matt z 08.05.2014 20:48 |
Hopefully this will lead to some musical snobbery. I'll start. This one is obvious even to a baboon.... OASIS |
BradMay 09.05.2014 04:47 |
Coldplay. |
ITSM 09.05.2014 06:59 |
Muse - sounds like the guy is singing sitting on the toilet (Muscle Museum is pretty good, though). Led Zeppelin - OK, they have some good songs - like Tangerine and Out on the Tiles - but a pretty boring band, in my opinion, not the MOST overrated, though, but they are a "huge" band. Queens of the Stoneage Coldplay is understood ; ) |
Iron Butterfly 09.05.2014 07:47 |
Bon Jovi |
thomasquinn 32989 09.05.2014 08:36 |
Why, Queen of course! [runs for dear life] |
Saint Jiub 09.05.2014 20:07 |
I cannot decide between U2 and the Rolling Stones |
musicland munich 10.05.2014 00:44 |
oh...U2...no doubt. |
pittrek 10.05.2014 09:18 |
My candidates U2 Rolling Stones AC DC Kiss Guns'n'Roses |
noorie 10.05.2014 11:07 |
U2. Sorry, but I find Bono quite annoying. |
Costa86 11.05.2014 16:10 |
Rolling Stones are REALLY overrated. And I can't stand the band's members either, especially Keith Richards - he's a disgusting fossil. To make matters worse, he said in an interview that Freddie wasn't his cup of tea. What a shit.
pittrek wrote: My candidates U2 Rolling Stones AC DC Kiss Guns'n'Roses |
mooghead 11.05.2014 16:54 |
Led Zeppelin, Coldplay |
matt z 11.05.2014 23:42 |
Interesting selections. U2 seems to be winning. I think the stones and zeppelin each have quite a few uniquely different songs as to not be overrated. Stuff like gimme shelter, you can't always get what you want, Angie etc . Zep: Kashmir, houses of the holy, rain song, lemon song, whole lotta love (predecessor to GDML) as well as stuff that has artistic merit. .. But hey, each to his own. I'm just glad no one's said the who. I'd throw JOURNEY in as overrated as well. Particularly in Asian countries. |
noorie 12.05.2014 11:47 |
Costa86 wrote: Keith Richards - he's a disgusting fossil. To make matters worse, he said in an interview that Freddie wasn't his cup of tea. What a shit.Yeah, what was that all about? Disgusting fossil is exactly what he is! Good one, Costa86 |
shannaschaffer 12.05.2014 12:44 |
Definitely Coldplay |
Holly2003 12.05.2014 14:25 |
Since Keith's musical influences were blues players, whereas Fred may have dabbled a bit in the blues early on but quickly developed other tastes, it's hardly surprising Keith doesn't "get" Fred. People are alowed to have different tastes in music and it doesn't make them "a shit". Anyway, U2. Massively over-rated. Everything AC/DC did after Rising Power was terrible. The Rolling Stones did some great stuff: Gimme Shelter is one of the best songs of the 1970s. When G'n'R were good they were great, but there's lots of filler in there too. Anyone saying Led Zep is over-rated must have painted-on ears. Listen to this, then apologise before the gods strike you down like the lowly heretic you are: link |
Saint Jiub 12.05.2014 17:59 |
No Johns ... no Led Zep |
thomasquinn 32989 13.05.2014 00:25 |
Holly2003 wrote:Everything AC/DC did after Rising Power was terrible.After a bit of googling I found that that track is from Flick Of The Switch (1983). That's their fourteenth album-release (counting '74 Jailbreak, which is technically a mini-album). So about 70% of their catalogue pre-dates that. If they only made "terrible" music after that (which I dispute, e.g. Razor's Edge), it still leaves most of their catalogue intact. Hardly an argument for labeling the band "overrated". |
Holly2003 13.05.2014 03:50 |
Nope, they're not over-rated. They had a run of albums from (Let There Be Rock, Powerage, Highway to Hell, Back in Black, For Those About to Rock) that are really strong, with many classic songs. Any rock band would be happy to have that list of albums on their CV. After that, the quality dropped off considerably. Flick of the Switch* is, IMO, their last good album and for 20 years now they've been living off past glories. *yeah I meant Flick Of The Switch, not Rising Power. |
thomasquinn 32989 13.05.2014 08:01 |
OK, fair point, although I think Razor's Edge was a positive exception, but I'm glad we agree that AC/DC doesn't fall in the U2-category. |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2014 08:24 |
Zeppelin overrated !? I guarantee you, 4 out of 5 kids who have picked up an electric guitar in the last 40 years have done so because of Jimmy Page. That alone blows the argument out of the water. They broke The Beatles' concert attendance records in 1973. The sheer depth and diversity of musical genres on their albums is virtually unmatched in rock music. Jimmy Page was an unadulterated genius in the music studio. He invented backwards echo. Find any 1969 album with a better drum sound than Zeppelin II, or a 1971 album with a better drum sound than Zeppelin IV. And finally - their reunion concert in 2007 is arguably the biggest rock concert ever. 30 million people applied for tickets. This will never, ever happen again with anyone. In the sea of bands today in the digital age, no band will ever be this big. |
The Real Wizard 14.05.2014 08:32 |
As for Muse.. Black Holes And Revelations is one of the finest rock albums in decades. They are long past sounding like Radiohead when even Radiohead didn't want to sound like Radiohead. They have created their own sound, incorporating a wide diversity of musical genres into what they do. They are doing now what Queen were doing in the 70s at their peak, and they are only band doing it to the extent that they are. Their latest record even has dubstep references with fascinating results. And compositionally, Matt Bellamy's musical vocabulary exceeds pretty much everyone in popular music. If they can sell out two nights at Wembley, they are in the top echelon. Fad pop acts can sell out arenas, but they can't sell out Wembley tour after tour. Katy Perry won't be doing Wembley in a decade when her pretty looks start to age. Muse will be. |
thomasquinn 32989 14.05.2014 09:26 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Zeppelin overrated !? I guarantee you, 4 out of 5 kids who have picked up an electric guitar in the last 40 years have done so because of Jimmy Page. That alone blows the argument out of the water.I really like Zeppelin and agree that they do not belong in the "most overrated band" category, but I'm definitely kid number 5 in this argument - and no, I didn't pick up an electric guitar because of Brian May either. Jimmy Page was an unadulterated genius in the music studio. He invented backwards echo.He *claims* to have invented backwards echo. According to a well-sourced and easily verified statement that made its way to, amongst others, Wikipedia: "Despite Page's claims, an earlier example of the effect can distinctly be heard towards the end of the 1966 Lee Mallory single "That's the Way It's Gonna Be", produced by Curt Boettcher." Which leads to the crux of my single biggest problem with Led Zeppelin: they often plagiarized and then claimed to have come up with what they plagiarized. Jimmy Page is a very unreliable witness in the terms of an historian or a journalist. |
Mr.Jingles 15.05.2014 11:49 |
The Real Wizard wrote: As for Muse.. Black Holes And Revelations is one of the finest rock albums in decades. They are long past sounding like Radiohead when even Radiohead didn't want to sound like Radiohead. They have created their own sound, incorporating a wide diversity of musical genres into what they do. They are doing now what Queen were doing in the 70s at their peak, and they are only band doing it to the extent that they are. Their latest record even has dubstep references with fascinating results. And compositionally, Matt Bellamy's musical vocabulary exceeds pretty much everyone in popular music. If they can sell out two nights at Wembley, they are in the top echelon. Fad pop acts can sell out arenas, but they can't sell out Wembley tour after tour. Katy Perry won't be doing Wembley in a decade when her pretty looks start to age. Muse will be.I absolutely second that. While you mentioned Radiohead. I have to say that they are the most overrated band in the world right now. I have to agree that 'The Bends' and 'OK Computer' were two of the greatest albums ever made. However, everything that Radiohead has done afterwards has been just experimenting for the sake of just sounding different. 'In Rainbows' and a few other albums have had some good tracks, but for the most part what Radiohead has done since 2000 up until now is just soulless music. There's no emotion to it. Radiohead is entitled to make the music they want. What I find really annoying are all these hipsters who bow down to anything Radiohead does. Radiohead could just walk into a studio, record dead silence and hipsters will hail it as groundbreaking and original. |
Holly2003 20.05.2014 13:25 |
Yep for Radiohead. Good early stuff but completely lost the plot. Add Oasis to that list. One of the good things about the Flick of the Switch discussion (not counting that Thomas and I actually spoke without insulting eachother, which must be a first on QZ) is that I then went out and bought the album on CD to replace my vinyl copy. (My old turntable conked out about a year ago and I haven't replaced it.) FotS really is a fine album. It is unrelenting hard from start to finish, but it has decent melodies. They really were a tight band at that point. Now I might even buy the Fly on the Wall CD to see if it's as bad as I remember it lol! |
Queenfansunite 20.05.2014 20:22 |
The Beatles Now haha I know, but I really prefer their solo works, although obviously some Beatle songs are classics, but I think John Paul and George did so much more of quality solo. The Beatles as the Beatles made too much music, and too much is made of them as a band, as their talents shined so much greater as solo artists. Queen too little music , and their talent as a band and as a unit , has never and will never will be equalled . |
Stelios 21.05.2014 06:00 |
The Rolling Stones. Mick is a hell of an entertainer but vocaly not anything special. Keith is good on riffs but could never make " a little strory inside the song" the way Brian always managed to achieve. As for Keith Richards and his statement about Freddie has totally to do with idiosyncrasy . Freddie had this absolute in your face sexual energy blended with camp sensibilities and cross-genre creativity, while Keith is a tottaly laid back, macho, burned out "fuck you" dude. Its not straightforward homophobia ( the cup of tea statment ) but delves into sexuality and the way it is expressed. By the way i find The Beatles tottaly boring too. I think from the classic bands of the 70's only Queen still sound rellevant today and can appeal to a teenager on an instant, without him/her having to dig deep to find the deeper qualities that many of the other old bands may have had. |
thomasquinn 32989 21.05.2014 10:34 |
Disagree. Deep Purple and Pink Floyd immediately come to mind, but there are others who have stood the test of time at least as well. |
noorie 21.05.2014 11:33 |
Stelios wrote: |
shannaschaffer 21.05.2014 12:49 |
I am so glad to see someone else feels The Beatles are overrated. I have never understood their popularity and have always felt guilty or stupid feeling that way. As if there is something to them I just don't "get". Even if I am a bit dull for not "getting" them, I honestly don't enjoy any song of theirs that I have heard. |
Queenfansunite 23.05.2014 17:36 |
shannaschaffer wrote: I am so glad to see someone else feels The Beatles are overrated. I have never understood their popularity and have always felt guilty or stupid feeling that way. As if there is something to them I just don't "get". Even if I am a bit dull for not "getting" them, I honestly don't enjoy any song of theirs that I have heard.I admit I like some of their songs, I like George Harrison stuff , guitar gently weeps and good day sunshine?. Was that his ? Hey Jude and other ballads, I dint like twisting shout and that early stuff, it labamba ripp off to me. Prefer elvis. But the Beatles i say are comparatively over rated By their large number of fans,all hype if you ask me with even male American teenagers in love with their foreign Liverpool accents, it the reason I think for the over the top hypery of it all. and what a voice he had, little Richards , he had a Freddie vibe, or Freddie has his vibe I mean. amazing raw power amazing voice, so much sexual energy. anyway , i think they the Beatles , were the original boy band and later turned into take that during their latter albums , experimenting a bit, but they were far far better once they got the shackles off them and went solo. I noted that on one documentary their contract did not have a signature for their manager where it should have done and suggests they were in fact managed by Queen , I mean The Queen , Elizabeth II of England. Paul even seemed to joke about it in a way, but Cryptically , when he said he would sign himself over to her majesty if the manager left or something to that affect. Can you believe it? Some old time fans think Paul has false ears and is not the real one , lol so funny. Well I say if he is not the real one, he is more talented than he was when he was the real one, because he wrote better songs. And he wrote two good christmas songs, which is hard to do, and his stuff with MJ ebony and ivory great songs and MY love etc Mull of Kintyre live and let die. |
Doga 23.05.2014 21:00 |
The Beatles and U2 are heavily overrated. They are product of the marketing. Some people buy their records and attend U2 gigs simply because they are ''these'' bands. A lot of people went to the 360º tour gigs simply for that amazing stage. |
tcc 26.05.2014 08:44 |
I don't think The Beatles are over-rated. If you had grown up during the days when they produced hit after hit, you will be impressed by how they could keep coming up with such catchy tunes. Unfortunately, the lyrics were a bit too simple but that was the fashion at that time. |
thomasquinn 32989 26.05.2014 10:57 |
If you had grown up during those days, you'd also have had The Kinks producing hit after hit at a, in my humble opinion, superior level. There would have been Bob Dylan, a blues invasion and lots of exciting stuff like that. The story that The Beatles were in a league of their own quality-wise is a myth. They had the greatest PR-machine, though. |
The Real Wizard 26.05.2014 21:22 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: While you mentioned Radiohead. I have to say that they are the most overrated band in the world right now. I have to agree that 'The Bends' and 'OK Computer' were two of the greatest albums ever made. However, everything that Radiohead has done afterwards has been just experimenting for the sake of just sounding different.Yup, agreed. They lost me after Kid A. I've tried countless times to listen to anything they've done in the past decade. With the odd exception, I just don't get it. |
The Real Wizard 26.05.2014 21:31 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: He *claims* to have invented backwards echo. According to a well-sourced and easily verified statement that made its way to, amongst others, Wikipedia: "Despite Page's claims, an earlier example of the effect can distinctly be heard towards the end of the 1966 Lee Mallory single "That's the Way It's Gonna Be", produced by Curt Boettcher."Interesting. Is it the same process of loading in the tape in reverse or not? It's entirely possible that Page hadn't heard of the song and still came up with the idea himself.. |
The Real Wizard 26.05.2014 21:50 |
Stelios wrote: By the way i find The Beatles tottaly boring too.Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road are three of the greatest records ever made. Musically and technologically, they wrote the blueprint that virtually everyone in pop music who came afterward followed in some way. The Beatles are the most important band of the last 50 years. And the number of great melodies that those guys churned out in just a few years is nothing short of astounding - never mind the fact that they went from I Want To Hold Your Hand to Strawberry Fields Forever in three years. The uphill progression and growth is astounding. |
queenside 16.06.2014 16:02 |
u2 oasis nirvana def leppard i just don't get why are those bands so huge, nothing special about them. |
Day dop 26.06.2014 22:07 |
Oasis. (I can't fucking stand them.) Paul Weller (and any band he's been in). |
Day dop 26.06.2014 22:10 |
queenside wrote: u2 oasis nirvana def leppard i just don't get why are those bands so huge, nothing special about them.Nirvana's Nevermind was a brilliant album when it first came out (it still is). It sounded raw, exciting and unlike anything else at the time. The rest of their stuff, not so much. I don't think they're underrated, if for that album alone. As for U2, they probably are overrated. They've not released a decent album in years. But (I suspect a few people here might not like me saying but when it comes to U2) Achtung Baby was a fine piece of work. |
Day dop 26.06.2014 22:13 |
The Real Wizard wrote:^^ Agreed. The white album deserves a mention too.Stelios wrote: By the way i find The Beatles tottaly boring too.Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road are three of the greatest records ever made. Musically and technologically, they wrote the blueprint that virtually everyone in pop music who came afterward followed in some way. The Beatles are the most important band of the last 50 years. And the number of great melodies that those guys churned out in just a few years is nothing short of astounding - never mind the fact that they went from I Want To Hold Your Hand to Strawberry Fields Forever in three years. The uphill progression and growth is astounding. |
Day dop 26.06.2014 22:34 |
Costa86 wrote: Rolling Stones are REALLY overrated. And I can't stand the band's members either, especially Keith Richards - he's a disgusting fossil. To make matters worse, he said in an interview that Freddie wasn't his cup of tea. What a shit.Yeah, I saw that. I didn't like the little smile he gave just after he said it either. I sort of agree with you about the Rolling Stones. I've got a few of their albums, but they're not exceptional or brilliant in my books, though they've done some good numbers. |
brENsKi 27.06.2014 11:50 |
Stelios wrote: By the way i find The Beatles tottaly boring too. .YOU may find them boring Stelios - but the subject is "most overrated band" there is no way you can overrate the band that changed popular music and influenced so many bands that followed.... please - just give your ears and mind a proper chance - listen to Abbey rd, Revolver and Rubber Soul...with a properly open mind...i think you may come back and acknowlege their greatness.... and as Casper said, some late sixties bands - Kinks, Small Faces etc were doing great stuff also, but you can't discredit the Beatles for the pioneer aspect of their work. listen to albums like ANATO and ADATR and you marvel at the quality of queen did with 24 track recording NOW listen to Pepper, Abbey & Revolver and you should be fucking blown out of your mind by what the fab-four did with ONLY EIGHT fucking TRACKS |
brENsKi 27.06.2014 11:56 |
Costa86 wrote: Keith Richards - he's a disgusting fossil. To make matters worse, he said in an interview that Freddie wasn't his cup of tea. What a shit.saying someone is NOT HIS CUP OF TEA does not make him a shit...that's a typical "stepford" response |
Mr.Jingles 03.07.2014 18:39 |
I don't know if anyone is into indie music, but LCD Soundsystem is godawful. I can appreciate electronic bands, but this one is horrendous. Somehow hipsters think they are phenomenal and made a huge deal when the band split. |
pietrek 06.07.2014 12:12 |
Oasis, The Beatles, Radiohead. Can't agree with U2 or Coldplay though. |
thomasquinn 32989 06.07.2014 12:22 |
I'm exactly the opposite - U2 doesn't agree with me. |
brENsKi 06.07.2014 12:52 |
pietrek wrote: Oasis, The Beatles, Radiohead. Can't agree with U2 or Coldplay though. YES NO YES YES & YES - in that order. Seriously fella - Beatles overrated? what have you been smoking? you can't overrate the single biggest contributing factor to modern music. |
thomasquinn 32989 06.07.2014 12:55 |
Big contributing factor? Yes. Biggest contributing factor? Total myth. |
brENsKi 07.07.2014 13:39 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Big contributing factor? Yes. Biggest contributing factor? Total myth.seriously? name a single bigger contributing factor - and by factor i mean a band/artist |
thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 14:28 |
Not so much a double post as a post suffering from bugs. Can't put my text in here, it just comes up blank. |
thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 14:28 |
For some reason I can't put my text in this post either so I had to do it again. Weird. |
thomasquinn 32989 07.07.2014 14:28 |
brENsKi wrote:It doesn't work like that. The world isn't changed by individual Carlylean heroes, but by all kinds of influences. If you listen to the early work of The Beatles, it's utterly bland. Their breakthrough came in 1963. At the time, Bob Dylan had already put out two albums, the second of which was monumental (The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan). The Kinks were a year away from effectively giving the starting signal for hard rock with You Really Got Me. Peter, Paul and Mary released their first LP, which went to no.1 in the US charts, a first for a folk album, giving a final push to the rising folk-rock movement. Ray Charles brought jazz/r&b reworkings of country, folk and pop standards, popularizing Rhythm 'n Blues in Europe. In 1962 and 1963, The Beach Boys put out four albums, including Surfin' USA. Joan Baez introduced audiences to American folk music in pop-form with two famous live albums in 1962 and 1963.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Big contributing factor? Yes. Biggest contributing factor? Total myth.seriously? name a single bigger contributing factor - and by factor i mean a band/artist The 1960-1963 period also saw British blues, which originated in the late '50s, rise to a high-point. It also saw some of the foremost American modern jazz musicians move to Europe or at least go on extended tours (Dexter Gordon stayed for 15 years, John Coltrane toured extensively from 1961-1963 [and again in 1965], Johnny Griffin, etc.) By 1965, when The Beatles released Help! and Rubber Soul, The Kinks were in full swing, Bob Dylan went electric and played the Royal Albert Hall (bringing The Beatles under his sway, btw), The Band were huge, as were The Animals (playing the Ed Sullivan show 4x), Simon & Garfunkel, Jimi Hendrix appears on television, Canned Heat and Captain Beefheart form, Frank Zappa gets his big break, Jefferson Airplane is formed, as are Pink Floyd and The Grateful Dead, Pearls Before Swine and The Small Faces. And I haven't even mentioned The Rolling Stones or treated jazz in anything remotely resembling depth! I'm not saying the Beatles weren't a great band, I'm saying deifying them as the creators of modern popular music is nothing short of pseudohistory. |
brENsKi 07.07.2014 16:46 |
i never claimed them to be the ONLY band to change the course of popular music - i said they were the single biggest contributing factor...which they were |
thomasquinn 32989 08.07.2014 04:21 |
And I disagree. The Beatles simply had the best PR-machine that made them into the biggest hype, but certainly not the greatest contributing factor. It is very striking to see how heavily they were influenced by some of the developments I mentioned in the above post - before they came under said influences, they made their dime-a-dozen-songs from the first albums. When the likes of Dylan arrived on the scene they began to develop. |