Overrated Artists!Music

[Max Powers]

It's pretty much self-explanatory, what artists do you think are totally overrated? Reasons why you believe this are appreciated.

Green Day: I think the general consensus is that their newer music is garbage, but their older stuff seems to be way overrated. I remember being a kid when Dookie came out and I thought it was the best thing ever like everybody else, but looking back on my fascination with them now, their music is really poor, and Billie Joe's faux-British accent is incredibly annoying.

Tom Petty - He's ok, but I really don't think he's as good as he's made out to be, a lot of the songs really sound the same, and there's nothing musically that stands out, just decent songeriting and ok lyrics. Christ the classic rock station around here constantly plays Petty when there's much better Classic Rock out there.

O.A.R. - Lame wannabe jam band that half of the college population worships, they're such a lame band in a genre with much better choices. Nothing really stands out at all about this band, and I'm amazed they have as many fans as they do.

Joe Satriani - I know he's pretty good on the guitar, but who cares if the music sounds so cheesy. I respect a talented guitarist as much as the next guy, but I think that they should know how to put together a good sounding solo too, I don't care how hard it is to play if it doesn't sound good. His music really doesn't do it for me. I'd take Dave Gilmour, Jimmy Page, Stevie Ray Vaughan, or even John Mayer over him any day.

The Doors - Really people, they're not that good. I don't think they'd be anywhere near as popular as they now were without Jim Morrison's untimely death, speaking of which, his vocals are really not that good, and the songs feel too long and drawn out for their own good. The only good thing they had going for them was their guitarist.

Definitely more to come later.

 

[Omnis]

Everything on MTV.

 

[High-Test]

Omnis, One could not have spoken wiser words. Thread Over.

Scorpions - All their songs sound the same.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Coldplay.

 

[Ev0]

U2

And for the record, The Doors were very popular when Morrison was alive. For instance, Light My Fire, one of their first singles, was a number one hit. I'd wager they would still be a very popular band today even if Morrison had lived (although his death certainly made him into a pop legend of sorts). Also, they have a ton of songs under four minutes in length, only some of their songs are long, drawn out epics.

 

[DuckRacer]

U2 - Only Vertigo sounds pretty good, and even then it's so-so. All the other songs sound boring.

Trace Adkins - His songs suck, and a few songs that I thought absolutely was crap, made the Country Top 10 list.

Sheryl Crow - A few songs (like 2 or 3) sound good, but everything else is bleh. She slurs too much.

I might add a few more if I can think of them.

Oh wait...

The Eagles - Hotel California is a classic, but EVERYTHING else sucks so much it's not even funny.

Green Day - I listened to some clips of their songs on iTunes, and yes, they disgust me. They're a band you'd find in Burnout 3.

 

[exigeracer]

Hah, kinda funny how I like OAR (although I don't see how they're 'wannabe' jam, maybe it's just 'cause they're new to your ear and aren't old?) and Green Day. It's just that, jam music. Easy and fun to actually play with your friends. You can't like it all I suppose.

Speaking of Green Day, I gotta say that Armstrong's on-stage antics and entertaining is funny when you hear some of the stuff he says, but I saw them play one time (I had heard a bunch of live recordings of their music before) and I kid you not, every single thing he says on stage is rehearsed. Every show he says the exact same lines at the exact same times during the exact same songs. Kinda lame... But when you say their older music is overrated, how do you arrive to that? I certainly don't hear people preaching how their early albums were amazing or anything. It's impossible to count how many Nirvana shirts I've seen compared to pre-American Idiot shirts I've seen (I saw a dude with a Kerplunk! shirt once). Speaking of overrated -

Nirvana. Big time. Pretty much every kid born after 1985 I know went through a Nirvana phase, whatever the length or intensity of it. I look back at any of their songs and the only thing I can pull out as being interesting whatsoever is how Kobain sings in 'Hairspray Queen'. Try it: it's hard.

Audioslave. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty big Rage listener, but the 'Slave gets my nomination solely because I fail to see how so many people can be so into the rock-feel of their music while still ignoring Cornell's satanically hideous vocal abortions.

Nickelback and The White Stripes. Poor lyric-writing ability on both sides, and I don't think that needs an explination.

 

[Shannon]

The Beatles - Shoot me now if you want, but really, I don't think they were anything special. Their lyrics, riffs and pretty much everything else aren't that great.

Green Day - Yep. Jumping on the bandwagon. I think everything negative about them has already been mentioned.

The White Stripes - I honestly can not see how someone can like these idiots. They're music is just so simplistic that it bores the hell out of me. And how Jack White even managed to get on the Rolling Stones list of greatest guitarist amazes me to this day. Horrible, horrible 'band'.

Linkin Park - Ugh. Let's take our first song, change the lyrics to something even worse, throw in one extra note and release a new single! We suck at creativity!

Nirvana - It's good that they (and the rest of the Seattle grunge movement) killed the hair metal scene, but they also helped popularize one of rocks most boring song construction methods - constructing entire songs on top of power chords.

 

[GT4_Rule]

I disagree on Linkin Park.

They used to be good.

 

[exigeracer]

but they also helped popularize one of rocks most boring song construction methods - constructing entire songs on top of power chords.

Jeez, more of the 'if it's easy to play, it's bad music'. Ignorance, nothing more.

 

[Shannon]

Jeez, more of the 'if it's easy to play, it's bad music'. Ignorance, nothing more.

Where did I say that? I just said it's boring. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing with power chords. But if you're going to play music, at least try and be creative. Playing power chords throughout an entire song (and today, entire albums) is anything but creative.

They could at least throw the minor pentatonic in somewhere.

 

[exigeracer]

You're saying if they build a melody with simpler, easier notes and chords, it's not good music (boring=not good, right?). Incorporating a more difficult chord makes it better? It's a way of achieving a melody, I don't see what's wrong with either way and fail to see how someone can prefer one more than the other.

In fact, as a novice guitarist, I prefer the easy stuff, so I can actually play it with some friends and enjoy something I created. I still listen to the advanced stuff as well, like Clapton who - oh-my-gosh - uses power chords here and there.

 

[OZZYGT]

The Beatles - Shoot me now if you want, but really, I don't think they were anything special. Their lyrics, riffs and pretty much everything else aren't that great.

Green Day - Yep. Jumping on the bandwagon. I think everything negative about them has already been mentioned.

The White Stripes - I honestly can not see how someone can like these idiots. They're music is just so simplistic that it bores the hell out of me. And how Jack White even managed to get on the Rolling Stones list of greatest guitarist amazes me to this day. Horrible, horrible 'band'.

Linkin Park - Ugh. Let's take our first song, change the lyrics to something even worse, throw in one extra note and release a new single! We suck at creativity!

Nirvana - It's good that they (and the rest of the Seattle grunge movement) killed the hair metal scene, but they also helped popularize one of rocks most boring song construction methods - constructing entire songs on top of power chords.

OHHH Lord... Houston, we have a MAJOR problem here, this dude, is describing different generations of rock into one paragraph. Do you know that you have to be careful when doing that???

1st of all, I think I will shoot you now, you mentioned The Beatles, The Beatles, are not your typical rock band that 16 year olds listen today, they were quite a hit back in their time because at that time, there was only one standard in music. Getting out of a Swing and Elvis Presley era (whom I think, wasn't the inventor of rock music) people found The Beatles as a "OOH MY GODD THIS BAND IS CRAZZYYY!!" band; and as you may know this, they got banned from radio stations because they were too "different" and "Crazy". If you were living during that time, you would have begged for a different kind of music...and then is when the beatles come in to the music airwaves and start moving masses of thousands of people dying to get to them...so please, don't take it on them, not that I'm a big Beatles fan but remember that Led Zeppelin, and the stones were strong listeners of this new music that they brought.

2nd, Greenday I agree with everyone else, but the white stripes??? maybe they don't sound as great as Jet or anyother band, but maybe is because it's only Him and the girl??? they want to be different than anyone else and prove that a band can be successful even when having only 2 members, I don't think they are idiots because of this...I'm amazed at the success that they have had and I tip off my hat at them because of that and he deserves to be in the Rolling Stone cover, who did you want to be in the cover instead? tell me.

3rd, Linking Park....they are inconsistent most of the time and when you think that they've settled they're style...they mix more stuff in..

and 4th, Nirvana....you mentioned a good point at the beggining but I can only say one thing...you just don't understand them.... if you want to ask me anything..you can, i'll answer it for you, for I, am one of Nirvana's biggest fans.

some other mentioned the Doors...well, music can be enjoyed in different state of minds (I hope you get the hint), the Doors and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon will let you (if you are lucky enough) get to "Nirvana" (not the band), and finally see that they are at your level of thinking...

Times have changed...some people missed the starting gun...some went way too far ahead and forgot what their roots are.

Ciao...

 

[Shannon]

You're saying if they build a melody with simpler, easier notes and chords, it's not good music (boring=not good, right?). Incorporating a more difficult chord makes it better? It's a way of achieving a melody, I don't see what's wrong with either way and fail to see how someone can prefer one more than the other.

In fact, as a novice guitarist, I prefer the easy stuff, so I can actually play it with some friends and enjoy something I created. I still listen to the advanced stuff as well, like Clapton who - oh-my-gosh - uses power chords here and there.

Boring from a creative sense. Power chords are that overused in rock today, it's not funny. Think of it this way - you've just made a rock riff that consists of a bunch of power chords. Somewhere on the other side of the world, some punk rocker has probably made the exact same riff (or something similar). The creativity and originality has been sucked try. And when I hear friends jamming (one of my friend's just loves power chords), it sounds just like what I hear on the radio.

And you missed my point. I'm saying constructing entire songs just on a few power chords (like a lot of bands today do) bores the hell out of me, because a hundred other bands have made a song that sounds similar. Using them throughout a song, but not for the entirity of a song, is quite acceptable.

/end rant

1st of all, I think I will shoot you now, you mentioned The Beatles, The Beatles, are not your typical rock band that 16 year olds listen today, they were quite a hit back in their time because at that time, there was only one standard in music. Getting out of a Swing and Elvis Presley era (whom I think, wasn't the inventor of rock music) people found The Beatles as a "OOH MY GODD THIS BAND IS CRAZZYYY!!" band; and as you may know this, they got banned from radio stations because they were too "different" and "Crazy". If you were living during that time, you would have begged for a different kind of music...and then is when the beatles come in to the music airwaves and start moving masses of thousands of people dying to get to them...so please, don't take it on them, not that I'm a big Beatles fan but remember that Led Zeppelin, and the stones were strong listeners of this new music that they brought.

And you see me as your typical 16 year old music lover? I listen to music from the 60s/70s (Pink Floyd, The Doors, The Animals...) right up to death metal. In fact, I don't think I listen to much of anything your 'typical 16 year old listens to'. I listen to music my ears enjoy, not the stereotype. And my ears don't enjoy The Beatles.

I don't care what The Beatles did, or what people thought of them back then. So they were a different style of music back then - so? Just say some band was to introduce a style of music nobody had ever heard tomorrow. Would it be good? Just because something is 'new' and 'different', doesn't necessarily make it good.

I'm still sticking to my opinion that The Beatles were overrated and aren't as good as everyone makes (made?) them out to be.

2nd, Greenday I agree with everyone else, but the white stripes??? maybe they don't sound as great as Jet or anyother band, but maybe is because it's only Him and the girl??? they want to be different than anyone else and prove that a band can be successful even when having only 2 members, I don't think they are idiots because of this...I'm amazed at the success that they have had and I tip off my hat at them because of that and he deserves to be in the Rolling Stone cover, who did you want to be in the cover instead? tell me.

The White Stripes making it big with 2 members isn't really a feet. Trent Reznor is the only man behind Nine Inch Nails and Jon Crosby is the only man behind VAST. Also, Black Label Society (a fairly well known metal band fronted by Zakk Wylde) only consists of 2 members. Any of the above 3 sounds at least 10x better than The White Stripes (and I'm not even that big of a NIN fan either...).

And you do know I'm talking about this list, and not just the cover of Rolling Stones? Just to compare, they put him as the 17th greatest guitarist of all time. Dave Gilmour from Pink Floyd is all the way down at #82. And if my friend who'd only been playing for a week or so could play "Seven Nation Army", well, that just shows how great of guitarist he actually is...

and 4th, Nirvana....you mentioned a good point at the beggining but I can only say one thing...you just don't understand them.... if you want to ask me anything..you can, i'll answer it for you, for I, am one of Nirvana's biggest fans.

What? How do I not understand them by saying they play only power chords? Go get a tab for any of their songs and you'll see it's all power chords (or at least 95% of it).

Jees, it doesn't look like too many people agree with me.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

I'd hate to say this since they had so many "hits", and even I found myself listening to them at one point, but Blink 182 comes to mind. Not only do their songs sound like 8th grade poems, but most of them go beyond sounding a like, and are actually written in the same 3 chords! Its like they became famous for music that is nothing more then variations of the same song.

Also The White Stripes for being talentless hacks whos only rise to fame came on the debate of whether they are brother/sister or husband/wife, and no matter what they say, my vote is still "both". Jacks guitar playing is equivalent to someone who is still learning what strings are, and his ex-wife could be replaced by a drum machine with only 2 sounds stored. I hate every 14 year old who helped make these 2 famous.

 

[Cosmic]

Everything on MTV.

The lord has spoken! I agree!

Coldplay.

Yes, probably the most overrated of the century.

U2 - Only Vertigo sounds pretty good, and even then it's so-so. All the other songs sound boring.

U2 have been overrated since they released their first album.

The Beatles - Shoot me now if you want, but really, I don't think they were anything special. Their lyrics, riffs and pretty much everything else aren't that great.

The most hate band in my entire life. They suck so much...

 

[Casio]

The Beatles - Overrated
Green Day - Overrated
Eminem - Overrated
Eminem's buddys (Fiddy C, Puffy D? Whoever else he hangs with) - Overrated
Coldplay - Overrated

Now I have some disagreements.

I'm going to have to strap on some armor for this next comment. But I like The White Stripes. Well, not completely true, I like the Elephant album, I've listened to it countless times. I've listened to my copy of Get Behind Me Satan twice, because it's ****.

And you do know I'm talking about this list, and not just the cover of Rolling Stones? Just to compare, they put him as the 17th greatest guitarist of all time. Dave Gilmour from Pink Floyd is all the way down at #82. And if my friend who'd only been playing for a week or so could play "Seven Nation Army", well, that just shows how great of guitarist he actually is...

Admittantly, I don't play an instrument, but you've named one White Stripes song as an example. It's like me saying Jimmy Page is a crap guitarist because seemingly everyone who can pick up a guitar can play Stairway to Heaven.

Also, I like U2.

 

[Flerbizky]

There's soooo much overrated music out there - as a wise man said earlier in this thread - Basically everything on MTV... I remember, back in the days, when MTV was actually about actual _music_ !.. Get that.. They had Alternative Nation, which was indeed "Alternative" - and an awesome program. They had real "get ready to go out and party" warm up programs friday and saturday.. A decade ago - I miss my MTV...

HATEKORE would've loved this thread - I miss him.....

 

[exigeracer]

Admittantly, I don't play an instrument, but you've named one White Stripes song as an example. It's like me saying Jimmy Page is a crap guitarist because seemingly everyone who can pick up a guitar can play Stairway to Heaven.

This makes a huge difference. Having even a slight musical snese, one realises where the lack of creativity comes from. Hell, if you understand English you can see where I am coming from:

My ma gave birth and we were checking it out
It was a baby boy
So we bought him a toy
It was a ray gun
And it was 1981
We named him "Baby"

WTF IS THAT?!?!?!?!?

(quick reference to a song with no guitar skill -> Blue Orchid)

Shannon: What's the difference if you construct a G with 030023 or with it's powerchord equivalent? I've had kids tell me that a song is better because it's "real" chords, when the exact same song can be played with powerchords. I've played a CCR song live made entirely out of powerchords, and it sounds the exact same except for the stroke patterns.

If you're using 4 powerchords in your riff, and you've got 12 chords on your E and A strings, that gives you over three hundred thousand different combinations, not to mention an infinite amount of rhythms. If you're not creative enough to think of something fresh, then maybe the arts aren't for you.

 

[Casio]

This makes a huge difference. Having even a slight musical snese, one realises where the lack of creativity comes from. Hell, if you understand English you can see where I am coming from:

My ma gave birth and we were checking it out
It was a baby boy
So we bought him a toy
It was a ray gun
And it was 1981
We named him "Baby"

WTF IS THAT?!?!?!?!?

(quick reference to a song with no guitar skill -> Blue Orchid)

I wasn't debating the lyrical content. I was argueing Shannon's point of picking out one White Stripes song to compare guitaring skill.

Again. I don't play guitar, but songs like Ball and Buscuit and Black Math, seem much harder and more complex to play.

 

[OZZYGT]

I don't care what The Beatles did, or what people thought of them back then. So they were a different style of music back then - so? Just say some band was to introduce a style of music nobody had ever heard tomorrow. Would it be good? Just because something is 'new' and 'different', doesn't necessarily make it good.

Yeah so?...jeje, look pal, you are speaking on your thoughts based on what you've heard so far, and I don't care what you like...but let me tell you that the fact of making something 'new' and 'different', like you said, is not necessarily good..but, to-date, we've had so many bad experiences with bands coming up with new stuff and then dissapointing us at the end, and the beatles brought new style of music, and at that time, people didn't have the ears that we have today..of course you're gonna say that the beatles are overrated if you like P Floyd stuff, specially if you don't like them for some reason, so before you speak about the past, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 16 year old back in 1959...

What? How do I not understand them by saying they play only power chords? Go get a tab for any of their songs and you'll see it's all power chords (or at least 95% of it).

Ohh no..I know your not saying that this band is overrated because of their chords , mate, there's a lot more to music than only the guitar chords, do you see the man in the middle?? his name is Kurt Cobain, we didn't follow him just because the way the man played the guitar...come on Shannon, Listen Up! 💡


ciao....

 

[Max Powers]

I don't care what The Beatles did, or what people thought of them back then. So they were a different style of music back then - so? Just say some band was to introduce a style of music nobody had ever heard tomorrow. Would it be good? Just because something is 'new' and 'different', doesn't necessarily make it good.
I'm still sticking to my opinion that The Beatles were overrated and aren't as good as everyone makes (made?) them out to be.

I respect your opinion on this because mine used to be the same, but my question for you is, how much of their stuff have you really listened to? This was a band that transcended genres, and although I definitely don't like all of their music, I think they deserve all of the praise that they get, and then some. I don't know about you, but I have a lot of respect for bands who constantly change their sound, and try to do something new every time, rather than making a new album that sounds exactly like their previous one. It may not be your style of music (I know you're into a lot heavier music than me) but you seem like you have a pretty decent musical ear, and if you haven't, listen to albums like Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, or Revolver.

some other mentioned the Doors...well, music can be enjoyed in different state of minds (I hope you get the hint), the Doors and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon will let you (if you are lucky enough) get to "Nirvana" (not the band), and finally see that they are at your level of thinking...

Trust me, I enjoy lots of music in an "altered state of mind" but The Doors just don't do it for me, Dark Side of the Moon, however is one of my favorite albums of all time.

 

[Shannon]

Shannon: What's the difference if you construct a G with 030023 or with it's powerchord equivalent? I've had kids tell me that a song is better because it's "real" chords, when the exact same song can be played with powerchords. I've played a CCR song live made entirely out of powerchords, and it sounds the exact same except for the stroke patterns.

The GM (major) chord is actually 300023. And the difference is in the notes played. Power chords only contain the root note and 5th of a scale. Whereas, the major chord is constructed from the root, 3rd and 5th. In the G Major scale (G A B C D E F# G), the 3rd is the B and the 5th is the D, and the root note is obviously G.

So, a G5 power chord consists of only G and D, whereas GM consists of G, B & D.

Yeah so?...jeje, look pal, you are speaking on your thoughts based on what you've heard so far, and I don't care what you like...but let me tell you that the fact of making something 'new' and 'different', like you said, is not necessarily good..but, to-date, we've had so many bad experiences with bands coming up with new stuff and then dissapointing us at the end, and the beatles brought new style of music, and at that time, people didn't have the ears that we have today..of course you're gonna say that the beatles are overrated if you like P Floyd stuff, specially if you don't like them for some reason, so before you speak about the past, try to put yourself in the shoes of a 16 year old back in 1959...

And if I put myself in the shoes of a 16 year old in 1795 I'd probably like Beethoven.

I understand your point. Your saying The Beatles came along and introduced a new style no one had heard before. They were new and fresh. But if we strip away the whole 'new' and 'fresh' factor and simply look at the music, is it good? Let's pretend The Beatles weren't the first. Let's pretend another band came and introduced a sound similar to The Beatles before them. The Beatles would no longer be 'new' and 'fresh', so would they be as great as everyone reckons they are now?

Or here's another way at looking at it. Pretend you've been deaf since birth. You haven't heard any music at all. Suddenly, by some stroke of miracle, you can hear. And you wake up with the choice of all this music. You have 50 Cent, Eric Clapton, The Beatles, DJ Some-Crappy-Techo-Name. Because you've been deaf since birth, you haven't been subjected to any other form of music beforehand. You haven't had the same genre pumping out of the radio day in day out to get tired of. You have to decide what you like and what you don't like based on the music you hear now, not what you've heard before.

This is my point. The Beatles were only good (IMO) because people were tired of what they were hearing and they were something new. But if we actually look at their music, and not the fact they were simply something different, they aren't that great.

Hopefully that makes sense. It's 1:30am and I need sleep...

 

[OZZYGT]

Or here's another way at looking at it. Pretend you've been deaf since birth. You haven't heard any music at all. Suddenly, by some stroke of miracle, you can hear. And you wake up with the choice of all this music. You have 50 Cent, Eric Clapton, The Beatles, DJ Some-Crappy-Techo-Name. Because you've been deaf since birth, you haven't been subjected to any other form of music beforehand. You haven't had the same genre pumping out of the radio day in day out to get tired of. You have to decide what you like and what you don't like based on the music you hear now, not what you've heard before.

You can't rely on this shannon because music evolves as time goes by, how are you going to compare complex formats of music to what it was the beginnig of a "classic rock" band, I get your point thought, and trust me I would listen to Clapton or Techno before the beatles, but your example here is like comparing the Mercedes-Benz 300 SL Coupe with an SLR...but if it wasn't for the 300 SL we might not have had the SLR today, ok? no go get some rest...

Ciao...

 

[Zrow]

Jack White's actually pretty good.

Overrated:

Brand New - Meh, not a fan.

Fall Out Boy - Obvious, no? It's just pop music for teenagers.

Definitely agree with O.A.R. - People say they're so great live, but the songs aren't great, or good even. Kind of like Dave Matthews, except...not.

Death Cab for Cutie - I can't stand Ben Gibbard - his lyrics are irritating, as is the music. I'd say the same about the Postal Service, but I like Dntel alright.

Weezer - UH OH SACRILEGE. Seriously though, I don't know what everyone thinks is so great about them. I like them alright, but I'm not a huge fan like everyone else seems to be.

More to come if I think of any.

 

[exigeracer]

Like I said, a bunch of music I listen to is here, so I have somehting else to add.

I like some his stuff, but a lot of people don't like Jack Johnson, any takers on that argument?

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't follow trends like other people and I am a very creative individual.

Max, you say that The Beatles transcend genres, but you gotta admit how OAR uses so many elements in their music. There are ska/jazzy bass lines, a ton of reggae guitar and percussion and there's also the general rock influence, with some country sprinkled around here and there. I can't think of any band that does that, you say you do. Please help (and see my first post).

 

[Brett]

I respect your opinion on this because mine used to be the same, but my question for you is, how much of their stuff have you really listened to? This was a band that transcended genres, and although I definitely don't like all of their music, I think they deserve all of the praise that they get, and then some. I don't know about you, but I have a lot of respect for bands who constantly change their sound, and try to do something new every time, rather than making a new album that sounds exactly like their previous one. It may not be your style of music (I know you're into a lot heavier music than me) but you seem like you have a pretty decent musical ear, and if you haven't, listen to albums like Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, or Revolver.

I agree with you on The Beatles, though I in no way at all think they are overrated. In fact, they deserve all the praise they get and then some.

The Beatles could have made and did make hits in many, many, many different genres. They could take on any type of sound and instantly make the best or very close to the best of it. The Beatles started out with love sougs that were very much pop and Rubber Soul comes along and throws something new and different into the mix, along with new ways to do some of the older stuff. Don't get me wrong here, the pre-Rubber Soul was not all pop and love songs, as this is way too vast of a generalization; but in comparison to post-Rubber Soul, it is a pretty fair assessment.

After Rubber Soul, Revolver came out and was completely different from anything The Beatles had done before--and in my opinion, much, much better, not taking away anything from the early stuff though, its great in its own right, but not to the quality of post-Rubber Soul. Revolver is an extremely great album and either my favorite Beatles album--it really is hard to classify Beatles albums on their greatest, since all of them are so good--or right up in the top three. Revolver does not have a single song that sounds like another song on the album, each song has its own distinct sound to it. Some of the songs are similar in genre, but different in execution and sound. It really is on Revolver where the Beatles really begin to experiment with all different kinds of instruments and sounds. Harrison's use of the sitar really stands out in my mind right now; though this could be because I am listening to Love You To where Harrison goes full on sitar and Indian music.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is an absolutely outstanding album and the most experimental of all the Beatles albums. And at the same time, it is probably the consensus best Beatles album among fans. Sgt. Pepper's really opened a whole lot of doors for the music industry. It really inspired band to go and try anything at all.

I understand your point. Your saying The Beatles came along and introduced a new style no one had heard before. They were new and fresh. But if we strip away the whole 'new' and 'fresh' factor and simply look at the music, is it good? Let's pretend The Beatles weren't the first. Let's pretend another band came and introduced a sound similar to The Beatles before them. The Beatles would no longer be 'new' and 'fresh', so would they be as great as everyone reckons they are now?

Or here's another way at looking at it. Pretend you've been deaf since birth. You haven't heard any music at all. Suddenly, by some stroke of miracle, you can hear. And you wake up with the choice of all this music. You have 50 Cent, Eric Clapton, The Beatles, DJ Some-Crappy-Techo-Name. Because you've been deaf since birth, you haven't been subjected to any other form of music beforehand. You haven't had the same genre pumping out of the radio day in day out to get tired of. You have to decide what you like and what you don't like based on the music you hear now, not what you've heard before.

This is my point. The Beatles were only good (IMO) because people were tired of what they were hearing and they were something new. But if we actually look at their music, and not the fact they were simply something different, they aren't that great.

It wouldn't make a difference if the Beatles were new or fresh, they could and did do what everyone else did at the time and did it better, much, much better.

It's amazing that even now today, The Beatles songs still sound very good today. Maybe its because they were willing to experiment and try anything with their music. Its also pretty wierd, after having listened to some of the other stuff I listen to, to go back to The Beatles and realize how much better and how much farther ahead in their thinking they were.

Just out of curiousity, what Beatles albums have you actually listened to? Or have you just listened to singles? The Beatles did not make their albums to be just singles with some songs thrown in there for filler. Sgt. Pepper's was put together as a whole and not a single of the songs was ever released as a single. That's not to say if any of the songs had been released as singles, there would have been top singles in the bunch; but as a whole, the album is much better in its entirety than any individual single. Revolver comes to the mind as being the same way now that I think about it.

You would also be surprised at how many hidden Beatles fans out there and I'm not talking of those who grew up at that time. I am talking of all generations. If The Beatles were to get more mainstream showing even now, the number of new Beatles fans would be pretty significant.

And just for your information, I just recently started listening to the Beatles probably not quite a year ago and am currently about to finish up my second year of college. It a great thing a friend of mine did in burning me a CD or two of Beatles songs to listen to, as I currently now own all but Yellow Submarine of The Beatles albums.

Now onto my list of who I think is overrated:
Nirvana - Had Kurt Cobain not died, Nirvana would be no where near as significant as they are. Not to take away from Nirvana, they are still pretty good, but Cobain's death elevated them much farther than they would have ever been taken with Cobain.

Green Day - I think this is partially an overhyped media thing, but none of their other albums are as good as Dookie.

Weezer - Both The Blue Album and Pinkerton are extremely good. All three albums since have yet to be anywhere near as good. Each of the three albums have their high points, but each of them all have their points with The Green Album being the best of the post-Pinkerton albums.

U2 - Other than Vertigo, the rest of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb was only okay. I can't really comment on the rest of their stuff, as I haven't really listened to it, mainly because I don't really know anyone to borrow the CD from and I don't download any music. But How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb was not very good.

Linkin Park - They are good in bits and spurts, though constant bombardment can get old.

Eminem - Seriously . . . I don't think I need to say much more.

All of country music - Yeah, I said it!

PS - Sorry for the long as hell post!

 

[exigeracer]

VOID

---

Weezer - Both The Blue Album and Pinkerton are extremely good. All three albums since have yet to be anywhere near as good. Each of the three albums have their high points, but each of them all have their points with The Green Album being the best of the post-Pinkerton albums.

I couldn't agree more. I haven't heard all of Maladroit, but Keep Fishin' is pretty damn good.

late edit I got another nom: Bad Religion. Someone please explain to me what's the big rage here. Everything I have ever heard from them sounds identical, absolutely identical. Please, play around with another ditortion setting or different beats and sounds! I can't understand their popularity at all.

 

[Brett]

Actually I changed the part you quoted, what I said then wasn't really what I had intended (its easy to misquote yourself in a long post ). But I still think the music sounds very good, though I will also say that The Beatles music is very refreshing in comparison to a great number of the stuff today.

Maladroit is a pretty good album, not great. Keep Fishin' is a great song and the video is especially good. But as a whole, Maladroit is no where near the quality of The Blue Album or Pinkerton.

 

[exigeracer]

Actually I changed the part you quoted, what I said then wasn't really what I had intended (its easy to misquote yourself in a long post ). But I still think the music sounds very good, though I will also say that The Beatles music is very refreshing in comparison to a great number of the stuff today.

Again, couldn't agree more. I'm not a Beatles fan (infact, I kind of feel Ringo kills most of the songs), but you are entirely correct there.