You could argue that Led Zeppelin was one of the founding heavy metal bands, but this is really just a genre within rock, and at the time they were classified with the category of "hard rock" bands, of which there were many.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Most overrated band of all time?
- Thread starter Unspeaked
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You could argue that Led Zeppelin was one of the founding heavy metal bands, but this is really just a genre within rock, and at the time they were classified with the category of "hard rock" bands, of which there were many.
And this brings up something that has been bugging me lately, the Rock and Roll hall of fame. Key words there are Rock and Roll, just inducted Madonna, What are they thinking. What are we considering to be Rock.
Are the Beatles considered a Rock act, or Pop.
When I think of rock and roll I think something with a jam and heavy beat. not pop acts. Are all the genres being melted into one.
Wasn't saying Sabbath isn't overrated, I was just naming three bands that pre-date Led Zeppelin (Sabbath at least comes close, I know the other two were years before) which are also heavily associated with the "founding" of heavy metal.
Personally, I'd say it was Blue Cheer.
There is so much freakin' talent in that band over the years it's ridiculous. Phish is the only group I can think of that comes close to a fan base and following as the Dead.
Granted I'm a huge jam band fan but even though I don't listen to some genres, I give credit where credit is due for bands in their respective fields.
Just my opinion.
jon
You can go crazy with all the genres, which if you ask me, are so much more numerous and defined now than they used to be. I don't remember anybody talking about these distinctions until "hard rock" came along in the late '60s. Many bands cross over these boundaries, which are artificial for the most part anyway.
You can add The Who, Cream, Deep Purple, Jimi Hendrix, Big Brother and the Holding Company, The Doors...
Perhaps, but they started early, and by the late '60s they were "hard rock" for certain.
You'd say the band that started up a couple of years later after the one I said had already established themselves in San Francisco and developed the sound the was to become heavy metal
I don't know about The Doors, but the rest are all worthy candidates, especially Deep Purple.
I'm sure there's even more.
Some people would go right back to The Beatles and say it was Helter Skelter, which quite a departure for the band.
Nobody's naming-names, I just think that Led Zep really weren't very good!
As a drummer, I'd certainly not go as far as to say that John Bonham is a direct influence on my playing (or Ringo Starr for that matter!).
I guess I'm a little sorry for posting my opinion as to who I think are the most over-rated bands of all time in a thread about who I think are the most over-rated bands of all time!
McCartney was a much better drummer than Starr.
Too bad he didn't have an extra pair of arms...
That someone might not have been deadly serious back then. Maybe he wanted to point out that
I could be wrong, but I don't think Hendrix has picked up a guitar in the last 30 years.
My bad. I was trying to establish the period when the Aretha Franklin and James Brown material dried up as well as when Hendrix snuffed it.I could be wrong, but I don't think Hendrix has picked up a guitar in the last 30 years.
Faintmember, there was no relation between. I was just stating that Hendrix wasn't **** and The Strokes wern't **** either. Wow profanity filter, awesome.
Dave Matthews is a drummer? I thought he was the annoying singer and guitarist! All I know is that Dave Matthews Bland might be technically proficient, but so are a lot of sappy musicians, and there's nothing special about them.
I don't have any friends who listen to them, and my main exposure (after their 90's blitz) comes from listening to WXPN in Philadelphia, a usually excellent station that makes some occasional unfortunate choices.
I've never had any use for Kiss, but I still don't think they get as much ink as Clapton. They were a 70's fad that now has a cult following, whereas Clapton is still revered by every one from music journalists to the guy at the end of the bar. At least Kiss looks like they put on a fun show.
Again, technical chops are not all there is to being a musician! Paul had skills, but nobody could play the drums in the distinctive way that Ringo could, and he's a big part of what I love about The Beatles. Also, he was one of the first rock drummers to pioneer holding the sticks in the way everyone does now, rather than the way marching band drummers do. Probably rock drummers would have figured this out sooner or later, but he was still innovative.
U2.
I still can't find myself liking this band. Save the world? Yeah, right. And making a lot of money at the same time.
I still can't find myself liking this band. Save the world? Yeah, right. And making a lot of money at the same time.
Actually, if you look at the sales, Kurts death was what put Nirvana into the mainstream.. Yes, they were successful before that, but they were not the household name they became AD.. I think that's actually a fairly common occurrence- that being bands popularity takes off after the death of a key member.. They had their core fans, and they certainly had enough of them to be considered successful, but the "fringe" fans (for lack of a better word) never even heard of Nirvana until the suicide.. And there's a heck of a lot more of those "fringe" fans than the core ones.. Now, I know everyone will say "statistics to back that up" , and I agree- so I offer record sales.. Their sales went through the roof.. Soon people who never even heard of them were walking around wearing t-shirts with the baby swimming (or, drowning I suppose)..
The Un-Plugged thing was great, but that was actually going to be shelved because the execs thought there was no market for Nirvana unplugged.. That's why even though it was recorded just a couple months before Kurts death it wasn't released for quite awhile after that.. Their rise to mainstream wasn't immediately after the death.. It was more like a slow burn..
Hey, I'm no expert on Nirvana, and that's just my take on it- I could be wrong, but as someone who followed the band a little bit before Cobains death, I view the band as wildly more popular in death than they were in life..
A couple bands that were mentioned already - one I agree with and one I disagree with..
Agree: Rolling Stones.. I've seen them live more times than I care to admit- hey, what can I say? They're overrated, so when they come to town it's the thing to do.. Worst live band I've ever seen- not even close.. They can't even play in tune, that's the truth- literally can not carry a tune.. Jagger can't remember the lyrics, let alone sing them on time and in the correct pitch, and the very understated ronnie wood blows keith Richards (whom I'm actually a huge fan of) off the stage every time..
Disagree: Pearl Jam.. I'm not even a Pearl Jam fan- in fact I can't stand Eddie Vedder.. But as musicians these guys are great.. Eddie Vedder is actually a great singer, and Jeff Ament is one of the best song writers I've ever seen..
I put a lot of weight into how a band performs live- it's not everything, but it does mean a lot to me.. Anyone can get into a studio and produce something so much that it sounds good- but when a band stands up there and is able to nail it live- time after time- they're pretty good.. Like I said, I'm not even a Pearl Jam fan, but evry time they come to town I go see them because they are so tight on stage..
That's just my opinion though..
well, yeah, but it's not like great front men are just growing on trees or something.. Having a great front man is something that can take an average band and make them stars..Stone Temple Pilots is a classic example- they weren't the best group of musicians out there, but they had an outstanding front man who worked so well with them, and captivated the listeners enough that they became a very good band in spite of their unremarkable music..
On the flip side of that coin is a band like 3 Doors Down.. Some of the finest musicians you'll ever hear.. Musically, their stuff is creative, flows really well, and they are right on the mark when they're playing it despite the fact that they play some pretty challenging stuff.. But, they've got an average front man so the end result is that their stuff sounds alright coming out of the studio, a little generic if you ask me, but they just seem boring- and they really don't put on much of a live show as a result..
I don't know, I think that being a great front man is an art- and I certainly enjoy a band that has one.. One of the things I didn't like about Nirvana was that Cobain appeared to really be a good front man but he was too damn busy playing the guitar- which he really wasn't anything special as far as guitar players go.. I always wondered what that band would be like if Cobain was just the front man, and they had a 4th man as the lead guitar..Their guitar play was actually pretty average at best, so it's not like they just couldn't replace Cobain there..
Then again, we all view the same stuff completely different, which is what makes this so much fun, so who knows- I'm probably way off base..
Nirvana was pretty huge before Kurt's death, but I won't argue that Kurt's death made them huger, and cemented their legacy.
I was a huge fan from the moment I saw the video for SLTS on Head Banger's Ball. I scrambled to find a pen and write down the name of the band, but unfortunately misspelled it (hey, I was 13), and the record store guy had never heard of them. I finally found Nevermind, and listened to it non-stop for about a month.
I was shocked to hear Nirvana for the first time on the rock station, because they usually relegated metal to the wee hours. The next thing I knew, everyone at school was wearing flannel and Nirvana T-Shirts, even the kids who had teased me for being a metal-head at the beginning of the year. So Nirvana was absolutely huge in Kurt's lifetime.
However, at the time of his death, I remember my best friend's little sister, 2 years younger than us, making fun of us for getting depressed by it. Within 6 weeks, she had posters of Kurt all over her room, had stolen my friend's copy of Nevermind, and was taking bass lessons and learning Hole songs. So, yeah, Kurt's death definitely brought Nirvana to a wider audience.
As for Kurt's guitar playing, I think it's some of the most beautiful and creative guitar work in rock. It's not conventional, but he had great hooks that really grab you, and his solos were exquisitely lyrical, especially the one on Verse Chorus Verse.
Three Doors Down can stay at the end of the hall. I don't care how perfectly they play their instruments, their songs are cheesy and melodramatic.
I was a huge fan from the moment I saw the video for SLTS on Head Banger's Ball. I scrambled to find a pen and write down the name of the band, but unfortunately misspelled it (hey, I was 13), and the record store guy had never heard of them. I finally found Nevermind, and listened to it non-stop for about a month.
I was shocked to hear Nirvana for the first time on the rock station, because they usually relegated metal to the wee hours. The next thing I knew, everyone at school was wearing flannel and Nirvana T-Shirts, even the kids who had teased me for being a metal-head at the beginning of the year. So Nirvana was absolutely huge in Kurt's lifetime.
However, at the time of his death, I remember my best friend's little sister, 2 years younger than us, making fun of us for getting depressed by it. Within 6 weeks, she had posters of Kurt all over her room, had stolen my friend's copy of Nevermind, and was taking bass lessons and learning Hole songs. So, yeah, Kurt's death definitely brought Nirvana to a wider audience.
As for Kurt's guitar playing, I think it's some of the most beautiful and creative guitar work in rock. It's not conventional, but he had great hooks that really grab you, and his solos were exquisitely lyrical, especially the one on Verse Chorus Verse.
Three Doors Down can stay at the end of the hall. I don't care how perfectly they play their instruments, their songs are cheesy and melodramatic.
I have to disagree with all of the KISS bashing. A few comments above me, someone said that they have a cult following. I don't think that's true, being as a 32,000 person show sold out in 7 minutes in Finland the other day. Also, they have over 45 Gold and Platinum albums. They CONSTANTLY sell out their tickets for tours, and have managed to stay strong through multiple lineup changes.
While they may not be the most musically proficient band, they had a lot of good songs. Rock And Roll All Nite wasn't one of them, as I personally hate it. The sad thing is, that song is the only thing people remember about KISS. They've had a 35 year career, and they went through a lot of musical changes in their career. I own all of their albums, and after listening to them all, I can CERTAINLY say they are not overrated.
While they may not be the most musically proficient band, they had a lot of good songs. Rock And Roll All Nite wasn't one of them, as I personally hate it. The sad thing is, that song is the only thing people remember about KISS. They've had a 35 year career, and they went through a lot of musical changes in their career. I own all of their albums, and after listening to them all, I can CERTAINLY say they are not overrated.
Then they have a BIG cult following.
As far as I know, nobody's said Fall Out Boy yet. As much as I enjoy their music, they get too much press because of how Pete whores the media. For the months leading into early this year, they were terrible live (As in Patrick slurred every word, and Pete spent less time playing than spinning his bass and failing at stage dives). Recently they've gotten better, but it can't make up for the mediocre work they've done since the release of Infinity on High.
Underrated bands are those like Polysics, I think. J-Pop is amazing.