Most over rated ever?

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dire Straits
The Boss
Sting
Genesis
E.L.P.
INXS
Kylie Minogue
Most of the nu-metalbands(e.g. Korn,Limp Bizkit etc.)-Just image,no music.
All of the R&B shit.
Nickelback
Creed
Phil Collins ,of course
Oasis
Gary Numan
Siouxie & the Banshees(altough I liked them in my teens,just for the way Siouxie looked).
Rolling Stones(esp. Mick Jagger)
Paul mcCartney
Bob Dylan (that voice!)
The Cure, after the first 4 albums
There were/are so much overrated artists/bands that the list could/can go on for ever.

Regards,Rob.

Steve, I don't think you really read my previous comments re the above artists. Firstly, I did not deny that Hank Williams was 'country', obviously he is, but his music contained many elements from other genres and it is fair to say rock and roll borrowed key elements from his sound. Country music did exist before Hank, but he completely changed the its direction and this opened the door for more raw sounding music. On the subject of Elvis, my first post clearly stated that Elvis was an icon without peer, what I questioned was the actual content of his music. I must stress that I don't think his music is without merit, far from it, but he is undeserving of much of the over zealous praise heaped upon him. Oh and by the way, whoever said Miles Davis was over rated really has no place on this forum!

Woodface

re Hank - it really depends where your starting point is in Country Music. But considering Hank started in the 30s, I would consider him one of the founding fathers of modern country music. Sure - there was american folk music before that, but was it country? I suppose it was ... but pretty much all modern country can be traced back to Hank ... so in that resepect I would say he was as country as you can get.

As for Elvis ... well he was an overrated no hoper who looked good on T-shirts but was too fat to be taken seriously ... almost as useless as that Miles Davies character !

Steve, did Hank really start in the 30's? He was only 29 when he died, I could be wrong on this, and he died in the mid 50's? Must have been a very forward child? To conclude about Elvis, he was good but not that good!

How can the Beatles be over rated? To put Elvis above them is just plain silly. He may have been first and acted as an inspiration but musically he was light years behind Lennon and McCartney! He didn't write songs whereas they wrote some of the greatest ever! If you want to name an over rated british band start with the Rolling Stones!

Perhaps the problem here is that we rate different aspect of music. Woodface clearly rates songwriting above performance (and there's nothing wrong with that), so sees Elvis as overrated when compared to the Beatles

Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of influence ... and, of course, according to the NME the most influential band of all time were

The Smiths

And that's just as it should be

( i'm sure both the Beatles and Elvis were in there somewhere)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Lees:
With all due respect, I think this might be a generational thing.

In the early 60's the pop scene was quite similar to today, in that there were scores of manufactured pop idols acting as mouthpieces for corporate song-writing/production teams (albeit of exceptional quality as in the Brill Building's output). It really was something that they wrote their own songs and that they were all of such astonishingly high standards.

Sure they started off by nicking ideas from black America, but they quickly developed a voice that was at the time unique. And they didn't stop developing. Up to the mid-sixties, the idea that artists should "progress" was just not thought about, other than the issue as to when so-and-so would end up in Vegas singing to well-heeled diners.
Spurred on by others (and in turn spurring them on) such as Brian Wilson they moved pop into what we typically perceive to be rock and beyond.

This is really one of those situations where "you had to be there".

---

The amazing thing is that they did this while being the ultimate Boy Band of the era. Think how that compares to the equivalent now.

Cheers

Keith.

Chuck Berry started out in East St Louis with Johnny Johnson, and it is widely held that he appropriated much of his best work from Johnson. It was only his notoriety and showmanship that made him a star. I was privelaged to see Johnny Johnson play many times in a variety of St Louis clubs and he was great. To their credit the Stones had him on stage a few times and paid tribute to his influence. The Stones in general paid respect and publicised their Blues and jazz influences (whatever that was worth, but the y did at least try). The Stones in their heyday were at least a good rock band, The Beatles certainly a boyband. The Beatles eventually disappeared up their own self important asses.

Johnˇ

Come to think of it Stones or Beatles is the perfect Boybander test questiony

[This message was edited by John C on WEDNESDAY 08 May 2002 at 16:27.]

Firstly on the subject of influence; just because someone was influential does not make them an all time gteat. Let me explain, if you look at any artists influences you will find some pretty ropey examples such as Lonnie Donnegan. Nothing against Mr Donnegan but he is not 'an all time great' even though he was for a time very influential. There scores of other examples. The Beatles V Elvis is a debate that will run and run but I always feel the Beatles win out because they sing, play and write with equal ability. Lastly on the subject of Brian Wilson, he has long been celebrated and rightly so!

I have to disagree with you. I think being influential is a pretty good indicator of all time greatness.

Surely the differnce between an artist who is just good and an artist who inspires other artists is the difference between a good artist and a great artist

Your example of Lonnie Donnegan is not particularly good as I don't feel he was particularly influential. He was quite popular for a short time, but didn't really influence anybody to any real degree.

As a better example look at who the NME listed as their top 10 influential artists

10: Public Enemy
9: U2
8: Paul Weller/The Jam
7: Radiohead
6: Oasis
5: Sex Pistols
4: David Bowie
3: Stone Roses
2: The Beatles
1: The Smiths

I'd question one or two of those as all time greats (well this is the NME's idea of influential), but I'd say that was a pretty good hit rate.

I cannot believe somebody has said that Dave Brubeck is overated - it is beyond belief.

R&B is however utter pants and i am glad to see that on the list.

This week, I have been mostly listening to Stereolab - I love those girls in their little pencil skirts and tight wooly jumpers.

>> As a better example look at who the NME listed as their top 10 influential artists <<

It should be pointed out that the NME survey was part of its anniversary issue and was a list of the bands that had had the most influence on the NME rather tan being the most influentiual. Its essentailly a list of who was on the cover the most.

Matthew

PS Most Overrated -- Massive Attack, Portishead, Morcheeba, etc. Basically any of that trip hop shite that 30-somethings have in their CD collection which came pre-installed in their 2 bedroomed flat with stripped pine floors in NW3.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dave brubeck:
I cannot believe somebody has said that Dave Brubeck is overated - it is beyond belief.

R&B is however utter pants and i am glad to see that on the list.

This week, I have been mostly listening to Stereolab - I love those girls in their little pencil skirts and tight wooly jumpers.

---

How do you define "R&B" - the original sound (i.e.: Little Charlie and the Nightcats, Booker T and the MGs), or the crap that the Grammies lump under that moniker these days. No comparison.

Cheers

Keith.

quote:

---

It should be pointed out that the NME survey was part of its anniversary issue and was a list of the bands that had had the most influence on the NME rather tan being the most influentiual. Its essentailly a list of who was on the cover the most.

---

Actually that's not quite true. It was a list of bands judged by the NME to have been the most influential based on the number of times they had been mentioned by other artists in interviews, by readers writing in , and other inclusions they thought were relevant.

John Lennons first band the Quarymen was a skiffle band and he acknowledged Lonnie Donnegan as a vital early influence. Influence does not equal greatness! Ahmad Jamal was a major influence on Miles Davies but is generally a minor figure in the Jazz world. There are loads of similar examples as people generally pick up influences in a magpie like fashion. Re the NME list I don't see Paul Weller as being that influential or even the Smiths but I do think the Smiths were a truely great band.

yes - but there's degrees of influence. Lonnie Donnegan may have influenced John Lennon to form a skiffle band ... but really had very little influence in the music he made with the Beatles.

and how can you say that The Smiths weren't influential ... when everyone from the Stone Roses through Oasis to Doves sites them as a major influence on them, both for starting a band in the first place, and in their style. Both Johnny Marr's guitar style, and Morrissey's lyrics and vocal style have had a huge influence on late 80's and 90's indie rock

Get the Fraim