overrated concept anyway? If you like 'em, play 'em.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
I'm a music student and i have no idea what an "open chord structure" is. You've made the term up.

The Beatles evolved their song-writing style where Oasis have just stagnated. Plus there is more to music than structures, Oasis have more in common with The Who and The Jam than with The Beatles.

Chris.

I meant the structure of all their songs, meaning nearly all their songs are mainly open chords based in a similar playing style to the beatles.

To Andyman

It says nothing of my musical taste... i listen to marilyn manson, wilson phillips, rammstein, 2pac, jackson 5, wet wet wet, guns n roses, paul carrick...etc.. where did i say that i didnt like the artists i mentioned previously?? hmmm.. nowhere

prince is an amazing muscian and guitarist...but i have never heard any1 state him as an infulence. and his best songs (like dyan) are performed by different people..

dylan sits and plays acoustic guitar....the man cant sing, but he can write. he plods along and carrys his uninspiring persona around for many a year. his stuff with travelling wilburies was best he had done in years.

James brown?? nothing to be said because there is nothing?? he could dance well, he could carry a tune, but for the last 20 years its been ...`lets wheel out james brown to do that song he did age ago'

i stand by what i said.... they have not recorded much for what there reputations suggest...i dont need to do any research.. i have many songs by these artists and know full well who they have written for. I can name more than 10 between them.... i was just saying that so people could think for a few minutes and realise there isnt as many well known songs as at first you would think.

i like all 3 of them...maybe you should look at the subject for this thread...overated bands....not rubbish bands...not `i hate these people' just overated in MY opinion.

I personally think that Liam has turned Oasis into a Beatles tribute band. Cos thats all the guy ever talks about when discussing Oasis "Beatles this and Beatles that..............."

I dont see the attraction of Pink Floyd, The Smiths, The Who, The Rolling Stones, ACDC, ZZTop, the list goes on.

All this is down to is personal choice and its gonna cause arguments and dissagreements no matter what.

Im a full on Linkin Park fan but then on the other hand I like classical music, S club Juniors, Celine Dion, Micheal Bolton :loopy: so I got no business really dissing anyone.

The who were overrated but they're still a good band, they're supposed to be one of the best bands of the 60s when they're really not.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
The who were overrated but they're still a good band, they're supposed to be one of the best bands of the 60s when they're really not.

They were certainly overrated during the 80's mod revival. I was a teenager in the 60's and biggest mod band of those days were the Small Faces, not The Who. All the mod boys I knew spent their time trying to look like Stevie Marriot. Don't think The Who were even a mod band to begin with.

Originally posted by Illaria

I dont see the attraction of Pink Floyd, The Smiths, The Who, The Rolling Stones, ACDC, ZZTop, the list goes on.



To say that AC/DC are overrated you have to take into account the fact that there were two distinct AC/DC's, one with Bon Scott and one with Brian Johnson.

AC/DC with Bon Scott were brilliant. 'Whole Lotta Rosie'. 'Let There Be Rock', Hell Aint A Bad Place To Be', 'Bad Boy Boogie', etc. etc. are all classic Heavy Metal songs (to anyone who likes proper 'Heavy Metal', of course). However, I cannot get to grips with the AC/DC and Brian Johnson line-up and would agree they are definitely overrated.

Originally posted by Killian
To say that AC/DC are overrated you have to take into account the fact that there were two distinct AC/DC's, one with Bon Scott and one with Brian Johnson.

AC/DC with Bon Scott were brilliant. 'Whole Lotta Rosie'. 'Let There Be Rock', Hell Aint A Bad Place To Be', 'Bad Boy Boogie', etc. etc. are all classic Heavy Metal songs (to anyone who likes proper 'Heavy Metal', of course). However, I cannot get to grips with the AC/DC and Brian Johnson line-up and would agree they are definitely overrated.


Yeah I agree, I have a friend who is mad about AD/DC.

He plays all their stuff all the time and the stuff with Bon Scott sounds pretty good but Brian Johnson is not even a singer.

He does not deserve the title of a singer....

Originally posted by ianmitchell
Yeah I agree, I have a friend who is mad about AD/DC.

He plays all their stuff all the time and the stuff with Bon Scott sounds pretty good but Brian Johnson is not even a singer.

He does not deserve the title of a singer....

That's a bit unfair. Just because Bon was great, that doesn't make Johnson a bad singer. I've seen AC/DC 4 or 5 times with him upfront and he handles the classic Bon songs pretty well. The post Back In Black tracks are his forte, naturally, and he sings them brilliantly.

All credit to him for stepping into Bon's shoes. It can't have been easy.

I agree, stepping into a talented musicians shoes can't be easy.

But I would think that whatever band/project Brian Johnson is in he would be a terrible singer, even if he wasn't stepping into someone's shoes.

The only good thing about AC/DC is Angus.

have you heard `can you do it' by geordie? brian johnsons former band.. its amazing!

yeah bon scott era was better. but back in black album was pure class in my opinion...razors edge werent too bad either. i cant think of anyone around in 1980 who would have done a better job then him.

I was a big AC/DC fan in the Bon Scott era (saw them twice) and I have tried very hard to persevere with them under Brian Johnson, but I just don't like his voice. I'm not going to comment on his vocal prowess (or lack of it) - and, yes, I have heard him with his former band, Geordie ('All Because Of You' was quite a sizeable hit) and, yes, he sounded good. I just can't adjust to him as AC/DC's vocalist after Bon Scott. I've tried repeatedly - and AC/DC have done some good stuff with Johnson (I love the 'Thunderstruck' riff) but his vocals are way too harsh for me.

Incidentally, it was rumoured that AC/DC had already been working on Back In Black when Bon died and some of those songs were already started by Bon. Not sure how much truth there is in this, but many of the songs on that album do sound like Bon, especially the titles. If only..................................

Yeah, the thunderstruck riff is good but his voice just ruins it.

The same applies to back in black

Van Morrison rather gets on my tits, so to speak too. He is technically not a band, but I wish he would "split" [I believe that is the correct expression]. I can't see the attraction of his weak voice and old-fashioned, derivative material.

Originally posted by timo
Van Morrison rather gets on my tits, so to speak too. He is technically not a band, but I wish he would "split" [I believe that is the correct expression]. I can't see the attraction of his weak voice and old-fashioned, derivative material.

Old fashioned to whom? Surely music is intended for all ages, not just teenagers. Van Morrison is not my cup of tea either, but i do respect the tastes of those he does appeal to. Incidentally, I do like 'Have I Told You Lately' and 'Brown-Eyed Girl'.

Again not a band but 50 cent has to be one of the most over-rated 'artist' ever!

Originally posted by MTheo
To Andyman

It says nothing of my musical taste... i listen to marilyn manson, wilson phillips, rammstein, 2pac, jackson 5, wet wet wet, guns n roses, paul carrick...etc.. where did i say that i didnt like the artists i mentioned previously?? hmmm.. nowhere




Jeez, what a rant.

Obviously touched a nerve there.

Why post derogatory comments about them if you are such a BIG fan.

Grow up

Originally posted by timo
Van Morrison rather gets on my tits, so to speak too. He is technically not a band, but I wish he would "split" [I believe that is the correct expression]. I can't see the attraction of his weak voice and old-fashioned, derivative material.

His weak voice? Au contraire! Love him or hate him, Van Morrison has a big, powerful, soulful voice.

I agree he puts out far too many albums these days, some of which aren't that great. But his good stuff stands alongside virtually anything from the 60s/70s.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
The only good thing about AC/DC is Angus.

Well, speak to any rock guitarist and it's odds-on they will agree than Angus's bother Malcolm Young is one of the best rhythm guitarists in the world.

To hear just how good he is, listen to the version of Thunderstruck on the live double CD. When Malcolm starts playing and locks in behind Angus's lead on the intro, that's truly one the great moments in rock

Killian,
re my comments on Van Morrison-yes the phrase "old-fashioned" is inappropriate. Sorry, quality control was not working that day. I like all kinds of music too; Ambient, Classical, Jazz, Experimental, Rock, Soul etc. I just can't get the hang of Van Morrison. Is it me? Everyone else I know seems to adore him.I've never heard anything of his that I would want to hear again. Then again, lots of people can't see the point of Neil Young, and I could listen to the man all day.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
I meant the structure of all their songs, meaning nearly all their songs are mainly open chords based in a similar playing style to the beatles.

That is not strictly true. The Guitar TAB books you buy have the music in mainly open chords, but in reality they use a rhythm guitarist playing ONLY barred chords and Noel plays embelishments over that (which do use open voicings a lot of the time).

Oh sorry - was on abut Oasis above. Not one of the best bands of our time but the maine road gig was very good.

Originally posted by kilauea
That is not strictly true. The Guitar TAB books you buy have the music in mainly open chords, but in reality they use a rhythm guitarist playing ONLY barred chords and Noel plays embelishments over that (which do use open voicings a lot of the time).

You only have to watch how Bonehead played guitar to notice he was playing barre chords. He just slides his hand up and down the neck without hardly changing his finger positions.

andyman.....oh dear oh dear....what are you on? can you share it about coz your sky high mate.

'Why post derogatory comments about them if you are such a BIG fan. Grow up'

which was the derogartory comment i said? i think i missed it? bob dylan not being able to sing? something he admits himself?...listening to other peoples views is quite grown up. why dont you try that... i never said i was a BIG FAN...i said i liked them.....you just make this stuff up as you go along.

obvioulsy one of them people that luv to argue for the sake of it. well i cant be arsed now :0)

Mtheo, I am not a Dylan fan but I can see how many relate to his music. I suppose if you judge Dylan's voice from a classical perspective, then maybe he can't sing [you are right that he apparently has a low opinion of his own voice]. However, his "imperfect" voice is very characterful, and appeals to many on its own terms. For me, this is the case with Neil Young. Judged against a classical performer, the man can't cut it, but I don't know any classical singer who can sound as characterful and moving as Young at his best. The same goes for lots of rock musicians doesn't it? In technical terms Led Zep's late John Bonham could never compete with drummers like Bill Bruford, Billy Cobham etc, but his style sounds amazing in the context of tracks like, When the Levee Breaks, Kashmir etc.

During the later years of Led Zeppelin, Bonham was at his best, shame really. I personally think he was the best drummer ever known but that's just my opinion. RIP Bonzo!

Listen to 'Achilles Last Stand' if you want to hear some classic Bonzo drumming :thumbsup:

Ian,
yes, Bonham's later drumming is amazing, and Achilles Last Stand is one hell of a track. I personally like the boxed set better than the original albums . The cd version is great, especially the heaviest side with the latter track plus Kashmir etc. I canunderstand you regarding him as the world's best drummer. Of course, in technical terms, Bruford, Cobham, Jack DeJohnette, Elvin Jones, Lenny White etc are/were better, but NOBODY could play hard /heavy rock and blues style like Bonzo. He sounds like a force of nature on Achilles!

Some of those are Jazz drummers right?

Yeah they'll be underrated drummers probably because Jazz isn't a mainstream as it really should be.

How about some overrated drummers?

Guns and roses' drummer(s) were both terrible

Also I think that Ringo Starr is overrated. A case of being in the right place at the right time!

Over rated.... sigh... I personally think The Beatles suck and I can't quite comprehend why people STILL feel obliged to harp on about them. I'd be quite happy never to hear a mention of them again - they really were not that exceptional in my opinion.
Oasis - just a bunch of semi musical working class boys who made good with bad atittudes, a stereotypical students dream of bad behaviour peppered with good fortune.
Slim Shady/Eminem/ Marshall Mathers/ D52 for goodness sake, he's just a little boy who can't get over himself and loves to 'rebel' like a little boy and make other people rebel with him - he's a sad individual and its not like you can dance to it either. Someone ought to send him to his room to whine until he can mature.
The Streets... odd one, I enjoyed some of the album and I love Blinded By The Lights but realistically they sound like a band that manged to escape the confines of someones garage on Saturday afternoons and some pillock gave them a contract.
Marilyn Manson - see Slim Shady.
Franz Ferdinand - sigh!
Elvis Presley..... see The Beatles.
I appear to have less issues with female vocalists and bands.

Ian, the best two [Bruford and Cobham] are regarded as Jazz drummers now, but both have dabbled in "rock" of a kind. Bruford's pedigree includes Yes, Gong, National Health, Genesis and King Crimson as well as his jazz work with Earthworks. He is still involved with Robert Fripp's Crimson [which changes line-ups, and combinations regularly]. Fripp famously described Bruford as having the temperament of a Classical musician who played in rock bands, but who really wanted to play jazz. He was influenced above all others by Max Roach and Cobham, apparently. Cobham has played with loads of jazz heroes like Miles Davis etc, and has his own jazz ensemble. He too has dabbled in a kind of "rock" hybrid with John McLaughlin's Mahavishnu Orchestra in the 70s- incredible material with long, complicated melodies, off-beat time signatures, and virtuoso ensemble playing.
Re ****e drummers- yes, Ringo Starr was/is terrible. Apparently, when Lennon was asked if Ringo was the "best drummer in the world" by a journalist, he replied, "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles". Mick Fleetwood, or whatever the drummer in Fleetwood Mac is called is also ****e. So, in my humble view, was Keith Moon. I suppose the best drummers do go into jazz at some stage because of the greater creative possibilities. One under-rated drummer is Richard Bailey- worked with Brian Eno in recent times. I also wish Phil Collins would pack in singing and return to the kit- he was once [Brand X] a superb drummer.

Originally posted by timo
I also wish Phil Collins would pack in singing ...
That makes two of us.

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
That makes two of us.

Chris.

cant you seek consilation in the fact he dont bring many albums out:loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Originally posted by Zebra
Over rated.... sigh... I personally think The Beatles suck and I can't quite comprehend why people STILL feel obliged to harp on about them.

Perhaps you had to live through the 60's to appreciate what the Beatles were all about, which you obviously didn't. Makes your opinions pretty invalid I would say.

The Beatles suck. Yes, you definitely do not understand anything about the history of pop music, do you.

It's one persons view really Killian.

Even if he wasn't there in the 60s then he can still understand what the Beatles were about.

I seem to have kicked off the argument over the beatles again :(

Originally posted by ianmitchell

Even if he wasn't there in the 60s then he can still understand what the Beatles were about.

(

How, exactly? I grew up with the Beatles from day one. I fail to see how you can understand fully what the Beatles were about unless you lived throught those times. Looking back 40 years and making a judgment is not the same as being there at the time. I doubt if anyone who grew up with the Beatles would make the statement that they 'suck''.

In the same vein, my granfather told me that Al Jolson was the greatest entertainer ever. I have listened to his songs, seen the Larry Parks films, etc, and I'm afraid he doesn't do a lot for me. However, I am not going to make any rash judgements because I did not live in the 1930's and cannot possibly know what he meant to the entertainment world of that time.

Thats a fair point but you can judge the talent of a particular band from their music, not appreciating the affect they had on music.

I doubt anyone here is denying that the beatles had SOME effect on the music of the 60s.

(500th post, yeah baby! :partyhat:

Ian, I agree here re the Beatles. They are a band that have had so much praise heaped upon them, and they are seen as so important in terms of 20th Century popular culture/low art that it is difficult sometimes to listen to the music without all that baggage getting in the way. It is possible though to appreciate the cultural/ musical significance of an artist without actually enjoying the material. I.e, I can't stand the music of Elvis Presley, but I know how revolutionary and significant it was/is.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
It's one persons view really Killian.

(
Yes, I agree and anyone is perfectly entitled to say that any particular band/artists sucks as that, as you say, is merely their own opinion. However, to follow this up by adding that they do not understand why people are still harping on about them actually questions other people's judgements and opinions.

My vote (and hatred) goes to The Manic Street Preachers, the most overblown, up their own arse, holier than thou, ugly, un-inspired group of chuffs ever. No wonder the only talented one of them had to disappear off the face of the planet to disassociate himself from them. The wonderful track SYMM, otherwise known as South Yorkshire Mass Murderers, has a lovely ring to it don't you think. One to listen to over an evening meal. I havent gobbed on anyone since 1977, but I,d make an exception if I ever came across one of them in the street.

Originally posted by Riffler
My vote (and hatred) goes to The Manic Street Preachers, the most overblown, up their own arse, holier than thou, ugly, un-inspired group of chuffs ever. No wonder the only talented one of them had to disappear off the face of the planet to disassociate himself from them. The wonderful track SYMM, otherwise known as South Yorkshire Mass Murderers, has a lovely ring to it don't you think. One to listen to over an evening meal. I havent gobbed on anyone since 1977, but I,d make an exception if I ever came across one of them in the street.

I find mostly everyone overrated these days. I was brought up in a time when the Beatles created an entire culture - they influenced fashion, trends, music, everything, and they were popular with all age groups. The days of artists having 10 plus years in the limelight is long gone. These days the music industry thrives on 'throwaway' artists (like the Manic Street preachers) who everyone raves about one day and then have disappeared the next.

Originally posted by Killian
I find mostly everyone overrated these days. I was brought up in a time when the Beatles created an entire culture - they influenced fashion, trends, music, everything, and they were popular with all age groups. The days of artists having 10 plus years in the limelight is long gone. These days the music industry thrives on 'throwaway' artists (like the Manic Street preachers) who everyone raves about one day and then have disappeared the next.

that is true but other than The Beatles Killian there are surely other bands that have gained your approval! Would you care to name some?

You seem quite a hard nut to crack!

Come on, I got over the Beatles a long time ago. I still remember what they meant to everyone in the 60's though, so I just thought I'd make a point.

Well, don't ask me about today's music as I don't think the music industry caters for my generation anymore - hence all these oldie 'best of' compilation albums which they keep trotting out as some sort of apologetic excuse for leaving us out. I'm a bit of a guitar fan, so I still listen to Joe Satriani and Steve Vai (and I bet you're saying Joe who and Steve who, aren't you?). And yes, I bet someone thinks they are overrated. :P

Originally posted by ianmitchell
that is true but other than The Beatles Killian there are surely other bands that have gained your approval! Would you care to name some?

You seem quite a hard nut to crack!

By "hard nut to crack", are you saying that Killian should come around to your way of thinking and admit that the Beatles were over rated after all? Dream on!

Without the Beatles, there would be very little pop/rock music as we know it today, including your beloved Zeppelin.

Lest we forget, the Yardbirds were devotees of the Beatles and look what happened to them.

As Killian says, unless you grew up in the 60s, it's all too easy to dismiss the Beatles as over rated, simplistic and passé now (after all, the Sgt Pepper LP was recorded on equipment that modern bands wouldn't even use to make their demos these days).

However, the Beatles created the definitive blueprint for guitar based rock music and it's probably not an over exaggeration to say that virtually all white (and quite a lot of black) music that came after owes them a huge debt.

You may not like the Beatles' music, but only a fool would say they are over rated.

Thanks for that Mojo. I knew what I was trying to say but, once again, you put it much better than I could.

Incidentally, Ian, I was also heavily into Hendrix, Cream and Zeppelin in the 60's. I'm sure many would say Cream and Zeppelin are overrated, but Hendrix - never!!

Originally posted by mojoworking
By "hard nut to crack", are you saying that Killian should come around to your way of thinking and admit that the Beatles were over rated after all? Dream on!

Without the Beatles, there would be very little pop/rock music as we know it today, including your beloved Zeppelin.

Lest we forget, the Yardbirds were devotees of the Beatles and look what happened to them.

As Killian says, unless you grew up in the 60s, it's all too easy to dismiss the Beatles as over rated, simplistic and passé now (after all, the Sgt Pepper LP was recorded on equipment that modern bands wouldn't even use to make their demos these days).

However, the Beatles created the definitive blueprint for guitar based rock music and it's probably not an over exaggeration to say that virtually all white (and quite a lot of black) music that came after owes them a huge debt.

You may not like the Beatles' music, but only a fool would say they are over rated.

I never said the beatles were over rated! I just don't think that they're the best band ever though as people make them out to be!

I grew up listening to the beatles, even though I'm a young 'un (17), because my parents are huge fans. I'm not putting down the beatles at all, they're in my top 3 bands but they're not the best!

Originally posted by Killian
Come on, I got over the Beatles a long time ago. I still remember what they meant to everyone in the 60's though, so I just thought I'd make a point.

Well, don't ask me about today's music as I don't think the music industry caters for my generation anymore - hence all these oldie 'best of' compilation albums which they keep trotting out as some sort of apologetic excuse for leaving us out. I'm a bit of a guitar fan, so I still listen to Joe Satriani and Steve Vai (and I bet you're saying Joe who and Steve who, aren't you?). And yes, I bet someone thinks they are overrated. :P

I've heard of Joe Satriani and Steve Vai, very talented guitarists.

Originally posted by Killian
Thanks for that Mojo. I knew what I was trying to say but, once again, you put it much better than I could.

Incidentally, Ian, I was also heavily into Hendrix, Cream and Zeppelin in the 60's. I'm sure many would say Cream and Zeppelin are overrated, but Hendrix - never!!

:o Cream, Hendrix Experience (or Band of Gypsies) and Led Zeppelin are brilliant, all three of them had some of them had the best guitarists ever! (Clapton, Hendrix and Page respectively)

I couldn't understand anyone saying they were over rated. You just have to listen to 'White Room', 'Voodoo Chile' and 'Since I've Been Loving You' to understand the genius of those three.

I can't really understand anyone saying the beatles were over rated but I can understand people not liking them.

Saying a band is over rated and disliking them are different things...

The Beatles were certainly the most influential band ever, and they constantly changed and progressed in musical terms to move with the times, but then the same can be said for someone like Madonna.

I doubt if anyone can be classed as best band ever as musical techniques have improved over the years just like things have progressed in every other field of human endeavour. Saying Hendrix was the greatest guitarist ever would be admitting that guitar playing has not advanced at all in 30-odd years, which is simply not true. Steve Vai is, without doubt, the greatest rock guitarist of all time, but he is not to everyone's liking. He can be labourious and self-indulgent and probably his best work came when he played with bands such as Whitesnake and Dave Lee Roth. However, recognising someone's obvious musical and technical ability does not mean they are the 'best' to everyone's individual taste.

Having grown up with the Beatles I have to say that nobody but nobody could touch them.
They started off rough at the edges similar to new wave groups but as the weeks evolved they started to grow into a monster.Lennon and Mccartney both possessed two strong voices of which Mcartney had an unusual wide range.They started to incorporate three part harmony which up till then was the mainstay of American groups.Harrisons guitaring was vibrant and it became a solid part of the sound ,although not the best guitarist he certainly left his mark.Mccartney started to break away from the usual excepted form of twelve bar bass riff and provided more intricate bass patterns.
But the strongest part of the group was of course the songwriting of Lennon/Mccartney.Most artists who have a hit record try to emulate that hit with another record that sounded very similar to it to try to ensure another hit.This is where they scored highest ,every new record they released sounded different to the previous so they definitely didn't play it safe.To have a songwriter in a group was a definite plus but to have two as strong as Lennon/Mccartney and latterly Harrison made them untouchable.When they released an album the world waited with baited breath of the new sounds they contained and that included the other top groups who invariably (and who could blame them?)copied them.
They had magic creative dust sprinkled liberally over them and I, looking back I'm glad they didn't stretch it out like the Stones have as I feel the tremendously high standards they set themselves would in time have started to wane.
I saw Mccartney at the Arena last year he was brilliant.I saw him on T.V. at Glastenbury this year and for the first time I thought he was off key, he's been at it nearly fifty years---perhaps the magic dust has finally gone.......Sad loss...

Originally posted by Killian
Perhaps you had to live through the 60's to appreciate what the Beatles were all about, which you obviously didn't. Makes your opinions pretty invalid I would say.

The Beatles suck. Yes, you definitely do not understand anything about the history of pop music, do you.


Hmmmmm that really p*ssed me off.
I have an opinion, therefore it IS valid. Trust me, it is a considered opinion.
I read the bible before I dismissed it as something I have belief in but I don't feel the need to have a pop at my grandparents for being very religious.
Since I have worked in more than one capacity in the music industry I would say I have a more valid opinion than a lot of people.
I don't give a damn about the historical reference of The Beatles - I just said they are overrated - get a grip wouldya!
So, in future, before you get on your high horse and tell me that my thoughts and opinions are invalid - check it out. I'm a human being I AM VALID and you are a smug ******!

QUOTE:
Yes, I agree and anyone is perfectly entitled to say that any particular band/artists sucks as that, as you say, is merely their own opinion. However, to follow this up by adding that they do not understand why people are still harping on about them actually questions other people's judgements and opinions.

Ding wrong again - I can say I don't understand it and mean quite simply I . do. not. understand.
It does not say I think people who like The Beatles are in poor taste/judgemental/stupid/narrowminded/rude etc
Although at the moment you are proving to be all the above.
Whether I lived through the 60's or not is irrelevent, I have listened to their music, I dislike it and I cannot comprehend why other people harp on about it.
Perhaps you have issues relating to your defensive postures about The Beatles, I can recommend a counsellor ;)

Dizzee Rascal - ok, not a band, but someone i'm sick to the death of hearing of, he/she/they are just absolutely awful.

The Streets - nasty chav connotations mar some decent tracks

Anything played on MTV Base that aims to 'biggup da pimp' image

The Darkness - not a bad band at all, just very overhyped

Oasis - I like their stuff but it aint exactly groundbreaking now is it?

Michael Jackson - a truely talented singer/dancer whose career has been conveniently boosted by various court cases and the colour change thing.

The Libertines - clung to celebrity status thanks to a wayward and drug-abusing (now former) band member. Not bad stuff though, but not great either.

Rage Against the Machine - I dunno what they stand for/against, because their music is barely legible. 'Wake Up' is the only track I can stand. The rest of em are pure sh*te!

Thank you for your kind words Zebra. Given the fact that you claim to have worked in the music industry and also your maturity in years I will admit that you are obviously correct and I am not. I'll stick to things I know more about in future.

Perhaps I would have agreed with you sooner if you had elaborated or offered a little more constructive criticism (as others have on here) rather than merely say the Beatles 'suck', which doesn't exactly mean anything, does it?

Thanks for your generous, and obviously well meant offer of a councellor. Much appreciated, but I already have one, thank you.

However, after reading through your well-versed post I am sure you will not take it the wrong way if I suggest a course of vallium. Please don't take offence as it is meant in the nicest possible way.

how about elton john can anyone say hes done a good album since 1974 and how many really good singles would you say hes had id struggle to name 5:loopy: :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

WHOOAAA Mr Zebra don't blow a fuse let's just agree to differ over the Beatles
So heres my parting words and I promise not to reply to this theme(but I bet you will)
I believe the Beatles songwriting team evolved over the years to rise up out of the pop bubble and rank alongside the likes of the Gershwins,Cole Porter and even W.A. Mozart of course only history will tell 50 years from now.
Now I'm not fond of listening to Mr Mozart as music is a personal preference but I would be the first one to admit that lad had a great musical talent and certainly wasn't overrated. I think you are getting your personal preferences mixed up with musical talent .

Meatloaf, what a load of *.

Killian - nice touch with your reply. Duly noted and agreed. ;)
Valium :D sometimes I'm almost tempted!

Fuddyduddy - yep, have to reply I'm afraid. I see your point about how it could be misconstrued about personal taste etc, I will think it over further. However, I've listened to some classical music, some works for me some doesn't, I can see how people are comparably talented though.
I've managed/marketed two bands, one of reasonable talent etc who did well before splitting up and one who were... probably better off sticking to the day jobs. I've also worked as a DJ in Sheffield and as a cruise ship entertainer/compere/DJ etc and within promotions and marketing for students including music.
I have my personal taste and I can generally see what appeals to others - my only problem is in some cases I can't see WHY it appeals.
Eminem I cannot stand but I see that it appeals to people of a certain age, some with rebellion issues and some with developing personalities. It has a beat with affects the nervous system and becomes likeable and is at times a social commentary which interests people for various reasons.
The Beatles - nope don't get it. Although I would be content for someone to explain their personal reasons why. Though I might not identify with it.
Therefore, it may be rash to say they suck - in my opinion they do and I cannot understand the constant interest.
I'm happy to agree to differ, I like bands which some people laugh about now but I still like their music. Each to their own.

Originally posted by Zebra
Killian - nice touch with your reply. Duly noted and agreed. ;)
Valium :D sometimes I'm almost tempted!


The Beatles - nope don't get it. Although I would be content for someone to explain their personal reasons why. Though I might not identify with it.
Therefore, it may be rash to say they suck - in my opinion they do and I cannot understand the constant interest.
I

Why, thank you. You see, a laugh and a joke and a bit of well-placed sarcasm is much better than all that aggro.

About the Beatles - all I can say is this. I remember joining the queue at the record shop in 1967 to buy Sargeant Peppers when it was first released and as soon as I heard it, I thought 'WOW!'. When I listen to it now, I think 'What was all the fuss about?' You see what I mean? Looking back almost 40 years and listening to Beatles music now is a whole lot different than it was at the time. Hence the reason I said you had to be there. Beatles music probably sounds completely dated to people nowadays, but it was so much different to us back in the 60's.

Despite this, I still feel Beatles music will be played, listened to and enjoyed in another 40 years time, but I would bet my life's savings (not that I have any, mind you) that none of today's music will.

Completely agree with you about Enimem. What is that load of crap all about, eh? And have you ever heard anything by Rancid?............................

Well obviously I have heard 'stuff' by Rancid - don't know if many others will have tho'!

Anyhow, whats your point? I know they're not to everyones taste - my mum (who is probably around your age Killian) doesn't like them, she 'doesn't get it' but seeing as she prefers Daniel O Donnell and Michael Bolton I'd be surprised if she did!!

Rancid are ok, they're not really overrated also.

Their most recent album is terrible though.....

I thought 'Indestructible' was a very good album. Granted it's not the most immediately accessible collection of tracks, but I prefer albums that aren't - that way you don't get fed up of the after a week!!

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Well obviously I have heard 'stuff' by Rancid - don't know if many others will have tho'!

Anyhow, whats your point? I know they're not to everyones taste - my mum (who is probably around your age Killian) doesn't like them, she 'doesn't get it' but seeing as she prefers Daniel O Donnell and Michael Bolton I'd be surprised if she did!!

I wasn't making any point. My post was in reply to Zebra, so I'm not exactly sure why you took it so personally.

At this rate there won't be enough valium to go round.

Daniel o'Donnel? What band's he in then??

I didn't take it personally Killian, I just assumed there must be a point to picking Rancid - as they seem a pretty obscure band to juxtapose in comparison to Eminem as they bear no relationship whatsoever.....

Originally posted by Rubysoho
Well obviously I have heard 'stuff' by Rancid...................... I didn't take it personally Killian


Sorry, I misinterpreted your use of the word 'I' as being personal to you. As I've said, my post was clearly a reply to Zebra. I didn't ask if YOU had heard stuff by Rancid.

Originally posted by Rubysoho
, I just assumed there must be a point to picking Rancid - as they seem a pretty obscure band to juxtapose in comparison to Eminem as they bear no relationship whatsoever.....

You asumed wrongly. There was no point, no point at all. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make, if you get my meaning?

I do apologise most sincerely for answering a question you posed to Zebra, given that it was posted in an open forum section rather than in a Private Message its usually the case that anyone can answer.

My mistake, I apologise!

Originally posted by Rubysoho
I do apologise most sincerely for answering a question you posed to Zebra, given that it was posted in an open forum section rather than in a Private Message its usually the case that anyone can answer.

My mistake, I apologise!

No need to apologise. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to reply. However, the manner of your post 'Well obviously I have heard of stuff by Rancid' indicates that you were replying directly to something I had posted to you. If you leave out the word 'obviously', the sentence immediately becomes more general.

Anyway, on a scale of 1-10 this rates a minus in importance. As I've said, the whole discussion is pretty pointless. I doubt if anyone really cares what either of us think of Rancid. Time to move on, I think.

Incidentally, what are your views on NOFX? (only joking :D ) That 'Eating Lamb' album cover is definitely not overrated :D :D :D (and you thought I was an old fuddy duddy!!)

Originally posted by Killian
I find mostly everyone overrated these days. I was brought up in a time when the Beatles created an entire culture - they influenced fashion, trends, music, everything, and they were popular with all age groups. The days of artists having 10 plus years in the limelight is long gone. These days the music industry thrives on 'throwaway' artists (like the Manic Street preachers) who everyone raves about one day and then have disappeared the next.

I hate to say it but the Manics have just celebrated 10 years of recording! And while I will admit there last couple albums have been crap, I do like the sound of their new album and Nicky Wire comes across as a really nice genuine guy (unlike J.D.Bradfield he is clearly a ******!)

My overated award must go to any prog rock band. They influenced nothing.

Originally posted by kilauea

My overated award must go to any prog rock band. They influenced nothing.

In the early days of rock, it was called underground rock, or progressive rock. Cream were labeled 'progressive/underground rock' (along with the likes of Ten Years After) and I should think Cream influenced quite a few people.

I guess, by progressive rock, you mean the 70's type concept bands?

Originally posted by Killian
In the early days of rock, it was called underground rock, or progressive rock. Cream were labeled 'progressive/underground rock' (along with the likes of Ten Years After) and I should think Cream influenced quite a few people.

I guess, by progressive rock, you mean the 70's type concept bands?

rock

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Originally posted by kirky
rock

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

what exactly is funny aboot rock?

Originally posted by Killian
In the early days of rock, it was called underground rock, or progressive rock. Cream were labeled 'progressive/underground rock' (along with the likes of Ten Years After) and I should think Cream influenced quite a few people.

I guess, by progressive rock, you mean the 70's type concept bands?

I wasn't around in the 60's but I only ever heard cream referred to as blues rock and from the tracks I hear that sounds about right. So it appears time has correctly pidgeon holded them!

Yes, 70's god awful concept album rock about pixies or space travel. I can not hear any trace of that drivel in any modern music and I am glad!

I think the comments about none of todays music being played in 40's years time are a bit short sighted though. It would be the first decade ever to be deleted from musical history. And to be honest I'm listening to some great stuff right now....

Originally posted by kilauea
I wasn't around in the 60's but I only ever heard cream referred to as blues rock and from the tracks I hear that sounds about right. So it appears time has correctly pidgeon holded them!



This sounds about right. I don't think the gerneral music industry fully understood the likes of Cream. Naturally it is blues rock but, in those days, the record shops i frequented had seperate sections for bands like Cream under 'Underground Music'. I suppose it was their way to create something new and exciting. My mum used to say to all my relatives 'No use asking Judy about the pop charts, she's into that underground music'. Mind you, Leonard Cohen was in the underground section as well, so I'm not really sure what the term was supposed to actually mean.

Originally posted by Riffler
Manic Street Preachers [...] No wonder the only talented one of them had to disappear off the face of the planet to disassociate himself from them.
Richey was not the talented one. He couldn't play an instrument and spent his whole musical career sulking and cutting himself. He was just as crap as the rest of them. The Manics with Richey were interesting; average but still interesting. Without him they're just dull.

Chris.

BTW, it's MS Zebra to you LMAO.
Yep I am a ladeeee!

[i] I also wish Phil Collins would pack in singing and return to the kit- he was once a superb drummer.

Couldn't agree more.

You only have to listen to Brand X's "Livestock" for proof. Timo, in particular I find "ish" to be a perfect example of Collins' "touch" on the drums. Bugger could sing while he plays too... no easy feat.

I agree that Bonham is excellent for the style he plays...the syncopation...he was ahead of his time in "Rock" drumming. But all the drummers Timo mentions could "with ease" if they so chose, do what Bonham did. Again, not taking away from Bonham, I love his drumming.

Once saw Bruford at Sheffield Uni with UK - he was awesome, all over the place with the "frame" and everything.
An album that shows his intricate, yet simple beauty (outside of the quasi-experimental) stuff he did with Crimson, National health (Dave Stewart said he was the only drummer they could find at the time that could play his intricately written time signatures - all others that tried out were complete failures), et al, is his solo effort "One of a kind". Check it out.

Billy Cobham leaves me speechless. The speed and effortlessness of his playing can be heard on albums such as "Crosswinds", "Spectrum", or check out "Shabazz" a "live" album. Rhythms within rhythms, time signatures within time signatures...unbelievable.

Lenny White... "Romantic Warrior"... nuff said.

Only drummer I would mention that Timo did not is Steve Gadd...a well known session drummer... played alot with Chick Corea in the 70's/ 80's... still going strong.

These drummers could play anything out there, other drummers could NOT play what these guys play.

Good times.

Originally posted by ianmitchell
Heya all

The Smiths

Gotta defend the Smiths. They are quintessentially English.

Look at the terraced houses, the victorian architecture, the rain...your paycheck if you're making one...(and how miserable are you if you are making one? ;-) ), the rain, other things too controversial for me to mention on this board, erm...the rain...

The Smiths are awesome...their time may have passed though, for "new" people.

I agree love the smiths and morrisey is still putting out good albums.
Did feel a little bit cheated when I got into kitchen sink drama's and heard loads of his lyrics in them though!
Still as you say, paints a great picture of provincial england. And Johnny Marr's playing was amazing. Very different at the time too.

Originally posted by gettingon
The Smiths are awesome...their time may have passed though, for "new" people.

lol thanks a lot.... "new" people!

So as I'm a new person I can't have an opinion on the smiths

Originally posted by ianmitchell
lol thanks a lot.... "new" people!

So as I'm a new person I can't have an opinion on the smiths

I hesitate to put words in gettingon's mouth, but I think what he/she means by "new" is that for people hearing the Smiths now for the first time it may be difficult to see why they were so big 20 years ago

Ahh I see, my misunderstanding :blush: :lol:

It was too early in the morning to post :P

Originally posted by ianmitchell
lol thanks a lot.... "new" people!

So as I'm a new person I can't have an opinion on the smiths

It's not so bad - better than being an "old" people eh? :-)

Absolutely you're entitled to an opinion, would never deny anybody that - I guess I'm admitting that maybe listening to early 80's Smiths for the first time in 2004,...well,...could be considered slightly out of context now, (or maybe not).

England is constantly changing and moving forward.

One thing I personally feel most "new" people miss with the Smiths, (an opinion), is the fact that they are very, very funny.

Very funny, while also being very close to the bone.

"heaven Knows I'm Miserable now"
"William it was really nothing"
"Girl afraid"

Kilauea mentions Marr's guitar work - agreed, "Girl Afraid" is exquisite in this respect.

[i]

The Smiths are awesome...their time may have passed though, for "new" people. [/B]

Completley disagree....theres loadsa indie nights (no, not the indie by numbers drivel peddled out by the leadmill et al etc.) around the country playing really good new diy records,,...and loadsa new young kids are into it...and they all love the smiths.

They may not fit with what's fashionable, but the kids with a better ear for music and who listen to more than what the bloody NME tell them to still see their music as relevant.

I'm what you would class as a "young un" and I don't really follow the fashionable bands at all.

Anyyyway another overrated band is Linkin Park.

The overrated Queen beat Led Zeppelin in the 70s Hall of Fame :(

I'm depressed now....

Not THE MOST overrated band in history but what is it with Maroon 5?

They are pretty non offensive in a sort of background middle of the road dull tuneless pop way, but I seriously hope that noone thinks that they have any musical merit whatsoever!

I can't believe people can say Queen are overated. They were amazing. Freddie (RIP) was the most amazing front man and Brian is a god on the guitar.

As for the Darkness, they are overated purely for the fact that everyone raves on about them for being the best thing since sliced bread and it's trendy to like them. Well, it's all been done before and been done better. Just listen to some of the old glam, cock rock and listen to Queen. The darkness are a fun talented band but not original and well and truely overated. They have a limited shelf life so good luck to them. It does rather annoy me at how much queen stuff they have ripped off though. The only good thing to come out of it, I hope is that perhaps it will get some kids into proper good rock music, if they actually go out and buy some old stuff.

As for Nirvana, I loved them, but way to overated. There were far better grunge bands around at the time, who did much better music. Nirvana were just the ones to become commercially acceptable and following the death of Kurt, something to talk about and overate.

Beautiful south are overrated in my opinion. When they were on Jules holland I was thinking, why are they playing those unfinished songs, are they going to come back and play them again when they've finished them? And once or twice ooh there's a mistake.

Although I once listened to a quiet riot CD (QRIII) and the keyboard parts sounded horribly out of tune all the way through.

I think Fatboy slim is overrated. his stuff sounds to me like an amplified water geyser springing a leek. He should stick to playing bass, that freak power stuff was much better.

Jamie Cullum is overrated. Pretending to be jazz, but not jazz enough. Looks like he wants a slap. People who want to listen to stuff like this should listen to people like Harry Connick Jr. He's a real class performer.

Robbie williams. Can't sing all that well, but he does have some star quality. I'm sure if he wasn't constantly on the front of magazines with his supposd personal problems people would have forgotton about him years ago. Robbie sings frank ? The most ridiculous mis match and embarrasment I have ever had the misfortune to hear.

Madonna. Who does she think she is? I have never enjoyed a single song she ever did, although I recognise that some of the early ones were good but not to my taste, especially Holiday and Papa don't preach, Good songs, not my taste.

B52s they were just annoying. With that dirty old man and that Kate whatshername bellowing all the time.

Cilla Black has the most horrible voice I've ever heard. I think the beatles were having a laugh when they gave her an audition.

Pink Floyd have to top this one, also I agree that Maroon 5 are pants....also teeny crap like busted, mcfly etc...

I also agree that the Beatles were overrated, only because they had Paul McCartney who brings the music busness to shame with his poor songs and arrogant attitude.

Musical youth complete plonkers

The previous poster singles out Pink Floyd. Do you mean overrated in terms of content, or in terms of importance/ influence in the scheme of things? I have all their albums, but only ever play material from 67 - to 71 [Piper to Meddle albums]. To be honest, I find everything after Meddle too depressing to listen too. I have no time for miserable, pessimistic music like that in my life. I find the introspective, often rather self-pitying , semi-autobiographical lyrics of Roger Waters a distinct turn -off. The guy holds court on madness, misery, the human condition etc at the level of GCSE Psychology, in that whinging voice of his. No thanks. I prefer the earlier material like Echoes, Saucer full of Secrets etc. The last albums Floyd did [the "live" one with the flashing bulb, the name of which eludes me, and the studio one, Division Bell] aren't up to much, with Gilmore's voice almost packing in at some points. Apparently, there are "no plans" to record new material. Let it lie, lads.
Re the Floyd's influence upon popular music; that is incalculable. I will always smile fondly at the mentiion of the early Floyd because of their innovative use of light/ film in their 60s shows, and the use of lengthy improvisations influenced by free jazz [Interstellar Overdrive], and tape/noise [best seen on Ummagumma] influenced by Cage, Stockhausen etc. They were not the only band doing interesting things and making hybrid musics at the time [Can, Velvet Underground, Zappa, Beefheart, Beatles' White album and Pepper, Hendrix, Soft Machine etc], but I think they pulled it off the most successfully in terms of record sales and ultimate influence.
So, overall, their place in popular culture is assured, but [obviously this is highly subjective] their output is very variable. After Dark Side, they seem to stop experimenting and settle into that familiar pattern of slow, four-footed rhythms and dirge-like, pessimistic songs about this "vale of tears" we call life. With their money, I'm sure I'd find happier songs to sing...

I think the problem is how do you define overated. For some people this is purely popular bands that they don't like the music of. If you are really into a band you wouldn't admit they were overated.
For me, the term overated has nothing to do with whether I actually like the music or not. I would define something as overated when a band it hyped and hyped as being the best thing ever and their music is groundbreaking, when in actual fact they are not original at all but just rehashing something that's been done before.
e.g. I would say Oasis was overated because I don't think they are at all innotative or original. I would also class the darkness as overated in the same vain.


Elvis, don't like his music particularly but would not call him overated because at the time he did a lot to bridge the gap between rock n roll and blues and made 'fuddy duddy old peoples music' interesting to young people.

I think people bring personal tastes into the age old question of is something overated.

Now, as for underated, I could give you a big long list!

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Wading in about the Beatles, they've been highly influential but it is possible to see someone as overrated whilst they are influential.

There is something called the 'halo effect' in which the good traits of someone or a group are allowed to overwhelm any weaknesses that the person or group may manifest. For example, someone may be an excellent actor but might be terribly cruel to his wife. Fans of the actor, when the information about the wife comes out, may try and excuse their hero by drawing on the brilliance of his acting, etc.

Anyway.....

The Beatles put together a reasonable string of work between 1963 and 1969 as an entity. Lennon and Macartney contributed more after the demise of the band, the other two members less so. They were influential on a wide range of bands in the UK, considerably fewer in the US and Europe. The songs that L & M put together were good, solid, well written and occasionally totally briliiant pieces of music, particularly from Revolver onwards.

If you look at the body of work that, to me, is the best Beatles stuff - Revolver, Sergeant Pepper, The White Album and Abbey Road and Let It Be - then you have some highly influential pieces in there - A Day in the Life, Eleanor Rigby, etc. However, there's little there that has actually spawned a genre of music - everything the Beatles did was being done by other bands concurrently with what they were doing.

For example - Sergeant Pepper was mirrored by the abortive 'Smile' (only just released) by the Beach Boys.

The 'trippy' songs like 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' and 'Tomorrow never knows' were matched by any number of psychedelic songs from people like Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane, etc.

While the Beatles were undoubtedly influential, the DEGREE of their influence down to the present is less clear. The early to mid 1970s - immediately after the Beatles - was full of progressive rock and general 'rock' and soft rock bands like Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Peter Frampton, Kansas, CSNY, ELO, Slade, Mud, Status Quo and any number of soul, pop and whatever else bands - none really showing a vast influence from the Beatles.

Name people directly influences by the Beatles today and you come up with Oasis. Name people who've been directly influenced by, for example, the Velvet Underground, Ne York Dolls, MC5 and you can trace all sorts of bands.

So - influential, undoubtedly. But perhaps as time goes by the longer term impact of the Beatles will diminish.

Joe

I agree with a lot of this but with one big exception: Electric Light Orchestra.

Jeff Lynne's clever mix of rock music and orchestral music was a direct product of the Beatles, from their material after 1966.His production is quite Beatley too.

It's worth noting that Jeff Lynne not only produced the Beatles comeback single Free As A Bird, but also produced albums by Paul and George, the latter on whose Beatles tribute song When We Was Fab (from his 1987 Cloud Nine) he managed to reproduce Ringo's Pepper era tom sound on the drum track.

I also disagree with your final comment. I think a large number of groups from the sixties and seventies, Beatles, Led Zep, Beach Boys, Abba, Bee Gees etc, will only further their status as all time influential groups whereas anything presently in the charts will fly away like candy-floss, which is what it is!

Nirvana is not overrated...they are underrated.
People think that their best album was Nevermind, which I agree is overrated. The band also disliked the album.
The other albums though, are far underrated!!!!

Originally posted by timo
The previous poster singles out Pink Floyd. Do you mean overrated in terms of content, or in terms of importance/ influence in the scheme of things? I have all their albums, but only ever play material from 67 - to 71 [Piper to Meddle albums]. To be honest, I find everything after Meddle too depressing to listen too. I have no time for miserable, pessimistic music like that in my life. I find the introspective, often rather self-pitying , semi-autobiographical lyrics of Roger Waters a distinct turn -off. The guy holds court on madness, misery, the human condition etc at the level of GCSE Psychology, in that whinging voice of his. No thanks. I prefer the earlier material like Echoes, Saucer full of Secrets etc. The last albums Floyd did [the "live" one with the flashing bulb, the name of which eludes me, and the studio one, Division Bell] aren't up to much, with Gilmore's voice almost packing in at some points. Apparently, there are "no plans" to record new material. Let it lie, lads.
Re the Floyd's influence upon popular music; that is incalculable. I will always smile fondly at the mentiion of the early Floyd because of their innovative use of light/ film in their 60s shows, and the use of lengthy improvisations influenced by free jazz [Interstellar Overdrive], and tape/noise [best seen on Ummagumma] influenced by Cage, Stockhausen etc. They were not the only band doing interesting things and making hybrid musics at the time [Can, Velvet Underground, Zappa, Beefheart, Beatles' White album and Pepper, Hendrix, Soft Machine etc], but I think they pulled it off the most successfully in terms of record sales and ultimate influence.
So, overall, their place in popular culture is assured, but [obviously this is highly subjective] their output is very variable. After Dark Side, they seem to stop experimenting and settle into that familiar pattern of slow, four-footed rhythms and dirge-like, pessimistic songs about this "vale of tears" we call life. With their money, I'm sure I'd find happier songs to sing...

I agree Timo. Piper at the Gates of Dawn is a great album. The Sid Barrett Floyd were brilliant. The irony is that PF in my opinion got worse as they got more famous and made more money - the same was true of the Stones.

Oasis are over-rated. They are mediocre middle of the road ordinary in my opinion. Perfectly 'listenable' but no big deal!

Originally posted by Lorenza20
Nirvana is not overrated...they are underrated.
People think that their best album was Nevermind, which I agree is overrated. The band also disliked the album.
The other albums though, are far underrated!!!!

I must disagree. Nevermind was one of the better grunge albums it's true, but if Cobain hadn't bought the farm so spectacularly, Nirvana would have faded out long ago. Overall their songs aren't nearly as strong as, say, Soundgarden and look how quickly they fell out of favour.

It's the old dead rock star syndrome at work, isn't it. Die young (and preferably violently) and instant immortality is attained. The star in question is then elevated to the ranks of the greats whether they deserve it or not. Human nature being what it is, we revere fallen idols because they will never make a bad album and get fat and bald during the slow decline into undignified old age.

They are frozen in time (and in our memories) and will remain perfect for all eternity (just like James Dean). You know it's true.

Lord Chaverley,
Glad you agree re the Syd Barrett-era Floyd. To be honest, I don't remember posting the previous in December, but it is definately mine. Re Floyd today, as I said on a thread last week, there is really no point in viewing them as an active musical force. As a musical unit, their last studio work was eleven years ago ['Division Bell'], they don't 'gig', and they apparently have no plans to work together in the future. Mind you, when do you pronounce an artist or artists 'creatively dead'? Sibelius wrote seven great symphonies, and assorted other works, only to remain entirely 'silent' for the last 25 years of his musical life. His works were obviously still performed, he just didn't compose any new material.

I have always thought that 'Dark Side of the Moon' effectively put the brakes on Floyd. The huge success of that album, its continuing success, seemed to make them lazier than they were. I remember Waters saying that 'What was the point?' after 'Dark Side'; they had effectively achieved their ultimate ambitions, creatively and success-wise. Don't hold your breath for the next album....

The most overrated pop star ever must be Elvis.Nice voice very mediocre guitar player, no musical talent whatsoever , Did he actually write any of his records. plus an often abyssmal chopice of material.
Rock and Roll !!!.
A a mediocre lounge singer at best

Originally posted by cobaltblue
Oasis are over-rated. They are mediocre middle of the road ordinary in my opinion.

agreed

I'd say most chart acts are over-rated.

They just don't do enough drugs...

Actually, I reckon S Club 7 were on acid. Probably.

I can't believe that U2 haven't been mentioned. Their first 3 albums Boy, October and War (when they were relatively unknown) were quite good, but I can't think of anything after that was any good.

U2 - overrated. Bono is now officially God, and you don't get rated much higher than that.

But AFAIK the only band in recent history to be officially overrated is Milli Vanilli who had to return their grammy when it emerged that they hadn't actually sung on the record and all theor live performances were mimed...

I never heard anything by U2 that i wanted to hear again. I have never understood their appeal.

A friend of mine used to work for Brian Eno's old Opal company/label. She told me that it took absolutely ages for Eno to agree to work with U2. Apparently, he was extremely reluctant to work with and produce them, viewing their material as banal and uninspiring. I agree. Like Lord Chaverley, I am baffled by their success and appeal. As Ian McCulloch once said, they make, 'Music for Plumbers'. Although, my plumber tends to have better musical taste[loves Duke Ellington].

Originally posted by PerlOfWisdom
I can't believe that U2 haven't been mentioned. Their first 3 albums Boy, October and War (when they were relatively unknown) were quite good, but I can't think of anything after that was any good.

Joshua Tree was a cracking album.

Yes, Bono can't sing for toffee, but the guitar bits are excellent :thumbsup:

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I never heard anything by U2 that i wanted to hear again. I have never understood their appeal.

Fair play, there is a least one decent U2 track. I refer to When Love Comes To Town, their collaboration with the great B.B. King.

Mind you, it was only a decent track because of B.B.King.

U2 are bland beyond belief and their huge popularity exemplifies perfectly mainstream rock/pop music's steady decline into mind-numbing mush over the last couple of decades

Rolling Stones - A few good toe tappers but their continued following, success and existence is baffling.

...oh yes U2 as well...they get paid for what they do? Go figure.

Radio 1 have just hyped up the new single by Oasis and it sounded like all the other's!!

Originally posted by Morte
Rolling Stones - A few good toe tappers but their continued following, success and existence is baffling.

...oh yes U2 as well...they get paid for what they do? Go figure.

I would agree that the Stones have not made a really good album since 1975 (Some Girls), but that does not mean they are overrated.

For 12 years between 1963 and 1975 the Stones recorded some of the best albums ever made and they virtually re-wrote the rule book on how rock music should look and sound.

Along with the Yardbirds and a few other British bands, They brought black music (blues and R&B) into the pop mainstream and we should NEVER forget that they took a Howlin' Wolf song (Little Red Rooster) to the top of the singles charts (OK, it was written by Willie Dixon, but the Wolf had made it his own). Think about that for a moment.

That feat alone means the Stones' early work can never be overrated or undervalued.

The fact they've since got old and turned into little more than a money making machine these days should not blind us to their early achievements.

I cant believe it took 13 pages before U2 were mentioned!

My two penn'orth ;

Coldplay - music to watch lettuce wilt by.
Keane - see above only a bit limper.
Queen - should have packed in after Seven Seas of Rye.
Pink Floyd - pedestrian after DSOTM, I mean, how may plodding Dave Gilmour solo's can anybody listen to in one lifetime.
Led Zeppelin - all the subtlety of robots coupled with crap semi mystical lyricism.

wholeheartedly agree with keane. imo they're soppy southerners with floppy hiar who make music that is jst BLAND!!! you want something really jumpy or at least not make you want to commit suicide.

also, the only good thing about u2 is the edge, he is the ming of riffs (just riffs mind, slash is the king of guitaring and brian may is the king of solos)

Longcol,
Your remark about 'plodding' Gilmour solos made me smile. You are so right here. They are so predictable, note by note. He tends to do the same, four-footed rhythms when he works with others too, or in solo work. Gilmour is basically a middling Blues rock player, in my view. I've enjoyed his playing pre DSOTM, but the track 'Echoes' on Meddle is the only place, aside from parts of A Saucerful of Secrets, where he steps outside of the 'bendy' stringed Blues material. He is not one of the 'great' inventive guitarists, like Robert Fripp or John McLaughlin.

Shed7


Meaningless text added here to make my message long enough to be acceptable.....

timo,
running off to wipe the dust off the old Mahavishnu Orchestra, Escalator Over The Hill, early King Crimson etc. Hope, like a favourite bottle, laid down but only half remembered, they still cut it with age.

Sounds like a cue to start a thread along the lines of "music above the threshold of the common (heads down no nonsense mindless boogie singalong hold your lighter in the air) herd".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MTheo
[B]

"how about bob dylan, prince & james brown??

can you name 10 songs of theirs put together?... its harder than you think. when you think about it they havent really had that many big hits. but still are well regarded and in my opinion overrated."



Blood on the Tracks is in my opinion the finest album ever written. If you can sit through the album without being emotionally touched by the lyrics and the melodies then I feel sorry for your cold soul.

Shelter from the Storm, Tangled up in Blue, Idiot Wind, If You See Her Say Hello, Simple Twist of Fate, You're a Big Girl Now.

The album is an absolutelly stunning perception of a relationship from the initial falling in love (Shelter from the Storm) to the break up (Idiot Wind)

Longcol,
I think Mc Laughlin definately still 'cuts it'. Listen to his recent material [acoustic and electric] with the reunited master Indian musicians, Shakti. There is no-one like him. Top-notch players like Frisell and Fripp acknowledge it too. Fripp, in particular, is on record as regarding McLaughlin as the finest, and unusual too for a 'techie', in that the incredible virtuosity does not obscure the 'emotional' message beneath. Fripp claims to have deliberately not listened to Birds of Fire and Inner Mounting Flame, until years later, because he was frightened of being influenced away from what he intended to do [ambient, 'Frippertronic' tape/loop experiments with Brian Eno etc]. I would love to hear McLaughlin play with a string quartet, like the Saloman Quartet, or perhaps in duo form with Fripp. Has anyone got the bugger's phone number?!

By the way, I agree with you about Coldplay too. What a mediocre bunch they are. What is all the fuss about? They are a sheer waste of good studio time.

Originally posted by dragonsoup
Meatloaf, what a load of *.

Um, Meatloaf isn't a band.. He's 1 man, and he is God as far as old school rock music is concerned.

At least IMO.

If only I could afford to go to his concert at Chatsworth in July :(

Shed 7?

Who on earth over-rates them? I've not heard them mentioned in about 6 years!

Stiil too much fuss made RE: Shed7!!!

Three most over-rated bands in the world:

U2
GUNS 'N' ROSES
STEREOPHONICS

the good thing about these bands is that it shows just how far you can go with so little talent.

Originally posted by littleboo
Three most over-rated bands in the world:

U2
GUNS 'N' ROSES
STEREOPHONICS

the good thing about these bands is that it shows just how far you can go with so little talent.

I have to disagree a bit on all 3. While I think they were all much better at the begining of their careers, U2 in particular are legends who after being ropey for a while are improving again.
I used to be a massive Stereophonics fan but agree they are now overated with overblown egos. They have lost what made them special in the first place. :gag:
And as for G'n'R, sometimes the only thing that wakes me up properly on the way to work is pumping a bit of Welcome To The Jungle at full blast through my ear lobes. I think they were very good at what they did :D