Most over rated ever?
Posted by: woodface on 29 April 2002
Which artist or band do you consider the most over rated? I can think of a couple; Mercury Rev (how did they ever get a deal?) and I better not mention the other by name, but you can probably guess through my previous posts!
Posted on: 01 May 2002 by woodface
Steve I would question a few of your points? Re his dislike of recording, this is only true in his later years and does not apply to the sun sessions or the very early 60's. Why did he not like recording? I think that he did not like the more technical aspects of it and he became too big for his boots. Your point about his music being rockabilly/country etc hardly makes it unique - what about Hank Williams. Perhaps my point about his colour was a tad trite but I feel it is still one worth making. I also must stress that I merely asked the question about whether he was over rated! For the record I think he is but I would not dismiss his influence overall.
Posted on: 01 May 2002 by Todd A
Bob Dylan. He just plain sucks.
Based on what some supposed classical fans state - not on this forum, but elsewhere - I also nominate Rachmaninov. He wrote a few good piano pieces, but mostly he wrote mushy ear candy.
What the hell is up with Mozart and, and, and Beethoven being on this list? Two of the greatest musical minds in human history overrated? I think not.
Usually every few weeks or so. I freely admit to listening more frequently to Beethoven's piano sonatas - among the great artistic achievements in history - as I prefer the more intimate utterances in these works, but make no mistake herm, the Eroica is one of the greatest symphonies ever written. Maybe the greatest. Vuk may have overrated the quality of the Missa Solemnis, though I think it quite fair to include it in perhaps the "top" 50 or so works in the classical repertoire.
Based on what some supposed classical fans state - not on this forum, but elsewhere - I also nominate Rachmaninov. He wrote a few good piano pieces, but mostly he wrote mushy ear candy.
What the hell is up with Mozart and, and, and Beethoven being on this list? Two of the greatest musical minds in human history overrated? I think not.
quote:
[H]ow often do you listen to an entire Beethoven symphony, not to mention the Missa Solemnis [?]
Usually every few weeks or so. I freely admit to listening more frequently to Beethoven's piano sonatas - among the great artistic achievements in history - as I prefer the more intimate utterances in these works, but make no mistake herm, the Eroica is one of the greatest symphonies ever written. Maybe the greatest. Vuk may have overrated the quality of the Missa Solemnis, though I think it quite fair to include it in perhaps the "top" 50 or so works in the classical repertoire.
Posted on: 01 May 2002 by Bob McC
My contribution is 90% of what my 15 year old son listens to. Can't name them, never heard of most of them!
Posted on: 01 May 2002 by Former member
The title of this thread contained the word "overrated", not crap or anything like that.
That's why I put Springsteen and Mozart in there. Both have created excellent work, but much of Springsteen's work is (IMO) re-treading tired old stuff.
Mozart created some exquisite music, but I happen to feel that much of what he wrote lacked emotion and sounds like it was composed by numbers.
Don't get me wrong, I think he is unarguably one of the world's greatest composers, but to some commentators a Mozart fart would be a work of sublime genius!
Dylan has created little of significance since the late 60's, but I admit my case is weaker with him....
That's why I put Springsteen and Mozart in there. Both have created excellent work, but much of Springsteen's work is (IMO) re-treading tired old stuff.
Mozart created some exquisite music, but I happen to feel that much of what he wrote lacked emotion and sounds like it was composed by numbers.
Don't get me wrong, I think he is unarguably one of the world's greatest composers, but to some commentators a Mozart fart would be a work of sublime genius!
Dylan has created little of significance since the late 60's, but I admit my case is weaker with him....
Posted on: 01 May 2002 by John C
Let's not get carried away here! Elvis sang Mystery Train for God's sake!
Van Morrison, Capt Beefheart, Bob Dylan can each legitimately lay claim to greatest rock record of all time. Over-rated cannot include anyone who ever produced a single song or record of true genius.
I repeat, David Bowie, pile of shite.
John
As for the suggestion of Dizzy Gillespie, well.... the man only invented Be-Bop, dear me!!!
Van Morrison, Capt Beefheart, Bob Dylan can each legitimately lay claim to greatest rock record of all time. Over-rated cannot include anyone who ever produced a single song or record of true genius.
I repeat, David Bowie, pile of shite.
John
As for the suggestion of Dizzy Gillespie, well.... the man only invented Be-Bop, dear me!!!
Posted on: 01 May 2002 by herm
Beethoven Overrated?
Obviously I was mostly teasing when I said Beethoven is overrated. I like his Fourth Symphony a lot. What I meant, of course, is that I think a lot of people put too great a distance between his status and, say, Haydn's, just because the latter wasn't hyped in the nineteenth C as a dark romantic genius.
No matter whether you want to put Beethoven in the Ten greatest works of art or in the Best Fifty; if you put too much of Beethoven there, where are you going to put a choice from Haydn's massive output in string Quartets, Piano Trios and Symphonies?
And, frankly, for the past ten, fifteen years I sure have been listening to Schumann piano pieces more often than Beethoven piano solo. Not that there's anything wrong with Beethoven - it's just that they're supposed to be about things (the struggle of the sublime genius / hero) that are supposed to be of greater stature than the things Schumann's music seems to refer to. Well, I don't see why.
I used the word supposed a couple of times, didn't I? - that's what I mean with overrated. Ergo: I like Beethoven a lot, but not a lot more than a lot of other composers.
Herman
And now back to the Elvis discussion, please. It reminds me of the Post Stamp days. Do we want the Thin, Young Elvis, or the Fat, Old One?
Obviously I was mostly teasing when I said Beethoven is overrated. I like his Fourth Symphony a lot. What I meant, of course, is that I think a lot of people put too great a distance between his status and, say, Haydn's, just because the latter wasn't hyped in the nineteenth C as a dark romantic genius.
No matter whether you want to put Beethoven in the Ten greatest works of art or in the Best Fifty; if you put too much of Beethoven there, where are you going to put a choice from Haydn's massive output in string Quartets, Piano Trios and Symphonies?
And, frankly, for the past ten, fifteen years I sure have been listening to Schumann piano pieces more often than Beethoven piano solo. Not that there's anything wrong with Beethoven - it's just that they're supposed to be about things (the struggle of the sublime genius / hero) that are supposed to be of greater stature than the things Schumann's music seems to refer to. Well, I don't see why.
I used the word supposed a couple of times, didn't I? - that's what I mean with overrated. Ergo: I like Beethoven a lot, but not a lot more than a lot of other composers.
Herman
And now back to the Elvis discussion, please. It reminds me of the Post Stamp days. Do we want the Thin, Young Elvis, or the Fat, Old One?
Posted on: 02 May 2002 by Bosh
Will I get lynched for saying...Jimi Hendrix?
Posted on: 02 May 2002 by Former member
yes
Posted on: 02 May 2002 by Steve Catterall
Woodface
I agree that he probably didn't like the technical aspects of recording ... which is probably why he didn't seem to mind so much in the Sun days ... when recording was much more simple ... just capturing a pereformance really.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with 'becoming too big for his boots'. Another trite comment which just shows your prejudice against him.
Hank Williams was not really a Rockabilly artist. He's about as country as they come. The sort of hybrid music Elvis was making at Sun had never really been done before. Compare his version of 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky' with the Bill Monroe version (which is much more Hank Williams style) and then his version of 'that's alright mama' with the Arthur Crudup original. Nobody else was mixing those 2 styles in quite the same way at that time.
I agree that he probably didn't like the technical aspects of recording ... which is probably why he didn't seem to mind so much in the Sun days ... when recording was much more simple ... just capturing a pereformance really.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with 'becoming too big for his boots'. Another trite comment which just shows your prejudice against him.
Hank Williams was not really a Rockabilly artist. He's about as country as they come. The sort of hybrid music Elvis was making at Sun had never really been done before. Compare his version of 'Blue Moon Of Kentucky' with the Bill Monroe version (which is much more Hank Williams style) and then his version of 'that's alright mama' with the Arthur Crudup original. Nobody else was mixing those 2 styles in quite the same way at that time.
Posted on: 02 May 2002 by Bosh
Its not that I'm saying hes not very good, I like a lot of his stuff and have many albums, its just that a lot of it also leaves me cold. It is widely acknowledged by many afficiandos that he's been exploited by his estate - witness the barrel dredging issues that keep on coming.
However, despite the fact that without his influence electric guitar technique may not have been where it now is, I still feel he is over-rated.
I also feel the same about Jeff Beck.
Come to think of it Clapton's also done his fair share of dirge
Better stop there before I'm banned!
However, despite the fact that without his influence electric guitar technique may not have been where it now is, I still feel he is over-rated.
I also feel the same about Jeff Beck.
Come to think of it Clapton's also done his fair share of dirge
Better stop there before I'm banned!
Posted on: 02 May 2002 by greeny
quote:
Dylan has created little of significance since the late 60's
WHAT???
Er how about:
Blood on the Tracks; Desire; Oh Mercy; Time Out of Mind.
I'll admit there been some drivel in there as well, but would you rather have periods of pure genius intermingled with drivel or just consistent OK stuff?
Dylan's been producing music for 40 years now and to still produce stuff of the quality of his latest is unique.
When was the last really good Stones, Bowie, Wonder album. All superb artists but non to match Dylan.
Posted on: 02 May 2002 by woodface
Steve, re Elvis again, how much of his sound was actually down to him? Probably not a great deal as he was surrounded by truly gifted and experienced musicians. Hank Williams does have a fierce rockabilly streak and stating that he was as country as they come is plain wrong. I don't have a predjudice against Elvis just an honest opinion based upon listening to his music.
Posted on: 02 May 2002 by Bob Edwards
Dylan, U2, Bowie, and Dave Brubeck.
Best,
Bob
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by Former member
The inability to appreciate Zappa is simply a reflection upon the ability of the listener. Many people love music which is bland, just as many people love to eat at Mc Donalds. I can only feel the deepest sympathy for those unfortunate people who are unable to see the magnificence of Zappa’s music and must instead dine on the tripe of the commercial record industry 
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by garyi
I think we have gone off on a tangent here boys.
The question was who is over rated. You are all bleating on about low points in various peoples careers, thats a different thing.
Take fleetwood mac, they ARE over rated.
Most of their stuff is really cheesy, like gorgenzola, or a nice peice of roqufort.
The question was who is over rated. You are all bleating on about low points in various peoples careers, thats a different thing.
Take fleetwood mac, they ARE over rated.
Most of their stuff is really cheesy, like gorgenzola, or a nice peice of roqufort.
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by Pete
Steve, you point out that Elvis had an intersting style with hues of rockabilly, blues and gospel: quite so. You point out he was a very able singer, technically and with soul. Again, quite so. But those, and other similar points, do not equate to "King of rock 'n roll", which is how he is frequently styled. A ridiculous epithet, and goes beyond what he did, thus overrating him.
This is not the same as saying he's bad or insignificant, or unworthy of serious consideration, of course.
Pete.
This is not the same as saying he's bad or insignificant, or unworthy of serious consideration, of course.
Pete.
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by greeny
quote:
The inability to appreciate Zappa is simply a reflection upon the ability of the listener. Many people love music which is bland, just as many people love to eat at Mc Donalds. I can only feel the deepest sympathy for those unfortunate people who are unable to see the magnificence of Zappa’s music and must instead dine on the tripe of the commercial record industry
The inability to appriciate Subtle music is simply a reflection upon the ability of the listener. Many people love music which is tuneless, just as some people drink their own piss. I can only feel the deepest sympathy for those unfortunate people who are unable to disern the subtleties of some music and must instead dine on the tripe of one tone deaf thrash merchant.
[This message was edited by greeny on FRIDAY 03 May 2002 at 14:14.]
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by garyi
Ah greeny, you really havn't listened to zappa at all have you?
He's good because he covered so many styles and did it well.
You are right he did a little thrash, but rarely, lots of his music was complicated but not always,
Before you come back with your definative answer at least listen to the stuff, until then you are unqualified to judge.
He's good because he covered so many styles and did it well.
You are right he did a little thrash, but rarely, lots of his music was complicated but not always,
Before you come back with your definative answer at least listen to the stuff, until then you are unqualified to judge.
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by woodface
Re Elvis you have expressed your views far more eloquently than I was able to. I do think Elvis is ultimately over rated and I doubt he would have been as successful if he looked more like Buddy Holly! Perhaps I am being flippant here but you get my point.
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by Todd A
quote:
No matter whether you want to put Beethoven in the Ten greatest works of art or in the Best Fifty; if you put too much of Beethoven there, where are you going to put a choice from Haydn's massive output in string Quartets, Piano Trios and Symphonies?
Easy. Haydn's finest works are among the best works ever written; his string quartets, as I have written before, represent one of the supreme artistic achievements in all of human history. His other works are not too far behind. When I wrote top 50 for Missa Solemnis, I was meaning to imply that such ordinal rankings are arbitrary and in the context of art, really quite silly. Some works are definitely better than others - anyone think Hummel is the equal of Beethoven or Mozart? - but ranking is silly at best and invidious at worst.
This thread shows me that the most important element in determining the comparative worth of music is essentially personal. Hence, the continuing support for Bob Dylan when he clearly blows.
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by Keith Mattox
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Take fleetwood mac, they ARE over rated.
Most of their stuff is really cheesy, like gorgenzola, or a nice peice of roqufort.
Just out of curiosity, have you had the chance to listen to the music that they have made before the onset of Buckingham/Nicks? They were a whole 'nuther band back then, producing excellent late-60's takes on Blues. And Christine McVie's singing is highly underrated.
Cheers
Keith.
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by Former member
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Edwards:
Dave Brubeck.
its refreshing to see him on the list. there's probably room for more jazz "greats" as well.. i guess wynton marsalis would be a bit too obvious and not that great...
here's some that made some ok/good music or maybe contributed something worthwhile at one point or another but are overrated nevertheless:
bill laswell
carlos santana
medeski martin and wood
metallica
john zorn
phish
miles davis
laurie anderson
sex pistols
tori amos
nirvana
natilie merchant
soundgarden
dave mathews band
jonathan richman
moby
rolling stones
eric clapton
pink floyd
sonic youth
philip glass
king missle
morton subotnick
radiohead
joan la barbara
ry cooder
...this list could really keep going...
brad
tone deaf thrash merchant hifi
[This message was edited by soundzero on SATURDAY 04 May 2002 at 01:39.]
Posted on: 03 May 2002 by Former member
Not Nirvana and Soundgarden.
You forgot George Harrison and Paul Mc.C., Van Morrison.
Authenticity
You forgot George Harrison and Paul Mc.C., Van Morrison.
Authenticity
Posted on: 07 May 2002 by Steve Catterall
Woodface
Hank Williams first ... where do you get the idea that Hank Williams isn't Country. He is the artist that every country musician treats as their patron saint. You must have a very warped idea of what county music is.
Elvis - (and hello Pete as well). Yes, he surrounded himself with truely gifted musicians - like any other great artist would. And all these gifted musicians wanted to work with Elvis beacuse they thought of him as a great artist. If you read interviews with any of these musicians, they're always saying how great it was to work with Elvis and what a good singer he was.
And yes ... just because he was a great singer don't make him the 'King of Rock'n'roll' What made him the king of rock'n'roll was the fact that at the time when rock'n'roll was at it height in the late 50s, Just about everybody who was interested in it looked up to him as the person to emulate. To people like John Lennon and Paul McCartney Elvis was King. Now the fact that in subsequent decades both Rock'n'roll and Elvis failed to keep things going is neither here nor there. John Lennon is famous for saying that Elvis died the moment he joined the army. That still doesn't stop him from thinking he was 'King' before that happened. The title 'King of rock'n'roll' is a rather iconic title, a figurehead for the rock'n'roll movement ... and as an icon I don't think you can say that Elvis was overrated.
Hank Williams first ... where do you get the idea that Hank Williams isn't Country. He is the artist that every country musician treats as their patron saint. You must have a very warped idea of what county music is.
Elvis - (and hello Pete as well). Yes, he surrounded himself with truely gifted musicians - like any other great artist would. And all these gifted musicians wanted to work with Elvis beacuse they thought of him as a great artist. If you read interviews with any of these musicians, they're always saying how great it was to work with Elvis and what a good singer he was.
And yes ... just because he was a great singer don't make him the 'King of Rock'n'roll' What made him the king of rock'n'roll was the fact that at the time when rock'n'roll was at it height in the late 50s, Just about everybody who was interested in it looked up to him as the person to emulate. To people like John Lennon and Paul McCartney Elvis was King. Now the fact that in subsequent decades both Rock'n'roll and Elvis failed to keep things going is neither here nor there. John Lennon is famous for saying that Elvis died the moment he joined the army. That still doesn't stop him from thinking he was 'King' before that happened. The title 'King of rock'n'roll' is a rather iconic title, a figurehead for the rock'n'roll movement ... and as an icon I don't think you can say that Elvis was overrated.
Posted on: 07 May 2002 by garyi
I have heard some of their stuff aven Greene and yes it is a lot better.
Also like the greene/Mayall, album they did together.
Also like the greene/Mayall, album they did together.