The Freak, you are an idiot. How much lame-ass **** -rock (Ratt, really?) have you had to listen to make you so, so, so wrong! Nirvana deserve props for killing the worst musical genre ever (hair metal) and for that they deserve all the praise the get. Most overrated: Aerosmith after they stopped doing drugs. Greatful Dead The Eagles -Elvis! ------------------
I think Creed sucks. They repeat one stupid line throughout the whole song that is accompanied by boring instrumentals. I think a band like Dave Matthews can't help but be overrated. Everyone seems to love them and they have so much hype. On the other hand, Led Zeppein and Pink Floyd are in my opinion amongst the greatest bands ever. They created some amazing music, both with sound and lyrics. Although I love the Doors, I can see how some people don't. However, I don't think they ever got enough hype to be overrated. And the Beatles? Please. ------------------ We're a team. It's uterUS, not uterYOU.- Homer
I agree some bands just get old and fade out of the music scene, and they shouldn't be described as overrated, but everything post 70's from Aerosmith is overrated. It's the same crap over and over. ------------------ President of the CC.net Realist Club, everyone needs a dose of reality once in a while... [This message has been edited by Pete Rose Mobster (edited July 14, 2001).]
This is an interesting discus concerning the Beatles - but this is a thread about rock-n-roll bands. The Beatles ARE overrated, when they are given such superlatives how could they not be, but they are not, in my opinion, rock-n-roll. As far as Aerosmith goes, yes, their early stuff ****ing rocked. But they haven't put anything approaching that level since. They are overrated because it seems that many still speak of them as the band they once were. They are a shadow of their former selves and should not be spoken in such glowing terms when speaking of their current work. ------------------ It was the time of the preacher, in the year of '01 Now the preachin' is over, and the lessons begun . . .
Elvis -- personally attacking me for my taste in music? Real classy, man. I'm just trying to spark some discussion. ------------------ "I guess that's YOUR theory"
Just caught the other music thread, and I have to say that I think the Beastie Boys are quite overrated. I don't understand why they seem to get so much critical acclaim (post-Licensed to Ill at least). ------------------ "I guess that's YOUR theory"
I worked at Sound Warehouse or Cactus from 1980 until 1993, and I haven't listened to anything but sports talk since. That's what rap and grunge (overrated genre's) will do to a person. Kingrene, I couldn't agree more about the Stones. They may have 50 or so hits, but they have to have performed 400 songs, the other 350 suck. Achebe, I played a little jazz (saxophone) in my day and I agree about Miles Davis. Subtonic, you make good points, but did you ever hear "Du Bop"? I definately agree about Wynton. And if Pink Floyd were the CD in my alarm clock, I would never wake up. j ------------------ Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!
Hydra: Comparing the Beatles to the Backstreet Boys is understandable if you compared the BS Boys to the first 4 years of the Beatles' existence. Those years were quite similar - simple songs, screaming fans, etc. However, following Help, the Beatles changed not only the way pop music is arranged (they wrote songs in verse/bridge/chorus/new bridge/chorus/ instead of the traditional AABA used for 30 years), they changed the way it was recorded. The recording studio, long just a place to get songs onto a record to promote playing, became a place to create albums full of music that formed a cohesive idea. That had never happened before. Entire books have been written on thier songwriting, playing and recording sessions. No band since them hasn't been influenced by the, directly or inderectly. ------------------ How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters
True, he does a few covers, but some of his best songs, IMO, are the ones that aren't played on the radio(mostly his early work). The funny thing is, mainstream radio never really caught onto those early albums. Anyway, to each his own. Also, I absolutely love Led Zeppelin. They are probably my all time favorite band because they have music that covers many different genres. I do agree that when I lived in Houston, 101 KLOL played them way too often, but Houston radio sucks anyway. ------------------ Anger is a weed. Hate is a tree.
Check out the Bands YOU think suck thread! oh and check out my updated site! see link below! rH ------------------ Updated: The Psychedelic Groove House of Rockets Basketball Love! join the club! Rockets Psychedelic Groove House Club on Yahoo! Stop annoying X10 ads!
Gotta agree 100%. Since I moved to Austin, I've started to become increasingly interested in jam bands. I think it's music at one of it's purest forms. Well put! There isn't one band producing music these days that could come close to the quality of early Aerosmith albums. Those guys simply rocked. They fell off for awhile when Steven Tyler snorted all of their money, but they got back on track and continued putting out great music. You're right, I'm pissed. ------------------ Anger is a weed. Hate is a tree.
Radiohead gets my vote here -- I like'm but I can't, for the life of me, understand the infatuation with them. Decent at best. ------------------ Hey now, Hey now, don't Dream it's over...
I apologize for the insult, The Freak. Very lame of me. Besides, people on the board list the friggin' Beatles as overrated, so you error in judgment ; ) is not the most egregious! -Elvis, who forgot to mention who much he thinks Eric Clapton sucks after Cream (pun alert) ------------------
If you're going to call someone overrated based on his/her worst album, then you might as well call everyone overrated. Especially any artist who put out as much music for as long as Miles Davis. I bet you couldn't name even one prolific artist who hasn't made a bad album. So what. Not all music is meant to make you jump up and down. Sometimes you just want to chill out, and no band is better for that than Pink Floyd. Besides, their lyrics are way better than Zepellin's ------------------
Dude, Nirvana sucked! Plain and simple. Do you not think that they were influenced by the hair metal that you refered to? The Foo Fighters play covers of old VH and Ratt songs in their concerts. They grew up on it. So Nirvana takes out the glam, the guitar solos and mixes in a lot of hank and a lot of depression. Sweet! It's just not fair that some a-hole gets too mixed up in his drug habit to cope with life and kills himself, then we're stuck with his music and 'great' labels. NIRVANA SUCKS!!! Maybe you just have to be a musician to realize it. Also, no offense to you personally but the actual musician 'Elvis Costello' sucks....imo. ------------------
Bigman, does "being a musician" mean you favor self-indulgent guitar solos as the true sign of talent? Does being a musician mean you don't understand the concept of irony (the Foo Fighters playing a heavy metal song is not exactly an homage, Mr. Music)? Finally, does being a musician mean you ignore things like melody and meaning and attitude over guitar solos and wearing spandex? And one more thing, Elvis Costello has more talent and accomplishment in one of his pubic hairs than just about everybody making music today. So I don't take offense at your ignorance (winky smiley emoticon here), Bigman. You just need to stop listening to Rush, Andrea Bocelli, Steve Vai, Dave Matthews, Metallica, or whatever the hell you think is so flippin special from your none-too-talentened musician's point of view. Nirvana kicks their ass! -Elvis! ------------------
<<Hydra: Comparing the Beatles to the Backstreet Boys is understandable if you compared the BS Boys to the first 4 years of the Beatles' existence. Those years were quite similar - simple songs, screaming fans, etc.>> Noooo. The Beatles wrote their first #1 record, "Please Please Me" in 1963. They wrote "Beatles for Sale" at the end of 1964. This album had such objectively brilliant songs as "Baby's in Black," "No Reply," "What You're Doing" and "Eight Days a Week." I am not being an old music snob, but the Backstreet Boys have yet to a) write and play any of their own music b) write a song 1/4th as good as those mentioned. Plus, "I Saw Her Standing There," "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and all of those early hits are polished gems and were innovative! The beat of The Beatles, itself, was something new right away. In the average year the Beatles put out two ground breaking records until 1966. I agree with Jeff's point about the expanse of their development, though. Think of the leap between 1964's "All My Loving" and 1966's "Tommorrow Never Knows!" The Beatles and James Brown are so innovative that they should receive royalties from half of the records made to this day. -Elvis, who will stop posting now ------------------
