gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 11:12:28 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Overrated artists/albums  (Read 56107 times)
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2006, 08:19:22 PM »

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.
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2006, 10:46:01 PM »

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

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2006, 05:24:54 PM »

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


   Roll Eyes

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

There are a lot of bands that did psychedelic music better than the Beatles
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Jonas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1923


I've got the Beach Boys, my friends got the Stones


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2006, 06:18:17 PM »

Radiohead, aside from their brilliant run from about '98-'02

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.
Logged

We would like to record under an atmosphere of calmness. - Brian Wilson
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1IgXT3xFdU
Aegir
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4680



View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2006, 01:01:34 AM »

What's the big deal about Pet Sounds?
Logged

Every time you spell Smile as SMiLE, an angel's wings are forcibly torn off its body.
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2006, 02:54:19 PM »

What's the big deal about Pet Sounds?

 Shocked
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
Chris Brown
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2014


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2006, 11:10:04 AM »

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. 
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2006, 11:28:03 AM »

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.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Mr. President
Guest
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2006, 12:39:41 PM »

I'm of the school that believes that the Beach Boys were tons better than the Beatles

Same here, I think Smiley Smile is better than Sgt Pepper.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2006, 01:27:03 PM »

I'm of the school that believes that the Beach Boys were tons better than the Beatles

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

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

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2006, 03:53:35 PM »

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.

Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2006, 04:33:07 PM »

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.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
MBE
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2006, 10:00:58 PM »

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. 
Logged
Roger Ryan
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1528


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2006, 09:47:58 AM »

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.
Logged
CosmicDancer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408



View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2006, 09:55:53 AM »

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).

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.
Logged

The Un-Funny Alliance:  Are you not "good at being funny"?  Join us today in our mission to make the world a less funny place one "easy" fart joke at a time!
L Ransford
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2006, 12:39:19 PM »

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
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2006, 01:24:39 PM »

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.

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.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Mr. President
Guest
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2006, 01:53:00 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2006, 01:54:19 PM by Mr. President » Logged
MBE
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2006, 05:18:16 PM »

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
Logged
Aegir
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4680



View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2006, 06:10:09 PM »

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.
Logged

Every time you spell Smile as SMiLE, an angel's wings are forcibly torn off its body.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2006, 07:38:44 PM »

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.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
MBE
Guest
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2006, 08:35:31 PM »

I like Kansas City a lot. Never heard anyone say they didn't.
Logged
Aegir
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4680



View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2006, 12:51:38 PM »

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

Every time you spell Smile as SMiLE, an angel's wings are forcibly torn off its body.
Daniel S.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 896



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 29, 2006, 04:48:18 PM »

The Hold Steady?

Never heard of 'em.
Logged

Let us all stay teenage gamblers listening to the radio.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 29, 2006, 05:01:23 PM »

The Hold Steady:

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

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.147 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!