Overrated Artists!Music 

  • Thread starter Max Powers
  • 200 comments
  • 14,804 views
exigeracer
Who is Dave?

Sorry man, I meant that TOM never recreated the parts exactly... I was mixed up with Dave Navarro from another thread on another board... He's done "neat" things, and used other fillers and stuff, but I've never found that they were ever as good as on wax. Have you ever seen the videos sold with "The Ghost of Old Tom Jode" single? Good, just not as tight as the real deal stuff on CD. I've also seen various other concerts where the solos were not as good as those on the records... To say they were terrible would be a lie, they were great. Just not as mind blowing as the originals...
 
Take a look at the Live at the Grand... DVD, all solos are pretty much the same. I'm guessing the slight differences are that he most likely uses a stock live distortion setting whereas his studio solos have settings tuned specifically for the solo.

Either way there is no doubt at all that the "All sounds made by guitar, bass, drums and vocals" statements have always been true.
 
/\/\/\/\ Which is an acheivment in itself... There's no questioning the creativity in Tom's abilities to find out new ways of making a guitar sound crazy.

On a flip side, there was mention of DMB as being over rated... I agree to an extent... That goes double as of late. However, give a listen or watch the DVD for Listener Supported. It's flawless and the music sounds almost exactly like on the albums... It's pretty impressive.


animateria
Gee... I didn't know easy-to-play music is not great just because it was easy to play...

It's not "bad" none of the music we're really talking about here is "bad" by any means. We're simply talking about over rated stuff. You know, when people say "Oh WOW man, Nirvana is the best band ever!" Hey, the music is not bad, but they do not deserve that praise... It's not so much saying "They suck!" as it is saying "They aren't as good as people make them out to be".

I wouldn't put any punk band as over-rated since compared to the main stream it is under-rated (or properly-rated)... Die hard fans will always over rate their favorite band... but thats no reason to say that the band is over rated because of such people... It should be compared to how the mainstream portrays those artists...

Well this is subject to what you mean by punk... There are so many broad defenitions of music now, that it kind of makes it hard to class music. What I think punk is, ended in the mid 90s or so, with a few diehard bands that can truely call themselves punkers still holding true. But what most people see as punk is Gob, Blink 182, Sum 41, pretty much anything "new" you'd now see at a Vans Tour. I say new as ther are often good punk bands that lend themselve to these kind of events to draw in hard core people... But most of it is fluff.

Most pop-stars for instance, are over-rated... Their music has shown no change and their lyrics are plain... Their music dissappears in years and are never significant ever again... The mainstream usually never accepts their music ever again poking fun of it most of the time... That is Fad music...

Yes it is... You're right. The problem is that people are simply producing to make money and appease the masses instead of impressing or improoving music as we know it. I really don't think that you'll ever hear a band in the year 2020 say "Blink 182 was a huge influence on us and we could never have made it hear without hearing what they did". You'll likely still hear people saying that the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and maybe even Rancid were influences on their sound.

As I said before, fans will defend their favorites perhaps over-rating them a bit... that is to be expected. Besides when people have a positive emotion about the music they have listened to, they will enjoy it no matter what expert says about it... quite frankly I could careless about which band is more technically superior... which seems to be the discussion here...

Why don't you care about the technical aspects of music. Remember, it's not just about how hard it is to play. It can also mean how it influences others music and culture. As you said before, SW is perhaps and easier song then most, is not hard to play, but it sounds like nothing else at that time... Hence why it gets huge props from me at least...

If your not technically advanced enough so that a kid would be able to play your music, you are over-rated? What kind of thinking is that? I don't care if any kid can play Nirvana's S L Teen Spirit... Doesn't mean its a horrible song... I still like the damn song... I don't care if Ramones stuff is easy as blowing ur nose, cause its still good... I don't think Stair Way to Heaven is over-rated cause I've already heard 5 guys play it in my beginners guitar class...

Nirvana is over rated... Why? Nothing came from them. The best thing to come out of Nirvana was Foo Fighters, and they sound nothing like Nirvana. And in my opinion showed who the real talent in the band really was... But that can be a matter of opinion.

Over-rated bands are those new 'boy' bands that stupid 'rejects' listen to... Pah! they are just pop listeners in denial that listen to the next thing closest to pop... Their albums will be forgotten in a couple years and will be an insignificant blotch in the history of rock...

You see, when I said this way back, it was cool... But now it's like saying the same thing, but in your own special way (Big kidding to this one man...). I feel sort of the same way. The difference is, at least for me, that as more and more music is comming out, it should at least be getting better and better, striving to be original or at least a step ahead of what's out there now... Cheers...
 
Canadian Speed
It's not "bad" none of the music we're really talking about here is "bad" by any means. We're simply talking about over rated stuff. You know, when people say "Oh WOW man, Nirvana is the best band ever!" Hey, the music is not bad, but they do not deserve that praise... It's not so much saying "They suck!" as it is saying "They aren't as good as people make them out to be".

Thats why I said 'not great' not bad... I just don't think bands should be rated by the difficulty of their songs...

Canadian Speed
Well this is subject to what you mean by punk... There are so many broad defenitions of music now, that it kind of makes it hard to class music. What I think punk is, ended in the mid 90s or so, with a few diehard bands that can truely call themselves punkers still holding true. But what most people see as punk is Gob, Blink 182, Sum 41, pretty much anything "new" you'd now see at a Vans Tour. I say new as ther are often good punk bands that lend themselve to these kind of events to draw in hard core people... But most of it is fluff.

I don't think quality should define a genre none the less... Good or bad they are in the genre punk...
For example, if there is a metal band and they suck... that doesn't mean they aren't metal... anyways I found it odd that the so called hardcore punks found Rancid somewhat of a sell out because of their heavy The Clash influences and small popularity (They aren't exactly a mainstream band so I don't know how that came up) Admittingly I am a Clash fan so I guess it works out for me....


Canadian Speed
Why don't you care about the technical aspects of music. Remember, it's not just about how hard it is to play. It can also mean how it influences others music and culture. As you said before, SW is perhaps and easier song then most, is not hard to play, but it sounds like nothing else at that time... Hence why it gets huge props from me at least...

I care about it.. I enjoy technical songs that bring chills down my spine... But I enjoy stuff that sounds great... if it can sound good without effort... thats good song writing too...
By the way... my guitar class teacher is teaching the Beginner I class SW... Though he simplified it to match the classes level... I got a copy but I'm in II so I'm learning Caprice in Dmin...


Canadian Speed
Nirvana is over rated... Why? Nothing came from them. The best thing to come out of Nirvana was Foo Fighters, and they sound nothing like Nirvana. And in my opinion showed who the real talent in the band really was... But that can be a matter of opinion.

I don't think they are THE band in the 90's but I think they were and still are pretty good to listen to... I like the acoustic album a lot... matches em more. And about the Foos, I like their older stuff better... I have the second newest one and a lot of it sounded too much alike..
Dunno if there is a relation (think there was... my memory's blurry) but I like Queens of the Stone Age a bit more...


Canadian Speed
The difference is, at least for me, that as more and more music is comming out, it should at least be getting better and better, striving to be original or at least a step ahead of what's out there now... Cheers...

Well the albums I currently bought was Boston, Blue Oyster Cult, AC/DC, Arctic Monkeys... I see a trend (theres two; Guitar Hero, old stuff:new stuff -> 3:1) I'm Listening to alot of KLOS (mostly older rock) too... They sound way better for my ears... I think I'm learning to enjoy quality music than my former 10 years ago-self... (1996:dopey: -> Pop:tdown: -> K-pop 👎 -> Rap 👎 -> 90's rock:) mixed with mainstream garbage:tdown: -> 60-80's rock & some new stuff (2006)💡 ) Darn I was stupid back then... I literally threw away all the crap I had before...
 
Max Powers
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.
👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎 👎

I'm sitting on my hands here to keep from typing a huge rebuttal to this. How I typed this sentence as I was sitting on my hands I will never know.

Bottom line--you have to: 1. Like Green Day's style of music. 2. SEE THEM LIVE. Green Day is amazing in concert.

Music is just like visual arts. It is up to the listener to determine what to get out of it.

Yay. Long, argumentative rebuttal avoided. :)

(In case you didn't gather, Green Day is my favorite band.)
 
Because most opinions of them - either love or hate - are based almost entirely on the fact that they are OVERPLAYED, not on the music itself.

For a thrashy 3-piece outfit, they are incredibly tight, and the songcraft is MUCH greater than it appears at first listen. The rythm section is hard-driving but crisp, and Billie Joe does a good job filling in with a single guitar rather than cheating with multitracks on most songs. The song structure can be quite varied if you listen - and they're not scared to try ideas like the Death of St. Jimmy suite that are quite outside the powerpop format.
 
Duke
Because most opinions of them - either love or hate - are based almost entirely on the fact that they are OVERPLAYED, not on the music itself.

For a thrashy 3-piece outfit, they are incredibly tight, and the songcraft is MUCH greater than it appears at first listen. The rythm section is hard-driving but crisp, and Billie Joe does a good job filling in with a single guitar rather than cheating with multitracks on most songs. The song structure can be quite varied if you listen - and they're not scared to try ideas like the Death of St. Jimmy suite that are quite outside the powerpop format.


Finally. Very well said indeed.

I'd say they are overplayed more than they are overrated.

Dave Grohl was the drummer for Queens of the Stone Age for the record No One Knows (I can't remember if that is the albun title or not). He then left to pursue his interests with the Foo.
 
Actually, the Foofighters were Grohl's first post-Nirvana band, where he sings and plays guitar rather than drums, as well as handling most of the songwriting.

After fronting a couple Foos albums he sat in as drummer for the first QOTSA album (Songs For The Deaf, which included No One Knows), did a little touring with them, and then declined to play on their second album for wahtever reason.
 
Did somebody say "Billy Joel" yet? Even if so, I'm saying it again.

I just listened to "We Didn't Star the Fire". God. :crazy:
 
Billy Joel isn't terriable, I like some of his stuff...but We Didn't Start the Fire was pretty bad.
 
Duke
Because most opinions of them - either love or hate - are based almost entirely on the fact that they are OVERPLAYED, not on the music itself.

For a thrashy 3-piece outfit, they are incredibly tight, and the songcraft is MUCH greater than it appears at first listen. The rythm section is hard-driving but crisp, and Billie Joe does a good job filling in with a single guitar rather than cheating with multitracks on most songs. The song structure can be quite varied if you listen - and they're not scared to try ideas like the Death of St. Jimmy suite that are quite outside the powerpop format.

I don't disagree that Green Day has some talent. But they aren't the musical geniuses that many people make them out to be. You have to admit that they pale in comparison to many bands. Put Green Day up against a band like Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Alice in Chains, or Soundgarden, and they just can't compete.
 
Zrow
Did somebody say "Billy Joel" yet? Even if so, I'm saying it again.

I just listened to "We Didn't Star the Fire". God. :crazy:
I did. That exact song, in fact. I'd rather have rusty knitting needles jammed through my nipples than listen to that song again. But truthfully, I hate every note he's ever played and every word he's ever sung.
 
Duke
Actually, the Foofighters were Grohl's first post-Nirvana band, where he sings and plays guitar rather than drums, as well as handling most of the songwriting.

After fronting a couple Foos albums he sat in as drummer for the first QOTSA album (Songs For The Deaf, which included No One Knows), did a little touring with them, and then declined to play on their second album for wahtever reason.

I knew that, you must've misunderstood what I wrote.

I think there was at least one QOTSA album before Songs for the Deaf, for some reason the word 'beaver' comes to mind.
 
animateria
I don't think they are THE band in the 90's but I think they were and still are pretty good to listen to... I like the acoustic album a lot... matches em more. And about the Foos, I like their older stuff better... I have the second newest one and a lot of it sounded too much alike... Dunno if there is a relation (think there was... my memory's blurry) but I like Queens of the Stone Age a bit more...

I'm not saying they suck(ed)... But they are over rated none the less. For a while, people raved about them as though they were the saviours of music as we knew it. Some people still do call them that. Have they had as much an impact as say a band like Pearl Jam... Not on your life, for better or worse, nearly every Puddle of Mud, Nickle Back... the list goes on and on have based their sound off of PJ. Wether they admit it or not, it's as plain as the nose on your face. So again, I ask you? What did Nirvana do to get this "band of the 90's" title? They made one song about teenaged angst that was a huge hit, followed by an acoustic album that was all the rage at the time (which Clapton had already done better first). People give all the credit to Nirvana for bringing grung to the for front of mainstream, yet bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, The Pixies, get almost no credit at all, yet their influences can be heard far more clearly in today's music then Nirvana's can. So perhaps you can class them as perhaps one of the top, say 5-10 bands of the decade. But don't forget that they also shared it with the likes of Jane's Addiction (seriously under rated), as said before, PJ, Soundgarden, Pixies, as well as Greenday, Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Nine Inch Nails, Rage Against the Machine, and Blind Melon. Also little known bands by the names of Stone Temple Pilots, Alice in Chains, Tool, and Radiohead. All of which bring a lot more to the table then Nirvana did, and that's only bands from that same "kind" of gen X music. We haven't even touched bands like Matchbox 20, Dave Matthews Bands and many many others. So to say that Nirvana is the band of the 90s, I say go get your Hypercolor Shirts, listen to pretty much any of the albums from any of the above mentioned artits, and tell me you still think that way... The 90s had way too much talent in the musical department to simply throw it away by calling Nirvana the cream of that decade's crop of music. Nirvana represents everything that went wrong with music... Media Hype+Cracked Out Junky+"Traggic Death"= Nirvana's legendary status...

As a side note, yes, Queen's of the Stone Age did feature Dave on the third album, but then left to return to the Foo shortly there after. Although he was only there for a short time, the success they had on their third album forever gave people the image of Dave as a regular in the band. Even though that's not really the case.
 
The problem with Nirvana is while what they did was very, very, good. And you can't argue that Nevermind and In Utero arn't very good albums. But I think when Kurt died then 'Nirvana' instantly became 'da best band EVR!!11'.

Lets change history for a second, lets say Pearl Jam released Ten (Which was released a couple of months before Nevermind), and then Vs.(A month after In Utero). And then Eddie Vedder knocked himself off? While Nirvana continued on.

Would we talk about Pearl Jam, the same way we talk about Nirvana today?
 
Duke
Actually, the Foofighters were Grohl's first post-Nirvana band, where he sings and plays guitar rather than drums, as well as handling most of the songwriting.

After fronting a couple Foos albums he sat in as drummer for the first QOTSA album (Songs For The Deaf, which included No One Knows), did a little touring with them, and then declined to play on their second album for wahtever reason.


Songs For The Dead is QOTSA's third album. The first album released at the end of 1998 was self titled "Queens of the stone age". Then in 2000 "Rated R" was released.
 
Here's a new one: Arctic Monkeys

They're ok, but they are extremely overrated.
 
Casio
The problem with Nirvana is while what they did was very, very, good. And you can't argue that Nevermind and In Utero arn't very good albums. But I think when Kurt died then 'Nirvana' instantly became 'da best band EVR!!11'.

Lets change history for a second, lets say Pearl Jam released Ten (Which was released a couple of months before Nevermind), and then Vs.(A month after In Utero). And then Eddie Vedder knocked himself off? While Nirvana continued on.

Would we talk about Pearl Jam, the same way we talk about Nirvana today?

No, because Pearl Jam's sound is too boring, especially the vocals.
 
GTRacer4
Here's a new one: Arctic Monkeys

They're ok, but they are extremely overrated.

They can't really be overrated if the majority of the people haven't even heard of them. I only know a handful of people that have even heard of The Arctic Monkeys and each of those was exposed to them through one of my friends, myself included.
 
Yeah, maybe not so in the US, but over here they're seen as the second coming of the Beatles or something.
 
And that is my point exactly. Absolutely no one in the US has heard of The Arctic Monkeys, much less heard one of their songs; so that it really makes it hard to consider them overrated.

Just out of curiousity, has anyone outside of myself or GTRacer4 heard of The Arctic Monkeys?
 
Yeah, my friend is obsessed with their album. I can see why it may be catchy, but I don't think it sounds all that good.
 
I have the Arctic Monkeys 'Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm not' album.... I like the album a lot but I don't think they are mind blowing or anything...

BTW I have Pearl Jam's Binaural... What would be their best album? And hows the new album? (I heard Worldwide Suicide but thats about it...)

About Nirvana... Nobody knows what they would have done next anyways.That argument is silly. And I dunno how all those 90's bands are less appreciated than Nirvana.

Stone Temple Pilots unknown? You can't be serious...
Isn't NIN a (good but) overated band also?
SoundGarden underated? Never Heard of that before...
I've seen plenty of Alice in Chain tribute albums...
TOOL underated? Their new album had a bit of hype.
Radiohead? They have a 'strong' following.
Chili Peps are still going strong... etc...

I blame MTV for the so called Nirvana hype... People seem to just follow along MTV like magnets(Thank God I don't have cable). I don't agree that Nirvana is THE band either. There are too many respectable bands in the 90's to pick one.

Well since I never answered the first question I would say Slipknot is a bit overated... My friend has most of their albums... It mostly sounds tiresome.... I almost fell asleep to that stuff... (loud but boring)
 
ah, yes, the Black Eyed Peas are perhaps THE most overrated band in music.
 
animateria
About Nirvana... Nobody knows what they would have done next anyways.That argument is silly. And I dunno how all those 90's bands are less appreciated than Nirvana.

I'm sure they would have become a Christian Grunge Band and changed the face of Christian music forever as well.

Stone Temple Pilots unknown? You can't be serious...

I wasn't serious... It was sarcasm, which sometimes dose not come across in text all that easily.

Isn't NIN a (good but) overated band also?

Maybe as of late, but not at first. Trent pretty much intoduced a whole generation of people into industrial music. But I never called him underated.

SoundGarden underated? Never Heard of that before...
I've seen plenty of Alice in Chain tribute albums...
TOOL underated? Their new album had a bit of hype.
Radiohead? They have a 'strong' following.
Chili Peps are still going strong... etc...

Actuely these bands were mentioned not as underated... Perhaps you misread. They were named as to why Nirvana should not be called "the band of the 90s". Status had nothing to do with it...

I blame MTV for the so called Nirvana hype... People seem to just follow along MTV like magnets(Thank God I don't have cable). I don't agree that Nirvana is THE band either. There are too many respectable bands in the 90's to pick one.

THAT was my point exactly...
 
Back