Overrated Music Acts

cafctom said:

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. 

You like Queen and don't like the Rolling Stones.

Stop posting now and go and sort your life out.

McBobbin said:

Anyone saying the Stones are overrated hasn't seen them live

Ditto Stone Roses, nearly spat me cocoa out when I read that

harveys_gardener said:

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?

But there's no definitive way of keeping tally and making a list though is there

snowinberlin said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

harveys_gardener said:

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.

The_President said:

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.

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.

Briston_Addick said:

PaddyP17 said:

Briston_Addick said:

PaddyP17 said:

Ludovico Einaudi.

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. 

This sort of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDY95J9aQbg 

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). 

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.)

Stig said:

bobmunro said:

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Can't they be influential and overrated?

Yes - but not 'the most influential'!

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.....

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

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. 

cafctom said:

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. 

But they were pretty shit.