Overrated bands.

[BookofMatt]

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.

I'm certainly not knocking U2 or their impact, but while I really dug their early work, I just never found them to match the excellence of 'The Joshua Tree' in songwriting or production on their subsequent albums. My own opinion, of course.

 

[Citanul]

Except that Neil Peart wasn't Rush's original drummer...

In any case, ZZ Top beats both of them, having had no line-up changes since 1969. But still having all the original members is largely irrelevant. Yes, it's an impressive feat, but it has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the music.

And I would disagree that U2 are "the last of the big bands". There are definitely other long-established bands who are still releasing albums (sometimes at a greater frequency than U2) which are well-received e.g. Iron Maiden, Depeche Mode, Def Leppard, Pet Shop Boys, Aerosmith, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Megadeth.

 

[BookofMatt]

Except that Neil Peart wasn't Rush's original drummer...

And technically Geddy's not their original bassist if we're going by the original original "Rush" line-up of 1968. As much as Rush fans respect the late John Rutsey, Rush would have never become Rush without Neil Peart. I think an exception can be made, especially after 44 years. If this were an alternate universe where John, Paul, George and Ringo were still performing as The Beatles, would anyone complain that they weren't complete because Pete Best wasn't still drumming with them?

 

[Citanul]

And technically Geddy's not their original bassist if we're going by the original original "Rush" line-up of 1968. As much as Rush fans respect the late John Rutsey, Rush would have never become Rush without Neil Peart. I think an exception can be made, especially after 44 years. If this were an alternate universe where John, Paul, George and Ringo were still performing as The Beatles, would anyone complain that they weren't complete because Pete Best wasn't still drumming with them?

I agree that Rush wouldn't have been what they were with Peart, but my point was that they can't be used in an argument about original members. Longevity without a doubt, but they recorded that single album with Rutsey, so even if you define "original lineup" as the lineup on a band's first recording (which you may have to do with U2 as they did have some additional members in the early days even if I don't think they weren't called U2 then), Rush don't qualify.

But even though Peart wasn't an original member, I'd still take Rush over U2 any day.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I would say KISS, Guns N Roses, ACDC, Bruce Springsteen, U2,

I'm with you. I can see those. I'd add every band and artist who emerged since 2002 or so (because of our overamped/overhyped 24/7 "celeb" oriented media), and Coldplay.

The Beatles were overrated.

I'm pretty sure this is blasphemy. I will pray for you. ;-) Definitely disagree with you on this. There isn't a possible way TO over rate the Beatles. Yeah, it started with other bands and artists. Elvis, Sinatra, the Mississippi delta blues artists. And yeah, (I skipped ahead), there were other pioneers such as Hendrix, Doors, M. Jackson, Clapton and what have you. These all came after the Beatles. That is....the Beatles had already sculpted the culture and planted the seeds for everything else that was to come, if in cases where their actual music didn't give direct inspiration.

 

[BookofMatt]

Well, to be fair, the topic wasn't solely about original members, they were just a good example of the "big bands" who were still touring, still putting out albums, still acclaimed, etc.

 

[Sammy-San]

I'm with you. I can see those. I'd add every band and artist who emerged since 2002 or so (because of our overamped/overhyped 24/7 "celeb" oriented media), and Coldplay.


I'm pretty sure this is blasphemy. I will pray for you. ;-) Definitely disagree with you on this. There isn't a possible way TO over rate the Beatles. Yeah, it started with other bands and artists. Elvis, Sinatra, the Mississippi delta blues artists. And yeah, (I skipped ahead), there were other pioneers such as Hendrix, Doors, M. Jackson, Clapton and what have you. These all came after the Beatles. That is....the Beatles had already sculpted the culture and planted the seeds for everything else that was to come, if in cases where their actual music didn't give direct inspiration.

how is coldplay overrated? if anything, theyre way better than the beatles. http://www.thetoptens.com/rock-bands/coldplay-44316.asp

what is so great about them?

 

[Citanul]

how is coldplay overrated? if anything, theyre way better than the beatles.

Coldplay way better than The Beatles? You can't just leave it with that statement - you're definitely going to have to justify your view.

 

[Sammy-San]

Coldplay way better than The Beatles? You can't just leave it with that statement - you're definitely going to have to justify your view.

http://www.thetoptens.com/rock-bands/coldplay-44316.asp

Best band of the 21st century by far. They are not emo and sadistic. They write beautiful music that touches the hearts of millions. It has certainly touched my heart and made me look at life in a different way. Beautiful, emotional songs blended with unique-sounding guitar, mellow bass lines, soft drum beats, and an amazing beautiful singer makes Coldplay an absolute wonder in the music world. Look them up, they will touch your soul. - jprg12


These four guys are pure talent. They write their own songs, they co-produced their music, the art they use for their music, every song has its own and unique cover. They are genuine, educated, humbles, creative, always changing their music, always better. One song of Coldplay could mean many things, you'll never know the real meaning until you feel it. They are not a band that uses sexual images or sadisms or do stupid things for marketing purposes. They are the kind of band that I'd like my children listen to.

 

[stevenfrancis]

how is coldplay overrated? if anything, theyre way better than the beatles. http://www.thetoptens.com/rock-bands/coldplay-44316.asp

what is so great about them?

Well, we're just giving opinions here. If you have found something that touches you with any modern musical artists, that's a wonderful thing. They don't do it for me. But hey, neither do much of anyone else since about 2002. There are a few exceptions. Not sure if you would have heard any of them or not. I'm a big Adele fan. I'm sure you've heard of her. That is probably my most recent. There's Porcupine Tree, Transatlantic, Spock's Beard, Secret Chiefs 3, and a hand full of others that don't have that sort of .......???? "samey"?? sound to them. It's hard to explain. Anyway. Didn't mean to touch a nerve or anything. We like what we like. Was just putting in my 2 cents.

Peace,

 

[Citanul]

http://www.thetoptens.com/rock-bands/coldplay-44316.asp

As far as I can tell, that's just a bunch of quotes from Coldplay fans. Why do you say that Coldplay are "way better" than the Beatles?

There's nothing wrong with you preferring Coldplay, but threads like this are far more productive when people explain why they think something rather than just throwing out a statement and leaving it at that.

 

[Lik3]

how is coldplay overrated? if anything, theyre way better than the beatles. http://www.thetoptens.com/rock-bands/coldplay-44316.asp

what is so great about them?

I have got to think about those who are overrated. I guess judging from many people's opinion, Nickleback would be considered overrated considering that they have a fanbase and have been around for over two decades. Personally, I don't they are THAT bad. They are okay, but they cannot be the worst band ever. BTW, I find Coldplay to be more underrated than anything, especially when it comes to their live performances.

 

[Sammy-San]

I'm with you. I can see those. I'd add every band and artist who emerged since 2002 or so (because of our overamped/overhyped 24/7 "celeb" oriented media), and Coldplay.


I'm pretty sure this is blasphemy. I will pray for you. ;-) Definitely disagree with you on this. There isn't a possible way TO over rate the Beatles. Yeah, it started with other bands and artists. Elvis, Sinatra, the Mississippi delta blues artists. And yeah, (I skipped ahead), there were other pioneers such as Hendrix, Doors, M. Jackson, Clapton and what have you. These all came after the Beatles. That is....the Beatles had already sculpted the culture and planted the seeds for everything else that was to come, if in cases where their actual music didn't give direct inspiration.

Would you argue if i say MJ was overrated too?

With the exception of Thriller, the best selling album of all time, Michael Jackson’s solo career from 1979 to 1994 (no, Blood on the Dance Floor in ’97 doesn’t count), and not counting the horrid posthumous releases and an abortion of an album in 2001, was mostly just smoke and mirrors and some brilliant marketing. Theme parks, arcade games, sci-fi music videos, hanging out with the kid from Home Alone–that was what made Michael Jackson popular following Thriller.

1979’s Off the Wall (his first real hit as a solo star) was a disco record that had two notable singles, “Rock With You” and “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough,” which at this point, are dated Studio 54 “bangers” that do nothing on the dance floor except remind people of how famous Michael Jackson was in 1979. After that, from 1980 to 1991, Jackson’s reign as the biggest pop star on the planet, culminated in just one masterpiece, Thriller, which signaled the beginning of the end.

Seriously, think about it, what did Michael Jackson do after Thriller?

Aside from a few outstanding tracks off 1987’s Bad (really, just“Smooth Criminal” and “Man in the Mirror”) the next decade wasn’t that great. In fact, it was bad.

Dangerous was filled with almost nothing but whining about his troubles. History, mostly a greatest hits record with a few political messages, wasn’t even close to as impressive as the kiss he shared with Lisa Marie at the MTV Video Music Awards in ’94. PR stunt? Sure, but it was more interesting than his music career at the time.

The two albums were footnotes that included two of the most bloated and unlistenable pop songs ever: “Jam” and “Scream.”

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/221072/madonna-was-better-than-michael-jackson/

 

[Sammy-San]

I differentiate between "overrated" and "overhyped". "Overrated" typically implies undeserved praise. Someone like The Beatles, for example,

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.

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.

this is kinda confusing. I thought overrated means they get more acclaim or fame/money than they deserve (like people who think led zeppelin are the greatest), based on the quality of their work. that sounds very similar to overhyped.

 

[Sammy-San]

Well, we're just giving opinions here. If you have found something that touches you with any modern musical artists, that's a wonderful thing. They don't do it for me. But hey, neither do much of anyone else since about 2002. There are a few exceptions. Not sure if you would have heard any of them or not. I'm a big Adele fan. I'm sure you've heard of her. That is probably my most recent. There's Porcupine Tree, Transatlantic, Spock's Beard, Secret Chiefs 3, and a hand full of others that don't have that sort of .......???? "samey"?? sound to them. It's hard to explain. Anyway. Didn't mean to touch a nerve or anything. We like what we like. Was just putting in my 2 cents.

Peace,

What about indie artists? I think they're pretty good.

Since you brought up Adele, on the topic of female singers, I'd like to say I think Lana Del Rey is very overrated.