10 Most Overated Rock bands / Performers

Pearl Jam and toast

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

The Riot Act?

Obviously not Pj's best work... it's sort of like Kid A / Amnesiac actually (pretty good analogy). Very very good with moments of brilliance.. I get in certain moods where I don't want to listen to anything except that album (goes for kid a / amnesiac as well). Both of them are always gonna be overshadowed by the rest of the bands' material.

Pearl Jam and toast

soulsinging wrote:

i can name a half dozen bands whose b-sides collections rival their studio albums. radiohead's on amnesiac are nothing more than a curiosity. and here you prove my point... it is essentially a b-sides album but they released it and touted it as the new radiohead album. they didnt consider it a b-sides album, they felt it was a proper album (becos thom's ego knows no bounds). it was radiohead's fans who took to framing it as a b-sides album to justify the fact that it wasn't exactly a compelling listen. it was clearly a weak link in the chain so they tried to jutify it by saing "it's only a b-sides album" when it was never really intended as such. it was the follow up to kid a. the fact that most of the songs came from the same sessions means nothing. nobody says 'let it be' is the b-sides album from the 'abbey road' sessions.

The reason a lot of the songs on Amnesiac didn't make the cut was because they didn't fit the flow of "Kid A", not because of quality. The songs were good enough to merit an actual release, not just a b-sides record. It's weirder and not as well written, but very very good. See you say 'weird shit' I say 'awesome record"..

soulsinging

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

The reason a lot of the songs on Amnesiac didn't make the cut was because they didn't fit the flow of "Kid A", not because of quality. The songs were good enough to merit an actual release, not just a b-sides record. It's weirder and not as well written, but very very good. See you say 'weird shit' I say 'awesome record"..

see, you contradict yourself here. you just said it was a b-sides album and pretty good for a b-sides. now you're backpedaling and saying they were good enough for a real release and it's awesome, while slipping in the fact that it's not as well written as the rest of their material.

bottom line is, they are not a perfect band. and a lot of their fans act like they are and the critics are even worse. that's why they are annoyingly over-rated.

also, fitting the flow is bogus. neither of those albums flowed ver well. as i've said, they could have released one very interesting experimental album by putting things like treefingers on amnesiac and then had one revolutionary rock album by bumping songs like knives out onto kid a. but they didnt. thus both albums are kinda inconsistent becos they diluted the strengths of each. they ended up with 2 equally uneven albums instead of one amazing and one fascinating album.

Pearl Jam and toast

soulsinging wrote:

see, you contradict yourself here. you just said it was a b-sides album and pretty good for a b-sides. now you're backpedaling and saying they were good enough for a real release and it's awesome, while slipping in the fact that it's not as well written as the rest of their material.

bottom line is, they are not a perfect band. and a lot of their fans act like they are and the critics are even worse. that's why they are annoyingly over-rated.

It's a record composed of material that didn't make Kid A (I.E. a b-sides record) that had songs that were not only diverse enough from Kid A's work, but of high enough quality to compose an album in it's own right.

Jesus christ man you're just looking for ways to insult them.

soulsinging

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

It's a record composed of material that didn't make Kid A (I.E. a b-sides record) that had songs that were not only diverse enough from Kid A's work, but of high enough quality to compose an album in it's own right.

Jesus christ man you're just looking for ways to insult them.

im not. i like them. im just looking to point out that they are not infallible and that people kiss their ass even when they release mediocre albums.

i also edited that post to explain some of my issues with the whole kid a/amnesiac releases.

Pearl Jam and toast

soulsinging wrote:

im not. i like them. im just looking to point out that they are not infallible and that people kiss their ass even when they release mediocre albums.

i also edited that post to explain some of my issues with the whole kid a/amnesiac releases.

I disagree about Kid A's flow.... sort of. It definetly could've been better with the right Amnesiac songs on it, but the record has a beautiful vibe to it. Treefingers is there for space or maybe to just to make How To Disappear Completely look even better than it already is (like a spotlight on one of the best songs they've ever written).

I agree with what you're saying, but I still think they're both great records.

loveboatcaptain_blak

i think people say radiohead cuz they don't really "get" them. which is fine, whatever.

nirvana definatly number 1. old subject i know, but i mean seriosly, dave is much, much more talented than kurt ever was.

Pearl Jam and toast

loveboatcaptain_blak wrote:

i think people say radiohead cuz they don't really "get" them. which is fine, whatever.

nirvana definatly number 1. old subject i know, but i mean seriosly, dave is much, much more talented than kurt ever was.

I gotta agree.. I think the Foo are way better than Nirvana (and I really like Nirvana..). Their last record is hit or miss, but the self titled and TCATS were better than anything Nirvana did. I don't think Kurt could write a song as good as "Everlong".

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Funny to see some of the artists people mention here.

Bowie - An incredible artist, and I have no clue why anyone would put him on their overrated list.

Tool - Tool is only overrated by their own fans. Tool fans think they are the most incredible band in history...far from true. But they aren't overrated by critics as far as I can tell. They don't get put on many Top 10 lists.

Pink Floyd - BUAHAHAHA....open your ears for christ sake.

stu gee

Its not a matter of me opening my ears, its a matter of people accepting other people may have different taste in music. Pink Floyd bores me to tears, and always has done!!

concretepillow

Floyd is overrated in my opinion.
It's just weird.
I have no love for U2.
They are totally overrated.
Their OLD stuff is pretty damn good.

loveboatcaptain_blak

concretepillow wrote:

Floyd is overrated in my opinion.
It's just weird.
I have no love for U2.
They are totally overrated.
Their OLD stuff is pretty damn good.

ya not so into U2 either, mostly cuz of the playing the same chord over and over and over during their songs.

stu gee

I like sunday bloody sunday, where the streets have no name and with or without you by U2, aside from that im not a fan at all.

A Surprise Left

Radiohead's work from Pablo through to OK Computer was brillant, and OK is an awesome album. I'm not a fan of Kid A or Amesniac and Hail to the Thief is ok but not brillant. I prefer Muse..........

Pearl Jam and toast

You really have to let yourself like Pink Floyd at first...

First time I heard Dark Side Of The Moon I fell asleep. Then it grew and grew on me, and now I think their work from Meddle through the Wall is without a doubt some of the very best rock music ever made. You just have to "get it" (and no, that doesn't mean smoke pot).

GerriE

There is nothing like live music.....hearing and seeing a band live is never like listening to an album. Music has become to over-produced it isn't even funny...experiencing a concert with your favourite band, rating a band is all subjective. The days when the Who, the Doors, Led Zeppelin performed and were electric in front of a live audience...I would have loved to see John Bonham play....same as some day I would love to see Danny Carey play. Tool overrated? As a fan, I'd say no.

bigmuzz

soulsinging wrote:

i can name a half dozen bands whose b-sides collections rival their studio albums. radiohead's on amnesiac are nothing more than a curiosity. and here you prove my point... it is essentially a b-sides album but they released it and touted it as the new radiohead album. they didnt consider it a b-sides album, they felt it was a proper album (becos thom's ego knows no bounds). it was radiohead's fans who took to framing it as a b-sides album to justify the fact that it wasn't exactly a compelling listen. it was clearly a weak link in the chain so they tried to jutify it by saing "it's only a b-sides album" when it was never really intended as such. it was the follow up to kid a. the fact that most of the songs came from the same sessions means nothing. nobody says 'let it be' is the b-sides album from the 'abbey road' sessions.

YES sometimes b-sides collections are better than actual albums.

Abandoned Shopping Trolley Network by Gomez is my FAVE ALBUM by them, and its a b-sides album!

and lets not forget Lost Dogs, eh! it kicks ass! (altho i aint saying its PJs best album tho)

BUT amnesiac sucks hard.

pipedreams

Sex Pistols
Kiss
Foo Fighters
Rolling Stones (post Some Girls)
AC/DC (post Bon Scott)
Counting Crowes live

searchlightsoul

soulsinging wrote:

i like them. im just looking to point out that they are not infallible and that people kiss their ass even when they release mediocre albums.

This is my take on Pearl Jam

pj10alive42

Obviously the individual who started this thread has never sat down with a fine bottle of cab and listened to OK Computer or Kid A, sorry, but Radiohead is one hell of a band. Give them a chance beyond what they are popular for. They have such a unique style that has the potential of penetrating anyone's soul. But everyone is different and has different tastes, that's what makes music so beautiful.