Stu, there are no rule... I just don't want people putting on, " I never liked Yes" (or whoever) without an explanation.

Paul McCartney as a solo artist:  (inspirered by Merry's statement)

After he left the Beatles, he attempted, and succeded in ruining his credibility as a songmaker, and yet, still gets inducted into the RNR Hall of Fame.

In the begining, he did manage to put out a few good songs in his solo career:
"Jet", "Band on the Run", "Uncle Albert/Admiril Hassey", "Maybe Im amazed"...hell, I'll even give him "Venus and Mars", but, over time, mostly during Wings tenure, Paul decided to become crappy.

"Live and let die" is one of the worst songs ever recorded...I was shocked to find out that it was from the same man who wrote the genius "Michelle" and "Back in the USSR"

After Wings, he managed to make it even worse, putting out crap after crap....and thinking it was good pop.  "Give my regards to Broad street" is a piece of crap, as is most of his output from then ("Junior's farm" anyone?)

Plus, if you want to hear the worst rendition of "Hey Jude" just look at Paul and Linda's......shocking that Paul was the one who did it originally.....

In the late 90s he still sucked with songs that arent even worth mentining...same with most of the 80s (ironic that his best work in the 80s was with one Michael Jackson?...one who now cant get a hit even if he actully tried)

After Sep 11th, he came out with the song "Freedom"...his heart was in the right place, but the song sucked....it was repetitive nonsense (if you want to hear a good Sep 11th song, pick up Neil Young's "Lets Roll").  I forget his album afterwards, but it did have a fairly good song on it called "Lonely Road"....that was very reminiscient of mid-60s Beatles....

Ringo fell the same way as Paul, only Ringo was never that good....only John and George had good solo careers. 

My Top 5 Overrated Bands

5Guns n Roses: I love them but come on now?
4Van Halen no matter whos singing: Honestly I hate this band, they suck.
3Def Leppard: pretty much the same thing as number 4 they suck!
2The Beatles: I love the beatles, they had catchy songs, but their lyrics are what make them over rated.
1Ozzy Osbourne: the guy cant sing, his songs suck, and since when does a prince of darkness become an actor, not very dark to me..geeze!

Their lead vocalist, fair-haired middle-aged boy Justin Hayward, is said by some to have "the voice of a choir boy".
Sure, if you mean a choir boy whose voice changed but who STILL didn't have the balls to hang it up when he should have (oh well, at least they adapted and now have a trio of soprano-voiced women singing all their high notes for them when they go on tour...been to many concerts, so I know).



I can't help but think of Jon Anderson of Yes who most sounds like a choirboy, and carrying on the M.O. quite well for nearly 40 years!

My choice for OVERRATED--the one and only Dave Matthews Band! No comments now, out of time....

are we only picking on classic rock bands, or can we go after contemporary bands?

How about critic and record store clerk favorites, Radiohead?

Their first couple of albums were ok, and then they began doing the most pretentious crap imaginable.  Not sure what Kid A is supposed to even be, it sure isn't listenable, and it isn't rock music.  It's like they listened to "Metal Machine Music" and said, let's make a lamer version.

I have to disagree with the Beatles being lumped into the overrated category.  Paul McCartney, yes, the Beatles no.  They were very experimental and helped push the boundries of rock the last three years they were together.  Look at someone like the Rolling Stones, and you'd realize they've hardly ever changed their formula.  You can play their old music right alongside their current music and you can't tell where one begins and the next one ends. 

I'm with you about the Beatles, Chucky. They were the first to do so many things, no one else comes close. But I didn't start this to argue with anyone, just to inspire funny reasons why someone might be overrated. As a humor songwriter, I am sometimes stunned at the things people get offended at, like making fun of their favorite band. I once got kicked out of a party for singing a Monkees song along with the music of a Grateful Dead song (They matched up pretty well)
One guy I worked with said, "You and your wife should do serious music and make some money, why do you waste your time with this funny crap?"
That's what I love about your little cyber-arena. People generally "Get it".

I'm with you about the Beatles, Chucky. They were the first to do so many things, no one else comes close. But I didn't start this to argue with anyone, just to inspire funny reasons why someone might be overrated. As a humor songwriter, I am sometimes stunned at the things people get offended at, like making fun of their favorite band. I once got kicked out of a party for singing a Monkees song along with the music of a Grateful Dead song (They matched up pretty well)
One guy I worked with said, "You and your wife should do serious music and make some money, why do you waste your time with this funny crap?"
That's what I love about your little cyber-arena. People generally "Get it".


I think people don't understand to some extent, that is after all just pop music.  It was originally considered disposable music.  The fact that some of it seems to rise above and could even be considered in the same category as serious music is probably irritating enough to some people. 

I think the reason people get offended is that their favorite band isn't a bunch of god-like performers even if they happen to think they are.  Reality stinks you know.

Follow Duran Duran like I have for 20+ years, and you tend to learn how to ignore it all.

Follow any band you can ignore it all
Like Du-ra-ran-ran
Like Du-ran-ran
Pretty soon the music winds up in a mall
Like Du-ra-ran-ran
Like Du-ran-ran

See? Now you're writing parodies, Chucky

Follow any band you can ignore it all
Like Du-ra-ran-ran
Like Du-ran-ran
Pretty soon the music winds up in a mall
Like Du-ra-ran-ran
Like Du-ran-ran

See? Now you're writing parodies, Chucky



My parody attempts are far worse than that.

and there is one on amiright somewhere.  Just one.

are we only picking on classic rock bands, or can we go after contemporary bands?

How about critic and record store clerk favorites, Radiohead?

Their first couple of albums were ok, and then they began doing the most pretentious crap imaginable.  Not sure what Kid A is supposed to even be, it sure isn't listenable, and it isn't rock music.  It's like they listened to "Metal Machine Music" and said, let's make a lamer version.

I have to disagree with the Beatles being lumped into the overrated category.  Paul McCartney, yes, the Beatles no.  They were very experimental and helped push the boundries of rock the last three years they were together.  Look at someone like the Rolling Stones, and you'd realize they've hardly ever changed their formula.  You can play their old music right alongside their current music and you can't tell where one begins and the next one ends. 


Completely agree about Radiohead.  Including the comparison to Metal Music machine. 

Good Radiohead can be seen "Creep" to The Bends and Ok Computer (which is overrated).  Kid A and Amnesiac are inlistenable and confusing if youve ever been a fan of their early stuff...Hail to Theif had its moments (mostly in "2+2=5" and "There there"), but it turned out to be the most overrated album of 2003

An overrated bands list could easily be endless.  My personal list at any given moment is usually a response to any number of awful or simply weak bands who wrongfully succeed primarily because:

A. there is nothing else of consequence or worth happening.
B. someone has paid a large sum of money to push their inferior product.
C. a record label needs a tax write off.
D. there is nothing else of consequence or worth happening.

Off the top of my head, here are some overrated bands and artists from my list, in no particular order:

1. Lenny Kravitz - A painfully derivative amateur who has built a career by ripping off too many other, actually talented, artists from the late 60s and 70s.  He has yet to release anything original, impressive, necessary or worth listening to which makes his ridiculous arrogance all the more inexplicable.

2. U2 - Yeah, I liked "New Year's Day" too, sort of, for a short time in the early 80s, but enough already!  This bloated, pompous bunch of windbags never learned how to write high quality pop or rock songs yet still managed to flourish anyway since nothing much has happened in popular music over the past 20 years.

3. Oasis - Though they never wrote a single song of high quality in their entire worthless career, that didn't prevent them from arrogantly and obnoxiously acting as if they did.  It's safe to say that even the Beatles' worst and most lazy efforts still tower over all the garbage Oasis foisted on the public.  A truly awful, wretched band.

4. The Smashing Pumpkins - Another tedious band that couldn't write but didn't let that stop them from releasing a stack of boring, pointless, dreary and often unlistenable albums.

5. The Velvet Underground - Yes, I, too, liked the original "Sweet Jane" off "Loaded" but all too soon the VU gets bogged down in dreary, negative, boring music that doesn't begin to justify their Olympian reputation in critical circles.  If you want to talk about influential bands, one can much more easily justify the Byrds or the Buffalo Springfield from the same period but enough about the VU already.

6. The Black Crowes - Yet another awful band without an original idea.  Devoid of songwriting talent, they started by ripping off Otis Redding's "Hard to Handle" and wrongfully built a totally derivative career on the success that came from it.  Shamelessly ripping off the Rolling Stones and half a dozen other groups, the Black Crowes are easily the most superfluous band of all time.  This wheel didn't need to be reinvented but that didn't stop them from making it square.

7. Eminem - Years from now, most of the kids who were momentarily impressed with Marshall Mathers' worthless, empty, tedious, hateful rants will probably deny ever liking the annoying and arrogant non-artist.  We all learned how to rhyme words back in grammar school, Marshall, so few intelligent people are impressed with the drivel you pass off as product.  You can fool some young people who are always easily impressed by controversial blather regardless of how calculated, phoney and manufactured it may be, but most older people (who aren't profiting from Mather's "work") recognize rubbish when they hear it.

8. Nirvana - Yes, "Teen Spirit" had its moment apparently expressing frustration and anger and a couple other tracks off "Nevermind" were okay but enough already.  If lyrically inarticulate Kurt Cobain was the "voice of his generation," that doesn't say much for the 1990s or the kids who mistakenly thought he was a latter-day John Lennon.  On a raw, emotional level, his best music had some impact but his fragmented, disjointed lyrics didn't really add up to anything.  Upon first hearing "Teen Spirit," I remember saying, "Ho hum, another boring howl of teen angst.  The Who did this better 30 years ago."

9. Beck - What powerful music biz people does this grubby little zero have something on?  Nothing else can explain how relatively talentless, endlessly pretentious and utterly worthless Beck David Campbell has managed such a high profile and critically praised career by offering nothing of value.  Incapable of writing actual pop or rock songs of any worth, he simply steals other people's ideas, pastes them all together and has the audacity to sell it as original art.  Sadly, enough idiots agree with him to support his pointless efforts.

10. Lauryn Hill - One of the most obnoxious, arrogant and relatively untalented figures ever to be wrongfully awarded five Grammys, Hill hired industry "songwriters" to crank out "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill" -- one of the most boring, atonal and utterly insubstantial albums ever made -- and was promptly sued after trying to claim credit for it all.  After years of coasting through life on her fortunate genetics, Hill was finally revealed to be nothing special and her subsequent recorded work confirmed that impression.

Flame on...

Flame on...



Hey, like it or hate it -- it's just music, man...  Find a woman to put a smile on your face...  :D

Scott--Now that's the way to get with the program!  Good points made.

Everyones entitled to their opinions, but now Im gonna tell you why your opinions are wrong  ;)



An overrated bands list could easily be endless.  My personal list at any given moment is usually a response to any number of awful or simply weak bands who wrongfully succeed primarily because:

A. there is nothing else of consequence or worth happening.
B. someone has paid a large sum of money to push their inferior product.
C. a record label needs a tax write off.
D. there is nothing else of consequence or worth happening.

Off the top of my head, here are some overrated bands and artists from my list, in no particular order:

none of the bands you listed here fall into any one of these catorgories.  A&D (I assume they are the same on purpose) is not true in any cases, because when all of these bands came out, there were even bigger bands or musical movements which were effecting the nation.  For B, none of these bands produced inferior products just because some one paid a large sum of money to push it.  In fact, most of these bands were indie bands that didnt have money at all.  VU werent popular.  They werent rich.  And even though their final effort without Lou Reed (Squeeze) was a peice of crap, that wasnt pushed because of money, it was pushed because VU already made a name for themselves.  C is just plain wrong.  Signing bands dont result in write offs. 


1. Lenny Kravitz - A painfully derivative amateur who has built a career by ripping off too many other, actually talented, artists from the late 60s and 70s.  He has yet to release anything original, impressive, necessary or worth listening to which makes his ridiculous arrogance all the more inexplicable.

Lenny Kravitz, in his modern version sucks.  He hasnt done anything good in a number of years (save for "Dig in") and he's spiraling down into the world of musial excesses, and leaving quality music.  This is all true.  But to say he never did anything original is not true at all.  songs like "let love rule" and "it aint over till its over" and "Are you gonna go my way" were bright pop classic rock gems in a time when no one was doing classic rock right.  Lenny is overrated, but dont say he had no talent


2. U2 - Yeah, I liked "New Year's Day" too, sort of, for a short time in the early 80s, but enough already!  This bloated, pompous bunch of windbags never learned how to write high quality pop or rock songs yet still managed to flourish anyway since nothing much has happened in popular music over the past 20 years.

first off, a hell of a lot happened in modern music in the past 20 years, look at a few of the bands on your list to see what I mean.  U2 became popular (and are now in the Rocknroll Hall of fame) because they did exactly what you claim they didnt.  Apprently you never heard Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree


3. Oasis - Though they never wrote a single song of high quality in their entire worthless career, that didn't prevent them from arrogantly and obnoxiously acting as if they did.  It's safe to say that even the Beatles' worst and most lazy efforts still tower over all the garbage Oasis foisted on the public.  A truly awful, wretched band.

Oasis is arrogant.  Or rather, the Gallegher brothers are arrogant.  Oasis did rip off the Beatles, in many a song.  But they also promotted Brit-Pop to an extent that could not have happened without them.  True the worst Beatles songs from the later half (Not their sucky early stuff) tower over Oasis's best, but that could be said for every other band ever, because that's the Beatles

 
4. The Smashing Pumpkins - Another tedious band that couldn't write but didn't let that stop them from releasing a stack of boring, pointless, dreary and often unlistenable albums.

Either you love The Smashing Pumpkins or you hate them.  You obviously hate them. Im not so jazzed about everything theyve done either.  Theyre overrated beause I dont get them.  Or at least most of their stuff.  "Today" is still one of my favorite songs from the 90s.  as is "Tonite tonite".  Most of their albums (save for Melloncollie and the infinite sadness and Siamese dream) are dreary and pointless and boring. 


5. The Velvet Underground - Yes, I, too, liked the original "Sweet Jane" off "Loaded" but all too soon the VU gets bogged down in dreary, negative, boring music that doesn't begin to justify their Olympian reputation in critical circles.  If you want to talk about influential bands, one can much more easily justify the Byrds or the Buffalo Springfield from the same period but enough about the VU already.

Loaded was their last album.  At least their last one that mattered (once again, Squeeze is crap and not always considered a real album from them).  Loaded is amazing, but also check out the stuff befroe it, specificly Velevet underground and Nico.  Thats some of the best pop ever. 


6. The Black Crowes - Yet another awful band without an original idea.  Devoid of songwriting talent, they started by ripping off Otis Redding's "Hard to Handle" and wrongfully built a totally derivative career on the success that came from it.  Shamelessly ripping off the Rolling Stones and half a dozen other groups, the Black Crowes are easily the most superfluous band of all time.  This wheel didn't need to be reinvented but that didn't stop them from making it square.

as a music critic, I loved the final line in this paragraph.  And while I agree that the Black Crows deserve much criticism for their career, they werent all crap.  "Hard to handle" was an amazing, bluesy cover.  It is their best song.  "She talks to angels" is pretty good too, as is their work with Jimmy Paige.  They arent overrated though, because no one gives them much respect these days anyway


7. Eminem - Years from now, most of the kids who were momentarily impressed with Marshall Mathers' worthless, empty, tedious, hateful rants will probably deny ever liking the annoying and arrogant non-artist.  We all learned how to rhyme words back in grammar school, Marshall, so few intelligent people are impressed with the drivel you pass off as product.  You can fool some young people who are always easily impressed by controversial blather regardless of how calculated, phoney and manufactured it may be, but most older people (who aren't profiting from Mather's "work") recognize rubbish when they hear it.

youre obviously against rap as a genre and not eminem specificly.  Eminem is overrated, but once again has his good points. 



8. Nirvana - Yes, "Teen Spirit" had its moment apparently expressing frustration and anger and a couple other tracks off "Nevermind" were okay but enough already.  If lyrically inarticulate Kurt Cobain was the "voice of his generation," that doesn't say much for the 1990s or the kids who mistakenly thought he was a latter-day John Lennon.  On a raw, emotional level, his best music had some impact but his fragmented, disjointed lyrics didn't really add up to anything.  Upon first hearing "Teen Spirit," I remember saying, "Ho hum, another boring howl of teen angst.  The Who did this better 30 years ago."

Teen spirit sucks.  The rest of Nevermind is amazing.  This is why you dont think anything happened in music in the past 20 years.  Youve denyed the most important band in that time.  I doubt theres anything I can say to get you to like Nirvana, other than, I guess you need to understand angst.  Nirvana wasnt full of angst. 

9. Beck - What powerful music biz people does this grubby little zero have something on?  Nothing else can explain how relatively talentless, endlessly pretentious and utterly worthless Beck David Campbell has managed such a high profile and critically praised career by offering nothing of value.  Incapable of writing actual pop or rock songs of any worth, he simply steals other people's ideas, pastes them all together and has the audacity to sell it as original art.  Sadly, enough idiots agree with him to support his pointless efforts.

First off his name is Beck Hanson.  I dont know where you got David Campbell from.  secondly, I'll quote pitchforkmedia.com with "Beck is the closest thing this generation has to David Bowie".  Thirdly, you obviosuly have set yourself against sampling, not Beck. Can you name more than one Beck album?  Beck is genius

 
10. Lauryn Hill - One of the most obnoxious, arrogant and relatively untalented figures ever to be wrongfully awarded five Grammys, Hill hired industry "songwriters" to crank out "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill" -- one of the most boring, atonal and utterly insubstantial albums ever made -- and was promptly sued after trying to claim credit for it all.  After years of coasting through life on her fortunate genetics, Hill was finally revealed to be nothing special and her subsequent recorded work confirmed that impression.



I didnt hear about the law suite, but youre right, she is overrated.  But not for those reasons. 



If you want to know my creditability, one of my jobs is as a music critic, so I can argue your points quite well.  If you have further questions, or points, or things to yell at me, dont hesitiate. 

Overrated bands:

Linkin Park   
Limp Bizkit   
Nickelback 
Puddle of Mudd
Staind 
Hoobastank
Creed 
Disturbed   
Evanescence   
Saliva 
Godsmack
Alien Ant Farm 
Skillet
3 Doors Down   
Sum 41   
Trapt
Incubus 
Foo Fighters   
Pillar
Kutless
Switchfoot
Audioslave 
The Matrix Revolutions
Third Day
Metallica           
Scott Stapp
12 Stones
Eminem       
Good Charlotte
Jaimeson 
Fuel
Café Del Mar
Audio Adrenaline
Puller
Crazy Town 
No Doubt   
Stone Sour 
Avril Lavigne   
Filter 
Default
U2           
Radial Angel
Big Dismal
Lenny Kravitz       
Cardinals
Paul Wright
Gorillaz   
Avalon OST
Goo Goo Dolls   
Moby       
Live     
H-Blockx
Smash Mouth     
Matt Redman
Kevin Max
Our Lady Peace     
3rd Strike
Silverchair   
Darude
dj maj
Pearl Jam       
Pink     
Justifide
Weezer     
Beanbag
Gravity Co.
Garbage   
Collective Soul
Mariah-Carey
MxPx
Movie Soudtrack
Shinedown
Waterdeep
Tantric
Flaw   
Finch   
Dido       
Team Sleep
Don Davis
Dave Matthews Band       
Seventh Day Slumber
Jermaine Dupri 
Muzzle
Zalef
clawfinger 
Nonpoint
The Israelites
burlap to cashmere
Theory of a Deadman

Oh yeah and all the stuff they play on the Radio:)

Everyones entitled to their opinions, but now Im gonna tell you why your opinions are wrong  ;)

Greetings Billy,

I enjoyed your responses.  You offered exactly the kind of comments that are interesting without being needlessly combative.  You addressed the issues instead of attacking the writer which is always a refreshing change.  Of course, I still believe my opinions are right.  ;-)

none of the bands you listed here fall into any one of these catorgories.  A&D (I assume they are the same on purpose) is not true in any cases, because when all of these bands came out, there were even bigger bands or musical movements which were effecting the nation.  For B, none of these bands produced inferior products just because some one paid a large sum of money to push it.  In fact, most of these bands were indie bands that didnt have money at all.

I disagree with you.  From my point of view, the last 20 years were more of a popular music wasteland than anything else.  You're right that there were some "bigger bands" and "musical movements" but I didn't hear much great songwriting as part of any of it.  I saw and heard plenty of hype but decades later I doubt many people will look to that period as one worth remembering.

To my ears, the last era containing many consistently appealing and impressive pop/rock songs worth hearing (and buying) began to die between January 1983 when Men At Work's appealing second number one hit, "Down Under," reigned at the top of both the British and American charts and March of that year when Michael Jackson's annoying "Billy Jean" was taking the emphasis away from music and wrongly placing it on empty, robotic, gymnastic videos.  After that came all kinds of awfulness in the form of rap, hip hop, hair metal and countless other disappointments.  A few pop gems were still to come but the so-called New Wave era was over (far too soon) and little of value arrived over the next two decades to fill the void.

I still believe a LOT of inferior product was pushed and subsequently sold during the last 20 years that should never have been recorded in the first place.

VU werent popular.  They werent rich.  And even though their final effort without Lou Reed (Squeeze) was a peice of crap, that wasnt pushed because of money, it was pushed because VU already made a name for themselves.

I never said the VU were wealthy or necessarily benefited from a pile of promotional cash.  I simply fail to see where their few impressive contributios begin to justify the mountain of critical praise they have enjoyed over the years.  OK, so they sang about drugs and the negative, depressing, self-destructive side of life but the songs simply didn't seem that impressive.

C is just plain wrong.  Signing bands dont result in write offs.

Really?  I didn't know that.  I've been hearing and reading for years that a number of bands are, or at least were, specifically signed as tax write offs.  The labels never intended to put any effort into them.

Lenny Kravitz, in his modern version sucks.  He hasnt done anything good in a number of years (save for "Dig in") and he's spiraling down into the world of musial excesses, and leaving quality music.  This is all true.  But to say he never did anything original is not true at all.  songs like "let love rule" and "it aint over till its over" and "Are you gonna go my way" were bright pop classic rock gems in a time when no one was doing classic rock right.  Lenny is overrated, but dont say he had no talent

In fairness, I shouldn't say Kravitz has "no talent."  He's just so painfully derivative and, to my ears, nearly everything he's recorded fails to impress.  I suppose if he lost the cocky swagger, I'd go easier on him.  I'm SO weary of all that mindless, juvenile, pretentious "I'm a rock star!" posturing.

first off, a hell of a lot happened in modern music in the past 20 years, look at a few of the bands on your list to see what I mean.  U2 became popular (and are now in the Rocknroll Hall of fame) because they did exactly what you claim they didnt.  Apprently you never heard Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree

I agree with you that a lot happened in modern music over the past 20 years.  I simply don't feel that much of it had any enduring worth.  It was a qualitative low point in popular culture and light years from the kind of lofty renaissance America enjoyed in the 1960s.  It was even a long way from the lesser renaissance we saw during the punk and New Wave period that ran roughly from 1977 to 1983.

My beef with U2, aside from their unbearable arrogance and bombastic pomposity, is the weakness of their songwriting and the absurd level of success they still somehow enjoyed.  Even the late George Harrison once described U2 as an "egocentric band" with "no talent" and while I wouldn't go quite that far, I do feel their dizzying success is completely disproportionate to their pedestrian musical accomplishments.  Also, I did hear Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree but found most of those albums to be unimpressive at best and annoying at worst. "Revolver" they weren't.

Oasis is arrogant.  Or rather, the Gallegher brothers are arrogant.  Oasis did rip off the Beatles, in many a song.  But they also promotted Brit-Pop to an extent that could not have happened without them.  True the worst Beatles songs from the later half (Not their sucky early stuff) tower over Oasis's best, but that could be said for every other band ever, because that's the Beatles.

To me, Oasis were insufferable beyond words and couldn't write a good pop song if someone held a gun to their heads.  They may have promoted Brit-Pop, but I found that genre to be a mixed blessing at best.  While it offered appealing gems like "There's No Other Way" by Blur, such songs were the exception to the rule.  There was a LOT of weak, poor songwriting in Brit-Pop which is what prevented it from attaining the lofty hights of the best British Invasion music.

Either you love The Smashing Pumpkins or you hate them.  You obviously hate them. Im not so jazzed about everything theyve done either.  Theyre overrated beause I dont get them.  Or at least most of their stuff.  "Today" is still one of my favorite songs from the 90s.  as is "Tonite tonite".  Most of their albums (save for Melloncollie and the infinite sadness and Siamese dream) are dreary and pointless and boring.

I don't hate them anymore because they're happily no longer enjoying reams of unearned and undeserved praise.  I do find them awful though and I still have yet to hear a single song from them that impresses me enough to even remember hearing it.  They're another one of those bands that doesn't seem like they have any reason at all for succeeding yet somehow did anyway.

Loaded was their last album.  At least their last one that mattered (once again, Squeeze is crap and not always considered a real album from them).  Loaded is amazing, but also check out the stuff befroe it, specificly Velevet underground and Nico.  Thats some of the best pop ever.

The only VU album I own is "Loaded" and I like "Sweet Jane," the chorus of "Who Loves The Sun" and other bits.  I haven't heard EVERY earlier track and there may be some good stuff lurking back there.  That said, I still feel that the soaring critical rep the band enjoys goes far beyond any virtues that can be found in those old grooves.
 
as a music critic, I loved the final line in this paragraph.  And while I agree that the Black Crows deserve much criticism for their career, they werent all crap.  "Hard to handle" was an amazing, bluesy cover.  It is their best song.  "She talks to angels" is pretty good too, as is their work with Jimmy Paige.  They arent overrated though, because no one gives them much respect these days anyway

Thanks for the tip of the hat on that line.  To digress for a moment, my all time favorite bit of rock critic writing came in an old issue of Musician magazine.  I don't recall who wrote it but they were reviewing the apparently awful album GTR by some line up of prog rock luminaries.  The entire review was:

GTR -- SHT.

Brilliant -- not just because it's probably true and wonderfully concise but also because rock critics so rarely tell the truth when it's unpleasant.

Regarding the Black Crowes, I'll admit that "Hard To Handle" was okay but I hated the "Angels" song and felt it was really bad, cliched rock songwriting specifically intended to impress clueless young teen girls rather than stand as any kind of respectable artistic statement.  I just don't like them because no band THAT lacking in originality should ever be rewarded with such success.

I do find it funny and quite appropriate that Kate Hudson, who is famous for pretending to be a rock star groupie, married Chris Robinson, who is famous for pretending to be a rock star.

youre obviously against rap as a genre and not eminem specificly.  Eminem is overrated, but once again has his good points.

Yes, I do find most rap and hop hop to be offensive and worthless sonic cancer and am particularly amazed that it's still alive more than 20 years after it unfortunately arrived.  It has to be the most mindless, monotonous, atonal, repetitious, negative, hateful and utterly unnecessary genre to ever infect popular music.

Beyond that, I have to ask, what, exactly, are Eminem's good points?

Teen spirit sucks.  The rest of Nevermind is amazing.  This is why you dont think anything happened in music in the past 20 years.  Youve denied the most important band in that time.  I doubt theres anything I can say to get you to like Nirvana, other than, I guess you need to understand angst.  Nirvana wasnt full of angst.

Actually, I like some things Nirvana did.  I just feel they're overrated.

I will, however, forever be indebted to them for thankfully wiping hair metal off the pop music radar.  Any band that managed that feat earns my undying appreciation.

I'm also curious why you feel that "Teen Spirit" sucked.  I, and many other people apparently, feel it was their best and most potent piece of music.  It's clearly the one that "struck a nerve" to use a worn but appropriate phrase.  I still remember being in some smokey Manhattan club back when it was just breaking.  I was suffering through the usual atonal noise that pours out of club speakers between band performances when suddenly "Teen Spirit" came on.  A jolt of electricity shot through the club and I felt it too.

Finally, maybe angst isn't the right word to describe Nirvana but they certainly seemed to be about anger, frustration and inarticulate lyrics that didn't add up to a complete message.  For me, personally, the most potent moment in "Teen Spirit" is when Cobain screams "a denial" over and over again at the end.

First off his name is Beck Hanson.  I dont know where you got David Campbell from.  secondly, I'll quote pitchforkmedia.com with "Beck is the closest thing this generation has to David Bowie".  Thirdly, you obviosuly have set yourself against sampling, not Beck. Can you name more than one Beck album?  Beck is genius

Yes, you're probably right about his name.  In my haste, I must have cut and pasted the wrong name from the online music source I was using.

You'll have to explain why you believe Beck is (I hate this word, particularly when it seems inappropriately applied) a genius.  I find him to be talentless, insufferably conceited, pretentious and incapable of writing high quality pop music.  I see him as a thief and a charlatan whose only accomplishment is convincing people who should know better that stealing other people's song bits and stringing them together can pass as original art.  I don't buy it.  Even David Bowie, who has stretched a handful of good songs further than almost anyone except possibly Jimmy Buffet, actually wrote his own original music and lyrics.  I'm not just talking about "Odelay."  I found "Loser" boring after five minutes and I can't BELIEVE he has all those other albums, "Midnight Vultures," etc.  To me, he will always be a big nothing.

I didnt hear about the (Lauryn Hill) lawsuit, but youre right, she is overrated.  But not for those reasons.

I have to ask, why do you think Lauryn Hill is overrated?

If you want to know my creditability, one of my jobs is as a music critic, so I can argue your points quite well.  If you have further questions, or points, or things to yell at me, dont hesitiate. 


I appreciated your comments and figured you might do some music writing because of your understanding of the subject matter.  One friend of mine used to write a fair amount of reviews for Rolling Stone and still actively writes.  We discuss and debate music like this all the time.

I also have the distinction of annoying veteran critic (and legendary grouch) Dave Marsh so much he actually fled a music message board some years back.  I didn't say anything inflammatory -- I just held opinions different from his and he can't accept that kind of thing.

Scott

Scott, I loved your discussion, and for the most part agreed with it. Someone gave me a book of hits from the 1920's. As I read through some of the lyrics of such songs as "Black Bottom" and "Sweet Georgia Brown" I was surprised at how racist some of those songs sound by today's standards. You can't sing about "darkies" anymore. But I had a fantasy about sending people of that era recordings of some of the rap music from today, and telling them that this would be acceptable in 80 years, whereas their hits are not, and watching their reaction.

Scott, I loved your discussion, and for the most part agreed with it. Someone gave me a book of hits from the 1920's. As I read through some of the lyrics of such songs as "Black Bottom" and "Sweet Georgia Brown" I was surprised at how racist some of those songs sound by today's standards. You can't sing about "darkies" anymore. But I had a fantasy about sending people of that era recordings of some of the rap music from today, and telling them that this would be acceptable in 80 years, whereas their hits are not, and watching their reaction.


Rick,

Thanks for the good words.

You make an interesting point about how radically things have changed in just under a century.

In fact, it's hard to imagine now and many are too young to remember, but things have changed radically in just the past 25 years specifically regarding rap and hip hop.

Back in the early years of MTV, some claimed there was a "color barrier" that shut out black artists.  I don't remember if that was true or not because I wasn't sitting in front of the TV with a clipboard and a pen separating artists by race.  I was busy loving early MTV for playing music videos 24 hours a day (back when they still played music videos!)  I like good pop music and I don't care who makes it.

Anyway, MTV defended its early selection of videos by pointing to expensive market research that revealed their primary demographic to be white suburban kids who, and I quote, "don't care about blacks or their music."

Michael Jackson's people, who were preparing to inflict "Thriller" on the world, were understandably outraged that MTV reportedly wouldn't play any videos from the album.  Their solution was to get their record company to pressure MTV to play Jackson's videos or the label would pull all of its videos from the young music network.  MTV caved and Jackson's videos got played, some say to death and beyond.

On the face of it, that sounds like a good thing since access to MTV, like anything else in the world, should be open to everyone regardless of race, color, national origin, etc.  However, there was an unforeseen consequence that, in my view, essentially destroyed popular music for decades to come.

After Jackson kicked open the doors at MTV, in came rap and hip hop -- negative, hateful, anti-pop music genres that were massively promoted and almost overnight changed those white suburban kids from people who "didn't care about blacks or their music" into people who apparently only cared about blacks and their music.

It would have been one thing if the new genre was anything like jazz, blues, early rock and roll, Motown or some other positive contribution from black artists.  However, it seemed like just the opposite.  The tedious, annoying drone of rap and hip hop spread through popular culture like metastatic cancer and, for too many clueless kids, it also made just about all the pop and rock music that came before it seem completely irrelevant.  At the height of the rap and hip hop explosion, one music critic even said the Billboard charts looked like "a city core after white flight."

That's an incredible amount of change in a short period of time.  It's too bad the change didn't result in something positive instead of unrelentingly negative.

What most amazes me about the whole rap and hip hop thing is that it's still being made and consumed a quarter century after it arrived despite being incredibly empty, mindless, monotonous, negative, hateful, repetitous and non-musical.  If ever there were genres that should have died out quickly, top on the list would be rap and hip hop.

If that doesn't seem like enough of an injustice, consider this: the British Invasion -- one of the most explosive, positive, vibrant, diverse, high quality and renaissance-launching musical movements in history -- arrived, ran its course and died in only four years!  Go figure.

Finally, since we're speaking of change, it has long been my personal feeling that the planet has never wanted and needed high quality popular music more than it does now.  We are starved for it.  After 20 years of seemingly endless garbage we are long overdue for a massive pop music revolution on the scale of the British Invasion or much larger that would wash away the mountains of excrement everywhere and replace it all with something vastly superior.

Some critics insist that our society is too fragmented for any one band or small group of bands to transform everything the way the Beatles, the Stones and others did in the early 60s.

I disagree.  I believe that a rising tide raises all boats.  If the music is strong enough, good enough and has sufficient universal appeal, it could enjoy worldwide success and put everything back on a rightful course again.

Dare to dream.

Scott

An old teacher of mine said that pop music is at least 50-80 years behind classical, in terms of harmony and what the average ear will accept. This means that the next wave might be something like Stravinskys' "Rite of Spring" or impressionism. I just wonder what the children of todays rappers and hip-hoppers are going to listen to to rebel against their parents. Stockhausen? Bulgarian folk? Klingon opera?

I enjoyed reading all of this and the responses.

These two bits struck a particular chord with me:

If lyrically inarticulate Kurt Cobain was the "voice of his generation," that doesn't say much....

and

Upon first hearing "Teen Spirit," I remember saying, "Ho hum, another boring howl of teen angst.  The Who did this better 30 years ago."


Vote 1 for Scott  :)  Hallejujah  :D

An old teacher of mine said that pop music is at least 50-80 years behind classical, in terms of harmony and what the average ear will accept. This means that the next wave might be something like Stravinskys' "Rite of Spring" or impressionism. I just wonder what the children of todays rappers and hip-hoppers are going to listen to to rebel against their parents. Stockhausen? Bulgarian folk? Klingon opera?


Rick,

Excellent question and one I've wondered about for years.  To really upset their parents, the kids of today's rappers and hip-hoppers might also listen to vintage reissues of hit songs from the Carpenters, the Cowsills, the Archies, the Banana Splits, Every Mother's Son, the Partridge Family, the Seekers, Four Jacks and a Jill, the Four Preps, Freddie and the Dreamers, Herman's Hermits, the Monkees and the Serendipity Singers.  That would certainly push Mom and Dad right over the edge.  ;-)

(For the record, I enjoy songs from every one of the above artists.)

Scott

I enjoyed reading all of this and the responses.

These two bits struck a particular chord with me:

<< If lyrically inarticulate Kurt Cobain was the "voice of his generation," that doesn't say much....

and

Upon first hearing "Teen Spirit," I remember saying, "Ho hum, another boring howl of teen angst.  The Who did this better 30 years ago." >>

Vote 1 for Scott  :)  Hallejujah  :D


Peregrin,

Thanks for the kind words.  They're a refreshing change from the usual torrent of abuse I used to get on some of the old music message boards for making points no different from those above.

Scott

Scott, another pet peeve of mine you might share. Remember when stereo meant LEFT and RIGHT separation? I used to get the biggest kick out of playing one side of a song.The best era for that was 1965-1970. Listen to songs like "For What It's Worth, or "Crimson and Clover", or most of the Beatles songs. It's like two songs that work together. If you can find the stereo versions of "Satisfaction" and "Good Vibrations", listen to them left and right. Most people don't even know there is an acoustic guitar in "Satisfaction". Todays' music is a big wash of "middle" with stereo as an "effect".

Scott, another pet peeve of mine you might share. Remember when stereo meant LEFT and RIGHT separation? I used to get the biggest kick out of playing one side of a song.The best era for that was 1965-1970. Listen to songs like "For What It's Worth, or "Crimson and Clover", or most of the Beatles songs. It's like two songs that work together. If you can find the stereo versions of "Satisfaction" and "Good Vibrations", listen to them left and right. Most people don't even know there is an acoustic guitar in "Satisfaction". Today's music is a big wash of "middle" with stereo as an "effect".


Rick,

Yes, it was nice to enjoy an actual stereo mix particularly when the songs offered such a rich spread of appealing sounds from left to right.  Stereo brings a track to life and when it's missing, so is a whole dimension of the song.

You mention four of the best popular songs ever written in my opinion along with all those countless Beatles gems.

And, while I'm on the subject of the Beatles, let me digress for a moment and ask Billy what specific early Beatles songs he doesn't like.  Personally, I think their early and mid-period songs are much better than the majority of their widely celebrated later work.  To my ears, with occasional exception, they stopped consistently working hard after Revolver.  By the White Album, their laziness overwhelmed the project.  Producer George Martin tried in vain to get them to release it as a single album because he saw how much of it was weak filler.  We won't even mention Let It Be.  At least they snapped back to attention one last time for Abbey Road knowing it would be their final statement as a band.  Don't get me wrong -- I love most of what the Beatles did from all periods in their career.  I just think they were coasting more often than not from Pepper forward.

Getting back to stereo versions of songs, reportedly there's even a piano on "Satisfaction" which I think I've heard on one of the versions floating around out there.

Another favorite stereo moment can be heard at the beginning of the Mamas and the Papa's classic, "California Dreamin'."  Right after the initial guitar intro, on the left channel I believe, you can hear Barry McGuire (of "Eve of Destruction" fame) singing "All the leaves..." and then it fades out.  The John Phillips song was originally intended to be released by McGuire so he sang the lead and the Mamas and Papas sang the harmonies.  Then producer Lou Adler intervened and told John it was a hit song and they should do it instead of Barry.  They wiped most of Barry's lead vocal, put Denny Doherty's in its place and a great song and career were made.  You may have to use headphones to hear it, but Barry McGuire's initial vocal notes are still there on the CD.

Finally, "Crimson and Clover" is an amazing song with many different great parts seamlessly united into an incredible record that rightfully deserved to be #1 on the Billboard charts for those two weeks in 1969.  That kind of pop mastery is completely absent from popular music these days and sadly has been for decades.

Scott

I don't know if you've heard of OOPS. It stands for "Out of phase stereo". If you move one side of a song the right amount of miliseconds off, you can get the "Middle" of a song to cancel, leaving just what is in the left and right tracks (only in mono) This does some amazing things to some of the old Beatle songs. I have a cd full of them. You get to hear all the little things that would normally be drowned out by the "middle". If you're into recording like me,you should look into it.

The weirdest experience I've had with listening to a stereo recording was in a pub where the right hand speakers were at the opposite end of this huge pub from another.  Someone put Bohemian Rhapsody on the juke box and we could only here half the song.  Bits would blare out then it would go quiet for other parts.  Totally surreal (although that could have been what i was drinking  :D )

I don't know if you've heard of OOPS. It stands for "Out of phase stereo". If you move one side of a song the right amount of miliseconds off, you can get the "Middle" of a song to cancel, leaving just what is in the left and right tracks (only in mono) This does some amazing things to some of the old Beatle songs. I have a cd full of them. You get to hear all the little things that would normally be drowned out by the "middle". If you're into recording like me,you should look into it.


Rick,

I did not know about that.  Thanks for the tip.

I, too, am into recording details and hearing all the subtleties that are normally lost when songs are heard as a full mix.

I'm a big fan of both isolated music tracks and isolated vocal tracks as well.  I have a Beach Boys CD someone gave me that offers, among other things, just the vocal parts of "Wouldn't It Be Nice."  It was amazing when I first heard it, not just for the impressive sonic impact of just the vocals but also for the extra vocal parts that can't be heard once the music is added.  Great stuff!

Another cherished item I have is a copy of the working tape made during the recording of "Mr. Tambourine Man" by the Byrds.  You get to hear producer Terry Melcher running the session and coming up with some good ideas.  He really knew what he was looking for and how to maximize the recorded version of that song.  It's also enjoyable to hear Roger McGuinn making a few mistakes and finding the right way to phrase all the Rickenbacker 12-string guitar parts on that outstanding song.

Finally, I also have some Lovin' Spoonful working tapes, the most interesting of which reveals how their classic, "Do You Believe In Magic," evolved through various takes.  Notably, the track originally opened with a single, slow strum on John Sebastian's electric autoharp and then kicked in to the version we all know.  The idea apparently didn't work for them and was dropped before the final version was released.  Apparently the song wasn't initially recognized as a future masterpiece by the producer or engineer.  At the start of one of the later attempts, he was obviously growing weary and said over the talkback speaker with tangible sarcasm, "This is magic?"  Fascinating stuff!

Scott

Im gonna come back into this conversation a little later today...im running out of the house now, but I definitly want to respond to this

Scott, I think you can research OOPS on the web and perhaps download some examples. There is another use for it in this digital age. I've heard it's possible to actually "draw out" say a vocal from a stereo mix. You OOPS it and the vocal drops out. Then somehow what remains is the "negative" of the left and right tracks, which can be OOPS'd and remove most of the background, leaving the vocal mostly alone. This may be how they did "Unforgettable" with Nat and Natalie. (I don't know this for sure) But I have heard recordings where the vocal was way low in the mix of the only recording available and the engineers "brought it up".

You OOPS it and the vocal drops out.

So *that*'s why it's called "Oops" ;)

Rick,

Thanks for the OOOPS info.  I'll have to check that out.

Getting back on topic for a moment, I had a chance to further scrutinize DarkJon64's excellent list of overrated bands and I couldn't agree with him more.  Pretty much everyone on that lengthy list either shouldn't be making music at all or shouldn't enjoy the high profile they do.  I'd like to expand on a few of the groups DJ mentioned.

Clueless, tedious barking goons like Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit and their ilk were strictly for the very young, very unaware, psychologically unhealthy and easily impressed.  There were never any songs there -- just a lot of juvenile ranting, noise and posturing.  What a bore.

The Foo Fighters -- these guys epitomize overrated.  Just because Dave Grohl was once in Nirvana doesn't mean he has anything of value to offer.  The music is boring, weak and tiresome but that doesn't stop their fans and supporters from insisting otherwise.

Audioslave -- A truly awful band of worthless noisemakers.  This bunch, and dozens more just as intolerable, make up most of the unlistenably horrific playlist at NYC's K-ROCK.  I refer to it as the "screaming hate station" because that's pretty much all you hear, all day long, month after month, year after year.  It's amazing that there are sentient human beings who voluntarily tune in such sonic swill in light of the countless better options available including silence.  If that's not unbearable enough, their playlist can't be any longer than 15 "songs."  Anyone could be forgiven for grabbing a gun and blasting any radio tuned to K-ROCK or one of its sister stations nationwide.

The Goo Goo Dolls -- While this band certainly put in their time in the trenches, I still can't stand them primarily because they can't write.  They should also take the time to learn a third chord because droning away tediously for years on just one or two gets old really fast.

Smash Mouth -- These guys had about a song and a half in them and may or may not be overrated but what most annoys me is that they essentially stole the early Doors sound without even a thank you and no one said a thing.  I had the pleasure of meeting Doors keyboardist Ray Manzarek a year or so ago and mentioned this to him.  He shrugged and said, "What can you do?"  In my case, I simply don't buy their products.

Pearl Jam -- I've always hated Pearl Jam and certainly think they're massively overrated.  There are few worse sounds on the planet than Eddie Vedder's irritating howl from hell voice.  Ever notice that people like him never seem to come down with laryngitis?  Too bad.  Their music is all negativity and sonic sewage and it did my soul a world of good when I learned that Kurt Cobain punched Vedder out when they were both on tour together years ago.  Cobain's fist was the universe saying: SHUT UP!

Pink -- A big, pretentious, silly and totally manufactured nothing who will probably be forgotten by next year.  Look past her facade and you'll see that industry pros do all the songwriting and real work while Pinky leaps around taking credit.  It's the same approach that made lots of other people successful from Madonna to Shania Twain.  Pink can't return to obscurity fast enough.

Mariah Carey -- It's a crime against humanity that this overblown, shrill egomaniac has more number one hits than anyone else except the Beatles and Elvis Presley.  Awful songs too.  Thank God the 90s, and her career, are officially over.  Now, can we go back in time and prevent it all from ever happening in the first place?

Dave Matthews Band -- OK, I don't hate these guys and I don't know how people rate them.  However, I would like to know how on earth they managed to become as successful as they are when they CAN'T WRITE QUALITY POP MUSIC!  They clearly don't know the first thing about song composition and yet they inexplicably fill arenas, year after year.  I know all about how they played everywhere for years and built up their following but WHERE ARE THE SONGS?  I was taught that without hit songs that get played on the radio once in a while, you have no career and certainly won't be able to fill stadiums with fans.  People have explained that "they're a jam band" and I understand that but the Grateful Dead had SONGS!  I know, I have three albums full of them at home.  So, if someone can explain this one to me, I would appreciate it.

I'm reminded of a classic Marx Brothers scene where Chico is noodling around on a piano as an annoyed Groucho leans over and says to him, "Hey, if you get near a song, PLAY IT!"  Someone should say that to everyone currently in the music industry.

OK, I'm done for now.

Scott

Just one more band I neglected to complain about in my last post...

Jet -- One of the most lame, parasitic and painfully unoriginal bands ever, Jet came from Australia with some of the most blatant Rolling Stones rip-offs ever wrongfully called original songs.  For their tired and tedious "Cold Hard B*tch," they should have just sung their "new" lyrics over the Rolling Stones' old backing tracks for "B*tch."  It would have saved time.  Where do charlatans like this get their overconfidence from?  They're about a half dozen steps away from an original idea yet they act as if they're doing something new.  I guess clueless kids who were born in the last hour might be fooled. It figures that the Rolling Stones would select Jet to open for them Down Under.  Don't all big headliners want a weak, inferior version of themselves to kick off the concert so when the pros come on, they can easily and effortlessly soar over the lead in?  You betcha.

Scott

I enjoyed your responses.  You offered exactly the kind of comments that are interesting without being needlessly combative.  You addressed the issues instead of attacking the writer which is always a refreshing change.  Of course, I still believe my opinions are right.  ;-)

thanks  Scott...its always fun to engage in intelligent music discussions without name calling and stuff like that



I disagree with you.  From my point of view, the last 20 years were more of a popular music wasteland than anything else.  You're right that there were some "bigger bands" and "musical movements" but I didn't hear much great songwriting as part of any of it.  I saw and heard plenty of hype but decades later I doubt many people will look to that period as one worth remembering.

the last 20 years...actually, lets take it from 1977 and the punk movement.....1977 changed how music was to be played forever.  we still are feeling the affects of it today (though, nowhere near as good as it was back then).  over the last 20 years, the musical movements of post-punk, new wave, no wave, heavy metal, grunge, speed metal, indie pop. college rock, jangle pop, indie rock, alternative, hip-hop, alternative hip-hop, old school hip hop, psychobillie, swing revival, ska, hardcore, hair metal, neo-grunge, modern rock, etc etc etc all had incredably important inpact on music.  the most important bands of this era (since '77)  have been The clash, the ramones, REM, U2, Nirvana, The Smiths, Talking Heads, Pearl Jam, the Pixies, RUN DMC, Public Enemy, NWA, Weezer, Green Day, Elvis Costello, OutKast, and Soundgarden...and all of these bands will be rememberd in the future as having a huge impact on music (a few of them are already in the RNR hall of fame).  Songwriting aside (I guess thats a matter of opinion) you cant deny the huge impact these bands have had on music. 

To my ears, the last era containing many consistently appealing and impressive pop/rock songs worth hearing (and buying) began to die between January 1983 when Men At Work's appealing second number one hit, "Down Under," reigned at the top of both the British and American charts and March of that year when Michael Jackson's annoying "Billy Jean" was taking the emphasis away from music and wrongly placing it on empty, robotic, gymnastic videos.  After that came all kinds of awfulness in the form of rap, hip hop, hair metal and countless other disappointments.  A few pop gems were still to come but the so-called New Wave era was over (far too soon) and little of value arrived over the next two decades to fill the void.

ok, I agree with you to an extent here.  Videos originally were not a bad thing (and to this day, if done right isnt bad) but they got out of hand.  I wouldnt say we felt the affect of the video craze until at least the early 90s, but we are now in an era where the concept for a video is though up before the actual song!  Now Michael jackson...he used to be good....really good.  He made incredable pop music up until after Bad.  "Billie Jean" is one of my favorite songs ever.  Im not sure hes at fault for the shifting to video over quality music though.  Plus, there still is quality music out there, you just got to know where to look.  Certainly not on mainstream radio. 
Rap/hiphop when it first came out was not a bad thing.  It was the obvious next move for the funk movement (which rose due to George Clinton and chic).  Old School rap of the likes of RUN DMC, Eric B and Rakim, Beastie Boys, and Grandmaster Flash (especially the amazingness of "White Lines") were amazing bands that were wuality music.  Even slightly later rap acts such as ICE T, NWA, and Public Enemy (hell even MC Hammer) did some amazing incredably important work.  NWA and Public Enemys lyrics could compare with Bob Dylan for their potency and politicalness.  If you dont like the sound of rap/hip hop, thats alright.  There was a lot of crap that came out after this that could definitly make your opinion on that valid.  When Gansta rap started, horrible music started to drive out of the rap world and no talent was involved in anything that was being put out.  I might be in the minority with this one, but I HATE Tupac and Biggie.  I think they were the worst things to happen to music and rap.  Old School Rap is nothing like the modern gangsta rap you are hearing.  if you look to todays alternative rap world, youll still see some of the magic of old school and meaningful rap there.  The Roots, the BEPs, Jerasic 5, and hell even Eminem at times show how rap can still be good. 

yeah, hair metal sucks....
New wave ended when it stopped being punk by another name (it was a more poppy version of punk that people who hate punk would be fooled into buying), and when Duran Duran called itself new wave .  Now, i liked Duran Duran, they were good pop, but they werent punk.  after Duran (x2) came out, every band from Fine Young Cannibles to New Edition started to call themselves new wave, and they were not, not at all.


I still believe a LOT of inferior product was pushed and subsequently sold during the last 20 years that should never have been recorded in the first place.

well, yeah, but from labels like arista and jive who are pushing the likes of Nsync, Britney Spears, BSB and Jessica Simpson

I never said the VU were wealthy or necessarily benefited from a pile of promotional cash.  I simply fail to see where their few impressive contributios begin to justify the mountain of critical praise they have enjoyed over the years.  OK, so they sang about drugs and the negative, depressing, self-destructive side of life but the songs simply didn't seem that impressive.

they just made amazing pop music that was heavely influencial on future musicians.  Somene once said that "Everyone who heard the Velvet Underground went out and started a band." thats how influencial these guys were. 

Really?  I didn't know that.  I've been hearing and reading for years that a number of bands are, or at least were, specifically signed as tax write offs.  The labels never intended to put any effort into them.

hmm..im not sure how that would work though...im not an accountant, but I think that you lose money with every band you sign, so they only sign the ones that will get them cash.  Hense why boycotting a band causes the company to lose money


In fairness, I shouldn't say Kravitz has "no talent."  He's just so painfully derivative and, to my ears, nearly everything he's recorded fails to impress.  I suppose if he lost the cocky swagger, I'd go easier on him.  I'm SO weary of all that mindless, juvenile, pretentious "I'm a rock star!" posturing.

its easy and perfectly acceptable to hate Kravitz now...he is completely derivative and increcably cocky and full of himself.  Either hes got to write good music again, or lose all my respect forever, cause now hes acting like a parody of himself.


My beef with U2, aside from their unbearable arrogance and bombastic pomposity, is the weakness of their songwriting and the absurd level of success they still somehow enjoyed.  Even the late George Harrison once described U2 as an "egocentric band" with "no talent" and while I wouldn't go quite that far, I do feel their dizzying success is completely disproportionate to their pedestrian musical accomplishments.  Also, I did hear Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree but found most of those albums to be unimpressive at best and annoying at worst. "Revolver" they weren't.

Revolver beats almost every album except Abbey Road, Pet sounds, forever changes, SMiLE and possibly Sgt Pepper...you cant compare it with U2s catalog, which of course will seem infearior.  what U2 did was make good pop music that was played on college radio, and then finally broke mainstream.  They had their amazing 80s sound, then changed it int he 90s with the brilliant Achtung Baby (my personal favorite from them).  in the late 90s they did suck: pop anyone?  recently though, theyve returned to form, though not as good as they were, they still make good pop music.

To me, Oasis were insufferable beyond words and couldn't write a good pop song if someone held a gun to their heads.  They may have promoted Brit-Pop, but I found that genre to be a mixed blessing at best.  While it offered appealing gems like "There's No Other Way" by Blur, such songs were the exception to the rule.  There was a LOT of weak, poor songwriting in Brit-Pop which is what prevented it from attaining the lofty hights of the best British Invasion music.

well, Blur tops Oasis everytime.  as does Pulp.  listen to Different Class and see.  Oasis werent the greatest band ever, but they were good. 


The only VU album I own is "Loaded" and I like "Sweet Jane," the chorus of "Who Loves The Sun" and other bits.  I haven't heard EVERY earlier track and there may be some good stuff lurking back there.  That said, I still feel that the soaring critical rep the band enjoys goes far beyond any virtues that can be found in those old grooves.
 
listen to VU and Nico....its one of the greatest albums ever

Regarding the Black Crowes, I'll admit that "Hard To Handle" was okay but I hated the "Angels" song and felt it was really bad, cliched rock songwriting specifically intended to impress clueless young teen girls rather than stand as any kind of respectable artistic statement. 

on secxond though I dont kow why i like "angels".  check out Chris Robinson's new band Hooka Brown.  theyre very grateful dead-ish



Yes, I do find most rap and hop hop to be offensive and worthless sonic cancer and am particularly amazed that it's still alive more than 20 years after it unfortunately arrived.  It has to be the most mindless, monotonous, atonal, repetitious, negative, hateful and utterly unnecessary genre to ever infect popular music.

well, I explained why I think some rap is good above.  not all of it is offensive and worthless, but much of it int he 90s was.  look into the some "White lines" and youll see what I mean.  Just dont out a whole genre without looking at all parts of it

Beyond that, I have to ask, what, exactly, are Eminem's good points?

catchy-hooks, meaningful lyrics (when hes not gay bashing), and good production

I'm also curious why you feel that "Teen Spirit" sucked.  I, and many other people apparently, feel it was their best and most potent piece of music.  It's clearly the one that "struck a nerve" to use a worn but appropriate phrase.  I still remember being in some smokey Manhattan club back when it was just breaking.  I was suffering through the usual atonal noise that pours out of club speakers between band performances when suddenly "Teen Spirit" came on.  A jolt of electricity shot through the club and I felt it too.

I liked "Teen spirit" back int he day, but I cant stand it now because its been played so many times and has becoem the song to describe Nirvana in all comparisons when they have so many other, better amazing songs. 

You'll have to explain why you believe Beck is (I hate this word, particularly when it seems inappropriately applied) a genius.  I find him to be talentless, insufferably conceited, pretentious and incapable of writing high quality pop music.  I see him as a thief and a charlatan whose only accomplishment is convincing people who should know better that stealing other people's song bits and stringing them together can pass as original art.  I don't buy it.  Even David Bowie, who has stretched a handful of good songs further than almost anyone except possibly Jimmy Buffet, actually wrote his own original music and lyrics.  I'm not just talking about "Odelay."  I found "Loser" boring after five minutes and I can't BELIEVE he has all those other albums, "Midnight Vultures," etc.  To me, he will always be a big nothing.

Beck is doing now exactly what Bowie did in the 70s.  Beck experiments with so many different genres and styles that he cant be classified as anything other than alternative.  Hes made everything from very catchy pop to weird art rock and pure blues.  hes amazing.  He does sample, but thats not exactly theft.  The Beach Boys stole the music for "Surfing USA" from Chuck Berrys "Sweet little sixteen".  The Beatles also got sued by Chuck Berry for a line in "Get back".  whats the difference between Beck and the Beach Boys and Beatles?  Beck didnt need a lawsuite to credit the original artists. if sampling is done right, it can be an art (see Paul's boutique  and the Avalanches).  if done wrong it can be horrible (see Puff Daddy)


I have to ask, why do you think Lauryn Hill is overrated?

I dont think her music was worth, what was it, 3 grammys? 



I also have the distinction of annoying veteran critic (and legendary grouch) Dave Marsh so much he actually fled a music message board some years back.  I didn't say anything inflammatory -- I just held opinions different from his and he can't accept that kind of thing.

Scott


HAHA!! Yeah, Dave Marsh needs someone to knock that chip off his shoulder lol

ill respond to the other comments later

-Billy

I could probably think of about a hundred bands that are (IMO) highly overrated, but there is one that stands out clearly like a beacon on the shore...

(Merry prepares to duck from the slings and arrows and outrageous rotten tomatoes....)

THE BEATLES!

In the very very very beginning for perhaps a brief millisecond, they knew the meaning of rock and roll. But they very quickly descended into a continuous stream of either acid-induced lyrical claptrap or schmaltzy sugary pop (the latter tradition of which has been proudly carried on by McCartney solo for what feels like a century....)

I am convinced that if the Beatles were still together today they would be a bad Vegas lounge act... ::)

(beckons for the bodyguards now....)


Merry,

You won't need bodyguards to read my reply so you can relax, pull up a chair and read on.  ;-)

Firstly, I suspect you're relatively young because some people under a certain age don't really get the whole Beatles thing which I can understand.

One reason why you suspect they would be "a bad Vegas lounge act" today is because music has changed (some, like me, would say deteriorated) radically since the 1960s to the point where their music, while still impressive, is like a calm, relatively quiet voice in a room full of screaming people.  To fully understand why the Beatles are held in such high regard, you have to consider them in the context of their time.

I own close to a hundred books on the Beatles, have seen most of the available film and videotape footage on them and have heard pretty much all of their music (both official releases and studio outtakes).  I would say I know a wee bit about them.

The single best description I have ever read about the Beatles was written by Chris May and Tim Phillips in their excellent book, "British Beat," way back in 1974.  Here it is:

"The Beatles story has something today of the unreality of a dream, and it is hard enough, even for those who lived through it, to remember just how great an influence John, Paul, George and Ringo exerted on the world in the period from 1963 to 1968.  Those who never witnessed the scenes of Beatlemania of 1963 and 1964, or who never felt the whole of society changing as a result of the Beatles and the lifestyle they represented, can never be expected to believe how powerful were the forces at work."

I've never heard it put better.

The Rolling Stone Album guide also succinctly observed that the Beatles "did it all, they did it right and then they went their separate ways."

All these years later, it's still quite obvious that the Beatles wrote many of the best pop and rock songs of the last century.  Their melodies were simply stronger, better and more memorable than most of what other people were doing at the time (and certainly since).  Their lyrics matured nicely too (partly thanks to Bob Dylan's influence).

In fact, one of my all time favorite brief exchanges happened when John Lennon and Bob Dylan were discussing music:

Bob Dylan: "It's the words, man!"

John Lennon: "No, it's the SOUND, man!"

They were both right, of course, but the sound is more important because, after all, it's called MUSIC, not "words set to melodies."  If the music isn't good, no one is going to stick around to listen to the words regardless of how good they might be.

You're right about Paul McCartney though.  While I like a handful of his best solo songs, almost everything he wrote on his own sounded lyrically weak, empty and flat regardless of how impressive the songs might have been musically.  Mostly, they didn't say much.  Back in the Beatles, it was usually John Lennon who was writing the best lyrics and McCartney's output suffered as soon as John's critical voice was no longer in Paul's ear.

Anyway, I digress.  The main point is that I still believe the Beatles wrote the largest and best single body of pop and rock material and their sky-high standard has never been approached much less equalled.

But you have to look at them in context.  After all, when it was first introduced, the electric light bulb was revolutionary and changed the world but few people today give it a thought.  That doesn't mean the light it creates is any dimmer or less important.

Scott

the most important bands of this era (since '77)  have been The clash, the ramones, REM, U2, Nirvana, The Smiths, Talking Heads, Pearl Jam, the Pixies, RUN DMC, Public Enemy, NWA, Weezer, Green Day, Elvis Costello, OutKast, and Soundgarden...and all of these bands will be rememberd in the future as having a huge impact on music (a few of them are already in the RNR hall of fame).

Interesting points, Billy.  I'll comment more later but right now I just wanted to balance my karma a bit by complimenting a few of the bands you mentioned above.

The Clash -- I kinda liked the Clash even though most of their songs didn't impress me musically and Joe Strummer's voice left much to be desired.  That said, I particularly enjoyed "London Calling" and, of all things, "Bankrobber."  Mick Jones was the "pop" guy who often brought the catchy hooks to their party.

The Ramones -- I always liked them, own four of their best albums and even saw them once back in '79 I believe at, of all places, Great Adventure in South Jersey.  There was a cute girl at the show too but, unfortunately, that didn't pan out...

REM -- I have a love/hate relationship with REM.  I enjoy a half dozen of their best songs but find the majority of their catalog to be lyrically pretentious, evasively obscure and musically disappointing.  Most of that pretentiousness comes from Michael Stipe's often tiresome and opaque lyrics along with his ridiculous stage antics.  Many times I felt like shouting, "Lose all that pretentious forced weirdness and just sing the friggin' song!"  That said, my favorite of their songs will always be "Fall On Me."  It's their favorite too.  When REM behave, they can turn out some of the best hooks, melodies and songs around.  The real pop genius in this bunch is bassist/vocalist/songwriter Mike Mills.  Those great harmonies are usually his contribution as well.

Talking Heads -- I like some of the poppier stuff from these quirky but appealing guys including "Psycho Killer," "Take Me To The River," "The Big Country" and "Once In A Lifetime."  It's good to know there was once a time when such eccentric material could find a wide audience.

Weezer -- I really enjoyed "Buddy Holly," both the song and the video, but I haven't heard another note from this band.  It doesn't matter.  They already won me over.

Green Day -- In an era when high quality pop songwriting is almost a dead art, Billie Joe Armstrong manages to be one of the few survivors who can still write strong hooks and appealing melodies even though he insists on framing everything in that forced and tiresome punk mentality.  At his best, he's probably the finest pop songwriter out there right now but it would be much more interesting to see how he would sound if he did it straight without all the punk affectations.

Elvis Costello -- I've always enjoyed and appreciated Elvis Costello but never more than on his first and, in my opinion, best three albums: "My Aim Is True," "This Year's Model" and "Armed Forces."  Packed with appealing, angry pop/new wave gems, each of these was better than the one before.  Some of my favorite songs include "Watching The Detectives," "(What's So Funny Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding," "Radio, Radio," "Accidents Will Happen," "(The Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes" and, best of all, "Oliver's Army."  I lost interest after that when Elvis abandoned catchy pop music and began his genre jumping experimentation.  I tuned in again for moments like "Veronica" but I wish he'd never left the turf he started out on.

Scott

The Ramones -- I always liked them, own four of their best albums and even saw them once back in '79 I believe at, of all places, Great Adventure in South Jersey.  There was a cute girl at the show too but, unfortunately, that didn't pan out...

Correction!  After a bit of research, I believe I attended the Ramones' show on Friday, June 6, 1980.  It's okay that things didn't work out with the cute girl.  Two days later, I met one of the most memorable young ladies I've ever had the pleasure to know and it lasted nine years.  Of particular interest is the fact that Johnny Ramone claimed this gig was the best show he ever played.

The set list: Blitzkrieg Bop / Teenage Lobotomy / Rockaway Beach / I Can't Make It On Time / Go Mental / Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment / Rock 'N' Roll High School / I Wanna Be Sedated /Do You Remember Rock 'N' Roll Radio? / She's The One / I Just Want To Have Something To Do / Sheena Is A Punk Rocker / This Aint Havana / Commando / Here Today Gone Tomorrow / I'm Affected / Surfin' Bird / Cretin Hop / All The Way / Judy is A Punk / California Sun / I Don't Wanna Walk Around With You / Today Your Love Tomorrow The World / Pinhead / Chinese Rock / Beat On The Brat / We're A Happy Family

Scott

I am directing these questions at Scott, but everyone can join in. A short Beatle quiz I made up. Let's just see who's up on the trivia.

BEATLE QUIZ

1. Name a song that features only Lennon

2. Who wrote the score for “She’s Leaving Home”?

3. Who played bass on “I Will”?

4. Who created the term “Flanging”?

5. What sound at the end of “Sgt. Pepper” will you never hear?

6. Lennon claimed that “Do You Want to Know a Secret” was inspired by what?

7. Who was “Dear Prudence”?

8. After the breakup, the Beatles appeared together on what album?

9. What instrument opens “Strawberry Fields Forever”?

10. What instrument is the solo in “In My Life” and who played it?

11. When did Paul write “Silly Love Songs” (Bonus trick question)

I am directing these questions at Scott, but everyone can join in. A short Beatle quiz I made up. Let's just see who's up on the trivia.

BEATLE QUIZ

1. Name a song that features only Lennon

2. Who wrote the score for “She’s Leaving Home”?

3. Who played bass on “I Will”?

4. Who created the term “Flanging”?

5. What sound at the end of “Sgt. Pepper” will you never hear?

6. Lennon claimed that “Do You Want to Know a Secret” was inspired by what?

7. Who was “Dear Prudence”?

8. After the breakup, the Beatles appeared together on what album?

9. What instrument opens “Strawberry Fields Forever”?

10. What instrument is the solo in “In My Life” and who played it?

11. When did Paul write “Silly Love Songs” (Bonus trick question)









I remember hearing a trumpet in Strawberry Fields Forever ... I think it opened the song, too...?

Ooh! Ooh! I decided to lurk right at the right moment!

Sorry, Scott (and Rick), but I enjoy stuff like this. Everyone else can still take the quiz; just don't read my answers. Some are just guesses anyway.

1. Revolution 9
2. Paul
3. John
4. Bertha Flang's boyfriend
5. Dog whistle
6. Cynthia's pregnancy (with Julian-to-be)
7. Mia Farrow's sister who hung out with the gang while visiting the Maharishi (aka Sexy Sadie) in India
8. Ringo
9. Um... Moog?
10. Piano, played by George Martin and sped up for the recording
11. He hasn't stopped.

Fun stuff, Rick. Thanks. I'll see if I can come up with a few this weekend. Back to work.

xoxox
Spaff

I am directing these questions at Scott, but everyone can join in. A short Beatle quiz I made up. Let's just see who's up on the trivia.

BEATLE QUIZ

1. Name a song that features only Lennon
2. Who wrote the score for “She’s Leaving Home”?
3. Who played bass on “I Will”?
4. Who created the term “Flanging”?
5. What sound at the end of “Sgt. Pepper” will you never hear?
6. Lennon claimed that “Do You Want to Know a Secret” was inspired by what?
7. Who was “Dear Prudence”?
8. After the breakup, the Beatles appeared together on what album?
9. What instrument opens “Strawberry Fields Forever”?
10. What instrument is the solo in “In My Life” and who played it?
11. When did Paul write “Silly Love Songs” (Bonus trick question)

OK Rick, I'll take a shot...

1.  Julia.
2.  A guy named Mike Leander.  Paul was too impatient to wait for George Martin, who did all the other scores, and hastily hired Leander.  George Martin was understandably slighted and remembers the incident to this day.
3.  As far as I know, Paul played bass on "I Will."
4.  No idea about "flanging."
5.  A dog whistle but I have actually faintly heard it and you can tell something is there at least on the vinyl version.
6.  Some nursery rhyme or something he had heard about a wishing well.
7.  Prudence was Mia Farrow's sister.  Apparently she spent more time on her own than with the group so John wrote it to get her to "come out and play."
8.  No idea.
9.  I believe it's a mellotron.
10. A piano played by George Martin at half speed and then sped up.  He recorded the part while the Beatles were out of the studio and when they returned, they liked his contribution and kept it.
11. I have no idea.  I tend to lose interest in Beatles trivia once you get past 1966.  ;-)

Scott

Ok I know I don't post all that often but I feel a few defenses need to be given.


Eminem - some talk was given to ask what his good parts are. Overall I find three of his albums incredibly mediocre for someone that has as much talent as he does, but I really think "The Marshall Mathers LP" deserves mention when talking about the best rap albums of all time. "Kill You" is pure hate but damn it's direct and so channelled that you can't get over it. "Who Knew" has one of the funniest lines I've ever heard in music even if it is terribly wrong... I'm referring to the part where he talks about his dirty mouth and then just busts out with a "skippa da beebopp a CHRISTOPHER REEVE..." I couldn't stop saying that for a solid month after the first time I heard it. "The Way I Am" is a great track too... much better put than that Lindsay Lohan crap that's out right now concerning the same subject. And lastly, whether you like em or not, you have to admit that "stan" is maybe the most poignant song to come out in 10 years. One album where he really harnessed his abilities... 3 others that just had their moments. That's the good part.

GnR- Have you ever actually tried to play some of this stuff?? welcome to the jungle has like 9000 chords. Slash is a SICK guitar player, and just because axl is a screamer doesn't mean they weren't a solid band. bob dylan wrote some incredibly poignant music and he sounds like my friend alison when she's drunk. that certainly doesn't mean he's overrated.

Weezer- don't judge weezer on freakin' buddy holly. go out and buy Pinkerton, give it a solid listen, and come back and say they suck.

Michael Jackson is an icon even if he is psycho. aside from the ones mentioned... smooth criminal, man in the mirror, black or white... these were all amazingly produced songs.


As far as bands I think are overrated-

FREAKING MAROON5!!! - my god... a band comes out with a few decent pop charts and they're heralded as the saviors of pop music. They're not bad... but darn they aren't all the media makes them out to be. The radio DJs around Indy nut themselves on having "discovered" Maroon5 before other cities, blah blah blah, so we're absolutely STRANGLED with their music. They're like our new johnny cougar.

Lil' Jon - to the windowwwwwwwww... my god... has someone ever benefitted from one word ("YEAH!!!") more than this talentless freak. All he does is go around lending his screams to quality artists and BAM... number one. last year i hear Usher puts out a quality new album and I hear that Luda does a rap on one of his songs so i get pumped to hear it only to hear... ("YAYUH!!!!") from this deranged man.

beyonce and everything she does - Not only did she blatantly rip a college marching band for that drum beat in "lose my breath" with no prearranged deal, she continues to use that prissy voice to passive agress her way through songs. It just doesn't have SUBSTANCE behind it. I'd rather listen to someone I hate that at least has some artistic talent (mariah, xtina, etc.)

that's about it... oh... and ryan cabrera is a whiny bastard. there. i said it.

*exhale*

1,2,5,7,9 10 all correct.

#3 Paul did not "play" bass on "I Will" he sang it (listen very close, you'll hear him going doop, doop)

#4 George Martin claims that when they invented "Artificial double tracking" Lennon asked how it was done, and Martin gave him an phony answer of gibberish including "a bifurcated flange". After that, Lennon would ask for "That flange thing". Martin noticed the term showing up later at other studios.

#6 Lennon remembered a Disney movie about a wishing well and used that for inspiration for the song. He claimed not to know which one, but it's obviously "Snow White".

#8 The were all on the album "Ringo". George on "Photograph"and others. Paul on "Six O'clock", John on "I am the Greatest"


I said it was a trick question. The funny answer for when Paul wrote "Silly Love Songs" is 1962-2004

Meatloaf

GnR- Have you ever actually tried to play some of this stuff?? welcome to the jungle has like 9000 chords. Slash is a SICK guitar player, and just because axl is a screamer doesn't mean they weren't a solid band.

Greetings Armstrong,

I agree with you that, behind all the ridiculous and juvenile posturing, GnR could play and did put out some decent material.  My personal favorite is "Sweet Child O' Mine" but I see the merit in some of their other songs even if I don't like them enough to own a copy.  My vote for best innuendo-laden rock nickname is still Izzy Stradlin.  Now that's funny.


As far as bands I think are overrated-

FREAKING MAROON5!!! - my god... a band comes out with a few decent pop charts and they're heralded as the saviors of pop music. They're not bad... but darn they aren't all the media makes them out to be. The radio DJs around Indy nut themselves on having "discovered" Maroon5 before other cities, blah blah blah, so we're absolutely STRANGLED with their music. They're like our new johnny cougar.

Yes, I agree with you.  While I see their temporary value for pop audiences, I think their songwriting is nothing special, rather disjointed and lacking in smooth flow.  That said, you have to remember that NOTHING is happening in popular music right now so even a minor band like Maroon 5 is going to get far more attention, press and success than usual.

beyonce and everything she does - Not only did she blatantly rip a college marching band for that drum beat in "lose my breath" with no prearranged deal, she continues to use that prissy voice to passive agress her way through songs. It just doesn't have SUBSTANCE behind it. I'd rather listen to someone I hate that at least has some artistic talent (mariah, xtina, etc.)

Beyonce is a big, clueless nothing who is totally manufactured.  Pushed by her father to succeed from a young age, her music is written, played, and recorded for her by others and all she does is sing it.  At a recent awards show, Prince was trying to show Beyonce some musical basics including scales on a piano and Beyonce had no idea what he was talking about.  She is completely ignorant about music, instruments and probably a lot of other things.  She also can't act which was made painfully clear by her appearance in the Austin Powers movie "Goldmember."  If she were fat and ugly, the world would not know her name.  End of story.

Scott

Ok I know I don't post all that often but I feel a few defenses need to be given.


Eminem - some talk was given to ask what his good parts are. Overall I find three of his albums incredibly mediocre for someone that has as much talent as he does, but I really think "The Marshall Mathers LP" deserves mention when talking about the best rap albums of all time. "Kill You" is pure hate but darn it's direct and so channelled that you can't get over it. "Who Knew" has one of the funniest lines I've ever heard in music even if it is terribly wrong... I'm referring to the part where he talks about his dirty mouth and then just busts out with a "skippa da beebopp a CHRISTOPHER REEVE..." I couldn't stop saying that for a solid month after the first time I heard it. "The Way I Am" is a great track too... much better put than that Lindsay Lohan crap that's out right now concerning the same subject. And lastly, whether you like em or not, you have to admit that "stan" is maybe the most poignant song to come out in 10 years. One album where he really harnessed his abilities... 3 others that just had their moments. That's the good part.

dont forget "Lose yourself"


Weezer- don't judge weezer on freakin' buddy holly. go out and buy Pinkerton, give it a solid listen, and come back and say they suck.

Pinkerton might be my favorite album of the 90s....Its definitly the Pet SOunds of this generation...

As far as bands I think are overrated-

FREAKING MAROON5!!! - my god... a band comes out with a few decent pop charts and they're heralded as the saviors of pop music. They're not bad... but darn they aren't all the media makes them out to be. The radio DJs around Indy nut themselves on having "discovered" Maroon5 before other cities, blah blah blah, so we're absolutely STRANGLED with their music. They're like our new johnny cougar.

THey are overrated, but dang it if "This Love" isnt one of the best pop songs of the past 5 years. 

oh and, I heard Maroon 5 on underground radio long before the radio even knew what "Harder to breath" was.  Youre radio station is full of it if they claim they discovered them.  Me and my friends were hearing their music in early 2002

After Jackson kicked open the doors at MTV, in came rap and hip hop -- negative, hateful, anti-pop music genres that were massively promoted and almost overnight changed those white suburban kids from people who "didn't care about blacks or their music" into people who apparently only cared about blacks and their music.

ah, but rap isnt anti-pop....in fact, most rap today is considered pop...and some of it is actually quite poppy (paging the Black Eyed Peas...)...and not all is hateful and negative.  Look past gangsta rap. 




What most amazes me about the whole rap and hip hop thing is that it's still being made and consumed a quarter century after it arrived despite being incredibly empty, mindless, monotonous, negative, hateful, repetitous and non-musical.  If ever there were genres that should have died out quickly, top on the list would be rap and hip hop.

once again,  NOT ALL RAP IS HATEFUL AND NEGATIVE.  a lot has positive messages along the lines of anti-drug, anti-violence, etc.  You gotta knowwhere to look.  Especially old school rap isnt negative.  "White Lines" is anti-drug, "The Message" is about the poor social conditions in urban neighborhoods, "King of rock" is just fun music, "Stan" is anti- domestic abuse and critical of stalkers and obsessions going too far, "Fight the power" is a Dylan-esk attack on the government. etc etc etc....its not all negative. 




Finally, since we're speaking of change, it has long been my personal feeling that the planet has never wanted and needed high quality popular music more than it does now.  We are starved for it.  After 20 years of seemingly endless garbage we are long overdue for a massive pop music revolution on the scale of the British Invasion or much larger that would wash away the mountains of excrement everywhere and replace it all with something vastly superior.

turn your attention to Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand, THe Killers, Belle and Sebastian, and the likes of them

And, while I'm on the subject of the Beatles, let me digress for a moment and ask Billy what specific early Beatles songs he doesn't like.  Personally, I think their early and mid-period songs are much better than the majority of their widely celebrated later work.  To my ears, with occasional exception, they stopped consistently working hard after Revolver.  By the White Album, their laziness overwhelmed the project.  Producer George Martin tried in vain to get them to release it as a single album because he saw how much of it was weak filler.  We won't even mention Let It Be.  At least they snapped back to attention one last time for Abbey Road knowing it would be their final statement as a band.  Don't get me wrong -- I love most of what the Beatles did from all periods in their career.  I just think they were coasting more often than not from Pepper forward.

In the Beatles early period (lets say Please Please me to A Hard days night) they made for the most part crappy near-bubblegum pop music without meaning, that just gets repeatative and annoying.  That period had their high points definitly ("I saw her standing there" is one of the greatest Beatles ROCK songs ever.  "And I loved her" is masterful, etc), but if I hear "I wanna hold your hand" or "She loves you" again, I will kill someone lol...those are some of the worst songs ever. 

Mid era was alright (hards days to Help!), but nothing like their later period.  Everything from Rubber Soul on was brilliant though.  even weaker moments like The Beatles (aka the White Album) or Magical Mystery Tour were brilliant, if not up to Beatles normal standards.  White album probably would have been better as a single album, but its still good as a double, even if it does have filler. 

You mention Let it be..hey! lol....thats one of my favorite Beatles albums lol.  While weaker than their followup Abbey Road (Let it be was done first, but they shelved it in favor of Abbey Road) its still an amazing album (and thats both with and without Phil Spector's touch on it).  Have you heard Let it be...naked?  Get a hold of that if you havent...it has the songs the way they were intended to be if Phil Spector hadnt touched it (well, theirs an arguement over whether or not it is how exactly they were suppose to be on the original concept of a "Get Back" album, but i think this is the closest were gonna get to the original idea)...its dang good, but I feel the original released version is better





Finally, "Crimson and Clover" is an amazing song with many different great parts seamlessly united into an incredible record that rightfully deserved to be #1 on the Billboard charts for those two weeks in 1969.  That kind of pop mastery is completely absent from popular music these days and sadly has been for decades.

Scott


on a completely unrelated note...ive found out that "Crimson and Clover" fits in perfectly to old Winnie the Pooh cartoons lol



also, Scott, have you heard Brian Wilson's SMiLE yet?  It seems to be something right up your ally

Clueless, tedious barking goons like Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit and their ilk were strictly for the very young, very unaware, psychologically unhealthy and easily impressed.  There were never any songs there -- just a lot of juvenile ranting, noise and posturing.  What a bore.

overrated isnt the right word because thankfully these talentless awful noisemakers are not respected at all by the music community. only by young boys who dont know better. They are horrible


The Foo Fighters -- these guys epitomize overrated.  Just because Dave Grohl was once in Nirvana doesn't mean he has anything of value to offer.  The music is boring, weak and tiresome but that doesn't stop their fans and supporters from insisting otherwise.

their pretty good.. Their not amazing, they wont be remembered as being very influencial, but they did put out quite a few good pop songs. 


Audioslave -- A truly awful band of worthless noisemakers.  This bunch, and dozens more just as intolerable, make up most of the unlistenably horrific playlist at NYC's K-ROCK.  I refer to it as the "screaming hate station" because that's pretty much all you hear, all day long, month after month, year after year.  It's amazing that there are sentient human beings who voluntarily tune in such sonic swill in light of the countless better options available including silence.  If that's not unbearable enough, their playlist can't be any longer than 15 "songs."  Anyone could be forgiven for grabbing a gun and blasting any radio tuned to K-ROCK or one of its sister stations nationwide.

I was gonna defend K-Rock, but they do play some bad stuff admist some quality music...Audioslave isnt bad per se, they just havent figured out that the year isnt 1993, and the grunge movement is dead and no one wants to hear it.  If you like good grunge though, youd love them.  Their just not doing anything original (and I still think their song "Cocheise" rips off Led Zeppelin's "The Ocean")

The Goo Goo Dolls -- While this band certainly put in their time in the trenches, I still can't stand them primarily because they can't write.  They should also take the time to learn a third chord because droning away tediously for years on just one or two gets old really fast.

for the most part theyre nothing special.  overrated completely, but not completley bad...they have in the past done some stuff right

Smash Mouth -- These guys had about a song and a half in them and may or may not be overrated but what most annoys me is that they essentially stole the early Doors sound without even a thank you and no one said a thing.  I had the pleasure of meeting Doors keyboardist Ray Manzarek a year or so ago and mentioned this to him.  He shrugged and said, "What can you do?"  In my case, I simply don't buy their products.

I dont hear the doors in them at all, but thats alright....they suck comepletely...Im incredably embarrassed to say I actually own one of their albums for some reason

Pearl Jam -- I've always hated Pearl Jam and certainly think they're massively overrated.  There are few worse sounds on the planet than Eddie Vedder's irritating howl from hell voice.  Ever notice that people like him never seem to come down with laryngitis?  Too bad.  Their music is all negativity and sonic sewage and it did my soul a world of good when I learned that Kurt Cobain punched Vedder out when they were both on tour together years ago.  Cobain's fist was the universe saying: SHUT UP!

hmm...I like old Pearl Jam....but I can see why people dont like them, so I wont argue with you on this lol... I just did a review (well, in December I did) of their recent greatest hits album.  After years of calling them overrated, I remembered why I liked them in the first place


Pink -- A big, pretentious, silly and totally manufactured nothing who will probably be forgotten by next year.  Look past her facade and you'll see that industry pros do all the songwriting and real work while Pinky leaps around taking credit.  It's the same approach that made lots of other people successful from Madonna to Shania Twain.  Pink can't return to obscurity fast enough.

Mariah Carey -- It's a crime against humanity that this overblown, shrill egomaniac has more number one hits than anyone else except the Beatles and Elvis Presley.  Awful songs too.  Thank God the 90s, and her career, are officially over.  Now, can we go back in time and prevent it all from ever happening in the first place?

theres no need to argue....these two are two of the worst things to happen to music ever
..I cant beleive Pink may play Janis Joplin in a movie about her

Dave Matthews Band -- OK, I don't hate these guys and I don't know how people rate them.  However, I would like to know how on earth they managed to become as successful as they are when they CAN'T WRITE QUALITY POP MUSIC!  They clearly don't know the first thing about song composition and yet they inexplicably fill arenas, year after year.  I know all about how they played everywhere for years and built up their following but WHERE ARE THE SONGS?  I was taught that without hit songs that get played on the radio once in a while, you have no career and certainly won't be able to fill stadiums with fans.  People have explained that "they're a jam band" and I understand that but the Grateful Dead had SONGS!  I know, I have three albums full of them at home.  So, if someone can explain this one to me, I would appreciate it.

I'm reminded of a classic Marx Brothers scene where Chico is noodling around on a piano as an annoyed Groucho leans over and says to him, "Hey, if you get near a song, PLAY IT!"  Someone should say that to everyone currently in the music industry.

OK, I'm done for now.

Scott


haha, you must hate Phish too lol....Dave Matthews is incredably overrated...the only people who seem to be able to tolerated him for more than a few songs are the ones on a few drugs at the time to keep their attention on it.  He is boring and hes written a lot of garbage...but for every peice of garbage he's written, he also has some great stuff that I can listen to still.  "Crush", "Save me", "Ants Marching", "sattillite", What youd say" and a few others

Just one more band I neglected to complain about in my last post...

Jet -- One of the most lame, parasitic and painfully unoriginal bands ever, Jet came from Australia with some of the most blatant Rolling Stones rip-offs ever wrongfully called original songs.  For their tired and tedious "Cold Hard B*tch," they should have just sung their "new" lyrics over the Rolling Stones' old backing tracks for "B*tch."  It would have saved time.  Where do charlatans like this get their overconfidence from?  They're about a half dozen steps away from an original idea yet they act as if they're doing something new.  I guess clueless kids who were born in the last hour might be fooled. It figures that the Rolling Stones would select Jet to open for them Down Under.  Don't all big headliners want a weak, inferior version of themselves to kick off the concert so when the pros come on, they can easily and effortlessly soar over the lead in?  You betcha.

Scott


as I wrote in my review of their album, "while their music is enjoyable for its duration, listening to the songs Jet stole their music from is much better gratification.".  Yeah, they ripped a bunch of artists off on Get Born..."Are you gonna be my girl?" is Iggy Pop's "Lust for life", "Cold Hard B*tch" is AC/DC's "Dirty Deeds done dirt cheap", "Rollover DJ" is Chuck Berry's "Rollover DJ"....they admit they do that though, its what they do.  frankly, I dont think their new versions of the songs are any better than the originals, so I have no use for them.  But, to theircredit, they are good musicans, and their first EP (which I forget the name of) is pretty good (though not at all stunning or anything)

In the Beatles early period (lets say Please Please me to A Hard days night) they made for the most part crappy near-bubblegum pop music without meaning, that just gets repeatative and annoying.  That period had their high points definitly ("I saw her standing there" is one of the greatest Beatles ROCK songs ever.  "And I loved her" is masterful, etc), but if I hear "I wanna hold your hand" or "She loves you" again, I will kill someone lol...those are some of the worst songs ever.

Billy,

Just a quick response because it's late and I'm nearly off to sleep.

One thing that often gets forgotten, especially in post-Dylan popular music, is that for a long time pop music didn't HAVE to say anything terribly profound.  It had to sound good and needed to communicate some basic FEELING but sustained ideas were not necessary (as "Hanky Panky" and many others like it made clear).

Granted, after Dylan, pop music was expected to SAY something and sometimes would but a lot of people, of all ages, still enjoy the sound and feel of music and don't much care WHAT the lyrics are saying.  Sure, a great lyric completes a great melody but too much emphasis has been placed on lyrics in recent decades and music has naturally suffered.

Perfect example: one of my all time favorite Beatles songs is "The Night Before" from the "Help!" album.  There is nothing deep or substantial about the words at all -- in fact the lyric is secondary and could have been about anything.  But the SONG is great -- super catchy, exciting, outstanding melody, satisfying to hear and a winner from the first note to the last.  That's MORE than enough for me.  I'll listen to Strawberry Fields Forever another day.

Finally, "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" are still great songs but they've been robbed of much of their appeal by countless playings over many decades.  If you had heard them when they were fresh and new, you would have been as impressed and utterly blown away as most other people, including Bob Dylan, were at the time.

Scott  ;-)

I'll say the Beatles and almost all big bands of the 1960s are overrated.  The 1960s were really the first decade of the 20th century that shared more in common with today then with (yes!) the 1800s.  I'm not kidding.  In the 50s people had cars, electric lighting and TV, but people still used their hands.  Music was more like stuff from 1900 than it was like 2000 stuff.  No joke.  And, although I'm sure the Beatles were genius, some stuff from the 60s, like the Beach Boys, is the dumbest crap.  No offense, but "Fun, Fun, Fun" is GAY.  Sorry if I offended anybody.  Yes, the Beatles deserve mad respect for being first.  But having an official best band spells disaster.

I'll say the Beatles and almost all big bands of the 1960s are overrated.  The 1960s were really the first decade of the 20th century that shared more in common with today then with (yes!) the 1800s.  I'm not kidding.  In the 50s people had cars, electric lighting and TV, but people still used their hands.  Music was more like stuff from 1900 than it was like 2000 stuff.  No joke.  And, although I'm sure the Beatles were genius, some stuff from the 60s, like the Beach Boys, is the dumbest crap.  No offense, but "Fun, Fun, Fun" is GAY.  Sorry if I offended anybody.  Yes, the Beatles deserve mad respect for being first.  But having an official best band spells disaster.

Full House Fan,

Aside from the fact that I have a difficult time understanding how anyone could actually like Bob Saget, instead of finding him cringingly conservative, mindless, empty and banal, I believe your youth and inexperience are showing.

The lofty reputations of most big bands from the 1960s are well deserved.  Just the fact that so many of their best songs are still heard today on the radio, TV and in movies tells you much of what you need to know about their high quality and timeless value.  Too bad we don't have a few dozen bands of such high caliber today.  God knows, the world could certainly use it.

Also, to dismiss the impressive Beach Boys catalog -- some of the best written, produced, arranged and performed pop music of the last century -- as "dumbest crap," reveals how little you must know about it.  "Fun, Fun, Fun," far from being "gay," remains an outstanding and excellent piece of mid-60s pop music.  Try writing something that comes within a light year of being as good before you start throwing stones.

Finally, there's no harm in having a "best band" or "favorite band."  It's just a choice, a preference, and nothing more.

You've mentioned who you think is overrated.  Who, particularly over the past 20 years, do you think has made good music worth listening to?

Scott

Full House Fan,

Aside from the fact that I have a difficult time understanding how anyone could actually like Bob Saget, instead of finding him cringingly conservative, mindless, empty and banal, I believe your youth and inexperience are showing.

The lofty reputations of most big bands from the 1960s are well deserved.  Just the fact that so many of their best songs are still heard today on the radio, TV and in movies tells you much of what you need to know about their high quality and timeless value.  Too bad we don't have a few dozen bands of such high caliber today.  God knows, the world could certainly use it.

Also, to dismiss the impressive Beach Boys catalog -- some of the best written, produced, arranged and performed pop music of the last century -- as "dumbest crap," reveals how little you must know about it.  "Fun, Fun, Fun," far from being "gay," remains an outstanding and excellent piece of mid-60s pop music.  Try writing something that comes within a light year of being as good before you start throwing stones.

Finally, there's no harm in having a "best band" or "favorite band."  It's just a choice, a preference, and nothing more.

You've mentioned who you think is overrated.  Who, particularly over the past 20 years, do you think has made good music worth listening to?

Scott


Ouch! This topic is HOT!  8)  No I think it's great to have a fav band, I was referring to the public "adopting" the Beatles as best band ever. While of anyone they very well may be the best choice, I still think having an officially recognized best band is gonna p*ss people off (I don't care much, I just think its funny  :D  As for timeless value,
well for one thing after the 1990s you heard em less and less. Now synth-pop is all over our commercials. 

Now granted I'm not bashing sixties music per se.  I think the sixties were a very interesting time.  But as for
bands since 1984/85 worth hearing (chronologically, more or less):

a-ha
Depeche Mode
Beastie Boys
Public Enemy
Debbie Gibson
Nirvana
Soundgarden
Korn
TOOL
Offspring
System of A Down
Linkin Park (yes!)
OutKast (even you would probably agree to this one)
Disturbed (doubt you'd agree there)

Along with many other groups.

As to Bob Saget, well I don't know much about the guy, but I like his character on Full House.  And I did think it was cool the times the Beach Boys came on Full House.  I just think their music is what bands like *NSYNC are based on. ie they suck, original or not. 

Just guessing many of these, without looking at Spaff's answers either.



I am directing these questions at Scott, but everyone can join in. A short Beatle quiz I made up. Let's just see who's up on the trivia.

BEATLE QUIZ

1. Name a song that features only Lennon. Julia

2. Who wrote the score for “She’s Leaving Home”? George Martin

3. Who played bass on “I Will”? Nobody, unless you count Paul 'doo-dooing' as bass playing

4. Who created the term “Flanging”? George

5. What sound at the end of “Sgt. Pepper” will you never hear? A high pitched tone that soomebdoy included for the dogs to enjoy

6. Lennon claimed that “Do You Want to Know a Secret” was inspired by what? a deoderant commercial

7. Who was “Dear Prudence”? Mia Farrow's sister, hanging out at the Maharishi's retreat in India

8. After the breakup, the Beatles appeared together on what album? one of Ringo's solo albums, but not altogether?

9. What instrument opens “Strawberry Fields Forever”? harmomium

10. What instrument is the solo in “In My Life” and who played it? George Martin on a harpsichord

11. When did Paul write “Silly Love Songs” (Bonus trick question) 1966.

Debbie Gibson may be one of the worst pop musicians ever. Seriously... I can't believe you're about to defend the brilliance of "Shake Your Love" or "Electric Youth"

Give me a break.

I don't think "brilliance" would describe Gibson, and I'm not even a fan.  But you said "worth hearing", and if you're into pop music Debbie would be a descent choice.

if you're into pop music Debbie would be a descent


That's one of the best Freudian typos I've ever seen.

xoxox
Spaff

haha spaff. beat me to the comment! lol.

I tell you what. I read that someon doubts about Lenny Kravitz' talent...just fudge off mate !!!
He's truly the best.

I tell you what. I read that someon doubts about Lenny Kravitz' talent...just f*c* off mate !!!
He's truly the best.

My impression of Lenny Kravitz has always been that he's just like Jimi Hendrix....minus all that pesky talent. 

I said it was a trick question. The funny answer for when Paul wrote "Silly Love Songs" is 1962-2004




;D  ;D  ;D

Anyway, I've always found Sir Elton John to be very overrated. Most of his songs sound very similar to me, and I'm just not a huge an of the style.

Of course, the most overrated band of all time, by far, hands down, is the Grateful Dead. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of their stuff, but come on, the Dead worship gets absolultley ridiculous.

Nirvana are very overrated.  They were hugely popular, and I still can't understand why.  Guy screams into microphone, smashes his guitar, flips off the audience, then makes millions of dollars.  Hell, I can do that just as good as they can  ;D

Most Overrated Bands:

By Critics:

The Beach Boys (like 'em, but they're kinda fruity  ;D )
U2
The Boss
Aerosmith
AC/DC
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles (although they are awesome)
The Darkness
Any post-1996 rap band just about

By People:

Jessica Simpson
Fall Out Boy
Pearl Jam/Soundgarden/STP/AIC
50 Cent
Eminem
Madonna

Most Overrated Bands:
//
By People:

Pearl Jam/Soundgarden/STP/AIC



How is AiC overrated? They sold maybe 13 million CDs total (counting all releases), didn't achieve the huge fanbase that Nirvana did and when Layne died it was barely a blip in the news. They were ranked 34th on Vh1s Greatest Artists of Hard Rock (not that I put much faith in anything by Vh1).

They also kept to themselves, evidenced by the incredibly few interviews done over the years. Not media whores either.

Also, as you've lumped them in with PJ, STP and SG I take it that these "people" you refer to have a general dislike for grunge/alternative music, which is fine, we'll keep this friendly.  ;)

Drug-riddled, dark or depressing lyrics? Yes
Man in the Box and Rooster played to death? Yes
Overrated? Hardly. In fact I did some Googling to see if I am/was mistaken on this point. Most searches revealed lyrics for their "Heaven Beside You", or mentioned Nirvana being overrated instead.

And, as a major fan of AiC, I can admit they had faults as well as songs that aren't very good, most of which appeared on the self-titled 1995 release. Some of their live performances fell drastically short of their studio cuts too.

How is AiC overrated? They sold maybe 13 million CDs total (counting all releases), didn't achieve the huge fanbase that Nirvana did and when Layne died it was barely a blip in the news. They were ranked 34th on Vh1s Greatest Artists of Hard Rock (not that I put much faith in anything by Vh1).

They also kept to themselves, evidenced by the incredibly few interviews done over the years. Not media whores either.

Also, as you've lumped them in with PJ, STP and SG I take it that these "people" you refer to have a general dislike for grunge/alternative music, which is fine, we'll keep this friendly.  ;)

Drug-riddled, dark or depressing lyrics? Yes
Man in the Box and Rooster played to death? Yes
Overrated? Hardly. In fact I did some Googling to see if I am/was mistaken on this point. Most searches revealed lyrics for their "Heaven Beside You", or mentioned Nirvana being overrated instead.

And, as a major fan of AiC, I can admit they had faults as well as songs that aren't very good, most of which appeared on the self-titled 1995 release. Some of their live performances fell drastically short of their studio cuts too.




I like AIC fine, I more just mean there's too many AIC ripoffs, such as Staind.  :)

Hey! Eminem for me is like Andy Warhol. Their pop status is and craft may be as annoying as heck but demonstrates artistic wizardry.

Hey! Eminem for me is like Andy Warhol. Their pop status is and craft may be as annoying as heck but demonstrates artistic wizardry.

Well said Luke: couldn't have put it better myself.

Nickelback

Every song sounds exactly the same! Same with The Beatles early stuff, but whatever... Rubber Soul and on makes them my idols.

Pretty much every singer/band out there now don't even write their music. the singers don't even play the music. Overrated

RUSH.

Oh my freaking god I hate them. Their music is so long and bloated, and Geddy Lee's voice has to be the soundtrack to hell. He sounds like a billy goat on helium. And the worst thing is, they have an obscene number of fans. It's like a cult, and I've had the misfortune to run into a couple of their most insane fans in my day. (But they do get really riled up when I chant "Rush Sucks!" around them, so that's really fun to do. Heh.)

I'm grateful none of you have nailed my absolute fave bands yet...I like Weezer and Smashing Pumpkins, but they're not at the top of my list.

Oh, and Billy Florio, if you still even come here...it's Verve. ;)

I'm with you, Cat. Rush is awful.