Kill The Idols

DISCLAIMER: I am a very opinionated person, and i stick by my opinions. If I light a fire up your ass for what i say, too damn bad. These are my thoughts, not yours, and you'll never change them, no matter what you say and do.

.I find Guns n' Roses to be WILDLY overrated. I listen to Appitite and i hear an average album at best. I come in expecting a total masterpiece, something that blew away the 80's hard rock scene, and what do i hear? A second rate Rolling Stones on steroids. Total disappointment.The rest of the albums just plain suck. Not to mention Axl's a complete and utter prick.

The Beatles.....I like several songs, and will admit that they ARE influential. Because of them, we have prog rock, concept albums, slick album packaging, and weird studio tracks, and musically, were ahead of their timebut i just don't care for their music. I guess i just don't "get it". When i hear a Beatles album, i just hear a jumbled mess of weird and sometimes senseless experiments and filler songs. But that's just me.

Pink Floyd just do absolutely nothing for me. I own two of their albums and hardly listen to them, unless i want to go to sleep, because when i hear them, i feel no backbone. It's just....there. Does not get me going whatsoever. In a word: BORING AS FUCK. Ok, 3 words.

These are my three main offenders, unless you want to count Nirvana. They're up there with the Beatles for me. Absolutely overrated and my ears just can't understand why in God's name they're so heralded.

And I will admit, although i do love Ride the Lightning and adore Kill 'Em All, and like select tracks from Master Of Puppets and ...And Justice For All(i used to like both albums on the whole, but thanks to being overplayed, i'm sick of most of it now), I think Metallica have become EXTREMELY overrated!! I know people who would get on their knees and suck each members dicks for free if given the chance. And it absolutely drives me fucking nuts that since i'm a metalhead, i automatically have to be associated with them, post black album stuff included. It's like i HAVE to like them. FUCK THAT. They are overplayed, overhyped, overworshipped and overrated to absoute no end these days and it makes me sick. I have friends who would kill me if they found out i said all this, but it's the truth. Overkill have always been better than them, anyways.;)
 
This will be outright sacrelige to some...but here goes....

DEEP PURPLE
and
THE DOORS

These are two bands that I have tried over and over again to like throughout my 31 years based on everyone's worship of them....I just don't get 'em. I mean, I think both bands have a good song here and there, but I don't see what the fuss is about...

just my take...
 
it seems that this thread is turning out to be "What popular classic band(s) do you not like, but every one else does." All the bands listed deserve all the credit they have been given. They are/were very talented and have/had found their niche in society and people loved them. These bands are nothing like the "nu-metal" bands that are out today, not doing anything different than every one else but still making big bucks and are more popular than many of our real metal bands. These bands listed did something that no one else was doing and they rocked at what they did. I don't like The Beatles, Rolling Stones or Aerosmith, but they were still skilled and did something no one else did.

That's just what I have seen going on with this thread.
 
IcedMadness said:
it seems that this thread is turning out to be "What popular classic band(s) do you not like, but every one else does." All the bands listed deserve all the credit they have been given. They are/were very talented and have/had found their niche in society and people loved them. These bands are nothing like the "nu-metal" bands that are out today, not doing anything different than every one else but still making big bucks and are more popular than many of our real metal bands. These bands listed did something that no one else was doing and they rocked at what they did. I don't like The Beatles, Rolling Stones or Aerosmith, but they were still skilled and did something no one else did.
Click to expand...

That's what this thread is supposed to be about. It's your chance to knock the "big boys" down a notch. It's your chance to say "you know what, BAND X really isn't as good as everyone makes them out to be". Isn't there some "classic" band that just makes you think "I don't get the big deal about this band"?
 
Another one for me would be the Velvet Underground.
If you read up on the history of punk music this band gets WAAAYYY too much credit. Nothing more than a bunch of NY junkies that had the backing of Warhol, making boring noise. The MC5 and the Stooges were 1000 times more important to the history of punk then the Velvets. The MC5 put the danger in their music, while the VU was just an art rock band.
 
Greeno said:
Another one for me would be the Velvet Underground.
If you read up on the history of punk music this band gets WAAAYYY too much credit. Nothing more than a bunch of NY junkies that had the backing of Warhol, making boring noise. The MC5 and the Stooges were 1000 times more important to the history of punk then the Velvets. The MC5 put the danger in their music, while the VU was just an art rock band.
Click to expand...
I agree. The MC5 were punk as fuck, compared to the Velvet Underground. Velvet Underground were like Pink Floyd in the way that they're both artsy and very boring, except Velvet were more rough around the edges. Add that band to my list. They're about as punk rock as my asshole.
 
619 said:
Pink Floyd, The Sex Pistols, R.E.M., led zeppelin, and King Diamond.
Click to expand...

I agree.... that whole lot is overrated


619 said:
Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Ramones, Rush, Iron Maiden, AC/DC,
Click to expand...

WHAT?!!! Are you crazy?!! Never post here again!!! :) Just kidding :)
 
On Van Halen...

There are tons of Hagar-era fans and tons of Roth-era fans but imo there's pretty much no contest as to which era was more "productive" and I'd have to say Roth's. 6 albums in 6 years and although every album has some filler (so do the Hagar ones though), only one of those 6 albums is crap which is Diver Down, and its mainly only crap coz its too chock full of covers & short instrumentals.

The Hagar era only had 4 albums in about 10 years, one which was shite in my opinion (Balance) and even OU812 isn't up to the standard of most of the Roth era material if you ask me.... though 5150 is easily one of the best things Van Halen ever did.

I would agree that the Hagar era was more song focused as during that era they were a classic rock/radio AOR type band rather than a party rock & roll band, however I think Roth's era was more productive by far, 6 albums in 6 years as opposed to 4 albums in 10 years and far more "classic tracks" from that era as well - Runnin With The Devil, Jamie's Cryin, Aint Talkin Bout Love, the cover of You Really Got Me, Eruption, Bottoms Up, Somebody Get Me A Doctor, Everybody Wants Some, And The Cradle Will Rock, Romeo Delight, Mean Streets, Unchained, Jump, Panama, Drop Dead Legs, I'll Wait, Hot For Teacher, etc... as opposed to just Why Can't This Be Love, Dreams, Best Of Both Worlds, Love Walks In, Poundcake, Right Now, When It's Love, etc being the classics from the Hagar era imo, and as I said in far less time with an album released every year during the Roth era.

I'm not arguing Roth vs Hagar overall here, just which era I think was more productive.

But just for the record I gotta say the Roth era for these reasons:
- Well more productive as I already said and more great songs
- Every VH album has filler but in the Roth era the filler was more interesting at least because of Roth's charisma so the albums as a whole are still fun to listen to start to finish, whereas filler on the Hagar albums is just boring.
- Here is my main argument, you can't compare Roth & Hagar at the same thing really because both are completely different frontmen in completely different eras of the band that had different sounds and each suited their own era perfectly. Basically Roth is a frontman, and Hagar is a musician. But the reason I have to say Roth wins out by far is because he is better at his thing than Hagar is at his. Hagar is a great singer & songwriter (and also a talented guitarist) but there are hundreds of great singers & songwriters out there who are just as good or better as well, so while he is great, he still blends into the pack. Roth on the other hand, is unmatched as a frontman.
 
Hahaha yeah I know he's a bit of a joke now really, which is a shame.

But as far as 1978-1983 Van Halen goes, I think he's probably the best flamboyant rock & roll frontman of all time...
 
Guns and Roses are definetly number one most overrated band of all time. Followed by Aerosmith, Metallica(Post and Justice Albums) and Motley Crue.
 
Definately the Beatles. They plain and simply suck.
Simple chord progressions usually based on the I IV V progression.
Simplistic melodies.
Standard 3rd interval vocal harmonies.
Boring drum work. Simple ostinatos with very few fills.

Any old garage band can write and play songs like that. The only reason they got anywhere was because they were seen as rebels at the time.

Although I will admitt they have some historical signifigance. Mainly helping to pave the way for society to accept "heavier" bands. But as musicians, they are very average and overrated.
 
I definately second the votes for Van Halen and MC5. The MC5 were just political.. their music is absolutely horrible! Never could understand why Van Halen was so popular.

However, I don't agree with those that listed the Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin.
 
Igor_Cavalera said:
Definately the Beatles. They plain and simply suck.
Simple chord progressions usually based on the I IV V progression.
Simplistic melodies.
Standard 3rd interval vocal harmonies.
Boring drum work. Simple ostinatos with very few fills.
Click to expand...
Egads, man! Did you just say the Beatles plain and simply suck?

Were the Beatles a simple band, musically speaking? Well, yeah, compared to modern day music. I'll give you that one. But, put them up against other rock bands of that era and you can clearly see why they had such an impact on history. No one else was doing anything quite like it, and doing it as heavy, with such melody and accessibility. The Beatles spawned bands like Black Sabbath that spawned such bands as Metallica and Iron Maiden that spawned etc. etc.

To say they suck? Man, that's like pissing all over your great-grandfather's grave because he had to ride a horse to work while you drive a Trans-Am.

Now really, Igor, you don't wanna piss all over your fore-father's grave, do ya? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Greeno
70's Hard Rock/ Metal
Replies
17
Views
512
Old School Metal Discussion
Unfaithfully Metalhead
U
Vimana
Where the fuck has punk gone
Replies
25
Views
1K
Non-Metal
Vimana
V
swizzlenuts
Fall of the Idols – The Séance
Replies
0
Views
938
Metal Reviews
swizzlenuts
S
A
Video Clip Of 80's News Report About Metal
Replies
20
Views
941
Old School Metal Discussion
rokk
R
MetalAges
CIRKUS To Issue New Chris Tsangarides Produced Album, Let The Madness Begin
Replies
0
Views
202
Metal News 2
MetalAges
M
Top Bottom
Back