I don't know who I would consider the worst, but I find KISS quite overrated. Attila's album "Attila" is absolutely atrocious I don't know what the worst thing I've listened to is as I try to avoid things I dislike.
Well.... worst would have to be pretty much any of the rappers that are popular now... I like rap, but the rap i listened to back in the day really talked about things, instead of just yelling a bunch of cuss words...
Most overrated.. Taylor Swift (find a recording of her live without autotune.. she's awful
Overrated? A lot of (but not all) mainstream pop artists and some mainstream rap/hip-hop (or whatever, I know there's a difference, I just want to cover my bases) are pretty bad.
Worst? Any forced, wet look, candy store, middle of the road pop...'One Direction', 'K$sha', 'Britney Spears', 'LMFAO', 'Bruno Mars', 'Cher Lloyd' the list goes on really.... it's all just terrible. Bad, nonsensical lyrics and generic 'plink plink' music. No, just no.....
Overrated? See above really. Oh, and 'Kings Of Leon' and possibly 'Green Day' (which hurts as the first 3 Green Day albums were good doses of American Punk, and yes there is a difference 'tween English and American Punk)
Worst: Tie between all that rap crap from nowadays (as stated before the older stuff had a meaning behind the song) and any such "singer" (and the term is used loosely) such as rhianna, beiber, nikki minaj, pretty much anyone who needs autotune to not sound like a beached whale choking on an angry german.
Most Overated: The Beatles......... Sure they have some great songs but when all you hear is their music everywhere you start to pay more attention and start picking out EVERY little thing you dont like about each song
Not even trolling. Hey Jude is their only truly good song, and a few other catchy ones like "back in the USSR" and "Paperback Writer". The rest just fall flat to me. This is not a troll, I honestly think they are the most overrated band of time. Moreso than Kiss, Bob Dylan, or anyone else
Worst band? That's tough to do, because the TRULY bad bands never get famous to begin with.
Tazz Azrael wrote: Most Overated: The Beatles......... Sure they have some great songs but when all you hear is their music everywhere you start to pay more attention and start picking out EVERY little thing you dont like about each song
Not even trolling. Hey Jude is their only truly good song, and a few other catchy ones like "back in the USSR" and "Paperback Writer". The rest just fall flat to me. This is not a troll, I honestly think they are the most overrated band of time. Moreso than Kiss, Bob Dylan, or anyone else
Worst band? That's tough to do, because the TRULY bad bands never get famous to begin with.
I can see that... A Dose Of Buckley compared One Direction to the Beatles. I'll let you all judge. Warning, possibly NSFW...
Oh thank god I wasn't the only one who has noticed this.
I just didn't post it because I knew the mere fact of saying Beatles was the most overated band ever would cause people's heads to explode. Blaming the Beatles for the Back Street boyz, Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. etc. would probably cause a lynch mob to be formed on me.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Oh thank god I wasn't the only one who has noticed this.
I just didn't post it because I knew the mere fact of saying Beatles was the most overated band ever would cause people's heads to explode. Blaming the Beatles for the Back Street boyz, Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. etc. would probably cause a lynch mob to be formed on me.
The Beatles were an influence to Brit Pop, Heavy Metal (Helter Skelter), Punk Rock, etc and probably a dozen of other genres and artists considering they covered a wide range of styles.
Well at least I am not the only Beatles nay sayer, and really it does not mater what they were influenced by they are still over rated and 90ish% of people you ask will wet themselves on the spot and give you their life story about how much they love the Beatles.
and now to feast on the souls and agony of those who give hilarious responses to this beatles nay saying
MrMoustaffa wrote: Oh thank god I wasn't the only one who has noticed this.
I just didn't post it because I knew the mere fact of saying Beatles was the most overated band ever would cause people's heads to explode. Blaming the Beatles for the Back Street boyz, Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. etc. would probably cause a lynch mob to be formed on me.
The Beatles were an influence to Brit Pop, Heavy Metal (Helter Skelter), Punk Rock, etc and probably a dozen of other genres and artists considering they covered a wide range of styles.
I never said they didn't, I'm just telling the ugly truth that they were one of the first big boy bands, and showed that that style of group could be incredibly successful and lucrative. As for stuff like heavy metal and punk rock, yes, they had a bit of influence, but they were far from the defining force in those musical styles. It was more along the lines of "hey cool, I like this song, lets do a heavy cover of it" rather than "Wow this Beatles stuff is awesome, I'm going to play heavy metal" (incredibly dumbed down explanation, but you get the jist)It would be like someone saying that since I like Modest Mouse, it's a huge influence on me, when I play almost nothing but hard and stoner rock. I would say bands like the Rolling Stones and the Kinks had far more impact on those "heavier" styles than the Beatles could ever dreamed of. And of course, the Rolling Stones proved that you could market a band as "bad boys" and get people to buy into it too, so they're not exactly innocent in this comparison.
Also, I wonder how many friendship triangles I'm going to earn from these posts. I swear to god I'm not trolling, I'm dead serious. I will put in a warning that I am a Rolling Stones fan, so that implies a bit of bias to my arguments, but if you really want to tell me The Beatles aren't over rated, go back and listen to their albums. I mean REALLY listen to them, not just the "hits"
MrMoustaffa wrote: Oh thank god I wasn't the only one who has noticed this.
I just didn't post it because I knew the mere fact of saying Beatles was the most overated band ever would cause people's heads to explode. Blaming the Beatles for the Back Street boyz, Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. etc. would probably cause a lynch mob to be formed on me.
The Beatles were an influence to Brit Pop, Heavy Metal (Helter Skelter), Punk Rock, etc and probably a dozen of other genres and artists considering they covered a wide range of styles.
I never said they didn't, I'm just telling the ugly truth that they were one of the first big boy bands, and showed that that style of group could be incredibly successful and lucrative. As for stuff like heavy metal and punk rock, yes, they had a bit of influence, but they were far from the defining force in those musical styles. It was more along the lines of "hey cool, I like this song, lets do a heavy cover of it" rather than "Wow this Beatles stuff is awesome, I'm going to play heavy metal" (incredibly dumbed down explanation, but you get the jist)It would be like someone saying that since I like Modest Mouse, it's a huge influence on me, when I play almost nothing but hard and stoner rock. I would say bands like the Rolling Stones and the Kinks had far more impact on those "heavier" styles than the Beatles could ever dreamed of. And of course, the Rolling Stones proved that you could market a band as "bad boys" and get people to buy into it too, so they're not exactly innocent in this comparison.
Also, I wonder how many friendship triangles I'm going to earn from these posts. I swear to god I'm not trolling, I'm dead serious. I will put in a warning that I am a Rolling Stones fan, so that implies a bit of bias to my arguments, but if you really want to tell me The Beatles aren't over rated, go back and listen to their albums. I mean REALLY listen to them, not just the "hits"
What do you mean really listen to there albums, they're one of the most consistent bands in terms of quality music and praised by both causal music listeners and critics almost all of there studio receive universal praise. Also I'll agree that The Beatles were not the defining force for
Heavy Metal, blues and psychedelic rock was but Punk Rock however always had poppy beats to it.
What I mean is that the albums I listened to were mostly forgettable. You have a few "hits" per album, and then rest are pretty meh, which is something to expect from a band like the Beatles in their earlier years when they were more of a pop band. As for their later stuff, they seemed to be trying to write really coherent albums, but I never cared for them (personal bias here)
As for poppy beats, the Beatles hardly own that at all. The Kinks and the Stones were both from around that time and both had songs that were as catchy as the Beatles (if perhaps not for the same target audience)
MrMoustaffa wrote: What I mean is that the albums I listened to were mostly forgettable. You have a few "hits" per album, and then rest are pretty meh, which is something to expect from a band like the Beatles in their earlier years when they were more of a pop band. As for their later stuff, they seemed to be trying to write really coherent albums, but I never cared for them (personal bias here)
As for poppy beats, the Beatles hardly own that at all. The Kinks and the Stones were both from around that time and both had songs that were as catchy as the Beatles (if perhaps not for the same target audience)
Yeah, Punk Rock borrowed from 60's pop music as a whole, as well as combining it with protopunk (Patti Smith, The Stooges, New York Dolls, The Modern Lovers, MC5, The Velvet Underground) and Glam Rock.
Worst, Srkillex, Even in dubstep I hate him more than the others.
Overrated: nirvana. I like them, and they were a part of my generation, but they were very one note, and smells like teen spirit is played way too much.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Oh thank god I wasn't the only one who has noticed this.
I just didn't post it because I knew the mere fact of saying Beatles was the most overated band ever would cause people's heads to explode. Blaming the Beatles for the Back Street boyz, Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. etc. would probably cause a lynch mob to be formed on me.
The Beatles were an influence to Brit Pop, Heavy Metal (Helter Skelter), Punk Rock, etc and probably a dozen of other genres and artists considering they covered a wide range of styles.
I never said they didn't, I'm just telling the ugly truth that they were one of the first big boy bands, and showed that that style of group could be incredibly successful and lucrative.
Ahh blessed ignorance of youth and musical history.
First boy band?? HAH. check back to the 40s and 50s, here is an example that was all the rage and even had white women swooning in 1953
Thats right, The Four Tops.
Oh and before that, the first of the boy bands according to internet searching.
The Ink Spots, 1934.
Yes the Beatles are overrated.. I agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The most overrated singer though in my opinion, Frank Sinatra
MrMoustaffa wrote: What I mean is that the albums I listened to were mostly forgettable. You have a few "hits" per album, and then rest are pretty meh, which is something to expect from a band like the Beatles in their earlier years when they were more of a pop band. As for their later stuff, they seemed to be trying to write really coherent albums, but I never cared for them (personal bias here)
As for poppy beats, the Beatles hardly own that at all. The Kinks and the Stones were both from around that time and both had songs that were as catchy as the Beatles (if perhaps not for the same target audience)
Yeah, Punk Rock borrowed from 60's pop music as a whole, as well as combining it with protopunk (Patti Smith, The Stooges, New York Dolls, The Modern Lovers, MC5, The Velvet Underground) and Glam Rock.
glam rock? are you talking 70's kiss style or 80's hair band style?
MrMoustaffa wrote: What I mean is that the albums I listened to were mostly forgettable. You have a few "hits" per album, and then rest are pretty meh, which is something to expect from a band like the Beatles in their earlier years when they were more of a pop band. As for their later stuff, they seemed to be trying to write really coherent albums, but I never cared for them (personal bias here)
As for poppy beats, the Beatles hardly own that at all. The Kinks and the Stones were both from around that time and both had songs that were as catchy as the Beatles (if perhaps not for the same target audience)
Yeah, Punk Rock borrowed from 60's pop music as a whole, as well as combining it with protopunk (Patti Smith, The Stooges, New York Dolls, The Modern Lovers, MC5, The Velvet Underground) and Glam Rock.
glam rock? are you talking 70's kiss style or 80's hair band style?
Punk originated in the mid-late 70's so stuff like Bowie, New York Dolls and T-Rex is what I mean by Glam Rock and the 80's stuff you're thinking of is called Glam Metal (or Hair Metal) which is different from Glam Rock.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: I remember posting that the Beatles were highly overrated, and I was basically fighting for my life.
And how there's a whole thread about it, and NOTHING.
Not even trolling. Hey Jude is their only truly good song, and a few other catchy ones like "back in the USSR" and "Paperback Writer". The rest just fall flat to me. This is not a troll, I honestly think they are the most overrated band of time. Moreso than Kiss, Bob Dylan, or anyone else
Worst band? That's tough to do, because the TRULY bad bands never get famous to begin with.
I'm agreeing
At uni, we had a lecturer who was obsessed with them - he showed us how the 'white album' contains the seeds of all genres of music. They might have done, but other people have definately come along afterwords and improved the genres.
Really not a fan - I just find them boring.
I also find the Sex Pistols overrated. They could barely play. Lemmy tried to give Sid Vicious bass lessons and said it was impossible - then Sid phoned a week later and went 'I'm in a band' They were constructed by Malcolm Mclaren in order to sell Vivian Westwoods clothes. They claim not to have realised the queens jubilee was coming when they released 'God save the queen'.
Bodies, God save the queen, Anarchy in the uk - I like. And now John Lydon is advertising butter.
Not even trolling. Hey Jude is their only truly good song, and a few other catchy ones like "back in the USSR" and "Paperback Writer". The rest just fall flat to me. This is not a troll, I honestly think they are the most overrated band of time. Moreso than Kiss, Bob Dylan, or anyone else
Worst band? That's tough to do, because the TRULY bad bands never get famous to begin with.
I'm agreeing
At uni, we had a lecturer who was obsessed with them - he showed us how the 'white album' contains the seeds of all genres of music. They might have done, but other people have definately come along afterwords and improved the genres.
Really not a fan - I just find them boring.
I also find the Sex Pistols overrated. They could barely play. Lemmy tried to give Sid Vicious bass lessons and said it was impossible - then Sid phoned a week later and went 'I'm in a band'
They're a Punk Rock band simplicity is what defines the genre it was a way to rebel against the technically demanding, self indulgent rock music that was popular during the 70's (prog rock and Heavy Metal) and really introduce a new form of rock music, The Sex Pistols were one of the
most influential bands so many people tried to imitate their style or borrow some of their ideas.
Not even trolling. Hey Jude is their only truly good song, and a few other catchy ones like "back in the USSR" and "Paperback Writer". The rest just fall flat to me. This is not a troll, I honestly think they are the most overrated band of time. Moreso than Kiss, Bob Dylan, or anyone else
Worst band? That's tough to do, because the TRULY bad bands never get famous to begin with.
I'm agreeing
At uni, we had a lecturer who was obsessed with them - he showed us how the 'white album' contains the seeds of all genres of music. They might have done, but other people have definately come along afterwords and improved the genres.
Really not a fan - I just find them boring.
I also find the Sex Pistols overrated. They could barely play. Lemmy tried to give Sid Vicious bass lessons and said it was impossible - then Sid phoned a week later and went 'I'm in a band'
They're a Punk Rock band simplicity is what defines the genre it was a way to rebel against the technically demanding, self indulgent rock music that was popular during the 70's (prog rock and Heavy Metal) and really introduce a new form of rock music, The Sex Pistols were one of the
most influential bands so many people tried to imitate their style or borrow some of their ideas.
Yes - and being formed by a manager in order to promote clothes sales is quite the spirit of punk...
I like them - I just don't think they are the band people make them out to be.
PredaKhaine wrote: Yes - and being formed by a manager in order to promote clothes sales is quite the spirit of punk...
I like them - I just don't think they are the band people make them out to be.
Punk is a lot of things it's a form of music, fashion, culture, beliefs, lifestyle, etc.
Worst - FUN, the lead singer was on TV doing a live performance and his singing was utterly atrocious, I then saw some footage of a festival televised and it was the same again. It really annoys me when I hear them on the radio as I know they sound nothing like that. I know this can be said for a lot or acts, but it was the worst studio to live contrast I've ever heard.
Overrated - ??? I can't tell whether something's overrated or whether it's just not my type of music. I tend to find things I've called overrated in the past tend to come back and bite me in the bum as I end up liking them. So I now reserve judgement, like a nice man.
PredaKhaine wrote: One of it's main themes was always 'anti-establishment'. Being set up to advertise clothes just doesn't gel well with what they were going for.
Down with the system!
Why?
Cos I'm being paid to say it?
It depends Punk Rock can be pretty versatile like the Ramones weren't political at all and their lyrical themes were silly, fun celebrations of pop and trash culture (and it can be interpreted as being sincere or sarcastic or both) although that's not to say that there aren't members in the punk
community who don't contradict themselves like John Lydon would intentionally contradict himself in interviews for his amusement .
PredaKhaine wrote: One of it's main themes was always 'anti-establishment'. Being set up to advertise clothes just doesn't gel well with what they were going for.
Down with the system! Why? Cos I'm being paid to say it?
It depends Punk Rock can be pretty versatile like the Ramones weren't political at all and their lyrical themes were silly, fun celebrations of pop and trash culture (and it can be interpreted as being sincere or sarcastic or both) although that's not to say that there aren't members in the punk
community who don't contradict themselves like John Lydon would intentionally contradict himself in interviews for his amusement .
Don't get me wrong - I quite like the sex pistols, what makes me say they are overrated are things like
wikipedia wrote: They were responsible for initiating the punk movement in the United Kingdom
When you go to 'punk rock' on wiki, it states the following
wikipedia wrote: Punk rock is a rock music genre that developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia.
wikipedia wrote: Sex Pistols were an English punk rock band that formed in London in 1975.
So how did they start the punk movement that started a year before they did?
They were the first UK Punk Rock band (mind you The Damned released the first UK Punk Rock album called "Damned, Damned, Damnded" but "Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols" was a lot more well known album) the first Punk Rock band was the Ramones and the first
azazel the cat wrote: I remember posting that the Beatles were highly overrated, and I was basically fighting for my life.
And how there's a whole thread about it, and NOTHING.
Sheesh.
Albatross hasn't posted yet.
I have awoken.
'The Beatles are overrated' is something people say in order to sound hip and knowledgeable. People who say it are typically neither of those things.
In terms of popular music, it is almost impossible to overrate the impact of the Beatles. Their importance is self-evident.
As for the Beatles/Kinks comparison, here is the Kinks playing at the Cavern club in Liverpool back in 1964:
Here's what the Beatles were doing in 1964:
That's right, when the Kinks were hacking their way through ham-fisted renditions of 'Long Tall Sally', the Beatles were writing songs utilising modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions and performing them in front of screaming teenagers. It may be hard to grasp with the benefit of hindsight, but this was revolutionary at the time. Even the fact that they were an ensemble beat group (as opposed to an identified lead vocalist and backing group) writing their own compositions and having massive hits with them was fairly revolutionary. They literally paved the way for every other rock group that came after them. And that's in 1964. A little over a year later they recorded this:
The Kinks were doing stuff like 'Dedicated Follower of Fashion', which is nice and all, but hardly in the same league in terms of musical progression. And I like the Kinks. The Stones were lagging significantly behind the Beatles at that time too - they were releasing stuff like 'Get Off of My Cloud'. Indeed there is evidence that the Beatles spurred the Stones (and indeed the Beach Boys) on to bigger and better things.
The idea that the Beatles were just a boy band is a ludicrous statement with absolutely zero academic backing. It's nonsense.
Incidentally my most overrated band is the Rolling Stones.
Cheesecat wrote: They were the first UK Punk Rock band (mind you The Damned released the first UK Punk Rock album called "Damned, Damned, Damnded" but "Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols" was a lot more well known album) the first Punk Rock band was the Ramones and the first
Punk Rock album was "Ramones".
My point was that they are credited with starting the movement when they were set up to take advantage of the movement.
Punk came first, the pistols didn't invent it. Hence, why I think they are over-rated.
PredaKhaine wrote: My point was that they are credited with starting the movement when they were set up to take advantage of the movement.
Punk came first, the pistols didn't invent it. Hence, why I think they are over-rated.
ps:I'm work blocked - I can't see youtube :(
Because Ramones was a cult band at the time and it isn't like the Sex Pistols were shameless imitators, lyrically, image-wise, tempo-wise and mood they were a lot different from the Ramones, Sex Pistols were the first Punk band to get mainstream recognition as well.
Albatross wrote: 'The Beatles are overrated' is something people say in order to sound hip and knowledgeable. People who say it are typically neither of those things.
Does that mean you consider yourself to be both hip and knowledgeable?
The Beatles are overrated is an opinion which I'm sure people are allowed to have. I personally got them shoved down my throat for four years at uni - it's my own fault for doing 'popular music and music tech'.
I think they created a lot, but having listened to them, I don't think their music is as good as people make out. I don't particularly care about 'modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions', just whether I like the music or not.
Although they do get points for 'the Beatles were writing songs utilising modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions and performing them in front of screaming teenagers
Led Zeppelin seriously? They were one of the pioneers of Heavy Metal music.
Doesn't mean they were good enough to be played on the radio every hour for all eternity.
The only thing I think are overrated about Led Zep are their live albums. Watching someone do a 20 min drum solo etc is fine, but I won't choose to listen to it in the car on the way to work as it'd take the entire trip...
Albatross wrote: 'The Beatles are overrated' is something people say in order to sound hip and knowledgeable. People who say it are typically neither of those things.
Or I say it because I don't like the way they sound.
Albatross wrote: 'The Beatles are overrated' is something people say in order to sound hip and knowledgeable. People who say it are typically neither of those things.
Does that mean you consider yourself to be both hip and knowledgeable?
I don't know about hip, but knowledegable? Yep, why not? Ask me anything about music. EDIT: Music theory, Music and its relationship to sociological and literary theory, also: popular music history. I'm not an obscurantist hipster douchebag or anything. I don't listen to bands that don't even exist yet.
The Beatles are overrated is an opinion which I'm sure people are allowed to have.
It's actually more of a statement of opinion upon a fact, which is that the Beatles are rated highly. You can't claim that the Beatles are overrated, citing your dislike of them as the reason. That's not evidence. All you can reliably state is that YOU don't rate them. I couldn't dispute that, but I would suggest that you are incorrect to do so. If you'd just said that you didn't like them, I wouldn't have said anything. I would have just felt sorry for you.
I think they created a lot, but having listened to them, I don't think their music is as good as people make out.
Based on?
I don't particularly care about 'modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions', just whether I like the music or not.
How then can you claim that they are overrated, when their musical innovation is one of the reasons for which they are so highly rated?
Although they do get points for 'the Beatles were writing songs utilising modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions and performing them in front of screaming teenagers
Take the piss all you like, but it was a major paradigm shift. In today's terms, it would be akin to teen girls having pictures of an avant-jazz-math-punk group on their bedroom walls.
Albatross wrote: 'The Beatles are overrated' is something people say in order to sound hip and knowledgeable. People who say it are typically neither of those things.
Or I say it because I don't like the way they sound.
Just say that in future. That way, musicologists won't cosh you in dark alleys.
I hope this genre exists, and isn't a construct for making your point. Tell me it's so.
On a related Beatle-y note, watched Nowhere Boy for the first time as it was on film 4 the other day. Not sure how good a representation of John it was, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. The Beatles aren't really a band that I have listened to, just really in passing radio coverage.
Depends on what you mean by overrated. I think you can like and respect a musician but still consider them overrated just because you feel they get more praise than they deserve. Even though they do deserve some.
When it comes to overrated musicians I’m going to have to go for the Guitar virtuosos that so many people worship. Satriani, Vai, Malmsteen, and the like. All very talented technically but their music just comes across to me as soulless masturbation.
Don’t get me wrong I do love a good guitar solo, but a solo has to work as part of great song in its own right.
Albatross wrote: All you can reliably state is that YOU don't rate them. I couldn't dispute that, but I would suggest that you are incorrect to do so. If you'd just said that you didn't like them, I wouldn't have said anything. I would have just felt sorry for you.
I think they created a lot, but having listened to them, I don't think their music is as good as people make out.
Based on?
I don't particularly care about 'modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions', just whether I like the music or not.
How then can you claim that they are overrated, when their musical innovation is one of the reasons for which they are so highly rated?
Although they do get points for 'the Beatles were writing songs utilising modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions and performing them in front of screaming teenagers
Take the piss all you like, but it was a major paradigm shift. In today's terms, it would be akin to teen girls having pictures of an avant-jazz-math-punk group on their bedroom walls.
Ok, I don't like them much.
Based on personal opinion. Rating a band or not rating a band is opinion. This entire thread is based on opinion - I don't really see that there is a way to quantify how a bands rating is generated, when music is enjoyed solely on the premise of 'do I like what I'm hearing?' 'The beatles are overrated' as a statement is a direct reaction to people telling me they are the single best band in the history of creation (not you, people I've met previously) If everybody I tend to speak to states categorically that 'they were the best band ever' and I don't like them then doesn't that automatically mean I think they are being over rated?
Personally I think Rossini did more for music by inventing the crescendo (unless it was Mosca, in that case Mosca did more) - but again, thats only my opinion.
And I wasn't taking the piss - that's the mark of being good performers, they get genouine kudos for being able to do that. I've not tried to claim they weren't incredibly succesful
PredaKhaine wrote: Based on personal opinion. Rating a band or not rating a band is opinion. This entire thread is based on opinion - I don't really see that there is a way to quantify how a bands rating is generated, when music is enjoyed solely on the premise of 'do I like what I'm hearing?'
Maybe for casual music listeners it is, but critics (and music snobs) take more things into consideration such as composition, innovation, uniqueness, historical significance, influence, cultural significance, aesthetics, message, etc.
The Beatles transcended their boy band stage and became one of the greatest bands ever, there is a reason that revolver is often cited as one of the best albums ever alongside the queen is dead and ok computer. The Beatles weren't perfect, I'm not a fan of the gushy, lovey-dovey McCartney stuff (although Eleanor Rigby is quite brilliant), but the band made so many classic albums which have stood the test of time.
The Sex Pistols are massively overrated, when you compare them to the Clash they seem like schoolchildren playing at being musicians.
PredaKhaine wrote: Based on personal opinion. Rating a band or not rating a band is opinion. This entire thread is based on opinion - I don't really see that there is a way to quantify how a bands rating is generated, when music is enjoyed solely on the premise of 'do I like what I'm hearing?'
Maybe for casual music listeners it is, but critics (and music snobs) take more things into consideration such as composition, innovation, uniqueness, historical significance, influence, cultural significance, aesthetics, message, etc.
How do you gauge composition? What would be the criteria?
I'm genouinely interested
Although (imo), Innovation in music (bar inventing new sounds/instruments) is a bit of a bust as anything anyone's written will probably have been done before, we just might not have heard it.
What music is unique?
I mean, if I said that I think that NIrvana is overrated, I'd be lying... Sort of. When a guy my age or older (so, 27 and up) says that they think that Nirvana is one of the greatest bands ever, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in their tastes of music, as we were growing up during the "Grunge age" if you will. If a school kid says the same thing, I'll laugh in derision. Though that may be more from pity, as I haven't heard to many bands come out lately that are generation defining the way that the Beatles, Sabbath and many others are.
Actually, one of the guys that I honestly feel is overrated, is Ozzy Osborne. Again, this is an opinion thread, and I just feel that once Ozzy left Sabbath, and they brought in Ronnie James Dio, things got so much better. There's something about his singing voice that annoys the crap out of me. And the thing is, I loved working out to songs like Iron Man, Crazy train and the like when I was in school.
For actual bands, I think Metallica, while having a ton of talent, I think they are over-rated, especially since I find it rather ironic their whole involvement with the Napster thing, when they started out as a cover band (and their earliest cover works, they really didn't acknowledge that they were covering aside from the obligatory stuff on the back of an album that no one reads anyway)
Worst: That goes to pretty much the entire rap industry. There are so few people out there doing something of "real value" in that genre that it's really pathetic. Outside of a few groups, like Sweatshop Union, and Dan le Sac (who aren't even American), it seems that everyone is literally doing the same crap, yet more people are dumb enough to fall for it.
Well on the Beatles thing, there's a reason I kept typing (personal bias) because yeah, that's my opinion. But I will stand by my statement that I believe the Beatles are incredibly overrated.
For my generation (early 20's) many people that go "ERMAGERDBEATLES" have hardly listened to any of their music. They know what they've heard on the radio, and what the older generations have told them, and that's it. Many have never heard a full album, yet they'll still say it. That's the main reason I personally view them as overrated, because many of their "fans" these days just say they listen to them to be cool and hip. They have real fans out there (Albatross seems to be one ) but the vast majority are people that heard a few songs, went "eh, its alright" and got chewed out by their friends for dissing the "greatest band ever." Now that's with my generation mind you, can't speak for everyone after all.
Also, hated sex pistols. I don't listen to a lot of the early punk but sex pistols always come off as trying too hard. Its like watching a kid scream "but I am cool! I swear!". Green day is even more punk than they are, if only because Green Day seems to give no feths about what they do (and I hate green day with burning fury of a thousand suns)
While I'm digging my grave deeper I'll bring up another I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned, The Clash. They get way more attention than their music warrants. They've got some cool weird stuff but a lot of their music is very bland to me.
Also, what the heck is up with every joining the Beatles bashing committee? DARN KIDS I HATED ON BEATLES BEFORE IT WAS COOL *shakes fist*
I hope this genre exists, and isn't a construct for making your point. Tell me it's so.
On a related Beatle-y note, watched Nowhere Boy for the first time as it was on film 4 the other day. Not sure how good a representation of John it was, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. The Beatles aren't really a band that I have listened to, just really in passing radio coverage.
Oh mate, seriously check them out. They are every bit as awesome as (correct) people say. I mean, I get that they are ubiquitous and so that leads people to dismiss them, but they are well worth investigating properly. I'd start with the Blue 'Best of', just as a little recommendation.
Yeah, I've seen Nowhere Boy too and enjoyed it immensely, though like yourself, I'm not sure how accurate it is. I know that Lennon could be a son-of-a-bitch though. Saying that, I know a guy who met him and Yoko and said they were an absolute joy, so swings and roundabouts.
While I'm digging my grave deeper I'll bring up another I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned, The Clash. They get way more attention than their music warrants. They've got some cool weird stuff but a lot of their music is very bland to me.
It's your opinion and you're entitled to it but I really don't agree, The Clash had some consistency issues but when they were good they were excellent. Pretty much every track on the London Calling is great, and full of pretty intelligent lyrics.
Yeah, I've seen Nowhere Boy too and enjoyed it immensely, though like yourself, I'm not sure how accurate it is. I know that Lennon could be a son-of-a-bitch though. Saying that, I know a guy who met him and Yoko and said they were an absolute joy, so swings and roundabouts.
I've heard that John became a lot happier after meeting Yoko.
Cool, that's your right. I would urge you to revisit their back-catalogue though, even the early stuff. Hell, especially the early stuff!
Based on personal opinion. Rating a band or not rating a band is opinion.
Not... Really. You can't just wave something away like that by saying it's 'opinion'. There is such a thing as inter-subjectivity, and you're basically dismissing a vast weight of of critical academic analysis surrounding just what it was that made the Fab Four (or Elvis, or Hendrix etc.) so special. Not all opinions are equal.
This entire thread is based on opinion - I don't really see that there is a way to quantify how a bands rating is generated, when music is enjoyed solely on the premise of 'do I like what I'm hearing?'
Well, you can quantify it. It's remarkably easy to do. The raw numbers speak for themselves. It's harder to qualify it, but that doesn't mean such qualitative analysis is mere 'opinion'. There has been exceptionally detailed musicological analysis performed on the Beatles, moreso than any other popular music act. They were exceptionally clever musicians and producers. You should read Revolution in the Head.
'The beatles are overrated' as a statement is a direct reaction to people telling me they are the single best band in the history of creation (not you, people I've met previously)
Which speaks more to your personality than the Beatles' quality, no offense. Jesus, I hardly ever say that!
If everybody I tend to speak to states categorically that 'they were the best band ever' and I don't like them then doesn't that automatically mean I think they are being over rated?
You may think that, but it doesn't make it a fact, not in a general sense.
Personally I think Rossini did more for music by inventing the crescendo (unless it was Mosca, in that case Mosca did more) - but again, thats only my opinion.
Really? Are you just being pretentious there?
The Beatles invented the pop album as we currently understand it. I could live without the crescendo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote: The Beatles transcended their boy band stage and became one of the greatest bands ever, there is a reason that revolver is often cited as one of the best albums ever alongside the queen is dead and ok computer. The Beatles weren't perfect, I'm not a fan of the gushy, lovey-dovey McCartney stuff (although Eleanor Rigby is quite brilliant), but the band made so many classic albums which have stood the test of time.
The Sex Pistols are massively overrated, when you compare them to the Clash they seem like schoolchildren playing at being musicians.
Hey look! We agree on something! Clash all the way.
PredaKhaine wrote: Based on personal opinion. Rating a band or not rating a band is opinion. This entire thread is based on opinion - I don't really see that there is a way to quantify how a bands rating is generated, when music is enjoyed solely on the premise of 'do I like what I'm hearing?'
Maybe for casual music listeners it is, but critics (and music snobs) take more things into consideration such as composition, innovation, uniqueness, historical significance, influence, cultural significance, aesthetics, message, etc.
How do you gauge composition? What would be the criteria?
I'm genouinely interested
Although (imo), Innovation in music (bar inventing new sounds/instruments) is a bit of a bust as anything anyone's written will probably have been done before, we just might not have heard it.
What music is unique?
Honestly I have no formal music knowledge I just read a lot of Wikipedia articles, album reviews and listen to new stuff on YouTube so I might be talking out of my ass, but when I refer to composition I mean what parts the song and/or album is made up of as a whole and how it works
together, innovation is taking older ideas and altering them or adding more things to it. Also maybe I should have used distinct instead of unique.
Apparently, I'm really supposed to like Death Cab for Cuties or something. Meh.
Also, the most overated band/musician is either Rush or AC/DC, for the same reasons. Their instrumentals are actually very good, but every song is completely RUINED by their horrible respective lead vocalists.
dæl wrote: The Beatles transcended their boy band stage and became one of the greatest bands ever, there is a reason that revolver is often cited as one of the best albums ever alongside the queen is dead and ok computer. The Beatles weren't perfect, I'm not a fan of the gushy, lovey-dovey McCartney stuff (although Eleanor Rigby is quite brilliant), but the band made so many classic albums which have stood the test of time.
The Sex Pistols are massively overrated, when you compare them to the Clash they seem like schoolchildren playing at being musicians.
Hey look! We agree on something! Clash all the way.
Yeah I like the Clash more than the Sex Pistols as well "London Calling" was an incredibly ambitious album (as well as having a real infectious quality to it) for Punk Rock, but still the Sex Pistols are kind of a big deal in music history and "Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols" is
a classic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: For actual bands, I think Metallica, while having a ton of talent, I think they are over-rated, especially since I find it rather ironic their whole involvement with the Napster thing, when they started out as a cover band (and their earliest cover works, they really didn't acknowledge that they were covering aside from the obligatory stuff on the back of an album that no one reads anyway).
I don't know about that, Metallica was the first American Thrash Metal band, I mean technically Venom is the first Thrash Metal band but nobody has heard of them (Kill 'Em All was the Thrash Metal album everybody bought) and they didn't have much technical ability which is important to
Thrash Metal (and Heavy Metal in general). Mind you I would say the first three Metallica albums are great Thrash Metal records after that Metallica stops being relevant for me, also they originally wanted to call there first album "Metal Up Your Ass" with a cover of a toilet and dagger sticking out
of it but thankfully Megaforce Records decided against as it's a fething stupid idea .
Most overrated? I'm suprised nobody has mentioned Lady Gaga. Just go to youtube and search for "gaga overlay" and you'll see how much stuff she's stolen from other, better artists. Heck, she's not even really an artist. If it weren't for all the attention wh@%!ng she's done nobody would have ever heard of her.
Worst? Hard to say. I guess Cher given that she's used autotune as a crutch longer than anyone else.
Not even trolling. Hey Jude is their only truly good song, and a few other catchy ones like "back in the USSR" and "Paperback Writer". The rest just fall flat to me. This is not a troll, I honestly think they are the most overrated band of time.
I'm going to disagree with you. The Beatles' music not only endures but still reverberates through the culture. The movie Across the Universe is amazing and serves as the latest example that the Beatles were certainly not overrated. /rant
NEWS: There's a new nomination for both "Overrated" and "Worst". That's the Korean rapper (if you want to call him that) PSY who just released a new single called "Gentleman". After hearing it, the phrase "burn it with fire" seems too little, too late. Man, I can't believe people buy this guy's stuff.
Breotan wrote:Most overrated? I'm suprised nobody has mentioned Lady Gaga. Just go to youtube and search for "gaga overlay" and you'll see how much stuff she's stolen from other, better artists. Heck, she's not even really an artist. If it weren't for all the attention wh@%!ng she's done nobody would have ever heard of her.
If you've seen her stuff before she went all... Gaga, you'd be able to understand that, at the very least, she is actually a fairly capable musician. I don't like her music, and I find her entire image to just be derivative of Bowie, Madonna, and the rest of the glam rock era, but despite the fact that she is overrated for what she does, she is still a talented individual, which is more than can be said for quite a few acts these days.
I'm going to disagree with you. The Beatles' music not only endures but still reverberates through the culture. The movie Across the Universe is amazing and serves as the latest example that the Beatles were certainly not overrated. /rant
Good god, that was mediocre at the very best. As someone who has considerable troubles sleeping, that movie made me drowsy. Outside of being setup entirely to display a few okay Beatles' covers, there's nothing mentionable or interesting about the movie.
Breotan wrote:NEWS: There's a new nomination for both "Overrated" and "Worst". That's the Korean rapper (if you want to call him that) PSY who just released a new single called "Gentleman". After hearing it, the phrase "burn it with fire" seems too little, too late. Man, I can't believe people buy this guy's stuff.
Which is funny, when you consider that his breakout hit was a satire of pop-idol worshiping culture. The fact that he has such a popular follow-up has got to be an instance of him laughing at us this time around, rather than just laughing with us.
Also, what the heck is up with every joining the Beatles bashing committee? DARN KIDS I HATED ON BEATLES BEFORE IT WAS COOL *shakes fist*
Actually i ninjad you on the Beatle bashing first
To continue on the Beatles bashing, when EVERYONE and their damn dog makes them out to be the best thing since sliced bread and you listen to them generally if your first thoughts are "why am I wasting my time with this" then it's and overrated band, that said even with a band I think is overrated I will acknowledge that the Beatles were talented in the fact that they wrote most of their music, but other than that they have maybe two or so songs that I like.
I don't know about that, Metallica was the first American Thrash Metal band, I mean technically Venom is the first Thrash Metal band but nobody has heard of them (Kill 'Em All was the Thrash Metal album everybody bought) and they didn't have much technical ability which is important to
Thrash Metal (and Heavy Metal in general). Mind you I would say the first three Metallica albums are great Thrash Metal records after that Metallica stops being relevant for me, also they originally wanted to call there first album Metal Up Your Ass with a cover of a toilet and dagger sticking out
of it but thankfully Megaforce Records decided against as it's a fething stupid idea .
For the record, I fething love Metallica in all albums... (including their cover, ie, Turn the Page, Blitzkrieg, Astronomy, Am I Evil?...etc... fething awesome).
I have that T-shirt by the way still...
Most overrated: Nickelback
Worst Band: how do we rate this as we'll never hear a "worst band"...
Also, what the heck is up with every joining the Beatles bashing committee? DARN KIDS I HATED ON BEATLES BEFORE IT WAS COOL *shakes fist*
Actually i ninjad you on the Beatle bashing first
To continue on the Beatles bashing, when EVERYONE and their damn dog makes them out to be the best thing since sliced bread and you listen to them generally if your first thoughts are "why am I wasting my time with this" then it's and overrated band, that said even with a band I think is overrated I will acknowledge that the Beatles were talented in the fact that they wrote most of their music, but other than that they have maybe two or so songs that I like.
Well something can be the best but still not be your favourite like the Beatles are one of the best rock groups out there (and I love them) but I still usually prefer listening to the Stooges or the Ramones (which are also both great bands as well).
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Whembly I'm not sure you can call Nickelback overrated as there albums almost always get mediocre reviews and seem to be disliked by mainstream audience members, but that doesn't explain how they still have a career.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also there's nothing wrong with liking Metallica Whembly they did pretty much started Thrash Metal so they were taking Heavy Metal music in a new direction, nothing up to 1983's Heavy Metal music had sounded as intense as they did.
Or, more likely, this: (oh jebus, yes, this really was the most terrible thing ever created ah my ears, urgh)
Overrated?
Fething Morrisey, not the Smiths of yesteryear, but the ridiculous reverence this old tart is treated with. His daft opinions lauded as actually relevant (and half the stuff he proclaims is for attention it seems), his songs banal and tired and ridiculously precocious coming as they now do from an old man. At least the Stones know they are pantomime, this bastard still struts about thinking he's the bee's knees and he's long since become the knobbly knees. See him now in his suit, like a very very bad Brian Ferry impersonator.
Of course i always feel uncomfortable/fraudulent saying music is bad or overrated but i do have my opinions:
Overrated: Led Zepellin, Rage Against the Machine, Florence and the Machine, Coldplay(although saying this is a bit of a dead horse really), The XX, Dream theatre and the Who.
Worst: Probably Kiss or Guns n' Roses. Nickleback was a good shout from someone earlier.
As has been firmly established saying the Beatles are overrated is just blatant Contrarianism.
I don't know much about Grunge but I'm pretty sure Nevermind was well received critically, also showed that Grunge and Alternative music in general could be commercially viable and killed Glam Metal for good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Perkustin wrote: As has been firmly established saying the Beatles are overrated is just blatant Contrarianism.
Agreed, same with people who say Led Zeppelin is overrated I can understand not liking Led Zeppelin's style but they are really good at what they do.
I don't know much about Grunge but I'm pretty sure Nevermind was well received critically, also showed that Grunge and Alternative music in general could be commercially viable and killed Glam Metal for good.
Didn't kill Guns n' Roses well enough for me . I don't really like Nirvana but Kurt Cobain has a fantastic voice, one of the best in 'Guitar music' IMO.
EDIT: I find Led Zep's songs to be boring and the Vocalist's whining overly indulgent and aping African American soul in an utterly cringeworthy fashion. These are all subjective reasons.
I don't know much about Grunge but I'm pretty sure Nevermind was well received critically, also showed that Grunge and Alternative music in general could be commercially viable and killed Glam Metal for good.
Didn't kill Guns n' Roses well enough for me . I don't really like Nirvana but Kurt Cobain has a fantastic voice, one of the best in 'Guitar music' IMO.
EDIT: I find Led Zep's songs to be boring and the Vocalist's whining overly indulgent and aping African American soul in an utterly cringeworthy fashion. These are all subjective reasons.
That might be a problem with disliking Heavy Metal music in general as that's pretty much the blue print for late 60's to mid 70's Heavy Metal, also the Who is brilliant there style has traveled across so many genres proto-punk, hard rock, heavy metal, punk rock, mod revival, britpop, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Whembly I'm not sure you can call Nickelback overrated as there albums almost always get mediocre reviews and seem to be disliked by mainstream audience members, but that doesn't explain how they still have a career.
Being overrated doesn't mean that they're not successful. In fact, I'd go to a Nickelback concerts as I've heard that they're a much better band live than on radio. I feel the same way with Godsmack too... live, they're just fething phenomenal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also there's nothing wrong with liking Metallica Whembly they did pretty much started Thrash Metal so they were taking Heavy Metal music in a new direction, nothing up to 1983's Heavy Metal music had sounded as intense as they did.
Wasn't picking on you... just expressing that I'm a Metal Head...
You're probably right, although i do like some metal but yeah almost all those genres have little appeal to me. Bands like Joy division and Killing Joke are alright imo though and iirc they are some sort of 'punk'. Britpop is pretty good, although i have always liked Popular music from the 80's onward.
EDIT: Tool are actually pretty overrated, but only a little they still have some fantastic songs. I was a fan in my teens so this is 50/50 improved musical appreciation/rebellion against my teenage proclivities, i just hate all the fuss that is made about the drummer and the singer (really like Puscifer though), also the guitar tone is watery-weak. The Bass is the saving grace for me. The Naivety and teenage sentiment expressed in many of their songs gets pretty jarring as well, as well as some of the more wankey lyrics.
EDIT: Tool are actually pretty overrated, but only a little they still have some fantastic songs. I was a fan in my teens so this is 50/50 improved musical appreciation/rebellion against my teenage proclivities, i just hate all the fuss that is made about the drummer and the singer (really like Puscifer though), also the guitar tone is watery-weak. The Bass is the saving grace for me. The Naivety and teenage sentiment expressed in many of their songs gets pretty jarring as well, as well as some of the more wankey lyrics.
Eh... I kinda disagree that Tool is overrated in that they're one of the few bands that actually sounds better the more you listen them...
Take Lateralus for example... when it came out, I was "meh" to it... now (after all these years), I think it's one of their best songs.
I really dislike the Naivety of Aenema's lyrics and the weak guitar tone/distortion in Lateralus, also imo alot of the instrumentals and transitions in that album miss the mark. My favourite Tool Song though, oddly, is 'Triad', without MJK's often indulgent vocals and the drums far more stripped back, or at least less bandstanding, you can really see what they were going for imo. 'Reflection', 'The Patient', a couple fo the 10,000 days tracks and 'Forty six and two' are flawed gems that i often still listen to. Triad and Rosetta stoned (another song i enjoy immensly but for less clear reasons) are songs that i listen to pretty frequently.
Breotan wrote:I'm going to disagree with you. The Beatles' music not only endures but still reverberates through the culture. The movie Across the Universe is amazing and serves as the latest example that the Beatles were certainly not overrated. /rant
Good god, that was mediocre at the very best. As someone who has considerable troubles sleeping, that movie made me drowsy. Outside of being setup entirely to display a few okay Beatles' covers, there's nothing mentionable or interesting about the movie.
Breotan wrote:NEWS: There's a new nomination for both "Overrated" and "Worst". That's the Korean rapper (if you want to call him that) PSY who just released a new single called "Gentleman". After hearing it, the phrase "burn it with fire" seems too little, too late. Man, I can't believe people buy this guy's stuff.
Which is funny, when you consider that his breakout hit was a satire of pop-idol worshiping culture. The fact that he has such a popular follow-up has got to be an instance of him laughing at us this time around, rather than just laughing with us.
Thought I'd just weigh in on a few of the different side-discussions taking place:
I've always preferred Free to Led Zep, actually. Definitely worth a look if you've never heard them before and you like 70s hard rock. Start with Fire and Water. Zep are a great band, but in my opinion they peaked with Led Zep II, their material maintaining a consistent downward trend in terms of quality thereafter. That IS just a matter of taste on my part and I will concede there are plenty of absolute gems in their post-II catalogue.
Nirvana? Loved 'em when I was 15, but I've always been more of a Soundgarden/Alice in Chains grunger than a Nirvana/Mudhoney/Sonic Youth* one.
It is perfectly acceptable to like Metallica, the earlier the album the better. I do still love ...And Justice For All, mind.
The Sex Pistols were more important to the aesthetic of punk, the Clash were the better band.
Tool are neither under or overrated. They are rated just about right.
The world is divided into two types of music fan - those that get the Beatles and those that don't get them yet. The same also true of Bob Dylan, though to a lesser extent.
Morrissey is indeed a prat. The Smiths are class though.
Just my 2p.
*Yes, yes. I know they're not strictly grunge, but you catch my drift.
You'll get it one day, and when you do, you'll thank me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Apparently, I'm really supposed to like Death Cab for Cuties or something. Meh.
Also, the most overated band/musician is either Rush or AC/DC, for the same reasons. Their instrumentals are actually very good, but every song is completely RUINED by their horrible respective lead vocalists.
What's not to like? It has John Lennon singing passages of the Tibetan Book of the Dead in a modal melody through a rotating Leslie speaker, on top of (IIRC) the first drum-loop ever used in pop, laughter, an orchestra and a piano recorded on to reel-to-reel tape and manipulated at different speeds in real time like a sort of tape chamber ensemble, a tanpura, and backwards guitar. It's heavenly.
I still prefer 'Strawberry Fields...', but only just. Don't get started on that song though. I could rhapsodise over it for ever.
Worst: Everything on pop music stations. It's all either A) dance music, or B) psuedo-soulful poppy singer/songwriter garbage like Taylor Swift. Give me the original Norah Jones, the White Stripes, the Dead Weather, or any other band with the slightest amount of self respect and originality. Just not this horrible dubstep-infused clubby music that is all about partying/sex/relationships, or even worse, all 3.
Morrissey is indeed a prat. The Smiths are class though.
.
He represents everything I despise in the 40somethings covered in denim, spending several hundred quid to go to glastonbury and pretend they are both young and with it.
'Shall we do drugs and tell everyone how much we hate the establishment, even though we never did drugs in our youths and are actively employed by that self same establishment'...
Morrissey is indeed a prat. The Smiths are class though.
.
He represents everything I despise in the 40somethings covered in denim, spending several hundred quid to go to glastonbury and pretend they are both young and with it.
'Shall we do drugs and tell everyone how much we hate the establishment, even though we never did drugs in our youths and are actively employed by that self same establishment'...
*Is glad nobody has mentioned Fall Out Boy yet* I'm prepared to argue to the death on that one.
Most overrated - one that immediately springs to my mind is Clutch. They have some very very good songs, but a lot of their stuff just ends up sounding the same. They aren't bad, just overrated. Also, most hair metal.
Worst - A bit hard to say, since if a musician/band is famous they usually can't be horrible. Even some songs by Taylor Swift or the Jonas Brothers are a little catchy. But I will say that most mainstream rap is absolutely horrible. I read some lyrics to a Jay-Z song the other day and could smell the stupidity radiating out of my computer screen.
kronk wrote: Apparently, I'm really supposed to like Death Cab for Cuties or something. Meh.
Also, the most overated band/musician is either Rush or AC/DC, for the same reasons. Their instrumentals are actually very good, but every song is completely RUINED by their horrible respective lead vocalists.
Aside from AC/DC (at least post-Bon) being a guitar-based rock band and the vocalist being therefore somewhat irrelevant, I do urge you to listen to their stuff back from before Bon Scott died.
Although I got into AC/DC on the basis of the usual suspects, (Thunderstruck - the double guitar-riff and thumping bassline on this are still nothing short of genius- Highway to Hell), like Metallica, the earlier stuff (Ride On is my favorite AC/Dc song) is on the whole much preferable.
On the Beatles, although I'm not a huge fan, I can't really say they're overrated because most people I know tend to think they're so-so or OK, but not great.
Bob Dylan is aces, though!
My vote for most overrated band would go to U2, I think.
This will be my own personal opinion. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinions, but they probably won't change mine, no matter how much you quote me and stuff.
To me, one of the most overrated bands is Mayhem. To all black metallers, I've probably just committed treason. "Your avatar is Under A Funeral Moon!" I hear hordes of people cry. To me, however, nothing about Mayhem's music stands out. Deathcrush isn't that impressive, De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas was outdated and pretty much obsolete in a few years and the rest of their crap is . . . well . . . crap. The only redeeming part of their discography is Live in Leipzig, only thanks to Dead. For black metal, little can beat the "unholy trinity" of A Blaze in the Northern Sky, Under A Funeral Moon and Transilvanian Hunger, plus Panzerfaust for good measure. Similarly, Burzum's first four albums are fantastic. Anything in Emperor's discography is brilliant and Ulver's first and third album are black metal classics. Mayhem, in my view, is only remembered because of the antics of Dead and Euronymous, who anyway were out-evil-ed by Varg Vikernes with his arson, murder and Nazi beliefs.
Another overrated band, again in my view, is Minor Threat. This is not so much because they were shadowed by other bands like Black Flag or Bad Brains, but for the simple fact that I don't like them very much. Ian MacKaye doesn't sound that great on vocals. Minor Threat, to me, just sounds like a bunch of angry teenagers bashing instruments (which to be fair they were probably doing anyway). Fugazi overshadows the band greatly, and Ian MacKaye sounds pretty good on that album.
I also feel that Ensiferum and Korpiklaani is overrated. That's not to say that I don't like both band's music (well to be fair I'm not a huge fan of Korpiklaani, but I really do like Ensiferum). I don't feel that they made as much of an impact as people claim they did, I don't see what's so fantastic about them, especially compared to bands like Eluveitie or Arkona. Part of that, for me, are their lyrics. I really hate the jovial attitude that they have to war and death, and for pity's sake Korpiklaani have a song called "Vodka"! Arkona has songs about Slavic paganism and Russian culture. Eluveitie have songs about the Gallic Wars, death and destruction, nature etc. To me, that's a lot more interesting than simply singing about drinking and fighting while drinking and partying while fighting while drinking.
The worst musician in the world? That's hard. Maybe Lil Wayne?
Agree with the first poster about Ke$ha being the worst singer. Probably in the entire world. What particularly bothers me about her is that all she does is talk about boozing, doing drugs and getting fethed. And when I was substitute teaching, 5th grade kids were talking about how awesome she is. She gets played on the radio and parents let their kids listen to her. If I could sum up all that was wrong with today's youth in a single word, it would be Ke$ha. That bitch is the load that should have been swallowed.
Most overrated? I'd go with Adam Lavigne or Black Eyed Peas. Lots of people love BEP, but they only address the same topics as Ke$ha and sing the same style of songs over and over. And Lavigne...he should have been nuked for "Moves Like Jagger". That song is atrocious.
Although (imo), Innovation in music (bar inventing new sounds/instruments) is a bit of a bust as anything anyone's written will probably have been done before, we just might not have heard it.
What music is unique?
Have you never listened to the chemical brothers?!
Incidentally, I was never much of a fan of the beatles. I mean, I didn't mind them, but I couldn't see what the fuss was about. I saw Mccartney at Glastonbury a few years ago though, and he blew me away. To be fair, he had some astoundingly talented musicians in his band, but they made the previous night's headliners (oasis) look rank amateur.
Speaking of overrated, I've always found Liam Gallacher to be a talentless fool. Noel on the other hand, he can write a decent tune. I find Paul Weller a bit meh too.
As for auto tune, It's used more commonly than you probably realise. It is useful for ironing out small, perfectly natural fluctuations in just about every modern recording. Where it falls down is when sound engineers and producers use it in a ham fisted way. Basically, if you can hear it in the recording, you are using it too heavily!
Mate, Liam Gallagher's voice is incredible on the first two Oasis albums, Especially 'What's the Story...?' He's one of the best pop vocalists this country's produced in at least a couple of decades.
Albatross wrote: I've always preferred Free to Led Zep, actually. Definitely worth a look if you've never heard them before and you like 70s hard rock.
The bands name is "Free"? just to clarify since you piqued my interest
timetowaste85 wrote: Agree with the first poster about Ke$ha being the worst singer. Probably in the entire world. What particularly bothers me about her is that all she does is talk about boozing, doing drugs and getting fethed. And when I was substitute teaching, 5th grade kids were talking about how awesome she is. She gets played on the radio and parents let their kids listen to her. If I could sum up all that was wrong with today's youth in a single word, it would be Ke$ha. That bitch is the load that should have been swallowed.
Yanno what, I totally agree with that. I hear her music, and usually its from young kids, and Im just floored that their parents allow them to listen to that garbage. I mean seriously? Pay attention to what your kids are doing and into FFS! I remember once I heard a girl singing one of her songs in a store, and when I turned to see who was singing it, there was a family of like 5, standing in line and the daughter was singing it, about 14ish and wearing a tshirt that I kid you not said "I LOVE D*CK"........what the frack?!
Albatross wrote: I've always preferred Free to Led Zep, actually. Definitely worth a look if you've never heard them before and you like 70s hard rock.
The bands name is "Free"? just to clarify since you piqued my interest
Yup, they're called Free.
This what they sound like:
For me, Paul Rogers is a 'tougher' and more bluesy vocalist than Robert Plant, hence I prefer him.
timetowaste85 wrote: Agree with the first poster about Ke$ha being the worst singer. Probably in the entire world. What particularly bothers me about her is that all she does is talk about boozing, doing drugs and getting fethed. And when I was substitute teaching, 5th grade kids were talking about how awesome she is. She gets played on the radio and parents let their kids listen to her. If I could sum up all that was wrong with today's youth in a single word, it would be Ke$ha. That bitch is the load that should have been swallowed.
Most overrated? I'd go with Adam Lavigne or Black Eyed Peas. Lots of people love BEP, but they only address the same topics as Ke$ha and sing the same style of songs over and over. And Lavigne...he should have been nuked for "Moves Like Jagger". That song is atrocious.
Why would her singing about sex and drugs bother you that's a fairly common cliche of music, it's the kid's gakky parents who should be more careful about what their child listens to.
timetowaste85 wrote: Agree with the first poster about Ke$ha being the worst singer. Probably in the entire world. What particularly bothers me about her is that all she does is talk about boozing, doing drugs and getting fethed. And when I was substitute teaching, 5th grade kids were talking about how awesome she is. She gets played on the radio and parents let their kids listen to her. If I could sum up all that was wrong with today's youth in a single word, it would be Ke$ha. That bitch is the load that should have been swallowed.
Most overrated? I'd go with Adam Lavigne or Black Eyed Peas. Lots of people love BEP, but they only address the same topics as Ke$ha and sing the same style of songs over and over. And Lavigne...he should have been nuked for "Moves Like Jagger". That song is atrocious.
You just rendered my first choices redundant, so I'll have to pick 2 more.
Kedollarsignha is easily the most noxious "artist" I've ever heard, but Fergie's solo album is a close second.
I'd say Beyonce is more overrated than the Peas. Everyone treats them like the disposable pap they are, but her being put on a pedestal just baffles me. She's exactly as talented and sexy as a good 10% of the women I run into on a daily basis.
predakhaine wrote: people telling me they are the single best band in the history of creation
Which speaks more to your personality than the Beatles' quality, no offense. Jesus, I hardly ever say that!
This turned into the same conversation again. I don’t think they were the best band ever – they created a lot, a lot of people really like them. I’m not one of them.
predakhaine wrote:]Personally I think Rossini did more for music by inventing the crescendo (unless it was Mosca, in that case Mosca did more) - but again, thats only my opinion.
albatross wrote:Really? Are you just being pretentious there?
Almost every modern form of music has used 'getting louder' to change volume. And anyway It’s no more pretentious than
Didn't read the whole thread, but My first thought was KISS.
I'm a musician(Lead guitar) myself, and when a friend of mine who is a KISS nut from the 70's played one of their cds( this was like 15 years ago) I was thinking this would be cool because there are so many KISS fans they MUST be good musicians.
Then I heard the guitar..and was thinking..wow I could do those licks after only 6 months of playing the guitar and these guys are millionaires?
Well most generic stuff that has been made over the last decade that has been in the top charts has been overrated. The worst are artists like Justin Bieber, Nicky Minaj and Lil Wayne... Autotune... autotune everywhere. Plus Nicky Minajs looks, she looks a bit like a donkey with clownsmakeup. They make both Rebecca Blacks and David Hasselhoffs songs sound good... and that's how overrated they are..
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Well most generic stuff that has been made over the last decade that has been in the top charts has been overrated. The worst are artists like Justin Bieber, Nicky Minaj and Lil Wayne... Autotune... autotune everywhere. Plus Nicky Minajs looks, she looks a bit like a donkey with clownsmakeup. They make both Rebecca Blacks and David Hasselhoffs songs sound good... and that's how overrated they are..
Scratch that. Most generic stuff that has been made in most decades that has topped charts has been overrated.
predakhaine wrote: people telling me they are the single best band in the history of creation
Which speaks more to your personality than the Beatles' quality, no offense. Jesus, I hardly ever say that!
This turned into the same conversation again. I don’t think they were the best band ever – they created a lot, a lot of people really like them. I’m not one of them.
No, I was more speaking to the possibility that you dislike them because everyone else liked them and thought you should. That's what you seemed to be suggesting.
predakhaine wrote:]Personally I think Rossini did more for music by inventing the crescendo (unless it was Mosca, in that case Mosca did more) - but again, thats only my opinion.
albatross wrote:Really? Are you just being pretentious there?
Almost every modern form of music has used 'getting louder' to change volume.
Well they can also use 'getting quieter' too, amongst the many other ways in which you can change volume in a piece of music. BTW, I think 'gradually getting louder' is more accurate. In any case, it's just a device. It's like saying whoever (I don't care) invented the mordant is more important than the Beatles.
Which is just something people say to sound clever.
the Beatles were writing songs utilising modal melodies and surprising harmonic transitions
That's not pretentious, it's established fact that the Beatles were musically innovative pop composers for precisely those reasons. Even as early as 1964 (iirc) one reviewer commented on their 'Aeolian cadence'. Now that is pretentious! All it means is that the song to which he was referring ends on the 6th chord of the scale, contextually positioned in the place of the 1st. Needless to say, this is atypical in early sixties boy-meets-girl pop.
Albatross wrote:
The Beatles invented the pop album as we currently understand it.
What music do you think people would have written had the beatles not existed?
Edit:Actually that last question was rhetorical.
How was that a rhetorical question? Do you want me to answer it or not, or do you think I can't answer it without weakening my argument?
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Well most generic stuff that has been made over the last decade that has been in the top charts has been overrated. The worst are artists like Justin Bieber, Nicky Minaj and Lil Wayne... Autotune... autotune everywhere. Plus Nicky Minajs looks, she looks a bit like a donkey with clownsmakeup. They make both Rebecca Blacks and David Hasselhoffs songs sound good... and that's how overrated they are..
Scratch that. Most generic stuff that has been made in most decades that has topped charts has been overrated.
Just out of curiosity were the Beatles always loved by critics or were they sort of like Led Zeppelin where they were initially disliked by critics but are now considered brilliant?
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Well most generic stuff that has been made over the last decade that has been in the top charts has been overrated. The worst are artists like Justin Bieber, Nicky Minaj and Lil Wayne... Autotune... autotune everywhere. Plus Nicky Minajs looks, she looks a bit like a donkey with clownsmakeup. They make both Rebecca Blacks and David Hasselhoffs songs sound good... and that's how overrated they are..
Scratch that. Most generic stuff that has been made in most decades that has topped charts has been overrated.
What do you both mean when you say 'generic'?
The vast majority of the bubblegum-pop from the 50s, the Beatles knockoffs of the 60s (seriously, the Monkees were awful), the glam-rock imitators of the 70s that quickly went out of style, the 80s as a decade in general, and the boyband pop groups of the 90s all had a tendency to be mediocre at best.
That's not to say there was some really, really good music to come out of those eras, just as there's a lot of really, really good music to come out of this one as well. And similarly, occasionally that really, really good music can make it and has made it on the charts as well.
It'll be interesting, down the line, to see what music from this era we carry over as our 'classics.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Just out of curiosity were the Beatles always loved by critics or were they sort of like Led Zeppelin where they were initially disliked by critics but are now considered brilliant?
I can't really say much definitively concerning the subject, and although I'm not a fan of them (I don't dislike them, I just don't care to actively listen to them much), their early work would have been easy target for criticism (justifiably so), but their later work had to have been well received. As much as I am largely ambivalent about the band, their later work was objectively good.
What music do you think people would have written had the beatles not existed?
Edit:Actually that last question was rhetorical.
How was that a rhetorical question? Do you want me to answer it or not, or do you think I can't answer it without weakening my argument?
I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this. Personally I think the guitar would have been far less prevalent, there would still have been guitar music, but it wouldn't have had quite the market share of music that it has enjoyed.
Fafnir wrote:the 80s as a decade in general
People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands.
It'll be interesting, down the line, to see what music from this era we carry over as our 'classics.'
Radiohead and Aphex Twin will go down in history as greats.
People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands.
There certainly was a lot of great music that came out of the 80s. And a lot (holy gak, a lot) that was just awful as well.
dæl wrote: People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands
I could easily find tons of great bands from the 60's and 70's that being said there's still some great stuff that came out the 80's, but probably most music from any decade is mediocre or worst with a few innovators popping up once in awhile.
dæl wrote: People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands
I could easily find tons of great bands from the 60's and 70's that being said there's still some great stuff that came out the 80's, but probably most music from any decade is mediocre or worst with a few innovators popping up once in awhile.
Could you find tons of great bands post millennium though? There really doesn't seem that many, although I may just be getting old.
dæl wrote: People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands
I could easily find tons of great bands from the 60's and 70's that being said there's still some great stuff that came out the 80's, but probably most music from any decade is mediocre or worst with a few innovators popping up once in awhile.
Could you find tons of great bands post millennium though? There really doesn't seem that many, although I may just be getting old.
I remember when Albatross introduced me to Interpol's "Turn on the Bright Lights" and I enjoyed that at the time but other than that I can't think of really anything post-2000 that I really like (oh, I had lots of fun with Queens of the Stone Age's "Songs for the Deaf" as well) mind you I haven't
really been looking as I'm sure there's some good stuff out there.
dæl wrote: People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands
I could easily find tons of great bands from the 60's and 70's that being said there's still some great stuff that came out the 80's, but probably most music from any decade is mediocre or worst with a few innovators popping up once in awhile.
Could you find tons of great bands post millennium though? There really doesn't seem that many, although I may just be getting old.
I think the latter is probably true - it's certainly not a bad thing or anything, I just think that most people tend to think of music from a certain era to be the "greatest" for them at least.
I would argue that Coldplay pre Mylo Xyoto counts as a great post millennium band. Incredibly mainstream, but still great if a bit overrated at times. Most of 00's bands I consider "great" are probably just personal preference, and I'm sure it's the same with most of the other posters in this thread. However, I will say that Thursday and Finch were probably the best post hardcore bands of the time, specifically Full Collapse and What It Is To Burn respectively. A lot of people have a thing against emo and genres related to it, but if you like it, Full Collapse, What It Is To Burn, and From Under the Cork Tree are basically the best you'll get post 2000. Unless you want to argue for some really obscure band (even within it's genre), which I never like doing.
For those who like pop-punk though, check out Man Overboard - fairly new band that's been doing some great things.
dæl wrote: People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands
I could easily find tons of great bands from the 60's and 70's that being said there's still some great stuff that came out the 80's, but probably most music from any decade is mediocre or worst with a few innovators popping up once in awhile.
Could you find tons of great bands post millennium though? There really doesn't seem that many, although I may just be getting old.
James Blake
Bonobo
Jose james
Kashiwa Daisuke
Toro Y Moi
Flying Lotus
How to Dress Well
The Temper Trap
Metric
Stumbleine
Caravan Palace
Helios
Amanda Mair
Black Moth Super rainbow
Hammock
Diaspora
The New Law
OST
Matryoshka
ODESZA
Justice
Ghostpoet
Junior Boys
Jamie Woon
Mint Julep
Rhian Sheehan
Polographia
Washed Out
Active Child
Kisses
Dresden
Dead Man's Bones
Regina Spektor
Kid Cudi
Muse
Pretty Lights
MGMT
feth Buttons
Monoral
Klaxons
Arcade Fire
Burial
High Contrast
Soulwax
Just a few amazing bands that started since the turn of the millenium.
I will give you the likes of bonobo, flying lotus and regina spektor are pretty good but they aren't "great"
But the likes of Muse, MGMT, and Klaxons can feth off.
There is quite a lot of that list I am unfamiliar with, this pleases me as I have some new things to listen to.
There are lots of good bands and artists of this and last decade,
Venetian Snares
Libertines
Laura Marling
Desperacidos
to name a few, but as I said earlier in the thread, the last two greats were radiohead and aphex twin.
Jeez, Beatles Beatles Beatles! They are overrated IMO. More so then KISS, but at least KISS sucked. If someone asked me on the matter, Id say fudge the Beatles, Pink Floyd gave more back to music then they ever did.
Cheesecat wrote: Just out of curiosity were the Beatles always loved by critics or were they sort of like Led Zeppelin where they were initially disliked by critics but are now considered brilliant?
It's a difficult question to answer because popular music wasn't treated very seriously by most critics in that particular era. I don't think they were disliked, but a significant number of people commented on their primitiveness early on. It's easy to forget that, compared to everything else that was going on in '62-3 the rawness and energy of the Beatles music was pretty shocking. They were viewed in some quarters as being quite aggressive-sounding. I put that largely down to Lennon's voice on tracks like this, but also Ringo's drumming:
Lennon threw his voice out singing (screaming, actually) that song with his shirt off, after recording (iirc) the other 14 tracks earlier that day. Have you heard the original? It's pretty fething limp.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote: Well most generic stuff that has been made over the last decade that has been in the top charts has been overrated. The worst are artists like Justin Bieber, Nicky Minaj and Lil Wayne... Autotune... autotune everywhere. Plus Nicky Minajs looks, she looks a bit like a donkey with clownsmakeup. They make both Rebecca Blacks and David Hasselhoffs songs sound good... and that's how overrated they are..
Scratch that. Most generic stuff that has been made in most decades that has topped charts has been overrated.
What do you both mean when you say 'generic'?
The vast majority of the bubblegum-pop from the 50s, the Beatles knockoffs of the 60s (seriously, the Monkees were awful), the glam-rock imitators of the 70s that quickly went out of style, the 80s as a decade in general, and the boyband pop groups of the 90s all had a tendency to be mediocre at best.
So you mean sort of generic mainstream pop? Meh, I like it for the most part, or rather, I approve of it. It's the proving ground for innovation in production, despite what people say about it's compositional blandness. Listen again to a song like 'Single Ladies' by Beyonce. It's a fething bizarre production.
I've always been something of a pop fan.
It'll be interesting, down the line, to see what music from this era we carry over as our 'classics.'
I'm pretty sure Winehouse has secured her place, somewhat unfortunately. Radiohead, of course. Beyond that? Coldplay? Love them or loathe them, they're pretty influential. Eminem? There's a lot of good urban digital music around in the UK at present, too. I guess time will tell.
What music do you think people would have written had the beatles not existed?
Edit:Actually that last question was rhetorical.
How was that a rhetorical question? Do you want me to answer it or not, or do you think I can't answer it without weakening my argument?
I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on this. Personally I think the guitar would have been far less prevalent, there would still have been guitar music, but it wouldn't have had quite the market share of music that it has enjoyed.
My original point was that the Beatles' experiments in the studio, and the subsequent massive sales they enjoyed with the results basically created the phenomenon of the modern rock album. Previously albums didn't have an identity of their own, they were just a collection of hit singles (if the artist in question had had more than one) backed by a bunch of covers and other assorted filler. You would go into the studio and bash it out in a day, then it would hit the shelves a week later, sell a few, then disappear the week after that. Which is what people expected to happen with Please Please Me. Only problem was, a lot of the material was self-penned and brilliant, the covers transcended the originals, and the band had big hits with songs they'd written themselves. That meant they were allowed to set their own agenda to a certain extent after that, increasing over time commensurate with their success. Eventually you get artists being given the freedom to go into the studio and treat their album as a body of work, not just a vehicle for one or two hit singles. We've come full circle now, of course.
How was that a rhetorical question? Do you want me to answer it or not, or do you think I can't answer it without weakening my argument?
I thought about it afterwords and decided that I'd rather let other people talk about different bands/singers they find overated as I don't believe we're going to agree anytime soon. I don't dislike the beatles because a lot of people like them, its just there's a lot of music that they wrote which doesn't grab me.
People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands.
Don't forget that, for extreme metal, the 80s was where it was. You had the emergence of thrash metal, followed by black metal, followed by death metal. Venom, Celtic Frost, Bathory, Death, Morbid Angel . . . For punk, you saw the diversification of the genre from just the Ramones or Damned clones, you had hardcore, grindcore, horror punk, UK84 and melodic hardcore. There was the Misfits, Black Flag, Bad Religion, Crass, etc. running around during the decade and being active.
Scream Bloody Gore, Under The Sign of the Black Mark, Suffer, Walk Among Us, Damaged, My War etc. were released during the decade. While black metal and death metal-wise the decade was soon to be eclipsed by the 90s, what with the 2nd Wave of Black Metal and bands such as Cannibal Corpse, Nile, In Flames, Dark Tranquility etc., 80s punk is often unmatched. No Horror Punk band has bettered Walk Among Us or Earth A.D., Damaged is still probably the definitive hardcore album, Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables is still gold, Suffer sounds amazingly good and who can forget Multinational Corporations?
dæl wrote: People often have a go at the 80s but the decade produced some excellent music. The Smiths, Joy Division, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Cocteau Twins, My Bloody Valentine. It could be argued that no decade since has produced quite that number of great bands
I could easily find tons of great bands from the 60's and 70's that being said there's still some great stuff that came out the 80's, but probably most music from any decade is mediocre or worst with a few innovators popping up once in awhile.
Could you find tons of great bands post millennium though? There really doesn't seem that many, although I may just be getting old.
For metal, then definitely.
Eluveitie, Arkona, Ensiferum, Agalloch, Alcest and Amon Amarth have all released great albums post-millennium. Listen to "Autre Temps" by Alcest or "In the Shadow of Our Pale Companion" by Agalloch if you don't believe me.
dæl wrote: I will give you the likes of bonobo, flying lotus and regina spektor are pretty good but they aren't "great"
But the likes of Muse, MGMT, and Klaxons can feth off.
There is quite a lot of that list I am unfamiliar with, this pleases me as I have some new things to listen to.
There are lots of good bands and artists of this and last decade,
Venetian Snares
Libertines
Laura Marling
Desperacidos
to name a few, but as I said earlier in the thread, the last two greats were radiohead and aphex twin.
I would certainly consider Bonobo, James Blake, Kashiwa Daisuke, and High Contrast to have what it takes to be great.
Some of the newer posts have reminded me of more overrated bands/acts: Mumford and Sons. Boy oh boy do this band suck, the lyrics are godawful six-form (gads even GCSE) love poetry written by a boy infatuated with his english teacher. Also the various instruments all just ooze into a bland ukelele-malaise not really helped by the fact all the tunes are really similar. Finally marcus mumford's voice is the most affected fraudulent nonsense i've heard from a singer. Also he's a fat slob who seems to be constantly sweating but thats more my extreme fatist tendencies.
Burial and alot of similar artists like flying lotus and venetian snares is also something i do not understand. IMO these acts seem to be playing a joke on the listeners trying to see what dissonant collection of sounds they can pass off as music next. Bands like NIN (well, the album Ghosts), Radiohead and 'Feth' buttons (actually saw them live, supporting a band in '08) seem to understand this ambient stuff and actually make listenable chilled songs. Not a jumble of completely rhythm-less percussion and brooding synth-farts.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Well on the Beatles thing, there's a reason I kept typing (personal bias) because yeah, that's my opinion. But I will stand by my statement that I believe the Beatles are incredibly overrated.
For my generation (early 20's) many people that go "ERMAGERDBEATLES" have hardly listened to any of their music. They know what they've heard on the radio, and what the older generations have told them, and that's it. Many have never heard a full album, yet they'll still say it. That's the main reason I personally view them as overrated, because many of their "fans" these days just say they listen to them to be cool and hip. They have real fans out there (Albatross seems to be one ) but the vast majority are people that heard a few songs, went "eh, its alright" and got chewed out by their friends for dissing the "greatest band ever." Now that's with my generation mind you, can't speak for everyone after all.
FINALLY! Someone who gets it. This. Albatross, just go on any of the image sites throughout the Internet (Cheezburger, 9gag etc.) and just see the meme-ified textual masturbation of the Beatles, it's enough to get anyone frustrated. Esp. when these same people as described by MrMoustaffa above are of the opinion don't like the Beatles, ergo you're a fan of Bieber.
As it says above, it's not that I dislike them (they're not my style of music anyway), it's how the Internet has warped them into some kind of parody, worshipped as a god along with Grumpy Cat, Bacon and Emma Watson. It's a bit difficult to explain, it's a little like trying to explain irony, it's a lot easier to be exposed to it firsthand to see clearly what someone is rattling on about without it getting too complex.
Though, moving on...
Worst: Too many to name. To name but a few- Bieber, One Direction (mainly due to Harry Styles. He comes across as a smarmy gakker that is in the newspapers. Every. Fething. Day! ), Chris Brown (oh, CM Punk, why did you not just hurt him?), JLS, pretty much anything that is overplayed on Kerrang, so Green Day, Youmeatsix and All Time Low.
Overrated: Green Day, Youmeatsix, All Time Low, The Rolling Stones (should have retired years ago. The Simpsons was right.), The Beatles, PSY and Queen.
I would put Pitbull somewhere on this list, but Pitbull is okay in my books now due to him being able to be a good sport and going through with the Internet mob justice of sending him to an opening of a Wal-Mart in Alaska.
OH, and before I forget. Black. Veil. Brides. I don't even know where to start with that train wreck...
Grimtuff wrote: All Time Low...Black Veil Brides (I'm paraphrasing )
Agreed 100% on All Time Low. The major problem is is that they take the generic pop-punk song writing approach - muted verse, followed by loud chorus, along with an attempt at a solo guitar hook either at the start of the song or right after the chorus (or both). And that approach to song writing isn't actually all that bad (it's used a lot for a reason) as long as you at least make the songs different, interesting, and "your own," if you will. Doesn't help that their lyric writing is terrible either. I'm a songwriter myself and whenever I find myself slipping into that kind of formulaic and boring approach to a song I usually just axe it.
And BVB...I listened to 30 seconds of one of their songs and had to turn it off because it was just that bad. Now, granted, I did only listen to 30 seconds, so I guess I can't really judge, but still.
No, it's really that bad. I fething hate Black Veil Brides. It's taking the most commercial image ever in metal (glam + emo = their look) and selling it to 14 year old teenaged girls.
I checked them out expecting to be horrified, but they weren't all that bad. Don't get me wrong, if I was buying a copy of their record I'd hide it inside a porno mag as I left the store, to avoid embarrassment at having purchased it, but yeah... Not getting the hate.
Is this one of these ridiculous 'death to false metal' things?
I would say KISS, but I don't think they have ever been considered great musicians to begin with. Great showmen, sure, great musicians? Nah.
I would say John Mayer. He is supposed to be an egregiously talented guitar player, but I don't see it. He is technically proficient, but he lacks art, or more to wit, soul. Also, he seems like a huge donkey-cave, so that doesn't help.
Albatross wrote: I checked them out expecting to be horrified, but they weren't all that bad. Don't get me wrong, if I was buying a copy of their record I'd hide it inside a porno mag as I left the store, to avoid embarrassment at having purchased it, but yeah... Not getting the hate.
Is this one of these ridiculous 'death to false metal' things?
Kind of . . . it's hard to understand if you don't like metal, but when the listener of DSBM or artsy post-black metal is lumped with these fethers, then you may understand.
Albatross wrote: I checked them out expecting to be horrified, but they weren't all that bad. Don't get me wrong, if I was buying a copy of their record I'd hide it inside a porno mag as I left the store, to avoid embarrassment at having purchased it, but yeah... Not getting the hate.
Is this one of these ridiculous 'death to false metal' things?
Kind of . . . it's hard to understand if you don't like metal, but when the listener of DSBM or artsy post-black metal is lumped with these fethers, then you may understand.
How do you know I don't like metal? I do like metal, as it happens. It's the schlock-y, viking-obsessed, pseudo-orchestral, quasi-Nazi, Odinist Black Metal rubbish I find ridiculous. And that is only because they take themselves so seriously.
I've never heard anyone 'rate' Foo Fighters, so that one confuses me. They are well liked, but that is because they are likable with friendly personalities and an enthusiasm toward music that is generally infectious; they are the bro's of the music industry.
I would say John Mayer. He is supposed to be an egregiously talented guitar player, but I don't see it. He is technically proficient, but he lacks art, or more to wit, soul. Also, he seems like a huge donkey-cave, so that doesn't help.
He strikes me as that guy that brings his guitar to a party and hits on everyone's girlfriend. I mean, the whole point of being a musician is to get laid. I get it. But that's just d-baggery.
Albatross wrote: I checked them out expecting to be horrified, but they weren't all that bad. Don't get me wrong, if I was buying a copy of their record I'd hide it inside a porno mag as I left the store, to avoid embarrassment at having purchased it, but yeah... Not getting the hate.
Is this one of these ridiculous 'death to false metal' things?
Kind of . . . it's hard to understand if you don't like metal, but when the listener of DSBM or artsy post-black metal is lumped with these fethers, then you may understand.
How do you know I don't like metal? I do like metal, as it happens. It's the schlock-y, viking-obsessed, pseudo-orchestral, quasi-Nazi, Odinist Black Metal rubbish I find ridiculous. And that is only because they take themselves so seriously.
I mean, come on.
Well, that's Immortal. They're a bunch of jokers, really. This is the lead guy Abbath giving an interview:
Anyway, the post-black metal stuff I was talking about is more this stuff:
Which is rather artistic and beautiful in parts. Compare that to:
I've never heard anyone 'rate' Foo Fighters, so that one confuses me. They are well liked, but that is because they are likable with friendly personalities and an enthusiasm toward music that is generally infectious; they are the bro's of the music industry.
Albatross wrote: I checked them out expecting to be horrified, but they weren't all that bad. Don't get me wrong, if I was buying a copy of their record I'd hide it inside a porno mag as I left the store, to avoid embarrassment at having purchased it, but yeah... Not getting the hate.
Is this one of these ridiculous 'death to false metal' things?
Kind of . . . it's hard to understand if you don't like metal, but when the listener of DSBM or artsy post-black metal is lumped with these fethers, then you may understand.
How do you know I don't like metal? I do like metal, as it happens. It's the schlock-y, viking-obsessed, pseudo-orchestral, quasi-Nazi, Odinist Black Metal rubbish I find ridiculous. And that is only because they take themselves so seriously.
I mean, come on.
I'm going to have to agree there Albatross I can't stand that gak they're try-hards, Slayer's "Reign in Blood" and Napalm Death's "Scum" is about as extreme as I can go for metal and really the main reasons I like those 2 albums is they made the wise decision to keep the songs and
albums short so it wouldn't lose it's intensity rather than drawing it out and making the song lose it's impact or feel repetitious and also there's something fun about having music so simple minded in it's dedication for speed, harshness and aggression, other than that I feel a lot of the
extreme metal (and Heavy Metal in general) feels undistinguished from each other or just plain boring or stupid. That being said Heavy Metal music rarely ever sounds smart anyways (not that it tries or necessarily should be) I like Black Sabbath but I still find the lyrics to "Iron Man" silly
despite thinking that it's a great Heavy Metal song. Can't stand glam metal as I like a certain toughness to Heavy Metal music early Heavy Metal and Judas Priest's "British Steel" (plenty of poppy hooks and an obvious attempt to make their music more commercial which actually kind of
makes it stand out from other NWOBM albums but it still sounds tough enough for me plus they actually give time to let there songs breath something a lot of there contemporaries lack) is about as poppy as I can go for Heavy Metal.
Or, more likely, this: (oh jebus, yes, this really was the most terrible thing ever created ah my ears, urgh)
Overrated?
Fething Morrisey, not the Smiths of yesteryear, but the ridiculous reverence this old tart is treated with. His daft opinions lauded as actually relevant (and half the stuff he proclaims is for attention it seems), his songs banal and tired and ridiculously precocious coming as they now do from an old man. At least the Stones know they are pantomime, this bastard still struts about thinking he's the bee's knees and he's long since become the knobbly knees. See him now in his suit, like a very very bad Brian Ferry impersonator.
He's a shitehouse.
Hmmm those two videos are pretty terrible. I think the millionaire one is worse though. It was just so...in your face, you know?
I've never heard anyone 'rate' Foo Fighters, so that one confuses me. They are well liked, but that is because they are likable with friendly personalities and an enthusiasm toward music that is generally infectious; they are the bro's of the music industry.
That right there should be the Foos wiki entry. A perfect summation of the group.
I did really enjoy the first two albums when they came out, saying that, and I've seen them live. They are gak-hot musicians. But yeah, these days? They skate by on (not-inconsiderable) charm.
I have to agree whole-heartedly with Albatross on this one. British dubstep can be really, really good. It just gets a bad reputation because of bastardized brostep that somehow managed to become popular.
I have to agree whole-heartedly with Albatross on this one. British dubstep can be really, really good. It just gets a bad reputation because of bastardized brostep that somehow managed to become popular.
That may be why. I am probably more familiar with the bastardized version.
I really hate alot of Metal, especially the type with operatic vocals or a mixture of Scott Stapp style clean vocals and Growl. There's a couple of Bands i enjoy on a purely guilty pleasure kinda way like Nevermore, Devin Townsend, strapping young lad, Fear factory and Iron Maiden but apart from that i hate them. I say to alot of my friends 'Metal, without doubt, contains the worst music out there but also, imo, some of the best'.
In general, for me, it's all growl or go home. Good growl vocals often sorta blend into the music, Imo it often sounds a bit like another guitar or something.
Take these two songs by the Space rock/Post-metal band Rosetta:
Worst Musician as far as I'm concerned - most of the modern rap scene gets an honorable mention, but
Kim Zolciak gets my nod. Why my girl watches that trash I don... well, no I do get it. I just wish she'd stop, anyways.
Most Overrated - pretty much everything I could think of has been mentioned. I don't know - overrated to me is "Liked more than their skill deserves." Where I don't generally rate music by the skill of the musicians, rather my enjoyment of the music.
I genuinely preferred the second one. Like, waaay more.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't love either of them. Each to their own, I guess.
Each to their own, I suppose, but I would have thought that overall the first one was a better crafted song with more intricacies than Black Veil Brides. You may prefer the second one, but the first is clearly a better song in terms of musicianship and the composition.
Out of curiosity, was it the harsh vocals that put you off, the utter pretentiousness of it or something else entirely?
As for bands taking themselves too seriously. Well, a lot of the guys in metal are very serious people. A lot of them probably are depressed as feth (I mean, try making DSBM when happy) and many probably are misanthropes. That's one end of the spectrum. Then you have the other side, the Folk metallers, who drink beer all day and dance to jigs all night. I don't know. Modern extreme metal (as in, modern forms (as in, post-90s stuff) such as 2nd wave black metal, melodic death metal, folk metal, post-black metal, Cascadian black metal (where you, Albatross, will find people that you probably never knew you hated so much - look at an interview with Aaron Weaver from Wolves in the Throne Room) and slam) probably is a weird thing to people not versed in the stuff. For some people I know (online, I don't know many people who listen to the same stuff as I do), listening to the Agalloch inspires images of nature, forests and snow.
Meh, I don't really care for classical music don't hate it either I mean sometime it's nice but I never actively go to listen to it. Almost all the music I listen to is some form of Rock music but I don't mind stuff influenced by classical music like prog rock or baroque pop.
You should probably use the term 'western art music' instead of 'classical music', as that refers more accurately to the 'classical' period of western art music, and can cause confusion, particularly when discussing Richard Wagner, a composer belonging to the 'romantic' period - both temporally and artistically.
You should probably use the term 'western art music' instead of 'classical music', as that refers more accurately to the 'classical' period of western art music, and can cause confusion, particularly when discussing Richard Wagner, a composer belonging to the 'romantic' period - both temporally and artistically.
You should probably use the term 'western art music' instead of 'classical music', as that refers more accurately to the 'classical' period of western art music, and can cause confusion, particularly when discussing Richard Wagner, a composer belonging to the 'romantic' period - both temporally and artistically.
That's what's up.
Well crap. Now I just look silly
I'm just fething with you. I mean, what I said was true, but still...
For what it's worth, you can't paint all music from the 'western art' eras so broadly. It's like categorizing all music from the last century into the same group.
I genuinely preferred the second one. Like, waaay more.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't love either of them. Each to their own, I guess.
Each to their own, I suppose, but I would have thought that overall the first one was a better crafted song with more intricacies than Black Veil Brides. You may prefer the second one, but the first is clearly a better song in terms of musicianship and the composition.
Compositionally, there's not much to separate them, sorry to say. Switch out the growly black metal vocal for an over-prounced American accented emo whine and you've pretty much got a My Chemical Romance song. Indeed, my American cousin was in an emo-core band that sounded like pretty much exactly that. In terms of musicianship, the Black Veil Brides song was clearly superior in terms of musical technique. Their lyrics were appalling, though. Truly dreadful.
Out of curiosity, was it the harsh vocals that put you off, the utter pretentiousness of it or something else entirely?
You guys seem to think that folks like me don't like stuff like that because it's too 'harsh', but it's not that I found it harsh, I found it silly. The po-facedness makes it doubly-so. If I was to give you a flavour of the sort of metal I like, the most current band I can think of would be these guys. I just love the brutality. For me, THAT is what metal's supposed to be about. Unrelenting. Anyway:
Oh feth yeah. See also: Fear Factory (props to whoever mentioned them earlier, btw), EARLY (I can't stress this enough) Machine Head, Pantera, LATE Max Cavalera-period Sepultura.
As for bands taking themselves too seriously. Well, a lot of the guys in metal are very serious people. A lot of them probably are depressed as feth (I mean, try making DSBM when happy) and many probably are misanthropes. That's one end of the spectrum. Then you have the other side, the Folk metallers, who drink beer all day and dance to jigs all night.
See, it's precisely that sort of 'seriousness' that I'm talking about. It's like, I mean, I play table-top wargames, right? We all do. Those guys sort of act as though they don't get that it's make-believe, know what I'm saying? It's all make-believe. It's not real.
I'm probably not explaining myself very well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote: For what it's worth, you can't paint all music from the 'western art' eras so broadly. It's like categorizing all music from the last century into the same group.
Ehh, yes and no. The Twentieth Century experienced an explosion in commoditised music, which in turn leads to increased participation in composition, performance and appraisal of secular music by the man-in-the-street. This in turn leads to greater generic diversification. It's a product of the subsumation of 'high' culture by 'low' or 'mass' culture - the more participants, the more diversity in terms of outcome.
True, and my analogy was too exaggerated, considering how fast music has been evolving in the past 50 years (although that could be said of just about everything social and technological) but there's still some considerable variation.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Well on the Beatles thing, there's a reason I kept typing (personal bias) because yeah, that's my opinion. But I will stand by my statement that I believe the Beatles are incredibly overrated.
For my generation (early 20's) many people that go "ERMAGERDBEATLES" have hardly listened to any of their music. They know what they've heard on the radio, and what the older generations have told them, and that's it. Many have never heard a full album, yet they'll still say it. That's the main reason I personally view them as overrated, because many of their "fans" these days just say they listen to them to be cool and hip. They have real fans out there (Albatross seems to be one ) but the vast majority are people that heard a few songs, went "eh, its alright" and got chewed out by their friends for dissing the "greatest band ever." Now that's with my generation mind you, can't speak for everyone after all.
FINALLY! Someone who gets it. This. Albatross, just go on any of the image sites throughout the Internet (Cheezburger, 9gag etc.) and just see the meme-ified textual masturbation of the Beatles, it's enough to get anyone frustrated. Esp. when these same people as described by MrMoustaffa above are of the opinion don't like the Beatles, ergo you're a fan of Bieber.
As it says above, it's not that I dislike them (they're not my style of music anyway), it's how the Internet has warped them into some kind of parody, worshipped as a god along with Grumpy Cat, Bacon and Emma Watson. It's a bit difficult to explain, it's a little like trying to explain irony, it's a lot easier to be exposed to it firsthand to see clearly what someone is rattling on about without it getting too complex.
What's wrong with Emma Watson? I'd hit that so hard whoever managed to pull me out would be crowned the king of England.
On the topic of new bands that are pretty good and have recently appeared, Dethklok, Bang Camaro, The Answer, The Muggs, Jet, Airborne, and Charm City Devils are all relatively new bands and I love their music. And that's just what I can remember off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty more that I'm missing. Are any of them "the next AC/DC/Led Zeppelin/Beatles/whatever"? Probably not, but I like them all the same and love their music.
On the whole AC/DC thing, new AC/DC overrated? Yeah, definitely. Their newest albums (Black Ice and Stiff Upper lip) are the best ones Brian Johnson era AC/DC have put out in respect to catchy and interesting songs (besides Back in Black obviously. It's good, but it better be for being an homage to Bon Scott, one of the greatest frontmen ever), but they pale to anything recorded in Bon Scott era. Bon Scott may not have had the best voice, but for the music he sang, he was perfect. That rough, sly, and downright creepy at times voice was what made the original AC/DC into one of the best rock bands of that era.
Spoiler:
Often times I find that people who hate AC/DC have only heard their Brian Johnson era stuff, which they'd have a good reason for, as everything past Back in Black starts to sound very samey to all but the most diehard fans (Fly on the Wall had some cool songs as well as their 2 newest albums though). Everything with Bon Scott on them though sound like a completely different band. Those songs were some of his best as far as I'm concerned, and if you want to hear the "real" AC/DC, that's what I would listen to. Go to Walmart, and buy "Powerage" right now. Without a doubt, their best album, close second in my opinion being Highway to Hell.
Who knows, maybe the reason I hate the Beatles is because I'm listening to their "Brian Johnson" era stuff, instead of their "Bon Scott" era music?
MrMoustaffa wrote: Well on the Beatles thing, there's a reason I kept typing (personal bias) because yeah, that's my opinion. But I will stand by my statement that I believe the Beatles are incredibly overrated.
For my generation (early 20's) many people that go "ERMAGERDBEATLES" have hardly listened to any of their music. They know what they've heard on the radio, and what the older generations have told them, and that's it. Many have never heard a full album, yet they'll still say it. That's the main reason I personally view them as overrated, because many of their "fans" these days just say they listen to them to be cool and hip. They have real fans out there (Albatross seems to be one ) but the vast majority are people that heard a few songs, went "eh, its alright" and got chewed out by their friends for dissing the "greatest band ever." Now that's with my generation mind you, can't speak for everyone after all.
FINALLY! Someone who gets it. This. Albatross, just go on any of the image sites throughout the Internet (Cheezburger, 9gag etc.) and just see the meme-ified textual masturbation of the Beatles, it's enough to get anyone frustrated. Esp. when these same people as described by MrMoustaffa above are of the opinion don't like the Beatles, ergo you're a fan of Bieber.
As it says above, it's not that I dislike them (they're not my style of music anyway), it's how the Internet has warped them into some kind of parody, worshipped as a god along with Grumpy Cat, Bacon and Emma Watson. It's a bit difficult to explain, it's a little like trying to explain irony, it's a lot easier to be exposed to it firsthand to see clearly what someone is rattling on about without it getting too complex.
What's wrong with Emma Watson? I'd hit that so hard whoever managed to pull me out would be crowned the king of England.
.
Nothing's wrong with Emma Watson (or Bacon for that matter). I was just using her in an example of one of the many things (in this case The Beatles) that the Internet for some reason or another puts on a pedestal.
Most over rated- Beiber and Taylor Swift. He is a spoiled wannabe michael jackson who got famous from Youtube and she pretty much sings about how every break up she has isn't her fault.
Overrated? A lot of (but not all) mainstream pop artists and some mainstream rap/hip-hop (or whatever, I know there's a difference, I just want to cover my bases) are pretty bad.
Albatross - you just went up a peg or three on my cool chart. Meshuggah AND FearFactory? When Im in a metal mood, those tow are my goto bands.
As for Dubstep, Its got a pretty wide range of style these days, from subtle to dark and crunchy. Im pretty sure you could find a style you like of it, unless you just cant stand any type of techno-esqe music at all.
Worsts: plenty! most have a very short careers. Beiber is on the list, B. Spears too! but not Gaga! (She learned that 'Explosive sells'!)
Overrated:
1. Gangnam Style
2. Beiber (again!)
3. Linkin Park
4. Korean girl gigs; Wonder Girls... especially
Overrated? A lot of (but not all) mainstream pop artists and some mainstream rap/hip-hop (or whatever, I know there's a difference, I just want to cover my bases) are pretty bad.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Jordinson is an ok drummer, but his band is horsegak. Anyway, Frost is more awesome:
Exactly, he's "ok". Youtube comments and fanboiz seem to think he's the Beethoven of drumming, when really he's closer to a cat running across the piano because it saw a bird outside.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Jordinson is an ok drummer, but his band is horsegak. Anyway, Frost is more awesome:
Exactly, he's "ok". Youtube comments and fanboiz seem to think he's the Beethoven of drumming, when really he's closer to a cat running across the piano because it saw a bird outside.
I'd say that Joey Jordison a lot better than 'OK', to put it mildly. I agree with you on Lars Ulrich, though. I'm a better drummer than Lars Ulrich, and I haven't drummed in a band for years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Ah, I see what metal you like now. I made that assumption because most people I've met like the song, but hate the vocals.
What about this?
Yeah, didn't mind it. I generally prefer more stoner-y stuff like Kyuss or Cathedral. For obvious reasons.
Aerethan wrote: Dammit MGS now I'm gonna spend all day at work listening to Killing Joke on youtube.
Not too big on the 80's stuff, but this newer heavy sound is epic.
Yepper, the early 80s stuff is 'of it's time', I still enjoy much of it but it's a very different sound to the newer stuff.
Millenium and Hosannas from the Basements of Hell are my two favorite albums by Killing Joke.
And despite the intentional and cynical 'I'm mad and bad, me' attitude and stylings of many frontmen, Jaz Coleman is one original scary mad bastard. 100% Malkavian.
Lots of people saying Metallica, I still think the black album was a magnum opus an excellently done album and very good tunes, but they didn't just fail to meet up to it in following work, they plummeted into painful mediocrity thereafter, almost immediately becoming miserly old men with little to no love in their work.
Lots of people saying Metallica, I still think the black album was a magnum opus an excellently done album and very good tunes, but they didn't just fail to meet up to it in following work, they plummeted into painful mediocrity thereafter, almost immediately becoming miserly old men with little to no love in their work.
Lots of people saying Metallica, I still think the black album was a magnum opus an excellently done album and very good tunes, but they didn't just fail to meet up to it in following work, they plummeted into painful mediocrity thereafter, almost immediately becoming miserly old men with little to no love in their work.
As well as becoming bits of furniture.
I will not let that meme die.
Why
Lulu was such a terrible album, I didn't like the black album as much but did like Load/Reload
Lots of people saying Metallica, I still think the black album was a magnum opus an excellently done album and very good tunes, but they didn't just fail to meet up to it in following work, they plummeted into painful mediocrity thereafter, almost immediately becoming miserly old men with little to no love in their work.
I think after their first few albums (which were I thought were brilliant btw) they had exhausted themselves creatively, cause they made some real bizarre decisions lately like collaborating with experimental rock artist Lou Reed, they were kind of a big deal back in the 80's as they did pretty
much kick-started Thrash Metal and Extreme Metal (they were a lot tougher sounding than the NWOBM that influenced their music) and made that style commercially viable, but I don't understand the hate no artist or band releases 100% perfect material just listen to the band's strongest
The talk of Metallica meant I just had to add this as it makes me laugh to this day: Saw them at Reading Festival which was just before Death Magnetic was out. They played all the big hits and that was fine, they played nothing off St Anger and that was good, and then Hetfield steps up and says "we're now gonna play something off the new album", the crowd goes quiet... 20 seconds in to the song someone near me shouts "It's not gak" and the whole crowd (as if they were waiting for this guy) starts cheering.
So for my contribution to the topic: Worst: For me, pretty much any boy-band, no need to name names. I'm not one for lyrics (the vocals are largely an extra instrument for me) and so any good song writing is lost on me and that leaves nothing but the backing drum machine for most boy-bands.
Over-rated: All the recent "rock" bands like Kassabian, Kaiser Chiefs, Arctic Monkeys, etc... I just don't get what people liked about them. They all seemed to appear at the same time and all sounded the same to me and just didn't seem to have anything special. Maybe it was the song writing again, but I didn't get it.
It's a subgenre of doom metal. It's quite slow, but really heavy. Actually, thinking about it again, you may prefer death/doom, for example My Dying Bride:
It's a subgenre of doom metal. It's quite slow, but really heavy. Actually, thinking about it again, you may prefer death/doom, for example My Dying Bride:
From Bradford, of all places!
I know, I've seen them, years and years ago! It was in Stockton-on-Tees, if I recall correctly.
Yeah, I like My Dying Bride, what I've heard of them. Still have a soft spot for 'The Cry of Mankind' even after all these years.
Aerethan wrote: Worst: somewhere between Metallica and Kanye West.
Most overrated? Lars Ulrich or Joey Jordison.
Let the flaming begin.
I dont see a flame war from what you said at all. Ulrich is a gakky drummer, and Jordison is only considered good because he can play fast. Big frigging deal. Michael Angelo Batio can shred a guitar like a mofo, doesnt mean I think he has any REAL talent outside of playing really fast and crazy. The day the guy makes a song that stays in my head for a week is when Ill think hes got talent
You guys. I'm late to the show. But it needs to be said. The Beetles are -not- overated. People who just want be included and maybe listen to three songs claim to love the Beetles.
I don't listen to them. But i'll be fethed before I deny what they have contributed to music as a whole.
Also. Worst music. Country, all of it.
Overated? I guess I feel Metallica is very -very- overated. Even their older stuff. Ride the Lighting and Master of Puppets are good. But aren't bibles.
Also because were talking about music. I'm posting something not overated.
No matter what comes in the future, Bathory will remain epic! Even if you don't like Quorthon's music, you have to accept that Bathory has created some of the best heavy metal music ever.
Much of the modern popular 'country' is indeed foul dross with insipid lyrics and horrible prefabricated template construction. But Country has a rich and diverse heritage and some amazing musicians have been a part of it.
), Chris Brown (oh, 
