most overrated band in the history of forever?

Linkin Park, Korn, Slipknot (bleah) and TOKIO MOTEL (Epic bullshit)

and others that I like them:

- Nightwish (I love Tarja's voice)
- HIM (about 15 songs)
- System of a Down (funny band)
 
OK, so to the people who say bands like The Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, etc are over rated. Do you actually say this because you think they suck? Or because so many people like them? I must say these bands were EXTREMELY influencial to today's music. The reason they're so popular is because their music has been around for DECADES. We're talking like 40 YEARS!! I haven't seen Black Sabbath on anyone's list, and they've been on the radio for 40 years. No, I don't think they're over rated, but songs like Paranoid and Iron Man annoy the shit out of me, because those songs are played over and over again. Blame popular radio. Take Paranoid for instance. That song was written in like a half hour to fill space on their album, and that piece of shit went to #1!!

I guess I just need clarity on this. You can't say these bands had no talent and were not musical innovators. If so, clean the shit out of your ears!:erk:
 
ehh. i was never a big fan of their 70's stuff either. i know it was very influential for other bands, i just never liked em.

i dont ever want to hear "dream on" or "sweet emotions" ever again. and dont even get me started with "walk this way :puke:

that goes along with,

smells like teen spirit
under the bridge
or almost ANY guns and roses song.
 
... if someones define what he/she understand by overrated, it will be useful... i think that talented, original and influential bands wouldn't be labeled as overrated...
 
HoursOfDebt said:
ehh. i was never a big fan of their 70's stuff either. i know it was very influential for other bands, i just never liked em.

i dont ever want to hear "dream on" or "sweet emotions" ever again.

that goes along with,

smells like teen spirit
under the bridge
or almost ANY guns and roses song.
Click to expand...

...from the Chili Peppers? Now we're getting somewhere. That's definitely a band that makes me vomit!!:puke:

Flea's a pretty good bassist but the shit that band regurgitates is GAWD-AWFUL!!:ill::puke::ill:
 
...and Nirvana's another one. They killed metal (well, mainstream metal anyway, which I liked in the '80s). Now mainstream metal is that crap-ass Nu-metal. Is that because it was the next cool thing after grunge slop? Ugh!
 
man living in seattle you could not avoid hearing nirvana. even to this day. its embarrassing.

my wife, well girlfriend at the time, lived about 3 houses down for the house kurt killed himself in. it was pathetic seeing all the people outside the house crying and holding candles.
 
SerenityNow! said:
OK, so to the people who say bands like The Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, etc are over rated. Do you actually say this because you think they suck? Or because so many people like them? I must say these bands were EXTREMELY influencial to today's music. The reason they're so popular is because their music has been around for DECADES. We're talking like 40 YEARS!! I haven't seen Black Sabbath on anyone's list, and they've been on the radio for 40 years. No, I don't think they're over rated, but songs like Paranoid and Iron Man annoy the shit out of me, because those songs are played over and over again. Blame popular radio. Take Paranoid for instance. That song was written in like a half hour to fill space on their album, and that piece of shit went to #1!!

I guess I just need clarity on this. You can't say these bands had no talent and were not musical innovators. If so, clean the shit out of your ears!:erk:
Click to expand...

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved. In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.
Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Odysseus
Most Overrated Bands
Replies
70
Views
4K
Symphony X (Unofficial)
scanner313
S
Sad Madrigal
most underrated band ever
Replies
62
Views
3K
Non-Opeth Music Chat
metal_wrath
M
Nate The Great
Most Overrated Metal Band
Replies
189
Views
7K
General Metal Discussion
[0hr]Sunlapse
0
D
Most overrated bands?
Replies
88
Views
2K
General Metal Discussion
diabolical vengeance
D
5thSeason
most overrated albums?
Replies
320
Views
11K
General Metal Discussion
Life Sucks
L
Top Bottom
Back