Singers/Groups That You Consider Over-Rated.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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

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

[Newguy562]

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

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

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

[Chocolate Shake Man]

now comparing him to Lennon/McCartney, BW, and Michael Jackson is a little out of line since all those guys are well known geniuses that have huge legacies

You could say the same thing about Neil Young.

[Mikie]

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

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

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

Right with you on this, Rocknroll!

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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

[Paulos]

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

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

[cablegeddon]

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

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

[cablegeddon]

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

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

[hypehat]

McCartney has more talent in his dick than anybody on this board has in their entire family. 

Please tell me you have proof of this.

Allow me.

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

It sold tonnes of copies. Must be good.

[SMiLE Brian]

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

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

Right with you on this, Rocknroll!

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

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

[Newguy562]

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

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

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

[rab2591]

[SMiLE Brian]

Agreed, could not have said it better myself.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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

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

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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

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

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

And that narrative typically goes like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Brilliant post, R&R.

[Mike's Beard]

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

 

 McCartney has more talent in his dick than anybody on this board has in their entire family. 

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

[Newguy562]

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

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

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

And that narrative typically goes like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chocolate Shake Man]

as far as the monkees go i only know their hits and that's because of my parents..when i asked my father about their albums he said "filler" then moved on he's a avid music listener but i still had to check out their sh*t on my own and was dis-satisfied.. when it came to the byrds i liked everything pre sweetheart of the rodeo i just couldn't get into the country sounds(wasn't my taste) i'm not going to say it was a disaster but just not my cup of tea.

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

it's not a popularity thing with me if i named bands that are popular well they are popular because many people like their music and consider it beautiful/good/etc. i'm just one of those people that fall into that crowd.

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

I'm cynical, I know it...

[Alex]

Want overrated?

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

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

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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

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

I'm cynical, I know it...

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

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