I would argue that to an extent Queen are underrated. Yes they are adored by millions worldwide, but in terms of talent and output of music I would have them on the same level of The Beatles.
The only thing that separates those two acts is probably the influence The Beatles had at that moment in time on the rest of the world.
But when you combine all factors of live performance, song writing, sheer talent and personality....For me, it’s hard to think of anyone who smashes all of those out of the park the way Queen did. There really wasn’t anything they were ‘weak’ at. You don’t have to be a fan, but to call them ‘shit’ is ridiculous.
I would argue that to an extent Queen are underrated. Yes they are adored by millions worldwide, but in terms of talent and output of music I would have them on the same level of The Beatles.
The only thing that separates those two acts is probably the influence The Beatles had at that moment in time on the rest of the world.
But when you combine all factors of live performance, song writing, sheer talent and personality....For me, it’s hard to think of anyone who smashes all of those out of the park the way Queen did. There really wasn’t anything they were ‘weak’ at. You don’t have to be a fan, but to call them ‘shit’ is ridiculous.
The Beatles are the 2nd most influential band on western music since the Carter family. If not being best makes them over-rated, so be it.
Not by definition it obviously don't, but it's a matter of opinion. I was gonna say about the Carter Family, Merle Hagard, Bob Wills etc., when the word "influential" was brought into it. When you consider how big Country music is in the US, they're all arguably just as influential, but because it's not so popular in the UK, people maybe won't recognise that.
How do you gauge how influential someone is anyway?
The Beatles are the 2nd most influential band on western music since the Carter family. If not being best makes them over-rated, so be it.
How do you gauge how influential someone is anyway?
If there are bands who have mentioned who their musical influences are or it is documented somewhere
But that's not measured evenly. The Beatles were around at precisely the right time for music journalists to start asking that question. The likes of someone like Robert Johnson weren't and so would be under-represented in any documentation.
It is also a question of availability of the music. It is very unlikely when the Beatles were starting out that they had heard Robert Johnson, but they listened to artists who had heard, and been influenced by, Robert Johnson. in turn they took their influences from those people.
Later they would have heard his music, and then quite possibly been influenced by it directly.
Whilst on the subject, in the 70's there was a singer who they used to say, 'his voice was so bad,it was good'... somebody Smith? can anyone englighten me?
Hurricane Smith? His “Don’t Let It Die” was my first ever favourite song - I was 6 years old when it got to number 2 in 1971.
Queen- Awful bootcut jeans and shoes rock. Music for people who aren't that into music Stereophonics- See above Mumford and Sons- Thankfully we don't hear of them that much anymore All heavy metal Oasis- 1st album is good but they produced a lot of rubbish in that album and what's the story morning glory. Hysteria around them aswell is weird Stormzy- Like some of his stuff and his Glastonbury set was great, but he gets a lot of credit for doing nothing that Kano, Skepta and Dizzee Rascal haven't done already
The Manor- Streets Tribute band, with awful out of date lyrics. Rich boys from Beckenham pretending their working class and geezers, cos they wore a Fred Perry to football once. Palace fans also The Smiths- Not on the same level as bands from their time, such as Everything But the Girl and Aztec Camera but get more credit
Anyone saying the Stones are overrated hasn't seen them live
I've seen them live twice , once at Wembley, where they were absolutely magnificent, the other about 7 years later at Twickenham, where you could have put their greatest hits CD on , very disappointing.
Probably not a name you're familiar with, but his "atmospheric" piano music is likely the sort of thing you've heard on all sorts of adverts, or in the background during a TV episode/film where there's some sort of conflict and character development or some rubbish like that.
His stuff is all somewhat pleasant, but hangs around about three chord progressions (VI-bVII-I; or I-V-VI-III; or so on so forth), and it's all incredibly repetitive. He has made a career out of the musical equivalent of an amateur Instagram sunset photo, or email condolence, and it's all... the same.
Yet people are mesmerised and I do not understand why.
I've got Einaudi's first couple of albums - they weren't bad. Not heard too much of his stuff since then although the BBC are quite fond of using a couple of his tracks in their programmes/trailers.
By no stretch of the imagination am I going to rate his stuff as being equal of JS Bach but it's enjoyable nonetheless.
This somewhat helps my argument, though - it's absolutely not as good as Bach, but for some reason is certainly at the very least as popular, if not more so. Hence why it's overrated, as opposed to "I don't like it so there we go".
Popular + not very good (or at least not as good as others) does not necessarily equal "overrated" unless you're using the popularity as a yardstick with which to measure how "good" the work is.
There are many things in life that are "popular" but may not be acknowledged as "good" or the "best". I doubt anyone would claim that McDonald's, Burger King, or KFC are better quality than a 2-Michelin star restaurant but they're certainly more popular!
In the case of Einaudi his music consists of, mainly, solo piano, are atmospheric songs rather than virtuoso show-offs, and pieces are less than five minutes long - in other words, short and simple, don't tax the brain, background music.
It'll be easier to get into an Einaudi album than try to listen to, for example, the St Matthew Passion but that doesn't invalidate the former's work. As long as people aren't trying to claim that it's the greatest music ever written or that Einaudi is the world's greatest pianist I can live with his output being more popular than the Great Man Bach.
I think the culinary equivalence is a bit false here: food serves an inherently fundamental purpose, which is sustenance. Music is far more abstract and something through which humans exclusively seek to derive pleasure rather than as anything crucial to survival*.
My assessment of Einaudi as overrated has to be based on how people perceive his music. The amount of people (and this is rather anecdotal) who have said to me that it's beautiful, or lovely, vel sim are numerous.
And I can point them in the direction of things within similar idioms that are far less restricted in their musical vocabulary (e.g. Esbjorn Svensson; Steve Reich; Philip Glass; so on so forth).
(*In a non-philosophical sense, anyway. I know many who would argue that music could be crucial to survival, but that would be a different conversation entirely.)
Maybe there could be a new thread : Overrated Music Genres. Of which, for me, Country music would be the league leaders by some distance.
15 to 20 years ago I'd have agreed with you, but it's not all Dolly Parton & Kenny Rodgers. Have you heard Johnny Cash "Hurt"? One of my all time favourite tracks. Spotify the Carter's. Such a huge output by thousands of artists we've never heard of, it's hard to be objective. I love Britpop but hate Blur. I have barely scaped the surface of Country.
I don't want to knock them, I like The Beatles and appreciate their music. That said not all of their influence comes from their music, a big chunk comes from their brand. Four lads from Liverpool with mop tops and all that. Part of what made them influential to other musicians was that they started out as ordinary working class kids.
There is no logical reason why the most influential band can't also be overrated. In fact, the extent of their influence could be (and I would say, is) a measure of their overratedness.
They were themselves influenced by black America both covering tracks & lets say borrowing parts from other songs.
Country music an overrated genre, heard it all now.
Going back on the Vegan thread to regain some sanity.....
Not as ridiculous as someone above stating that all heavy metal is overrated. Heavy metal is one of the least liked, most slated genres in music. Therefore, whatever your personal tastes, it is by very definition not overrated!
Like someone said on page 1, these threads inevitably just turn into people stating what they don't like.
I would argue that to an extent Queen are underrated. Yes they are adored by millions worldwide, but in terms of talent and output of music I would have them on the same level of The Beatles.
The only thing that separates those two acts is probably the influence The Beatles had at that moment in time on the rest of the world.
But when you combine all factors of live performance, song writing, sheer talent and personality....For me, it’s hard to think of anyone who smashes all of those out of the park the way Queen did. There really wasn’t anything they were ‘weak’ at. You don’t have to be a fan, but to call them ‘shit’ is ridiculous.
Comments
The only thing that separates those two acts is probably the influence The Beatles had at that moment in time on the rest of the world.
But when you combine all factors of live performance, song writing, sheer talent and personality....For me, it’s hard to think of anyone who smashes all of those out of the park the way Queen did. There really wasn’t anything they were ‘weak’ at. You don’t have to be a fan, but to call them ‘shit’ is ridiculous.
Stop posting now and go and sort your life out.
How do you gauge how influential someone is anyway?
Later they would have heard his music, and then quite possibly been influenced by it directly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haVQC0KffPk
Definitely an acquired taste vocally and might account for my love of non conventional vocalists (Dylan, Kevin Coyne, Tom Waits) as I got older.
Stereophonics- See above
Mumford and Sons- Thankfully we don't hear of them that much anymore
All heavy metal
Oasis- 1st album is good but they produced a lot of rubbish in that album and what's the story morning glory. Hysteria around them aswell is weird
Stormzy- Like some of his stuff and his Glastonbury set was great, but he gets a lot of credit for doing nothing that Kano, Skepta and Dizzee Rascal haven't done already
The Manor- Streets Tribute band, with awful out of date lyrics. Rich boys from Beckenham pretending their working class and geezers, cos they wore a Fred Perry to football once. Palace fans also
The Smiths- Not on the same level as bands from their time, such as Everything But the Girl and Aztec Camera but get more credit
My assessment of Einaudi as overrated has to be based on how people perceive his music. The amount of people (and this is rather anecdotal) who have said to me that it's beautiful, or lovely, vel sim are numerous.
And I can point them in the direction of things within similar idioms that are far less restricted in their musical vocabulary (e.g. Esbjorn Svensson; Steve Reich; Philip Glass; so on so forth).
I appreciate that what I'm saying verges on musical snobbery, but I think it's possible to make a good case that Einaudi is objectively overrated. The Guardian's review from his performances at the Barbican in August is incredibly scathing, but it comes from a place of accuracy: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/01/ludovico-einaudi-review-italian-composer-barbican-london
(*In a non-philosophical sense, anyway. I know many who would argue that music could be crucial to survival, but that would be a different conversation entirely.)
Of which, for me, Country music would be the league leaders by some distance.
Yes of course he is........FFS!
Going back on the Vegan thread to regain some sanity.....
Like someone said on page 1, these threads inevitably just turn into people stating what they don't like.