Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 09:34:31
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
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 .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 09:56:21
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 10:02:41
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 10:13:50
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 10:17:16
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.
ps:I'm work blocked - I can't see youtube :(
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 10:20:38
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 10:30:46
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 10:40:59
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
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...
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 10:54:14
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 11:00:44
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.
"And if we've learnt anything over the past 1000 mile retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation!"
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
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/04/12 11:47:08
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 11:53:05
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?
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
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've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/12 15:55:38
