Most overrated band of all time?

[GimmeSlack12]

Don't know how people keep saying the Beatles, they are one of the most if not the most influential rock/pop band of all time. They introduced so many new recording techniques and approaches that the world would just never be what it is today without them.

Sure judge them on their music is one thing, but just like Apple Computers, they are impossible to ignore.

 

[MacNut]

Don't know how people keep saying the Beatles, they are one of the most if not the most influential rock/pop band of all time. They introduced so many new recording techniques and approaches that the world would just never be what it is today without them.

Im sure someone else would have changed music if not for the Beatles. In fact many bands have since.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Im sure someone else would have changed music if not for the Beatles. In fact many bands have since.

Isn't that a bit like saying I'm sure someone else would've come up w/theory of relativity eventually so why all the props for Einstein? Or why all the love for Edison? Eventually other people would've invented all that crap too?

I don't own a Beatles' song or album, but just because I personally like their music very much doesn't mean I can't appreciate the impact they had. And even though so many people talk about the Beatles like they were Jesus ChristX4 to the point where you want to kick them in the nuts doesn't lessen the impact they had. It just means there are irritating people who fixate on the Beatles way too much.

I used to work w/a guy who was a wanna be music snob of the, "I'm so cool because my favorite band is someone you've never heard of" variety. We got to talking about punk one time and he dismissed The Ramones because, basically, he felt they were too popular. That just struck me as stupid and is what garnered him the "wanna be" tag. People should like what they like regardless of other peoples' positive, or negative, opinions.


Lethal

 

[Markleshark]

Ohhhh, all this talk of changing music has reminded me of another... Nirvana! Surely they should win without argument!!

 

[GimmeSlack12]

Im sure someone else would have changed music if not for the Beatles. In fact many bands have since.

Dude, that's like saying someone would have invented the airplane if not for the Wright Bros. Or discovered that energy is matter if not for Einstein. Or gone to the Moon if not the US. Or created the Macintosh? Or blah blah blah....
The fact is they did do it first. No one thought of using a sitar in (western) music or overdubbing on 4-tracks before the Beatles. Heck, the Flanger effect was popularized by John Lennon, he even named it!

Overrated? No, perhaps under appreciated.

EDIT:

Isn't that a bit like saying I'm sure someone else would've come up w/theory of relativity eventually so why all the props for Einstein?

You stated that one better than me, funny how we both chose that comparison.

 

[QCassidy352]

My nominee would be (as I duck for cover) The Beatles. IMO the majority of their music was not innovative and the music that was quasi-innovative came at the end of the band's career. I find the most important thing The Beatles gave us was advances in recording techniques that led the way for other bands in the studio. Don't get me wrong, some of their music is good, but I do believe it is quite overrated.

The Beatles are my choice, and that post summarizes my feelings very well.

 

[machanback]

Isn't that a bit like saying I'm sure someone else would've come up w/theory of relativity eventually so why all the props for Einstein? Or why all the love for Edison? Eventually other people would've invented all that crap too?

I don't own a Beatles' song or album, but just because I personally like their music very much doesn't mean I can't appreciate the impact they had. And even though so many people talk about the Beatles like they were Jesus ChristX4 to the point where you want to kick them in the nuts doesn't lessen the impact they had. It just means there are irritating people who fixate on the Beatles way too much.

I used to work w/a guy who was a wanna be music snob of the, "I'm so cool because my favorite band is someone you've never heard of" variety. We got to talking about punk one time and he dismissed The Ramones because, basically, he felt they were too popular. That just struck me as stupid and is what garnered him the "wanna be" tag. People should like what they like regardless of other peoples' positive, or negative, opinions.


Lethal

Exactly... What he said.

 

[Phat Elvis]

Nirvana. Markleshark beat me to it.

If Cobain had made a crappy follow-up record instead of a date with a shotgun then they would have had their own special on VH-1 "Where are they now?" But Dave Grohl would still rock.

 

[mperkins37]

Averil Lavene

Or whatever that little talentless hacks name is.
Also:
Michele Branch
Brittany Spears.
Blink 182 ( I Blinked, They Disappeared)
FOO FIGHTERS SUCK!!!!

 

[GimmeSlack12]

If Cobain had made a crappy follow-up record instead of a date with a shotgun then they would have had their own special on VH-1 "Where are they now?" But Dave Grohl would still rock.

Now I know this thread is crap. If Cobain made a follow up album then Dave Grohl would likely remain an unknown name to most people.
The Beatles, Nirvana, and U2 are all the most overrated bands ever? Surrrrrrre.

 

[mahashel]

It PAINS me to say this.. but I'd have to agree that Nirvana is probably the most overrated band of all time..

I really love Nirvana. I have the vast majority of their music in my collection. However, they really *weren't* that good. They, like most multi-millionaires, made their fortune by being in the right place at the right time.
They were not popular because of their music.. it was their mood. It was dirty, medicated, over privileged, and hopeless.. a combination that obviously struck a chord with the masses at the time. Enough to rocket a mediocre band into uber-stardom for a brief period of time.

Runner-up: U2. Brilliant music & decent musicians, don't get me wrong.. but really only worthy of 1/1000th of the fame. I mean, wasn't Bono KNIGHTED!?? Are you serious? Puuuh-leeease.

EDIT: Upon giving this further thought, I think this has less to do with a band being undeserving of praise; but rather to do with the incredibly ridiculous amounts of praise that is foisted upon celebrities, musical or not.

 

[Hello.there]

Runner-up: U2. Brilliant music & decent musicians, don't get me wrong.. but really only worthy of 1/1000th of the fame.

Inclined to agree with that, although I think as musicians The Edge and Larry (not Adam) and as a singer Bono can be rated as better than decent!

I always thought their recorded work (with some notable exceptions, One being the most spectacular) was quite ordinary, but they have the ability to transform most of their songs in to something special when they play live (Bad, Please and Where the Streets being some examples).

So, Bono's profile (and mouth) and their live shows are, I think, what makes them so damn famous!

I mean, wasn't Bono KNIGHTED!?? Are you serious? Puuuh-leeease.

Well, he wasn't knighted for Rattle and Hum, etc, just all that humanitarian work. (Same as his fellow countryman, Bob Geldof).

But because he's not a British citizen you can't call him sir, instead you must address him as Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

In fairness, he saw the funny side of it: "You have permission to call me anything you want except Sir......lord of lords, your demi-godness."

 

[Hello.there]

Or why all the love for Edison?

'Cos we'd be sitting here in the dark with no records to play if it wasn't for him.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

'Cos we'd be sitting here in the dark with no records to play if it wasn't for him.

Actually Edison was a bit of a crook. Its Tesla we should all praise. AC is ultimately more important than Edison's DC. But I'm arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[ArmyKnight12]

I mean, wasn't Bono KNIGHTED!?? Are you serious? Puuuh-leeease.

He wasn't officially knighted, as he's not British but Irish. Only British citizens can be knighted. In reality, Bono was awarded an honorary British knighthood back in 2006. According to the statement, "The British Embassy in Dublin takes great pleasure in announcing that Her Majesty The Queen has appointed Bono to be an honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to the music industry and for his humanitarian work."

And besides, U2 is not over-rated and I'm gettin' sick of these luny arguments. The music speaks for itself.

 

[faintember]

On the whole, however, the Beatles sold lots of records AND have been hugely influential on later artists. You may not like the Beatles personally, but to add them to the list of overrated bands is madness. By the way, I'm not a rabid fan of the Beatles, only someone interested in objective discussion instead of testaments of personal taste.

Yes the sold many albums and influenced others but I still fail to see how that excludes the band from being overrated. What I see when I view The Beatles is a band that had very good marketing, and in some ways revolutionized it via the band's image, album art, etc. Marketing, and recording techniques popularized by The Beatles are the most prominent marks the band left, IMO. I do not dislike the band; I even own four of their albums: Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road and the White Album. I just find that the band's music, much like their influence in the pop music world is overrated. I was always of the mind that the Beach Boys were more important that The Beatles. Regardless of my opinion, the Beach Boys were very influential on The Beatles:

It was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. I love the album so much. I've just bought my kids each a copy of it for their education in life ... I figure no one is educated musically 'til they've heard that album ... I love the orchestra, the arrangements ... it may be going overboard to say it's the classic of the century ... but to me, it certainly is a total, classic record that is unbeatable in many ways ... I've often played Pet Sounds and cried. I played it to John [Lennon] so much that it would be difficult for him to escape the influence ... it was the record of the time. The thing that really made me sit up and take notice was the bass lines ... and also, putting melodies in the bass line. That I think was probably the big influence that set me thinking when we recorded Pepper, it set me off on a period I had then for a couple of years of nearly always writing quite melodic bass lines. "God Only Knows" is a big favourite of mine ... very emotional, always a bit of a choker for me, that one. On "You Still Believe in Me", I love that melody - that kills me ... that's my favourite, I think ... it's so beautiful right at the end ... comes surging back in these multi-coloured harmonies ... sends shivers up my spine.

Link (emphasis mine)

I do appreciate your desire to discuss this on a more objective level, I just feel that it is almost impossible, at least on a public forum involving a topic that people feel so strongly about.

And why stop at contemporary music? Mozart, for example. Wrote a couple of successful concertos, and some of his piano sonatas are actually quite decent. But when I have to listen to the "kleine Nachtmusik", all I want to do is run away. And don't get me started on Richard Wagner, that jew-hating pompous little git.

You forget to mention Mozart's operas and chamber music. Wagner, despite his anti semitism, was a wonderful composer. His expansion of the orchestra through incorporating new instruments, along with the sheer "mass" of his works was ground breaking. Yes, he didn't care for Jews but the man could write some fine music. A cursory listening to Tristan and Isolde should confirm that for most people.

I'm convinced that anyone who says The Beatles are overrated aren't really very musical...

Hi, I am working on my doctorate in music composition and I think The Beatles are overrated. You may be partially right though, as some people have accused my music of being, well, not very musical. Those people also tend to believe that we should still be listening to the same Bach and Mozart works almost exclusively.

 

[ArmyKnight12]

Hi, I am working on my doctorate in music composition and I think The Beatles are overrated. You may be partially right though, as some people have accused my music of being, well, not very musical. Those people also tend to believe that we should still be listening to the same Bach and Mozart works almost exclusively.

Cool! Great subject matter. What school? OU?

 

[Unspeaked]

If Cobain had made a crappy follow-up record instead of a date with a shotgun then they would have had their own special on VH-1 "Where are they now?" But Dave Grohl would still rock.

You do know there were five Nirvana albums released before Kurt Cobain died, right? And that three of them were studio albums?

It's not like they were a one-hit wonder and then the suicide pushed them to fame.

They had a six year career, half in the underground and half as a hugely successful band, and the death just ended their career prematurely.

I really love Nirvana. I have the vast majority of their music in my collection. However, they really *weren't* that good. They, like most multi-millionaires, made their fortune by being in the right place at the right time.
They were not popular because of their music.. it was their mood. It was dirty, medicated, over privileged, and hopeless.. a combination that obviously struck a chord with the masses at the time. Enough to rocket a mediocre band into uber-stardom for a brief period of time.

But there were loads of bands signed to major labels before and at the same time as Nirvana that were dirty, medicated, over priviledged and hopeless.

Sonic Youth, the Pixies, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Black Flag, Husker Du, The Replacements, and on and on.

Yet none of these bands managed to accomplish what Nirvana did.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

I was always of the mind that the Beach Boys were more important that The Beatles. Regardless of my opinion, the Beach Boys were very influential on The Beatles

You realize Brian Wilson had a nervous breakdown after hearing Sgt. Peppers? Beach Boys don't equal the Beatles, though influences are undeniable. And if we break it down to the brass tacks of "marketing did this, marketing did that..." then most of the overrated music came in only the last 10-15 years.

I'm kind of afraid to find out what you guys thought was the most "Sensibly Rated" music ever. Ravi Shankar? Michael Bolton perhaps?

 

[faintember]

Cool! Great subject matter. What school? OU?

I'd rather not say publicly however if you want send me a PM we can discuss it from there.

You realize Brian Wilson had a nervous breakdown after hearing Sgt. Peppers? Beach Boys don't equal the Beatles, though influences are undeniable. And if we break it down to the brass tacks of "marketing did this, marketing did that..." then most of the overrated music came in only the last 10-15 years.

I'm kind of afraid to find out what you guys thought was the most "Sensibly Rated" music ever. Ravi Shankar? Michael Bolton perhaps?

"The pressure of trying to live up to my name was a little hard for me, so I had some difficulties, some mental difficulties," he acknowledges now. "But I worked through it."

Among the stories that spread over the years: Wilson suffered a nervous breakdown. He realized he couldn't top the Beatles again, and it drove him over the edge. His fellow Beach Boys _ in those days Wilson's cousin Mike Love; his brothers, Carl and Dennis Wilson; and Bruce Johnston and Al Jardine _ couldn't understand, let alone begin to play, an album as complicated as "Smile."

Link

So was the breakdown because of hearing Sgt. Peppers or rather because of Wilson's self-inflicted pressure to top The Beatles combined with his extensive drug use and his concern that the band could not play or even understand the album SMiLe. Simply saying that Wilson had a breakdown after listening to Sgt. Peppers is as misleading as saying I got a cold after listening to Sgt. Peppers. Besides I was not intending to start a side discussion about the Beach Boys vs. The Beatles, rather I was attempting to show that The Beatles' were influenced by other bands of the time. I chose to illuminate the Beach Boys because I feel that they are often underrated. And yes, I do know there was reciprocal influence between the two bands.

As to your marketing claims, I do agree that it is more prevalent in the past 15 years, however The Beatles were one of the first bands to combine so many of the things we take for granted in traditional pop music today. Never did I say that marketing was the only thing.

As to "the most 'Sensibly Rated' music ever" I will stick to music of the 20th century only for the sake of brevity: John Coltane, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, Pink Floyd, and George Gershwin just to name a few. I am curious as to why you mention Shankar and Michael Bolton as possible candidates for the most "sensibly rated" music ever.

 

[Hello.there]

You realize Brian Wilson had a nervous breakdown after hearing Sgt. Peppers?

Me too. And I told my shrink if I ever heard the album again I wouldn't be responsible for my actions.

(Although, when I listen to the very wonderful Strawberry Fields Forever I almost forgive The Beatles for the awfulness of the rest of their music. **running for cover **)

 

[Unspeaked]

Me too. And I told my shrink if I ever heard the album again I wouldn't be responsible for my actions.

(Although, when I listen to the very wonderful Strawberry Fields Forever I almost forgive The Beatles for the awfulness of the rest of their music. **running for cover **)

Now that's odd: someone who likes "Strawberry Fields Forever" but nothing else off Magical Mystery Tour, Revolver, Rubber Soul or Sgt. Pepper - other very similar tracks exist on all these...

 

[chewbacca390]

Yeah

The most overrated band is the Dancing Seals Polka Party Club Orchestra. Their hit album I am Not a Walrus is sooo overplayed.

 

[Phat Elvis]

You do know there were five Nirvana albums released before Kurt Cobain died, right? And that three of them were studio albums?

It's not like they were a one-hit wonder and then the suicide pushed them to fame.

They had a six year career, half in the underground and half as a hugely successful band, and the death just ended their career prematurely.


Yet none of these bands managed to accomplish what Nirvana did.

You're right, how could I forget such classics as ... wait, what albums? Seriously though what did they really accomplish on their own. They were a part of a new type of music but they were not the only ones. Pearl Jam and Soundgarden had just as much of an influence and they don't get nearly the same recognition as Nirvana. Meanwhile, Grunge is often credited as a precursor to Alternative but I think that's total crap.

 

[Unspeaked]

You're right, how could I forget such classics as ... wait, what albums?

Just because you don't like the albums doesn't mean they weren't well regarded upon release, post release and up to today.

None of their albums - with the possible exception of their B-Sides collection - were ever looked at as throwaway efforts, either before or after Kurt's death.

Seriously though what did they really accomplish on their own. They were a part of a new type of music but they were not the only ones. Pearl Jam and Soundgarden had just as much of an influence and they don't get nearly the same recognition as Nirvana. Meanwhile, Grunge is often credited as a precursor to Alternative but I think that's total crap.

I think the parts of my post you decided to exclude from you quote address the concerns you bring up here.

Say what you will, but the music scene pre and post Nirvana was very, very different.

Using the lame excuse that they were simply in the right place as the right time is no different than the people badmouthing The Beatles, and the same argument can be made for anything anywhere that's been successful - Apple was in the right place as the right time in the late 70s, MTV was in the right place at the right time in the early 80s, Don Mattingly was in the right place at the right time in the mid 80s. So what? It doesn't mean what they accomplished wasn't extraordinary.