Most overrated band?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh F Yeah

Well......I got this far ^ before I felt compelled to comment on Metaphor's mindless dribble. I'm sure this is probably before your time and most likely WAY over your head, but if you are really searching for music (and lyrics) that "actually makes you think to understand and relate to" and is not "blantly obvious that a 4 year old could understand them", then I would respectfully recommend you reconsider your comments regarding Pink Floyd. The below is taken from a site that provides backround/history/information/thoughts regarding Pink Floyds' "Animals" albumn/cd. And if you haven't smoked a fatty....closed your eyes....and NOT found Animals "trippy" enough for you, then sir.......you don't know what "trippy" is and in fact....have probably never actually tripped. Good day.

---

Animals is about (a) companionship in a cold world (Pigs on the Wing), (b) the emptiness of a consumptive, competitive, capitalist life, and the disposability of workers (Dogs), (c) Obscenity mavens, censorship, and sexual hypocrisy (Pigs-TDO), (d) Workers uprising and revolution (Sheep).

None of which, to me, have any kind of psychedelic appeal. These are about the relationship of the human soul to a dehumanized, mechanized culture. Animals is more a punk album than it is a psychedelic one, at least lyrically. Musically, it is a progressive rock album, not a psychedelic one.

I'm not saying that you can't enjoy it while high or dig pigs over power stations as a surreal image, but I am saying that if you approach this record expecting to have some kind of psychedelic experience, you're missing the point. In particular the blistering indictment of late capitalism, in terms of what it does to the human spirit.

Has any one said Hinder yet? Fuck they remind me of nickelback! and i HATE nickelback!!!

:chainsaw:

To say Nirvana is the most over-rated band ever is probobly the biggest shortcut to thinking I have ever heard, Heres why...

1) NIrvana wasnt about the fastest fucking lick or the longest song. All they were was a new-wave punk group who weremanipulated by the general public and bastardized. Contrary to what people think, Kurt Cobain was a very unique songwriter with an untouchable gift for melody. Just because he was a sloppy guitar player, dosent make them a bad band.

2) Dave Grohl was a fantastic drummer. He had perfect timing and could really wail. The perfrect drummer for the band.

3)JUst because they were popular dosent make them over-rated. If that were the case, I'll find you a million people who think Zeppelin, or Floyd are over-rated. AT least Kurt was original and didn't steal, blantantly, other artists materials.

Its important to realize, that behind all the screaming, and sloppy guitar paying, and strange stage behavior was a very passionate musician who had more heart and soul than 90 % of the performers today. Listen to some of their tunes, they are leaps and vounds bettter than ANYTHING out today. And thats just a FACT!. I havent listend to Nirvana in about 5 years, but they were my favorite band at the time, and I still have a huge amount of respect for their input on not only mainstream music, but the business in general. Nirvana were unique, innovative, passionate and fun. They were the guns n roses you could actually like. I don't think they are the grestest band ever, but they sure as hell arent the most overated..not even close.

Him

As far as who is over-rated or not, most of what I've heard in this thread is really just personal opinion. Time is the real test of whether or not a band is over-rated. The very fact that bands like Pink Floyd, The Beatles, and Led Zeppelin are even being debated here shows that they are not over-rated.
They may not appeal to your personal tastes but the fact remains that they are hugely popular 20-40 years after they made their last recording. That really says something.

Who will be talking about Tool in 30 years? Or Nirvana? We'll have to wait and see. I personnaly don't think anyone will but maybe that's just due to my personal tastes. I'm old enough to remember though, when everyone thought bands like Ratt and Whitesnake were the greatest thing since sliced bread. And where are they now?

i think tool is pretty overrated. i used to listen to them in high school. they arent bad or anything, just very overrated. i see a tool shirt everyday.

modest mouse is overrated. they were good when they werent popular..and im not sayign that just because they are popular. listen to their older stuff and you be the judge.

metallica is overrated soooo much. st anger is a buttwipe. bring me back to and justice for all and ill change my mind.

i could go on and on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

Who will be talking about Tool in 30 years? Or Nirvana? We'll have to wait and see. I personnaly don't think anyone will but maybe that's just due to my personal tastes. I'm old enough to remember though, when everyone thought bands like Ratt and Whitesnake were the greatest thing since sliced bread. And where are they now?

---

nirvana ended in 94 and 13 years later i still hear them on the radio. i think theyll be talked about for a looooong time now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halfassedjediknight

nirvana ended in 94 and 13 years later i still hear them on the radio. i think theyll be talked about for a looooong time now.

---

Maybe, but my personal feeling is that it has a lot more to do with the fact that Cobain ate a shotgun than the music. Not that I don't like some of Nirvana's stuff, and they certainly were very influential. But just look at Pearl Jam; at the time they were as big, if not bigger than Nirvana. Now they're pretty much considered has beens. Certainly they don't have the status that Nirvana does.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened if Cobain was still around. What if it was James Hetfield who took his head off instead of Cabain? Would Nirvana still be putting out good music, or would they be putting out their own version of "St Anger"? Hell, even when In Utero came out people were already starting to say they were going downhill. It does make you wonder. One way or another, it can't be argued that dieing a spectacular death doesn't help record sales.

This has nothing to do with personal feelings or bullshit, Over rating a band has nothing to do about how your feel about there music.

I dont care much for millions of bands but i can still recognize there achievements. Just becuase alot of people over rate pinkfloyd and find them to be gods doesnt mean they are over rated.

Pink floyd and the beatles is just a very good example becuase alot of people like them now decades later. But its not the point who likes them and how many ppeople do and what the people are like who like them. Its strickly on how they manipulate their forms of music into the industry. Pink floyd and the beatles have every right to be rated highly, if u cared to look into music and how people influence it, u will see millions of bands are influence on these two.

Shut up if you dont like the music or the people who like the music. Its not your place to say there overrated, esp when they have done more for music then most shitty bands you probably like and hold higher.

This has nothing to do with personal feelings, what makes a band good is not who listens to it, its how the band effects the music.

The doors, the beatles, pinkfloyd, bob marley, elvis, jimi H.

they all changed music, who gives a fuck what people think, there in my book becuase of what they have done for music, not how people like them or dislike them.

You cannot over rate a band who has done so much for the music industry, even if people are extremely over ecstatic about them.

If you dont think pink floyd is psyh. rock, ur living under a fuckin rock.

So is Elvis influencial to music because he mimiced and to an extent plagerized the style off black blue musicians? If there wasn't a racial parity in those days, would you even have heard of Elvis? Probably not.

Just because a band is popular doesn't mean it has an impact on music. Are you saying Britney is making waves with music? Absolutely not.

I'm not trying to discredit great musicians and bands such as Bob Marley, Pink Floyd, Jimmy, The Doors, or The Beatles. They each were popular for a reason, each were damn good and their sound has mass appeal to people.

However, all I read is you trying to equate influence with popularity. That could be further from the truth.

Each artist, has multiple influences that derive from both popular and obscure music. It's unfair to say only the popular bands have the most impact.

What about guys who never had commercial success, but later won critical acclaim for their impact on music, even spawning separate genres? You heard of The Velvet Underground, the godfather of multiple genres of rock? Or Brian Eno, who is considered the godfather is not only electronica, but new wave, and glam rock? Just because a band never had commercial success doesn't mean their impact on music was any less than The Beatles or Jimmy.