Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnnyguitar

Most Inexplicably Over-rated Bands

Recommended Posts

How can you possibly say that Linkin Park is overrated?! When I think of "overrated" bands, I think of bands that are good but many people think too much of them and their music just doesn't compare with some better bands.

Linkin Park just flat-out sucks, so they shouldn't fall anywhere near this discussion.

:afro: :afro: :afro: :jester: :jester: :jester:

You know, Sammy...you're right!!!!!

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but once the screeching vocals start, I have to turn the radio off. It's like listening to a cat being tortured.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what?? That's not entertaining to you??

All I can say is :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see someone saying Kiss is overrated. These days, they are. But... Back in the '70's, back when it all used to mean something, they were anything but. They wanted to create the show they always wanted to see. It was all about excess. MORE pyro. MORE amplification. More more more, bigger louder higher. Theatrics and the idea of putting on a show. I've been a hardcore fan for over 30 years. I am a reserved fan nowadays. Simmons is a tit. Perpetually bashing Ace and Peter. Y'know what Gene? You'd be nothing without them. As for all your self-hyping efforts? You are a bass guitar player in a rock band. Like Zappa said, shut up and play yer guitar.

'Nuff said.

Ken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to get into battles about why people should like or dislike a band. That's personal and everyone has the right to their opinion. Here is mine about The Beatles. The Beatles are an easy target. Remember pioneers are the ones who take the arrows. It is easy for those who weren't around in the early 60's to dismiss the importance of the advent of The Beatles. I've heard the arguements that The Beatles music wasn't special just because they did something first, or stayed on the cutting edge of technology. That's true to a point...but when you consider that nothing remotely close to that sound existed before them, it has to factor into ones admiration for their skills, creativity, songsmanship, instrumental prowess, etc. These guys were street kids that learned their craft "on the job".

The God's kindly allowed these four musicians to come together and become The Beatles. It was random...they weren't a supergroup created to be a success. It's easy to throw successful musicians together and create a good group. With The Beatles..it just happened.

Here is my statement, and challenge if anybody wants to see it that way, find me another band that had three guys that were better songwriters, vocalists, instrumentalists, performers than John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison. Those three guys achieved music immortality by creating finely crafted songs that had huge commercial appeal. The songs aren't good because of the commercial appeal...the commercial appeal is there because the songs are good.

I know many of you are musicians (ranging from hacks to very good) try your hand at playing those early Beatles songs. Try to emulate the rhythm guitar..it's not easy.

Try to emulate Paul's vocals...some voice he has. George's lead guitar is pretty sophisticated. Finally, let's never forget Ringo. Do you think it's easy playing behind John, Paul and George? Ringo's style fit so well with the sounds they created, he gets ignored. Ringo understood one thing, That the drums are there to keep the beat"...he did it really well.

They ranged from ballads to pop to rock to psychedelia...they were a smash no matter what style they played. They earned the right to have access to all the newest and best technology...and they used it. Are the Beatles songs admired because of the technology...no!! The average person doesn't know a mellotron from a toaster...It was the great songs. Played well, sung well, lyrically touching or meaningful or silly. They were of their culture. Their humor was the best of Britain. They had superstardom thrust upon them, and they only thing they could do was be themselves.

Finally, (if you stayed with me this far), when you separate the actual music from the 4 guys who created it, you are left with a compilation of some of the greatest songs ever written and performed. Take a simple song like "Something". I believe it is the most covered Beatles song. That song isn't about technology, reputation, canned musical formulas, it's a simple love song. Maybe the "heavy thinkers" believe that love songs are fluff...no substance. Wrong...everybody expresses love there own way..no right or wrong. You could lock up in a room , 100 of the best songwriters today and they probably couldn't write a song that conveys deep feelings,or emotions the way "Something" does.

No matter what your age, you will grow up defending the music of your teen years as the best there ever was. You should because you cannot separate your environment from the music you listen too...it is impossible. Sit in a dark room with headphones and try to eliminate the environment...you can't, you created another in the dark. The mere fact that anybody has an opinion on music proves you cannot separate the music from all of your other life experience. So listen or don't listen to the Beatles. Like them or don't like them...but don't try to prove that their music was somehow inferior because of their time, place and status.....it was and remains amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what your age, you will grow up defending the music of your teen years as the best there ever was.

I disagree. I can't stand alot of the music that was out when I was in my teens. It was brit-pop and dance music. I tapped into music from other peoples 'teen years' ::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I can't stand alot of the music that was out when I was in my teens. It was brit-pop and dance music. I tapped into music from other peoples 'teen years' ::

I knew when I wrote that, I should have qualified it with "for the most part". I was a teener from 1971-77. I love music from 1964-77. I account for the early years because my sister is 6 years older than me. So she was around 12 when the Beatles hit. I soaked up all that music from a really early age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I can't stand alot of the music that was out when I was in my teens. It was brit-pop and dance music. I tapped into music from other peoples 'teen years' ::

i was gonna say the same thing, but then, i was a teen when radiohead came out, and i am very protective of them. now, oasis, blur etc i wouldn't defend but listening to "wonderwall" still brings a smile on my face!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all the arguments in defense of the Beatles. I've heard them all before. I just don't like their music. Simple as that.

I don't think KISS is overrated, per se. They've always been what they claimed to be, if that makes any sense. I do think nowadays, however, that they have become a parody of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all the arguments in defense of the Beatles. I've heard them all before. I just don't like their music. Simple as that.

I don't think KISS is overrated, per se. They've always been what they claimed to be, if that makes any sense. I do think nowadays, however, that they have become a parody of themselves.

...and that's valid. Likes and dislikes are personal and unexplainable many times. But you said you didn't understand what all the fuss was about...c'mon, you don't know what the fuss was about? I don't particularly care for Nirvana...but I know what the fuss was about. I don't like U2, but I can understand what the fuss was about. Other peoples likes and dislikes don't sway my opinion...but I can understand why something is phenomenon (is that spelling right?). anyway...your dislike of The Beatles just because you don't like the music is cool. But when Beatles fans look at you in shock when you say you don't like them...understand where they are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I can't stand alot of the music that was out when I was in my teens. It was brit-pop and dance music. I tapped into music from other peoples 'teen years' ::

I am in my teens now, and i have been defending the beatles, and although ron wrote a essay worthy for a standardized test, i read it. and i totally and utterly agree with it.

to people who do not like the beatles - all i'm asking is recongize how good thay were and how influntail (srry bad spelling). i think linkin park is overrated,

yet i sorta have to respect them, cuz i can't play any instrment they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like U2, but I can understand what the fuss was about.

can you explain to me then? :P

evelyn, i can't play any instruments either, does that mean i have to respect busted or mcfly or other equivalents that i can't think of right now? i think not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I don't think anyone ever claimed the Beatles were great musicians.

Paul McCartney is one of the most innovative bass players ever to play rock and roll. I think he's incredibly underrated as a musician. Yeah, a lot of what he's written has been dreck (even much of his Beatle stuff), but man, listen to what he does with his bass. Almost nobody plays melodic bass lines the way he does. He never just plunks the old 1 - 5 - 1 thing like 90% of rock bass players. Granted, technique-wise he's no John Entwistle (almost no one is), but in terms of creativity he's tops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A band I think is highly overrated today is Linkin Park. I think it's a generational thing...I am not an angst-ridden teenager and never was, really, so I can't relate. I haven't heard a lot by them, granted, but what I have heard just sounds whiny/screamy/depressing to me.

Of all time.....I don't know. I think it's a tie between Pink Floyd and AC/DC. For PF, I think their music is an acquired taste that I haven't acquired. I do like some of their songs, but I don't get excited over them.

I AM an angst-ridden teenager and I think Linkin Park sucks.

In response to The Doors being overrated: perhaps they weren't the best musicians ever, but the poetry of Jim Morrison's lyrics (especially their lesser known songs) is what does it for me. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the posts in this thread have disturbed me. Especially about KISS. Just because they put on a huge theatrical show, doesn't mean the music is good. Don't get me wrong, if I was in the mood, I would've enjoyed a KISS show. But to just listen to their music and say, "this is some good music", not gonna happen.

I'm not enraged like you are, but I too think KISS is overrated. They are great at entertaining (live) but as far as music goes, I don't think they are that great. They are like the circus. The circus is very entertaining, but it would be no fun to just listen to the circus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I AM an angst-ridden teenager and I think Linkin Park sucks.
Haha, I was going to say the same thing.

And Batman, I'm not enraged, just dissapointed.

The song Hearts, by Yes; the guitar solo reminds me of the Hey You solo. Yes is a band that doesn't get enough attention on these boards. Although a lot of people don't like 90125, I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone explain to me what makes radiohead so great? i dont see it.

i really don't know how anyone can reasonably say Hendrix is overrated. he got sounds out of his instrument that had never been made before. rotary speaker? uni-vibe? all hendrix.

nirvana, i could see. i'm a nirvana partisan, but basically they ripped off the pixies very, very well. it's too bad that pop-punk as a genre these days is a force of evil, not interesting music as it was a decade ago.

i used to think pink floyd was terribly overrated, then i started listening to them again recently, especially some of dave gilmour's guitar work, and now i'm not so sure ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone explain to me what makes radiohead so great? i dont see it.

if you don't like them, that's fine, to me they are great because of their music and their lyrics. as i've said many times, radiohead were big when i was going through alot emotionally, and they told me exactly what i wanted to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just loooove radiohead! they change with every album, thom yorke's lyrics and vocals are haunting and they put on a great live show! and they're not afraid to alienate fans by adapting with each album. i mean the bends was huge at one stage, they could have continued in that direction and got a lot more fame and money. i just love their songs. but of course, taste is subjective!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...