10 Most Overated Rock bands / Performers

boxwine_in_hell · February 2007

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.

soulsinging · February 2007

lucylespian wrote:

o-

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.

Abookamongstthemany · February 2007

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

IDgotI · February 2007

lucylespian wrote:

o-

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.

lucylespian · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

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.

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".

lucylespian · February 2007

IDgotI wrote:

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.

IDgotI · February 2007

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.

soulsinging · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

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.

lucylespian · March 2007

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Stereotype · March 2007

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...

eclectic · March 2007

Stereotype wrote:

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...

He is a bit of a boring nob though,isn't he?By the way lots of not very good artists get grammies.You don't seriously think any half decent artists give a flying fuck about grammies do you.

IDgotI · March 2007

Robert Plant on Sting:

http://www.memorywiki.org/en/Robert_Plant_at_the_Checkerboard,_late_1980s

Stereotype · March 2007

I agree with you on Grammies but..he is boring?!?! Is that even relevant?
I thought we were talking about music. And music is fenomenal.
If you can't apreciate it, is it because you're not a musician or you never wrote a song. Don't even bother with comments.

And this story with Robert Plant....hmm... yeah...mhm..uh..so what?!

eclectic · March 2007

Stereotype wrote:

I agree with you on Grammies but..he is boring?!?! Is that even relevant?
I thought we were talking about music. And music is fenomenal.
If you can't apreciate it, is it because you're not a musician or you never wrote a song. Don't even bother with comments.

And this story with Robert Plant....hmm... yeah...mhm..uh..so what?!

How terribly condescending and pompous!
I CAN spell though! Fenomal and apreciate,thats shocking! And I wasn't talking about the man(though he does seem a bit dull) I actually did mean his music is a bit boring to me. Also I don't feel I need to be a musician or write my own song , to know what I like, or indeed APPRECIATE a good song.I will continue to comment where I feel I want to, despite your aforementioned directive.I will also appreciate what I personally appreciate ,carry on being a non-musician , and not make any concerted effort to be a songwriter.I hope that is okay with you.................

if not F*** OFF!!

Stereotype · March 2007

Well excuse moi, but

He is a bit of a boring nob though,isn't he?

HE doesn't indicate music...as far as I know...

How terribly condescending and pompous!
I CAN spell though! Fenomal and apreciate,thats shocking! And I wasn't talking about the man(though he does seem a bit dull) I actually did mean his music is a bit boring to me.

I don't see what is the problem with the word fenomenal and yeah wow I forgot one P in appreciate...shame on me. I'm not proud- I mean it. But then again you call me pompous..you dare to say that though, I bet you can speak only english...I understand English, German, Italian, Croatian, Serbian and Slovene, so why don't you write something in Slovene and lets see how many mistakes you would make...But yes BRAVO! (*claping*) you can spell your own language, that's um...they should give you an award or something... maybe build you a statue? Just the fact that you brag about it says a lot about your knowledge. And you don't know Sting, so it's wiser if you don't coment his characteristics.

Also I don't feel I need to be a musician or write my own song , to know what I like, or indeed APPRECIATE a good song.I will continue to comment where I feel I want to, despite your aforementioned directive.I will also appreciate what I personally appreciate ,carry on being a non-musician , and not make any concerted effort to be a songwriter.I hope that is okay with you.................
if not F*** OFF

Good for you! I don't think you have a choice, really...you must have the opinion that you have. I never said you need to be a musician to know what you like (read slower maybe) I just think you are not completely intitled (now carefully.. I didn't say that I am, ah ok...who am I kidding maybe I am a bit more than you). It's ok with me, thanks for the concern, I would advise you to count to 10 every now and then, you seem to get nervous very easily.
*F...s off*..

eclectic · March 2007

Stereotype wrote:

Well excuse moi, but HE doesn't indicate music...as far as I know...

I don't see what is the problem with the word fenomenal and yeah wow I forgot one P in appreciate...shame on me. I'm not proud- I mean it. But then again you call me pompous..you dare to say that though, I bet you can speak only english...I understand English, German, Italian, Croatian, Serbian and Slovene, so why don't you write something in Slovene and lets see how many mistakes you would make...But yes BRAVO! (*claping*) you can spell your own language, that's um...they should give you an award or something... maybe build you a statue? Just the fact that you brag about it says a lot about your knowledge. And you don't know Sting, so it's wiser if you don't coment his characteristics.

Good for you! I don't think you have a choice, really...you must have the opinion that you have. I never said you need to be a musician to know what you like (read slower maybe) I just think you are not completely intitled (now carefully.. I didn't say that I am, ah ok...who am I kidding maybe I am a bit more than you). It's ok with me, thanks for the concern, I would advise you to count to 10 every now and then, you seem to get nervous very easily.
*F...s off*..

No not at all.I am just not particularly keen on people telling me what I can and can't appreciate , and suggesting that I should not bother commenting.The fact that it comes from an ardent STING fan just makes it sting that little bit more!Talking about counting to ten , you seem a little bit more agitated than me to be honest.

IDgotI · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

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.

I read this first a few days ago and it kind of took a couple of days for it to sink in. But it hit me on the train home from work last night that this was kind of a cool story. I remembered one of the Roger Waters interviews on the Eagle Rock "Classic Albums" DVD about the making of "Dark Side" where he's talking about the lyrics for the song "Time" and what they mean.

Then I was thinking of just how absolutely amazing the guitar solo is when it kicks in after "You missed the starting gun".

That's kind of a cool way to get into gear and realize you want to go for it. Pretty positive story about music making an impact actually.

Viggo · March 2007

If you use the media well, you can become overated.

Nirvana is a fantastic band, but because of Cobains death they are now more popular than they were. If I ask someone, wich one do you pick; PJ or Nirvana? 70% of the time people will say Nirvana. Even if they have never heard any songs of either of them.They have just heard of Nirvana and Cobain...

This is not just giving Nirvana a bad "rating", but also making a great band mainstream (and mainstream is not so cool, is it? Haha, the beat generation all over again

)

lucylespian · March 2007

IDgotI wrote:

I read this first a few days ago and it kind of took a couple of days for it to sink in. But it hit me on the train home from work last night that this was kind of a cool story. I remembered one of the Roger Waters interviews on the Eagle Rock "Classic Albums" DVD about the making of "Dark Side" where he's talking about the lyrics for the song "Time" and what they mean.

Then I was thinking of just how absolutely amazing the guitar solo is when it kicks in after "You missed the starting gun".

That's kind of a cool way to get into gear and realize you want to go for it. Pretty positive story about music making an impact actually.

Thank you for that. A few years ago I read that he wrote the song when he was 28 and "waiting for life to begin", then one day realised that it had begun a long time ago. It serves as a warning not to be complacent about where life will take you. I heard it when I was 16, living in a tent. I had failed out of school, my parents separated, and though I lived with my mother for a while, she had severe depression and turfed me out. It just made such an impression on me, I always stayed focussed on not living an ordinary life where you tick the boxes, then die.
It is an amazing solo too, Gilmour makes those few notes work so hard !!

IDgotI · March 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Thank you for that. A few years ago I read that he wrote the song when he was 28 and "waiting for life to begin", then one day realised that it had begun a long time ago. It serves as a warning not to be complacent about where life will take you. I heard it when I was 16, living in a tent. I had failed out of school, my parents separated, and though I lived with my mother for a while, she had severe depression and turfed me out. It just made such an impression on me, I always stayed focussed on not living an ordinary life where you tick the boxes, then die.
It is an amazing solo too, Gilmour makes those few notes work so hard !!

I did a chunk of time in a tent, though more by choice. My family let me know I could stay with them -OR- find a place where I could learn to play guitar. Tent near a rehersal space won.

Yeah that's pretty much the story Waters tells on the DVD. Life ticking boxes reminds me of the film "About Schmidt". It's all about -ANYTHING- but that.

Cheers.

10 Most Overated Rock bands / Performers

Comments

Categories