Most Overrated Musicians/Groups

Shattered Dreamer

Superbus wrote: »

Seriously, let people like what they like without being all superior.

I feel like posting this quote in ever "Most overrated" thread ever posted lol

Herb Powell

Simeon Weak Vest wrote: »

Nobody Weird Like Me came out more than 20 years ago so it doesn't count.

Same band (well kind of) though

Dudess

Superbus wrote: »

Seriously, let people like what they like without being all superior.

Is expressing views on something the same as being all superior? I presume you express your views on bands/films/television shows etc?

Shattered Dreamer

Dudess wrote: »

Is expressing views on something the same as being all superior? I presume you express your views on bands/films/television shows etc?

No but bitching about stuff because it's popular is. Televisions & radios have off buttons & a remote for a reason.

Giruilla

Foo Fighters - Every song sounds the same.

Dudess

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

No but bitching about stuff because it's popular is. Televisions & radios have off buttons & a remote for a reason.

But its being popular might not be the reason for the bitching. JLS and Black Eyed Peas are popular but I dislike them because I think they're sh1t. Britney and Kylie and Lady GaGa are popular but I like a number of their songs.

It's just as intolerant to tell people they can't give out about what they dislike.

Shattered Dreamer

Giruilla wrote: »

Foo Fighters - Every song sounds the same.

If you're into dance music then this comment is hilarious

Giruilla

Shattered Dreamer wrote: »

If you're into dance music then this comment is hilarious

Why because dance music is a genre and foo fighters are a single band within a different genre ?

Shattered Dreamer

Giruilla wrote: »

Why because dance music is a genre and foo fighters are a single band within a different genre ?

Well......yeah :P

cocalolaman

This thread has turned into 'stop liking what I dont like!'



But I think everyone can agree with me in saying that the 'shuffling' song has runs its coarse. Stop playing it everywhere ffs! Let it die! PLEASE!

Shattered Dreamer

If everyone wants to solve this thread once & for all.........RADIOHEAD especially the Ok Computer album BOOM!

Badgermonkey

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

To illustrate my point, some of Led Zep's less manic (and less well known) tracks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0OYZm4RhFE

Song below was released in 1966. Page probably should have credited Jansch on Led Zeppelin 1. Though the melody was traditional, that riff and arrangement weren't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Gcu0Sv6lk

johndaman66

My own list:

The Eagles; why is it that every 40 something year old guy seem to rate this band so highly?

The Ting Tings; very repetitive sound thats not that good in the first place along with a few downright depressing tunes.

The Artic Monkeys; similar to above they seem to show very little in the way of innovation with many of their tunes sounding pretty dreary to me.

Pink; I'd go as far as saying her music annoys the fu*k out of me, in particular that So What tune, christ were scraping the bottom of the barrell here.

Florence and the Machine; like Pink very annoying music which I cannot see how it would appeal to anyone.

Mundy; The Galway Girl alone has sickened me of them and Galway girls for that matter.

Westlife; how did they ever get so big with so much of their work being covers?

Kanye West; I feel his success is undeserved considering his music is so crap.

Many more I could add to the list but I tried to concentrate on the particularly big name artists who I feel are particulary crap and over-rated

Irish Guitarist

1. Men Without Hats
2. Whatever Your Favourite Band Is

Learn the difference between 'overrated' and 'I don't like'. And every spotty teenager with access to the internet says "The Beatles are overrated" as if they're saying something original.

Also saying "such and such a band is overrated, they only have two good songs" is ridiculous. If you think they have at least one good song then you're acknowledging the fact that they're capable of playing music competently and/or writing at least one decent song. You just happen to not like the rest of their music.

Dudess

Also commercially successful does not mean over-rated - critically acclaimed can do though, to those who don't understand all the acclaim, e.g. My Bloody Valentine IMO. I do like some of their songs but don't get why they're deemed absolutely amazing. Just my opinion.

Tesco Massacre

Red Hot Chili Peppers (if they were ever that highly rated in the first place). Nick Cave's quote always springs to mind whenever they're mentioned:

"I'm forever near a stereo saying, 'What the **** is this GARBAGE?' And the answer is always the Red Hot Chili Peppers."

Irish Guitarist

I hate the word 'overrated'. Most of the people that use it have no idea what they're talking about.

Someone here mentioned Justin Bieber. He's not actually 'rated' as such in the first place. His main audience are prepubescent girls. If you ask them what's great about Justin Bieber they will probably giggle and say "he's cute". You might as well say Barney is overrated. And what about the Teletubbies? Those one year old children really have no taste. And don't get me started on Bob The Builder. :mad:

Someone else mentioned Steve Vai because of his 'guitar wankery'. That obviously means that that style of guitar playing doesn't appeal to you. It makes no sense to say a performer of a style of music which you don't enjoy is overrated. Steve Vai is rated as being a fast guitar player, which he is. As for him having soul; who's to say whether he does or not? Some people hear something in his music which other people don't.

There's two types of music; music you like and music you don't like.

Welruc

after over 200 posts i cannot believe madonna wasn't mentioned

MrStuffins

deuceswild wrote: »

after over 200 posts i cannot believe madonna wasn't mentioned

You weren't reading close enough!

Welruc

MrStuffins wrote: »

You weren't reading close enough!

phew... thank god for that, someone mentioned the pixies and i got upset!

I knew she had to be in there somewhere

orourkeda

MrStuffins wrote: »

The Beatles are the best band of all time. they had 3 of the best and most successful (Paul McCartney is officially the most successful) songwriters of all time in one group.

They went from knocking out Rock and Roll covers to single-handedly popularising the idea of a concept album with St. Pepper.

They were the first pop group to make prominant use of strings on a single Yesterday (which is also THE most covered song of all time by the way). They were the first band to use feedback as a musical devise on I Feel Fine.

They influenced most of modern music. They were one of the main innovators in the advent of music video.

They were one of the only bands of their time who concentrated on writing an entire album of great songs, rather than 2 -3 hits and the rest just filler. They became the biggest band the world had ever seen. SO big in fact that they had to retire from doing live shows early in their career because nobody could hear what was going on and it was too much hassle.

They did all of this in just 7 years.

But yeah, John Lennon is an "asshole" so they're over rated :rolleyes:

I hate when beatles fans get all arsey when they discover that not everyone thinks the sun shines out of John Lennons arsecrack.

Table Top Joe

MrStuffins wrote: »

They went from knocking out Rock and Roll covers to single-handedly popularising the idea of a concept album with St. Pepper.

Single-handedly???


No,just no,have you heard of Frank Sinatra?

Going as far back as the 40s he was doing them,some of his classics are


"In The Wee Small Hours","Sinatra Sings For Only The Lonely","September Of My Years",you could say they popularised it within pop music but believe it or not(and dear God i know some Beatles fans struggle with this "concept")theres more to music than what came after The Beatles,they were great but sweet Jesus they had some rubbish too,no one can tell me "The White Album" isnt more flab than quality,"Sgt Pepper" wasnt much of a concept album anyway,no real theme in it apart from a couple of tracks(and lets be honest,its really not that good bar a few songs)


Everything in Sinatras concept albums was themed from the cover to every song("Come Fly With Me" references place names in most song titles etc..)



And as someone else mentioned we had "Pet Sounds" too



From someone who likes The Beatles....but thinks people need to get a grip about them too

MrStuffins

orourkeda wrote: »

I hate when beatles fans get all arsey when they discover that not everyone thinks the sun shines out of John Lennons arsecrack.

And what's that got to do with me?

I got arsey because the OP said that he liked The Beales, but thought they were over rated because John Lennon was a dick! Forgive me if I think that thought process might be a bit flawed!

Seems you didn't read the thread. Or my post. Or if you read both then you completely missed the point.

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Single-handedly???


No,just no,have you heard of Frank Sinatra?

Going as far back as the 40s he was doing them,some of his classics are


"In The Wee Small Hours","Sinatra Sings For Only The Lonely","September Of My Years",you could say they popularised it within pop music but believe it or not(and dear God i know some Beatles fans struggle with this "concept")theres more to music than what came after The Beatles,they were great but sweet Jesus they had some rubbish too,no one can tell me "The White Album" isnt more flab than quality,"Sgt Pepper" wasnt much of a concept album anyway,no real theme in it apart from a couple of tracks(and lets be honest,its really not that good bar a few songs)


Everything in Sinatras concept albums was themed from the cover to every song("Songs For Swinging Lovers" references place names in most song titles etc..)



And as someone else mentioned we had "Pet Sounds" too



From someone who likes The Beatles....but thinks people need to get a grip about them too

I never denied that concept albums existed before St.Pepper, but it was St.Pepper which popularised them!

I've made this ppoint earlier in the thread so, again, you haven't been reading the thread either.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I didn't say first, I said they popularized it! Concept albums date back a long way but St.Pepper was the catalyst for the influx of concept albums thereafter!

I see your point about the album being over rated. It's a great album, a truely great album. But best ever? It's not even The Beatles' best!

i think you might need to calm down a bit!

Wibbs

Table Top Joe wrote: »

From someone who likes The Beatles....but thinks people need to get a grip about them too

+1. They most certainly didn't operate in a musical vacuum. "Pet Sounds" a good example. McCartney has repeatedly noted that he saw The Beachboys as their musical rivals, not bands like the Stones, who at that stage were pretty much constantly playing catchup with them. Him, Lennon and Harrison all point to others influencing them. Now they did take these influences in all sorts of very innovative directions and they did have a huge impact that lasts to this day while doing so, but they didn't pop into existence fully formed.

orourkeda wrote:

I hate when beatles fans get all arsey when they discover that not everyone thinks the sun shines out of John Lennons arsecrack.

+1. Personally speaking while I admire and love a lot of his output when he was at his peak, overall I'd rate McCartney more as a songwriter and most definitely as a musician. Lennon went off the boil by 68, when heroin and diminutive Japanese "artists" got in the way, with only a couple of echoes of what he was capable of after that. Even Strawberry fields forever a thundering good song, would likely have remained a monotone dirge without McCartneys(and Martins) input.

Oh yea and Lennon does come across (and was) as a bit of a self involved tosser for a good chunk of his life. Then again they were among the first to have that level of scrutiny and that level of adulation about their opinions so being a tosspot would be a real danger, though the rest of his band mates seemed to avoid it a lot better.

MrStuffins

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. They most certainly didn't operate in a musical vacuum. "Pet Sounds" a good example. McCartney has repeatedly noted that he saw The Beachboys as their musical rivals, not bands like the Stones, who at that stage were pretty much constantly playing catchup with them. Him, Lennon and Harrison all point to others influencing them. Now they did take these influences in all sorts of very innovative directions and they did have a huge impact that lasts to this day while doing so, but they didn't pop into existence fully formed.

I don't think anybody suggested that The Beatles just sprang into existence and created music wihout influences. Of all the bands of the era, the Stones and The Beatles were the 2 bands who wore their influences on their sleeves the most. I'd have thought that was obvious.

+1. Personally speaking while I admire and love a lot of his output when he was at his peak, overall I'd rate McCartney more as a songwriter and most definitely as a musician. Lennon went off the boil by 68, when heroin and diminutive Japanese "artists" got in the way, with only a couple of echoes of what he was capable of after that. Even Strawberry fields forever a thundering good song, would likely have remained a monotone dirge without McCartneys(and Martins) input.

I also prefer McCartney as a songwriter and musician. If I counted my favourite Beatles songs more would be from McCartney's side.

However I think the poster was trying to make a point to me, saying that I acted "arsey" because someone suggested they don't like The Beatles.

This is not the case. When asked why he didn't like The Beatles, the poster I was replying to said he did, but they wer eoverrated because John lennon was an "asshole". I felt this a ridiculous reason as to why you would think a band's art was overrated that's all.

Being an ass after the fact doesn't diminish Lennon's work the same way Ryan Giggs cheating on his missus didn't retrospectively make him a sh*t footballer!

Table Top Joe

MrStuffins wrote: »

i think you might need to calm down a bit!

Im perfectly calm dude....calmer than you are....

MrStuffins

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Im perfectly calm dude....calmer than you are....

lol

If you'd read the thread you would've known i'd alreadt recognised that concept albums existed before St.Pepper. I never at any point said they invented the concept album or were the first to produce one.

thebostoncrab

I have to agree 100% with an earlier poster; Kings of Leon went from underrated to overrated very quickly. I still adore their first two albums, and thier third I enjoyed. But when the fourth album came around they had changed thier style and sounded just like every other rock band out there. They lost their unique southern influences, and it's a shame that that's when everyone noticed them.

MrStuffins

thebostoncrab wrote: »

I have to agree 100% with an earlier poster; Kings of Leon went from underrated to overrated very quickly. I still adore their first two albums, and thier third I enjoyed. But when the fourth album came around they had changed thier style and sounded just like every other rock band out there. They lost their unique southern influences, and it's a shame that that's when everyone noticed them.

That was me again.

Same thing happened with Muse. I was the BIGGEST Muse fan in the world. But when they started to get popular and started playing to sell-out Wembley crowds, their style changed to suit as many of those people as possible.

I used to listen to songs like Screenager and think "Wow, these lads are just making the exact music that they want". But then they shifted to making stadium athems like Starlight and stuff........... I don't blame them and it's not necessarily their fault, but it's still a shame!

FetchTheGin

Muse
Anything in the charts, such as Rhianna, that goon Calvin Harris etc.
Westlife and all the other cringe inducing boyband schite that bitches be crazy about.