5 bands that shouldnt be given as much credit as they do

[Harry Dresden]

I'd add the Beatles and the Beach Boys.

you think the Beatles and The Beach Boys are overrated?......

Yep.

you dont know much about rock music do ya?....weather you like the Beatles or not.....the contribution they made to rock music in the 60's is incalculable.....and the Beach Boys were the embodiment of a whole type of music (Surf)......

 

[Harry Dresden]

nirvana
beatles
the dead
pearl jam
springsteen
dylan
greenday
coldplay
radiohead

and i agree with this dude's analysis....

Listology: 25 Most Overrated Bands of All Time

this guys whole list is bullshit.....the reason....its his opinion....if he would argue against the reasons the bands he mentions are famous for,i would give him some credit.....but much of it is...i did not like their music....so they are overrated....the Beatles,just for what they did for rock in the 60's,proves they are NOT overrated....

 

[Kalam]

you dont know much about rock music do ya?

About as much as most people, I guess. Sincerest apologies for having an opinion that isn't the same as yours...

....weather you like the Beatles or not.....the contribution they made to rock music in the 60's is incalculable.....

What were those contributions?

I can hardly stand some of their songs. "Yellow Submarine"... "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"... half of their tracks are complete shit as far as I'm concerned. Sure, they had a few good songs, but their music really doesn't do much for me.

Also, Wings. Good God, what a disaster.

and the Beach Boys were the embodiment of a whole type of music (Surf)......

The Beach Boys, IMO, were a pop band who sang a bit about surfing rather than a surf band. If I recall correctly, only one of them actually surfed. Misirlou (Dick Dale's version,) Pipeline, Wipeout... those were real surf songs.

The Beach Boys weren't bad even though they aren't my cup of tea, but they're completely overrated. They even stole a song from a far superior and far less appreciated artist, Chuck Berry.

 

[tigerbob]

....weather you like the Beatles or not.....the contribution they made to rock music in the 60's is incalculable.....

What were those contributions?

Writing in the Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll, Greil Marcus observed that “the form of the Beatles contained the forms of rock and roll itself. The Beatles combined the harmonic range and implicit equality of the Fifties vocal groups with the flash of a rockabilly band (the Crickets or Gene Vincent’s Blue Caps) with the aggressive and unique personalities of the classic rock stars (Elvis, Little Richard) with the homey, this-could-be-you manner of later rock stars (Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran) with the endlessly inventive songwriting touch of the Brill Building, and they delivered it all with the grace of the Miracles, the physicality of ‘Louie, Louie,’ and the absurd enthusiasm of Gary ‘U.S.’ Bonds.”

The Beatles

That's the opinion of a well known and respected music journalist and author but, shit, I just like their music.

 

[Grind]

u2 is terribad. radiohead is awesome.

 

[Harry Dresden]

you dont know much about rock music do ya?

About as much as most people, I guess. Sincerest apologies for having an opinion that isn't the same as yours...

....weather you like the Beatles or not.....the contribution they made to rock music in the 60's is incalculable.....

What were those contributions?

I can hardly stand some of their songs. "Yellow Submarine"... "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"... half of their tracks are complete shit as far as I'm concerned. Sure, they had a few good songs, but their music really doesn't do much for me.

Also, Wings. Good God, what a disaster.

and the Beach Boys were the embodiment of a whole type of music (Surf)......

The Beach Boys, IMO, were a pop band who sang a bit about surfing rather than a surf band. If I recall correctly, only one of them actually surfed. Misirlou (Dick Dale's version,) Pipeline, Wipeout... those were real surf songs.

The Beach Boys weren't bad even though they aren't my cup of tea, but they're completely overrated. They even stole a song from a far superior and far less appreciated artist, Chuck Berry.

Kalam.....your saying that the Beatles are overrated,because you dont like them,never mind what they accomplished in the 60s.....then you ask..."what were those contributions?".....if you dont know about the subject matter,maybe you should not comment.....GOOGLE the Beatles effect on Rock music and you will get hundreds of pages to go and learn something.....

Kalam quote....
The Beach Boys, IMO, were a pop band who sang a bit about surfing rather than a surf band. If I recall correctly, only one of them actually surfed. Misirlou (Dick Dale's version,) Pipeline, Wipeout... those were real surf songs.

also performed by a few NON-surfers....they lived the Beach life style Kalam....John Fogerty was not raised in the Bayou,yet his music makes you think he may have been.....

 

[Wolf]

you think the Beatles and The Beach Boys are overrated?......

Yep.

you dont know much about rock music do ya?....weather you like the Beatles or not.....the contribution they made to rock music in the 60's is incalculable.....and the Beach Boys were the embodiment of a whole type of music (Surf)......

The list of 25 most overated is.. overated as a list.. many of those band played a major role in the history and evolution of rock n roll and pop music..

You can say you dont like the Beatles music, influence, style, album covers or whatever.. but their influence on music is still around today, as are many other bands on that list.. so no they are not overated.. are many of their songs overplayed.. yes.. but get an album and listen to the whole thing.. most of their albums have great songs you dont hear on the radio or at parties..

The list seems like it was made by some high school kid with an internet connection.. or someone who just doesnt like mainstream music and want to show everyone how unique and individual they really are??

.. and the sex pistols.. wasnt about the sound or 25 minute guitar solos.. it was about anger, rebellion and individualism.. brought the punk movement to the mainstream audience.. so overated?? dont think so..

 

[Wolf]

you dont know much about rock music do ya?

About as much as most people, I guess. Sincerest apologies for having an opinion that isn't the same as yours...

....weather you like the Beatles or not.....the contribution they made to rock music in the 60's is incalculable.....

What were those contributions?

I can hardly stand some of their songs. "Yellow Submarine"... "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"... half of their tracks are complete shit as far as I'm concerned. Sure, they had a few good songs, but their music really doesn't do much for me.

Also, Wings. Good God, what a disaster.

and the Beach Boys were the embodiment of a whole type of music (Surf)......

The Beach Boys, IMO, were a pop band who sang a bit about surfing rather than a surf band. If I recall correctly, only one of them actually surfed. Misirlou (Dick Dale's version,) Pipeline, Wipeout... those were real surf songs.

The Beach Boys weren't bad even though they aren't my cup of tea, but they're completely overrated. They even stole a song from a far superior and far less appreciated artist, Chuck Berry.

Chuck Berry is far to underappreciated.. IMO.. and his music still sounds great today.. throw in Maybelline.. still a great song..

But I think he was the first step in the bridge from black rythm and blues to the white 'rock n roll' audience.. yeah bill haley and rock around the clock was all over the airwaves.. but Bill doesnt hold a candle to Chuck.. musically or historically.. IMO..

 

[DiamondDave]

The minute we had some bozos putting the likes of The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and Pink Floyd on a list like this, this thread became completely idiotic

 

[Meister]

The minute we had some bozos putting the likes of The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and Pink Floyd on a list like this, this thread became completely idiotic

Yeah, your right. It went from subjective to conjecture. A big difference huh?

 

[Xenophon]

you dont know much about rock music do ya?

About as much as most people, I guess. Sincerest apologies for having an opinion that isn't the same as yours...

....weather you like the Beatles or not.....the contribution they made to rock music in the 60's is incalculable.....

What were those contributions?

I can hardly stand some of their songs. "Yellow Submarine"... "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"... half of their tracks are complete shit as far as I'm concerned. Sure, they had a few good songs, but their music really doesn't do much for me.

Also, Wings. Good God, what a disaster.

and the Beach Boys were the embodiment of a whole type of music (Surf)......

The Beach Boys, IMO, were a pop band who sang a bit about surfing rather than a surf band. If I recall correctly, only one of them actually surfed. Misirlou (Dick Dale's version,) Pipeline, Wipeout... those were real surf songs.

The Beach Boys weren't bad even though they aren't my cup of tea, but they're completely overrated. They even stole a song from a far superior and far less appreciated artist, Chuck Berry.

I see you don't know anything about music either.

I bet you think Eminem is da bomb.

 

[DiamondDave]

What the Beatles did with albums like Revolver, Rubber Soul, The White Album, Sgt. Peppers, etc.. What the Beach Boys did with Pet Sounds and Sunflower... What Pink Floyd did with Dark Side of the Moon, Animals, Obscured by Clouds, etc... those contributions are irrefutable and justify their places in the spots as some of the most time changing, influential, innovative, and ingenious bands in modern music history...

If anything a band like the Beach Boys gets UNDER APPRECIATED because all that comes to mind to the ignorant bashers are songs like Surfin' Safari... Lennon, McCartney, Gillmore, Waters, and Wilson were essential cogs in the machinery that took music into the various generas that we have today... their talent and influence is unquestionable and rightfully deserving of the highest praise

 

[DiamondDave]

Now.. as for bands that I think get 'overrated' or too much credit...

One would have to be Metallica... They were a face.. ones that 16 year old boys got into because of the beat, the gnashed vocals that they could mimic, and the guttural feel to the music.. meanwhile you have metal greats such as Iron Maiden who don't get the limelight, but were infinitely more talented and complex and actually brought depth and changes to metal in their time...

Another would definitely be U2... a group that pretentious college kids hooked on to (along with other 'alternative' bands like The Cure)... very limited in their talent, and not very ingenious or altering in what they brought to their music..

Another would be Nirvana... the poster boy of the 'You can not feel my pain' movement, and the rest of this band, were not really the pioneers or masters of their craft and genera... much more credit would have to be given to the Screaming Trees, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains... but again a teen angst movement propelled them... hey were popular, not really great... kind of like the Britney Spears of their genera... a controversial train wreck with limited talent but a whole lot of popular appeal

There could be many more to list.. depending on what I'm thinking of.. the mood I'm in.. etc... You could go down the Bon Jovi path... you could go down the Meat Loaf path... you could go down the Phil Collins Genesis path.... hell, it could piss off some, but there are ways to go down the Bruce Springsteen path... but frankly, I'm sick as a dog and I really don't feel like posting a ton on this right now

 

[HUGGY]

I'd add the Beatles and the Beach Boys.

you think the Beatles and The Beach Boys are overrated?......

Yep.

Wow..thats says alot more about you than it does them. I would be the last to critisize or suggest that you are not human but probably some friggin creature from the outer space sent here to destroy all of mankind so I won't.

 

[Gunny]

Obviously some people don't a damned thing about the history of music, starting with the OP.

 

[Grind]

The problem with the term "overrated" is that the word itself is overrated and it's thrown around much to often as a negetive connotation. Overrated doesn't have to mean bad, something can be overrated and still very good.

As far as the beatles are concerned, I don't think it's possible for a band to be that big and NOT be overrated. At least as far as their music is concerned, some of it is indeed fluff. Realistically they should be respected more for paving the way and being an influence on so many bands that followed them. If the beatles weren't there in that time though, someone else would have stepped in and filled that void, and would be on the top of the pedestal today.

 

[DiamondDave]

The problem with the term "overrated" is that the word itself is overrated and it's thrown around much to often as a negetive connotation. Overrated doesn't have to mean bad, something can be overrated and still very good.

As far as the beatles are concerned, I don't think it's possible for a band to be that big and NOT be overrated. At least as far as their music is concerned, some of it is indeed fluff. Realistically they should be respected more for paving the way and being an influence on so many bands that followed them. If the beatles weren't there in that time though, someone else would have stepped in and filled that void, and would be on the top of the pedestal today.

And if they were NOT there.. .music would not be the same today.. .someone else would have been the popular lead at the time.... but nobody else was the Beatles, could have been the same musical impact as the Beatles, or would have really been as important as the Beatles are to us now...

When you have that much music, there is always going to be so called "fluff"... however.. much of the "fluff" of the Beatles was still ingenious in it's day.. and some of that "fluff" has even made it into our culture in many ways and many places... You hear Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da intro-ing for nostalgic TV shows... Yellow Submarine is taught to grade schoolers... Revolution#9 is still thought of continually for it's avant garde influence

Other bands would give almost anything to have the "fluff" of the Beatles as their best musical efforts

 

[Shogun]

woa.. hold up the fucking truth trolly a moment...


One would have to be Metallica... They were a face.. ones that 16 year old boys got into because of the beat, the gnashed vocals that they could mimic, and the guttural feel to the music.. meanwhile you have metal greats such as Iron Maiden who don't get the limelight, but were infinitely more talented and complex and actually brought depth and changes to metal in their time...

Iron Maiden would have been nothing more than another british band had Metallica not made heavy metal a household word. MORE talented? my ass. I'll stack iron maiden tunes against metallica (pre-black) all day long if your criteria is technicality, complexness and depth. Hell, the ONLY thing maiden really had was the vocals of bruce doling out textbook history lyrics. Maiden has MAYBE three popular songs from their entire cataloge.. Metallica had at LEAST that many on each pre-black album. Shit, Burton era Metallica especially kicks the shit out of maiden. You want to talk about IMAGE being SOLD to TEENAGERS, eh Eddie?

 

[Grind]

but nobody else was the Beatles, could have been the same musical impact as the Beatles, or would have really been as important as the Beatles are to us now...

This is where we disagree.

 

[DiamondDave]

woa.. hold up the fucking truth trolly a moment...


One would have to be Metallica... They were a face.. ones that 16 year old boys got into because of the beat, the gnashed vocals that they could mimic, and the guttural feel to the music.. meanwhile you have metal greats such as Iron Maiden who don't get the limelight, but were infinitely more talented and complex and actually brought depth and changes to metal in their time...

Iron Maiden would have been nothing more than another british band had Metallica not made heavy metal a household word. MORE talented? my ass. I'll stack iron maiden tunes against metallica (pre-black) all day long if your criteria is technicality, complexness and depth. Hell, the ONLY thing maiden really had was the vocals of bruce doling out textbook history lyrics. Maiden has MAYBE three popular songs from their entire cataloge.. Metallica had at LEAST that many on each pre-black album. Shit, Burton era Metallica especially kicks the shit out of maiden. You want to talk about IMAGE being SOLD to TEENAGERS, eh Eddie?

I am a pretty decent fan of Cliffy era Metallica.... but Cliffy don't hold a candle to Steve... and I am not paralleling popularity (which Metallica had) with talent.... James, Lars, etc really are not that great and never were... I'd put Steve Harris and Bruce as 2 of the best in metal ever...

And Maiden had good stuff out before Metallica even formed...

Yes.. Eddie was a great marketing tool for the album covers.. no doubt.... but unfortunately, they get more credit for that than their musical and lyrical prowess....

I've listened to them both and seen 'em both.. and Metallica does not even come close in depth, talent, or performance... now I can listen to a Cliffy era argument, though I may not agree... but everything post-Cliffy has been worthy of the dumpster.. even the lest popular Iron Maiden albums have been worthwhile, if not popular sellers