MOST OVERRATED
Jul 20, 2009 at 11:38 AM Post #31 of 92
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm going to get shot into tiny little meaty chunks for this but...

The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zep, Motorhead, Black Sabbath, The Rolling Stones and Elvis.

and

Radiohead, Blink 182, Fallout Boy, Greenday, Foo Fighters, Machinehead, The Mars Volta and Madonna.


Tell me, if you remove these bands from the music scenario, what remains?
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM Post #32 of 92
..... and another,

Chuck Berry.
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM Post #34 of 92
Here's one for the jazzers: Dave Brubeck
Lovely human being that he is (met him a couple of times), he probably thinks this, too.
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM Post #35 of 92
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am not making that confusion. I like more of them, one way or another, than I dislike. I know what contributions they've made to music. But that doesn't negate large swathes of the total output being dull/atonal/overdriven/souless/joyless/pretentious noise and worthy of critique. Or indeed in the case of Radiohead, music which I recognise that by all the box ticking I should find to be magnificently glorious, wonderful and eargasmic, and yet somehow fails to be anything but less than the sum of its parts.


Though in that respect you can class almost any long running, well known artist as overrated. When they make that much material, there is bound to be some of it that just doesn't appeal the same way as other bits of it do. Though I suppose that's the problem... they've out lasted themselves, but I would have trouble in finding many artists that haven't either produced poor material in the first place, or have created so much that it starts to lose quality. Or even that they have a few good singles, and their albums otherwise contain a lot of "filler" material. That's why I don't own complete album collections for most artists I listen to, even if my variety of music is small compared to the majority of people here.
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM Post #36 of 92
With apologies to those rare artists that don't suck, just about everyone on the top 40 at any given time (at least in the US) is overrated, IMO.

And while I am generalizing I might as well includes all the participants of American Idol. So you were born with a good voice; we're all REALLY impressed. But how come all you sing is is music and lyrics that other people wrote?
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 4:49 PM Post #37 of 92
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmac /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And while I am generalizing I might as well includes all the participants of American Idol. So you were born with a good voice; we're all REALLY impressed. But how come all you sing is is music and lyrics that other people wrote?


Exactly. You could find handfuls of people in church choirs that are equally as good singers.

Bruce Springsteen - Bad player, bad singer. Nuff said.
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 4:52 PM Post #39 of 92
Wow, headfi must have taken a turn for the better. Duggeh didn't get flamed for that.

It's hard to say whether I agree or not. I find most of their music pretty uninteresting since I've heard it over and over since being a child, but they were in a time where there was NOTHING interesting going on at those levels. I went through my phase of learning to play their songs on the guitar and listening to their unique sounds and enjoying them.

I guess you have to put it into perspective, we are talking about popular music of the era and not complex deeper music like classical, jazz or world, etc. which usually will surpass the complexity of the 60s-70s rock (popular) bands in the first few bars of music. But for their time, they were truly groundbreaking in that particular genre. Just like the thought of going to the moon for us seems to be uninteresting now, but in 1969 it was a ground breaking triumph that shifted our paradigm.

Jimmy Hendricks is a perfect example of this. I've learned all his stuff as a teenager, and was amazed. Now-a-days, his stuff seems seriously simple and not difficult at all to play. But before Hendricks there was nothing even remotely that interesting going on and he was truly groundbreaking. So, I have to say Hendricks was the best guitarist of all time.

So, I think there is a lack of depth or coherency if I looked at their music from a technical standpoint. Let's face it most of them were high all the time :p - but for their time and what they contributed to the cultural and the future direction of music, they deserve some serious credit.
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM Post #42 of 92
I have never understood why U2 are so BIG. I don't hate them, but for me they are nothing more than an average pop band.

Wilco and Love are not overrated bands (i just had so say that). Compared to U2, I would say these bands are both underrated and brilliant...

hmmm, only my opinion of course.
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM Post #43 of 92
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spyro /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Bruce Springsteen - Bad player, bad singer. Nuff said.


Hate to do back to back posts, but I HAVE to second this. I cannot stand how pathetic he is and why people are still funding his continuation of music.

If anything, the E-street band should get all the praise. They are solid. Bruce sucks IMHO
ph34r.gif
 
Jul 20, 2009 at 6:52 PM Post #45 of 92
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm going to get shot into tiny little meaty chunks for this but...

The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zep, Motorhead, Black Sabbath, The Rolling Stones and Elvis.

and

Radiohead, Blink 182, Fallout Boy, Greenday, Foo Fighters, Machinehead, The Mars Volta and Madonna.


I agree with all of that except Zep, Radiohead, and TMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top