Most over rated ever?

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!

You can like or dislike Hank and Elvis, but it is stupid to underestimate their importance and influence in popular music.

Authenticity

Good band ... but over rated.

They've been credited with many an accomplishment to which Elvis, The Beach Boys and a number of black groups have a stronger claim.

This came to me the other day whilst listening to some pretentious drivel on the car radio...

How to instantly define a band/musician/genre as "Overrated"...

...anyone described as Seminal.
Especially by the NME...



anyone want to start an "Underrated" thread?

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)

While I consider the Beatle significantly better/more influential than the Elvis or the Beach Boys and warrant being rated very high - I hold that they are OVER rated.

Many consider them as the beginning of rock music, imposable to ever surpass in any measure of quality or influence - and that I don't agree with.

With all due respect, I think this might be a generational thing.

While there's no doubting the importance of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly in developing Rock on from the Elvis-dominated (et al) popular breakthrough, The Beatles not only popularised the whole thing beyond age/cultural barriers, but also knocked the whole rotten contemporary pop scene on its' head.

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.

They almost single-handedly created the environment for others to succeed in being weird. It would be hard to imagine how someone as "threatening" as Jimi Hendrix was perceived to be at the time could have a string of hits if the marketplace hadn't been softened up/created by The Beatles. The list could go on forever.

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

Nick - you make an interesting point, However...

I think though that Brian Wilson and much of early black American Music has been underrated relative to the Beatles. Brian Wilson has only recently been recognized for his significant influence.

If Little Richard had been white would we still rate the Beatles as highly?

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Barnard:
Nick - you make an interesting point, However...

I think though that Brian Wilson and much of early black American Music has been underrated relative to the Beatles. Brian Wilson has only recently been recognized for his significant influence.

If Little Richard had been white would we still rate the Beatles as highly?

---

I don't underestimate Wilson's contributions at all, but ultimately his most innovative work was driven by what he perceived to be the competition was doing - i.e The Beatles and Phil Spector.

And as to only recently being recognised for his influence, Pet Sounds was instantly hailed over here as being astonishing (and a best seller). In the U.S. it was generally not understood to be the masterpiece it is nor did it sell anywhere near what Wilson was expecting. It was a contributory factor (amongst others) to Wilson's breakdown.

The Beatles didn't come out of nowhere. They never tried to hide their roots in what Little Richard and Chuck Berry had been doing, and I can't argue with the fact that things might have been a little different had those inspirational figures been white (though both were spent forces by the early 60's - unless you want to count My Ding-A-Ling!).

However, neither Richard or Berry ever broke out of the thing they had going, whereas The Beatles took it to places no-one could ever have imagined in 1960.

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

Re the Smiths you are quite correct, but re LD if he influenced Lennon to start a band surely that is fair amount of influence. Would the Beatles exist without the Quarymen?

Dave Matthews
Jane's Addiction
Simply Red
Kitaro (the only concert I've ever left before it was over)

And whoever said Bill Laswell; you're nuts. Most people don't know who he is, which should be a criteria.

Ron The Mon,
Arch Kan defender and wall driller.