THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Durin on 06 Aug 2008, 18:48
-
I did a search before making this and there was a thread but it was around 3 years old so I decided against necroposting.
It seems to be a mistake I've seen happening in this thread, and I think I need to put it here. OVERRATED DOESN'T MEAN BAD
So overrated bands.
Led Zeppelin
Foo Fighters (I tried to like them. Some of it's good some of it's just mediocre)
Mute Math
Liars (Jesus H I saw them open for Radiohead and wanted to stab my ears out)
I'm sure if pressed I could come up with more, but this is just music I have on my computer that I glanced through.
-
Liars (Jesus H I saw them open for Radiohead and wanted to stab my ears out)
I found they were pretty terrible live and I pretty much despise their second and third albums (if they're experimental, then they're experiments on how to suck), but I love me some Liars when they're getting their dance-punk on. I think they're probably the most polarizing band for me, ever.
((Also, I think a better topic would be bands who people claim are overrated far to often. My list would include Bloc Party and Franz Ferdinand (or at least their debut LPs), Arctic Monkeys (or at least their sophomore album), and Interpol. All of them are actually pretty fun to listen to, haters be damned.))
-
I think the Arctic Monkeys are kind of overrated but I still find their first CD really fun to listen to. I didn't really enjoy their second album much. I've listened to the stuff that got played on Radio/TV for Franz Ferdinand when I still listened/watched.
Edit: On the Liars. I'll probably look into their recorded music to see if I enjoy it more.
-
I can't really get into Battles all that much. I also haven't heard any Hella that I liked. I guess I am just picky about my math rock?
-
I'd never listened to them- then I saw them play live, and was blown away. Danced my arse off, too.
I still haven't heard any of their recordings, but maybe they are of the "sounds better live than recorded" persuasion?
-
Man, all this thread is going to do is get some people seriously pissed off about bands and such.
That being said, I'd rather cockslap cacti than listen to Maps and Atlases. Everything that they do sounds like that dude from Billy Talent singing over a Don Caballero album. That probably may sound like a good time to some people, but it sure isn't to me.
-
Nirvana.
Please don't shoot me!
-
Yeah, this thread will have outlived whatever usefulness as soon as somebody comes in and says "rap music".
Not to say what's been said in just about every other thread remotely like this, but I think it's mostly a matter of taste. I mean, there are lots of bands that people have eargasms over. Around here it's stuff like Explosions in the Sky, DFA 1979, BSS and its satellites, Okkervil River, whatever. People even go so far as to call them "life-changing", and even if I can see the appeal of these acts I can't really say that I like them at all. Thing is, when you hear so much about how great something is and you don't get the same reaction as other people you get the urge to say that no, they really aren't that great. And that's where I think a lot of talk of bands being overrated comes from. But I like to believe that most artists put as much work into their material as anybody else, and that my ear is not an impeccable instrument for discerning quality. I don't think it's fair to shit all over a band because I can't enjoy them the way others can.
Now being overexposed, that's something entirely different. I could say that, for example, Vampire Weekend is overrated, but I think the only reason they'd be seen to be getting undue positive acclaim is that they're getting so much press, for seemingly little reason. It doesn't seem like the attention paid to them is creditable to any particular quality about them.
-
Well for me, a band being overrated doesn't necessarily make it bad. So, I'm not really taking a shit all over an artists work. Instead I think being overrated, like you said, means a band is built up to this amazing standard and not meeting it.
-
Nirvana.
Please don't shoot me!
Ahahahah absolutely agreed. They wouldn't be half as recognized as they are today if Kurt Cobain hadn't kissed his shotgun.
-
Led Zeppelin? Overrated? I have honestly never heard anyone come close to saying that... ever. But then, I think Springsteen is overrated. Also, Elvis Costello and Tom Waits.
-
I personally don't see anything wrong with giving an opinion. I guess it gives chance for someone to get all in a hussy over nothing but I haven't seen really in the short time I've been here. (Lurking and otherwise)
-
Well for me, a band being overrated doesn't necessarily make it bad. So, I'm not really taking a shit all over an artists work. Instead I think being overrated, like you said, means a band is built up to this amazing standard and not meeting it.
This. Also-
Radiohead
Elliot Smith
Godspeed You! Black Emperor
Yeah, I don't care if you hate me now. I think I'll live.
-
I agree with this:
Led Zeppelin
Foo Fighters (I tried to like them. Some of it's good some of it's just mediocre)
I disagree with this but I can see where you are coming from if you do not like delay-laden tribal freakouts:
Liars (Jesus H I saw them open for Radiohead and wanted to stab my ears out)
But this:
Mute Math
I understand they have a fairly large fanbase but honestly nobody I know who listens to them ever talks about them.
-
Pink Floyd.
I mean, I like them, but best rock band ever, no.
-
They have a fairly large fanbase but honestly nobody I know who listens to them ever talks about them.
I know people don't talk about them much but when I asked people about them it was given really high praise. It's not bad. It also has a chance to grow on me. It has some really interesting stylistic choices but for the most part it's just meh.
-
Led Zeppelin and Radiohead are perfectly rated, thank you.
But I really don't see what's so special about Fleet Foxes, at all. Their album bored me to tears. It's "nice sounding", but it's not remotely interesting.
-
I agree with this:
Led Zeppelin
Foo Fighters (I tried to like them. Some of it's good some of it's just mediocre)
Don't know, myself. Foo Fighters, they're fairly well-liked and pretty popular but I've never heard them spoken of as though they were particularly transcendent. They make shiny pop rock. They made a stab at ambition with that double album of theirs (it was dedicated to a politician and everything) but I don't remember it being very well received, all things considered.
But Led Zeppelin, well, that's what we talk about when we make threads like this. Institutions. Our generation grew up in the shadow of all these monumental bands, and hell, I know people my age who envy our parents for being alive and young when those big names were at their zenith. Some of us look back on them and scoff, but that's not bad, necessarily. Baby Boomers have a tendency to be rather narcissistic about the Greatest Acts of All Time that they were blessed enough to have lived through. Myself, I find the Beatles to be rather underwhelming for being the Greatest Band to Ever Walk the Face of the Earth. But there's a difference between quality and importance/influence, and the Beatles' influence is pretty much impossible to dispute.
We've got our own institutions, of course. Radiohead's already been mentioned. I like them because they try to be willfully difficult and I like bands that do that (old industrial bands, Liars, Autechre and Scott Walker all fall into this category) Plus it's sort of "romantic" that they started becoming obtuse just after they were being called the most important band of their generation. I'd say that was a pretty smart move. Better they veer far off into left field than stay in the path of a million tons of expectation by trying to follow up OK Computer with something in the same vein. They chose a sizable cult over being crushed into so much dust. Thom Yorke's too much of a ponce to just die somehow and cement his legacy anyway. I'm not mad for Radiohead, but respect them and they write pretty songs that are just off-kilter enough to hit that sweet spot of oddity for me.
-
Kill yr idols.
-
If by overrated you mean 'bands which a lot of people love but you don't quite get', top of my list would be the Beatles. I just don't get it.
-
U2. With the exceptions of Bowie and The Cult they're probably my favorite group, but even then I think it goes a bit too far when everyone's expected to love everything they do just because it's U2. War and Achtung Baby are both in my list of ten favorite albums and Boy is pretty damn good as well, but for the past 20 years their output (except for the previously mentioned Achtung Baby) has been somewhere in the range of "just another band" in terms of quality as opposed to "greatest thing ever." Their last somewhat good album was Zooropa, 15 years ago, and everything since has been average at best. Their last three albums combined have a little under one album's worth of songs that I'd consider good or great. The rest is just filler, and I don't exactly think that justifies all the praise they receive.
-
Metallica.
Good? Sure. Gods of Rock? No.
I don't get what the big deal about them really is, all of their songs are simplistic and really dont have anything to them other than guitars and angst. They sound good, but I don't see why people are so eager to sell their souls to this band.
-
Led Zeppelin? Overrated? I have honestly never heard anyone come close to saying that... ever. But then, I think Springsteen is overrated. Also, Elvis Costello and Tom Waits.
Whoa. I can see Elvis Costello; his stuff's hit or miss, and Springsteen's entire 80's career was shit (but his 70's and 90's-00 is some amazing stuff.) But Tom Waits? That man is the closest thing I have to a god.
Anywho, to me, the most overrated band in history is AC/DC.
They're amusing and energetic...and that's about it. Nothing original. Nothing compelling. At least Led Zeppelin's members were actually decent musicians.
-
Given the sheer love for Nirvana before Kurt shot himself - both in the press and in the public - I think it's ludicrous to say that his suicide is the only reason they are still highly rated.
I would say it's more likely that Neutral Milk Hotel are so highly rated because of the mysterious nature of a man doing two albums and then shutting himself away. Also see: My Bloody Valentine and Slint.
-
Muse?
-
Nirvana
Metallica
Megadeth
and this one may make me a target
The Sex Pistols, but god they were bad...
-
I kind of like Never Mind the Bollocks, it's quite enjoyable when the mood strikes me, but yeah, I can see where overrated comes from. They didn't deserve to get into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame by any means. They weren't the first punk band and they weren't the best by any means; it was all down to notoriety. Also, one studio album, a couple gimmicks/compilations, and a spattering of live albums wouldn't be considered a Hall of Fame career for any other band.
-
I 100% agree with AC/DC being overrated. Without a doubt.
Guns N Roses, especially Slash, is extremely overrated here in Mexico. It's become an epidemic. An epidemic that is profitable for both Squier/Fender and eBay/MercadoLibre. Angels and Airwaves (also Plus 44) seems to be blown out of proportion as well, just because they're the offspring of Blink-182. I can't understand the fascination with their music, it just isn't that good to me.
IMO, the most overrated band ever = The Doors. To me, they are just plain boring.
Zadorzky: "One"
The Sex Pistols seem to be outclassed by The Ramones.
-
Foo Fighters (I tried to like them. Some of it's good
IMO, Foo Fighters only got really good in the last year. I think they've been a great singles band with some good albums tracks until the most recent record, which is very classic-sounding and is the album they've always been threatening to make.
Nirvana.
Please don't shoot me!
I feel that's unlikely given the forum you're on.
I find that Nirvana are unique band in that they are simultaneously underrated and overrated. I shall elaborate later when I'm not abusing company time.
Led Zeppelin? Overrated? I have honestly never heard anyone come close to saying that... ever
Then you clearly don't hang around with me enough.
If by overrated you mean 'bands which a lot of people love but you don't quite get', top of my list would be the Beatles. I just don't get it.
It's hard to understand their impact with almost fifty years' distance. I shall elaborate further on this when I get home tonight.
-
The Beatles
As stated before this is not to say they are bad, I love them, but they are not the greatest thing ever, or even close to it.
-
I agree wholeheartedly with the Beatles being overrated. I mean they've got their good songs, but like you said, not the greatest thing ever. Also, the same sentiments with Pink Floyd.
Personally, I think Regina Spektor is overrated. I don't know if a lot of you know people who like her a lot, but a lot of people in my dorm are big fans, but me, not so much.
-
I would say it's more likely that Neutral Milk Hotel are so highly rated because of the mysterious nature of a man doing two albums and then shutting himself away.
Jeff Mangum and JD Salinger are the same guy!
-
Foo Fighters (I tried to like them. Some of it's good
IMO, Foo Fighters only got really good in the last year. I think they've been a great singles band with some good albums tracks until the most recent record, which is very classic-sounding and is the album they've always been threatening to make.
I quite like the Foo Fighters, and you pretty much hit it right on the head. Up until their last album, they were a good band, with a bunch of good songs over their career but nothing that really hit. With "Echoes, Silence, Patience, and Grace" (their last album) they really made something that was full and rounded, and a pleasure to listen to the whole way through. Plus, the group has a good vibe, with Dave Grohls reputation for being one of the nicest guys in music and all. Besides, they put on an amazing live show. 2.5 hours of non stop playing, sometimes with an eight piece band. And they sound good live, and that goes far in my book.
Also, Led Zeppelin = not overrated. If you take everything else out of the equation, the four of them were still awesome musicians.
Now that we got that out of the way, lol, overrated bands:
U2, the Doors, Coldplay, Metallica, Nirvana, Grateful Dead, the Police, the Who, Freebird, Stairway to Heaven
I'm probably gonna get yelled at for that list. I like some of the bands on there; they are good. But they're not OMGZZ AMAZINGZ
-
the Who
Live At Leeds absolves any wrongdoings or creative missteps that The Who have ever indulged in. Their cover of "Young Man Blues"? Absolutely out-Zeppelins Zeppelin. (Those may be construed as fightin' words, to which I say "whatev".)
I guess I'm not a Zeppelin man.
-
The Replacements. Minutemen. Pixies.
-
Okkervil River. I actually really dig some of their songs, but it's weird to me that people are so crazy about them.
-
I quite like the Foo Fighters, and you pretty much hit it right on the head. Up until their last album, they were a good band, with a bunch of good songs over their career but nothing that really hit. With "Echoes, Silence, Patience, and Grace" (their last album) they really made something that was full and rounded, and a pleasure to listen to the whole way through. Plus, the group has a good vibe, with Dave Grohls reputation for being one of the nicest guys in music and all. Besides, they put on an amazing live show. 2.5 hours of non stop playing, sometimes with an eight piece band. And they sound good live, and that goes far in my book.
They do sound great live. They are a great live band. But unfortunately, until the new record re-ignited my interest, seeing them live kind of killed the Foo Fighters for me, because of a realisation I had - that barely any of their songs have any emotional weight with me. I can think of one offhand, 'Best Of You'; maybe 'Walking After You' as well. With other people I've seen, Ryan Adams, Nick Cave, blink-182, even Green Day, they have a wealth of songs that hit home with me a lot. The Foos just don't. But yeah, the new album is great.
Also, Led Zeppelin = not overrated. If you take everything else out of the equation, the four of them were still awesome musicians.
Yes, but they were very aware of this fact, which is why I'm not a fan. 'Dazed And Confused' shouldn't last 20 goddamn minutes, please!
U2, the Doors, Coldplay, Metallica, Nirvana
U2 - I'm not a big fan of U2. I appreciate their efforts to push their own boundaries, though I don't think they were very successful. But most of my favourite stuff isn't their universal love stuff like 'One,' it's lesser known stuff like their song with Johnny Cash (Bono being noticeably absent from that song, for the most part) and stuff from Rattle And Hum. Honestly, I hate Bono's lyrics. But U2 have made some gutsy moves, I'd say.
The Doors - Never listened to them enough to care either way.
Coldplay - They're my U2, in that I like them, though they have mostly the same problems - they try to push their own boundaries but don't succeed much. I still think their best album is Parachutes, because it's tiny, it's short and it's very English.
Metallica - I think they're more rated because they brought thrash to the mainstream rather than for any competence on their part. I think they've taken too much shit, for two reasons - 1. I think the 'you sold out' thing was bullshit. But I've had this discussion with someone whose name escapes me on here, so no need to go into again. 2. I think they got way too much shit for, um, well, trying to stop people doing something illegal.
Nirvana - I've again run out of time, I'll go further into it later.
-
Battles.
Bedhead.
Black Kids.
Hmm... B names.
-
You just came back to shit in my heart, didn't you Ryan?
Hahaha, I missed you, Tommy.
-
As a huge Doors fan, I actually understand people who say now that they're underwhelmed by them. But in my opinion, the biggest reason why they (and Zeppelin) are rated so highly is that they pretty much reinvented rock in their time. Without those bands, there'd be no Radiohead; no Nirvana, or Foo Fighters, or punk or metal of any sort.
Here's one for any jazz/classical fans: I'm heavy into Miles Davis and Philip Glass. Within their respective genres, would anyone say they're overrated, taking into account works like Satyagraha by Glass and RatedX by Davis?
-
I don't know my jazz well enough to comment on Miles Davis - but I like him.
I prefer Adams to Glass, myself, and already did before I met him (Adams). It was because both of them had performed and recorded for Adams that my son and his wife met :-) (backstage at the Carnegie Hall after an Adams concert, I believe).
-
Bedhead.
[img]Smokin' dude[img]
Agreed.
EDIT - With Tommy, I mean.
-
I know others have said it, but Led Zeppelin? Overrated? But then I think of music I think is overrated that other people like and people who think music I like is overrated and then I don't really care anymore. I just don't like saying older and highly praised bands are overrated, because I look back and see all of the bands that are around today that were influenced by them. Hell, we probably wouldn't have modern rock if Elvis hadn't gotten on stage and sang "race music" and shook his ass on national television. I don't really like his music, but I don't think he's overrated in the slightest.
-
guys i said slint and nobody argued with me
SLINT
i'm serious
the for carnation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slint
papa m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slint
zwan >>>>>>>>oh wait, never mind
-
Billy Corgan should probably quit writing music and become a wahhhhmmmmbulance driver.
*rimshot*
edit: I would love to have heard the conversation.
"Hi, may I speak to David Pajo?"
"Uh, that's me."
"Yeah, hi, this is Billy Corgan."
"Gerard, stop messing around."
"Haha, no, really, this is Billy Corgan. Would you like to be in a band with me?"
"What."
"I really dug Spider Land and I think you'd be great for the job. It's called Zwan."
"Oh... okay..."
"I mean, I'll be writing all the songs, but you know, you can bring your own guitar."
-
And they didn't even break up till 2003; that's two years of your life spent blinking in confusion and not really being sure how to react.
-
Nirvana.
I find that Nirvana are unique band in that they are simultaneously underrated and overrated. I shall elaborate later when I'm not abusing company time.
People said the same thing about Andy Warhol. All's I know from readings and such is that Andy was an insecure dick who would ruin people like he was ordering out for lunch. Not that says anything about Nirvana.
Overrated?
Nine Inch Nails: Anything post-Downward Spiral has had a metric ton of filler on it (I'm looking atchoo with glaring eyes, The Fragile). And Trent's lyrics are the worst part of his own recordings.
Ministry: Seriously. The government sucks rawr-rawr-unintelligible-rawr-rawr. I get it, okay. Can youy play Everyday is Hallowe'en again?
Dresden Dolls: I just don't get the appeal.
Joy Division: Let the bombs go off! I really do like them a lot, I do. But that isn't what this thread is about. Mystique vs. output often elevates things past their necessary worth(to be completely arbitrary).
-
Joy Division is one of my favourite bands but I agree that in general they're overrated, in that their albums were sometimes brilliant but also could have used a lot of work. Is "Transmission" the best song of all time? Quite possibly. But a lot of their songs are nowhere near as good, and some of their best material (like "No Love Lost") was ever fleshed out and actually finished.
-
the Who
Live At Leeds absolves any wrongdoings or creative missteps that The Who have ever indulged in.
I've heard a ton of good things about this album, but I've never been able to check it out.
Also, Led Zeppelin = not overrated. If you take everything else out of the equation, the four of them were still awesome musicians.
Yes, but they were very aware of this fact, which is why I'm not a fan. 'Dazed And Confused' shouldn't last 20 goddamn minutes, please!
I agree with you on that. The excessive guitar masturbation often goes too far.
-
Dresden Dolls: I just don't get the appeal.
Watched a video on YouTube wherein they covered a Neutral Milk Hotel song. I nearly cried, it was so bad.
-
The list could go on and on, but as of late Vampire Weekend strikes me as terribly average/uninteresting. White Stripes haven't really been worth their spit either (for awhile). I suppose Clap Your Hands and Say Yeah fall in the, ultimately, "eh" category too. Arctic Monkey's.
Snow Patrol, Death Cabie for Cutie
Uh, I never got LCD Soundsystem. I can appreciate what they do, but eh.
Really, really don't get the appeal behind Bloc Party. Maybe a mp3 or two is worth having, but an entire album of that?
Pavement did a lot for the scene, but I dunno... the hype is pretty disproportionate.
And yeah, Nirvana is definitely overrated.
British Sea Power. I liked the CD and all, but the more I listen to it... it's missing a lot from the fervor of other bands. Simply, it's been done better.
Sonic Youth (excluding "Sonic Nurse" & "Daydream Nation"). Oh, I'm screwed.
And, this pains me, but Arcade Fire--but, only in the instance of Neon Bible. Meh, it was... eh.
</goes back to pretending to like music>
-
You are perhaps aware that British Sea Power have more than one album.
Pavement as a band isn't really overrated, but Slanted and Enchanted is. It is scientifically impossible to overrate Crooked Rain Crooked Rain or Wowee Zowee.
-
About two weeks ago, I hadn't listened to Pavement in a metric while. I guess I just thought that they were merely ok after being a big fan of them.
Then, I bought Wowee Zowee on tape because my computer was dead and so was my mp3 player. After listening to it a million times and getting my computer back from Gateway (and its working hard drive), I took another listen to CRCR and Brighten the Corners, and reminded me of why I got into the band in the first place- they wrote amazing songs.
Slanted and Enchanted, I still can't really get into, though. Try as I might, "Summer Babe" is still one of the laziest, sloppiest excuses for a song ever.
-
"Summer Babe" is one of my favorite Pavement songs. :|
Sonic Youth (excluding "Sonic Nurse" & "Daydream Nation"). Oh, I'm screwed.
I guess I could see how Sonic Youth could easily by overrated, but they are truly fantastic musicians.
-
White Stripes haven't really been worth their spit either (for awhile).
I thought "Icky Thump" was exactly what the doctor had ordered. Great record.
-
That's odd, "Summer Babe" is one of the only songs on S&E that I think is truly brilliant (along with "Here" and "Conduit For Sale").
I think it's funny that a lot of the people who think S&E is amazing because of its sound aren't aware that the band recorded it right after a metal band had been in and just left the amp settings the way the metal band had them.
-
"Summer Babe" is one of my favorite Pavement songs. :|
So saith all my other friends who are into Pavement. I guess I just can't get into that song. :| :|
-
Slanted & Enchanted is one of my favorite all time albums. I had only heard of Pavement a few times before i listened to it. After a while, I checked out CRCR and Wowee Zowee but i just couldn't get into them. I remember CRCR having a few good songs, but i just couldn't get into it. Maybe i just didn't give it enough listens...
-
Guns N' Roses. Appetite for Destruction wasn't that great and Use Your Illusion is one of the most hit-or-miss albums in existence. Also, the whole Chinese Democracy farce got old about five years ago. Basically, they're just another metal band, not the greatest thing to ever happen to the genre and I'm fucking sick of hearing about it. If you want to hear what Guns N' Roses would sound like if they were as good as advertised then I'd recommend listening to Hanoi Rocks (one of the more underrated bands in my opinion) if you're into that sort of thing.
-
Oh! Here's one:
Bob Dylan.
Blonde on Blonde is one of my favorite albums, and of course Blood on the Tracks, The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan and Highway 61... are calssics, but I just can't see how people call him the greatest songwriter/lyricists/etc ever. It's a laughable sentiment to me.
-
One of my friends was completely obsessed with Bob Dylan for about a year (having never been interested in much music before this time). Then he saw OK Go live (OK Go, of all things) and realized there actually were other musicians out there.
-
Now THAT is an odd story.
-
I've tried listening to Pavement, really I have. I've tried S+E, CRCR, Terror Twilight and Wowee Zowee and... nothing. I cannot bring myself to finding them anything other than a bit shit. It just makes me feel a bit dead inside, as if I should be an elitist asshole all my life and never actually express any emotion whatsoever. I'm not saying "all pavement fans are elitist assholes", that's just what it makes me feel whenever I listen to them.
Anyway, I also have no real love for David Bowie, or led Zep, or Bright Eyes, or Autechre, or a few other indie idols. Quite a few others I think of as merely 'alright', such as Joy Division.
-
Now THAT is an odd story.
I still sometimes ask me if he wasn't pulling my leg about the whole thing. Trying to be ironic, you know. He kind of just laughs and starts singing "Oh Lately It's So Quiet."
-
But Led Zeppelin, well, that's what we talk about when we make threads like this. Institutions. Our generation grew up in the shadow of all these monumental bands, and hell, I know people my age who envy our parents for being alive and young when those big names were at their zenith. Some of us look back on them and scoff, but that's not bad, necessarily. Baby Boomers have a tendency to be rather narcissistic about the Greatest Acts of All Time that they were blessed enough to have lived through. Myself, I find the Beatles to be rather underwhelming for being the Greatest Band to Ever Walk the Face of the Earth. But there's a difference between quality and importance/influence, and the Beatles' influence is pretty much impossible to dispute.
We've got our own institutions, of course. Radiohead's already been mentioned. I like them because they try to be willfully difficult and I like bands that do that (old industrial bands, Liars, Autechre and Scott Walker all fall into this category) Plus it's sort of "romantic" that they started becoming obtuse just after they were being called the most important band of their generation. I'd say that was a pretty smart move. Better they veer far off into left field than stay in the path of a million tons of expectation by trying to follow up OK Computer with something in the same vein. They chose a sizable cult over being crushed into so much dust. Thom Yorke's too much of a ponce to just die somehow and cement his legacy anyway. I'm not mad for Radiohead, but respect them and they write pretty songs that are just off-kilter enough to hit that sweet spot of oddity for me.
I guess there may exist a cultural bias for the bands. I love Radiohead. I saw them in concert and it made me love their music even more. They might be overrated to some, but I don't care. I guess that's the kind of attitude you're trying to point out in your post.
I do agree that Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and a slew of other classic music from the generations before are very influential. I like Led Zeppelin quite a bit. I just see some people around school with their undying praise for the band and simply don't agree with it. Much in the way people would probably disagree with my liking for Radiohead.
I quite like the Foo Fighters, and you pretty much hit it right on the head. Up until their last album, they were a good band, with a bunch of good songs over their career but nothing that really hit. With "Echoes, Silence, Patience, and Grace" (their last album) they really made something that was full and rounded, and a pleasure to listen to the whole way through. Plus, the group has a good vibe, with Dave Grohls reputation for being one of the nicest guys in music and all. Besides, they put on an amazing live show. 2.5 hours of non stop playing, sometimes with an eight piece band. And they sound good live, and that goes far in my book.
I have a couple of their albums(including the new one) and a few singles. I used to be quite heavily into them, my AIM screen name and old email address show that. That eventually died. I still occasionally had the urge to listen to a song here and there. I think when they make a good song, it's a great song.
They didn't have as much of a buzz about them amongst people I know until their last album. I asked people before I got it and everyone told me it was REALLY good. I love a few of the Foo Fighter's song so I was honestly expecting to be blown away by the album. Instead I got something that was just OKAY. I guess I got too hyped up for the album. It's a solid album but it just bores at times.
As for Dave Grohl I respect the guy immensely. I also haven't got to see them live.
-
Guns N' Roses. Appetite for Destruction wasn't that great
YES IT WAS.
According to your profile you weren't born yet when it was released so I don't think you can appreciate how totally fucking awesome it was to hear as a teenager, after being constantly bombarded with shit like Poison, a band that really knew how to play their instruments and write amazing hooks and had a kind of "fuck it" punk aesthetic, as if any token hair-metal moves they pulled were on sufferance and at the label's insistence.
-
Oh, I was born when it was released. I may have been all of ten months old, but I was born. I'm also not saying that album sucks, I'm saying I prefer Hanoi Rocks and, to a lesser extent, L.A. Guns, who are both largely overlooked while GNR gets hailed as rock gods.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Poison is shit.
-
Well, sometimes a band's rating is more to do with what they did than the songs they wrote, is what I'm getting at. LA Guns and Hanoi Rocks weren't on MTV, hardly anyone listened to them (in comparison to GnR) and both of them were substantially more "glam" than "punk". Not that either band was bad, but they never felt to me like a band that was saying "we are just a fucking rock band composed of some white trash motherfuckers who started playing in a garage", which is the vibe GnR gave off.
The first time I saw the video for "Welcome to the Jungle" was in a room full of friends, none of us had heard them before, and when it was over there was a collective stunned silence until someone said "I think I want to worship Satan now".
You just cannot fuck with that.
-
I have a huge thing for Appetite for Destruction. I was all but 2, but I remember distinctly my mother brushing my hair (it was long, it was the 80's, shut it. now I just hate short hair) while blasting it.
my mom is pretty much an all-around awesome person. I once played her Pig Destroyer, because I thought she'd like it. her reply 'I don't like the screaming, but it reminds me a lot of suicidal tendencies. I like it!'
sorry, I just miss my mom. :P
-
I wish my mom liked good music.
Alas, her palatte is pretty much limited to Jimmy Buffet and Rascall Flatts.
Ugh.
-
Feist.
I just...I just don't get it.
-
Feist makes a lot of good pop songs, but her recent surge in popularity is a little disapproportionate. I was almost sad when my roommate and I, while at school in Utah, almost made plans to drive over to San Fran and catch Spoon (I had recently turned them on to how awesome the band was) only to find out they were only opening for Feist (which wasn't quite worth it to the roomies, although I still would have done it if I were in charge of the car). Shows you what one catchy single getting overexposure in the media can do for the singer/songwriter guy/gal.
-
Question for everyone who says "The Beatles":
When was the last time you sat down and listened to a later-period Beatles record from start to finish?
-
I've tried listening to Pavement, really I have. I've tried S+E, CRCR, Terror Twilight and Wowee Zowee and... nothing.
Well, go try Brighten The Corners. :lol:
but for real, the two bands that anger me most often are Nirvana and AC/DC. I think i'm "missing it" with both of them.
Well, Nirvana at least.
And Bob Dylan is overrated as well; as someone said earlier, the "classic" albums are, well, classics. The others are "the others".
-
Question for everyone who says "The Beatles":
When was the last time you sat down and listened to a later-period Beatles record from start to finish?
Quite some time (at least a year, if not more), because I wouldn't find that to be an enjoyable experience.
-
Which illustrates nicely that this thread is nothing to do with bands at all, but only people's tastes, and the wish of some people to label things.
-
Neutral Milk Hotel :-D
-
Quite some time (at least a year, if not more), because I wouldn't find that to be an enjoyable experience.
How would you know? Perhaps your attitude has changed in the intervening period? Perhaps you were listening to the wrong record? Perhaps you were simply younger and couldn't appreciate the music?
This thread doesn't work for the same reason that a "best band ever" thread wouldn't work. Unless, of course, we put it to a vote (http://www.quiki.net/wiki/Battle_of_teh_bands).
-
I am in the camp that is kind of annoyed at the backlash against the Beatles cus I don't trust people and think perhaps some of it is just instinctive rebelliousness rather than actual decision making. I was even tempted to make a non-post like "GUYZ THE BEATLES BLOO BLOOO" when I saw this thread. At the same time, given the choice to listen to a Beatles record and...well, suffice to say it is a rare thing that I actually choose to listen to the Beatles. They're just not my thing!
I think it's kind of curious that anyone thought Ministry were overrated; I wasn't aware anyone considered them more than a joke since 2005. Al Jourgensen's latest output has been pretty shit, but that shouldn't necessarily tarnish the great records he made between 1985 and 1992.
I probably think that some bands are overrated but I can't think of anything off the top of my head. This is because the top of my head is pretty clean.
-
Pink Floyd.
I mean, I like them, but best rock band ever, no.
WHAT THE FUCK
WHO THE
HOW
WHY THE
HOOOOOLY SHIT.
Dude, I feel really bad for you. That like growing up allergic to chocolate.
Even if you "Like them".
It's so interesting how music tastes work.
-
Animal Collective, Aphex Twin, Arctic Monkeys, Deerhoof, Devendra Banhart, The Doors, Elvis Presley, Gnarls Barkley, Guns and Roses, Isis, Kanye West, Led Zeppelin, Mastodon, Metallica, Neil Diamond, Nirvana, Oasis, Radiohead, Sonic Youth
-
It's so interesting how music tastes work.
You mean, how they are completely subjective and largely unique from person to person, because there are no absolutes in a medium completely subject (hurrrr, maybe that's why they call it subjective?) to each person's range of endorphin responses (which cause some people to like, say, big fat juicy hamburgers, and others to like hiking Mount Everest) and aesthetic values? Yeah, it's so interesting.
I'm sorry dude but saying "I feel really bad for you" because the guy doesn't worship Pink Floyd is really condescending and just uncool. And lots of people don't like chocolate, allergies or no.
-
Feist makes a lot of good pop songs
Interesting, I think that the appeal of The Reminder lies with the less pop-oriented songs ("One Two Three Four" is one of the album's lesser tracks).
-
Right, I would agree with you on that last point, but that doesn't make the rest of the album not pop. No matter which way you swing it, every song she's written as Feist has been a pop song. Some are just more radio-friendly than others.
-
the who. radiohead. the ramones.
-
FUCK YOU. I will retype all the bullshit I was just typing later on because this fucking place timed out on me when I tried to make a post, again.
-
Neutral Milk Hotel :-D
No.
-
Everyone realises that saying a band is overated /= saying they are bad, right?
-
I love Neutral Milk Hotel and On Avery Island is in my Top 10 of all time but even I am aware they are overrated.
-
Neil Diamond is a bizarre choice, Khar. I can definitely see the rest of your list being overrated but seriously who gives a shit about Neil Diamond?
P.S.
saying a band is overated /= saying they are bad
you are RIGHT
-
Big Black is horrifically overrated imo.
-
Also, people do realise that the massive reaction to In the Aeroplane Over the Sea was an huge factor in Mangum going nuts and becoming a recluse, right?
If people hadn't been verbally spurting all over the internet and music press about how it was the most genius thing ever created in the history of music he might not have felt so much pressure and might have made more music.
Jerks. :x
-
I think that Led Zeppelin is more underrated than overrated.
Their skills as musicians, artists (and in Jimmy Page's case producer), can together surpass any other rock group to ever exist.
Also, ignore my "fourth album" avatar.
-
Yes, the next time someone makes a great album let's not talk about it.
At the time of its release, ITAOTS was hailed by so many people as being such a definitive masterpiece that the word "hyperbole" doesn't even come close. It was like what happened with OK Computer, except that people were not just saying it was great musically, but were reading so much into the lyrics and the imagery and it made Jeff uncomfortable.
I'm not saying it's bad to talk about good albums, but taking a near-unknown and proclaiming that his earliest efforts are basically perfect could understandably be hard on someone, and can lead to at best "unpredictable" results. For Conor Oberst, it turned him into a womanizing drug-addled self-loathing fuckup. For Radiohead, it made them get seriously weird. For Jeff Mangum, it made him stop recording music.
-
Sonic Youth (excluding "Sonic Nurse" & "Daydream Nation"). Oh, I'm screwed.
I guess I could see how Sonic Youth could easily by overrated, but they are truly fantastic musicians.
I'm no arguing they aren't. When I say overrated I mean it in the fact people tend to extol inordinate amounts of praise for these bands.
Perhaps, that is my fault for poor diction.
-
Neil Diamond is a bizarre choice, Khar. I can definitely see the rest of your list being overrated but seriously who gives a shit about Neil Diamond?
Well, whilst I was writing that list there was a documentary about the recording of one of Neil Diamond's albums playing on Radio 4. For the non-english, Radio 4 doesn't have any music coverage at all. It is a speech station. The tones in which this album and it's various elements were being dissected and described prompted me to add Mr. Diamond to the list.
-
Shit Khar, screw Niel Diamond, why did you pick Oasis? If I'm thinking about the right Oasis, only frat boys give a shit about Oasis.
And in my humble opinion, GB!YE is one of the most overrated bands. I say this because I overrate them terribly myself.
-
Have you ever lived in the UK, OIC?
It's not as bad as it was in the nineties, but fuck.
-
Oh, okay, I understand.
I'm so sorry. Thats just awful.
-
Oh yea, My Chemical Romance.
-
I think that Led Zeppelin is more underrated than overrated.
Their skills as musicians, artists (and in Jimmy Page's case producer), can together surpass any other rock group to ever exist.
Also, ignore my "fourth album" avatar.
Hahaha. You should've just changed it before making that post. I mean it wasn't going to be especially credible anyway, without an avatar that virtually says 'I'm a fanboy.'
-
Neil Diamond is a bizarre choice, Khar. I can definitely see the rest of your list being overrated but seriously who gives a shit about Neil Diamond?
Well, whilst I was writing that list there was a documentary about the recording of one of Neil Diamond's albums playing on Radio 4. For the non-english, Radio 4 doesn't have any music coverage at all. It is a speech station. The tones in which this album and it's various elements were being dissected and described prompted me to add Mr. Diamond to the list.
This is both hilarious and an entirely fair reason.
-
I've never lived in the UK and even I know that at one time Oasis were regarded as rock gods by some people who were obviously very high and had never heard the Stone Roses.
-
Am I the only one who feel bad, and like a snarky bastard calling music I don't like that is popular "overrated"? I just don't feel like it's my place, which would make me a terrible critic, but I'm too nice to be a snob.
But as for praised bands that I never really got into, Joy Division is one of them. I KNOW they're good, but I can't get in the groove. Musical aesthetic tastes and whatnot. I like a lot of bands that are hated by the large majority of music snobs (Aquabats, They Might Be Giants) though, so my opinion doesn't really count, does it?
(Holy comma abuser, Batman)
-
Oh, another--
I don't understand what's so great about Boris. I have three albums, but despite listening to them probably about 5 times now, I just don't get it. It's not interesting or exciting or invigorating or new or...anything to me.
-
I know I probably shouldn't be considering that metal isn't very popular on this forum, but I'm surprised that no one's mentioned DragonForce. I believe this video (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz25r-zkVgs) should sum things up nicely.
-
Because the only people who think of them highly don't post here. Some people here like them, but acknowledge that they're corny. And as far as I know, most of the music critics aren't big fans of them anyway, so it's not like they're actually considered to be that good. They just have a loud portion of the internet.
-
I've never lived in the UK and even I know that at one time Oasis were regarded as rock gods by some people who were obviously very high and had never heard the Stone Roses.
Or the Rolling Stones for that matter.
-
On that note, am I the only one who thinks the Rolling Stones have digressed from actually being that good and more than deserving of all the praise to being overrated and getting by on their reputation over the past 30 or so years?
-
Yes, you're the only one, and it is a totally new and original sentiment.
-
I think that Led Zeppelin is more underrated than overrated.
If Led Zeppelin were even half as good as people tell me they are they would be banned from all the radio stations in the world because of the death toll that would come from everyone who's listening in their cars spontaneously having orgasms and forgetting about driving every time a Led Zeppelin track was played.
-
I think that Led Zeppelin is more underrated than overrated.
If Led Zeppelin were even half as good as people tell me they are they would be banned from all the radio stations in the world because of the death toll that would come from everyone who's listening in their cars spontaneously having orgasms and forgetting about driving every time a Led Zeppelin track was played.
'twas a sad day for all. There was blood and metal and semen everywhere. 'Twas probably before your time though.
:-D
-
i would say led zeppelin os overrated too but not by much, they kick ass as far as virtuosity at the time goes
and i will be definitely be getting tickets if they go on tour, who could say no to such a giant gazillion dolalr tour?
not even robert plant is that stupid
well... roger waters was so who the hell knows
as for overrated bands? i'm gonna lose some indie cred points so i'm gonna dock em now *reduced -5 cred points*
we're going by a point system now right? right, gets rid of all that useless cock weaving in the audiences
deerhoof
sorry folks, but i can' tlisten to their albums without thinkin "they're trying WAAAY too hard and not pulling it off"
-
I know I probably shouldn't be considering that metal isn't very popular on this forum, but I'm surprised that no one's mentioned DragonForce. I believe this video (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz25r-zkVgs) should sum things up nicely.
There are so many over-rated metal bands that Dragonforce barely make the list. I believe Mastodon to be the most over-rated metal band of the moment (though they are barely metal). Other metal bands that are over-rated to various degrees include Slayer, Metallica, Cannibal Corpse, Entombed, At The Gates, Emperor, Children of Bodom and, in the UK anyway, a revolving procession of cookie-cutter deathcore bands that each get about one months worth of anus thumbing before someone with a stupider name and even more ridiculous haircuts comes along.
Really, everyone needs to listen to more Edge of FUCKING SAAAANIIITTTYYYYY! (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gZmkHYLv0FE)
-
I like a lot of bands that are hated by the large majority of music snobs (Aquabats, They Might Be Giants) though, so my opinion doesn't really count, does it?
What in fuck?
I know I probably shouldn't be considering that metal isn't very popular on this forum.
Fail.
-
Noted. Metal is more popular here than I first assumed.
-
AC/DC over rated? I don't think anyone over the age of 16 thinks of them as anything more than a band that has made some very retarded but quite fun music and made one retarded and -incredibly- fun album, Back in Black, and then proceeded to try to make it over and over again for the next thirty years.
The Decembrists. But I think that's just because somewhat jangling verse-chorus stuff doesn't appeal to me much (I like them when they feel a tad more progressive).
I think it's fair to say that just about every band that has been described as 'the best ever' is over-rated.
Few or perhaps none of these bands are bad or even mediocre.
RE Joy Division, I love them, but I do think that in terms of musical innovation their pretty straightforward pop songs don't really compare to Marquee Moon or Blank Generation or whatever.
-
To be fair, it is a moderately easy assumption to make.
-
Most assumptions are.
That's why they are lame.
-
RE Joy Division, I love them, but I do think that in terms of musical innovation their pretty straightforward pop songs don't really compare to Marquee Moon or Blank Generation or whatever.
Is it really a pop song when your singer can't fookin' sing?
I mean, Ian Curtis is an idol of mine and 'Closer' is my second favourite album after Weezer, but the brother couldn't sing a pop song if he tried.
-
Am I the only one who feel bad, and like a snarky bastard calling music I don't like that is popular "overrated"?
Did you actually read the thread before posting? We're not pointing at bands we don't like, for the most part.
-
I mean, Ian Curtis is an idol of mine and 'Closer' is my second favourite album after Weezer, but the brother couldn't sing a pop song if he tried.
I'm not so sure. 'Love Will Tear us Apart Again' is pretty poptastic, non? What about 'Transmission'?
Dance dance dance dance dance to the radio!
-
They would be if he sang them in tune. I love the guy, but he couldn't hold a melody in a bucket made of vocal chords.
-
When I say 'pop' I'm thinking more of melodic hooks and song structure than vocal styles. Hell, in my mind much of Boris's Pink (the short songs), Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea and At the Gate's Slaughter of the Soul are all pop in the same way Joy division is--it's pretty straightforward and catchy, it doesn't wander too far and it isn't too strange.
But these days even the Pop Group sounds like, well, a pop group to me.
-
I think that any band in the Guitar Hero or Rock Band series ends up being "overrated"; this especially applies to songs that are harder to play in the game.
-
oh you did not just call Spinal Tap overrated
-
oh you did not just call Spinal Tap overrated
Well, when it comes down to it the drummer of Spinal Tap tends to die out near the end.
-
Aerosmith.
-
Sloan!
Oh wait, no, not them because they're effing awesome.
-
To be fair, it is a moderately easy assumption to make.
Why
-
Gee, I dunno, maybe because of the comic this forum is attached to?
-
The one written by a huge metal and electronic music fan?
(seriously though, it IS a fairly easy assumption to make and we can now move on)
-
Gee, I dunno, maybe because of the comic this forum is attached to?
What comic? :?
-
Other metal bands that are over-rated to various degrees include [snip] Emperor, Entombed
Emperor & Entombed? Really? I very rarely hear anybody speak about them (though I don't really speak to that many metalheads).
-
And I'm a metalhead and I've heard very little about them (granted my tastes tend to keep me pretty far from the more brutal bands.)
-
I don't like much metal but I hear a fuckton of people go on and on and on about how awesome Emperor is.
And Khar is right about Mastodon.
-
As much as I love Loveless, I'm going to say MBV is kind of overrated. Honestly, I think Ride's Nowhere is a better shoegaze album.
That being said, I'm not going to deny that MBV is the more influential band.
-
Madonna. The fact she got into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in her first year of eligibility was just depressing.
-
Agreed.
There's a station here in Canadia-land called Star! that is airing nothing but Madonna related television shortly to celebebrate her 50th birthday. I mean seriously, what the hell? As a singer? Sub par at best. As a musical revolutionary? Well, gee...let's all just find the most obvious things that will piss middle America off and do that. What a glorious stroke of brilliance that is.
MBV put me to sleep, honestly. That album has the most coked-out mix ever...and I think that was a bit of the point, but perhaps I'm wrong. That said, I love the track When You Sleep. Seems appropriate enough. Beside the fact that the best shoegaze albums are so obviously Mira's self titled debut and the follow ups, Apart, and There I Go Daydreamer.
Oh,and concerning Led Zeppelin? They're credibility slides every time the endless re-unification(or attempt to) cycle looms it's head to a less and less interested sigh from the populace. You want it to be good but realize that Plant hasn't aged well and that the music is very much of its time and only that. Purely subjective, of course
-
As much as I love Loveless, I'm going to say MBV is kind of overrated. Honestly, I think Ride's Nowhere is a better shoegaze album.
I'd say both Lush's Split and Slowdive's Souvlaki are far more enjoyable shoegaze albums than anything MBV did aside from the Feed Me With Your Kiss EP.
-
agreed
-
theres two more bands i think are overrated
sonic youth
and
weezer
sonic youth really is just noise (curses for quoting a stupid movie but i love jason bateman so much)
and weezer? iono man, its... just... iono, for what weezer does theres so many better bands out there
-
Oh,and concerning Led Zeppelin? They're credibility slides every time the endless re-unification(or attempt to) cycle looms it's head to a less and less interested sigh from the populace.
...Uh, a million people applied for tickets to their reunion gig. I would say that's fairly interested.
-
You're right of course. Perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm not old enough (31), to really get it. I sort of equate it to the Grateful Dead, or in more current terms, Phish.
-
iono
What?
-
weezer
There's a problem with Weezer, as I see it. When I first heard them, I listened to the Blue Album and some stuff off of other albums e.g. My Name is Jonas. I liked the style a lot, lyrically and musically.
Then, the Red Album came out, and was a load of bullshit. I hadn't listened to anything later than the Green Album, so somewhere in there they jumped the shark.
I think that they are perfectly rated for some of the earlier stuff, but for the newer shit, I'd have to agree with you.
-
sonic youth really is just noise
:psyduck: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzwlmK0wqfQ)
-
Yeah, besides which, Sonic Youth have a rather large number of pop songs. Hell, a large majority of what they've recorded since like, 1989 has been pretty pop. "Teenage Riot"? "Dirty Boots"? "My Friend Goo"? "100%"? "Bull in the Heather"? "Junkie's Promise"? Basically all of Rather Ripped? And other than the pop stuff, almost everything else has been "pretty" songs like "Theresa's Sound-World", "Wildflower Soul", "The Diamond Sea", etc etc...
Sonic Youth was a "noise" band for like, all of one and a half albums. EVOL and Sister have a pretty high hook/noise ratio. I mean, "Schizophrenia", fuck's sake.
-
weezer
There's a problem with Weezer, as I see it. When I first heard them, I listened to the Blue Album and some stuff off of other albums e.g. My Name is Jonas. I liked the style a lot, lyrically and musically.
Then, the Red Album came out, and was a load of bullshit. I hadn't listened to anything later than the Green Album, so somewhere in there they jumped the shark.
I think that they are perfectly rated for some of the earlier stuff, but for the newer shit, I'd have to agree with you.
I don't think you've listened to Blue Album closely enough.
And you're also a bit behind on the 'Weezer suck now' trend; personally I consider Red their third best record anyway.
-
they're so called "pop" songs?
are still noise
don't get me wrong people, i used to love them to death until i woke one day going
"why?"
so i stopped listening to them and listened to other stuff and i haven't looked back since
sonic youth sober since 2002
-
Either you have no idea what noise is or you have no idea what pop means.
Probably both.
-
or i just have a different opinion than you
who knows
amazing thing about humans, they have different opinions, none are better than the other
argue until your face is blue everyone, i think sonic youth is overrated
-
Tommy, for some time now I've had a sneaking suspicion that he's never heard any music and is actually just put here to annoy us. It's actually just a drunk pig typing. I mean I honestly think something with trotters could do a better job, and probably has a more erudite opinion on Sonic Youth - even one that's had a few glasses of whiskey.
-
amazing thing about humans, they have different opinions, none are better than the other
Opinions are like assholes. Yours is wrong. Sonic Youth is plenty tuneful.
-
argue until your face is blue everyone, i think sonic youth is overrated
Whether they're overrated or not, there is no getting around the fact that they are not "just noise". Look at some of their guitar tabs.
It's like you're trying to convince us that Antarctica sucks because it's just too hot.
-
Am I the only one who feel bad, and like a snarky bastard calling music I don't like that is popular "overrated"?
Did you actually read the thread before posting? We're not pointing at bands we don't like, for the most part.
Duly noted. Sorry about that >.>
I like a lot of bands that are hated by the large majority of music snobs (Aquabats, They Might Be Giants) though, so my opinion doesn't really count, does it?
What in fuck?
I suppose I should save my facetious moments for places I'm familiar, aye? Also I'll stop assuming everyone here is a hipster snob soon. Just gotta get used to the place so I can form an educated opinion.
-
You're right of course. Perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm not old enough (31), to really get it. I sort of equate it to the Grateful Dead, or in more current terms, Phish.
K, but I'm 19 and I'd pay just about any ticket price to see them. So it's not really an age thing.
argue until your face is blue everyone, i think sonic youth is overrated
Whether they're overrated or not, there is no getting around the fact that they are not "just noise". Look at some of their guitar tabs.
It's like you're trying to convince us that Antarctica sucks because it's just too hot.
While I agree with you, you can't prove your point by saying "look at their tabs." No-wave bands have plenty of songs that really are just noise, and they have tabs as well, some of which look complex/musical.
-
I can point to dozens of Sonic Youth guitar tabs to prove that they follow conventional pop/rock forms, so I think that's pretty good evidence that they're not "just noise".
-
Again. I agree with you that Sonic Youth are not "just noise." But I don't see how a tab proves that. There's no "basic pop/rock format" for a tab. There is for chord changes, or musical scores, but tabs? Not so much.
-
Guys, Hüsker Dü, seriously.
-
not so sure about the drunk pig comment
but in some ways yes i am trying to annoy people with a different perspective than most
its typically the way things are, poeple have different ideals than you you think they're idiots
even sonic youth calls themselves noise
and yes i have heard sonic youth, they were once my favorite band
besides
its all opinionative anyways so relax, take deep breaths, count to ten and continue with the rant
-
It would be all opinions if you were saying something like they're bad. But it's a fact that their songs have the structure of songs, and use notes and so on that sound coherent and good together. Sure they use a lot of noise in some parts of some tracks, but there is this great big undeniable musical part of their sound that makes them not just noise. I really can't fathom how you could have given them even a cursory listen and honestly believe that they are 'just noise'.
-
See that's how you do it. Classy, Sam.
-
i simply said my opinion
would it be better if i said my OPINION is that they are noise
does that sound better?
or should i just conform to everybody elses opinion?
hell i don't even think they are bad, they're very much good, i just don't like them ANYMORE
infact to sum up my whole "argument"
it is my OPINION is they are overrated and noise, not all if its noise, of course or else we'd all be listening to the same
diminished chord over and over and over again like some actual bands out there that scare me pissless
they are NOT bad, never said that
just opinionative that i think they are overrated and very much noise
i honestly had NO IDEA my post would cause everyone to freak out like i pissed on your bible or somethin
really now people, is it THAT big of problem?
time to relax and enjoy the day okay? good
-
It is my fair opinion that you used way too many spaces in that statement.
-
There's no "basic pop/rock format" for a tab. There is for chord changes
But guitar tabs show you chords and the chord changes? :?
-
i simply said my opinion etc. etc. too much use of return key
They've already established that your use of 'opinion' is in fact not correct.
What you're saying equates to trying to tell us that the Decemberists play some really bitchin' doom metal, or that the Animal Collective writes really catchy disco pop.
Find another way to say whatever you're attempting to say, or just stop trying.
-
Sonic Youth aren't noise, they're just boring.
THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFpkNf1M6LQ) is noise, for comparison.
-
Holy god it's Nurse with Wound in angry mode.
I forgot my computer's speakers were at like max volume. That video very nearly made me piss myself.
-
THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFpkNf1M6LQ) is noise, for comparison.
Holy hell! You weren't joking. It sounded like an intro to a Chariot or Norma Jean Song at first so I kept listening. But it really is just goddamn noise.
-
yeah on second thought sonic youth isn't noise, this totally is though
my eyes are opened
i can see cleary now the rain is goooooone
-
yeah on second thought sonic youth isn't noise, this totally is though
Dude, you're so wrong. Sonic Youth is just garbage noise passed off as pop. This Sutcliffe Jügend shit though, is true melodic metal disguised by walls of noise and fuzz.
Once you see past all that.... whoa, man. Just whoa.
-
Sonic Youth aren't noise, they're just boring.
THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFpkNf1M6LQ) is noise, for comparison.
Wow, this almost puts Incapacitants and Hanatarash to shame.
-
i think my bloody valentine are pretty overrated.
also since this somehow turned into a noise debate, i have to ask: would naked city be considered a noise band?
-
i think my bloody valentine are pretty overrated.
My heart! Broken!
-
oh my god this thread
-
Guys, Hüsker Dü, seriously.
yeah, let's talk a bit more about this. I remember a thread a few months back where everyone talked about Husker Du like they were Jesus' second coming. So I thought I'd give them another try as they'd not really impressed me on the first time around. But they still sounded like a crappy 80's punk band. Maybe I had to experience it at the time to appreciate it? I don't know.
-
i did like their song "green eyes" though but yes husker du is overrated on my opinion as well
-
I think it's pretty funny that Sutcliffe Jügend's vocalist sounds exactly like some character from Monty Python
-
he sounds someones ripping my bowels out with a hangnail
-
Charged G.B.H.
-
Coldplay. Don't think they're terrible, just ehhhhh... A tad overated.
People seem to worship their every orifice though. Maybe I'm just not into Coldplay Orifice Worshiping.
-
I can assure you that's a completely unique opinion on this forum.
-
Whoa Elk. I know some people who will grudgingly admit that Coldplay isn't completely awful, but I have met exactly no one who professes actual love for them, much less any degree of orifice-worship.
-
Elk, you may find interest in this (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,19060.0.html) thread, or at least its first post. Trust me, DK is correct when he says that is an unique opinion.
-
Some stuff by Coldplay is good. Not amazing, but I'm not ashamed to admit enjoying some of it.
-
Another great page break. Today has been a good day for them.
-
Comparing Totalitarianism resulting in the deaths of millions to a mediocre English band. Yeah I can dig it.
-
Guys, Hüsker Dü, seriously.
yeah, let's talk a bit more about this. I remember a thread a few months back where everyone talked about Husker Du like they were Jesus' second coming. So I thought I'd give them another try as they'd not really impressed me on the first time around. But they still sounded like a crappy 80's punk band. Maybe I had to experience it at the time to appreciate it? I don't know.
I would have to agree. They do seem pretty much run-of-the-mill.
I do like My Bloody Valentine heaps though, and it took me a fair few listens before I really went "Wow, this is amazing stuff"
-
Coldplay. Don't think they're terrible, just ehhhhh... A tad overated.
People seem to worship their every orifice though. Maybe I'm just not into Coldplay Orifice Worshiping.
i get aroused thinkin about beating them to death witha broken pipe while they scream
"i thought we were edgy and stretching boundaries" while i shout "shut up you fuckin cunts
after this i will jerk off on your corpse sell your brains to scientist who study ego syndromes
in talentless hacks"
they're okay
-
Well that was unpleasant.
-
Guys, Hüsker Dü, seriously.
yeah, let's talk a bit more about this. I remember a thread a few months back where everyone talked about Husker Du like they were Jesus' second coming. So I thought I'd give them another try as they'd not really impressed me on the first time around. But they still sounded like a crappy 80's punk band. Maybe I had to experience it at the time to appreciate it? I don't know.
I would have to agree. They do seem pretty much run-of-the-mill.
I do like My Bloody Valentine heaps though, and it took me a fair few listens before I really went "Wow, this is amazing stuff"
I actually like Hüsker Dü, almost everyone with any interest in alternative forms of rock and punk that I've shown this stuff to loved it as well. I only started listening to Big Black and My Bloody Valentine and will continue to do as such.
-
i think my bloody valentine are pretty overrated.
My heart! Broken!
i'm sure it would shatter the remains of your heart even further if i said that they are a bad band.
i'm not saying that. i've given them many chances and they're just a bit underwhelming.
-
Uh, dalconnsuch? Are you okay?
do you want to talk about it?
-
*sniff* yeeeeesss.....
coldplay make dalconnsuch very sad!!
any artsy band that has an ego but suckzors
makes dalconnsuch sad sad SAD!!!!
-
your obviously a very stressed out person
and you should relax more
its a joke anyways
including this forum, myself, and yourself
thinkin otherwise that theres some importance to this forum as a whole
and nothing more than to give some amusement to a group of people
is next to lunacy
so relax and enjoy the ride, if i make you sad you should talk to your therapist about it
cuz i am who i am and if you don't like it?
well thats just too godamn bad
-
i think my bloody valentine are pretty overrated.
My heart! Broken!
i'm sure it would shatter the remains of your heart even further if i said that they are a bad band.
i'm not saying that. i've given them many chances and they're just a bit underwhelming.
i know its rather retarded to claim a band sucks because of their name
but i cannot stand their band name, i'd be able to tolerate them BAIRLY if they had a name
that didnt' make me think of every cliche emocore band of all time
-
"My Bloody Valentine" was named after a horror film from the 80s; the title itself is a play on the classic song "My Funny Valentine".
-
is'nt that the guy from fugazi?
how did he contribute to the creation of emocore?
and i have to say i agree with that quote
-
God dammit dalconnsuch, I'm going to confiscate your return key if you don't calm down a little.
-
is'nt that the guy from fugazi?
how did he contribute to the creation of emocore?
Please learn to use Google and Wikipedia before you post any more.
Thanks.
-
so is that how you find out all your useless trivia zerodrone?
-
No. I already know everything about every band ever.
-
Chinese Whispers
I have never regretted looking up a word on UrbanDictionary more than now
-
The name "Chinese whispers" reflects the former stereotype in Europe of the Chinese language as being incomprehensible
TOMMY YOU RACIST BASTARD. :x
-
Chinese Whispers
I have never regretted looking up a word on UrbanDictionary more than now
Fuck, i got curious too :|
-
I figured it was something like Telephone, but damn if I had to go look it up on Urban Dictionary too.
I now know something I wish I didn't.
-
Chinese Whispers would make a great band name.
-
Not now it wouldn't, unless you're into naming bands after obscure double entendres.
In that case, it would be cooler to name your band 'Steamy Aunt Jemima' anyway.
It is little-used in the United States and may be considered offensive... However, it remains the common British name for the game.
The British refuse to subscribe to your 'racist stereotype' shit.
-
Guys, the two wildly differing sexual meanings of 'Chinese Whispers' are blatantly fake.
-
Why do people have to do this kind of shit? (making up stupid shitty new terms for convoluted things) It is really fucking annoying and clogs up things like UrbanDictionary with absolute crap. The premise of UD is quite good, but as with most things that the general populace can edit with impunity it's turned to shit.
Anyway, Dalconnsuch can you maybe talk like a regular human being from now on? That would be fucking ace.
-
Ahh, oh man.
This thread is.
-
AC/DC over rated? I don't think anyone over the age of 16 thinks of them as anything more than a band that has made some very retarded but quite fun music and made one retarded and -incredibly- fun album, Back in Black, and then proceeded to try to make it over and over again for the next thirty years.
I will fight you sir. I will fight you with my fists.
-
Well THAT was a curious bump.
-
The first post on this page still wins it.
-
Upon reading/ responding to the particular forum, one has ultimately entered themselves into an argument.(whether it be knowingly or not) Based on this, “we” should dissect and discus said topic as the argument for which it stands for.. Logic is necessary for this process, seeing as logic is the science of argumentation. This subject clearly falls under deductive reasoning, as it cannot be 100% certain. The major problem standing in front of us at this point is simply the fact that music is emotional. Music, even just the word, evokes emotion instantaneously in human beings. Emotion, in logic, is to be thrown away. That being said, an individuals “feelings” are not to be accepted as truths, for example, comments such as “ The Beatles, I just don’t get it”. You are living in the 21century, of course you don’t get it, and you don’t have to. Your emotional experience with a band (or lack there of) has nothing to do with it being “overrated”. In 1964 the Beatles held twelve positions on Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions, which has never been accomplished by any other band or artist to date. By October 1972, the Beatles’ worldwide sales total stood at 545 million units. In a matter of years they were the number one selling artists of their time. They influenced musical culture, not just England , but around the world. They had 13 no.1 hits in Malaysia! Those are just the facts, you can look them up on Wikipedia. Now, my point here is; to say any band is over rated, based on personal opinion, is all fine and dandy. But; when it comes down to the facts you may find yourself, just plan wrong. And that, is why emotion is not used in logic. Also, there is a difference in being overrated and highly rated.
Just looking at it from a different angle…..did I stretch it to far?
I need to stop drinking whiskey.
I fucking hate the Beatles.
That’s right, I said it.
-
That was rather serious. But it's not a surprising answer.
-
Thank you for your words of wisdom! I do appreciate them.
On the other hand, I guess what I was trying to say was that this topic, rightly, should be analyzed logically, not emotionally.
I suppose emotionally is more fun, though.
-
The problem with objectiveness in this case is that no one can agree on any set standard outside of bands that fall at the farthest point on either side of the spectrum. The Beatles, I think, can definitely be agreed on, but any group smaller than, say, Jefferson Airplane (to use another classic rock example), might cause a lot of pointless argument.
-
Well, it's the only way that makes sense, really. If we are doing this logically we would have to deduct that whatever bands are the most popular are the best, seeing as more people like them - and that is not the case, at least if you ask for my subjective opinion.
Popularity is just a series of subjectivities. The only real objective measure of music is technicality, and that doesn't always say much.
-
Cuz then there's the whole technicality versus emotionality debate. Yngwie can play several thousand notes a minute, but Stefan Koglek (Colour Haze) will play 6 notes over 3 measures, and affect me more than Yngwie. Even technicality itself is debatable, because there's the speed-is-important vs. speed-is-not-important. Quite a few of the drummers I know will place Sean Reinert and Danny Carey over Flo Maunier and Derek Roddy in terms of technical ability, but even more metalheads and crust punks I associate with will tell me otherwise.
-
Technicality is not a matter of opinion at all, it simply has different aspects and people value those aspects differently. Speed is one aspect of technicality, for instance, while harmonic complexity is another. And so on and so forth. A metal guitarist playing a blazing sextuplet run at 220 bpm isn't necessarily less or more technical than the jazz player playing a progression involving eight different basic chords, plus numerous variations.
It's a matter of valuing different aspects of technicality, unless you're in Atheist.
Not that I claim that music should be measured objectively, ever, because that defeats the purpose of the art-form right there.
-
it simply has different aspects and people value those aspects differently.
That's essentially what I was trying to say, yeah. It will still cause lots of arguments.
-
I did a search before making this and there was a thread but it was around 3 years old so I decided against necroposting.
It seems to be a mistake I've seen happening in this thread, and I think I need to put it here. OVERRATED DOESN'T MEAN BAD
So overrated bands.
Led Zeppelin
Foo Fighters (I tried to like them. Some of it's good some of it's just mediocre)
Mute Math
Liars (Jesus H I saw them open for Radiohead and wanted to stab my ears out)
I'm sure if pressed I could come up with more, but this is just music I have on my computer that I glanced through.
I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death by now, but I just started up and Led Zeppelin is by far and away my favorite band. I think that they are largely overlooked by people under thirty today, and especially people under twenty (which I am). I only really started to listen to Zeppelin about four years ago and they blew me away. To listen to their music late at night is frickin' TERRIFYING. They are actually frightening. The music is like a tidal wave. It's so organic but so heavy and powerful. John Bonham more or less inspired me to finally start playing drums again. He is the best rock drummer in history. I know that Neil Peart and Mike Portnoy might have better technical chops (although I don't know about Peart, he's overrated), but Bonham invented being a rock drummer. He was much more disciplined than Moon, with a better sound. Moon may have been more complicated, but that's only because all he ever played was fills. Bonham's fills were as good, Moon just wouldn't stop. Bonzo took the basic idea of playing drums for a band (keep the rhythm, support the other instruments), but made it much more technical, heavier, and threw in fills that are still outstanding. And he was capable of playing at ridiculous speeds with only one foot on the bass drum. I don't think I need to be a Jimmy Page apologist, and Robert Plant is not my favorite singer, but John Paul Jones has gotten the shaft for too long: he was an amazing musician. He was inventive and clever on some of their more experimental passages (a la The Lemon Song, Traveling Riverside Blues, Dazed and Confused) and was capable of following along with Page on a bass. That in itself is impressive, but it was an awesome idea stylistically as well. It made the guitar leads heavier and stronger, backing them up and underscoring them. Zeppelin took the blues and made something incredible out of it. I love the blues, but blues artists never had the same vitality and urgency that Zeppelin did. They took old tropes and cliches from the blues and turned them into something brand new and gripping.
-
Led Zepplin and the Beatles are my big two. Led Zepplin just does nothing for me (ok, Stairway, yes, but besides that) and the Beatles, when I can think of them objectively instead of as a cultural building block, just don't really excite me. They have plenty of good songs but no distinctive sound that rocks me.
-
Led Zepplin and the Beatles are my big two. Led Zepplin just does nothing for me (ok, Stairway, yes, but besides that) and the Beatles, when I can think of them objectively instead of as a cultural building block, just don't really excite me. They have plenty of good songs but no distinctive sound that rocks me.
If "Stairway to Heaven" is the one song you like by Zeppelin, you're obviously doing something wrong.
-
Yngwie Malmsteen
-
Led Zepplin and the Beatles are my big two. Led Zepplin just does nothing for me (ok, Stairway, yes, but besides that) and the Beatles, when I can think of them objectively instead of as a cultural building block, just don't really excite me. They have plenty of good songs but no distinctive sound that rocks me.
If "Stairway to Heaven" is the one song you like by Zeppelin, you're obviously doing something wrong.
That is definitely a lie.
-
Yngwie Malmsteen
Who overrates Yngwie Malmsteen?
Who likes Yngwie Malmsteen
-
They have plenty of good songs but no distinctive sound that rocks me.
That's probably becuase their sound was pretty out-there... in 1963-1970.
-
Led Zepplin and the Beatles are my big two. Led Zepplin just does nothing for me (ok, Stairway, yes, but besides that) and the Beatles, when I can think of them objectively instead of as a cultural building block, just don't really excite me. They have plenty of good songs but no distinctive sound that rocks me.
If "Stairway to Heaven" is the one song you like by Zeppelin, you're obviously doing something wrong.
That is definitely a lie.
Hugely wrong. Stairway is nowhere near their best. When The Levee Breaks, Achilles Last Stand, The Ocean, In My Time of Dying, Black Dog, How Many More Times, Traveling Riverside Blues, Since I've Been Loving You, Whole Lotta Love, and Over The Hills And Far Away are all better, and that was just off the top of my head.
-
I'll put a dollar on Going to California and, um... the Viking song.
-
I'll put a dollar on Going to California and, um... the Viking song.
Do you mean No Quarter or the Immigrant Song? (i.e., the short, dun-da-da-DA-dun one, or the seven minute long one with synthesizers)
-
Led Zepplin and the Beatles are my big two. Led Zepplin just does nothing for me (ok, Stairway, yes, but besides that) and the Beatles, when I can think of them objectively instead of as a cultural building block, just don't really excite me. They have plenty of good songs but no distinctive sound that rocks me.
If "Stairway to Heaven" is the one song you like by Zeppelin, you're obviously doing something wrong.
That is definitely a lie.
Hugely wrong. Stairway is nowhere near their best. When The Levee Breaks, Achilles Last Stand, The Ocean, In My Time of Dying, Black Dog, How Many More Times, Traveling Riverside Blues, Since I've Been Loving You, Whole Lotta Love, and Over The Hills And Far Away are all better, and that was just off the top of my head.
I don't see how we're even having this conversation...most of those songs are exactly why I think Led Zepplin is overrated. Telling me what songs I should like isn't going to make me like them. I like Stairway because it's epic, rockin' shit, but these other songs don't do it for me. The only other song I particularly enjoy is All My Love.
-
We'll assume you don't enjoy blues. Zeppelin are tried and true masters of the Blues.
-
Man...why are you all up on my case :-P this thread is ABOUT bands that we think are overrated. It's not like I busted into some Led Zepplin appreciation thread and ruined the vibe. I just don't like them that much, and therefore think they're overrated since many people think they're amazing. Like, When the Levee Breaks - when that comes on, I change the song. It's not pleasant to listen to. And yes, I like the blues. I just don't like the combination of whiny voice + scratchy guitar, and I don't think their songs are very catchy or moving or interesting.
I mean, come on. Lord of the Rings references. How visionary can you be :wink:
-
Well, the point of Zeppelin was essentially not to be catchy.
But, anyway, you're right, this is about overrated bands: the Beatles, Nirvana, the Ramones, and the Smiths. I like the first two at least a little bit (Dave Grohl's drumming, anyway), but the Ramones and Smiths are AWFUL.
-
The question is not about coolness, it's about being an overrated (i.e., musically) band. And the Ramones were horrible musicians and wrote bad music. Plus, I don't think the Ramones were even a cool band. Look at us wear leather jackets and sunglasses indoors! We're so freaking punk rock!
The Clash were much better musicians and much cooler.
-
fun fact: Joey Ramone is just a persona that was temporarily adopted by the immortal Quasimodo before moving on to pretend to be some guy named Michael Phelps.
-
The Ramones wrote cool music for attractive people. They were very cool. All the time.
They were so cool.
I could be wrong, but I think you made a Strong Bad reference.
As for the Ramones, in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, "Agree to disagree."
-
Might be a little late to say it, but I guess I could be considered a Coldplay orifice worshipper(o0). Well not to that point, but I really like them. They aren't anything groundbreaking or new, but they make interesting catchy songs, where all their albums have very different sounds while not losing what they sound like. It's easy to listen to and enjoyable. Who knows.
I do enjoy Led Zeppelin, a lot more of their softer simpler stuff than their long long long songs, but I usually have a short attention span for music. I really like Thank You, and That's The Way especially. Similair in the vein to coldplay, they are ejoyable to me and I don't think I could find a mood where a Zeppelin song wouldn't fit what I wanted to listen to, but I'd say they are overrated. I don't view them as gods, and think that is a ridiculous statement.
For overrated i'm putting some things out there that haven't been much said.
Lil Wayne. Nonsensical lyrics, spoken unintelligibly, with too much autotune to hear any voice that he might have. Calling himself the best rapper alive? Really?
Josh Homme - Queens of the Stone Age was mediocre rock, Make it Wit Chu I enjoyed a little bit, but not anything I'd actually want to listen to. Nothing exciting to see here, move on. Kyuss just bored me. And what the hell is eagles of death metal even trying to do. Anyways. Just Me.
Red Hot Chili Peppers get wayyy too much attention for having a singer who can't hit a single note.
-
Man...why are you all up on my case :-P this thread is ABOUT bands that we think are overrated.
It's called "having a discussion".
And if you call The Ramones "bad musicians" you are obviously a philistine. The biggest part of what makes them so great is that they thought they were writing and producing accessible, catchy pop songs that would be huge hits, but had no idea how accessible, catchy pop songs that were huge hits were written and produced in the 70's. Listen to every Ramones album from the self-titled to End of The Century, and you'll notice that the latter is not only the most "musically proficient", but also the worst. Also, the fact that they looked more goofy than cool, though they tried so hard to look cool--is part of their appeal.
Joe Strummer called the Ramones' first album "one of the most fabulous records ever made."
-
The Sex Pistols sparked the bands of both Ian Mackaye and Henry Rollins.
This is actually the truth
-
Man...why are you all up on my case :-P this thread is ABOUT bands that we think are overrated.
And if you call The Ramones "bad musicians" you are obviously a philistine. The biggest part of what makes them so great is that they thought they were writing and producing accessible, catchy pop songs that would be huge hits, but had no idea how accessible, catchy pop songs that were huge hits were written and produced in the 70's. Listen to every Ramones album from the self-titled to End of The Century, and you'll notice that the latter is not only the most "musically proficient", but also the worst. Also, the fact that they looked more goofy than cool, though they tried so hard to look cool--is part of their appeal.
Joe Strummer called the Ramones' first album "one of the most fabulous records ever made."
Joe Strummer, despite being an okay guitarist (Mick was better), does not have the best taste in music. Punk rockers were more interested in angriness of the lyrics. And I mean that the Ramones were BAD AT THEIR INSTRUMENTS.
-
Part number a: I love Johnny Ramone's guitar playing for its sheer simplicity.
Part letter 2: I'm listening to the new Animal Collective album and it FUCKING SUCKS. Stop pissing your pants over them, seriously.
-
Joe Strummer, despite being an okay guitarist (Mick was better), does not have the best taste in music. Punk rockers were more interested in angriness of the lyrics. And I mean that the Ramones were BAD AT THEIR INSTRUMENTS.
Are you serious? There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.
-
You can't compare the musical talent of the Ramones to almost anyone else. They're comparable to the Sex Pistols in terms of sheer musical badness. Drums: play sixteenth notes on the hihats, quarter notes on bass and snare. Guitar: random downstrokes (playing in a coherent time signature not necessary). Bass: sixteenth notes on any one string. There: the Ramones.
-
musical talent is directly correlated with technical skill
You're a huge Rush fan, aren't you?
-
No, I'm not. And I didn't say what you quote me as saying.
Technical skill is a prerequisite, but it is not the end-all-be-all of music. The Ramones can't play their instruments better than twelve year old girls. Therefore, I do not like listening to them.
My favorite band is Zeppelin. They are very good musicians, but not the best. I dislike Rush, because they disregard the process of writing songs that people enjoy listening to. However, I do like Dream Theater and Liquid Tension Experiment, who are better than Rush in terms of musicianship, but are totally awesome prog rockers who write very interesting music. I also really love The Black Keys, who are not the best musicians, but are good and write material that I love to listen to. I really don't like punk (except for The Clash), because it emphasizes overly simplistic music with angry political lyrics. Punk is the ultimate in attitude over talent. But I also don't want it to be all talent, no attitude.
Oh, by the way, I can't stand the Nuge. Can't stand him.
-
Technical skill is a prerequisite, but it is not the end-all-be-all of music. The Ramones can't play their instruments better than twelve year old girls. Therefore, I do not like listening to them.
Do you realize how oxymoronical this statement is? Your statement still boils down to "I don't like The Ramones because they can't play their instruments" even after you say musical skill is not the be-all end-all of music. By the way, The Ramones probably did play their instruments better than 12-year-old girls could (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shaggs). Hell, I prefer The Clash to The Ramones because I think they wrote better songs, not because they were better at their instruments than The Ramones.
I really don't like punk (except for The Clash), because it emphasizes overly simplistic music with angry political lyrics. Punk is the ultimate in attitude over talent. But I also don't want it to be all talent, no attitude.
Sorry, but I have to call absolute complete bullshit on this attitude. Sure, you may be talking about '77 punk when the genre was still gestating. But to write off all punk as "attitude over talent" is stupid. To discount punk is to discount everything that came afterwards (and that includes most indie rock)--take bands like Mission of Burma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_of_burma), Husker Du (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCsker_D%C3%BC), Fugazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugazi), et cetera. Each of these bands could and did play fast and had to some degree that "punk" attitude, but their musicianship was also a league above the average garage punk band. And the music they made is absolutely timeless.
Punk rock showed that you need not have incredible musical skill to make good music. Inversely, I don't think you need to be bad at your instrument to be in a good punk band.
TL;DR Go crack open a copy of Our Band Could Be Your Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Band_Could_Be_Your_Life).
-
As I said: musical talent is a prerequisite for me to consider a band "good." It is NOT all that is important, but it IS important.
Premise: For, me a band must be instrumentally skilled to be good.
Second Premise: The Ramones were not instrumentally skilled.
Conclusion: I do not consider the Ramones a good band.
Premise: A band does not need to be unbelievably good at their instruments for me to consider them good, just better than decent.
Second Premise: The Black Keys are not unbelievable musicians, but they are above average and write good, bluesy music.
Conclusion: Despite their not being the best musicians, I like the Black Keys.
And, to be honest, I don't listen very much to Fugazi or Husker Du and I don't really have any interest in giving them a long look at the moment.
-
Premise: For, me a band must be instrumentally skilled to be good.
1. Why?
2. How do you define 'skill'?
3. Where is the line at which someone is or isn't skilled? Noel Gallagher is considered by many people to be a terrible musician, but the guy can play five or six instruments, sing vocal harmonies, and has sold millions of records, without any music lessons. Is he not musically skilled? I think he is, if not in the traditional sense, necessarily.
P.S. The Sex Pistols aren't actually that bad musically. Well, I say the Pistols, I mean Steve Jones.
-
Music happens to be largely an aesthetic discipline. Skill far less relevant than sounding good. though, for the record, it can be an enjoyable thing on its own. Also, whether or not the Ramones could play well or not is not relevant at all, since they actively chose to continue to play in the manner that they did.
Now, to be perfectly honest, it is completely acceptable to consider the physical skill of a musician as an important aspect in your own music taste. I personally section the way i judge music into three categories, each of which will vary in importance from person to person: aesthetics(does it sound good, interesting, or cool?), ethos(do they have artistic integrity? do I agree with their ideological stance, if they appear to have one?), and athletics(can they play lots of notes, in tune, in time?). This is also the order of importance with which i hold them. Perhaps you have a different order of importance. That's okay. What is not okay is to confuse not not being interested in a band and thinking they are not good. those are two entirely different things.
-
Premise: For, me a band must be instrumentally skilled to be good.
1. Why?
2. How do you define 'skill'?
3. Where is the line at which someone is or isn't skilled? Noel Gallagher is considered by many people to be a terrible musician, but the guy can play five or six instruments, sing vocal harmonies, and has sold millions of records, without any music lessons. Is he not musically skilled? I think he is, if not in the traditional sense, necessarily.
P.S. The Sex Pistols aren't actually that bad musically. Well, I say the Pistols, I mean Steve Jones.
1. Because I place value on someone being good at what they do. If you are a guitarist, I am interested in you being a good guitarist. It's like sports: the best players on a team are usually the most popular. I want bands to be good at what they do.
2. I define skill as technical proficiency at an instrument. This is easiest for me to define in terms of drums, because that is what I play. If a drummer is capable of maintaining rhythm in a variety of time signatures and at a variety of speeds while playing complex material, especially syncopation, and has technically difficult fills, I am inclined to like that drummer. However, as I said, this is not the ONLY factor I consider, but it is the first. Of course, I'm not wholly consistent, and sometimes I allow one musician's skill to make up for the failures of the others (a la The Doors: John Densmore is a technically skilled drummer, the other guitar and organ are not at the same level).
3. While I appreciate multi-talentedness, I am more concerned with proficiency at one instrument. For instance, a friend and I argued the merits of Eric Clapton vs. Jimmy Page. My friend argued that Clapton should be considered better for, among other reasons, the fact that he often sang while playing. I disagree. I think skill or talent should be judged primarily within one field or at one instrument/position in the band (i.e., no bonus points for singing guitarists).
Also, I don't know if you can say the Sex Pistols were not bad musically when they featured Sid "I Have No Idea What I'm Doing, So I Will Pluck Some Strings Very Fast" Vicious.
-
The Doors are considered by some to be incredibly overrated.
The Smiths are not overrated, neither are the Ramones, I can't believe that nobody called you out on the Smiths comment.
-
Music happens to be largely an aesthetic discipline. Skill far less relevant than sounding good. though, for the record, it can be an enjoyable thing on its own. Also, whether or not the Ramones could play well or not is not relevant at all, since they actively chose to continue to play in the manner that they did.
Now, to be perfectly honest, it is completely acceptable to consider the physical skill of a musician as an important aspect in your own music taste. I personally section the way i judge music into three categories, each of which will vary in importance from person to person: aesthetics(does it sound good, interesting, or cool?), ethos(do they have artistic integrity? do I agree with their ideological stance, if they appear to have one?), and athletics(can they play lots of notes, in tune, in time?). This is also the order of importance with which i hold them. Perhaps you have a different order of importance. That's okay. What is not okay is to confuse not not being interested in a band and thinking they are not good. those are two entirely different things.
Yes, music is aesthetic. I personally believe that technically complex music, in general, sounds better than simplistic music. There is little layering and subtlety possible if the musicians struggle to play basic material in tune and on beat. And, even if The Ramones actually were better musicians than they performed, that doesn't change my point. Their music is simplistic and based almost entirely on speed. As to your criteria, it's fairly similar to mine, except that I would place "athletics" (technical skill) first, not because it's all encompassing, but because I do not want to listen to a band with lesser talent. Also, I sould replace your category of "ethos" with a different concept. Almost no bands share my ideologies, therefore I usually disregard this. Instead, I consider whether there is some sort of connection and internal consistency in the band's body of work. Is there a similar mood? Sound? Feeling? This is one of the reasons that Led Zeppelin is my favorite group: everything they do has a particular sense of mysticism about it. The music seems almost mythic, and not in the sense of "OMG, Zeppelin are gods!!1!!!," but in the sense of their being something very mysterious about it. Even their most disparate songs- say "When the Levee Breaks" and "Communication Breakdown" - have a slight connection in some metaphysical way. I will end now, since it appears that I am becoming too philosophical for my own tastes.
-
Oh, fuck you.
-
The Doors are considered by some to be incredibly overrated.
The Smiths are not overrated, neither are the Ramones, I can't believe that nobody called you out on the Smiths comment.
I also think that The Doors are somewhat overrated. I still like them. I think that people tend to overrate Jim Morrison while underrating John Densmore, who is my focal point when I listen (as I mentioned, I am a drummer).
I already mentioned why I think The Ramones are overrated, but, you're right, nobody has mentioned The Smiths so far. I just don't like their music, for one thing, and, for another, I have a huge, undying hatred for Morrissey (I hope I spelled that right). Admittedly, I also like The Police while hating Sting, but I like the music of The Police much more than The Smiths. Obviously, you disagree.
-
Guitar: random downstrokes (playing in a coherent time signature not necessary).
I defy you to name even one Ramones song where Johnny Ramone was playing out of time.
-
As I said: musical talent is a prerequisite for me to consider a band "good." It is NOT all that is important, but it IS important.
Premise: For, me a band must be instrumentally skilled to be good.
Second Premise: The Ramones were not instrumentally skilled.
Conclusion: I do not consider the Ramones a good band.
Premise: A band does not need to be unbelievably good at their instruments for me to consider them good, just better than decent.
Second Premise: The Black Keys are not unbelievable musicians, but they are above average and write good, bluesy music.
Conclusion: Despite their not being the best musicians, I like the Black Keys.
And, to be honest, I don't listen very much to Fugazi or Husker Du and I don't really have any interest in giving them a long look at the moment.
All the musical skill in the world doesn't make up for being shitty musicians. Music, in the end, is about sounding good. Example: none of the Rolling Stones can play their instruments for shit, with the possible exception of Keith Richards and Mick Taylor; but they are (were) a great band. Despite their near complete lack of technical ability, they still wrote good music and sounded good together. If all it took to make a good band/good music were talented musicians, then 90% of prog rock/metal bands wouldn't be the absolute shitpiles that they actually are. See, for example, Dream Theater; fantastically talented musicians, but for the most part a terrible, terrible band. Van Halen, Eddie is one of the most technically amazing guitarists ever, but his music sucks (this can be applied to most guitar wankers, actually).
Basically, the first priority for good music cannot simply be pure chops. There are way too many technically proficient people who just make shitty shitty music for this to be reasonable.
Anyway, back on topic, U2, The Beatles, Radiohead, Bruce Springsteen, Explosions in the Sky, Pink Floyd, Kanye West, Muse, and yes, the Sex Pistols, are overrated.
-
1. Because I place value on someone being good at what they do. If you are a guitarist, I am interested in you being a good guitarist. It's like sports: the best players on a team are usually the most popular. I want bands to be good at what they do.
A band can be good at what they do without being technically proficient. All the technical proficiency in the world doesn't mean you make a great album or hold a crowd's attention.
2. I define skill as technical proficiency at an instrument. This is easiest for me to define in terms of drums, because that is what I play. If a drummer is capable of maintaining rhythm in a variety of time signatures and at a variety of speeds while playing complex material, especially syncopation, and has technically difficult fills, I am inclined to like that drummer. However, as I said, this is not the ONLY factor I consider, but it is the first. Of course, I'm not wholly consistent, and sometimes I allow one musician's skill to make up for the failures of the others (a la The Doors: John Densmore is a technically skilled drummer, the other guitar and organ are not at the same level).
Meh, here we just disagree. Skill isn't everything. Sometimes the greatest skill is knowing that fancy frills aren't needed, quite apart from which skill is not totally quantifiable.
3. While I appreciate multi-talentedness, I am more concerned with proficiency at one instrument. For instance, a friend and I argued the merits of Eric Clapton vs. Jimmy Page. My friend argued that Clapton should be considered better for, among other reasons, the fact that he often sang while playing. I disagree. I think skill or talent should be judged primarily within one field or at one instrument/position in the band (i.e., no bonus points for singing guitarists).
Isn't that just closing yourself off a bit? Multi-instrumentalism is a skill in and of itself, and anyone who can play more than one instrument I consider to be a slightly better musician than I would if they just play one instrument well. Playing multiple instruments means you need subtlety, nuance and knowing what is needed for each instrument you play.
Also, I don't know if you can say the Sex Pistols were not bad musically when they featured Sid "I Have No Idea What I'm Doing, So I Will Pluck Some Strings Very Fast" Vicious.
If you'd read the very next sentence you'd do well. Quite apart from which, I consider the Pistols to be Jones, Cook, Rotten and Matlock. Vicious never played anything on record as far as I know and I think they muted his bass at gigs.
-
am I the only one that gets the sense that this dude's trolling? I mean, there's just too many good bands that an opinion like that would ignore for it to be real. Even if he is serious, does it matter that much?
and yea, Vicious was totally just that guy who goes to gigs to get drunk and try to start fights. except he was on stage instead of in the crowd.
-
Not trolling. Just expressing my honest opinions. And, as I mentioned, I think Dream Theater is a good band.
Also: I mean "good at what they do" in terms of the individual musicians, not the band as a whole. If the musicians are good individually (or at least SOMEONE in the band), I will give them a shot. Then, if the band gells, I will like the band.
And I don't like the Rolling Stones.
-
Is there such a thing as musical asperger's because I think you have it.
-
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_0tRzLJiM) is objectively better than any Dream Theater song ever. There can be no argument.
Also, stop wanking on about Jones, Matlock wrote most of the Sex Pistols music. Fun music fact for the day: Glen Matlock came up with the riff for Pretty Vacant by accident whilst trying to nail 'Fernando' by Abba.
-
I dislike Rush, because they disregard the process of writing songs that people enjoy listening to. However, I do like Dream Theater and Liquid Tension Experiment
"I don't like oranges because they're too citrusy, however I do like sucking on limes and shooting lemon juice into my eyeball"
(I am a fan of all three of those bands but your statement makes no fucking sense)
-
I think that Dream Theater and Liquid Tension Experiment do a better job of writing fun music. Yes, they are even more technically complex and more theoretical, but I enjoy their music a lot more. Ultimately, music is, after all, subjective (so, no, Blitzkrieg Bop is not better than DT or LTE, because I don't think it is). Therefore, I can believe who I want to believe is overrated, and enjoy who I enjoy. Besides, I think Neil Peart is a douche.
-
You could get away with saying DT are less guilty of writing technical music for technicalities sake than Rush, if you had a real silver tongue but Liquid Tension Experiment are one of the biggest wank bands on the planet.
-
I dislike Rush, because they disregard the process of writing songs that people enjoy listening to. However, I do like Dream Theater and Liquid Tension Experiment, who are better than Rush in terms of musicianship, but are totally awesome prog rockers who write very interesting music.
I enjoy listening to Rush songs a great deal more than DT or LTE, both of whom I would put into the category of very talented prog rock musicians who write abominably shitty music. They are neither pleasant nor interesting, for the most part it's just obnoxious, showy "LOOK AT OUR TALENT" wankery. Also, sorry, but Neil Peart/Geddy Lee >>>>>>>>>>Mike Portnoy/John Myung. I'm fairly indifferent towards Alex Lifeson, but really, Rush's rhythm section is damn near untouchable.
-
Really if you're going to argue for anything making Rush's music inaccessible, you'd probably put the blame on Pearts lyrics before you accused them of instrumental wankery.
-
Last ditch effort to make this somewhat civil: all posts on this thread should have "in my opinion" as an unspoken caveat. Therefore, in my opinion, Mike Portnoy is better than Neil Peart. Again, in my opinion, neither is as good as John Bonham. They probably have more technical chops, but they cannot touch Bonzo's sound and instincts. Also, I really don't think John Myung is that great either, so if you want, count Geddy Lee vs. John Myung as a point to Rush. But John Petrucci might be the most talented guitarist in the world.
As to everyone who says that Dream Theater writes bad music, I suggest Metropolis Part II: Scenes from a Memory. It's one of my favorite albums. LTE might be more guilty of this, but songs like Universal Mind are really fun. It ends with about fifteen seconds of reggae followed by that circus theme song. It made me literally laugh the first time I heard it (at least I think that's Universal Mind, it might be Paradigm Shift, and I don't have the motivation to check right now).
-
But John Petrucci might be the most talented guitarist in the world.
Sorry, not even close.
-
Care to elaborate? Also, bear in mind that, as I said, you can throw an "in my opinion" at the end of all these statements.
-
Care to elaborate? Also, bear in mind that, as I said, you can throw an "in my opinion" at the end of all these statements.
John McLaughlin says: "WTF is this shit? John Petrucci? Who the fuck is that?"
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Johnmclcrop2.jpg)
-
To clarify: when I say things, assume that I'm limiting my statements to the genres of reggae, blues, and the various forms of rock. I have nothing to say about post-rock, jazz, classical, country, bluegrass, rap (well, not much, except that Black Star freaking rule), R&B, or any other genre I may have over looked- oh, and pop.
-
Ok, see if you say that John Petrucci is the best modern prog rock guitar wanker, you might even be able to convince me of that. Because he is a very skilled technician, he just *does not make good music*.
So, off the top of my head, John McLaughlin, Steve Howe, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Vernon Reid, Andre Olbrich, Brian Patrick Carroll, and probably Eddie Van Halen.
-
Ok, see if you say that John Petrucci is the best modern prog rock guitar wanker, you might even be able to convince me of that. Because he is a very skilled technician, he just *does not make good music*.
So, off the top of my head, John McLaughlin, Steve Howe, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Vernon Reid, Andre Olbrich, Brian Patrick Carroll, and probably Eddie Van Halen.
I disagree. In terms of agreeable music, I think Stevie Ray Vaughan is among the best in the world. But he does not have the same technical skill. Eddie Van Halen, in my opinion, fails on both counts- worse music, less talent. Obviously, you disagree.
-
You could get away with saying DT are less guilty of writing technical music for technicalities sake than Rush, if you had a real silver tongue but Liquid Tension Experiment are one of the biggest wank bands on the planet.
To be fair, that's the entire point of LTE to begin with.
Much of newer DT I agree is boring. Awake, Images and Words, and A Change of Seasons are phenominal albums chock full insanely technical musicianship and disciplined songwriting. Their last three or so have been off the mark on the songwriting aspect, but it happens with almost evry band that's been around for like 20 years.
Metallica I think has put together a sucessful comeback album with Death Magnetic. Objectively, it's on par with And Justice for All. I still haven't forgiven them for Load, Reload, or St. Anger, though.
-
You can't say 'objectively' about music. It doesn't work. Such a thing does not exist.
Also, stop wanking on about Jones, Matlock wrote most of the Sex Pistols music. Fun music fact for the day: Glen Matlock came up with the riff for Pretty Vacant by accident whilst trying to nail 'Fernando' by Abba.
'Wanking on'? Having mentioned him by name in one post and referring to him indirectly in a second?
Besides, we were talking about musical skill, and I think Jones has done a couple of little fills and such which suggest he was slightly better a guitarist than he got credit for. I wasn't talking about the songwriting.
-
Actually, it's pretty well-documented that Steve Jones was a very disciplined and adept guitar player. Of course, this was because, according to him, he was high on speed much of the time and the only thing he did was play guitar.
-
Then my ruminations were justified. Huzzah.
-
You can't say 'objectively' about music. It doesn't work. Such a thing does not exist.
I mean pretend those three albums don't exist by look at it objectively.
-
Ah, fair enough.
What I've heard from that album annoys me anyway, but I don't want to start a multi-page debate with Alex again!
-
am I the only one that gets the sense that this dude's trolling? I mean, there's just too many good bands that an opinion like that would ignore for it to be real. Even if he is serious, does it matter that much?
By the way, I meant to say this earlier: when you say "good" and I say "good," obviously we mean different things. Therefore, in my opinion, I like all the good bands and dislike all the bad bands, because music is subjective. What is "good" to me is different than what is "good" to you. I happen to dislike most of the bands that everyone thinks are so great, especially from the 1980s onward. The only real popular bands I like are: Zeppelin (and they become less popular as time goes on), U2 (who I admit are overrated, but still like), Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, Queen, and Pearl Jam. Besides that, I like mostly less-popular groups. If that makes me a hater of "good" bands, so be it. It's what I like.
-
Oh! god do I hate RHCP. They have some very good songs, but their general sound is so obnoxious. They're one of the few bands that I actively snap out of whatever else I was doing to change the song when I'm just listening to my playlist on shuffle. The attack is just so abrupt, it really bothers me.
-
Man maybe I'm crazy but if I hate a band that much I tend to just take them off my goddamn playlist.
-
Nice 30 Rock picture.
Also, I agree: if you can't stand to listen to a band, just remove them. And obviously I disagree with you about the Chili Peppers.
-
I can listen to a few Chilis songs, mostly from the Navarro era, because they sounded nothing like themselves. I love 'Warped.'
-
I very much dislike Dave Navarro. I think Frusciante is the best Peppers guitarist, although Hillel Slovak wins points for the name, and also for dying in the same way as Mitch Heberg and Chris Farley.
-
Holy shit, this thread started off bad and very quickly became one of the worst things my eyes have ever had the misfortune to read. :cry:
-
I don't think anyone should get points for overdosing on heroin, but whatever.
Technically, it was a speedball. Also, my tongue was firmly in cheek on that statement.
-
I very much dislike Dave Navarro. I think Frusciante is the best Peppers guitarist, although Hillel Slovak wins points for the name, and also for dying in the same way as Mitch Heberg and Chris Farley.
Navarro is one of my earliest gay crushes, so maybe I'm biased. It's not that I like his guitar work better, if there's anything I like about the Chilis, it's Frusciante's guitar. It's just I like their overall sound a lot more with Navarro.
-
Unfortunately, Dave Navarro is amongst the world's largest obnoxious twatbags.
-
Yeah, I should take them off my playlist, but I'm not entirely sure how. Winamp keeps re-compiling my music library. I did delete a bunch of stuff awhile back, but whatever.
Anyway, I thought the point of this thread was to argue and discuss what bands we think are overrated? Can't we all get behind some good old-fashioned mudslinging?
-
The Who
Led Zeppelin
Queen
The Doors
The Beatles
Bruce Springsteen
The Eagles
Rush
Dream Theater
Rage Against The Machine
Radiohead
The White Stripes
The Red Hot Chili Peppers
Cream
Guns n' Roses
Pink Floyd
Arcade Fire
Beck
Tool
The Mars Volta
etc...etc...
And then we have nu-metal/metalcore shit, which is mostly rated accordingly by any listener who is competent, and then overrated by it's fans.
-
Frank Sinatra, I really fucking hate Frank Sinatra. Its all yuppie pap about going on vacation and drinking cocktails, it makes me a little bit sick.
-
I absolutely agree with:
The Beatles
Springsteen
The Eagles
Rush
Rage
Radiohead
The White Stripes
Guns n'Roses
Floyd
The Arcade Fire
Beck
Sinatra
and sort of The Doors.
I disagree (sort of) with The Who, very strongly with Zeppelin, half-heartedly disagree with Queen (Freddie, great as he was, is overrated, but Brian May is underrated), and Dream Theater- at least Metropolis Pt. 2 which is one of my favorite all time albums.
-
I forgot Elvis. Yes he made some great rock n roll but he made a lot more sloppy love ballads
-
Elvis and other similar artists of the same general time period, made a living ripping off poor black artists. Artists who were already doing what they did, except better.
-
Totally agree. Elvis got famous ripping off work alreadly in progress. Besides, I just don't think he was that good.
-
B...S...S.
There, I said it.
-
Technically, it was a speedball.
Which is heroin, shot up with morphine. So, you know.
I thought it was heroin and cocaine?
-
Technically, it was a speedball.
Which is heroin, shot up with morphine. So, you know.
And the morphine is the killer. Heroin speeds the heart up to dangerous levels, morphine kicks in later and stops it almost completely.
-
Why are you arguing about this shit.
-
I thought it was heroin and cocaine?
That's what I thought.
Bottom line, though: it is shit that will kill you combined with other shit that will kill you.
-
I absolutely agree with:
The Beatles
Springsteen
The Eagles
Rush
Rage
Radiohead
The White Stripes
Guns n'Roses
Floyd
The Arcade Fire
Beck
Sinatra
and sort of The Doors.
I disagree with the notion of every band on that list being "overrated," except for Rush and Beck.
-
I wanted to make a comment about the whole Lil Wayne being overrated. I do have to agree he is pretty overrated considering I could name a few rappers who are a little more lyrically impressive. Though when you consider the fact that he freestyles everything and never writes a thing down you got to admit that is impressive. I will admit, I am a huge wayne fan because of that. Oh and touching on the whole best rapper alive thing, listen to his mixtapes. They are way better than any of the Carter albums and he explains why he calls himself the best rapper alive. He pretty much calls himself the best rapper alive because he feels like he is a a competitor and feels that everyone should feel the same way about their craft.
-
the kind of overratedness (is that a word?!) that annoys me the most is when someone says about a band/artist "you HAVE to like them, because they're so influential!"
i've heard that line (or variations on it) in relation to several bands, most often the beatles - yes i appreciate that they're been hugely influential and most of the bands/artists i enjoy wouldn't be here without them, but i still don't really enjoy more than a handful of songs from their entire discography.
-
Spoon and The Flaming Lips are overrated
-
Bitch, I will cut you.
-
I agree with him. You can't cut all of us, Reed...
...no matter how much science you have.
-
He can if I help him.
(I agree with the Flaming Lips statement, but only as it pertains to their recorded work. Their live shows are among the most spectacular I've ever seen.)
(For Spoon, though, you die.)
-
oh fuck you're actually within cutting distance of me too.
ah..fuck it SPOON SUCKS. come get some.
-
PISTOLS AT DAWN
-
I will cut you all.....with science.
-
Spoon and The Flaming Lips are overrated
And I thought you were cool.
-
Y'know by getting so touchy you're not really helping to dispel the notion that they're overrated.
-
What Dovey said
-
Oh hey my thread got revived after a year of inactivity. How neat.
-
They threatened to cut me. Through the internet somehow but the threat still stands.
:[
-
every single band that david dovey likes that i dont also listen to is overrated.
-
jace likes music that is just bad.
-
I don't like Owen Pallet/Final Fantasy but I don't think it's overrated. (The opposite actually, I haven't heard anyone talk about it other than here or Pitchspork)
-
every single band that david dovey likes that i dont also listen to is overrated.
Hahaha are you still hurting over Vampy Weekend? (even though you are probably right)
-
I don't like Owen Pallet/Final Fantasy but I don't think it's overrated. (The opposite actually, I haven't heard anyone talk about it other than here or Pitchspork)
I saw him two weeks ago in Hamburg and it was awesome. I hadn't really heard him before and didn't know who he was and I really liked what he did with that violin.
-
He's my hero.
-
He's finally getting radio play down here, it's only FBi... but still Aussie radio play. Good on, him!
-
Hahaha are you still hurting over Vampy Weekend?
you know i dont think ill ever be able to look at you in the same way again actually.
-
Um if it's any consolation I think I've got it out of my system now and it seems unlikely I'll feel the need to listen to them again. Also everything I've heard off their new record makes me Hulk Angry.
Will it make you feel better if I download everything off yr blog?
-
Motley Crue.
-
^
True
-
Will it make you feel better if I download everything off yr blog?
actually the implication you that do not follow it vigilantly makes me even more sad.
-
Animal Collective.
-
The above statement is true.
-
Animal Collective and Grizzly Bear are now overrated at being overrated. Can we move on please?
-
Beach House*
*I have no idea who they are or how they sound
-
I tried to listen to Beach House, but they evoke the same response that Antlers and Grizzly Bear do: absolutely nothing. They're not bad, it's just that when I listen to them I feel absolutely no emotion good or bad. They sort of wash over me like a really mild wind.
-
I tried to listen to Beach House, but they evoke the same response that Antlers and Grizzly Bear do: absolutely nothing. They're not bad, it's just that when I listen to them I feel absolutely no emotion good or bad. They sort of wash over me like a really mild wind.
Thank God, I thought I was just a freak of nature. Now that I know someone feels the same way, I can stop crying myself to sleep at night.
pitchfork why will you never love me
-
High fives guys. I just don't get what's so great about the Real Estates and the Beach Houses of the world.
<3 online support groups
-
Jens consider your life forfeit
(http://kcdcskateshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/img00005-20091201-1731-510x382.jpg)
-
I can't remember if I said Portishead or not
Portishead
-
Your mind's getting blown.
-
(http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/5/191945/unrealt_screen003.jpg)
Badoom
-
I can't remember if I said Portishead or not
Portishead
Nope.
-
I can't remember if I said Portishead or not
Portishead
Portishead is a highly overrated suburb of Bristol but the band is okay :mrgreen:
-
Oh hey thread.
I'm going to say Anthrax because I hate that voice.
-
Man what are you guys talking about Portishead is so goddamn boring and soulless it could completely tranquilize a coked-out 3 year old.
-
seriously.
i thought they would be cool cause everyone was all "ohshitportisheadroxx"
nope. they do not roxx.
-
Did anyone say Sloan yet?
I'm gonna say Sloan.
I have no basis for this.
-
I will kill you and hide the body.
-
Fuck You Jace. Just, Fuck You.
-
Man what are you guys talking about Portishead is so goddamn boring and soulless it could completely tranquilize a coked-out 3 year old.
I thought that was the idea
P.S; Just in general, can we keep in mind that this is "overrated bands", not "bands i hate"
-
fuck mbv, i liked their non-shoegaze songs better.
and yes, i've heard loveless on vinyl. and the only song i liked was "i only said" or whatever it's called.
also i like shellac more than big black,, let's have a fight about it.
-
fuck mbv, i liked their non-shoegaze songs better.
and yes, i've heard loveless on vinyl. and the only song i liked was "i only said" or whatever it's called.
also i like shellac more than big black,, let's have a fight about it.
Isn't Anything was alright, but I just...I don't get Loveless.
-
I can't think of anyone decent who doesn't think Shellac is better than Big Black.
Rapeman was also better than Big Black but only had one album.
-
No that is a lie.
-
Yes, recently and immediatly before I posted.
-
Pavement
:D?
-
I'd agree with that.
-
thirded. my favorite pavement album is slanted & enchanted. (the only one where they actually sound like their main influence hurrr hurrr)
-
I love Pavement but I almost have to fourth this, because a lot of people revere them as god-musicians entirely without fault (cough p4k cough), when that's simply not the case.
-
I'll say Rolling Stones. What have they done that was so important and so great and wasn't stolen? Same trickk for 50 years now and it's boring.
-
The Stones didn't do anything that the Beatles, the Who, or Cream hadn't already done leagues better.
-
I have not actually listened to any albums by The Stones.
-
Well, perhaps we're judging the Stones too harshly. We weren't around when they started unlike Ptommydski.
I do think that in the last thirty years or so they have become irrelevant. Before that I cannot judge.
-
What do you mean, you cannot judge? All their recorded output, and all the recorded output of their contemporaries and influences, is readily available!
-
Yes, but to me it's hindsight. I cannot judge the cultural significance of 'that record' exploding 'on the scene'. I can judge the record but not it's importance at that time.
-
Not for any record, or just the Stones? Because that lack of understanding can cut you off from appreciating a lot of good music.
-
Yes, but to me it's hindsight. I cannot judge the cultural significance of 'that record' exploding 'on the scene'. I can judge the record but not it's importance at that time.
That's what wikipedia is for dummy
-
Not for any record, or just the Stones? Because that lack of understanding can cut you off from appreciating a lot of good music.
You can appreciate the music for the music. But my guess is that the impact of new music cannot be explained. I mean, that whole 'summer of love' thing I get, as a concept but since I wasn't there the importance of the events is lost on me. Likewise, I think if I tried to explain ... Nirvana, let's say, to younger people than myself they'd find it hard to get. But they might still like the music, though.
And, no, Wiki doesn't help.
-
also i like shellac more than big black,, let's have a fight about it.
HEY MAN HEY
I WANNA HAVE A FIGHT WITH YOU
-
HEY MAN HEY HEY HEY HEY
-
I have not actually listened to any albums by The Stones.
Should've added a few derps in there. For authenticity.
-
The Stones didn't do anything that the Beatles, the Who, or Cream hadn't already done leagues better.
I've heard all of the classic output by all of these bands at some length and The Stones were significantly different to all of them. If you've spent any time with any of the records between Beggars Banquet and Exile on Main Street you might agree with me. The brilliance of The Stones was the fact that they created a new form of pop music which perfectly synthesised rock'n'roll, the blues, country, soul, R&B, folk and gospel. My knowledge of rock music is fair and I can't off the top of my head think of another band which attempted this, let alone succeeded. The Beatles dabbled in a lot of genres but never actually forced it all together into one cohesive sound. The Faces are vaguely comparable but didn't quite manage such a broad sphere of influences. Many bands have attempted to emulate it but as far as I'm concerned, nobody has really produced a convincing facsimile even all these years later. Not even The Rolling Stones, in fact.
Yes, but to me it's hindsight. I cannot judge the cultural significance of 'that record' exploding 'on the scene'. I can judge the record but not it's importance at that time.
If you've heard say, Let it Bleed and decided you hate it, fair enough. Obviously that's a valid opinion regardless of the perceived critical or cultural "importance" of an album and I wouldn't try to change it for the world. If not, give it a spin.
The opening song on the album is 'Gimme Shelter' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3SydzYofDY), which I'd argue is one of the best rock songs ever committed to tape. Although you're correct, you and I weren't there, I think it's even more apparent with hindsight that this song was markedly different from the recorded output of their peers at the time. I'm sure you have a reasonable awareness of what the sixties were like in terms of the emerging counter-culture and also the fact that by 1969, it had become a thoroughly commercialised nightmare from which many were now emerging with a considerable bitterness at broken expectations. Think of pop songs from the mid to late sixties in your head for a moment. Even in 1969, the peers of the Rolling Stones were releasing singles like 'Lady Madonna', 'Shangri-La', 'Pinball Wizard' etc. These are great songs but it's not a huge leap to admit that 'Gimme Shelter' is a significantly different song. It's fiercer, harder, more driving. The recording is dry and harsh. Considering the socio-political landscape of America at the time - at the tail end of a cultural revolution of sorts, during a unpopular war and more significantly, at a critical point in terms of the civil rights movement - would the apocalyptic imagery contained within the lyrics bear extra relevance? Is the fact that a female African-American is prominently featured singing and at times literally screaming that "rape and murder is just a shot away" equally significant to the era, especially given the fact that mere months previously the director of the FBI had called the burgeoning Black Panther movement "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country" and was privately advocating its systematic destruction by any means necessary? Mere months after the assassination of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy?
On the one hand, I wasn't there in 1969. On the other, I can make an educated guess based on historical information. Regardless, the music is stellar.
-
Has the music board always been the "Tommy writes an essay that makes us all feel bad about our lack of music knowledgeability" forum or is this new?
If not, where have I been oh god
-
Yeah, like I said in the first line under that quote, it doesn't really make any difference regardless. You like it or you don't.
-
ti-i-i-ime is on my side (jarringly short pause) YES IT IS
that's pretty much the only Stone's song I really care about, and only then because of the movie Fallen.
-
I like Wes Anderson movies more than I really care about the Stones, but I've grown pretty fond of the songs of theirs that appeared in his films.
I do also like Gimme Shelter though. It's really fucking good. Viscerally affecting.
-
The opening song on the album is 'Gimme Shelter' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3SydzYofDY), which I'd argue is one of the best rock songs ever committed to tape.
Gimme Shelter is kind of a microcosm of the Stones in general, really. On the one hand, in a round about way, it sort of lends superficial credence to the idea that the Stones pillaged a legacy of black music like a pack of drug addled idiot savants.* After all, featuring a black woman on the track wasn't actually in the master plan when they headed into the studio, so I suppose you could argue that once again they used African Americans as a stepping stone to a higher place more or less by chance and a good producer. But you know what? I don't really give a shit about how the Rolling Stones or even music history in general came to that particular place in time. They still had an edge to their sound that was unique to them and all involved absolutely killed it on that track. Like Tommy, I firmly believe it is one of the best things committed to vinyl. I'm not a big Stones fan in general, but Gimme Shelter makes me admit that those guys are in the rock pantheon and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
*I don't really ascribe to this mindset. I dislike how many people dismiss the Stones as rip off artists and give so many other musicians a pass in regards to the subject of cribbing from blues and gospel influences. I'll grant you that their early career featured a ton of covers, and that they did indeed wallow in a lot of ugly misogynistic stereotypes, particularly in the latter days. They're hardly admirable guys in a lot of ways. But I can't honestly believe they never gave a shit about the music. Jagger shouting "Woo!" after Merry Clayton's voice cracks at 3:02 of Gimme Shelter is too strong of an argument to the contrary.
-
Christ fucking shit yes. I care very little about anything else that The Stones have done but I could probably listen to Gimme Shelter end to end, all day.
-
It seems to me that a lot of people describing The Stones or Dylan or whoever as folk or blues rip-off artists miss that a lot of folk and blues has always seemingly been constructed from a kind of pantheon of universal songs, riffs, lyrics and tunes that you'd meld into your own order. I mean a lot of people learn to write songs by either accidentally or deliberately ripping off other artists and stapling well known songs together into something new. And no, I don't just mean Noel Gallagher.
-
Yeah I don't think that when an artist goes "Hey, what [band] did sounds cool, we should do something like that!" that it automatically makes it a bad thing, because -- almost 99% of the time -- the artist puts their own spin on an already established sound, transforming it and evolving it. That's how music works: "Hey, this is cool, let me try it my way."
-
Every band that I dislike but happens to be popular.
/thread
-
The Stones didn't do anything that the Beatles, the Who, or Cream hadn't already done leagues better.
I've heard all of the classic output by all of these bands at some length and The Stones were significantly different to all of them. If you've spent any time with any of the records between Beggars Banquet and Exile on Main Street you might agree with me. The brilliance of The Stones was the fact that they created a new form of pop music which perfectly synthesised rock'n'roll, the blues, country, soul, R&B, folk and gospel. My knowledge of rock music is fair and I can't off the top of my head think of another band which attempted this, let alone succeeded. The Beatles dabbled in a lot of genres but never actually forced it all together into one cohesive sound. The Faces are vaguely comparable but didn't quite manage such a broad sphere of influences. Many bands have attempted to emulate it but as far as I'm concerned, nobody has really produced a convincing facsimile even all these years later. Not even The Rolling Stones, in fact.
Pink Floyd dude, Pink Floyd
-
Every band that I dislike but happens to be popular.
/thread
Yeah it's every band. Every band with fans is overrated.
The only honest bands are the ones with 0 fans who hate themselves and split up the next day. Sadly if anyone actually listened to them to test this theory they would become overrated. Schroedinger's indie.
-
The Stones didn't do anything that the Beatles, the Who, or Cream hadn't already done leagues better.
I've heard all of the classic output by all of these bands at some length and The Stones were significantly different to all of them. If you've spent any time with any of the records between Beggars Banquet and Exile on Main Street you might agree with me. The brilliance of The Stones was the fact that they created a new form of pop music which perfectly synthesised rock'n'roll, the blues, country, soul, R&B, folk and gospel. My knowledge of rock music is fair and I can't off the top of my head think of another band which attempted this, let alone succeeded. The Beatles dabbled in a lot of genres but never actually forced it all together into one cohesive sound. The Faces are vaguely comparable but didn't quite manage such a broad sphere of influences. Many bands have attempted to emulate it but as far as I'm concerned, nobody has really produced a convincing facsimile even all these years later. Not even The Rolling Stones, in fact.
Pink Floyd dude, Pink Floyd
Pat, I adore Floyd, but they didn't at all do what tommy was describing.
-
It seems to me that a lot of people describing The Stones or Dylan or whoever as folk or blues rip-off artists miss that a lot of folk and blues has always seemingly been constructed from a kind of pantheon of universal songs, riffs, lyrics and tunes that you'd meld into your own order. I mean a lot of people learn to write songs by either accidentally or deliberately ripping off other artists and stapling well known songs together into something new. And no, I don't just mean Noel Gallagher.
There's some definite double standards involved too. You see the same sorta thinking in other media criticism:
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a207/Xyljin/759954321_E7mFJ-L.jpg)
-
It seems to me that a lot of people describing The Stones or Dylan or whoever as folk or blues rip-off artists miss that a lot of folk and blues has always seemingly been constructed from a kind of pantheon of universal songs, riffs, lyrics and tunes that you'd meld into your own order.
Fuckin' YES. Blowing In The Wind is based off an old spiritual song, No More Auction Block. Masters Of War is based on the melody for Nottamun Town. That's the way folk music (used to/does) work, you take an old melody and change the lyrics/structure to work more for a current audience. That's how every single musician ever operates; you take stuff you like and you put it in a blender.
-
I realise that was a bit off topic so I'll say FUCKIN PAVEMENT ARE SO OVERRATED BLARRG THEY SUCK
-
The Stones didn't do anything new (paraphrased)
(trimmed) The brilliance of The Stones was the fact that they created a new form of pop music which perfectly synthesised rock'n'roll, the blues, country, soul, R&B, folk and gospel. My knowledge of rock music is fair and I can't off the top of my head think of another band which attempted this, let alone succeeded. (trimmed)
Pink Floyd
Pat, I adore Floyd, but they didn't at all do what tommy was describing.
Idunno man they sure sounded like they took a lot out of gospel and out of '50s doo-wop when they recorded "Eclipse" is all I'm saying. Try to convince me that the lead guitar in "Breathe" didn't sound like it was picking and choosing bits of country (the lead guitar is just a Strat played with a slide, but it sure sounds a lot like a steel guitar) and jazz. And then tell me that "Another Brick In The Wall" isn't lifted directly out of funk. Genre mashing was totally within Floyd's grasp.
-
Yes but I think the idea tommy was trying to get across was that the Stones melded all of those influences you just said + more, and did it all at once, in a cohesive and holistic way, as opposed to the examples you just gave where Floyd took certain influences singularly and only for certain songs and certain parts of songs, i.e;
The brilliance of The Stones was the fact that they created a new form of pop music which perfectly synthesised rock'n'roll, the blues, country, soul, R&B, folk and gospel. My knowledge of rock music is fair and I can't off the top of my head think of another band which attempted this, let alone succeeded. The Beatles dabbled in a lot of genres but never actually forced it all together into one cohesive sound
-
Did I say Justice yet?
Justice.
-
The debut album was undeniably great but literally everything they've made and done since has been so "paint-by-numbers" that I don't think there's a lot of patience left for them.
Then again, I dunno, maybe people still lose their shit over them? I have literally no idea what the state of dance music is anymore.
-
The debut album was undeniably great
The only good track was "DVNO", and that was a straight-up Daft Punk ripoff. And nothing featuring an Uffie feature can ever be considered great.
Then again, I dunno, maybe people still lose their shit over them? I have literally no idea what the state of dance music is anymore.
It was in the mid-30s of Tinymixtapes' top 50 albums of the decade list. They ranked it higher than Discovery, which I thought was funny. But I'm not sure it matters what critics say, the people love Justice. They love Justice and Glitch Mob. They show up to Bloody Beatroots sets.
As for dance music in its current state... A lot of the stuff on Hyperdub isn't nearly as good as it's made out to be. The post-Dilla west coast abstract hip hop scene (say that five times fast) is becoming overheated pretty fast as well, I think. I've had a bunch of freshman twats in Boulder try and sell me on how Shpongle is REVOLUTIONIZING MUSIC, but I'm pretty sure I identified the source of that praise, and it's almost exclusively the Burning Man festival and its assorted activities.
-
They ranked it higher than Discovery
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a55/ddovey/le_fu.jpg)
-
I disagree violently Jens.
Daft Punk are utter dogshit.
-
Justice are worse though, so at least we're all agreeing on something.
-
I had some good fun with Justice when they were a new thing to be excited about, but when it comes to the incredibly specific category of French bloghaus from 2007, I much prefer to revisit Danger.
-
Oh yeah, that reminds me.
Daft Punk are playin' at my house, my house.
Awesome! Can I come?!
-
Justice were pretty cool but their material doesn't have the relistenability of Daft Punk.
Plus Rex The Dog made them both obsolete the following year soooooo
-
Every band that I dislike but happens to be popular.
/thread
But then again, the only band I've listened to today is French rap-rock.
-
Fuckin' YES. Blowing In The Wind is based off an old spiritual song, No More Auction Block. Masters Of War is based on the melody for Nottamun Town. That's the way folk music (used to/does) work, you take an old melody and change the lyrics/structure to work more for a current audience. That's how every single musician ever operates; you take stuff you like and you put it in a blender.
Not to derail the thread too much, but this touches so much on a subject that I've been thinking a lot about lately. During the first half of the 20th century it feels like playing music and making albums wasn't as much about writing new songs, but rather about giving a spin to old songs. I mean, look at most of the jazz and r&b singles of that era. I think the 33 1/3 book about OK Computer mentions this as well - music used to be about the song, but now that there's so much pressure on artists to write new songs a song only lives as long as the artist does, whereas truly great songs live past the author.
-
It's probably just a natural consequence of modern distribution and reproduction. It's far, far easier to follow individual artists and genres now than it was in the past. For centuries, if you wanted to hear a particular song, you got your talented buddies to pull out their instruments. Performing other people's music was par for the course since it was pretty much the only way to keep a song alive and the songs naturally changed with the playing in due time anyway. These days, if I want to a hear Beatles song I just throw on the Beatles, which rather renders the efforts of others to recreate their work somewhat redundant. It's sort of like the way painting and drawing shifted somewhat after the development of photography. Traditional artists couldn't compete with the way photographs could represent the world around us, so instead many turned their attention to surrealism, abstract art and other more stylistic works. Novelty is basically the only value people can agree on as being worth something these days.
-
also i like shellac more than big black,, let's have a fight about it.
HEY MAN HEY
I WANNA HAVE A FIGHT WITH YOU
AND REGARDLESS OF MY KNOWLEGE OF ALBINI IT APPEARS WE ARE GOING TO
-
I like Rapeman more than both of you, so let's smoke opium (all night long)
-
Broken Social Scene.
-
I was about to say "THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS" but then I realized they have two good albums
God what a sad realization
-
But those two albums are SO GOOD! And the EP that came with the s/t is pretty fab, too.
-
Crabcore as a genre.
It is overrated simply by the fact that there are people who like it unironically.