The Most Over Rated Band/Acts Ever? and Why?

Amazotheamazing

Kold wrote:

Ofcourse it does. Just because you consider it bad, doesn't take away from art.

Another band to add would be Guns'n'Roses.

I can see what you mean, but by implication, that means even the lowest form of novelty song is, in it's way, an artform, if it's creators consider it such.

Kold

If they consider it so, yes. But I don't understand how you can say what's the point? Have you listened to Kid A, Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief? Each LP is unlike the last. When you hear praise it's not all based on OK Computer and The Bends, those just happen to be the bands most popular albums. Can you honestly say songs like Like Spinning Plates are like any other song?

grumpytrousers

Amazotheamazing wrote:

I can see what you mean, but by implication, that means even the lowest form of novelty song is, in it's way, an artform, if it's creators consider it such.

oh you just GOTTA get yourself over to the John Cage 4'33" discussion elsewhere on the music forum...:D

A slightly different spin on the 'it's an artform if its creator considers it such'

Amazotheamazing

Kold wrote:

If they consider it so, yes. But I don't understand how you can say what's the point? Have you listened to Kid A, Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief? Each LP is unlike the last. When you hear praise it's not all based on OK Computer and The Bends, those just happen to be the bands most popular albums. Can you honestly say songs like Like Spinning Plates are like any other song?

Listened quite a bit of Kid A and Amnesiac, must admit I'd lost interest by the time Hail to the Thief came about. Imo, neither Kid A or Amnesiac merit the praise they are often given. It's not about whether they sound like any other song, me screaming the national anthem in german wouldn't sound like too many other songs, but it'd still be crap.

I guess it comes down to the debate of art for art's sake, or should art reveal a deeper truth? I don't think Radiohead's new stuff is great enough to be classed as art for art's sake, but neither does it reveal anything, so imo, what's the point?

LuckyLloyd

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Listened quite a bit of Kid A and Amnesiac, must admit I'd lost interest by the time Hail to the Thief came about. Imo, neither Kid A or Amnesiac merit the praise they are often given. It's not about whether they sound like any other song, me screaming the national anthem in german wouldn't sound like too many other songs, but it'd still be crap.

I guess it comes down to the debate of art for art's sake, or should art reveal a deeper truth? I don't think Radiohead's new stuff is great enough to be classed as art for art's sake, but neither does it reveal anything, so imo, what's the point?

Oh jesus. Lads, give it over. What the "Radiohead are crap, depressing and pointless brigade" will never get is that some people really like Amnesiac and Kid A simply because they actually like most of the songs. I like the soundscapes created on those albums and think it is good lyrically in some places - and a couple of tracks (Pyramid Song; Everything in it's Right Place) are amongst my favourite of all time. Whether it's high art, low art doesn't matter so much to me. I just think it is good music.

Now, if you don't think it is good music - fine. Similiarly, fans of the band or those records shouldn't feel placed under a burden to justify them as "important". Kold, I would suggest that you simply let this one slide.

kryogen

had to go for the rolling stones here, too lazy to think up anybody else and they are the ones from that list... in fairness if i released 50 albums id probably have 5 good songs too. what have they really done for music besides "sympathy for the devil" "satisfaction" hmmmmm, im just after waking up but i actually cant remember any other good contribution they made, im sure ill be corrected on it though

Amazotheamazing

i didn't say Radiohead are crap, they're good, but overrated.

Dudess

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Pete Doherty is ridiculously overrated.

Babyshambles barely get any airplay. There is over-the-top fascination with him because he's going out with Kate Moss, but he's not over-rated as a musician.

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote:

Babyshambles barely get any airplay. There is over-the-top fascination with him because he's going out with Kate Moss, but he's not over-rated as a musician.

What about all the hype that god awful band, The Libertines got?

Who I think is over rated:

Iron Maiden:
They're just not that good. IMO much of their material is catchy pop music with twin guitar solos. Ok, that's not inherently a bad thing and I like some of it, but why they're rated so highly by metalheads I don't know.

Led Zeppelin:
They're not bad or anything. It's just the attitude that IV was the greatest rock and roll album ever and will never be surpassed is utter bs IMO.

Nirvana:
I think Cobain was talented, I just don't think the stuff on Nevermind was better than what Dinosaur Jr, Sonic Youth, Husker Du, The Pixies, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam and a lot more bands of that era were releasing around that time period.

Pink Floyd:
Honestly, DSOTM isn't all that great.


More recent bands that are over rated include Muse, Arctic Monkeys and any indie band in the charts these days really. Though I expect they'll be forgotten in a few years anyway.

johnny_ultimate

I strongly agree with the anti-U2 sentiment on this thread. Every single song is just the Edge messing around with pedals - and failing dramatically. Overblown, overhyped and most importantly bland.

I think the new Britpop bands (i.e. all the ones that begin with 'the') are being over-rated these days. They all sound exactly the same.

cornbb

Radiohead? Who said Radiohead?

Radiohead will have a bigger impact on the music of the future than any other band of our age.

I think Elvis Presley is possibly the most overrated act of all time. All he did was to continute to apply pop sensibilities to the music of his time. He added nothing new to music.

Smegball

Oasis, overrated generic rubbish if you ask me. Songs are all nearly the same, boring lyrics, annoying singing from either Noel or Liam. To top it all off, the Gallaghers are uber gimps.

I would also add Arctic Monkeys, Radiohead, Beatles.

I'm not sure how anybody can call Zeppelin overrated?

LuckyLloyd

cornbb wrote:

I think Elvis Presley is possibly the most overrated act of all time. All he did was to continute to apply pop sensibilities to the music of his time. He added nothing new to music.

Ohhhh!! I strongly agree with this. Very good shout!! Even if Lennon said "before Elvis there was nothing". :rolleyes:

grumpytrousers

cornbb wrote:

I think Elvis Presley is possibly the most overrated act of all time. All he did was to continute to apply pop sensibilities to the music of his time. He added nothing new to music.

think you might be slightly overegging the pudding there, mate...If you're referring to the perennial commemoration of his death and so on, you've a point, surely. Fat bloated Elvis of gold suits/tracksuits and so on was a mess. A few good songs, but all he did was pick wisely the ones to cover. During the guts of the 60's he was, also, a non-entity, more famous for appearing in those cruddy movies that are still terrible.

But in fairness, the 68 Comeback special was a powerhouse performance that showcased one HELL of a voice, and he wasn't the worst guitar player on the planet either...

Consider the early years. Consider that prior to 56 'Rock'n'Roll' began and ended, more or less, with Bill sodding Haley. Plaid Jackets? Kiss curls? Please, thank christ for Elvis. The stuff done in the early years was seminal stuff that will be listened to long after we're gone, and certainly in terms of 'applying pop sensibilities', he did it well. Nobody else seemingly *could* do it, and bring it to a mass audience, among them layabout scallies in Liverpool who fancied trying their luck in Hamburg...and plenty of others. So for that reason he can't be overrated.

But to introduce a red herring into the discussion..my own 2 cents on Elvis always has to be followed up by my sincerely held contention that had Buddy Holly not been killed in that plane crash, Elvis would only be a footnote...

cornbb

grumpytrousers wrote:

think you might be slightly overegging the pudding there, mate...If you're referring to the perennial commemoration of his death and so on, you've a point, surely. Fat bloated Elvis of gold suits/tracksuits and so on was a mess. A few good songs, but all he did was pick wisely the ones to cover. During the guts of the 60's he was, also, a non-entity, more famous for appearing in those cruddy movies that are still terrible.

But in fairness, the 68 Comeback special was a powerhouse performance that showcased one HELL of a voice, and he wasn't the worst guitar player on the planet either...

Consider the early years. Consider that prior to 56 'Rock'n'Roll' began and ended, more or less, with Bill sodding Haley. Plaid Jackets? Kiss curls? Please, thank christ for Elvis. The stuff done in the early years was seminal stuff that will be listened to long after we're gone, and certainly in terms of 'applying pop sensibilities', he did it well. Nobody else seemingly *could* do it, and bring it to a mass audience, among them layabout scallies in Liverpool who fancied trying their luck in Hamburg...and plenty of others. So for that reason he can't be overrated.

But to introduce a red herring into the discussion..my own 2 cents on Elvis always has to be followed up by my sincerely held contention that had Buddy Holly not been killed in that plane crash, Elvis would only be a footnote...

True, he was a great singer, capable guitarist, top of the game showman.

But I don't consider any of these things as doing anything new/unique or adding anything meaningful to music.

bostonian

bob marley. he's not even reggae.

pbsuxok1znja4r

The Rolling Stones. They should have packed it in at least a decade or two ago. They're musical dinosaurs. Worst band.

aidan24326

scouser.tommy wrote:

The Rolling Stones. They should have packed it in at least a decade or two ago. They're musical dinosaurs. Worst band.

Agreed. They're definitely the most over-rated off the given list. Way past their sell-by date.

And lads some of you really need to think about what over-rated actually means. There's no use calling Pete Doherty over-rated, I wasn't aware anyone rated that talentless fool in the first place. Though I suppose there will always be a few eejits who think he's some kind of tortured genius. But he'll be forgotten in a few years once the tabloids get bored of him. He has no musical legacy to leave.

I'm just very surprised at some of the bands being mentioned. Radiohead? Pink Floyd? :eek: The Smiths? :eek: No no. These are bands whose music has stood the test of time and will continue to do. How many of the generic NME bands around at the moment (Franz Ferd, Kaiser Chiefs, Razorlight etc.) will be remembered even in 10 years time? Not many. They are over-rated now but their music will not stand the test of time anyway.

Even though I was a fan of Nirvana at one time (and still like some of their songs) their music has not aged well and so I agree that they are very overhyped, alot of this is down to Cobain's tragic death though, and the myth that surrounded him.

Jeff Buckley is another. Had he lived he might well be forgotten now. One decent album and that's all. It's amazing what dying tragically can do for your reputation.

And lastly, I firmly believe that it has just become trendy now to dislike U2. While I've never been a huge fan, there's no denying they have written some good songs over the years.

eamon234

Manic Street Preachers - bunch of pretentious tosspots

LuckyLloyd

grumpytrousers wrote:

think you might be slightly overegging the pudding there, mate...If you're referring to the perennial commemoration of his death and so on, you've a point, surely. Fat bloated Elvis of gold suits/tracksuits and so on was a mess. A few good songs, but all he did was pick wisely the ones to cover. During the guts of the 60's he was, also, a non-entity, more famous for appearing in those cruddy movies that are still terrible.

But in fairness, the 68 Comeback special was a powerhouse performance that showcased one HELL of a voice, and he wasn't the worst guitar player on the planet either...

Consider the early years. Consider that prior to 56 'Rock'n'Roll' began and ended, more or less, with Bill sodding Haley. Plaid Jackets? Kiss curls? Please, thank christ for Elvis. The stuff done in the early years was seminal stuff that will be listened to long after we're gone, and certainly in terms of 'applying pop sensibilities', he did it well. Nobody else seemingly *could* do it, and bring it to a mass audience, among them layabout scallies in Liverpool who fancied trying their luck in Hamburg...and plenty of others. So for that reason he can't be overrated.

But to introduce a red herring into the discussion..my own 2 cents on Elvis always has to be followed up by my sincerely held contention that had Buddy Holly not been killed in that plane crash, Elvis would only be a footnote...

Hi Grumpytrousers,

Where does Chuck Berry et al fit in with all of this? Or is he irrelevant and rock purely a white man's game.

Cheers.

blueandgold

Queen - overblown stadium pomp

U2 - overblown stadium pomp

sex pistols - pil were superior in every way

Elvis - Presley (like public enemy say was a hero to most but never meant **** to me)

Mr Alan

agree with whoever it was that said that its just fashionable to slate U2.

Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are two of the best albums of all time, and imo opinion piss all over The Bends and OK Computer.

Bono is a great great great singer and Edge practically invented his own guitar sound.

I understand that music is all about opinion, but tbh i can't understand how anyone could argue that songs like . . With Or Without You, One, Mysterious Ways, The Fly, Bullet to Blue Sky, Running to Stand Still, In Gods Country, So Cruel, Where The Streets Have No Name, Ultraviolet, Love Is Blindness and Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For are amongst the best songs ever written

My vote went to Bowie.

blueandgold

blueandgold wrote:

U2 - overblown stadium pomp

i agree.

Driver 8

The fact that Dylan has the least amount of votes is comforting...

CrazyTalk

I'm shocked that the Chili Peppers arent in the poll, really, they are NOT as good as people seem to think

cornbb

millersangel wrote:

agree with whoever it was that said that its just fashionable to slate U2.

Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are two of the best albums of all time, and imo opinion piss all over The Bends and OK Computer.

Bono is a great great great singer and Edge practically invented his own guitar sound.

I understand that music is all about opinion, but tbh i can't understand how anyone could argue that songs like . . With Or Without You, One, Mysterious Ways, The Fly, Bullet to Blue Sky, Running to Stand Still, In Gods Country, So Cruel, Where The Streets Have No Name, Ultraviolet, Love Is Blindness and Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For are amongst the best songs ever written

My vote went to Bowie.

U2 made some great albums in the past but nowadays they make nothing but pompous self-important derivative crap. Their method has always been to copy the musical style of the time and they have failed to ever come up with a consistent style they can call their own. Now you cannot say that about Radiohead

I'll agree with you about The Edge though, he gets slagged off for using tons of effects but thats fair game IMO, he has developed a great style without resorting to bullsh*t.

Saruman

Arcade fire! "no cars go"... nuff said.

Although i do loath oasis to the point i change the radio station or mute it when they are played.

Jonny Arson

CrazyTalk wrote:

I'm shocked that the Chili Peppers arent in the poll, really, they are NOT as good as people seem to think

i don't think RHCP will ever get a mention in these type of discussions because no one could possibly seriously think that they were ever that artistically highly rated in the first place!

Mr Alan

cornbb wrote:

U2 made some great albums in the past but nowadays they make nothing but pompous self-important derivative crap. Their method has always been to copy the musical style of the time and they have failed to ever come up with a consistent style they can call their own. Now you cannot say that about Radiohead

I'll agree with you about The Edge though, he gets slagged off for using tons of effects but thats fair game IMO, he has developed a great style without resorting to bullsh*t.

see i disagree, i think a U2 song is almost instantly recognisable as they have a real clear sound that is solely their own.

i agree that there best work is in the past, but even there later albums all have a few great tracks on them, which is more than can be said for the majority of acts around now.

latest album:
original of the species
miracle drug
city of blinding lights

album before:
beautiful day
stuck in a moment
wild honey

still among the best around imo, and definately the best musical act ever to come out of ireland

dead air

Rolling Stones. Maybe its a generational thing and you have to see them live in the sixties or whenever but they just never appealed to me. Paint it black is a good song though.

Also, The Ramones and of more recent years, Artic Monkeys. Way too much hype there.