Most over-rated band? Under-rated?

stressed out

slipss wrote: »

Have to agree with nipplenuts (genius name btw) about the Doors, they've a couple of ok songs at best, I'll never understand the appeal and I'm convinced if Morrison hadn't have died young all these Doors nuts would admit they are a load of my sweaty bollix.

Also on the over-rated front The Smiths, any song of theres I heard were ok songs but instantly forgetable. So then a couple of my friends who worship the ground they walked on convinced me to listen to thier entire back catalogue, and I did. The dullest couple of hours of my life. Morrisey can not sing, he never could, his lyrics range from bland to sounding like something a depressed playschool kid would scrawl in crayon. Marr was a decent guitarist but one musician a band does not make, and I far prefer the stuff he's done since the Smiths split.

One more for the over-rated gang are (and I can't imagine too many people will agree) The Beatles. Now I'm not saying the Beatles were not a good band, they were, they produced some truely great songs. But people seem to gloss over the unadulterated vomit inducing pile of sh1t that is 80% of thier back catalogue, stuff Westlife would be embarrased to admit to recording. "She loves me yeah yeah yeah, I know three chords yeah yeah yeah, we are the for runners for every formulaic boy band producing bland cheesy pop, yeah yeah fukking yeah, I mistakingly believe I can write a guitar solo bla bla bla". Now before everyone jumps down my throat, like I say they had a few great great songs, songs which I love, then they had a couple of mediocre songs and then the rest. They are very very over-rated, not because they are a bad band but because they are rated so highly for some odd reason far more highly than they deserve. i.e they are over rated.

No, no and no. Big fan of all three and absolutely disagree!
I adore the Doors - the mix of poetry and blues-psychedelic epicness of their work. It's either for you or not though.

The same with the Smiths - I think for this type of band a chord is struck with you when you hear it or it doesnt, so you either love them or hate them. (I just wish I hadnt got into them so late - they would've saved me when I was a teenager!)

As for the Beatles - what they did for music was revolutionary. They turned Tin Pan Alley on its head, they wrote classic pop songs in their sleep, they pushed musical boundaries in the studio, they pushed the album as a format over singles, they gave birth to 3 important solo artists of the 20th century.
I really think when people say the Beatles are overated they havent listened to their back catalogue and are judging them on their 'popular songs'. The first time I heard 'Tomorrow never knows' (long before noel fiddled with it on the chemical bros track), it blew my socks off!

For me, overated - Amy Crackhouse - she is not the savior of soul music.

underated - Neil Finn - pop genius

nyarlothothep

The Darkness are very under rated imo. The overwhelming majority of people here and elsewhere despise them, but I think it comes down to the fact that they appeal to a certain mentality, one which likes serious music in terms of composition combined with a humorous delivery. Permission to Land is for me a classic album. I remember listening to it on a Saturday at 4.30 towards the end of August in 2003, and being completely blown away by it, and immediately listening to it again it was so good. Every song was going over 11. It fcking rocked and was the soundtrack to the start of college.

Their second album was also good, not as good mind but some very decent songs and it marked a step in their evolution in that it had very glossy production elements to it. Some good songs off it were one way ticket, is it just me, dinner lady arms, english country garden, bald, hazel eyes (which was the best track) and dare I say blind man. The quality of those songs really shone through when I saw them in the point.

For a brief period of time they burned brightly, they were a very unique band which stood out and that I think is why they were shot down, because they walked a line between great music and comedy, which in a sense I think continued a tradition set by Queen, ACDC etc, and people didn't like that. They were basically a fully libertarian band as they espoused an attitude of complete indifference to the idea of coolness and in that respect they made music which was actually fun to listen to, which is an increasingly rare thing these days, with music and culture, in general these days being so self conscious imo.

Kold

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The Darkness are very under rated imo. The overwhelming majority of people here and elsewhere despise them, but I think it comes down to the fact that they appeal to a certain mentality, one which likes serious music in terms of composition combined with a humorous delivery. Permission to Land is for me a classic album. I remember listening to it on a Saturday at 4.30 towards the end of August in 2003, and being completely blown away by it, and immediately listening to it again it was so good. Every song was going over 11. It fcking rocked and was the soundtrack to the start of college.

Their second album was also good, not as good mind but some very decent songs and it marked a step in their evolution in that it had very glossy production elements to it. Some good songs off it were one way ticket, is it just me, dinner lady arms, english country garden, bald, hazel eyes (which was the best track) and dare I say blind man. The quality of those songs really shone through when I saw them in the point.

For a brief period of time they burned brightly, they were a very unique band which stood out and that I think is why they were shot down, because they walked a line between great music and comedy, which in a sense I think continued a tradition set by Queen, ACDC etc, and people didn't like that. They were basically a fully libertarian band as they espoused an attitude of complete indifference to the idea of coolness and in that respect they made music which was actually fun to listen to, which is an increasingly rare thing these days, with music and culture, in general these days being so self conscious imo.

Lol.

Orizio

Wow at the Beatles having a crap catalogue. If Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, The White Album, Revolver, Sgt Peppers etc have hald a dozen weak songs between them I would be surpised. The idea that they are comparable to Westlife is just clueless really.

Royale with Cheese

I stuck Permission to Land on for the first time in years a month or 2 back. Really great album. Second album however was largely shíte.

I'd agree they were underrated, in a way. At the time they were everywhere so you can hardly say they went unnoticed by many people. But you do get a large proportion of people, like Kold, who will just laugh in the face at the suggestion that there music was in anyway decent. I can kind of understand that though, because I've had a fair few bands who I hated rammed down my throat too.

nyarlothothep

Yar, you should check out Justin Hawkins new band Hot Leg, he has some decent tunes, also his side project British Whale was quite good with that song America. Stone Gods which is the other offshoot are ok-ish but a bit too bryan adams with heavy riffs for my liking. I guess I don't really like the singers vocal style and they have some extremely mawkish songs. Though that being said they also have some rocking ones too.

MooseJam

the beatles are pure sh1te

latenia

Overrated:
Joy Division/New Order
The Smiths/Morrisey
Depeche Mode
Bob Dylan
Neil Young
Van Morrison
Talking Heads
Lee Perry

Underrated:
Most reggae acts apart from Lee Perry
Duran Duran
Led Zeppelin (by critics)
Carter USM
Orbital
Elvis Presley
Blackout Crew

lordgoat

latenia wrote: »

Underrated:
Most reggae acts (are ****e)
Duran Duran
Led Zeppelin (by critics)
Carter USM
Orbital
Elvis Presley
Blackout Crew

Are you confused with what under rated means? How in any sense of the word is the king under rated?

lordgoat

Placid_Casual wrote: »

Ryan Adams is hugely underrated in my opinion. The amount of quality stuff he churns out inspires awe in me. But his sales are fairly modest and the critics are usually fairly lukewarm towards him. Ok, he isn't particularly innovative but he makes up for that in sheer quality and quantity of songs.
If he released one album every 3 years he'd probably be raved about :rolleyes:.

For overrated, i'd say Sigur Ros, in critical terms anyway. When they really nail it they're amazing (e.g. Sorglopur) but most of their stuff just leaves me cold.

I'm a big fan of both of these but i'd have RA over rated and SR under rated. Gold is the worst album he's realised so many awful songs on it yet it's the most widely known and liked. Granted his newer stuff with the cardinals is miles better than alot of his previous stuff but prob does't get the credit it deserves i don't think he's by any means under rated.

latenia

lordgoat wrote: »

Are you confused with what under rated means? How in any sense of the word is the king under rated?

When have you seen an Elvis album in one of those Q magazine lists? He's been downgraded in the public consciousness to some kind of novelty lounge act or a wholesale defiler of black music.

lordgoat

latenia wrote: »

When have you seen an Elvis album in one of those Q magazine lists? He's been downgraded in the public consciousness to some kind of novelty lounge act or a wholesale defiler of black music.

Last year.

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/news/elvis_the_king_q_magazine.shtml

I don't read Q (or use it to form an opinion), i just googled 'Q magazine elvis presely'.

Elvis is well regarded in all music circles and rightly so. Not under or over rated at all.

slipss

Orizio wrote: »

Wow at the Beatles having a crap catalogue. If Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, The White Album, Revolver, Sgt Peppers etc have hald a dozen weak songs between them I would be surpised. The idea that they are comparable to Westlife is just clueless really.

Like I say, I do really really like alot of the Beatles stuff, but they have put out some utter muck, cheesy boy band pop with three cords and a piano, singing about how much they love some random girl but not getting explicit in order to avoid offending parents, and wearing matching waistcoats while winking at the 13 year old screaming girls in the crowd. You have to admit the comparison isn't a million miles off man. I was way over the top with the 80% is sh1t remark but there is a nice big pile of that sh1t there, bands can be forgiven for releasing a few dodgy songs, they (nearly) all do it, but I think it is just the fact that it was so so deliberate on the part of the Beatles and led directly to the music now known as boy band pop that just means I can't stand that rather large side of their music.

irish_bob

slipss wrote: »

Like I say, I do really really like alot of the Beatles stuff, but they have put out some utter muck, cheesy boy band pop with three cords and a piano, singing about how much they love some random girl but not getting explicit in order to avoid offending parents, and wearing matching waistcoats while winking at the 13 year old screaming girls in the crowd. You have to admit the comparison isn't a million miles off man. I was way over the top with the 80% is sh1t remark but there is a nice big pile of that sh1t there, bands can be forgiven for releasing a few dodgy songs, they (nearly) all do it, but I think it is just the fact that it was so so deliberate on the part of the Beatles and led directly to the music now known as boy band pop that just means I can't stand that rather large side of their music.

the clean cut nice boy stuff was them just doing what they were told to do by the record executives , its easier to be artistic when you become richer , like around 1966 for the beatles

grumpytrousers

slipss wrote: »

Like I say, I do really really like alot of the Beatles stuff, but they have put out some utter muck, cheesy boy band pop with three cords and a piano, singing about how much they love some random girl but not getting explicit in order to avoid offending parents, and wearing matching waistcoats while winking at the 13 year old screaming girls in the crowd. You have to admit the comparison isn't a million miles off man. I was way over the top with the 80% is sh1t remark but there is a nice big pile of that sh1t there, bands can be forgiven for releasing a few dodgy songs, they (nearly) all do it, but I think it is just the fact that it was so so deliberate on the part of the Beatles and led directly to the music now known as boy band pop that just means I can't stand that rather large side of their music.

stop embarrasing yourself; They wrote the songs. They played the instruments. It's not like they rolled into Abbey Road and George Martin got them to sign over a backing track hammered together by jobbing session musos.

Contrary to what you think, a lot of what they did wasn't just 3 chord pop - most of it was a lot more inventive than it sounded; that's the magic. They made it seem easy.

I know what you mean by hating boyband stuff, but the Fabs weren't doing covers. They weren't reliant on the 'modulate up a key for the final chorus'; there was genuinely inventive stuff there.

oooh - somebody mentioned Neil Finn up there. Chalk me down as a +1 on that...

---

Now playing: Teenage Fanclub - Sparky's Dream
via FoxyTunes

JP Liz

Overrated: U2

Underrated: The Ramones