Overrated bands.

[Dave-W]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raise_Your_Glass

Ah. No.

She was born a decade AFTER Frijid Pink was popular.

I have never listened to that woman sing. But I am sure she is not acid rock or metal.

 

[Citanul]

For example, Iron Maiden is considered metal, but to me, they sound less heavy and far more melodic than bands that are traditionally considered "metal", with the exception of their more recent albums.

Plenty of metal is melodic, so that's certainly not a criterion for considering something not metal. And while there are heavier bands out there than Iron Maiden, they're very definitely metal and you'd be hard-pressed to find a source that didn't consider them as such.

 

[Jadis40]

To me, the dividing line between "hard rock" and "heavy metal" is the guitars, but the lines, in some cases, can be very blurred. I've read in other forums a question similar to this one.

When I think "hard rock" I think of bands like Aerosmith and Van Halen, where there's more of a catchy beat and more blues based in the guitar line. The best way I can put it is there's more of a chord progression in metal. To my ears anyway, there are a lot of metal songs that are a lot more melodic, like Rainbow's song "Stargazer" or Metallica's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Wherever I May Roam" or "The Unforgiven".

The best way I can sum it up is: hard rock is more about the beat and guitar hooks, and in some cases metal is more about the melody.

 

[Sammy-San]

Plenty of metal is melodic, so that's certainly not a criterion for considering something not metal. And while there are heavier bands out there than Iron Maiden, they're very definitely metal and you'd be hard-pressed to find a source that didn't consider them as such.

Iron Maiden sounds nothing like Avenged Sevenfold, Metallica, or "typical" metal.

 

[Citanul]

Iron Maiden sounds nothing like Avenged Sevenfold, Metallica, or "typical" metal.

Metal is an incredibly diverse genre, so there's no such thing as a typical metal band. Just because a band doesn't sound like Metallica doesn't mean that they're not metal.

 

[Sammy-San]

Hard to overrate the Beatles given how much they completely revolutionized the sound and style of popular music. Looking backwards for those who didn't live through that time, it is hard to see and the temptation is to simply compare their music to other similar music that was released shortly after the Beatles did something new - but they may have been the most innovative popular band ever. In addition to the influence, they are still one of the most commercially successful bands ever.

I'd agree with Kiss. Never thought GNR was anything special or viewed as iconic, so perhaps they are correctly rated (in my mind) as just another short term popular rock band.

U2 in the early years was pretty special - lately not so much.

Who would I put on the list? In the Christian realm Steven Curtis Chapman easily. Pretty generic to me but people seem to view him as some kind of musical great. I think it is just a side effect of releasing something like 20 albums.

Also Maroon 5, Linkin Park make my list.

Do you agree with this?

http://dagblog.com/arts-entertainment/michael-jackson-overrated-775

Michael Jackson may well have been the "King of Pop," an inglorious distinction. Pop music is characterized by over-produced sound, trite and superficial lyrics, gooey sentimentality, glitzy spectacle, corporate sponsorships, and explosive but short-lived careers--all hallmarks of Jackson's reign. The brief spark of creativity that Jackson helped inspire in the early 80's quickly slipped into a morass of pop tripe, dominated by powerful profit-driven record labels and artistry-free Top-10 lists.

TIME magazine called Jackson, "a one-man rescue team for the music business." I can't help thinking that it's a shame that the "music business" was rescued at all, and I wonder what innovations might have flowered if my generation had not been stuffed with a sugar candy diet of Casey Kasem's Top 40 and MTV dance videos.

 

[Jadis40]

Metal is an incredibly diverse genre, so there's no such thing as a typical metal band. Just because a band doesn't sound like Metallica doesn't mean that they're not metal.

This is definitely true. Long before I became someone who enjoys listening to metal, I had lumped "Metal" into one overarching umbrella and had stereotyped it, thinking it all sounded the same. Than again, when the airwaves were dominate by hair bands in the 80's and 90's, that's all I really knew about. Then, at the prompting of someone online, I began to listen to more metal in the early 2000's. What I've discovered is it's an incredibly diverse genre of music, and no two bands sound exactly the same, even though they might fit into the same subgenre.

Subgenres being:

Thrash, Gothic, Symphonic, Doom, Heavy Metal, Black, Folk, Power, Death, Progressive, and so on. That's only a handful. Sometimes in those subgenres, there's even more subgenres. It can be a little nuts, but that's why I find it so interesting.

 

[Dave-W]

I noticed you left off proto-metal.

I am a fan of that. Here is one from a group considered (by many - not all) to be the first metal band:

This one from 1967 is considered by my son to be the first metal tune:

Btw - NONE of the pics show this version of the band.

 

[BookofMatt]

I personally don't believe in titles like "proto-metal" or "proto-punk" or anything similarly retrospective; most of it usually falls quite easily under the banner of hard rock or garage rock. It's more descriptive of its era rather than any actual developed genre.

On the topic at hand, the first band which comes to my mind as quintessentially overrated is Sublime. Had Bradley Nowell not died at the height of their fame, they would have fizzled out of the spotlight because their music is merely passable, their lyrics are insipid and I've heard several first-hand accounts of people who saw them in the '90s that they were pretty bad live (usually because they were stoned all the time). And since I live in Orange County/Long Beach, I constantly get to hear them on the radio or played in local shops/restaurants or blasting out of people's cars or seeing a slew of shirts, stickers, tattoos, etc. It's totally fine if people just like their music, but some people in California treat them like they were one of the greatest bands since The Beach Boys, which they simply just weren't.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Nothing against some of these artists but I think people tend to hype them up way too much:

The Beatles
Nirvana
Led Zeppelin
John Mayer
Pearl Jam
Dave Matthews Band
The Grateful Dead
Lady Gaga
Bon Jovi
Taylor Swift
Most mainstream rappers

 

[BookofMatt]

I differentiate between "overrated" and "overhyped". "Overrated" typically implies undeserved praise. Someone like The Beatles, for example, were hardly flawless: they had a good number of crappy songs, but nobody can deny their influence which literally changed the music industry and pop culture as a whole. They're absolutely deserving of acclaim, but not to a level of being hyped as "the greatest band ever".

I feel that's true of most of the bands on the above list: strip away the idolization and commercialization of Nirvana, their albums on their own merits are exceptional. Strip away the idolization and commercialization of Sublime, and I still feel their music and lyrics are mediocre. That's how I split "overrated" and "overhyped", at least.

 

[Sammy-San]

I differentiate between "overrated" and "overhyped". "Overrated" typically implies undeserved praise. Someone like The Beatles, for example, were hardly flawless: they had a good number of crappy songs, but nobody can deny their influence which literally changed the music industry and pop culture as a whole. They're absolutely deserving of acclaim, but not to a level of being hyped as "the greatest band ever".

I feel that's true of most of the bands on the above list: strip away the idolization and commercialization of Nirvana, their albums on their own merits are exceptional. Strip away the idolization and commercialization of Sublime, and I still feel their music and lyrics are mediocre. That's how I split "overrated" and "overhyped", at least.

What's the difference? I can tell there's a nuance here but it's hard to say exactly what it is.

 

[BookofMatt]

I...explained it. "Overrated" typically implies undeserved praise. In the case of bands like The Beatles, there's certainly talent to praise, but the hyperbolic hype of "the greatest band ever" can easily distract from the quality of their music on its own merits. If you look at the songs of an artist on their own merits rather than basing your expectations on critical acclaim, that's how you effectively gauge quality.

The Beatles were genuinely innovative and talented, but they're not wholly deserving of the title of "the greatest band ever" as they usually are. They're overhyped. On the other hand, Oasis were heralded as "the next Beatles" and the world's greatest rock band when they came out, but eventually people realized they weren't all that good, original or consistent. They were overrated. For me, the difference lies in the actual quality.

 

[Sammy-San]

I...explained it. "Overrated" typically implies undeserved praise. In the case of bands like The Beatles, there's certainly talent to praise, but the hyperbolic hype of "the greatest band ever" can easily distract from the quality of their music on its own merits. If you look at the songs of an artist on their own merits rather than basing your expectations on critical acclaim, that's how you effectively gauge quality.

The Beatles were genuinely innovative and talented, but they're not wholly deserving of the title of "the greatest band ever" as they usually are. They're overhyped. On the other hand, Oasis were heralded as "the next Beatles" and the world's greatest rock band when they came out, but eventually people realized they weren't all that good, original or consistent. They were overrated. For me, the difference lies in the actual quality.

This is kinda confusing. So now you're saying overrated means bad? The definition that my computer's dictionary says is, "
Have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved."

 

[Sketcher]

U2. They're good, but the hype has them as music gods. They're not that good.

 

[Sammy-San]

U2. They're good, but the hype has them as music gods. They're not that good.

Who do you think is underrated? Hmm that's a bit trickier.

 

[BookofMatt]

U2. They're good, but the hype has them as music gods. They're not that good.

I agree. 'The Joshua Tree' is a phenomenal album and well deserving of its praise. I have no qualms about that one being put on a "greatest albums of all time" list, but nothing else U2 done since has even come close, in my opinion, or at least never reached the same level of impact or originality.

 

[thehehe]

Agree with The Beatles. Please, do not kill me!

 

[Dave-W]

The Beatles were genuinely innovative and talented, but they're not wholly deserving of the title of "the greatest band ever" as they usually are. They're overhyped.

I agree. I really like them a lot and they were groundbreaking in many ways, but they lacked the outside voice of a producer that could have made them even better than they were. Left to their own resources they made songs that just went on and on and on and .......

Example: "Hey Jude" would have been much better at 3 minutes than the 7+ minutes it came out as.

 

[Thunder Peel]

I agree. 'The Joshua Tree' is a phenomenal album and well deserving of its praise. I have no qualms about that one being put on a "greatest albums of all time" list, but nothing else U2 done since has even come close, in my opinion, or at least never reached the same level of impact or originality.

The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are still two of the greatest and most influential albums of the past 30 years, not to mention the success of albums like War, The Unforgettable Fire and All That You Can't Leave Behind. How many groups have been around for 40 years, still have all their original members, are still putting out new material and selling out venues across the globe? U2 is the last of the big bands and has continued to remain relevant in spite of shifting culture and industry standards.