The Smiley Smile Message Board

Who do you consider over-rated? ..The type of singer/group that whenever you hear their music you're like "Why do people listen to this & how could they like ________?"
I hope I don't get stoned for this LOL ..Even though they have a major influence on Rock & Roll i'mma have to definately go with "Velvet Underground".(I heard a few songs by them i actually think are ok and it's  on their debut but everything else after...hmmmmm)

Interesting. The Velvet Underground are my favorite band by a far margin.

Overall, I'd say judging things to be overrated is overrated.

U2
Nickelback
Guns N Roses
Red Hot Chili Peppers

The Beatles. Great band, yes, but all this "Greatest Group of all time BS" has to stop.
U2. Have sucked since the mid 90's, but Music Rags refuse to accept this.
Oasis. Hilariously overrated for what they actually were.
Coldplay. Garbage, period.
Lenny Kravitiz. I'm not sure if he is even rated these days, but GOD do I hate everthing about him. All he's ever done is rip off late 60's - early 70's music. Not an original bone in his body.

I agree.  The Velvet Underground and every other half-ass band that everybody says is their favorite but in reality nobody (outside of people who think they're too intelligent to listen to a real band) listens to.  :) 

If they name a band that has never had a top 10 hit in their life as great, then that band by definition is overrated.  If they name a band you've never heard of, that band is overrated.  If they name a band that isn't signed to a major record deal, that band is overrated. 

The Sheepdogs which some of you may know as the band that was on the cover of Rolling Stone not too long ago without even being signed to a label. I find their music the epitome of watered down, derivitive, MOR rock...their songs sound like Guess Who B-sides except no where as good.

The exercise is impossible unless there is an agreed-upon set of guidelines as to what is being rated (or overrated) and by whom. Otherwise it immediately devolves into a mishmash of "I don't like so-and-so," "I haven't heard of so-and-so," "I like so-and-so (and thus must put down someone else)," "that genre of music or culture doesn't resonate with me and thus it can't be good," etc.

Ron is establishing his criteria, but those aren't by any means universal. So if he uses those, and I use mine, and Ian uses his, where does it get us? Same old message board arguments as always.

For the record, the Velvet Underground has been among the most rewarding listening experiences of my life, without question. I rank them with Beach Boys, Beatles, and Dylan. They aren't overrated by me, because that is their effect on me. And if they are by some other measure , to some other people, overrated, that doesn't involve me. Someone said the talk of Beatles as best ever has to stop. I also disagree with that: they're right in the conversation for me, as to effect on me. So why should they be eliminated just because someone else doesn't agree?

The more honest way to approach the topic--without using objective measures--might be "what famous bands don't you like?"

HELL YEAH.

Agree 100% as well.

no they're not but i can definitely say sgt. pepper is over-rated -____-

Maybe we can go by how much air-play any particular band gets... in that case U2, Coldplay, etc...

Whilst Luther is of course right, I still want to kick Ron into next week for calling The Velvets a 'half-ass band'.

You're an idiot.

I love The Beach Boys as much as anyone but you've got to say The Beatles put out a generally consistently good repertoire of songs and then broke up before things really started getting bad in the quality department. Not hard to see why people feel they're the greatest group of all time.

...though I AM tired of people claiming they love 60s music and only being able to name-drop The Beatles.

I'm always annoyed when name dropping the usual handful of influential 60's bands I hear The Beatles, The Doors, The Stones, The Who but rarely or never hear The Beach Boys, I mean they invented and defined a genre.

That happened Today when I watched a Ramones documentary and they didn't metion the BB's were a huge influence on the group.(rockaway beach)

Besides defining a genre, their melodies are UNEQUALED.

Add to that the harmonies (duh), production, arrangements, artistic exploration/courage, and we are now discussing CRIMINAL NEGLECT by Rock Radio....hence nobody name-drops them.

Most people only casually explore/listen to music. We have taken our love of music to another level here. Not just the BB's, but whomever.

The Rolling Stones
Queen (love their stuff from 1973-78)
U2
Frank Zappa (post 1974)
Black Sabbath (Ozzy era is incredibly patchy, Dio's the best singer they ever had, The Eternal Idol is their third or fourth-best record but no one even knows it)
Metallica (listen to Venom and Metallica won't matter to you as much anymore)
Jethro Tull (immense respect for them, but their music never blew me away)
Yes (ditto Jethro Tull)
Paul McCartney (it's like his talent disappeared after the Beatles broke up)
Cannibal Corpse (for a death metal band they get a shitload of praise, but they've always been very generic, boring death metal)
Psychic TV (I am a huge admirer of Genesis P-Orridge but he couldn't get that manic Throbbing Gristle magic in a bottle twice)
Scott Walker (his early stuff, later stuff is UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE)
Wondermints

THE ROLLING STONES? :/...they are that good though. ok after tattoo they fell off but they had one hell of a run
Queen? i agree :) even though freddie's voice is amazing
Metallica? i've always been more of a megadeth fan :)
Paul McCartney? yes so did john lennon's talent and the albums he did with yoko...smhhhhh

You guys talking about the Beatles and Stones and McCartney being overrated are cracking me up!  Seriously, you guys are funny!

 ::)

Re: Macca, i read some allmusic review for Red Rose Speedway where it says 'Hell, if Brian Wilson is lauded with praise for his half-assed homebrewed records, why isn't Macca?'

Which I don't think is too unreasonable, besides the crucial difference Macca smoking weed and writing songs was hugely successful and Brian didn't get that success with his slice o' life records.

But Paul's solo stuff is full of oddities - like, if you posited it was possible to have a top 3 song with a droning bass note literally about his doorbell ringing and namedropping most of your family, MLK and The Everly Brothers in 1976, you'd sound insane. Until you realise that it's Let Em In, and you can hum it. If anything, solo McCartney's underrated at points, but i think it's his irreverence to lyrics that makes people think John is somehow more 'worthy'.

How does one "shake his head head head head head"?

It's called an OPINION, small fry. Remember that while you're giving yourself whiplash by shaking your head head head head head.

I understand this is your opinion but it makes absolutely no sense.

Neil Young. His lyrics aren't as good as Bob Dylan's and his music isn't on the level of great songwriters like Lennon/Mccartney, BW or Michael Jackson.

Bring it on.  They are a half-assed band.  U2 is a much, much, much better band.

I'm also able to keep a conversation going without resulting to disagreeing by just calling somebody a name.  What I said stands.  If you disagree, prove it with an argument. 


The point is: Somebody says "OH, THIS BAND IS GREAT!" and nobody's ever heard of them, they're BY DEFNITION over-hyping the band.  If the band's so great, how come they haven't got a contract? 


That's called Logic.  It's solid.  You may disagree, but you'd be wrong.

They want to prove how cool and independent minded they are, by shooting arrows at kings.  They want to be individuals, but have made the mistake of joining that huge, miscontent, pimple-faced, black cloud group of people that call themselves true music fans.

It's similar to people who call themselves athiests (too smart to believe in god, so instead they believe in no god.  Not intelligent enough to see that they're doing the exact thing they despise)

The Beatles are simply the greatest of all time.  It's easy to see why.  Saying the Stones are overrated is a joke.  McCartney has more talent in his dick than anybody on this board has in their entire family. 

If I say my own popcorn is the greatest popcorn in the world, since you've never ate my popcorn, it's obviously not.  How could it possibly be if nobody's even had it? 


Similarly, ONE of the reasons the Beatles aren't overrated, is because you can't even begin to express how their music has affected the world.  How many weddings have had Beatles songs played at it?  How many happy lives have been influenced by that?  How many funerals have had Beatles music played at it?

The human mind isn't large enough to comprehend even a small piece of how the Beatles music has affected the world; saying they're overrated is a GUESS, you can't possibly understand their impact on the world, and therefore can't possibly judge if they're overrated or not. 

Similarly, if a band has never even been heard of, even telling somebody they're good is over-rating them.   They're so good I've never heard of them.  They aren't sh*t. 

It's simple logic. 

U2 > Bryan Ferry, Velvet Underground, Lou Reed

U2.  And Bono. And The Edge.  And those other 2  U2 guys who appear on the group pictures, U2 and U2.

Anyone else I could mention would just be personal prejudice.  :lol ;)

All hail Paul McCartney. ::)

 

Ron, is your wife's cooking not as good as McDonalds because she only cooks it for you and a few friends?

If you answer anything but yes, you're a hypocrite and a moron.

I've been listening to U2 ever since I was a little kid.

I LOVE The Joshua Tree and Zooropa is one of my absolute favorite albums.

But I HATE how U2 has chosen to be marketed. I really dislike most of their music after POP. I hate opening The Rolling Stone and seeing something about Bono in there every damn time. I think they are incredibly overrated and overhyped for their modern work.

I just watched their new documentary From The Sky Down today....it really gave me a new appreciation for the the old U2. But nowadays Bono seems to think that money can buy success (the mega-shows, the Spiderman broadway play)...I suppose it has brought success so far, but I think people will start to see through the facade if they don't start creating some original eno-less music soon.

if they can't see that the beatles are the best then something is seriously wrong with this message board lol

I am insane. :spin

I think Newguy is on the wrong message board... ::)

C'mon guys even Brian Wilson considers them the best band of all time so you guys have to follow your leader :) lol

I have my own personal taste... LOL :wall

hey hey hey i respect that :)

Than don't say that everybody has to love the Beatles as the greatest band ever.

You know who's overrated? 

Van Dyke Parks. 

I'm not married.  So you're a moron for assuming you backed me into a corner, want to try again?

My mom used to cook.  McDonalds was MUCH better than my mom's cooking; hell millions of people eat McDonalds all over the world.  Great food. 

It's easy to blame it all on Bono, but hell the whole BAND must be down with the asinine way in which he promotes the band.  I'm with you, the last album of theirs I could stand was pop.  It was great, though. 

Ok, sorry for a) sorry for assuming you were married, and b) your complete and crippling lack of understanding about personal taste and discretion.

Agreed. I guess since Bono is the outspoken frontman it's easy to pin all the blame on him.

And I disagree that VDPs is overrated. I guess it's all a matter of opinion, but to me he's been very consistent at making phenomenal music for over the last 45 years. The fact that people from every spectrum of the music industry use him for his talents says something about his stature.

Gotta agree with my man Luther regarding Velvet Underground.

There's nothing overrated about them at all. In fact, I find them actually underrated.

So, what makes a good band? I dunno: what are the important things? Good songs? Lou is one of the greatest song writers ever! Good vocals? They certainly had that part down! Lou might not be the greatest singer, but he has personality and authority and wrote INTERESTING songs about interesting things. Bouncing off that were Jon's euro cool vocals and Doug's sweet/innocent thing, Maureen's childlike cute thing, and it all worked. Good players? Lou and Sterling were one of the (actually, in my mind THE) greatest twin guitar foils in rock n roll. They both had very distinct styles that worked together beautifully. Good drummer? Well, that seems to be a comfortably accepted requirement for a band being worth a crap. Sure, Moe isn't Ginger Baker, but who needs that merda anyway? She kept a solid/relentless beat, played VERY creative parts and knew what a damn drummer is useful for and she nailed it in high style! And then there was Nico! No explanation necessary.

As for overrated, unfortunately I shall have to say The Beatles without batting an eyelash. I LOVE the Beatles. I mean LOVE them! But, it never fails, whenever I put them on I'm sitting there thinking "Damn The Beatles are the greatest band ever" while at the same time thinking about how many other bands did so many things better than them but still I keep reminding myself "Yeah, but they're the best band ever! Really"! Seems if I have to keep reminding myself of that fact, it's truthfulness might be in question.

U MAD BRO? smh u gotta oblige teh 15yrold classic rock fanz they think they kno everything bout musics.

u really think i don't know about "music"?

Please tell me you have proof of this.

Anyway, talking about someone as being overrated or underrated is already giving too much credit to critics since we're using what we perceive as their cumulative "rating" as some kind of evaluative benchmark.

I don't understand. Your lyrics have to be as good as Bob Dylan's and your music has to be better than Lennon/McCartney, BW, and Michael Jackson in order to not be overrated? In my opinion, Neil Young has probably been the most consisently great artist from the beginning of his career to our current time.

i have never heard neil's music but everything i've heard about it was positive :)..now comparing him to Lennon/McCartney, BW, and Michael Jackson is a little out of line since all those guys are well known geniuses that have huge legacies :)

You could say the same thing about Neil Young.

You know, I was just about to answer Curmudgeon's earlier post about Neil Young, but I don't need to now. You said it for me. Especially the last line, which was right on the money. Hell, I've listened to waaaaay more of Neil's music in the last two decades than I have of frog-throat Dylan's. Neil ain't overrated a bit!

Right with you on this, Rocknroll!

I'd say lyrically Neil Young is as good as Dylan in his own way and musically, he's even better in some ways than Lennon/Mcartney. If you vibe with Neil's countryish folkie thing, he's certainly better at anything like that than The Beatles, and if you like loud, abrasive, fuzz drenched guitar workouts, he's got almost everyone else beat at that. Crazy Horse was looser and had better feel than The Beatles and Neil sang about more interesting things, I'd say.

About the Beatles... I like their music. I just don't like it more  than a lot of other artists. It just doesn't move me. Maybe it's because I'm a generation removed and missed the hype while it was happening, but I just don't get it. I personally like Beatles-influenced music more than the original stuff! I definitely prefer the early BB material compared to early Beatles.

U2, Coldplay, Stone Roses are ones that instantly spring to mind.

Oh and Newguy - please, please try using something approaching correct grammar when posting, it would also be nice if you stopped putting 'lol' at the end of virtually every post, everytime I see this I picture you laughing at the end of a sentence for no reason. Thank you for your time.

What can I tell you. The fact of matter is that Neil Young has been put on a pedestal for all these years so you would expect his lyrics to have some value (like Dylans) or to see some quality in his songwriting (like Lennon/Mccartney) but it's not there.

Sorry to ask such an obvious question, but have you even heard much or even ANY Neil Young?

Not liking a guy's voice or vibe or songs is one thing, but to sit here and pontificate that no aspect of the his output is of any quality is another.

Please tell me what Neil albums you have listened to front and back, and please give me an example of his lyrics that demonstrate a complete lack of ability.

Sure and I watch his tv-show on NBC every night!

Allow me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JepyNKrdTmA&feature=fvst

It sold tonnes of copies. Must be good.

Neil is amazing for his music and the total artistic exploration he does because Neil makes whatever he feels like making.

ok ill do it cuz i dnt want wannna offend ya aiight lol lol lol lol lol

:smash

Agreed, could not have said it better myself. :smash

It is there. In fact, I appreciate Neil Young more than Dylan though both would be in my top 5 favourite artists.

Honestly? I think that amongst your immediate social surroundings, you're probably extraordinarily knowledgeable about music. With that in mind, based on the things that you said, you've still got a long way to go. And this isn't meant to be patronizing - in fact, that's a great thing. In fact, if I could give advice to my teenage self it would be to say that he should avoid being set in his ways about what constituted "the best" music because that sort of thinking ultimately will prevent him from getting to music sooner that he really would have enjoyed. Nevertheless, there is something exhilerating about finally discovering a band - a band that you may have heard a few things from before but suddenly discover that they have a few real gems.

Again, you're very much like I was when I was in my teens - my concept of what was great music was derived primarily from the conventional narrative of rock and roll that is spun out repeatedly on TV retrospectives, popcorn film and tv biopics that take place in the 50s/60s/70s, and FM Radio whose existence depends on treating this fictional narrative as the truth.

And that narrative typically goes like this:

Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry --> The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan --> Hendrix, The Doors, Cream --> Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie

There are variations, some things added, but this is typically the primary narrative. And what this does, of course, is shift to the back burner equally important, culturally relevant, and interesting narratives from roughly the same time, like this:

Beach Boys, Jan & Dean --> The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, Love, The Monkees, The Seeds --> Neil Young, Harry Nilsson, Randy Newman

Or the narrative that was understood as THE narrative in many African-American communities (where they would have scoffed at the accepted narrative because the music from it didn't make much of a mark):

Ray Charles, Jackie Wilson, Sam Cooke --> Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson, Otis Redding --> Sly Stone, James Brown, P-Funk --> Kool & The Gang, Ohio Players, Harold Melvin & The Bluenotes

Now when I was younger, I had heard of most of these groups/artists I named above and didn't really pursue many of them seriously because the fact was, they didn't fit in very smoothly to the established, primary narrative of "great" rock and roll. I think that maybe this might be the same case for you - and the reason why I think that is because when you asked people to name their 10 favourite bands, you came up with a list that pretty much reflected the "classic" story  and then could only list nine. But, it seemed, you stopped at nine not because you didn't know other acts. As I followed that thread I noted you dismissing particular things like, say, The Monkees and the Sweetheart of the Rodeo album. And it makes perfect sense, in a way, to do that. After all, those things quite simply don't settle well in the confines of the Rock and Roll Story. How is it, one might ask, that as The Beatles were about to record Strawberry Fields Forever that The Monkees could put out the first album? How, after all that so-called edgy psychedelia could one of the oft-named forerunners of the psychedelic movement, The Byrds, put out a country album? Shouldn't they have really been making records like Abbey Road and Let it Bleed at that point (that is, after all, what the narrative suggests). But these questions arise as a consequence of reducing rock and roll to a comprehensible, linear narrative of development not recognizing other developments that were going on at the same time, or aberrant anomalies within that narrative. The conventional story of rock and roll is a good story, but it's not the only story and I now have serious troubles with accepting it as the narrative of the "best" music since it so strikingly excludes cultures, black artists, women, etc. But given that we have lived in the kind of culture wherein the most important cultural group is the white, baby boomer, male, it is not all that surprsing that this one development of music has been churned out so frequently and finally accepted as the "best" narrative of rock and roll music. But again, I tend to disagree.

I can't say that I got out of that way of thinking because of any particular enlightenment on my part. Rather, I just got somewhat bored with my music collection. It's not that I didn't think it was good anymore (well, in the case of The Doors and Pink Floyd, I slowly came to the opinion that they weren't as good as I initially believed) but I just needed something else to listen to. That's when I was forced, really, to abandon my conception of "great" music. And I'm really glad I did, because I feel I am a much happier person for having devoted a lot of time listening to:

The Band, Randy Newman, Harry Nilsson, Simon & Garfunkel, The Bee Gees, The Monkees, The Hollies, The Small Faces, Love, Carole King, Van Morrison, Duncan Browne, Neil Diamond, The Left Banke, The Impressions, Emitt Rhodes, Joni Mitchell, Michael Nesmith, Cat Stevens, Bruce Springsteen, The Turtles, Ray Charles, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons, The Move, Nuggets compilations, and as much Motown, Stax, Philly Soul, and Northern Soul as I can get my hands on.

Brilliant post, R&R.

We were discussing McCartney's music - not his penis.

wow your post really made me go over things that i posted and really think about everything you just typed :)
You definitely understand the way i look at music right now because at one moment in your life you were in the same position/state of mind. as far as the monkees go i only know their hits and that's because of my parents..when i asked my father about their albums he said "filler" then moved on he's a avid music listener but i still had to check out their sh*t on my own and was dis-satisfied.. when it came to the byrds i liked everything pre sweetheart of the rodeo i just couldn't get into the country sounds(wasn't my taste) i'm not going to say it was a disaster but just not my cup of tea.
some bands i checked out and liked every single thing they did those bands are the ones i put in my top 10.
like the beach boys after pet sounds i was so lost and felt so dis-connect with. now i love wild honey and 20/20 but thats because i'm such a beach boys fanatic. everything is based on taste when it comes to me choosing what i like and what i dislike. it's not a popularity thing with me if i named bands that are popular well they are popular because many people like their music and consider it beautiful/good/etc. i'm just one of those people that fall into that crowd.

Fair enough. I would say don't rule out going back to them one day and possibly finding something that you just weren't really looking for at the time. Again, to use "younger me" as an example, I would often go to a new artist (new not as in contemporary but as in I had never heard much of their stuff before) looking to find something that kind of gelled with the other music I liked. Therefore I would look for those things in the "new" artist that connected with the established music that I already liked, and consequently, often missed that they were great artists not because they sounded like The Beatles but because they sounded like themselves. I'd say that was my initial problem with Sweetheart of the Rodeo which I didn't quite take to at first, probably because I had no country music background as a frame of reference nor did I quite understand why The Byrds were choosing, at that time, to make that kind of record. But as soon as I abandoned that, I could appreciate the album on its own terms. That is not to say, of course, that the music I choose still to this day isn't in some way connected to the music that I already like (often one artist will lead to another) but I am able now to broaden my scope, especially when I take into account those competing counter-narratives in rock and roll that I spoke of in the above post.


Right - though, I'm not necessarily talking popular. The Monkees and The Mamas and the Papas were very popular and, in fact, still are. But while The Beatles and The Stones are revered as Gods (and I must say I certainly revere the former as such), the latter only receive attention when something like Time Life is putting together a CD that includes about 100 acts from the 60s (and even then it's typically just "I'm A Believer" and "Monday, Monday"). I'm mostly talking about a particularly accepted narrative of "great" (rather than popular) music, which seems to be so entrenched that it just seeps into people's consciousness when evaluating music. You see, also like you, a lot of my musical taste growing up came from received imparted wisdom particularly from my father. I will still thank him for that education and I will still say he has great taste but I will also say that he is undeniably a baby boomer, middle class, white male and thus had a particular perspective on what constituted great music and that simply seeped into my own views and shaped my perspective for a long time - the kinds of music I would qualify as great, the kind I would say might be catchy but necessarily should be relegated to AM radio and 60s pop comps, etc. It really took a lot of independent exploring on my own part to re-think my own evaluative criteria and standards, which I simply took for granted as something that would be my unchanging personal opinion about music.

Now quite possibly you will stick to these views you hold now. Or quite possibly you will, like me, re-evaluate and find other things to look for in music and compile a list (like I did above) that is either similar to mine or consists of entirely different artists. I will say though that given that you put The Beach Boys and The Zombies on your list that you might already be on the way to re-considering the kind of status quo way of thinking about rock and roll music (and, again, it could very well be a coincidence that your personal opinion happens to line up so well with the established status quo thinking about "great" bands). But then again, (and this isn't so much directed at you, just a general point) I also see a trend in the last ten years or so amongst the Pitchfork crowd of acting like they have pulled The Beach Boys and Odessey and Oracle out of total obscurity and brought it into the light where it may be finally appreciated by the "right" people (in other words, The Pitchfork crowd are to today what the Baby Boomers were to the 60s).

A fascinating discussion, great posts all around. Regarding Pitchfork, and other venues for music criticism and reviews...

Aren't too many music critics doing not much more than trying to convince others to agree with them? Perhaps many assume the majority of the readership they're speaking to either did not attend that concert last night or did not hear that album for themselves, therefore, let us put this opinion in your head before you can form your own.

I'm cynical, I know it... :)

Want overrated?

Led Zeppelin
The Grateful Dead
Post-Bends Radiohead
Post-Sell Out Who
Post-Satanic Majesties Stones
Post-Dark Side Floyd
Yes, ELP, Genesis, Rush, etc.
Kiss
Aerosmith
Allman Brothers
Skynyrd
Foreigner

Even Bob loves Neil! He even named dropped him in a song! That right there says a lot!

I don't know. That's quite possible. I tend to think that the critic probably quite earnestly believes they are doing a great service to music listeners everywhere by providing them with a reasonable review that could help the listener decide whether or not to get the album. My problem is that the very structure of a review in a music magazine, journal, blog, etc. means that the review itself will almost always be shallow, offering nothing of real substance and more over the criteria for evalution is typically shaped by trends.

Also, when I say the Pitchfork crowd, I mean a group of people larger than the group of people who read Pitchfork. My use of the word Pitchfork is just so people understand what I mean - but I basically mean a group of people who are about as culturally privileged as the baby boomers were to the 60s. People who would currently put artists like Bon Iver, Grizzly Bear, MGMT, and the like in the "great" music category.

noooooo :/..ok well radiohead is a bit over-rated but they do have alot of experimental masterpieces too
i love the first 3 who albums the most but i must admit who's next is a solid album as well and tommy & quadrophenia is as creative as it gets .
now as far as pink floyd goes my favorite album by them is animals so you should check it out thats post dark side

Rockandroll, you should write a full essay or book on this subject because your posts in this thread have been full of insight and important infomation. :thumbsup

Pitchfork seems to me to be a bit of a false organization who's primary objective is to "elevate" such bands as you listed (Bon Iver and such) into the "great music for all-time" universe. They have been generally kind to The Beach Boys but the whole enterprise seems hollow to me.

Kinda like they're taking over for the "All Music Guide" type of merda us older guys had to suffer through. Sort of the "official history book on rock" that slagged off every post Pet Sounds Beach Boys album with one star or half a star ratings.

I'm glad they are giving the band artistic appreciation, the BBs didn't for two decades. (1980-1998) Plus the back catalog wasn't appreciated as much.

Look who made number 5!  :o

http://listverse.com/2008/11/21/top-10-most-overrated-bands/ (http://listverse.com/2008/11/21/top-10-most-overrated-bands/)

I would pretty much agree with that assessment.

Thank you! That's nice to hear.

I couldn't disagree with #'s 1, 2 and 5 more!

The bonus band was the Ramones.... ::)

RNR: this gets my vote for "Post of the Month".

By the way, you need to add:

--> John Hartford, Mason Williams, Biff Rose

wasn't too happy to see that either  >:(

Man, I REALLY wish some "journalist" would have the balls to put The Beatles on some crackpot list like that.

Weird how he throws AC/DC right at the front of his list when all the criticizes them for is their Wall-Mart deal/Guitar Hero thing. He seems to have no problem with them as a band or their output, but a bit  LATE career marketing bollocks makes them one of the most overrated bands of all-time????

Sheesh!

Well, I assume everyone here knows that Neil Young name dropped the Beach Boys (yes, indeed!) in his beautiful song "Long May You Run".

It's a wonderful, beautiful song, and it's clear that The Beach Boys have a special place in Neil's heart.  By the way, Neil humorously wrote later that the song was about BOTH his first car AND his first girl.

Check out his version on his Unplugged album.

It's a song about friendship, and loss.  The third verse:

"Maybe the Beach Boys have got you now, with those waves singing Caroline, No
 Rollin' down that empty ocean road
 Get into the surf on time."

Honestly, I can't think of that song without a tear coming to my eye!

Yup! Has the same affect on me.

I spend much of my teenage years in So Cal piling into a car and heading to the Beach with some girl on my mind.

I always knew you were a sound guy, rockandroll  ;D

You forgot food, oxygen and blowjobs!

Pearl Jam

Replace The Beach Boys with Kiss.

Just a personal taste thing, but I'd say The Rolling Stones are extremely overrated. Before buying 40 Licks I was only familiar with "Brown Sugar" and "Paint It Black," with a passing familiarity of "Start Me Up." And after hearing 40 Licks, the same still holds true.

Maybe the love for The Rolling Stones comes from album tracks not on that set that I have yet to hear. But the greatest hits package just felt boring and repetitive.

I'm always open, though, so feel free to give examples of what to listen to of theirs.

I'm fond of Sticky Fingers, myself - good ballads on the second side, Can't You Hear Me Knocking... an actual zip on the trousers of the vinyl :lol

AC/DC is Overrated  :hat

I think AC/DC is very underrated actually!

They've sold so many records people just take them for granted and almost dismiss them as "great"

3 chords and the same drum beat is all it takes to play every single song they made.

yeah, but those same chords and that same drum beat freaking rock!!!!

but even then, it's not true, and that's what I'm saying. anyone who knows all their albums/different eras, knows it's not all the same three chords and the same drum beat, but who's heard all their stuff??? Their big albums and huge hits are so cemented in people's consciousness, it's like they never did anything else. but kinda like how the late 60's - 70's Beach Boys used to be, if you dig in and examine, there is a lot more going on.

Not that I'm comparing AC/DC to The Beach Boys!!! I'm not THAT stupid!

i havent heard all their stuff to be honest but all that i heard sounded so similar and the same :)
it's like listening to "you really got me" & "all day and night" over and over again (it's cuz they sound the same as well lol)

I hear ya!

Just keep in mind, they've had two very different singers, 3 drummers, various producers and have been at it for 30 + years. They got more metal sounding (much to my liking) immediately following Back In Black up until maybe Ballbreaker, so that period is when they're almost a different band from the Bon Scott days. From Ballbreaker on they've kinda gone back to their 70's sound but with Brian on vocals, and it works.

I would say the "Grateful Dead" are overrated...just don't get them..15 minute long songs with the same three chords playing over and over with long guitar solos..I guess I have to be on acid to understand it..

do you prefer when they were with bon or with brian? :)

I like them both about equally.

Bon wrote better lyrics, but Brian's voice in his prime was unreal and I like his more shredded voice too. I kinda like that there are two singers because I can get sick of both of them, and when it happens, I can just listen to the other guy for a while till I get sick of him :P

I really must be the only AC/DC fan on this board  ???

I'm not a big fan (like I am of the Beach Boys) but one of my favorite pastimes is putting on Live At Donnington at full volume on my stereo system....that version of Let There Be Rock is one of my favorite rock songs ever.

I was never a huge fan of the Bon era....though I LOVE 'It's a long way to the top (if you wanna r&r)'. Bon's voice never did it for me....That raw power of Brian's really gave AC/DC a kick ass edge. I was always fascinated with the story about how Brian got involved with the band and how well they were accepted by the public after Back In Black....a sad but great story.

I still play Back In Black on occasion, but I overplayed it during college and haven't been able to really get back into it since :o

So you're not the only fan on this board!!

Good to hear!

And you also get high props for not praising AC/DC by immediately dissing Brian, as so many people do.

It is indeed a fascinating story and there's nothing like it in rock history: a band replacing their lead singer and going on to become one of the biggest bands of all-time. Though to say Brian replaced Bon is kind of unfair. Bon died! They didn't kick him out or he didn't quit. There's simply AC/DC! There's Bon/Brian and they both rock.

If you're sick of Back In Black, toss on Flick Of The Switch! That damn thing rocks like no one's business!