Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
Maybe there could be a new thread : Overrated Music Genres. Of which, for me, Country music would be the league leaders by some distance.
Previous generations came of age with punk in the 70’s, post punk and New Romantics in the 80’s, Brit pop in the 90’s. What genre became popular when I came of age in the late 00’s? Dubstep - remember that? I remember being utterly bewildered by my mates blasting that shite out of their cars.
Reading the comments on here, I think what we have is not so much whether or not the bands/ individuals mentioned are overrated or underrated, but whether or not people like any of their music, just the odd song, or everything they’ve recorded.
So there will be Dylan fans who like everything he’s ever done, and to them, he won’t be overrated. Whereas there will be others who maybe like a handful of his songs or a couple of his albums, but because they don’t like the rest of it, that’s where the “overrated” comments come from.
I think most people would agree that all of the artists mentioned have done at least one song that everyone likes - even Queen and the Smiths. I wouldn’t say I am a fan of either of these bands, but could probably name 10 songs they’ve done that I like.
Some stuff is very much of its time too - I wouldn’t imagine that Blowin’ in the wind and The Times They are a changin’ do too much for people these days, but at the time the influence and power of these songs was just massive - hard to imagine if you weren’t there. Dylan is a case in point as one thing most people know about him is that he “can’t sing.” Within his vast catalogue there are examples of singing and not singing (there were a few talking blues on his earlier albums) but I would say that on the whole Dylan is a better singer than Lou Reed and Mark E Smith - both who really can’t actually hold a tune. But people like VU and The Fall. With Dylan when people say he can’t sing, what they are really saying is they don’t like the sound of his voice, which is not the same thing.
For some people, music is all about emotion and about challenging the listener. It can be about creating something that is unusual and groundbreaking and doesn’t necessarily have to be “musical”. There is no doubt that Michael Buble can hold a tune and is a better singer than many, but I would rather listen to Tom Waits and Dylan than Buble all day long. I’m not a fan of country music, but I do like Cash’s Hurt, and am an Elvis fan (and I really don’t like Nashville Skyline!).
I also like and have all the albums by Sonic Youth, Pixies, Yo La Tengo, Sparklehorse, PJ Harvey and Husker Du, as well as Dylan, Waits, Costello, The Beatles, David Bowie, Kate Bush and Gillian Welch. I like Captain Beefheart, John Cale, Warren Zevon and Judee Sill. I also like Prince, Vic Chesnutt, The Police, The Beat and the Specials.
When you think about it we are lucky there is such a vast array of artists and genres , so much so that there is pretty much something for everyone.
The best things I have heard so far this year are Philary’s I Complain LP and Pile’s Green and Gray LP. But I am also loving Sacred Paws and Big Joanie, Sir Was and Floating Points, all of which are recent discoveries.
Back in the day, I got the first two Oasis albums and at the time, they seemed a lot better than they do today. As with early Dylan and The Beatles, they were probably of their time and you had to be there to really get the Blur/Oasis thing.
I also can’t tolerate most country music......I quite like a few well known songs that are loosely termed as country here and there over the years that crossed over into the popular music charts, but in general wouldn’t cross the road to listen to it.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?
The whole thread is a contradiction. The Beatles were not overrated, but the Country genre is. It all comes down to personal taste and that's as plain as day
Overrated by whom? The question seems to be generally translated as ‘is my view of how an artist is rated by others in excess of how I personally rate them?’
My reason for thinking the Beatles are overrated is because I personally can't see how they stand out as better musically than other bands of the same era -
The Who The Animals The Kinks The Stones The Small Faces and even The Moody Blues.
It's okay saying that the Beatles were just more successful, but imo, that don't make them a better band, and that's the point o this thread. I think.....
Maybe there could be a new thread : Overrated Music Genres. Of which, for me, Country music would be the league leaders by some distance.
Not a country music fan myself, but there are some terrific musicians playing country music "to make a living". Most of the modern country music is the mass-produced commercial garbage, but I can listen to Alison Krauss any time, check out her album "Windy City" when you get a chance.
Can’t believe that no-one has mentioned Björk! If you look up overrated in the dictionary there is a picture of her there!
Is she stood next to Pink Floyd?
If anything pink floyd are underrated, and they’re still seen as one of the greats. That’s how good they are.
Pink Floyd are probably the greatest band of all time. (in my musical taste,in my Genre) Certainly a million times better than Queen ffs. There you go, i've planted it.
I also went to see a band once, that maybe should be in the underrated thread as they WERE very good (its a long story how i went to see them!).......
My reason for thinking the Beatles are overrated is because I personally can't see how they stand out as better musically than other bands of the same era -
The Who The Animals The Kinks The Stones The Small Faces and even The Moody Blues.
It's okay saying that the Beatles were just more successful, but imo, that don't make them a better band, and that's the point o this thread. I think.....
It's all opinion, Rob - isn't it.
From your list I would comment:
The Who - they get what they rightfully deserve so neither over or under rated. The Animals - underrated The Kinks - underrated The Stones - their place at the top of the pyramid is deserved. The Small Faces - HUGELY underrated and even The Moody Blues. - underrated.
My reason for thinking the Beatles are overrated is because I personally can't see how they stand out as better musically than other bands of the same era -
The Who The Animals The Kinks The Stones The Small Faces and even The Moody Blues.
It's okay saying that the Beatles were just more successful, but imo, that don't make them a better band, and that's the point o this thread. I think.....
It's all opinion, Rob - isn't it.
From your list I would comment:
The Who - they get what they rightfully deserve so neither over or under rated. The Animals - underrated The Kinks - underrated The Stones - their place at the top of the pyramid is deserved. The Small Faces - HUGELY underrated and even The Moody Blues. - underrated.
.....and I would totally agree with your comments, but it still doesn't explain why the Beatles are rated higher than those bands by so many people imo
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?
The whole thread is a contradiction. The Beatles were not overrated, but the Country genre is. It all comes down to personal taste and that's as plain as day
Yes but he contradicted himself in the same post! Said it was all about personal taste then in the same breath said it was stupid to have that taste lol
Comments
The unstoppable stopped when people realised his music was shite. Still, he probably has Viagra.
still threatening to write a song, in the meantime they are busy being gods
If you look up overrated in the dictionary there is a picture of her there!
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
So there will be Dylan fans who like everything he’s ever done, and to them, he won’t be overrated. Whereas there will be others who maybe like a handful of his songs or a couple of his albums, but because they don’t like the rest of it, that’s where the “overrated” comments come from.
I think most people would agree that all of the artists mentioned have done at least one song that everyone likes - even Queen and the Smiths. I wouldn’t say I am a fan of either of these bands, but could probably name 10 songs they’ve done that I like.
Some stuff is very much of its time too - I wouldn’t imagine that Blowin’ in the wind and The Times They are a changin’ do too much for people these days, but at the time the influence and power of these songs was just massive - hard to imagine if you weren’t there. Dylan is a case in point as one thing most people know about him is that he “can’t sing.” Within his vast catalogue there are examples of singing and not singing (there were a few talking blues on his earlier albums) but I would say that on the whole Dylan is a better singer than Lou Reed and Mark E Smith - both who really can’t actually hold a tune. But people like VU and The Fall. With Dylan when people say he can’t sing, what they are really saying is they don’t like the sound of his voice, which is not the same thing.
For some people, music is all about emotion and about challenging the listener. It can be about creating something that is unusual and groundbreaking and doesn’t necessarily have to be “musical”. There is no doubt that Michael Buble can hold a tune and is a better singer than many, but I would rather listen to Tom Waits and Dylan than Buble all day long.
I’m not a fan of country music, but I do like Cash’s Hurt, and am an Elvis fan (and I really don’t like Nashville Skyline!).
I also like and have all the albums by Sonic Youth, Pixies, Yo La Tengo, Sparklehorse, PJ Harvey and Husker Du, as well as Dylan, Waits, Costello, The Beatles, David Bowie, Kate Bush and Gillian Welch. I like Captain Beefheart, John Cale, Warren Zevon and Judee Sill. I also like Prince, Vic Chesnutt, The Police, The Beat and the Specials.
When you think about it we are lucky there is such a vast array of artists and genres , so much so that there is pretty much something for everyone.
The best things I have heard so far this year are Philary’s I Complain LP and Pile’s Green and Gray LP. But I am also loving Sacred Paws and Big Joanie, Sir Was and Floating Points, all of which are recent discoveries.
Back in the day, I got the first two Oasis albums and at the time, they seemed a lot better than they do today. As with early Dylan and The Beatles, they were probably of their time and you had to be there to really get the Blur/Oasis thing.
If you can go from Steve Earle to Bob Monroe and every stop in between without hearing something you like, I don't think you understand music at all.
I don't like to talk about it!
The whole thread is a contradiction. The Beatles were not overrated, but the Country genre is. It all comes down to personal taste and that's as plain as day
What a muppet (me, not Bill... or Bob).
The Who
The Animals
The Kinks
The Stones
The Small Faces
and even The Moody Blues.
It's okay saying that the Beatles were just more successful, but imo, that don't make them a better band, and that's the point o this thread. I think.....
Certainly a million times better than Queen ffs.
There you go, i've planted it.
I also went to see a band once, that maybe should be in the underrated thread as they WERE very good (its a long story how i went to see them!).......
One Direction .
It's all opinion, Rob - isn't it.
From your list I would comment:
The Who - they get what they rightfully deserve so neither over or under rated.
The Animals - underrated
The Kinks - underrated
The Stones - their place at the top of the pyramid is deserved.
The Small Faces - HUGELY underrated
and even The Moody Blues. - underrated.
I would tend to agree, and The Beatles are not in my personal favourites top 5 - but, what a shadow they cast!
They are not overrated, rather the bands you list are underrated.