nickelback ... i don't know anyone how will admit to liking them but they still seem to dominate the airwaves
2003/04/28 - The Spectrum - Philadelphia, PA
2004/10/01 - Sovereign Center - Reading, PA
2005/09/01 - The Gorge - George, WA
2006/05/28 - Tweeter Center - Camden, NJ
2008/06/18 - Susquehanna Center - Camden, NJ
2008/06/24 - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Tool
Radiohead
The Rolling Stones
Rush
Dave Matthews Band
The Smiths
The Stone Roses
Creed
Santana
Linkin Park
The Strokes
Every single emo band that is popular and getting good reviews
Staind
Janis Joplin
Almost all women singers (women suck at rock music for the most part)
The Clash
Talking Heads
REM
Beck
The Arcade Fire
The Flaming Lips
Cake
I don't think any of these bands are overrated.. most have them have kinda flown under the radar, with the excpetion of a few at the top of the list, and the rest are just the junk of the day...and THE CLASH fucking rock..
I'm gone ..Long gone..This time I'm letting go of it all...So long...Cause this time I'm gone
I only hate a few of those bands, I like some songs by some of them but just feel that they get more credit than they deserve
Fair enough , but I would have to say that your favourite band(and I also like quite a few OASIS songs) get far more credit than they deserve for sure,and I am a Man City fan!
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Every Beatles album IS great, because they started with a solid rocknroll foundation, and every single release expanded upon the one that came before, to the point where Abbey Road is so goddamn amazing that calling it any less than one of the greatest recordings of all time is just ridiculous. Putting them on a list like this is laughable and absurd.
"A toast....to Canadian born Neil Young!!!" - Eddie Vedder
10. Led Zepplin (not that they aren't great... they are... but I think they are over rated. Don't agree? Two words. Robert Plant.)
9.Genesis (They did some great stuff, but... Invisible Touch?!?!)
8. Cream (It's just not *that* great)
7. Smashing Pumpkins
6. Aerosmith
5. Van Halen
4. Red hot Chili Peppers
3. Beck
2. Sonic Youth
1. Coldplay
Fair enough , but I would have to say that your favourite band(and I also like quite a few OASIS songs) get far more credit than they deserve for sure,and I am a Man City fan!
not here in America
Alpine Valley 2000
Summerfest 2006
"Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
that's what i was gonna say. people in america maybe know oasis did that wonderwall song, but that's it. it's weird. ive never really seen such a total disconnect between the oceans. the brits are consumed with oasis, america doesn't even know they're still together.
Glory Glory Man United
Glory Glory Man United
Glory Glory Man United
As the reds go....
Finish it off man city fan...
I'd rather be a psycho than a red!Its boring winning every week , cos it makes it so much sweeter when we turn you over ,which has happened twice in the last three at home(4-1 and 3-1 I think).You will probably never know how good that actually feels.I take great solace from that even though I have to endure such copious amounts of pain between times.
'All the rusted signs,we ignore throughout our lives,
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
but tons of people would think im crazy for saying that LED ZEPPELIN is completely overrated. and of course so are the easy targets like AC/DC, Metallica... etc.
but tons of people would think im crazy for saying that LED ZEPPELIN is completely overrated. and of course so are the easy targets like AC/DC, Metallica... etc.
I'm still really confused about this. If Led Zeppelin and Metallica are over-rated, then how good do you have to be before you are not ??
If you mean they are not cutting edge modern and "new-smelling cool", that is different, but how does, genre-defining domination and widely acknowledged chops equate with over-rated.
Again who is better ??
I'm still really confused about this. If Led Zeppelin and Metallica are over-rated, then how good do you have to be before you are not ??
If you mean they are not cutting edge modern and "new-smelling cool", that is different, but how does, genre-defining domination and widely acknowledged chops equate with over-rated.
Again who is better ??
at metal? maybe nobody. but metal as a genre is over-rated, so being the best metal band only means you're the best at being over-rated
i think we're talking about opinions here. just harmless opinions. and if they're genre dominating/cutting edge/whatever then good for them
specifically, im thinking about the sound per se, and not what they influenced and who else likes them.
personally, and a lot of people (though still probably the minority) tend to agree, i think that robert plant has one of the most annoying voices of all time. no matter how "powerful" or no matter what its range is. it just grates my cheese, you know? maybe we that dont like his voice have some sort of evil anti-robert plant gene in us. and as for the songs themselves... well... i just dont like them to be honest.
a lot of people talk like the first few metallica albums are the best and their newer stuff is bad. well, i'd take the newer stuff anyday, with the exception of a couple of annoying ones like "fuel". and i havent heard their newest.
it's almost as if if someone wanted to make a parody of metallica's music, the parody would almost be indistinguishable from the real stuff you know? it just sounds so corny to me. dont get me started on the lyrics. obviously just not my type of music, then.
so, overrated. but just my little opinion. im not some kind of music critic
When anybody does anything approaching what any of the bands on these lists have done -- and I don't even care if I like the band or not -- then I'll listen.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
i think we're talking about opinions here. just harmless opinions. and if they're genre dominating/cutting edge/whatever then good for them
specifically, im thinking about the sound per se, and not what they influenced and who else likes them.
personally, and a lot of people (though still probably the minority) tend to agree, i think that robert plant has one of the most annoying voices of all time. no matter how "powerful" or no matter what its range is. it just grates my cheese, you know? maybe we that dont like his voice have some sort of evil anti-robert plant gene in us. and as for the songs themselves... well... i just dont like them to be honest.
a lot of people talk like the first few metallica albums are the best and their newer stuff is bad. well, i'd take the newer stuff anyday, with the exception of a couple of annoying ones like "fuel". and i havent heard their newest.
it's almost as if if someone wanted to make a parody of metallica's music, the parody would almost be indistinguishable from the real stuff you know? it just sounds so corny to me. dont get me started on the lyrics. obviously just not my type of music, then.
so, overrated. but just my little opinion. im not some kind of music critic
I guess to me "over-rated" means, not really living up to the hype, or not what they are cracked up to be, rather than "don't like". That "Metallica have done nothing good since teh 80's" sage opinion offered up is just so old and unoriginal. I really prefer their newer stuff for complexity and musical style, I do listen to teh older stuff, but find KEA songs very basic. They were written by green teenagers and it shows. RTL has some more sophisticated efforts, Justice... is nearly indigestible but One is a stand-out that anybody would be proud to have on their CV. I guess that is where I am coming from.
No-one has yet offered up a more qualified band than Zep or Metallica, based on any criteria you could mention. I could suggest a few that have done well based on musicianship, longevity, number of major highlights, live reputation, depth as shown through surviving changes and losses, number of great songs. PJ obviously qualifies, so do the Stones, Fleetwood Mac, U2, Eagles and a few others.
Plant's voice is one thing, the overall Zeppelin package and what it did for rock is another altogether. The opening track to teh first album"Good Times, Bad Times" could be released today and sound as fresh as it did then.
So again, I'm keen to hear about teh bands that make these guys look ordinary.............?? Anyone ...............?????
The Grateful Dead.....just because it's good when you're on psychedelic drugs doesn't mean it's good. I took LSD and thought the wallpaper at the local Chinese restaurant was the greatest thing I've ever seen at the time.
one foot in the door
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
I guess to me "over-rated" means, not really living up to the hype, or not what they are cracked up to be, rather than "don't like". That "Metallica have done nothing good since teh 80's" sage opinion offered up is just so old and unoriginal. I really prefer their newer stuff for complexity and musical style, I do listen to teh older stuff, but find KEA songs very basic. They were written by green teenagers and it shows. RTL has some more sophisticated efforts, Justice... is nearly indigestible but One is a stand-out that anybody would be proud to have on their CV. I guess that is where I am coming from.
No-one has yet offered up a more qualified band than Zep or Metallica, based on any criteria you could mention. I could suggest a few that have done well based on musicianship, longevity, number of major highlights, live reputation, depth as shown through surviving changes and losses, number of great songs. PJ obviously qualifies, so do the Stones, Fleetwood Mac, U2, Eagles and a few others.
Plant's voice is one thing, the overall Zeppelin package and what it did for rock is another altogether. The opening track to teh first album"Good Times, Bad Times" could be released today and sound as fresh as it did then.
So again, I'm keen to hear about teh bands that make these guys look ordinary.............?? Anyone ...............?????
anyone who doesn't play heavy metal
their albums are identical... tide the lightning throuh justice follow the exact same format. then there was the black album. then load/reload. listen to king nothing, then listen to enter sandman... almost the exact same song. they're not that great. they just happened to be about the only metal band that managed to score some crossover mainstream success. it's why more people know the clash than the sex pistols or a dozen other punk bands. they're both just genre hacks that scored big with some hits.
Nirvana - I totally love some of their songs but they are NOT all they're made out to be.
AIC - same as above
Rush - Good lord, that's just too high pitched!!
Mars Volta - same as above but the music is much better
RHCP - I just can't see what the big deal is with these guys and never have.
Sleater Kinney - don't care for the vocals
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I guess to me "over-rated" means, not really living up to the hype, or not what they are cracked up to be, rather than "don't like".
Yep. That's it. "Over-rated" is about the hype... NOT about the substance or whether or not one likes them. I think a GREAT band like Led Zeppelin can potentially qualify as "over rated" precisely because *Everyone* acknowledges they are a great band to begin with. I cited them as over rated not because I think they are bad, but... because I, personally can't get past some of Plant's goofiness or lame lyrics. Sometimes I think the hype around them ... or around him in particular gets a little over blown.
So yeah I guess that means they don't live up to the hype... but again the hype is sperate from the substance.
A band like Queens of the Stone Age may not be as good as Led Zeppelin (in my opinion) but they can't really qualify as "over rated" simply because no one is claiming they transformed the world.
Zep did, it's true. But in my opinion that was all about Page and Bonham and Jones. You hear about how this is the most amazing band in the universe... and then you find out they had one of the cheesiest hambone front men in history and that's when it seems fair to put them (in last place) on a list of most over rated bands.
In my mind you can put a band on lists of most over rated AND best bands. As you said "over-rated" has to do with hype. Making the case about Zep's musicianship can land them on a list of incredible bands for musical chops. Reading some of the hyperbole in Rolling Stone magazine about Zep and Plant can *also* qualify them for being over rated. They are a great band, but they aren't gods (remember all the "Hammer of the Gods" type hype?). Some of the hype around them gets pretty cheesy (The devil worshipping stuff was Cheese Whiz). But of course if we're talking strictly about musical chops or tightness as a unit or yes influence there ain't a whole lot to shake a stick at when it comes to Zeppelin.
their albums are identical... tide the lightning throuh justice follow the exact same format. then there was the black album. then load/reload. listen to king nothing, then listen to enter sandman... almost the exact same song. they're not that great. they just happened to be about the only metal band that managed to score some crossover mainstream success. it's why more people know the clash than the sex pistols or a dozen other punk bands. they're both just genre hacks that scored big with some hits.
True, the albums do tend to follow a format, I wondered if anyone would notice that. BUT, within that format there is a great variety of individual songs and some inspiring arrangements and performances.
So you don't like heavy metal, I don't like much of it either, because most bands made EXACTLY the same album a few ties, failed to evolve and quietly asphyxiated, and weren't that good in the first place. For me , Metallica eluded that fate.
But you still haven't offered up a name to supplant them in importance or stature, that could be described as "not over-rated".
Yep. That's it. "Over-rated" is about the hype... NOT about the substance. I think a great band like Led Zeppelin can potentially qualify as "over rated" precisely because *Everyone* acknowledges they are a great band. I cited them as over rated not because I think they are bad, but... because I, personally can't get past some of Plant's goofiness or lame lyrics.
So yeah I guess that means they don't live up to the hype... but again the hype is sperate from the substance.
A band like Queens of the Stone Age may not be as good as Led Zeppelin (in my opinion) but they aren't "over rated" simply because no one is claiming they transformed the world.
Zep did, it's true. But in my opinion that was all about Page and Bonham and Jones. You hear about how this is the most amazing band in the universe... and then you find out they had one of the cheesiest hambone front men in history and that's when it seems fair to put them in last place on a list of most over rated bands.
In my mind you can put a band on a list of most over rated AND best band. As you said this has to do with hype. Making the case about Zep's musicianship can land them on a list of incredible bands for musical chops. Reading some of the hyperbole in Rolling Stone magazine about Zep can *also* qualify them for being over rated. They are a great band, but they aren't gods (remember all the "Hammer of the Gods" type hype?). Some of the hype around them gets pretty cheesy (The devil worshipping stuff was Cheese Whiz). But of course if we're talking strictly about musical chops or tightness as a unit there ain't a whole lot to shake a stick at when it comes to Zeppelin.
So, by this definitoin, any band who has had some journo desperate for copy make up some over the top crap about them becomes over-rated. I think that pretty much covers everyone then.
Of course, this whole thread is silly for that exact reason, as well as teh fact we all agree that music appreciation is subjective.
I stuck up for Metallica for two reason, I because I am a fan, obviously. They inspire my guitar obsession more than anyone else.
The other reason is that I really felt that to justify calling them over-rated, there should be a rational reason offered up, or a superior group to compare them to, and still no-one has really done either.
I don't think anyone has suggested that either band has saved the world or rock'n'roll, luckily they came before those odious claims.
I didn't include Metalica on my list. I'm not as in to them as you are, but I don't think of them as over rated because as you mentioned no one is claiming they saved the world. Zep on the other hand it seems to me has inspired some really over the top hyperbole.
Yes, just about any and every band that gets written about potentially qualifies as over rated... because... well... I mean as soon as anyone is making millions of dollars for doing what comes naturally and rocking out, doesn't it start to get a little silly?
The thread is a waste only if anyone takes it seriously. Otherwise it's just a place for venting and airing out pet peeves with fellow fans. At least that's the way I'm taking it.
But you still haven't offered up a name to supplant them in importance or stature, that could be described as "not over-rated".
im not sure what you mean by that. you've already expressed your contempt for the beatles... but they are a band who truly reinvented themselves with every album and did what nobody else was doing at the time. but even then, people will say they can do no wrong, so they are kinda over-rated.
almost all bands of high stature and importance are over-rated. it's like lester bangs says in almost famous... rock and roll when you get down to it is a ridiculously dumb artform. anytime a band is given credit for changing the world (like the clash eradicating racism... yeah fucking right, or the beatles somehow legitimizing the counter culture... sure), they're being overhyped. anytime a band gets its ass kissed as having done no wrong, they're over-rated. anytime i read about how hugely important x band is in the history of rock and roll i laugh, becos it's such a ridiculous idea to begin with. metallica, maybe they're the biggest metal band. so what? nirvana killed hair metal. so what? led zep reinvented the blues for rock. so what? it's ridiculous. metallica is over-rated becos they're just a metal band that sounds like almost every other metal band only a little better pop song, so they sold 10 times as many albums. they didn't do anything particularly new or exciting. they are not metal gods, nor are they rock gods. they only stand out as a legendary band becos they're basically the ONLY heavy metal to sell that many albums.
maybe i'd say a band like black sabbath isn't over-rated. cos nobody ever calls them anything but what they were. metallica might even be a better band than sabbath, but metallica is still over-rated and sabbath isnt. and i dont even care for black sabbath. they had some hokey lyrics and songs and over the top theatricality, but they essentially CREATED the blueprint for heavy metal. people recognize them as good, but acknowledge their flaws. there is a very accurate and real picture of who they were and what they did. most huge bands don't get that. they get blind ass-kissing and instant immunity from any criticism or exaggerated accomplishments.
im not sure what you mean by that. you've already expressed your contempt for the beatles... but they are a band who truly reinvented themselves with every album and did what nobody else was doing at the time. but even then, people will say they can do no wrong, so they are kinda over-rated.
almost all bands of high stature and importance are over-rated. it's like lester bangs says in almost famous... rock and roll when you get down to it is a ridiculously dumb artform. anytime a band is given credit for changing the world (like the clash eradicating racism... yeah fucking right, or the beatles somehow legitimizing the counter culture... sure), they're being overhyped. anytime a band gets its ass kissed as having done no wrong, they're over-rated. anytime i read about how hugely important x band is in the history of rock and roll i laugh, becos it's such a ridiculous idea to begin with. metallica, maybe they're the biggest metal band. so what? nirvana killed hair metal. so what? led zep reinvented the blues for rock. so what? it's ridiculous. metallica is over-rated becos they're just a metal band that sounds like almost every other metal band only a little better pop song, so they sold 10 times as many albums. they didn't do anything particularly new or exciting. they are not metal gods, nor are they rock gods. they only stand out as a legendary band becos they're basically the ONLY heavy metal to sell that many albums.
maybe i'd say a band like black sabbath isn't over-rated. cos nobody ever calls them anything but what they were. metallica might even be a better band than sabbath, but metallica is still over-rated and sabbath isnt. and i dont even care for black sabbath. they had some hokey lyrics and songs and over the top theatricality, but they essentially CREATED the blueprint for heavy metal. people recognize them as good, but acknowledge their flaws. there is a very accurate and real picture of who they were and what they did. most huge bands don't get that. they get blind ass-kissing and instant immunity from any criticism or exaggerated accomplishments.
I guess this is my point. At some point every big band can be considered to be over-rated. The media and the celebrity worshippers might think they are gods, but I don't. They can be might big inspirations though. Some-one mentioned Pink Floyd for example, but the song Time inspired me to rise abopve the circumstances of my adolescence, go to University and have a successsful career. Not over-rated to me !! I would also venture that The Wall played a big part in bring down the Berlin Wall.
I think music is very closed linked to the time as well. Eg, Beatles, I may have a very different opinion of them if I grew up with them, or if they were a part of my youth. But when I tried listening to them in teh 80's, and I did try, I just couldn't get anything out of them. Maybe there was too much contrast to everythig else I was listening to, I dunno.
I was just thinking, and this was the point of my first post, that to post a list on this thread, people should be able to justify or offer an alternative, rather than just hack on stuff they are not into. Maybe I'm just a boring old fart too, and should just let people vent spleen without paying attention.
Can't believe so many people wrote down Sting!!WTF.Are you deaf?
If you like music, you must like Sting..just listen to the composition of the songs, to all of the instruments and how they interwine...it's very complex, yet simple to listen to... Those Grammys aren't coincidental...
The worst enemies of music? Money and Mathematics. Combined with music, they both do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do. Money makes music cheap, mathematics makes it stupid and predictable.
____
Zagreb 2006/ Munich 2007/ Venice 2007/ Berlin 2009 / Venice 2010 / 2 x Berlin 2012 / Stockholm 2012 / Milan 2014 / Trieste 2014 / Vienna 2014 / Florence (EV) 2019 / Padova 2018 / Prague 2018 / Imola 2022 / Budapest 2022 / Vienna 2022 / Prague 2022
Comments
I only hate a few of those bands, I like some songs by some of them but just feel that they get more credit than they deserve
Summerfest 2006
"Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
2004/10/01 - Sovereign Center - Reading, PA
2005/09/01 - The Gorge - George, WA
2006/05/28 - Tweeter Center - Camden, NJ
2008/06/18 - Susquehanna Center - Camden, NJ
2008/06/24 - Madison Square Garden - New York, NY
Nickleback are nothing but "STYX" on speed...
EV intro to Chloe Dancer / Crown of Thorns
10/25/13 Hartford
I don't think any of these bands are overrated.. most have them have kinda flown under the radar, with the excpetion of a few at the top of the list, and the rest are just the junk of the day...and THE CLASH fucking rock..
Fair enough , but I would have to say that your favourite band(and I also like quite a few OASIS songs) get far more credit than they deserve for sure,and I am a Man City fan!
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
CANADIAN AND PROUD OF IT!!!!!!
9.Genesis (They did some great stuff, but... Invisible Touch?!?!)
8. Cream (It's just not *that* great)
7. Smashing Pumpkins
6. Aerosmith
5. Van Halen
4. Red hot Chili Peppers
3. Beck
2. Sonic Youth
1. Coldplay
not here in America
Summerfest 2006
"Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
that's what i was gonna say. people in america maybe know oasis did that wonderwall song, but that's it. it's weird. ive never really seen such a total disconnect between the oceans. the brits are consumed with oasis, america doesn't even know they're still together.
Glory Glory Man United
Glory Glory Man United
Glory Glory Man United
As the reds go....
Finish it off man city fan...
I'd rather be a psycho than a red!Its boring winning every week , cos it makes it so much sweeter when we turn you over ,which has happened twice in the last three at home(4-1 and 3-1 I think).You will probably never know how good that actually feels.I take great solace from that even though I have to endure such copious amounts of pain between times.
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
In fairness I didn't know the difference was so stark.I have to say tho that they are bummed beyond belief over here.
Choosing the shiny ones instead'
Reading 06 - Torino 06 - Wembley 07
you people are crazy
but tons of people would think im crazy for saying that LED ZEPPELIN is completely overrated. and of course so are the easy targets like AC/DC, Metallica... etc.
I'm still really confused about this. If Led Zeppelin and Metallica are over-rated, then how good do you have to be before you are not ??
If you mean they are not cutting edge modern and "new-smelling cool", that is different, but how does, genre-defining domination and widely acknowledged chops equate with over-rated.
Again who is better ??
at metal? maybe nobody. but metal as a genre is over-rated, so being the best metal band only means you're the best at being over-rated
specifically, im thinking about the sound per se, and not what they influenced and who else likes them.
personally, and a lot of people (though still probably the minority) tend to agree, i think that robert plant has one of the most annoying voices of all time. no matter how "powerful" or no matter what its range is. it just grates my cheese, you know? maybe we that dont like his voice have some sort of evil anti-robert plant gene in us. and as for the songs themselves... well... i just dont like them to be honest.
a lot of people talk like the first few metallica albums are the best and their newer stuff is bad. well, i'd take the newer stuff anyday, with the exception of a couple of annoying ones like "fuel". and i havent heard their newest.
it's almost as if if someone wanted to make a parody of metallica's music, the parody would almost be indistinguishable from the real stuff you know? it just sounds so corny to me. dont get me started on the lyrics. obviously just not my type of music, then.
so, overrated. but just my little opinion. im not some kind of music critic
When anybody does anything approaching what any of the bands on these lists have done -- and I don't even care if I like the band or not -- then I'll listen.
I guess to me "over-rated" means, not really living up to the hype, or not what they are cracked up to be, rather than "don't like". That "Metallica have done nothing good since teh 80's" sage opinion offered up is just so old and unoriginal. I really prefer their newer stuff for complexity and musical style, I do listen to teh older stuff, but find KEA songs very basic. They were written by green teenagers and it shows. RTL has some more sophisticated efforts, Justice... is nearly indigestible but One is a stand-out that anybody would be proud to have on their CV. I guess that is where I am coming from.
No-one has yet offered up a more qualified band than Zep or Metallica, based on any criteria you could mention. I could suggest a few that have done well based on musicianship, longevity, number of major highlights, live reputation, depth as shown through surviving changes and losses, number of great songs. PJ obviously qualifies, so do the Stones, Fleetwood Mac, U2, Eagles and a few others.
Plant's voice is one thing, the overall Zeppelin package and what it did for rock is another altogether. The opening track to teh first album"Good Times, Bad Times" could be released today and sound as fresh as it did then.
So again, I'm keen to hear about teh bands that make these guys look ordinary.............?? Anyone ...............?????
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
anyone who doesn't play heavy metal
their albums are identical... tide the lightning throuh justice follow the exact same format. then there was the black album. then load/reload. listen to king nothing, then listen to enter sandman... almost the exact same song. they're not that great. they just happened to be about the only metal band that managed to score some crossover mainstream success. it's why more people know the clash than the sex pistols or a dozen other punk bands. they're both just genre hacks that scored big with some hits.
AIC - same as above
Rush - Good lord, that's just too high pitched!!
Mars Volta - same as above but the music is much better
RHCP - I just can't see what the big deal is with these guys and never have.
Sleater Kinney - don't care for the vocals
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yep. That's it. "Over-rated" is about the hype... NOT about the substance or whether or not one likes them. I think a GREAT band like Led Zeppelin can potentially qualify as "over rated" precisely because *Everyone* acknowledges they are a great band to begin with. I cited them as over rated not because I think they are bad, but... because I, personally can't get past some of Plant's goofiness or lame lyrics. Sometimes I think the hype around them ... or around him in particular gets a little over blown.
So yeah I guess that means they don't live up to the hype... but again the hype is sperate from the substance.
A band like Queens of the Stone Age may not be as good as Led Zeppelin (in my opinion) but they can't really qualify as "over rated" simply because no one is claiming they transformed the world.
Zep did, it's true. But in my opinion that was all about Page and Bonham and Jones. You hear about how this is the most amazing band in the universe... and then you find out they had one of the cheesiest hambone front men in history and that's when it seems fair to put them (in last place) on a list of most over rated bands.
In my mind you can put a band on lists of most over rated AND best bands. As you said "over-rated" has to do with hype. Making the case about Zep's musicianship can land them on a list of incredible bands for musical chops. Reading some of the hyperbole in Rolling Stone magazine about Zep and Plant can *also* qualify them for being over rated. They are a great band, but they aren't gods (remember all the "Hammer of the Gods" type hype?). Some of the hype around them gets pretty cheesy (The devil worshipping stuff was Cheese Whiz). But of course if we're talking strictly about musical chops or tightness as a unit or yes influence there ain't a whole lot to shake a stick at when it comes to Zeppelin.
True, the albums do tend to follow a format, I wondered if anyone would notice that. BUT, within that format there is a great variety of individual songs and some inspiring arrangements and performances.
So you don't like heavy metal, I don't like much of it either, because most bands made EXACTLY the same album a few ties, failed to evolve and quietly asphyxiated, and weren't that good in the first place. For me , Metallica eluded that fate.
But you still haven't offered up a name to supplant them in importance or stature, that could be described as "not over-rated".
So, by this definitoin, any band who has had some journo desperate for copy make up some over the top crap about them becomes over-rated. I think that pretty much covers everyone then.
Of course, this whole thread is silly for that exact reason, as well as teh fact we all agree that music appreciation is subjective.
I stuck up for Metallica for two reason, I because I am a fan, obviously. They inspire my guitar obsession more than anyone else.
The other reason is that I really felt that to justify calling them over-rated, there should be a rational reason offered up, or a superior group to compare them to, and still no-one has really done either.
I don't think anyone has suggested that either band has saved the world or rock'n'roll, luckily they came before those odious claims.
Yes, just about any and every band that gets written about potentially qualifies as over rated... because... well... I mean as soon as anyone is making millions of dollars for doing what comes naturally and rocking out, doesn't it start to get a little silly?
The thread is a waste only if anyone takes it seriously. Otherwise it's just a place for venting and airing out pet peeves with fellow fans. At least that's the way I'm taking it.
im not sure what you mean by that. you've already expressed your contempt for the beatles... but they are a band who truly reinvented themselves with every album and did what nobody else was doing at the time. but even then, people will say they can do no wrong, so they are kinda over-rated.
almost all bands of high stature and importance are over-rated. it's like lester bangs says in almost famous... rock and roll when you get down to it is a ridiculously dumb artform. anytime a band is given credit for changing the world (like the clash eradicating racism... yeah fucking right, or the beatles somehow legitimizing the counter culture... sure), they're being overhyped. anytime a band gets its ass kissed as having done no wrong, they're over-rated. anytime i read about how hugely important x band is in the history of rock and roll i laugh, becos it's such a ridiculous idea to begin with. metallica, maybe they're the biggest metal band. so what? nirvana killed hair metal. so what? led zep reinvented the blues for rock. so what? it's ridiculous. metallica is over-rated becos they're just a metal band that sounds like almost every other metal band only a little better pop song, so they sold 10 times as many albums. they didn't do anything particularly new or exciting. they are not metal gods, nor are they rock gods. they only stand out as a legendary band becos they're basically the ONLY heavy metal to sell that many albums.
maybe i'd say a band like black sabbath isn't over-rated. cos nobody ever calls them anything but what they were. metallica might even be a better band than sabbath, but metallica is still over-rated and sabbath isnt. and i dont even care for black sabbath. they had some hokey lyrics and songs and over the top theatricality, but they essentially CREATED the blueprint for heavy metal. people recognize them as good, but acknowledge their flaws. there is a very accurate and real picture of who they were and what they did. most huge bands don't get that. they get blind ass-kissing and instant immunity from any criticism or exaggerated accomplishments.
I guess this is my point. At some point every big band can be considered to be over-rated. The media and the celebrity worshippers might think they are gods, but I don't. They can be might big inspirations though. Some-one mentioned Pink Floyd for example, but the song Time inspired me to rise abopve the circumstances of my adolescence, go to University and have a successsful career. Not over-rated to me !! I would also venture that The Wall played a big part in bring down the Berlin Wall.
I think music is very closed linked to the time as well. Eg, Beatles, I may have a very different opinion of them if I grew up with them, or if they were a part of my youth. But when I tried listening to them in teh 80's, and I did try, I just couldn't get anything out of them. Maybe there was too much contrast to everythig else I was listening to, I dunno.
I was just thinking, and this was the point of my first post, that to post a list on this thread, people should be able to justify or offer an alternative, rather than just hack on stuff they are not into. Maybe I'm just a boring old fart too, and should just let people vent spleen without paying attention.
If you like music, you must like Sting..just listen to the composition of the songs, to all of the instruments and how they interwine...it's very complex, yet simple to listen to... Those Grammys aren't coincidental...
____
Zagreb 2006/ Munich 2007/ Venice 2007/ Berlin 2009 / Venice 2010 / 2 x Berlin 2012 / Stockholm 2012 / Milan 2014 / Trieste 2014 / Vienna 2014 / Florence (EV) 2019 / Padova 2018 / Prague 2018 / Imola 2022 / Budapest 2022 / Vienna 2022 / Prague 2022