The Smiley Smile Message Board

We all have times where certain musicians are constantly praised by critics (or maybe just friends), and then we finally take it listen and...we hate it. No matter how much you try,you just can't get into this certain release that just got a ***** rating from Rolling Stone.

So, how about it? Who are your overrated artists and/or albums?

(I have a feeling this topic's already been done, but it must've been a while ago because I can't find it).

Anything by Weezer after Pinkerton.

There are several for sure.  I will have to have some time to think of more but righ toff the top of my head, I would have to say "Trout Mask Replica" by Captain Beefhart.  It is constantly praised and some of you may really dig it.  I have just never understood what the fuss was.  I have given it many chances. 

On a related note, I have never been big into Zappa either.  I appreciatte his talent, I just don't dig his stuff. 

More to come I'm sure.

I do like Weezer, but they have a nasty habit of releasing EPs and calling them albums. A CD in this day and age should be longer than 25 minutes, I'm sorry. Meh. I do like the music, but they're one group where I actually support just downloading the songs and burning a cd.

Anyway...am I really the only person in the US who doesn't understand the love for Bruce Springsteen?

Cosmic...Zappa's a guy you either love or hate. No middleground at all.

Amusingly, I just LOVE Zappa and Beefheart, both already named as overrated. I'd probably call them both underrated!

For me, I don't rank the following anywhere near as high as some critics do:

Weezer
Rolling Stones (whom I do like...I just don't think they're among the greatest bands ever)
Any of Steve Winwood's bands, like Traffic, Blind Faith, etc.
Radiohead, aside from their brilliant run from about '98-'02
Any Beatle's solo career

Gotta disagree about Radiohead...love them.


Yes!Now I don't feel so bad. I agree totally.


Mmmm...can someone please tell me just why Beyonce has a career? She really cannot sing ( I honestly think Kelly Rowland had the best voice in Destiny's Child). She has a strong voice, but no idea on how to use it. She goes all over the place, and I HATE those runs she does. Joss Stone IMHO is tons better.

As for Beyonce, that's easy: she's gorgeous. Pop is largely about looks, and, well...

As for Radiohead, I really think that the OK Computer to Amnesiac albums were great, but the previous stuff was, for me, mixed. And the stuff since hasn't been able to keep my interest. Still, those albums I mentioned above, I do consider among the best albums of the past decade. I guess I just feel like they haven't proved that their time hasn't passed.

I hate Radiohead. All of the hipsters love them. I saw them twice at the Hollywood Bowl and I tried so hard to get into them 'cause everyone I knew LOVED them. But for me it didn't click. Just sounds like some fruit moaning over techno music to me.

I think the Beatles are great, in my top ten,  but I don't put them above the Beach Boys, the Stones or the Who except for their charisma.  I think Springsteen, Neil Young, the Dead, Janis Joplin, Abba, REM, U2, are all way overated. I don't hate any of them (well maybe Abba) but I just don't get what's so special. Sorry if I knocked a fave of anybodys.

1. U2 - I just don't get them. Why do Q and all the other magazines go on about how they are the best band in the world? They ain't, WELL overrated. And Bono needs to shut his pie hole, I've never seen anyone as false as "Mr Africa" is.

2. Coldplay - Crap, absolute mindless drival. 

3. David Gray - See above.

You're all giving me ideas of other bands I think are overrated.

U2, I think of as just like Radiohead. I think they did have a strong run when they could've been considered among the best bands. But since the mid-90s...eh. No thanks. REM is kind of in the same boat.

And Coldplay--not interested. At all.

The Joshua Tree is still one of my all time favorite albums.  U2's albums after Achtung Baby though  do absolutely nothing for me so they definately get the overrated tag for me. 

No love for Radiohead at all on this board!  I for one love them.  The Bends, OK Computer, and Kid A are top notch, gorgeous albums IMO.

Another mentioned that I disagree with is REM.  I even like their new stuff, but especially their early IRS records and the Automatic For The People album are some of the best records made in the last 25 years.

I don't know how I left out Coldplay.  I think they just might be the most overrated band in the world.  Good call. 

In recent years I've been puzzled by the success of Franz Ferdinand and Dido.    Sting, Bob Dylan and Led Zep  have never done it for me (I'm not denying they have talent though). I enjoyed just a couple of Eminem tracks so to me his popularity seems to be way in excess of his talent (IMO). I think "Sgt Pepper" is overrated  - there are better Beatles albums (Abbey Road and Revolver).  Coldplay started off ok with "Parachutes" but have become bland as their success and their sense of self importance increased. I have always admired Radiohead though (apart from the very first album)

I agree with Radiohead, U2 and Coldplay, also Oasis.

Revolver is overrated, and its become so trendy to bash Sgt. Pepper and insist that Revolver is the superior album. Revolver has a lot of weak songs on it too.

Of course everything by the Beatles is overrated. They're so safe and boring. Not that I don't love a lot of their songs, but give me a break.

And U2, I can't believe these guys are still considered relevant.

Springsteen after Tunnel of Love
I love Neil Young, but a lot of his stuff is way overrated - certainly since Freedom.
U2
Queen
Yes
ELP
Genesis.  God, I hate that kind of stuff.
Hmmm, let me see, all those C&W acts where the singers looked pumped up on steroids, have a perm, and sport a moustache and beard that's the facial equivalent of a Brazilian wax job.  They all sound the fucking same
                And honey, ain't it a cryin' shame.

Thought of a few more...

1. Pink Floyd - Never really got into them

2. Sex Pistols - One album and that's it, not as good as the Clash

3. Rolling Stones - Meh....... I do like them and I've seen them, but not as interesting as Beatles / Beach Boys. No real exciting albums...

4. Snow Patrol - more MOR dirge

5. Most things shown on the front page of the NME in the last 12 months - The Horrors? Come on, be serious....

6. Love - Am I missing something still? I've listened to Forever Changes at least 6 times and not one song has grown on me...

7. Pearl Jam - Eddie Vedder, please go away.

Bob Dylan, Rufus Wainwright, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Paul Weller/The Jam, Oasis, U2, Radiohead, Coldplay, The Killers, Libertines, Ryan Adams, Antony and the Johnsons etc etc....
I'll admit i'm a complete musical snob  :-D, but this is all mindless turd music in my opinion, full of forced emotions, overwrought pretentious lyrics and dull plodding predicatable music.

Oh, the Floyd!  Forgot about them.  They should be on my list too. Add Led Zep too. I mean, c'mon...

I agree that it's trendy to bash Pepper and praise Revolver as the superior album but I also happen to think thats true.  Revolver IMHO IS the better album, the songs have more merit than Pepper which I think is probably my least favorite Beatles album and is possibly one of the most over rated records.

Despite the general feeling to the contrary these days, I still think Pepper may be the best album of all time by anyone.

Pepper is good but for a Beatles album it's certainly not one of my top favorites, I even like Let It Be and Beatles For Sale more but Pepper has good songs on it.

I'm of the school that believes that the Beach Boys were tons better than the Beatles, who I do feel are overrated. Honestly, them breaking up when they did was perfect, as if they would've continued they would've declined worse than the Beach Boys did IMHO. Already they were starting to, looking at their post-Pepper output. Or, if I'm being frank, their post-Revolver output.

   ::)

It's kind of funny, we're on a thread about overrated music and the Beatles are the prime example with everyone cultishly insisting they're "THE BEST AT EVERYTHING,"
almost like Manchurian Candidate brainwashing. There are a lot of bands that did psychedelic music better than the Beatles and made their records cohesive. 'Cause lets face it, Sgt. Pepper is full of random songs that have no relation to each other except for the opening title track and With A Little Help From My Friends.

Every Beatles record is pretty disjointed. No unifying musical themes or structure. 3 or 4 songs of filler.

Oh wait, I'm almost forgot, even the Beatles filler songs are better than the music from every other band on earth. I feel most people are shallow morons who really dig the Beatles image and success and can't separate that from the music. I mean part of the reason the Beach Boys are a hard pill to swallow is that they are unforgivably un-cool.

To me, though, that's what makes them cool. They're nerd junkies, when you think about it.

The Beatles did deserve a better producer, though. George Martin? He was producing comedy records before he met the Beatles and after they broke up he never did anything again. Ringo's not the luckiest guy in rock music, its George Martin. The guy was just a button pusher. I mean, what is the George Martin sound? Terry Melcher, Gary Usher, Brian Wilson, Phil Spector, Felix Papalardi, these guys were producers.

You're reading my mind, dude. In all fairness to Martin, though, he did produce Jeff Beck's classic Blow by Blow.

Not me. I just said that's arguably the best album ever, and I meant it.

Maybe, but I'm not talking in psychedelic terms; I love Pepper as a pop album, and could give a f*** about the whole psychedelic vibe.

Again, I only am thinking in terms of pop. I don't care about concept albums, and most albums that claim to be concept albums are pretentious and full of sh*t. And the Beatles could be that, too, by the way (I'm not saying otherwise). But my statement about Pepper didn't say it is a better PSYCHEDELIC album than whatever, or a better CONCEPT album than whatever. Just that in terms of pop music, I think it may be the best. And I stand behind that because I love it.


As for all the filler stuff, I really think no Beach Boys fan should ever be able to criticise another band for filler; I personally find their filler among the most awful of the "great" bands. I love them and all, but...it's just bad.

Now, if as the past few threads hint, I'm brainwashed or stupid to think what I think, well, so be it. I've listened to a lot of music, a lot of times, under a lot of different circumstances. My entire life, from when I was a little kid and my older brothers had it to right now, Pepper always comes back. I can't say that for most music.

normally, I'd disagree...but its so true. After OK Computer, you can hear a decline in teh quality of music. Yes. Kid A was cool and Amnesiac was different but awesome in a subtle way. However, it doesnt grasp you as Pablo Honey, Bends, and OK does....The next album already looks to be a less than par album as well.

What's the big deal about Pet Sounds?

 :o

I'll probably get clubbed for this, but I've never understood the big deal about Dylan.  I think he's a fantastic songwriter, but I only enjoy his songs when someone else is singing them.  The man cannot sing, and never could.  Musically he wasn't very innovative; the one thing I appreciate about him is his lyrics.  I dig poetic lyrics that aren't too obvious, and Dylan was definitely on to that before anyone else.  I just can't listen to him sing his songs, its painful.  Same with Neil Young, for that matter.  Great songwriter that shouldn't sing. 

As for the whole Beatles thing, I think they can be a bit overrated by fans who insist that they were the only innovators of 60's pop music.  They weren't the be-all-end-all of that era, but they were certainly among the best, there's no doubt about that.  But they weren't perfect.  Like any other band, not every song was solid gold.  But during that period, not many artists were as consistent as they were.  I agree that they broke up at a good time, and I'm glad they didn't have a chance to descend into the BB realm of embarassment. 

Nice point made in that last post: whether a band / artist / album is extremely subjective, based on a) who's doing the rating, and b) who's rating the rating. Obviously, if you feel the Beatles are infallible, then I think you overrate the Beatles. I, for one, think most people on this board overrate the Beach Boys; sure, they're among my favorite couple of bands ever, but they put out a huge amount of trash, and I strongly disagree with a lot of the praise they get here. On the other hand, I think they're largely underrated by your average pop music fan, who is aware of the surf and car songs, and maybe the Mike Love Traveling State Fair Extravaganza.

I understood this thread to initially be about (primarily) overall critical ratings, but if we get too much into "I love this band and you don't, so they're underrated," or vice versa, it turns into an entirely different topic.

Same here, I think Smiley Smile is better than Sgt Pepper.

Over- and under-ratedness is going out the window for our preferences.

See, maybe its due to me growing up in the 80s, but I never "got" the Beatles. My first exposure to them was the 20 Greats, or something with that title. It had 20 songs on it.  I was about 10. I thought it was "pleasant", but that's about it. At that point, I didn't research groups, so I only knew stuff from my dad or the radio. About a year later, when I first began writing music, I started researching all the artists I'd heard (sadly, this was pre-internet). After reading that the Beatles were "perfect" and "the best", I was intensely disappointed. It was pleasant enough, not bad, but not for the hype. Jaded, I lumped in everyone of the critics picks and shunned guys like Dylan, Costello, ect. And upon learning of the Stones' claiming themselves to be the greatest, I hated them without even listening, esp. on them being around since the time of Christ. Yet, years later, I heard and really liked "She's a Rainbow", and was shocked to find out who it was. I bought 40 Licks, and honest to good loved every track, even the 2002 stuff. Now I have a bunch of stuff (legit and otherwise), and although I prefer the Jones-and first part of Taylor's-era, I like pretty much everything.

My point is, I had actually underrated the Stones, just because of their reputation/hype. But listening to their music AS music, I "got" them. Doing the same with the Beatles proved less successful.

Aha, but I also grew up in the 80s. And for me, the Beatles still manged to prove to be the most consistently good band there was. I think it may have been that every time I found out who had don a catchy, good song that I already knew, it turned out to be the Beatles (with a few exceptions...sometimes it was Queen). Whereas the Stones were never nearly as important to me. however, I did find them to be worthwhile eventually, although not nearly as consistent.

I like this topic.
The Stones were great but their hype since 1969 or so has made them look silly.  Still their music is good overall though since Tatoo You I only like one or two albums. I am a Brian Jones fan mainly.

 Pet Sounds has been overdone so has Smile. They are both great but I think there are other BB albums and singles worthy of the kind of cultish attention. I liked them a lot better before there was 100 boots and boxsets etc. Still the hype may be repetitive (as a vinyl fan I would love to see Endless Harmony rather then yet another  reissue of Pet Sounds)  the music does hold up.

On Pepper there are great moments, but unlike the Beach Boys best loved stuff I don't think it works as a whole. When I'm 64 is plain bad to me. I really do like the Beatles but they weren't the end all to end all. They are great but I say the Beach Boys are much better. The Stones and The Who were much better live. The Beatles had all this power to become innovators of the live medium and they didn't even try. They became too egotistical. They broke up at the right time musically but they were so b--chy about it. Their pre Pepper output (and image ) is better in my eyes.

Dylan is an aquired taste. I think he sings with a lot of passion personally especally before his voice become hoarse. I think with him if you like vocals to sound polished you aren't going to like his singing. 

I have to disagree with bashing George Martin. There's a reason the Beatles records sound so immediate and timeless whereas, say, the Kinks' records during the same time period sound like rubbish (although the songs themselves are equal to the Beatles' work). Martin's willingness to experiment with sound collages, strange microphone placement, backward tapes and orchestral arrangements created the Beatles sound - he is truly the fifth member of the group. Also, his proteges (Norman Smith, Geoff Emerick) went on to do some very fine work on their own (Smith's Pink Floyd albums for example).

As far as critically overrated artists/albums, how 'bout The Hold Steady? "Boys & Girls In America" is being hailed as a great rock and roll renaissance, but to me it sounds like a tired 70s pub rock retread. Every song sounds like a weak imitation of Graham Parker or Springsteen doing their Van Morrison impersonations and every lyric is about alcohol and drug abuse. Ultimately tedious.

I agree.  In addition to what you mentioned, his orchestrial scores on their records are to die for.  The Beatles wouldn't have been the same without George Martin.

Sacred cows I don't get:

The Ramones - somebody explain this to me without saying "The Ramones were doing... While everybody else was doing..."

Velvet Underground - influential on alot of music I like, but their records don't sound like classics to me. They get by on hip factor.

Springsteen - Born To Run

Interesting. I--a Minneapolitan, which is where the roots of The Hold Steady are--have never really liked them. But I admit that somewhere between the last one and this one, I could start to appreciate it more. The music is, to be sure, absolutley unoriginal. This one in particular I think of as not much more than their take on Springsteen. And yet I do like a certain portion of the lyrics, and Craig Finn is relatively successful with his sing-speak delivery in making them seem more important and relevant on a personal level than they probably are. (I think Dylan, Lou Reed and several others have that same effect with their nontraditional voices) So while I agree they've been overrated, and I certainly don't think they've made a masterpiece, I think they have their strengths.

Ramones, Sex Pistols, Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, U2, Radiohead...all overrated for sure.

I also agree highly with a previous comment on Pepper, When I'm 64 is pretty bad, it's the epitome of McCartney's granny music, ie You Gave Me The Answer also Within You Without You is boring as is She's Leaving Home.

Well I do like Dylan but I agree with your feelings on Pepper's weak points. I do like Lovely Rita a lot, and the mono LP is better then the stereo one. Still I think Pepper and Abbey Road are overated. I like all of the other albums better then those 2

I like the Beatles, all of their songs even (even "Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey", which all of my friends who like the Beatles more than me even hate), but they are overrated. I especially hate it when teenage girls are obsessed with them because they're cute and funny as opposed to any real musical reason.

Welcome to 75% of the history of pop music. It's certainly not worth getting mad about--it's always been that way and always will be.

I like Kansas City a lot. Never heard anyone say they didn't.

Well, all my friends hate it for some reason.. don't understand why.

The Hold Steady?

Never heard of 'em.

The Hold Steady:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=THE|HOLD|STEADY&sql=11:4v1tk60xtkr0~T1

Well, Radiohead sounds boring to me.

I also dislike much of sgt. Pepper. Especially 'Within you without you' is just annoying... i'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way  :)

Agreed. Boring is probably the best word to describe that horrible techno music and moaning.


Hard to believe people actually consider that record the summit of pop music.

Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.

.

.

Within You Without You is one of my favorite songs, ever. I love the lyrics.

But I can understand why people wouldn't like it. I absolutely hated it when I first heard it.

It was the only song I'd skip when I bought the album in the mid-70s. By the time the CD came out about a decade later, it was the one song I couldn't get enough of! A magnificent string arrangement by Mr. Martin perfectly compliments the more traditional Indian instrumentation.

The Doors.  I mean, wtf?

Journey....I'm sorry, but Steve Perry's voice is like scraping a cat with a cheese grater to me.
Guns N Roses...People actually liked this crap? I don't understand how Axl Rose can sing like that and still be a homophobe. Slash's style of guitar playing is exactly what I hated about 80s rock...all flash, no substance.

Van Morrison is the one I just don't get.  Don't even like Astral Weeks.

Without getting into the actual overrated/underratedness of the bands you mentioned, I do think that critique of Slash might be off base, at least considering that he was probably one of the least flashy, most substantial popular guitarists of the 80s/early 90s. I mean, consider his peers: CC Deville of Poison? Those guys in Warrant or Whitesnake? Def Leppard's guitarists? Comparatively speaking, at least Slash fit pretty well into the Joe Perry/Jimmy Page/Rolling Stones mold of blues rock guitar--he wasnt doing whammy bar dives, harmonizing and delaying solos on an Eventide to make it sound like he was better than he was...it was pretty straight-ahead.

You beat me to it Luther!  I support everything you said!  I, for one, think Slash is a terrific guitar player not overly "80's" at all.  If you want to date his sound at all, it should be in the 70's blues rock time period.  Rather than date it though, just let it be what it is.  As for GNR as a band, once again, I don't think dating their sound as an 80's sound is a good call either.  Appetite for Destruction is much more in the style of a New York Dolls type trashy, sleazy rock sound to me. 

Different strokes for different folks.

The Beatles.   I still like them, but they are definitely overrated...  But I'm a Beach Boy fanatic.  Maybe if The Beatles had continued through the 70's I'd have written something different on here.

I agree. Saying they're overrated isn't diminishing the quality of their work. I just feel that people place them on a pedestal that is much higher than they deserve.

I love the Beatles. I hate Beatles fan culture, though.

I hate the Beatles.....but they are not overrated except compared to the BB's. IMO.


American Idol. Everything about that show is overrated. Not every performer who graces that stage is an "artist". Gosh that irks me.

Top 10 Albums according to Rolling Stone:

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles (1967)
2. Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys (16 May 1966)
3. Revolver, The Beatles (1966)
4. Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan (1965)
5. Rubber Soul, The Beatles (1965)
6. What's Going On, Marvin Gaye (1971)
7. Exile on Main St., Rolling Stones (1972)
8. London Calling, The Clash (1979)
9. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan (1966)
10. The Beatles (The White Album), The Beatles (1968)

It's total bullmerda that out of the TOP 10 OF ALL TIME,  4 are Beatles albums. One album would of represented them just fine. Who's number one really doesn't matter, but the fact that Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols or The Who didn't make it anywhere near the top 10 is ridiculous.

There are a lot of bands that are just as influential as the Beatles. I know the Beatles sold more records than anyone, but that doesn't make them the best. And you know what, you may like the Beatles but THEY ARE NOT THE BEST. Again, quality of songwriting is totally subjective, but isn't Live At Leeds an amazing record, isn't it great that a band could be that powerful live. The Beatles never did anything like that.

I read some interview where Johnny Ramone discussed how influenced he was by Good Times Bad Times, particularly the downward strokes on Jimmy Page's guitar that opened the song. Johnny Ramone said that became the basis for HIS style which of course ended up influencing all of punk.

The Beatles get credit for everything, but its funny how no one can ever explain WHY Sgt. Pepper is the greatest album of all time. It's like people can't think for themselves and just repeat the same BS over and over. Whenever the breakthroughs of the album are discussed, the fact is they incorporated things that had already been done before and would be done better.

Rolling Stone had this amazing opportunity to shine a light on albums and bands that never got any recognition or record sales and instead they just toe the line and kiss the Beatles asses. Shame, a damn shame.

I hate Jan Wenner, he's the evil bastard that keeps the Monkees out of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.

Agreed...then again, Rolling Stone is. Can anyone take them seriously? It's so corporate, clique-ish and trendy....but it makes for satisfying toilet paper so I'm conflicted....

The Sex Pistols.

To put it in their own words: a load of b*llocks.

Actually, I feel the Pistols  are underrated. I actually had never heard their music until recently, thinking it would be nothing but unlistenable noise, and I was honestly quite surprised. For guys that couldn't play their instruments, it's not bad at all.

You know, one important aspect of this thread that I don't think we've covered (but who the hell knows, it's been a while) is overrated or underrated by whom?

Obviously, Rolling Stone is going to rank things according to a certain bias. But so will you. And so will I. And so will Pitchfork. And so will [whatever]. Obviously, then, when one of us looks at some other list and its biases don't match our own, we're going to say they've overrated something that we've probably underrated, and they've underrated what we've probably overrated. To act as if there is some objective reality to how good some fucking pop star is, is ridiculous, as if there were four mystical measurable categories that we can add up and give the true value. Oh, sh*t, Rolling Stone forgot to carry the one! They overrated the Beatles!

Jeezus.

T H E  B E A T L E S ! I don't care what anyone says, the Beatles get too much goshdarn credit on a constant basis. Yeah they were great, they made great music, but they never topped the Beach Boys, they just got more publicity and press and hype.

Exactly what I'm talking about. I couldn't disagree more. The Beatles were very consistently better than the Beach Boys. So am I overrating the Beatles? Are you overrating the Beach Boys?

Yes to both, probably. This thread is Sisyphean.

What is your definition of Sisyphean?? just out of curiosity..

Couldn't agree more Luther. But SURELY God Only Knows or Eleanor Rigby or whatever IS better than say Crazy Frog Ringtone song? :lol

But yes Luther, I agree with you, although what you say is quite obvious of course. Everyone has their opinions and nobody's opinion on what is good is right or wrong, just different. I think with something like music though, who cares in the end what other people think. As long as it (meaning whatever music that person likes) makes a person happy then that's serving it's purporse, right?

And I have to agree with kookadams, I think (notice the words "I Think") The Beach Boys are better than the Beatles. I mean especially if you just judge from the years 1963-1973 with The Beach Boys. The Beatles were just always promoted better and always received good reviews no matter what from the majority of people. I do agree however that the Beatles had less garbage. I think if you take the best of both The Beach Boys would win and likewise The Beach Boys would win if you take the worst of both. But on average I think The Beach Boys (from 1963-1973 anyway) are a better band. Plus I know it might not be fair, but if you judge some of the outtakes and unreleased songs from the Beach Boys career that SHOULD have been released, then that's even further evidence imo for the Beach Boys being better. The Beatles from what I know didn't have many unreleased songs in comparison.

A pointless task. On this board, this discussion comes back every few months like a big fucking heavy rock. And yet when it's there, you gotta help push it back up the hill. And what happens? Yeah. Start over.

But what is either funny or maddening, depending on my mood, is how it obviously isn't obvious. If it were, people wouldn't get irate every time they see some top ten, overrated, underrated, greatest ever, etc., list--which they do. How often do we see some poster freak out about how stupid such-and-such magazine is and how everyone these days is an idiot for not recognizing [whoever] and etc etc.

If it were obvious, people would say, "Oh, [ x ] magazine. Of course their list will be [y]-focused. I prefer [z]." But they post with righteous fury, as if we should all band together, protest, storm the offices with torches in hand and demand satisfaction. So it's anything but obvious.

Then what point do music critics/reviewers serve?

I ask myself (and others) that question very frequently. And I am a music reviewer.

This is what I currently believe: they serve as an information source and, yes, a filter to people who have decided they have similar taste. If you have decided you like David Fricke and find his reviews useful in general, then by all means, read his reviews and take his opinions seriously. But apart from maybe the descriptions of the music (as opposed to any judgment of it), why would you assume a reviewer to be any better equipped to give an album some inherent value than you are yourself?

Well, I don't know if anyone else does this, but I like reading reviews of things I already own. I love hearing other people's opinions on things I like. I love reading Beach Boys album reviews to see what someone else thinks of Smiley Smile, for instance, because I know it'll be way different than what I think of it. Even if I buy a new food product from the grocery store, I'll look online to see how other people reacted to it. It's a shared experience thing, you know?

But I'd imagine a lot of people use reviews to see whether or not they'd like the album/product/whatever. And I could never do that, especially with music, because my tastes are so different than anyone I've ever encountered, print or in person.

Would anyone agree with me that more often than not if an album wins a Grammy it is overrated?



Agreed, ... it's all in good fun.

I'm going to have to go with the Beatles.  Now don't get me wrong because I really enjoy their stuff.  They're a top ten band for me, and the only reason this is ever being brought up is the untouchable ranking that they so often seem to hold.  There are bands that take me to a higher level of emotion,  Beach Boys being one of them.  Even if the Beatles were held in similar regard to the BB I woudn't be mentioning this at all.  Just that my perception of overrated of being placed on a higher plateau in general than I believe true.

Zander said Bono needs to shut his pie hole.   That would be excellent for starters.  Then a couple of shotgun blasts to deflate that giant overinflated ego  Not just overrated but hold the record for years as overrated.

There was a time when the Stones deserved the accolades...but that time has long passed.  However, their best  work lives on.

Truth is, most acts are inconsistent over the many years and about half of what has come from Dylan, Stones, Neil Young, Springstein, and yes, the BeachBoys, is not so great.

And there is no accounting for taste, temperment, or mood in music preference.

Brilliant!! :lol

I agree with you in that it's fun for me to read reviews of things I'm already familiar with, too. But I'm not sure it's a shared experience thing for me as much as it is a curiosity thing. And I think reviews are perfectly legitimate as entertainment of that sort, too.

Where I think it gets silly is in the situations described recently. We all acknowledge in the abstract that we've got different opinions, that there is no clear objective way to rank music, etc. But then when it gets specific, so-and-so turns into an idiot for disliking or liking such-and-such.

Steely Dan is a band that a lot of critics seem to love but leave me bored. Everytime i read a review or piece about them, the description of SD's music sounds like something i would enjoy, and i bought used LPs of their Greatest Hits and Aja, but it's dull crap every time, except 'Peg' and 'Showbiz Kids'. There's a lot of talk of how they bring sardonic humour and jazz to pop, but it sounds like dull dull muzak and the lyrics are mostly sh*t too.

David Bowie is probably the most overrated person in music. He seems such a phoney to me. All of his 'chameleonic changes' seem like the calculated career moves of an actor playing the part of a musician, rather than a musician. i own Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust, Low, but i've heard several others. His lyrics are terrible, and he can't seem to make an album without an actual musical collaborator to provide the music. He's like Madonna in that regard. A 'creation', an 'image', with very little behind it.

Joy Division haven't made a song i've liked. I don't like the voice, the bass, the guitar, the production.

Love's 'Forever Changes' is maybe the most overrated album. Arthur Lee's voice is so self-conscious and pretentious. I love the Doors, so some might wonder why i can't make the leap to Love, but there you go. It doesn't 'grab' me, and in fact puts me off. And Bryan MacLean's songs were even worse.


Regarding Radiohead, i love reading the reasons why people don't like them. They are popular, and they are critically acclaimed, and so maybe if you just don't like them, you feel the world has gone crazy. I think Radiohead are the best band of the moment, (In Rainbows sounds luscious on heavyweight vinyl), but it depends on how much you like dubstep and beats. (i love them myself - the new Burial album 'Untrue' is superb, and check out the Thom Yorke remix EPs). To me, the description of them as 'some fruit moaning over the top of some techno' is what i like about them, and i'd take that as a compliment!

Joy Division is not overrated by any means....and I'm glad they aren't. They are a band that one stumbles across not a band that is rammed into your brain by an over-zealous media. They are one of the most honest, un-pretensious, and organic bands one will hear, IMO. While I don't listen to them nearly as much as I used to, I know that in a span of three years they wrote enough material for 4 albums, exploited the studio on a small budget to create a mature innovative sound considering they consisted of only three instrumentalists- albeit Ian occasionally added guitar overdubs, and Joy Division were genuinely pissed in the punk rock sense of the word---without all the dyed hair, peircings, and flamboyancy.

Radiohead wishes they had the balls Joy Division had. While Radiohead has a unique sound which I give them credit for, they are constantly rammed into my brain by T.V., Radio, and magazines, which in a sense makes them overrated. This is because I don't think the music justifies all the press. Just because a band is popular and critically acclaimed, I don't feel the world has gone crazy because I don't like them. I feel that when Thom Yorke sings he is putting on a front.  He has become a millionaire rock-star with superstar status, hot girlfriend, the world at his feet---what's he upset about? I dug O.K. Comp and Kid A for a minute, but then I quickly grew out of it. The music doesn't speak to me.

 "They are popular, and they are critically acclaimed, and so maybe if you just don't like them, you feel the world has gone crazy"--is that true any critically acclaimed album or band, or just Radiohead?

That, especially coming from a Brian Wilson fan, is a silly question. Being a rock star with a girlfriend doesn't make you automatically happy.

Agreed, no argument there. However, Brian Wilson is a genius who was artistically and creatively stunted by a band, record company that wouldn't allow Brian to grow, had a tyrant for a daddy, and was ignored in large part by a world that wanted Fun, Fun, Fun- not Funky Pretty. He had reason to be pissed, although there is no excuse to take drugs. Of course Brian had a beautiful wife, mansion, and superstar status; but while we occasionally got a Till I Die, or Caroline No, for the most part Brian's catalogue is uplifting, entertaining, even funny.

I can't think of any reason why Thom Yorke would be that sad. I guess he found a formula for success and won't foda with it.

Who says he is? Writing a song from a certain point of view doesn't say anything about the writer's point of view. It's a terrible, very limited writer who can only write his actual, true feelings.

I think Dylan is overrated. I like a lot of his songs, but it just doesn't do it for me like BW's music. I really don't care for much for the Who besides their jangly-sounding mid-60s pop songs (Substitute, I'm A Boy, Happy Jack). Pink Floyd was a big POS without Syd. I can't stand 70s/80s hard rock/blues rock bands, the whole "guitar god" thing makes me sick. Jimmy Page, Joe Perry, Tony Iommi, Peter Frampton, Ted Nugent,  Eddie Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Slash, etc. don't impress me at all. Also can't stand bland Dave Matthews, Jack Johnson, John Mayer-style music. Radiohead are OK, but not deserving of the hype. Best album was Pablo Honey. Don't even get me started on the endless grunge rehashings (Nickelback, Hinder, Default, Fuel, Puddle of Mudd, etc.).
Alright, rant over.

Does anyone else here get pissed when the same artists continually get their asses kissed by Rolling Stone (eg. when dead or washed up stars always make the cover-Zep, Hendrix, Dylan, Jagger and Richards), while artists that actually deserve the honor go unnoticed by the press. I'm waiting for the Monkees, Barenaked Ladies, Wilco, Love, the 13th Floor Elevators, Neutral Milk Hotel, Leslie Feist, and Rilo Kiley to all grace the cover of Rolling Stone.

Not necessarily, but depressing music is kind of played out in Radiohead's case. IMO, they are overrated. 

Dave Matthews Band

Amen to that.

I'd wholeheartedly agree except that I don't know--does anyone actually rate them highly these days? I know they were popular with college kids a half-dozen years ago ... has it lived on?

It seems every "critic" loves them, but i'd say Arcade Fire is on the top of my overrated artists list.

I love The Beatles, all of their periods. But I have tried and tried and tried to appreciate Rubber Soul the way most fans, critics, and polls do, but its greatness escapes me.

They're high on mine, too. I thought the debut was a good album, and there it was winning "best of" lists and polls that year. Then the follow-up, to me, was just sort of there ... ok, but not particularly good from my point of view. And again, nothing but acclaim.

While we're on the indie side of things, Sufjan Stevens. He's a one-trick pony, a guy who can take a decent 2-minute song and make a tedious 6-minute epic out of it, showing off admittedly good arrangement skills but beating the long-since dead horse.

Most people don't wanna admit it but the Beatles really are the most overrated band. Yeah they were great but they weren't the greatest, they really weren't; and I know this is debatable but when they got into all that hippie horseshit (post-Rubber Soul) it was all downhill. It's a good thing they broke up when they did. Some people think maybe the Beach Boys should have broke up at the same time, but then we wouldn't have had great albums like Sunflower, Surf's Up, Holland, and Love You.

The Beatles may be overrated, but if I say that it's not a slight to them, but the idiots who too-highly rate anything, making it out to be unrealistic perfection. But I still strongly believe they're the best band there ever was in pop music. They consistently made the best records of any band that has ever been. I am glad they broke up when they did, because it means I can always wish there were more to hear. The Beach Boys, to my ears, had one--ONE--album that was as good from start to finish as the Beatles best albums: Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road. And that's Pet Sounds. The other albums all have a lot of fine moments, but often as much filler. I'd take Magical Mystery Tour (which I think of as probably the Beatles worst album) over almost any Beach Boys album.

In fact, I think around here (for obvious reasons, being as it's a Beach Boys board) the Beach Boys are the most overrated band.

The Beatles may be the best band ever, the way their talents came together was a once in a lifetime thing, most likely. Their perfect career arc, consistent good taste,  engaging personalities and forty years of extremely smart publicizing hasn't hurt any, either.

Then again, maybe they are just one of dozens of very, very good bands.

 It might be true that Beach Boys fans on a Beach Boys website overrate the Beach Boys, but I certainly would not say the Beach Boys are overrated in general, either by critics or by normal humans. At worst they are one of the great sixties-early seventies bands if not "equal" to the Beatles on the "good-o-meter" at least the equal to the Kinks, Stones, Who, etc.

 The Beach Boys are underrated as far as I am concerned.

I kind of disagree that the Beach Boys only made one record as good as any of those others. I think that Wild Honey, Friends are equal to the White Album(though strikingly different, obviously), and 20/20 is better than Let It Be. Sunflower is as good as Abbey Road as far as I am concerned and I think the Reilly-era albums are also great.
I think that Today is better than Help! and Summer Days is not too far below Rubber Soul. Smiley might not be equal to SGT. Pepper or MMT but to be honest, I'd rather hear that nowadays than either of those. I guess I'm Beatled out.

As far as their early stuff, I think they are about equal, but I think that Brian Wilson was a better producer than George Martin(in the early sixties). "Little Child", "Hold Me Tight" and many others are just as much filler as "South Bay Surfers"(If not" Denny's Drums", IMO.

On that first point, that is all I was saying. I certainly didn't mean in general.

On the second, you're right that we disagree. I love Friends--LOVE it--but still think it's got about three or four mediocre or worse songs, which is a shame when it's so short already. Wild Honey, I like about half of--and the sound on it is terrible. It's in desperate need of a good stereo remixing and remastering, as the few songs from of it that have been given that treatment sound great. But even if that happens, it can't make up for the (admittedly enjoyable sometimes) tossed-off mediocrity of some of it. I think the best of Wild Honey and Friends as a single disc makes a great album, a Beatles-quality album. (As for White Album, well I hate double albums anyway and would gladly cut it to make one absolutely brilliant album. In fact, I have. It's over there ---> on my shelf.) 20/20, I think, is mostly bad. Cabinessence, TTGA and IWTS are brilliant, but I dislike plenty and don't care much about a lot of the rest. So it's nowhere near Let It Be for me, which I don't even rate that highly. Sunflower sounds great, but its songs are at least half crap in my opinion; conversely, Abbey Road is almost all amazing in both aspects. Today! is better than Help, or equal. I'll give you that. SD(&SN) doesn't compare favorably to Rubber Soul or Revolver to me. Not even close.

Of course, it's all opinion.

It is just opinion, and I don't fault you for it, it's probably the majority opinion anyway. I can go along with Summer Days being inferior to Rubber Soul, though I wonder if it's just that the Beatles were just better at ordering their records for maximum impact? Because there are some songs on Rubber Soul that are actually not that hot(What Goes On, Run For Your Life, I don't even like Drive My Car), but in the context of the whole album they make it great, whereas Summer Days has it's mediocrities pretty much front and center with SLC, APUSA and the cover.

 I totally disagree about Wild Honey and Friends--I don't really think there any bad songs on either. Bear in mind I just got Wild Honey via post earlier this week, so there's still a sparkle on it for me. A stereo mix would be cool, but I like the sound of it, actually.

HOwever, I will admit that after Pet Sounds(or rather Smile) Brian lost a bit of his ambition to make records that would knock people's socks off while the Beatles kept that ambition. They were still going for something really big, while Brian Wilson/Beach Boys were doing things on a smaller, more personal level--a level and fashion that,  incidentally, feels far more modern to me. But it doesn't make the Beatles better, I just feel that the Beach Boys got simpler and more personal, sillier, while the Beatles were still going for something grandiose and bigger than themselves(and achieved it.) Later, they scaled themselves back, too.

I think that songs like Maxwell's Silver Hammer...I mean, it's cute, but I just can't listen to it, the melody is lame, it's all gimmicks and forced humor. Eh. Let It Be...I don't know. I just can't get into it, I like half the songs, the others always seemed kind of lifeless to me. Give me She Loves You any day over Get Back.

I guess I just think neither is that much better, though if I wanted to look objectively--(though why would I?) I would put the Beatles higher for a couple of reasons: more well-rounded as a band, greater number of classic jump-out-at-you, hooky singles;cooler image and, in the late sixties, way more commercial than the BB's.

Agree on MSH. And on SLY over GB. By far, actually.

I'd add Sunflower, Holland, SMiLE, Friends, Smiley Smile, 20/20, and Love You to the list of BB albums as good as the Beatles from start to finish.

The only one of those I think might have ended up close, if it existed, were Smile. To my ears, that's Beach Boys fandom saying that.

Or Beatles'.

Admittedly. But one is a more substantial group. What it comes down to is that there is no objective measure for the quality of pop music. Simple as that. Which is why we all waste our time here debating the unwinnable debate.

**whereas Summer Days has it's mediocrities pretty much front and center with SLC, APUSA and the cover.**

Yikes. Most of what you said there was spot-on, but this was a bit off, in my opinion. That boat-slip cover is genius, and was imitated by Playboy photographers in 1966, as well as the Carpenters on the back of one of their albums.

LOL
I meant the cover song not the album cover! :)   :lol

 "Then I Kissed Her." I know  a lot of people consider it a classic, but I would bet  a lot of people don't care for it. I don't hate it(nor do I hate the other two songs) but I do consider them the worst three tracks on the record.

But still great.

 Lest someone think I'm dissing them.
I'm not.

Hahahahahaha!

Sorry about that.

I was scratching my head, thinking, well, that cover isn't as iconic as "Rubber Soul," but damn if it doesn't capture the mid-'60s decadence vibe pretty darn well. Mods out on a yacht in the Newport Beach Bay.

But now I know what you meant.

I'm okay with their "TSKM" version, but it pales in comparison to the Spector original.

I agree that the Beatles are better as they were more consistent with less filler etc... I think one reason perhaps though is that the Beach Boys had MORE albums during those early years. Between 63-66 the Beatles had 7 studio albums, and the Beach Boys had 10 studio albums, plus a live album.

But as for great Beatles albums I would only say "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper". And for the Beach Boys I would probably say "Pet Sounds" and "Today!". Okay, there is Bull Session, but who cares! The rest of that album is amazing and makes up for that one track. Besides, I'd rather not define it as an album of songs "good from start to finish". I mean what if an album has 10 good tracks but nothing more than just "good" but yet then there is an album with 8 all time great tracks and 2 absolute pieces of crap. I would say the latter is better.

I like "Today," "Pet Sounds" and "Smile" as much as "Rubber Soul," "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper."

Me too.

The Beatles were a more practiced, polished, experienced band by the time they started releasing albums at that pace.

Not to mention a bit older and well traveled.

The BeachBoys were still a little "green" at first and there was a lot of filler.  But the good stuff was REALLY good.

The Beatles have been "overrated" in that they have been overexposed well before Paul's recent marital problems

I like to think of "Imagine" vs "Surf's Up" - one being openly idealistic and approachable, the other cryptic and introverted. One is advertising the prospect of change and life beyond materialism, the other seems to be be talking about people tied to giant forces beyond their control. Somehow Surf's Up seems to fit 2008 better - but in the 1970s perhaps it was a different story...

The 1965 Beach Boys are mod???

This is all my opinion, but...

Great Beach Boys albums:
Pet Sounds
Wild Honey
Friends
20/20
Sunflower
Surf's Up
Holland
LA
Still Cruisin'
Total: 9

Great Beatles albums:
Meet the Beatles
Beatles '65
Rubber Soul
Yesterday... and Today
Revolver
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
Abbey Road
Hey Jude
Total: 9

**The 1965 Beach Boys are mod???**

No, not out and out. The influences are starting to show up in their hair and some of their clothes. But I meant that you'd see L.A. mods in TV shows, where there would be a group of mod gals and guys in Rudi Gernreich clothes on a yacht in the ocean or something. TV shows like "Groovy" or "Something Else." I just meant in general, a mid-'60s feel of mod, minimalism and oncoming psychedelia, meets the placcid tones of SoCal. The Beach Boys weren't quite there, but still getting closer. Anyway, they weren't on a yacht...

Gotcha.  A friend of mine was in (a very white) high school between 1962 and 1966, coinciding with both the Beach Boys rise in popularity and the British invasion.  He said that while a few of the more daring kids adopted a Beatles/Stones look, that most kids went for the Beach Boys look circa 1964.

When I did "Dumb Angel Gazette #4" and more recently "Pop Surf Culture," I found out just how incredible 1963 was in Los Angeles for young people. Surf was like the Twist, and both were as vital to the notion of '60s grooviness as anything that happened during psychedelia.

There may have been a little lull for SoCal after the British Invasion, but L.A. fully bounced back in 1966, and in many respects was even better than it had been, culturally, in 1963. It's pretty close, though.

I've always liked the LA '66 Sunset Strip look, as epitomized by the Standells and Byrds:  Moptop hair, striped collarless shirt (or turtleneck), tight white jeans, big ass black leather belt, and Beatle boots.

Totally agree.

Bright eyes are over rated.

Everyone on here that's saying the Beach Boys had a lotta filler on their albums and that the Beatles were more consistent etc. are joking right? Every album the Beach Boys made all the way through Love You was at least decent. Everything leading up to Pet Sounds was incredible and even after when they got more experimental they were still making masterpieces even if their records weren't commercial hits in the US. Americans in the late 60s and early 70s just bought into all the hippie garbage while the Europeans were eating it up. If the Beatles hadn't have gotten all the press and publicity and George Martin producing their music they wouldn't have been nearly as big as they were; ya gotta give Brian Wilson credit for doing it all, Lennon and McCartney would have been nothing without George Martin. It just boggles my mind how this is supposed to be a site dedicated to the Beach Boys and there's a lotta fans on here undermining their music...

I think it's healthy that on a site dedicated to the Beach Boys that we can be honest and address both strengths and weaknesses, and place the group in broader contexts.  It would be really boring if all of our tastes and interests were limited to the Beach Boys, and all we did was post about how great they are over and over again.

As for the Beatles comparison, regardless of advantages and disadvantages that either group had - and regardless of personal taste -  Beatles albums simply do not contain the filler that Beach Boys albums do.  We all understand that Capitol was trying to milk the cash cow and that they put enormous pressure on Brian Wilson.  The fact that he was able to do what he did is a testament to his abilities, and sure, he would have made more consistent albums under other circumstances.  But that's not how things worked out, and you can't blame us for programming out unlistenable tracks that were the result.

Although it's a great album, Abbey Road isn't a top 10 LP imo.

Also, count me on not really caring for Dylan.

               (Sorry for no lines between the quote and my post ... a friend spilled wine into my computer and "Enter" no longer works. We're drunks.) Anyway, that post is ridiculous to me. First of all, whether we're on a Beach Boys site is irrelevant. What, we can't try to be objective? We have to forsake other interests? If the Beach Boys are my second-favorite band, do I have to find a new site? Are we paid advertisers? You get the idea ... I say what I want to say, where I want. I'm not "undermining" anything; I don't pretend to be that influential.             Second (again, apologize for no line break ... damn wine), the Wilson = Lennon/McCartney/Martin/etc line is irrelevant, too. We're not saying "which individual person is better than which others?" We're talking about the general opinions of bands compared to how they are perceived, period. The end result is all we're discussing, and it isn't better or worse for having been the creation of one person versus three, four, five or however many.            Third, I enjoy how you act as if your taste somehow mattered more than others'. You say the Beach Boys had no filler. I say they were more filler than not on almost every album. So maybe YOU must be joking, right?

The "skits" were really the only filler the BBs had. Stuff that's commonly called "filler" like Denny's Drums, South Bay Surfer, the surf instrumentals on Surfin' USA, I actually LIKE. On Surfer Girl, Brian was already doing a majority of originals on a record when the Beatles were still in half covers/half originals mode. Brian was already using string sections, harp, organ, vibes, and harpsichord when the Beatles were still into just guitar/bass/drums/harmonica/piano. BB harmonies, even without double tracking, could beat the snot out of Beatles harmonies. Hell, Brian was doing double tracking of voices on Surfin' USA in 1963, while the Beatles wouldn't attempt that kind of stuff until songs like Nowhere Man and Paperback writer a full 2 years later. Although I like Sgt. Pepper, I think Pet Sounds is 100 times better. The Beatles never really had in their music the "personal" vibe or emotional honesty that Brian conveyed. The only reason the Beatles get all sorts of credit and the Beach Boys are left by the wayside is because the Beatles (and just about every British group from that time-don't get me wrong, I like British invasion rock) got their asses kissed by the media, and because the BBs never made any attempts at updating their cheesy striped-shirt image.

I agree with everything you wrote.  Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Beatles' albums are overall fairly consistent while the the Beach Boys albums are filled with brilliant tunes alongside some really unlistenable crap.  I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Back in the mid/late 1970's, when I became a Beach Boys' fan, the original albums were out of print. So Capitol records actually re-issued the early albums, some as 2-fers and some with different album covers. But the amazing thing was that they deleted some of the songs, as if the albums weren't short enough! A couple of songs that I remember being deleted, only to discover later, were "In The Parking Lot", "In The Back Of My Mind", and "Amusement Parks USA". Also, some of the "skit" tracks were deleted also. Talk about a lack of respect...

I don't mean to be trouble for anybody but I kind of think the whole idea of "objectivity" with popular music is more or less BS in my opinion. Also, why would anybody WANT to be objective anyway?

 I mean, what are the criteria and how do you measure it other than subjectively?

 The only real objective measure is record sales, which of course is no way to judge an artist.

 I can see someone saying the Beatles were a more well-rounded band, insofar as they had more than one very good or great songwriter, they had a great lead guitarist and drummer i.e., they had a greater arsenal of "weapons" than the Beach Boys who were perhaps limited by Wilson's vision(even though they were also totally dependent on it.) They were able to do more styles of music, from country/rockabilly to hard-edged r'n'b to sheer hard rock.

But that's stupid. Who listens to an album and says, for example, why didn't they stick a really hard-rockin' Helter Skelter style song here?
 I just dont' get that..

I have no problems with someone saying "The Beatles were a greater band than the Beach Boys." Heck, I might even agree. What i don't get is someone saying "objectively the Beatles were a better band than the Beach Boys.
To reiterate: what instrument measures that?

I could also see someone saying that the Beatles were able to realize their potential to a greater extent and they definitely had far, far greater taste than the Beach boys but I really am going to

 a)disagree that the Beatles mid-to-late sixties output was that much better than the Beach Boys
b) call the idea that "objectively" say, Abbey Road is better than, say, Sunflower pure bullmerda.

I want to stress that I'm not looking for any rancorous arguments here and I have a great respect for nearly all the posters on this board but opinions are opinions as we would all agree and to pass them off as something objective is, well, kind of pretentious.

Regarding the question of "filler"--I think that in the early sixties both bands had "filler" I can list them by the Beatles: Hold Me Tight, Little Child, Devil In Her Heart, When I Get Home, ANytime at all(IMHO), I Only Want To Dance With You, half of HELP(IMHO), Wait, Run For Your Life.
Each of those songs has something going for them, I reckon--with the exception of I Only Want to Dance With You and the Harrison songs on Help!--but so do much of the Beach Boys filler--with the exception, maybe of Denny's Drums and the "skits"--even the skits, I think were probably more a product of BW's weird sense of humor and strange taste(the same taste that compelled him to make a "Party" album that was totally faked. I do skip the skits and I do skip Denny's Drums, but that's about it. I also skip the filler on Beatle's records.

 AS far as their late sixties and early seventies stuff, I really don't hear much of what I would call "filler"--I'm not a big fan of "Add Some Music" or "The Nearest Faraway Place", but I don't know if I would call it "filler" in the sense that I don't think that it was merely tossed off to fill a record..

I hear you.  As for my contributions to this topic, I was simply addressing the issue of filler.  Whether one artist is better than another is of course subjective; whether an artist has issued tracks like "Our Favorite Recording Sessions" or "Bull Session with the Big Daddy" is not subjective.

I don't like those tracks you mention, in fact, I have never heard any of them all the way through. Lord knows, I've tried.

But I don't look at them as "filler" per se--why do them at all, they could have just done studio versions of "the Wanderer or "Monster Mash" or(God knows) put on one of their many many outtakes.\

It's a question of taste, surely.  In fact, they were not "filler' per se, but they are indicators of Brian Wilson's rather odd taste.

  I think that Wilson actually thought they were funny. Or he was having his little joke on us all and we're still talking about it forty years later. Or both.

In the same way I think that "Transcendental Meditation" is also a joke of a similar sort, perhaps darker and meaner, but very much a joke.

Perhaps it's foolish to rationalize something I don't even like, but we know that BW had a sort of obsession with humor and smiles and laughter and the like--he did(completely unnecessarily!) record a fake party and overdub it on an album. Like it or not, those stupit tracks are part of an overall picture of a strange and complex artist, much more so than "I Want to Dance With you."

I just don't understand what constitutes "filler". Seems to me from what everyone is saying that "filler" is the songs on the album that weren't hit singles, and if that's so then the Beatles did have a lot of it. I think Brian and the other Beach Boys knew that they were just throwing a song in here and there and they probably did it on purpose to throw people off. But they had a formula, most of their albums contained 12 songs, there were ballads, faster songs, sometimes instrumentals etc. Nowadays people wait years and years in between albums; the Beach Boys released at least one album a year, sometimes two or three all the way through Holland. The point I'm getting at here is that I'm not trying to compare the Beach Boys and the Beatles, they were both great in their own right but it really does fucking piss me off when people do and put the Beatles on a pedestal.

Curiously, the Beatles have more album tracks regularly played on oldies radio than any other artist of the rock era.  That's not a reflection of my taste - I could go for the rest of my life without ever hearing a Beatles song again - it is simply a fact.  Album tracks like "Things We Said Today," "I'll Be Back" and several others still get substantial airplay.

What constitutes filler?  In the most extreme cases, stuff like Bull Session, Fave Recording Sessions, Cassius Love, etc.   Even their biggest fans skip over this stuff. 

Filler is simply a not-very-good track that was included so that the album was long enough. It doesn't mean "non-hit."
 Baby's in Black is a great song, but it wasn't a hit. It is not filler.

The fact of Beatles getting more airplay than anyone else certainly does not really mean a thing in this debate, which I'm not even sure why I have involved myself in, other than they are either more popular, better promoted, or most probably both. They were more popular in the sixties than any other band, so of course they are going to get more airplay on corporate owned radio stations.

I was responding to Kookadams, regarding the concept of filler being equated to non-hits.

The Beatles without a doubt. Not even in my top ten. I'm a fan of much of their stuff, but for the life of me I fail to see just what it is they were doing that was apparently so superior to everything else from that era. And the notion that since their breakup in 1970 no one has bettered their output is frankly baffling.

The Killers
Kings Of Leon
Lady Gaga
Ryan Adams
Wilco
Pearl Jam
My Morning Jacket
Death Cab For Cutie


all way overrated.

Jeez... And I'm not even THAT old!

Yes, that would be good not to comment on that. For sure.

Eric Clapton. That disgusting pissmidget should be exiled from any sensible nation on this planet. He can't play the blues, he can't write songs, he plays session guitar like the bored bank manager he looks like, and he hates black people.

If I genuinely hate any musician, it's Eric Clapton.

But will you remember his name if you see him in heaven?

I will. Then I'll kick him in the nads.

(http://gifs.gifbin.com/1237813131_kick_in_the_balls.gif)

They must be overrated then.


Creating culture, changing history, changing the very medium in which they worked. They did that far better than anybody else, which is precisely why whether or not they made the best music, they were uncontroversially the most important band from that time, making the most important music. This is why they, like Shakespeare, like Mozart, like Picasso, cannot under any circumstance be legitimately or seriously labelled overrated. Should everyone like them? No. Does everyone like them? No. Overrated? No.

Many years ago, under the influence, Clapton said some regrettable things, with unclear intentions.  Obviously he has some unpopular and politically incorrect worldviews.  To say he hates black people is over the top and unfair in my view.  People can look into it if they like and form their own opinion.

The remarks on his talents are laughable to me.  He isn't my very favorite, but "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" could  be the the pinnacle of the bell bottom blues if you will -- not the blues as a purist form but as an expression of unnamable, unbearable emotion.  Granted, after "Slowhand" or so he eased into a career of far less inspiration -- pretty much in the same timeframe  as most great 60s rockers including the Beach Boys.

Mostly any popular artist/Band are mostly over-rated. Could u name any band that is creative in the studio? If i were a musician, i'd only do it for being creative and not caring if it's successful or not.

You make that point well -- as well as it could be made.  And I believe it to an extent.  But...I'm not sure I totally believe it -- or to the extent they're given credit.  "Changing History."  "Changing Culture."  Yeah...that's what we're told.

Now...Elvis.  I believe he did all of those things.  I feel like his impact was real.  You say "changing culture" -- that happened because of Elvis. The world was going to be much different after Elvis.

The Beatles impact may have been the result of being the next thing after Elvis.  To me, much of it seems stylistic.  A continuation of that one (perhaps a few) facets of what Elvis opened up.  They wore a different hair cut.  A new sound, a different attitude.  And "hey...they're coming over from England!"  And a new form of marketing, seizing on the new audience that Elvis created.

But, whatever.  It is what it is and it was what it was.  I just think they fit the description of "overrated band" -- precisely because of the image they're afforded to this day.  Again...it's image.  White album.  Green apple.  Style.  The Beatles caught a wave.  But - hey...they rode it well...with the spotlight on them - I might add.  Won the game, got the girl...etc. etc.

Honestly, the Beach Boys were better.   :lol

1 million percent agreed.

edit

Wait...Eric Clapton hates black people?

I love the Beatles but  other than their cultural influence I fail to see why their work is held up so much higher than the other great acts of the day. In the sixties there were dozens of excellent groups and singers, and while the Beatles are clearly among the best, they don't tower over the other greats like the Beach Boys, Stones, Who, Dylan etc. That said I still don't really see the big deal about Bruce Springsteen.

Well, it's the public who did it really. Just as Apple has been graciously handed the cultural cache for an entire generation: so had The Beatles.  Apple products are wonderful but there are greatly suffering competitors who's products exceed Apple's in terms of functionality/usability but it doesn't matter because Apple has the narrative. Narratives are very hard to topple as we all know being Beach Boys fans. The Beatles are awesome, but compared to The Who, The Kinks, The Stones, The Beach Boys, they are a neat and tidy story and though they shaped the culture, they were successful in such because they pushed boundaries....... nicely. Not like the confrontational Who or the slithering sleazy Stones, or the fey, oh-so-English Kinks, or the frighteningly emotionally available Beach Boys.

Read the history section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Against_Racism

I would say that his intentions are pretty clear, Aum Bop, but I've got into this argument before on the board and some people just don't want to believe that shouting 'Keep Britain White' repeatedly onstage is a clear-cut sign (in 70's Birmingham, no less) that you're a racist bastard. I can't believe it's been swept under the rug and people kiss his arse all the time.

And I hate his playing. I would say he's a fantastically unemotional blues player, although obviously talented. But I'm not so much a fan of 60's british blues in the first place for that reason - it's all firepower, not so much emotional or nuanced. They're all trying way too hard. Blues is a state of mind, not your new shiny Vox amp.

From what  I could read the rant was when he was very messed up and he claimed it was intended as a joke -- I agree it shouldn't be swept under the rug but it was 36 years ago and he has been clean for a long while.  On the other hand he seems to have some pretty odd conservative views.  There may be a parallel to Mel Gibson who under he influence lets out the devil bigot.

As far as his talents I have no problem agreeing to disagree.  My favorite Clapton work falls in the time period he was inspired by Delaney and Bonnie and the Band, particularly as I mentioned the Layla album, where there is great fire and emotion to go with the licks.  And I like some of his work in Cream and the earlier "comeback" LPs.  I pretty much agree on British (purist) blues -- sorta like eating chop suey as Chinese food.

The media latched onto them and their public relations team rode it for all it was worth. They were lucky enough to break through mere months before The Kinks and The Stones, if either of those had scored a hit first history may well have told a different story.

Ask any member of either band if they think they would have scored even a minor hit without The Beatles leading the way.

I'll give you U2 but come on man!

No.



;)

Because they were an unparalleled sensation


Mere months? By the time You Really Got Me entered the charts, The Beatles were working on Beatles For Sale. By the time the Stones released their first Jagger/Richards single, The Beatles had put out five #1 Lennon/McCartney singles in the UK. While these bands had been around for a while, it took them a long time to catch up to what The Beatles were doing - that is, releasing self-penned mega-hit music. From the beginning, The Beatles had been operating on a whole other level and, yes, as the above poster makes clear, paved the way for a lot of bands to follow in their wake, playing the game whose rules The Beatles had written.

Holy sh*t....did not know that.

I love the Kinks and Rolling Stones as obviously the Beach Boys.  I would be happy to attest to their greatness and in fact would say I prefer these bands to the Beatles (esp. the BBs!).  But to bash the Beatles with either faint praise or a minimization of their talents -- well strikes me as likely bitter, stupid, or insane!  Whether you like their music or not (and most of us do), having lived through that era I can tell you that you cannot overrate the Beatles impact and contribution to music and our culture.

saying Bob Dylan is overrated is insane.

The thing is it's not 1964 anymore and what it must have been like to have lived through Beatlemainia has little relevance on my music tastes in 2012. Did they break down walls culturally and musically? - yes of course they did. But my point is The Beatles were lucky to get there first, it could have easily been The Stones or The Kinks or any of the other groups that sprung up around the same time. All these new British bands were making exciting new Rock'n' Roll, The Beatles just happened to get their foot in the door first.
To say a band as great as The Kinks would never have made it if The Beatles hadn't have been a hit is insulting.
I've been a fan of The Beatles from about the age of 12 and like them as much now as I did back then - I've just found lots more groups that I like more.

 Everything Bob did from FREEWHEELIN' through GREATEST HITS VOL 2 is pretty great, save SELF PORTRAIT. After that his catalog gets very dicey. For every BLOOD ON THE TRACKS or TIME OUT OF MIND you've got a DOWN IN THE GROOVE or an UNDER THE RED SKY. Have you listened to his Christmas album lately? Probably not, since it's July, but egad.

Some guy named Bruce Springsteen...he's pretty over-rated...

I agree Bob Dylan is tad bit over-rated (not saying he's not talented) he's a great wordsmith/lyricist but musically he doesn't do it for me..

U2 is another band that has mass appeal that I quite don't get..Does it make them over-rated? hmm no but I wonder what it is about them that's so attractive?

Queen is another one..Freddie's voice is unbelievable but their music is..pretty bad..just because he has a powerful/awesome voice doesn't mean you can excuse crappy songs..

The Boss.... um, no.

he really is..he's the most over-rated artist to come out imo..
this song says it all...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZD4ezDbbu4
 :lol

Well, I'm convinced.

Oh my god. You must have the worst taste of anyone I have ever come across.

worst taste? I love my taste in music :)..

In fairness Queen did make some God awlful music as the 80's progressed and I say this as a huge fan of them.

I wouldn't say that bands you like are bad at all. You just seem to dislike some very obviously great musicians. "Some guy named Bruce Springsteen".. not sure if you're being facetious, but i kind of agree with you. I've never heard anyone say they thought he was overrated, let alone bad. (not that i think he's bad, but i do think he's overrated)

Agreed, even our own Brian says that Pet Sounds was a Beatle follow-up

I never said he's horrible..but he gets more credit than he deserves....What has he contributed to Rock & Roll?  I'm seriously asking you...I checked out only one album by him..it's called Born to Run..i thought it was pretty decent and I heard that was his magnum opus...I hear he's great and blah blah..but there are no songs to prove how magnificent he is...at least none that I've heard yet.

Depends how much you value Americana, but he's adding significantly to that musical conversation and belongs to a lineage that includes people like Mississippi John Hurt, Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, Phil Spector, etc.

I agree with the bolded part. But you have to give his catalog a deeper listen before you write him off like that.

yes there has been a few people I've written off then went back into their catalog and became a huge fan of their work..
Is there any specific album/song you recommend?

I'm not too  much of a fan of Americana...I listen mostly to British rock :)...but there are a few American bands/artists from that i do enjoy.

This might explain why you don't understand what his contribution to music has been.

No, I'm not a fan. The difference is I listened to at least a half dozen of his albums before I came to that conclusion (I guess try The River next?).

you have a point  ;)

yes I mostly do two albums..but with Bruce the first one didn't drawn me even the slightest..but I'm checking out the river for sure :)

I kind of like the whole "Dylan-meets-Spector" thing Springsteen was doing with the E-street Band...he had/has a distinctly American sound that I'm sure was pretty damn refreshing to hear after years of countless British bands doing snoozefest concept albums about hobbits and wizards and the like. Anyone that covers 'When I Grow Up", "Da Doo Ron Ron" and "Rockin' All Over the World" is ok in my book. Plus...the late Clarence Clemons was the greatest rock and roll sax player this side of King Curtis.

hmmm I prefer the whole Dylan meets the Beatles thing :) you know who I'm talking about right?

I am a big Dylan fan, yet I think some take him way too seriously. Humor is a big element of his work yet some of his fans are a little over the top in how they hold him. Personally I think his singing from 1961-76 is underrated, but perhaps some of the stuff since then isn't as good as it's made out to be. I do like the three from 1997-2005 though.

Find your own "magnum opus" and don't bother listening to what others say is the best or not best.  You have ears and a brain.  Use them.  Springsteen...Dylan....Queen...these are all staples and legendary artists in music history.  And for good reason.  It's no accident they are in the position that they're in.  Respect that and take a little more time to investigate new artists outside your comfort zone. 

No, there are plenty of songs that prove how magnificent he is...you just have bad taste.

Regarding Springsteen...

While I feel he has often gone too far into emulating the "everyman" persona that Woody Guthrie championed or going for the anthemic when an honest personal response would be more welcomed (especially into the 80s and after), Springsteen successfully took two decades of rock and synthesized it into his own unique blend. His best songs are mini-movies that explore flawed characters in the grip of fleeting exhilaration or lasting heartbreak. Listen to "Meeting Across The River" (on BORN TO RUN) for a succinct, finely etched study of a deluded narrator laying out a plan that can only end in disappointment or tragedy...only he doesn't know it. The song is like a little Scorsese film committed to vinyl.

The unbridled passion of Springsteen's work seldom ignores the dark side of any situation. If you listen to nothing else, may I suggest "Candy's Room"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx1N3Kjx1OU

This 1978 gem opens like a Spector girl-group record before exploding into a "Friday On My Mind" 60s garage band rave up (albeit polished to a fine sheen) and even throws in a guitar solo homage to Cream's "White Room". Thematically, the song contains the entire range of emotions one might feel at the beginning of a wild romance (or even an imagined one with a girl worshiped from afar), complete with the desire to rescue the lover from others and herself while knowing it's an impossible feat. The sense of triumph here is not the consummation of the relationship; it's the simple act of declaration. It doesn't matter if "Candy" only wants the singer of the song (likely not); the singer attempting to convince himself this is true is what the song pivots on. The achievement is that Springsteen packs enough exhilaration and heartbreak to fill a whole album into a two-minute, forty-four second song.

Bruce Springsteen gets more credit than he deserves? WOW...listen to Nebraska and then come back with that remark.

Seriously, this.


Or, play Out In The Street, VERY LOUD.

Bruce Springsteen is popular not because of tabloids/Rolling Stone cover stories/etc (which is normally how 'artists' become overrated)...He's popular because he perfectly captured the gritty image of middle-class America. A lot of Americans can truly relate to his music.

I'm not even a big fan of Bruce, but no other artist can transport me to my childhood in the northern mid-west like he can.

No way Bruce is overrated, he's just that good.

Like all Bruce up to Tunnel of Love.  Nebraska is special, albums 2 - 3 great, but it's the River I'd most recommend. 

it's always great when you can relate to what someone is singing about...but if the music doesn't sound good to me then i lost interest pretty fast..

Agreed. However, just because you can't relate doesn't make it overrated.

I might be wrong for saying that just because I can't relate to it/don't like the way his music sounds...but idk anyone that likes his music besides you guys on here. (and i found that out today)

Like, throw a rock into any crowded room. Bruce Springsteen is insanely, hugely popular. And yeah, deservedly so. The River's pretty good, I'd try that. If anything, it's got Hungry Heart on it! Need to listen when I get back to my vinyl.

i checked that album out and  :-\ it really does'nt do anything for me but i must admit hungry planet is a great song i like the sweet melody ..when the girly background vocals come in!

Granted, your average crowded room Newguy is walking into is the middle-school lunch-room, so it doesn't surprise me that he knows nobody who likes The Boss.
____

Anyone here like his Magic album?

I really like that album....not as much as his early albums, but 'Girls In Their Summer Clothes' is one of my all-time favorite songs.

Newguy, one day you'll notice that music isn't always as blunt and as obvious as you're used to.  All the artists and music you don't "get" now you will most likely "get" later in your life.  Music comes around at the right time and place in your life for it to really work, if you're not ready for Springsteen or Dylan right now...you will be later...if you allow him to be.  You may know what you want in music now but all that changes with age.  It's no accident that these dudes are legends. 

Wow my dad always tells me that...there's a lot of music i just don't get ....I'm glad you put it like that instead of clowning me for not understanding and dismissing Bruce's music..
maybe most of my friends don't like or know his music because well they mostly listen to rap..dubstep..punk :)

Admittedly, even though I don't much agree with the Newguy's opinion, I can relate to where he's coming from. Bruce Springsteen didn't make as much sense to me when I was younger as he does now. I've felt the same about Bread and Neil Diamond.

True, but Springsteen's early music is tailor-made for the optimism and romance of youth, something Springsteen himself "matured" out of to a degree. By comparison, I liked Neil Diamond when I was ten, but adored Springsteen at 19 (never cared much for Bread). Now, at nearly a half century along, I can appreciate the craftsmanship of both Diamond and Springsteen, but they are not favorites of mine. Oddly (perhaps?), the Beach Boys were the band for me when I was 12...and I still hold them in pretty high regard. ;D

After forty years of collecting records, I now find that performers will cycle back around and their music may speak to me in a new way twenty or thirty years later.

I've always thought that he went downhill after he quit The Yardbirds.

Most overrated artist: Bruce Springsteen/Madonna/Paul Simon/Lou Reed (solo)/Patti Smith/Eric Clapton/Jay-Z
Most overrated band: The Who/The Band/Black Sabbath/The Grateful Dead/Oasis/The Clash/U2/R.E.M./Wilco
Most overrated song: John Lennon 'Imagine' (nothing else even comes close)

Paul Simon? One of the greatest songwriter's of all time..he deserves any praise that he gets...
Jay-Z? he's the most consistent/innovative rapper to ever come out.

The Who? please explain.

It's all a matter of personal taste and media overexposure. I certainly own and enjoy records by Paul Simon, The Band, Black Sabbath etc. and I've seen fantastic live shows by Springsteen, Clapton, Oasis etc. over the years. I just find that the mainstream and rock press give these acts too much praise at the expense of equally talented and accomplished artists. JAY-Z is certainly an important and influential Hip-Hop artist, but I think other rappers are less pretentious and a lot more fun to listen to. And as far as The Who is concerned...I think that they peaked with SELL OUT. I'll take that LP and their classic early pop singles over TOMMY, WHO'S NEXT, etc. etc. any day. Again...all a matter of personal taste.

I agree with you on Sell Out that's my favorite album by them and i wish they did another psychedelic rock album after that but they moved on to rock opera..who's next is amazing but I'd listen to sell out before that anyday as well.

Agree about the Who. 1964-68 was so much cooler.

I second that!

Overrated Artists:
Elvis Presley - He was great, but: 1. He was NOT the King of Rock and Roll. 2. He pretty much sucked after he left the army.
Bob Dylan - Granted he's one of the greatest songwriters of the 20th Century, but he can't sing. At all. While his songs that are covered are classics, I find most of his actual records unlistenable.
Led Zeppelin - It's not so much they're bad - other than their plagiarisms, they're great - but the hardcore fans are intolerable. They're everywhere, and they arrogantly proclaim Zeppelin as the greatest band ever when somebody says so-and-so is the greatest. Plus I just don't think they're as good as a lot of people say anyway. Same with:
Black Sabbath.
KISS - They're all-right, but I never understood why they were as popular as they were.
AC/DC - Repetitive, and they pretty much sucked after Back In Black.
Nirvana - They're possibly the last great rock band. But face it, had it not been for Cobain's suicide, they wouldn't be half as popular as they are now.

Listen to 'The House of Risin' Sun' from his debut album. Bob can not only sing, but he's also one of the most expressive and unique singers in rock 'n' roll, in my opinion. It's just that it's the details (the vocal tone adopted, the intonations etc.) that he's brilliant at, which can easily be overlooked. The greatness of his voice is not as in-your-face as say, Brian Wilson's or Sam Cooke's.

 Elvis continued to make some great singles and albums despite the uneven quality of the movie years. ELVIS IS BACK (1960) is one of his best albums. His 1968-70 comeback era includes some of his greatest stuff. The TV SPECIAL, FROM ELVIS IN MEMPHIS, etc.

  As far as singles go, 1968-72 gave us "Guitar Man", "U.S. Male", "A Little Less Conversation", "If I Can Dream", "In the Ghetto", "Suspicious Minds", "Don't Cry Daddy/Rubberneckin", "Kentucky Rain", "The Wonder of You", "I've Lost You", "I'm Leavin", "American Trilogy" AND "Burning Love"!

Tastes differ, I for one think it's hopelessly bad. Give me The Animals' TERRIFIC version any day!

Yup, tastes differ in the sense that mine are good and yours are bad.  ;)

A band that I really wanted to like and have given them many chances is Van Halen. I own the first album and have listened to some other songs on YouTube as well, but they just don't do it for me. At all. So I guess I could call them 'overrated', as much as I dislike the term.

Nope, MINE are good & yours bad. Seriously though, have you known that there's no such thing as bad or good taste? You're just defending your favorite artist, which is no necessary because Dylan already has huge fan-club of his followers.

Agreed! Especially on Highway 61 and Blonde On Blonde - his tone and annunciations work so well with that music.

For anyone with doubts about Dylan's voice, listen to Girl From The North Country (the Freewheelin' version). I used to hate his voice, but it really grew on me.

I love the fact that more and more words out of my post get highlighted with each new quote.  ;D

I agree on both accounts rab -  'Girl From North Country' is one of my very favourite Dylan songs. Excellent delivery, lyrics and mood. I also love the contrast with Masters of War within the context of the album.

I even dig the 1969 re-work with Johnny Cash. Kinda sloppy, but very passionate. What do you think about that one?

I loathe - and I mean loathe - Radiohead.

Some of their backing tracks are nice, however....

Thom Yorke's voice is like fingernails down a f**king blackboard. I mean, it is just an absolutely detestable sound! I hate everything about it: the whiny reediness, the deliberate mispronunciation of 'r's (a speech impediment he curiously doesn't have when talking)...

And have you seen him on stage when he sings? Wobbling his head and pulling endless pained expressions? What a horrible little prick.

And those stupid pretentious lyrics - "Oh yes, when I sang 'the monkeys are sucking lemons/the monkeys are sucking lemons/take the money and run/take the money and run/Hannah and her sisters' it was a comment on the fall of the Roman Empire'' etc.

"Ooh, wow, look at us letting the public choose how much they want to pay for our album - aren't we so anti-establishment!" Yeah? Try letting the public choose how much they want to pay for your album before making millions and millions releasing albums through Sony and we'll all be a little more impressed, you quintet of bell-ends!

(The only song of theirs that I actually like - and I've had a lot of friends try to convince me of their greatness, so I've had the misfortune of listening to it all i can assure you - is an instrumental: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On8ajxxQNJI)

It has it's own charm - not as good as the original, but I really dig Cash's vocal in it.

Here's another that shows how great Dylan's voice was (With God On Our Side feat. Joan Baez at Newport): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KTkRAzxppY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KTkRAzxppY)

Neil Young? I haven't listened to much of him, but I've always seen him as a bland Dylan impersonator.

I also hate Radiohead. I dislike their cold, detached sound and their general lack of melody.

I don't think being overrated has anything to do with the artist himself, so it is no criticism to him. If some idiot overvalues something, that's the idiot's fault. And that begs the question, since what we're taking from art is enjoyment, is that even possible? Probably not unless you're trying to project the value you take from the artist onto what other people should take from the artist. Again, that's your stupidity, not the artist's. My sure-to-be-popular two cents.

I've probably already responded to this years ago, but one of the most overrated ever was Bruce Springsteen.  He's got two or three decent songs the rest is just average trash.  "The Boss" of hypocrisy

Gotta unfortunately agree with the Who too.  Boring as hell, can't really say I like 1 of their songs.  I'm sure they have a couple I'd like, but not many.

I actually like "You Better you Bet".  I was pissed when I found out it was the Who.... but that kind of proves the rule.  If I've heard so much Who music that I know You Better You Bet, and that's the only one I like, that proves that to me they're sh*t.

That would be true If I were talking to Bruce Springsteen... it would be unfair for me to tell him he's overvaluing himself.  I'm just talking to fans, though, who do overstate his greatness.  So it's valid to say somebody's overrated since you're talking to other fans. 

They're right, you do 'get' more music as you get older, for instance when I was a kid, I loved the Oakridge boys and didn't like the Statler Brothers.  Now it's the other way around. 

They're wrong about Bruce though, he'll suck as long as you're alive.

Believe it or not, I'm ashamed to say I used to think Bowie was overrated.  It wasn't until a few years ago I started to realize how incredible he really is.  I'm sure there are other artists as well who I can't think of at the moment for whom I've felt similarly.

 I like Radiohead somewhat but this is a great post. It needed to be said.

  Try FAIR WARNING. It's their "dark" album. Dave wasn't happy with the direction, sales were down, but this one has something for me.

 To each his own but good God you are wrong.

Neil Young is an originator not a impersonator.. :smokin

Overrated ???  How about Frank Zappa  U2  Queen   Led Zep   Keith Whitley Michael Jackson  Yngwie Malmsteen   David Bowie 

Frank Zappa overrated?  :lol :lol :lol :lol

He's only ever had a cult following, his stuff isn't well-known to the mainstream. So he can't be overrated.

And I'm going to have to disagree with Queen and David Bowie

I like, rather than love, the Who. For ever song of there's I think is great, there's another I don't like.

Have you heard this, Ron? Great song. It builds and builds and gets better and better as the song goes along: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGRijV8U3s

Bowie is sooo overrated. Probably the biggest example of style over substance in the history of pop music. Ziggy Stardust is a masterpiece, but that is probably the only LP that  he seemed to make a real attempt at songwriting, other than the less consistent Hunky Dory.

I only like the Berlin period, Scary Monsters and oddly enough some of the Labyrinth songs. He's hardly this mega genius the critics love to paint him as.



Fixed that for you.

Oh God, U2 - kill me now!! They seem to be massively popular in the US and Europe, but I've never met a British (or Irish!) music fan who doesn't hate them (and, in particular, Bono - the little tax-dodging hypocritical dwarf).

And everything Micheal Jackson did from about 1982 onwards was utter toilet.

Oh, God, yes.

U2 is the worst.

  The more time goes by the less I like U2. Bono is the main reason I suppose. Albums like BOY, WAR, THE UNFORGETTABLE FIRE and THE JOSHUA TREE are good; can't stand much after that.

U2 overrated? In a modern sense, yes. They even just won a golden globe (and an academy award nomination) for a very mediocre song. In the last 20 years they have done nothing new, yet they still make headlines/charts.

But when I spin The Joshua Tree, I forget all about this. Brilliant record.

IMO the Berlin period was really the result of Bowie's declining interest in songwriting -- it was easier for him to fill up an album with improvised instrumentals and call it "art" rather than actually write ten songs. The two albums that came before Low -- Young Americans, and Station to Station, have respectively 8 and 6 songs (including one cover on each album).

Also, "Heroes" the album sucks.

Achtung Baby and Pop were brilliant records too, I think..... It's amazing to look back on a time when they were an envelope pushing band!!!

Actually I'd totally forgot about Station to Station, there's some good stuff on that.

I love a lot of Bowie's stuff - the second side of Low is pure musical nirvana - but I've always hated Young Americans with a passion. Horrible song, and the bit where they quote the Beatles is just embarrassing.

Indeed. Love those records!

I would have to throw out Mötley Crüe. Never heard anything in their music that wold motivate me to buy an album.

Yeah, but does anybody actually rate them highly? 

I'd imagine their fans (of which they have many) do. That's what makes this sort of exercise sort of pointless. Is there an objective rating for anyone, or is it just a game to compare our separate, subjective rankings? Whose ratings are we talking about? Especially in this world of fractured, hyper-focused media, there isn't even really such a thing as a mainstream media to complain about doing the overrating. Frankly, I'd probably say people on this board overrate the Beach Boys more than anything else.

Good points. It's true that, for example, overrated by critics and overrated by the public at large are two completely different things. It was the former category that I had in mind when I wondered whether Motley Crue actually gets any praise.

Anyway, I think "well-known bands I don't get the love for" would be a more fitting title for this topic, as it doesn't come with any "objective" implication attached to it. The posts would mostly be the same, I think.

U2. Freakin' boring shite.

I tend to agree with this with the exception of U2, everything they have done for the past 20 years is massively overrated to the point of absurdity.

I guess I'll never understand how Pink Floyd (post-Barrett) ever became so mega-popular making such quiet uninteresting music. Do you have to be stoned to "get" them? They would certainly be my pick as most overrated.

Nope, the music itself provides the high.  ;)