PDA

View Full Version : Most overrated bands of all time


Lazarus and the Gimp
09-11-2006, 17:07:24
1- The Clash.

Good energy. Great look. Shit songs. They were a pub rock band who got very, very lucky. Funny how the fact that most of their albums were genuinely awful ("Sandinista"? A triple-album of total pointlessness) has been air-brushed out of history.

Lazarus and the Gimp
09-11-2006, 17:10:21
2- The Velvet Underground.

Ooooooh, controversial.

1st album- OK, this is an all-time classic.

2nd album- Well, it was interesting for its time, but is it just me who thinks "Sister Ray" could happily lose a good 12 minutes? On the slide.

3rd album- A couple of nice songs, but they're an indie band by this point.

4th album- Whoops!

5th album- AhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa!

Lazarus and the Gimp
09-11-2006, 17:11:41
3- REM

Michael Stipe sings like a hyaena shitting broken glass- FACT! And "Shiny Happy People" makes me want to kill indiscriminately.

Scabrous Birdseed
09-11-2006, 17:17:50
:( I liked Sandinista and the Velvets third album.

You know my set. Radiohead, New Order, anyone doing Trip-Hop ever, The Jesus and Mary Chain, what have you.

Funko
09-11-2006, 17:20:31
4 - Slayer

Wrote one allegedly good very short album that's basically one boring song repeated. Even in the genre of metal their lyrics stand out as childish and moronic. Their solos are boring. Let's face it, they aren't even that heavy these days.

Scabrous Birdseed
09-11-2006, 17:37:21
5 - Bob Marley & The Wailers

Out of touch with his country's music, banally produced, pastoral and dull. It's reggae minus all the things that make reggae good, like spare rhythms, deep basslines, cool effects and funny lyrics.

Lazarus and the Gimp
09-11-2006, 22:23:28
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
The Jesus and Mary Chain



Nooooooooooo! That's classic, classic rock'n'roll.

Lazarus and the Gimp
09-11-2006, 22:25:31
6- MC5

Here's the complete "Kick out the jams" listening experience.

1- Stunning "punch the sky" intro

2- A load of badly-played shit, capped off with self-indulgent and inept attempts to ape Sun Ra.

Scabrous Birdseed
10-11-2006, 07:15:10
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Nooooooooooo! That's classic, classic rock'n'roll.

Let's face it, ithey're really a wussy, sensitive la-la-folksy melodic band that have tried to cover up their lack of real spirit by blasting on every unpleasant noise a guitar can possibly make on top. That's the machines doing the work, not the people behind them.

Scabrous Birdseed
10-11-2006, 07:23:12
7 - Sly & The Family Stone

Dull songs, sneering sarcasm stolen straight off the Fugs, rock masquerading as funk. Why Sly Stone is often mentioned in the same breath as James Brown and George Clinton is beyond me.

Mr. Bas
10-11-2006, 10:18:13
Bah. The Clash may deserve a lot of shit for their political posturing, but their first three albums (well, Give 'em enough rope a bit less than the other two) are all great. I can think of very few bands who've made three records that good.

Mr. Bas
10-11-2006, 10:24:54
Have to agree on the Velvets though. Classic first album, but the comments on the other albums are spot on.

MattHiggs
10-11-2006, 10:33:49
U2

Debaser
10-11-2006, 11:27:05
Yeah, the Clash are awesome. Sure their first 3 albums are their best, but most of the others have a few classics on them too. And all the Velvet Underground album are fantastic, even the one without Lou Reed.

Rolling Stones on the other hand; a 40yr career, and still they don't have enough tunes to make CD2 of their greatest hits any good.

Funko
10-11-2006, 11:32:39
And half of CD1 is very skippable.

Fistandantilus
10-11-2006, 11:51:56
The Unholy - great promises nooone manteined, wankers.

Funko
10-11-2006, 12:05:16
- FACT!

Gramercy Riffs
10-11-2006, 13:25:53
Agree on the Clash and the Stones for sure.

RHCP have to be the shittest band ever but I've never actually met anyone who rates them anyway.

Led Zep - Sure they paved the way etc etc, but there are fucking dull. D-U-L-L.

Debaser
10-11-2006, 13:34:15
Pink Floyd. Such early promise wasted.

Mr. Bas
10-11-2006, 13:38:49
The Doors have made some awesome songs, but unfortunately they always combine it with shitloads of boring filler. Some albums have more filler than others, but even at their best (first album imo) half of their tracks are completely forgettable.

Debaser
10-11-2006, 13:54:14
Rubbish! Every doors album is awesome from beginning to end. Even that rubbish Horse Latituades poem from The Soft Parade (I think) is quite cool. And most of their best songs are anonymous album tracks that you wouldn't get to hear if you only owner the best of (eg The Spy, Peace Frog, Crystal Ship etc).

Debaser
10-11-2006, 13:55:49
Please note, I don't include the post-Jim Morrison albums or the cobbled together live/outtakes albums like Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mine, which on the whole are gash.

Scabrous Birdseed
10-11-2006, 15:43:05
Agree on Led Zep.

Now for a band people apparently have started reevaluating positively for reasons beyond me: ABBA.

The songs are OK but really, even in commerical pop terms, Stickan Andersson's lauded production is horrible, mind-numbing and scary, and a precedent for all that's been bad about music ever since. The rhythms are dull, there are hundreds of voices that do nothing but add "texture" (read: mush) and even with all the voices everything is directed towards only the melody. You never get a sense of polyphony with ABBA songs.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-11-2006, 17:38:24
8- Bob Dylan.

Has any other "great" artist released quite so much outright cack? With. That. Really. Annoying. And. Grating. Insistance. On. Emphasising. Every. Word?
In a way that sounds like someone revving a moped?

Debaser
10-11-2006, 17:56:09
While I agree that he's written a lot of shit, I also believe that, for a while, Bob Dylan was better, cleverer, more insightful, more self-aware, and much funnier and more sarcastic than anyone else in his field (his field being popular music of the second half of the 20th century), so I disagree he's overated.

JM^3
10-11-2006, 18:23:18
The question isn't what bands produced nothing good. The question is what bands are overrated. Often times overrated comes from doing something well, then being poor afterwards..

JM

JM^3
10-11-2006, 18:24:04
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Agree on Led Zep.

Now for a band people apparently have started reevaluating positively for reasons beyond me: ABBA.

The songs are OK but really, even in commerical pop terms, Stickan Andersson's lauded production is horrible, mind-numbing and scary, and a precedent for all that's been bad about music ever since. The rhythms are dull, there are hundreds of voices that do nothing but add "texture" (read: mush) and even with all the voices everything is directed towards only the melody. You never get a sense of polyphony with ABBA songs.

But Dancing Queen is so fun to Karaoke to

JM

Scabrous Birdseed
10-11-2006, 19:11:08
Have a listen once to dancing queen. I was subjected to it today in the car. Note that every time a musical instrument does anything interesting, it's while A+A aren't singing. It alternates. The girls carry the melody, then an instrument does (piano or horns or strings, mostly), then the girls, and so on.

Everything is focused on that one melody line. All the other instruments are there purely for moronic tap-tap-tap-tap rhythm or for unfocused harmony. That's why it's a mockery to compare it, as many have done, to phil spector.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-11-2006, 21:16:13
That's over-intellectualising dumb pop. While it may have only one melody line, it's a really good one.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-11-2006, 21:19:04
9- Neil Young

Again, some great albums. Again, loads of tosh. In fact "Tonight's the night" is probably the single most overrated album of all time. It's aimless drunken rambling, by someone who was medically incapable of singing in tune.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-11-2006, 21:20:54
10- Gram Parsons.

Pure schmaltz, and he ruined The Byrds. Some artists turn sentimental and conservative Country into something thrilling and gritty. Parsons turned it back into something sentimental and conservative.

Foetus
10-11-2006, 23:35:12
Amazingly I agree with almost every band thus far mentioned. Even more amazingly is that the one I think doesn't deserve to be in this list thus far is ABBA in spite of the fact that I can rarely stomach their music.

Jesus and Mary Chain. Seconded. Sorry Alex, but you know they're a loathing of mine anyway.

I'd also like to second U2.

I'd like to add the Smashing Pumpkins to the list. Whining pretension at its worst, undeserving of the adoration they seem to get.

HelloKitty
10-11-2006, 23:41:03
#1 most overrated band.

Guns And Roses

*End Is Forever*
11-11-2006, 00:34:16
11 - Nirvana

Amateurish guitar thrashing fronted by a lead vocalist who couldn't sing.

Greg W
11-11-2006, 00:50:46
:lol: at most of those suggestions. Most of you need to get over the idea that because you don't like them doesn't make them overrated. :lol:

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-11-2006, 07:47:00
That theory falls flat when you consider that most of the bands I've picked have produced stuff I love. However that's no excuse for continually venerating lazy and complacent artists who have churned out a good decade-worth of shod.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-11-2006, 08:10:32
Nirvana don't belong on this list. Their three albums are too consistently strong. You really had to be there at the time when "Bleach" came out- at that point, long-haired American heavy rock was about as cool as anal warts, but then you heard "Negative Creep" and thought "Bloody hell. This is the future".

Greg W
11-11-2006, 08:18:42
I was having a go at Nirvana, Bob Dylan and U2 as much as anything. Not to mention Led Zeppelin.

Even many of the others are questionable at best. Abba? Man, they pioneered a lot of the way modern music is produced. And I don't particularly like them, but to call them overrated is a joke.

Frankly, overrated means bands that are nowhere near as good as their reputations suggest. Bob Dylan - case in point. Everyone knows the fucker can't sing, but man could he write a song. Overrated? :lol:

Scabrous Birdseed
11-11-2006, 08:43:23
Originally posted by Greg W
Man, they pioneered a lot of the way modern music is produced. And I don't particularly like them, but to call them overrated is a joke.

They set a bad trend. That's what I'm trying to get at. A lot of people seem to think the "hundred instruments and voices doing fuck all but be there" type of production was an advance in technique rather than a step in the completely wrong direction, that fucked up commercial music for years to come. It bounced back to simplicity for a while in the eighties (circa Madonna's Holiday via Sam Fox (see other thread) through to Bobby Brown), and with hip-hop being at the commercial forefront today good production is definately back in a big way. But Kylie, Britney, Kelly Clarkson, what have you? I blame it all on Stikkan Andersson.

Greg W
11-11-2006, 08:46:36
Actually, they never used hundreds of instruments. I watched a show on how they were produced, and all they did was layer the same instruments over themselves at a slight delay. That's not the technical description by any means, but it's about the best way I could describe it.

All they did really was make people attempt to copy them, and fail badly because they didn't have the talent of Benny to produce it properly. Don't blame them for others ineptitude.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-11-2006, 11:01:46
Originally posted by Greg W
Bob Dylan - case in point. Everyone knows the fucker can't sing, but man could he write a song. Overrated? :lol:

Name 10 great Dylan songs recorded between 1969-1976 and 1978 onwards.

Scabrous Birdseed
11-11-2006, 11:12:09
Own Goal. Why is 77 left out? I can't find anything recorded by him that year except some early demos for Street Legal.

Greg W
11-11-2006, 11:13:38
Heh, you could probably name 20...

Debaser
11-11-2006, 11:26:24
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Name 10 great Dylan songs recorded between 1969-1976 and 1978 onwards.

I could name loads, but that isn't the point. Dylan changed everything. It's not about how well he could sing or play, it's about what he had to say.

12 - Talking Heads
Talking Arse more like. Never has a band been in the right place at the right time as much as thses guys (and girl).

Gramercy Riffs
11-11-2006, 11:53:57
13 - The Stone Roses. Before people start throwing rocks at me, I do think they had a few, a few, good songs, but thats about it. They have dated really badly sound wise and paved the way for some of the worse types of indie band ie The Charlatans. I appriciate the last two points are maybe not the Stone Roses fault, but still.

Gramercy Riffs
11-11-2006, 12:02:15
14 - The Who. Absolute rubbish, of all the big 60's bands, the Who are the ones that leave me sratching my head. They are, to quote Laz re: The Clash, a pub band (round Dagenham way no doubt). Give Moon his due, he was cool as fuck and a wicked drummer to boot, but the songs are overblown and insipid. Plus, they lose brownie points for refusing to fuck off when they should.

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-11-2006, 14:59:19
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Own Goal. Why is 77 left out? I can't find anything recorded by him that year except some early demos for Street Legal.

I thought "Blood on the tacks" came out then.

Scabrous Birdseed
11-11-2006, 16:11:59
75, mate.

I thought you'd suddenly had good enough taste to pick Street Legal or Desire as your fav Dylan album. :)

Resource Consumer
11-11-2006, 17:16:40
Originally posted by Debaser
I could name loads, but that isn't the point. Dylan changed everything. It's not about how well he could sing or play, it's about what he had to say.

12 - Talking Heads
Talking Arse more like. Never has a band been in the right place at the right time as much as thses guys (and girl).

Generally agree but with the three word exception "Fear of Music"

Scabrous Birdseed
11-11-2006, 17:33:23
I think Talking Heads 77 is a great album. Not sure about the rest.

Resource Consumer
11-11-2006, 17:35:47
Originally posted by Debaser
I could name loads, but that isn't the point. Dylan changed everything. It's not about how well he could sing or play, it's about what he had to say.

12 - Talking Heads
Talking Arse more like. Never has a band been in the right place at the right time as much as thses guys (and girl).

Generally agree but with the three word exception "Fear of Music"

Scabrous Birdseed
11-11-2006, 17:37:31
Yes, we know, dude.

Resource Consumer
11-11-2006, 18:02:04
Yarbles

Resource Consumer
11-11-2006, 18:22:50
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Yes, we know, dude.

:) although that seems to have escaped Debaser

Walrus Feeder
13-11-2006, 17:53:35
Don't agree with Foetus's selection of The Smashing Pumpkins. .:mad: Yeah. on the surface Corgan's voice was a little too whiny at times, but Siamese Dream is a great album (my favourite), with plenty of some brilliant songs, great guitar playing and drumming. And what other rock band has been really successful at pulling off a great double album? RHCP's, Foo Fighters? no chance.

Mr. Bas
13-11-2006, 18:18:40
I wouldn't call Mellon Collie a great double album. About half of it is complete toss, the other half would've made a fairly good single album. I know Siamese Dream is considered the classic SP album and I used to like it, but I thought it was awful for the most part when I relistened it some time ago. I still like a good part of Mellon Collie though, as long as you can stomach his voice there's some good rock there.

ofcourse, Zen Arcade (Husker Du) and London Calling (The Clash) are vastly better double albums. Hell, I'd also rate Garage Inc. and Abattoir Blues/Lyre of Orpheus above Mellon Collie.

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-11-2006, 22:06:00
Originally posted by Walrus Feeder
on the surface Corgan's voice was a little too whiny at times,


"At times"? He was a gigantic pair of adenoids, with a little twat attached as an afterthought. And whining about it.