Overrated Artists!Music

[Max Powers]

I'm glad this thread has sparked some intelligent discussion rather than people just rattling off lists, the response is more than I expected.

Max, you say that The Beatles transcend genres, but you gotta admit how OAR uses so many elements in their music. There are ska/jazzy bass lines, a ton of reggae guitar and percussion and there's also the general rock influence, with some country sprinkled around here and there. I can't think of any band that does that, you say you do. Pease help (and see my first post).

Wow, you really love OAR don't you? I don't think their sound is anything unique though, and although they may play a few different styles, generally most of their songs sound similar. They're not a bad band, they're just not that good either.

You want alternatives to OAR? I'd rather hear Phish, Grateful Dead, Dave Matthews Band, String Cheese Incident, and to a lesser extent the Allman Brothers, although I consider them more rock than jam.

I see a lot of Eminem on here, he happens to be one of my not so guilty pleasures. I've gone through stages of hating and loving Eminem at least 4 times now, but I really dig his music for some reason. Dr. Dre can make some pretty good beats, and although he may be vulgar and immature, and I may not always agree with his opinions, Eminem is also very witty, and a pretty talented lyracist. However, I do think that there is much better rap out there than Eminem.

Also, good post on the Beatles, Vash, I totally agree with you. I haven't been a hardcore Beatles fan for very long, but I'm slowly building my collection, right now I have Rubber Soul, Revolver, The White Album, One, Sgt. Peppers, and Abbey Road.

edit: I just saw your post on Bad Religion, and I agree to an extent. On one hand they were among the punk pioneers, and have been around forever, but after so many years, it just gets stale. It was good when it came out, but I don't think Bad Religion is anything special anymore.

 

[exigeracer]

Wow, you really love OAR don't you? I don't think their sound is anything unique though, and although they may play a few different styles, generally most of their songs sound similar. They're not a bad band, they're just not that good either.

You want alternatives to OAR? I'd rather hear Phish, Grateful Dead, Dave Matthews Band, String Cheese Incident, and to a lesser extent the Allman Brothers, although I consider them more rock than jam.

No, I'm not the biggest fan by any means. You should step out of the mindset that to defend is to favor (how do war criminals get lawyers?). I listen to OAR and enjoy their music. I know music that doesn't have variety and I know where lack of creativity is, but that doesn't stop me from listening to them. If I see a rediculous statement, I'd like to see justification, somehting you still haven't done.

 

[Brett]

Again, couldn't agree more. I'm not a Beatles fan (infact, I kind of feel Ringo kills most of the songs), but you are entirely correct there.

I don't think Ringo kills the songs at all, but instead brings something completely different to the group, as least voice wise. I think he does a supremely good job on With a Little Help from My Friends and Yellow Submarine, both of which were not written by Ringo, but are quintessential Ringo songs. Ringo only has one, maybe two--two is really stretching it because I can only think of the White Album at the moment that he has two songs sung and the White Album is a double album--songs per album that he would sing in. Ringo contribution to the group was not through his singing or songwriting--as looking at composers on Windows Media Player on all of The Beatles albums, he only wrote two songs with the Beatles (though this may be incorrect, it may have been one or two higher)--but through his talents on the drums and any other instrument he played. He is also pretty comical on The Beatles movies, at least the couple clips I have seen of them.

I see a lot of Eminem on here, he happens to be one of my not so guilty pleasures. I've gone through stages of hating and loving Eminem at least 4 times now, but I really dig his music for some reason. Dr. Dre can make some pretty good beats, and although he may be vulgar and immature, and I may not always agree with his opinions, Eninem is also very witty, and a pretty talented lyracist. However, I do think that there is much better rap out there than Eninem.

Also, good post on the Beatles, Vash, I totally agree with you. I haven't been a hardcore Beatles fan for very long, but I'm slowly building my collection, right now I have Rubber Soul, Revolver, The White Album, One, Sgt. Peppers, and Abbey Road.

I don't really have anything against Eminem, other than he is overhyped and thus overrated. I pretty much think there are varying degrees of overratedness and he qualifies to be overrated.

Which album did you start with? You definitely have the better half of The Beatles collection. I would definitely suggest getting Let It Be. I find the album to be a very, very good one. 👍

 

[exigeracer]

Ringo contribution to the group was not through his singing or songwriting--...--but through his talents on the drums and any other instrument he played.

Precisely my point. It is somewhat possible that it's the produced sound of the recordings, but his drum skills seem way too low for the level of popularity that The Beatles had. His drumming sounds weak, and I'm not the first person to say that. Volume of playing is as important as the content of the playing, something that many musicians miss.

 

[Max Powers]

No, I'm not the biggest fan by any means. You should step out of the mindset that to defend is to favor (how do war criminals get lawyers?). I listen to OAR and enjoy their music. I know music that doesn't have variety and I know where lack of creativity is, but that doesn't stop me from listening to them. If I see a rediculous statement, I'd like to see justification, somehting you still haven't done.

I really don't see what other justification you're looking for. I don't think it's anything groundbreaking that they fuse some reggae into their music, something many other bands have done (e.g. Sublime). I consider them overrated, because among popular jam bands, I think that they stand out the least. I don't see why they are worth my listening time when there are many other alternatives in the small genre who are more talented. There is no great individual talent, and although I hear they put on a good live show, I don't think that necessarily makes a band good. I really don't know what else you're looking for, and I hardly think considering them overrated is a ridiculous statement. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

Anyway more overrated bands:

Van Halen - I may get some flak for this one, but I really don't understand why people think they're so good, I mean Eddie Van Halen was a talented guitarist, but like I said about Satriani, just because it's hard to play doesn't mean it sounds good. There may be bias here because I really don't dig the whole Arena Rock sound, but I've never been blown away by any of their songs or guitar solos. It just sounds too cheesy for me, the songwriting is awful, as are the lyrics, and some technically hard guitar solo just doesn't save an otherwise bad song for me.

Sufjan Stevens - I really tried to like this band at first, but listening to their album (Seven Swans) just put me to sleep, they seem like they try way too hard to be indie, which is incredibly lame. It's nothing but one guy singing over a guitar, and he really doesn't do it that well at all.

 

[exigeracer]

Max, I told you to read my frist post:

I don't see how they're 'wannabe' jam, maybe it's just 'cause they're new to your ear and aren't old?

Wannabe jam. That's what you haven't explained.

 

[Zrow]

I gotta admit, I think Eddie Van Halen is one of, if not the best guitarist alive. That's not to say that I'm really a Van Halen fan - a few of their songs are good, but a lot is crap. Come on, Jump?!

I have gone from hating U2 to liking them a lot. Well, stuff like Joshua Tree anyway. Same with Rush, though it's not for Geddy Lee's ridiculous voice.

...and country music is good for parties. I know, I know.

 

[Max Powers]

It's precisely what they are, they want to be a jam band, and cater to the 'hippie' crowd, but they really only appeal to casual fans of the genre for the most part. I'd consider them more pop-rock than a jam band. So in essence they're wannabes because they try to associate themselves with a group of bands that are much more talented than them, and despite this, they are more commercial and poppy than the other bands in the genre.

Which album did you start with? You definitely have the better half of The Beatles collection. I would definitely suggest getting Let It Be. I find the album to be a very, very good one. 👍

I've had a lot of assorted stuff by The Beatles for years on my computer, but as far as legitimate albums are concerned, I started off with Sgt. Peppers, which I used to always listen to in my friend's car, followed about 2 days later with the White Album.

 

[exigeracer]

I'm not going to go into this at all, I don't want to taint any pleasures associated with listening to a band. Just take it for what it is, I guess.

 

[HACKr]

I'm the biggest Beatles fanatic. I like most of their music after 1966. For me the writing still holds up, and it influences my writing style. (Yes, I do write songs and mix music. I have a band in the works minus the drummer, can't find one yet.) I do think they were a tad overrated before they started work on Revolver, and you can blame that on American teenaged girls. I don't think they can be called completely overrated because they still have the all time best selling album (Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band) and all of their albums continue to sell, even 40 years later. Their music will contunue to sell for a long time as long as their are people like me who are young and heavily influenced by their music.

 

[Casio]

I don't think they can be called completely overrated because they still have the all time best selling album (Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band) and all of their albums continue to sell, even 40 years later.

I always thought that Thriller or The Eagles: Greatest hits was the all-time highest selling album. (I can't remember which).

I don't think you can rate a band on album sales anyway. Once you get big enough, whatever you release will sell millions of copies. Take current day U2 or Green Day as an example, they are so huge and have a massive following that they could release an album of fat hippos farting and it would go 10x platinum.

 

[Brett]

The Eagles:Greatest Hits is the all time highest selling album and then Thriller. I just looked it up. I also agree that you cannot rate a band on album sales. The numbers are definitely in favor of more recent releases, as newer music has become much, much more available.

 

[exigeracer]

What about blues singles in the 20's that sold over a hundred million copies? That was a looooooooong time ago.

 

[HACKr]

Oh crap... That was in the UK... not the world!

Anyway, I'm not rating them on album sales, I'm rating on overall quality, durability, and enginuity. The songs will hold up far into the future. The Beatles were the most influential band ever. And how can people call them overrated for doing something no one heard before? The only explaination for that is being biased to ones tastes without actually considering the facts. It's utter blindness. If someone were to come along and totally revolutionize and flip the music world on it's arse, would you think they're overrated? I've run out of words...

 

[bondy_1625]

Fall Out Boy - I actually kinda like them, they're new, i have thier album and its nice to have something refreshing. I love 'Dance Dance', good rhythm.

U2 - I used to like U2 in fact i have two albums 'best of 1980's' and 'best of 1990's', got em for about £10 at woolies! However ive totally gone off them now, i got bored of their songs.

Black Eyed Peas - Ok, i have an unending hate for the BEP! I despise thier songs, lyrics and i just hate them...full stop. Ok so they do different things, they're songs incorporate different sounds and effects but they change too much and end up with no set 'style' or 'genre'. (i think thats what i mean )

Greenday - I like a few of thier older songs, but not that much, i often skip them for something better (more often than not Muse ). Thier new songs arent, IMO all that good.

dont hurt me

 

[Max Powers]

I like some his stuff, but a lot of people don't like Jack Johnson, any takers on that argument?

He's nothing special, but I enjoy listening to him too, I love his cover of Jimmy Buffett's "A Pirate Looks At 40"

The Eagles:Greatest Hits is the all time highest selling album and then Thriller. I just looked it up. I also agree that you cannot rate a band on album sales. The numbers are definitely in favor of more recent releases, as newer music has become much, much more available.

I was actually looking at that too, and I got the same, but also I saw that Dark Side Of The Moon, if you include re-releases, outsold them all, it was listed with an asterisk, though (Like Barry Bonds).

 

[Brett]

What about blues singles in the 20's that sold over a hundred million copies? That was a looooooooong time ago.

That's exactly why you can rate an artist or band on album sales alone. I really, really doubt the blues singles in the 20's were widely available like singles and/or albums are available today.

Oh crap... That was in the UK... not the world!

Anyway, I'm not rating them on album sales, I'm rating on overall quality, durability, and enginuity. The songs will hold up far into the future. The Beatles were the most influential band ever. And how can people call them overrated for doing something no one heard before? The only explaination for that is being biased to ones tastes without actually considering the facts. It's utter blindness. If someone were to come along and totally revolutionize and flip the music world on it's arse, would you think they're overrated? I've run out of words...

👍 Good post!

 

[Canadian Speed]

I'm sorry... a lot of you people are off your rockers!!! Seriously... No offence, but when bands like Blink 182, Linkon Park, Nirvana and a few other shinny pieces of hypped up turd are getting deffended, yet bands like U2 and the Beatles are getting dissed left right and center, there's something wrong... Unless you're a music student, if you're under 18, your opinion is tainted by the media and you have no idea waht realy music is, as you're not old enough to have likely heard it. With the odd exception, there has really been nothing realeased into the mainstream in the last 10 years that's going to be worth listening to next year, let alone 10 years from now.

1. Nirvana. Thank bloody God that whole mess ended when it did... Their sound was old and it was only going to get worse as time went on. Kurt died at a time that just happened to work out great for the band and his "legacy". His junked out potential was tapped and his death allowed millions of little "X" kids to grieve the "traggic passing of their generation's icon". Had Kurt not died and Nirvana never ended(at that time... cause they likely would have called it quits anyhow after a few of their albums started sucking), we would have never have gotten the Foo Fighters when we did... now that! Would have been traggic.

2. Blink 182, Sum 41, any other "Punk Boy Band". What a shame... You've all been listening to boy bands and liking it. Whether you admit it or not... Punk was never supposed to go mainstream... Thank God it never really did. All you've been listeing to are the New Kids on the Block with tattoos and nose rings... Selling a bad boy image that was supposed to be punk. A FAR FAR cry from bands like the Pinheads, Pennywise, Rancid and a rather large number of real punk bands that you "hardcore punker/skater" types really should be listening to. Basically, if your little sister likes it... it sucks.

3. Nickelback, Theory of a Deadman, Puddle of Mud, and any other "Pearl Jam Wannabes". What a shame... Honnestly, record companies are pushing guys like this so hard on the radio... So much so that people forget that their sounds are all basically based off of Pearl Jam's earlier sound. What ever happened to sounding different? I put in 90% of my tunes at home and I can say "That's so and so" because it sounds like them... Not with these rip off artitsts. You have a hard time telling them appart. Basically, put a bunch of mashed potatoes in your mouth and do your best to sound like a male version of Cher, while one of your buddies plays three chords and another one blows stuff up, and you've got any of the afore mentioned bands sounds down pat and should approach a record company toget your share of the "rock star" pie while it's hot.

A little evil secret that the record companies don't want you to know... When they get an artist's demo tape that sounds hot, sounds hip and has several really good songs on it (say 8 good songs), they take two songs from the demo and ask the band to make a bunch of other songs called fillers. Sometimes you get a few pretty catchy fillers that catch on. Most of the time, it's not the case. So any how, a year later, they make another record, using another two songs from the demo... You see where I'm going with this, I'm sure. Instead of being a one hit wonder with a Zeppelin IV quality album, they break up the good songs and make 4 albums. Once the 4th album is made, they realease a Greatest Hits album which consists of the all the songs on the first demo, a few of the catchy fillers and a new single to sell the compilation. Why!? Cause people like hearing bands they know... It's not everybody that will take a chance on a new artist's album, even if it's great... It's smart business, but it sucks for the quality of music that is produced. The way you know if bands are doing this is #1, the amount of air time the band gets, usually right after a station announcement because record companies are paying the radio stations to push them. #2, the bands sound never changes record after record. For most bands, most, not all, but most bands go through a kind of progression. Their sound changes, their style changes, little things you might not notice right off the cuff, but if you take the time to listen and watch, you pick up on. The reason these guys always sond the same... It's all from the same era... From the same demo tape. #3 After their 4th or 5th album the band starts to struggle, because for the first time in years, they're now forced to reinvent themsleves and make some new music. Those that have kept their styles simple can make it... Other that went complicated or heavily original often struggle and break up... And THAT, is what the record companies don't want you to know...

 

[Max Powers]

I didn't include bands like Nickelback, Blink 182, Sum 41, Fall Out Boy...etc. on my list because although they're popular, it almost goes without saying that they suck. Pretty much anybody with a decent ear for music knows that all of those bands are total garbage. I mean when's the last time you met a genuine Nickelback fan? I don't know any of them anyway.

 

[OZZYGT]

2. Blink 182, Sum 41, any other "Punk Boy Band". What a shame... You've all been listening to boy bands and liking it. Whether you admit it or not... Punk was never supposed to go mainstream... Thank God it never really did. All you've been listeing to are the New Kids on the Block with tattoos and nose rings... Selling a bad boy image that was supposed to be punk. A FAR FAR cry from bands like the Pinheads, Pennywise, Rancid and a rather large number of real punk bands that you "hardcore punker/skater" types really should be listening to. Basically, if your little sister likes it... it sucks

I totally agree with you on this 👍, but...

Instead of being a one hit wonder with a Zeppelin IV quality album, they break up the good songs and make 4 albums.

I'm sorry if I miss understood you but, did you just say that Led Zeppelin's IV album was a one hit wonder? , if you did, then I STRONGLY recommend you to listen to the first, second, third, Physical Graffity, Houses of the Holy, and Coda albums, and realize that the band Led Zeppelin and the category "One Hit Wonder" don't compute , correct me if you meant something else...

Ciao...

 

[Max Powers]

I totally agree with you on this 👍, but...




I'm sorry if I miss understood you but, did you just say that Led Zeppelin's IV album was a one hit wonder? , if you did, then I STRONGLY recommend you to listen to the first, second, third, Physical Graffity, Houses of the Holy, and Coda albums, and realize that the band Led Zeppelin and the category "One Hit Wonder" don't compute , correct me if you meant something else...

Ciao...

I think you misunderstood him, he was just using Led Zeppelin IV as an example of a very high-quality album. I don't see how anybody could call Led Zeppelin a One Hit Wonder, every song is worthy of being a hit. What I think he meant was that instead of a band be a one album hit, with an album as good as IV, they split up their good songs into 4 or 5 albums.

 

[Canadian Speed]

/\/\ Exactly:tup:

Led Zep could never ever be called a one hit wonder... Bands today would kill to be able to write songs as oringinal as their worst songs... Not that they were bad songs... Only that when compared to their other works, they were only so so...

 

[Brett]

I'm sorry... a lot of you people are off your rockers!!! Seriously... No offence, but when bands like Blink 182, Linkon Park, Nirvana and a few other shinny pieces of hypped up turd are getting deffended, yet bands like U2 and the Beatles are getting dissed left right and center, there's something wrong... [ . . . ]

1. Nirvana. Thank bloody God that whole mess ended when it did... [ . . . ]

2. Blink 182, Sum 41, any other "Punk Boy Band". What a shame... [ . . . ]

3. Nickelback, Theory of a Deadman, Puddle of Mud, and any other "Pearl Jam Wannabes". What a shame... [ . . . ]

A little evil secret that the record companies don't want you to know... [ . . . ]

First off, I have to say this a good post! 👍 I also want to say I've only disappointed How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb from U2. I was seriously let down by its quality. I just did not think it was all that great as a whole.

1. Agree about Nirvana. 👍 Nirvana is severely overrated, though they do have some good songs, but do not deserve all they credit they get.

2. You forgot to mention The Sex Pistols in your list of good punk bands.

3. Agree. 👍

And on your last splurg, I can definitely see that that could be happening in the industry today with some artists/bands.

 

[Canadian Speed]

The Sex Pistols for what they did... as a group, yes. Musically speaking, Sid couldn't even play a base, probably why he liked to hit fans with it from the stage... It helped to cover up that little fact... But I can't cut on them too much... They weren't the Ramones, but they helped make punk what it really is/was...

But thanks...

 

[Brett]

Well that is the only reason I mentioned The Sex Pistols, as Never Mind the Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols, changed the face of punk rock. Plus it doesn't hurt that I just bought the CD last week.

 

[Zardoz]

Scrolled through this so-called thread quickly, and got quite a few pretty good chuckles out of it.

Thanks, kids.

 

[Brett]

And you are not going to contribute to the thread?

 

[Canadian Speed]

Well we aim to please

 

[exigeracer]

That's exactly why you can rate an artist or band on album sales alone. I really, really doubt the blues singles in the 20's were widely available like singles and/or albums are available today.

I was just highlighting that if albums are easier to get today, why would a single sell so many 85 years ago. Doesn't really matter though, really.

 

[exigeracer]

I'm sorry... a lot of you people are off your rockers!!! Seriously... No offence, but when bands like Blink 182, Linkon Park, Nirvana and a few other shinny pieces of hypped up turd are getting deffended, yet bands like U2 and the Beatles are getting dissed left right and center, there's something wrong... Unless you're a music student, if you're under 18, your opinion is tainted by the media and you have no idea waht realy music is, as you're not old enough to have likely heard it. With the odd exception, there has really been nothing realeased into the mainstream in the last 10 years that's going to be worth listening to next year, let alone 10 years from now.



2. Blink 182, Sum 41, any other "Punk Boy Band". What a shame... You've all been listening to boy bands and liking it. Whether you admit it or not... Punk was never supposed to go mainstream... Thank God it never really did. All you've been listeing to are the New Kids on the Block with tattoos and nose rings... Selling a bad boy image that was supposed to be punk. A FAR FAR cry from bands like the Pinheads, Pennywise, Rancid and a rather large number of real punk bands that you "hardcore punker/skater" types really should be listening to. Basically, if your little sister likes it... it sucks.

A little evil secret that the record companies don't want you to know... When they get an artist's demo tape that sounds hot, sounds hip and has several really good songs on it (say 8 good songs), they take two songs from the to know... blah

Dude, I'm not going to give anthing to this post because too much of it ai senselessly attacking general public and nobody in this thread. Have you read the whole thing? Linkin Park and Blink 182 are not getting defended, and The Beatles are getting defended. What thread have you been reading?

You are attacking the mainstream pop-listening public. Go rant about it elsewhere, because I don't think anybody here really cares or falls into that category (who are the Pinheads?).

This demo tape stuff? Prove it. Find me a demo tape from a pop-punk band that has released more than 4 records. Prove it.