Most Overated Bands

[shen]

This thread is just a "what band don't you like" rather than overrated.  LOgically any 'big' commercially successful band can be 'overrated' if you don't like their music (ie in Pets case Kasabian, Razorlight etc). 

Basically Pet doesn't like anything that is commercially successful regardless of genre which is fair enough,  each to his own.

But Kasabian & Razorlight in general weren't getting great reviews by the majority of mags, their albums were generally agreed to be good debuts with a lot to prove.  Franz Ferdinand made indie danceable again which is no bad thing and did get highly rated because it was a different slant on the music scene at that time.

Overrated IMO are Pink Floyd (prog rock gubbins), Queen were a great pop-rock band but thought they were better than they were, The Darkness are just shite but the most over rated/hyped band of recent years are The Libertines, closely followed by Babyshambles.  If Doherty farts its NME front page news.

64721[/snapback]

You're just saying that to wind some of us up...and if not, you're just lucky that I'm not living near you

But seriously now... If you find Floyd overrated, what on earth would you call a great band? Mind you, Pink Floyd did not earn their status by being hyped up in the medias... they were hardly on any music television channel, but since I wasn't around in the early days, I can't say if they were aired alot on the radio or not, but I imagine they weren't. They earned their reputation through breathtaking gigs, masterful (concept-)albums and great original music. You might say many praise them too much now, but that only goes to reflect the poor state the music business is in nowadays.

Queen succeeded when many 'experts' predicted they wouldn't and although I think they were made far greater than they were, I admire Freddy 'cause he was

a great performer and deserved his success.

I've named bands (e.g. Metallica) who were actually potentially good bands, but they sold out. Now the medias hype them up because of their name and success, but frankly, Metallica have only released rubbish since their commercial breakthrough... and bands like Linkin Park who are producing the same, now tedious, music since their breakthrough, are not worthy of being 'great' bands. Anyway...you get my gist...

[Mark]

This thread is just a "what band don't you like" rather than overrated.  LOgically any 'big' commercially successful band can be 'overrated' if you don't like their music (ie in Pets case Kasabian, Razorlight etc). 

Basically Pet doesn't like anything that is commercially successful regardless of genre which is fair enough,  each to his own

64721[/snapback]

Basically that's a false statement seeing as i quite like The Killers, Yellowcard, The Cure, Embrace to name a few.

The fact that theres better music out there even in the nasty genres that Keane/Athlete fall into give me reason to suggest they have been overated and that they are not worthy of their success.

[Dunc]

No I think Pink Floyd are shite. If they took their heads out there arses for longer than some of their guitar solos then they'd realise that 17 min concept songs might sound like great music to the egos that wrote them, but as a song its crap.

The whole 70's prog rock concept album is (in my opinion) a big pile of pretentious poo. Next you'll be telling me that Yes were a worthwhile band.

Extending my argument, overrated (IMO) doesn't relate to sales but to critical ratings, hence why Keane, Embrace and Athlete aren't overrated because although Radio 2 play them and they sell off the back of that, the majority of music mags/reviews/critics don't actually think they are very good.

By your argument the biggest culprit of overrating would be R Kelly, who sells shedloads but is a paedo-psuedo gangsta who writes shite and sings worse.

Anything that sells in large units (ie Keane, Maroon 5, Embrace, Scissor Sisters, Coldplay) are going to be inoffensive musically to get the amount of airplay and therefore sales that they do. Most of these I hate, but at least the Scissor Sisters, U2 & Coldplay have something intangibly different about them that separates them from the rest. That or they just do it better than the rest anyway.

[shen]

No I think Pink Floyd are shite.  If they took their heads out there arses for longer than some of their guitar solos then they'd realise that 17 min concept songs might sound like great music to the egos that wrote them, but as a song its crap.

The whole 70's prog rock concept album is (in my opinion) a big pile of pretentious poo.  Next you'll be telling me that Yes were a worthwhile band.

Extending my argument, overrated (IMO) doesn't relate to sales but to critical ratings, hence why Keane, Embrace and Athlete aren't overrated because although Radio 2 play them and they sell off the back of that, the majority of music mags/reviews/critics don't actually think they are very good.

By your argument the biggest culprit of overrating would be R Kelly, who sells shedloads but is a paedo-psuedo gangsta who writes shite and sings worse.

Anything that sells in large units (ie Keane, Maroon 5, Embrace, Scissor Sisters, Coldplay) are going to be inoffensive musically to get the amount of airplay and therefore sales that they do.  Most of these I hate, but at least the Scissor Sisters, U2 & Coldplay have something intangibly different about them that separates them from the rest.  That or they just do it better than the rest anyway.

64747[/snapback]

Well were not gonna agree at any point then...It's a bit of a shaky argument to say that just 'cause a song is relatively long, it's rather crap! But while we can't agree on the Pink Floyd issue, there's just no denying that they were talented musicians who experimented and were altogether groundbreaking.

And really funny you should mention Coldplay as a good band... I happen to rate them as well and I find that they have quite a few musical similarities with the Floyd. And U2... well... they just go out and call THEMSELVES the greatest rock band! If that isn't pompous and ego-trippin' then I don't know what is...

To be fair they made quite a lot of good stuff during the 80's to early 90's but they have really just profited from the fact that they were the biggest mainstream rock-pop band left after the mid 90's (excluding the comebacks by Deep Purple and the Stones), and I really don't rate much of their music ever since. Yes they are half-talented, but as I said in my previous post, they stand out of the current music scene because theres so much rubbish out there nowadays. You'd have to look for bands playing at small clubs for yourself to find something that is genuinely of good quality.

I would however like to hear your reasons as to WHY you think '70's prog rock is shite and pretentious'... 'cause I would say exaclty the same about contemporary music.

[Ash]

Keane

64588[/snapback]

Never

[Nationwider]

Which bands do you think are so overated?

64053[/snapback]

Franz Ferdinand, IMO, are massively overrated. All bands have "a sound", but FF just have "a song".

And I must admit, I've listened to plenty of Coldplay and Pink Floyd and haven't yet made that direct comparison. I will listen again..... <_<

[shen]

Which bands do you think are so overated?

64053[/snapback]

Franz Ferdinand, IMO, are massively overrated. All bands have "a sound", but FF just have "a song".

And I must admit, I've listened to plenty of Coldplay and Pink Floyd and haven't yet made that direct comparison. I will listen again..... <_<

64975[/snapback]

listen to 'Trouble' ...

[natas]

Trouble is a good song, probaly my fav. Coldplay song. As for Metallica, I agree they went crap, but their early music did rock, so i'm kind of leaning towards not overrated. I don't think they get that much acclaim for their new music anyway, so that further swings my opinion.

[shen]

Trouble is a good song, probaly my fav. Coldplay song. As for Metallica, I agree they went crap, but their early music did rock, so i'm kind of leaning towards not overrated. I don't think they get that much acclaim for their new music anyway, so that further swings my opinion.

65021[/snapback]

I like pre-Black Album Metallica too, but since they became world famous they really milked it. They should have become famous for their early stuff and not the crap post Black Album.

[Dunc]

Just to point out a long song isn't necessarily a bad song, but there are limits to how long a song can go on for without it becoming tedious.

Depends what contemporary music you are referring to when you say it is shite and pretentious. THere is alot that is and alot that isn't.

However (IMO!) the very concept of Prog-Rock is shite and pretentious as it states that no other bands are progressing so these super talented muso's have to come along and do it to save rock music. In reality they just created an ego driven campaign to outdo each other with musical intracacies and production techniques, which became important because they were the forerunners of techniques that became the norm later on.

However, That in itself doesn't mean it was good music. Some of the best bands have been those that can't play technically well (eg, Punk bands in the 70's that railed against the whole prog rock concept).

its each to their own, you like it and I don't.

[TrickyTrev]

I can see Dunc's point and one of the main reasosn I don't like Darkside that much is the wanky guitar song 'great gig in the sky.' That crossed over the line between artistic and pretensious for me.

[shen]

Just to point out a long song isn't necessarily a bad song, but there are limits to how long a song can go on for without it becoming tedious.

Depends what contemporary music you are referring to when you say it is shite and pretentious.  THere is alot that is and alot that isn't.

However (IMO!) the very concept of Prog-Rock is shite and pretentious as it states that no other bands are progressing so these super talented muso's have to come along and do it to save rock music.  In reality they just created an ego driven campaign to outdo each other with musical intracacies and production techniques, which became important because they were the forerunners of techniques that became the norm later on.

However, That in itself doesn't mean it was good music.  Some of the best bands have been those that can't play technically well (eg, Punk bands in the 70's that railed against the whole prog rock concept).

its each to their own, you like it and I don't.

65228[/snapback]

Now at least it becomes clear why you don't like 'prog rock'. I must say that my view on Prog Rock is very different and the whole idea is to make progressive songs, i.e. songs that alternate, and develop yet are still cohesive. Funny that you find long songs to often be tedious as I find them captivating and much more organic than ordinary 3½-4 minute radio-fitted songs. But of course, if you're more into Punk culture I completely understand the differences we have the two genres could hardly be more different...

[shen]

I can see Dunc's point and one of the main reasosn I don't like Darkside that much is the wanky guitar song 'great gig in the sky.' That crossed over the line between artistic and pretensious for me.

65253[/snapback]

The guitar at the intro, which lasts about 1 minute?

I also have a hard time understanding what's "pretentious" about it... The Floyd were pioneers in experimenting with electronics and combined with drugs, it's pretty bloody likely you get 'wanky' sounds.

But please enlighten me