View Full Version : Most Overated Band/Artist EVER!
Well,had an argument with one of my mates the other day about who was the most overated band ever.
He said Sex Pistols...I said The Rolling Stones.
I'll explain mine...for me Rolling Stones are/were an average band who was making average songs and to mention them in the same breath as The Beatles to me is obscene, they are totally in different leagues.
But I was reminded of someone equally as horrific on the tele today!!
MEATLOAF....that bloke just doe's my head in...who the hell bought his albums?...If he wrote a great song then I'd like to hear it.
Pisces Iscariot
26-07-2002, 22:53
I'll be controversial and say the Beatles! :eek:
Don't get me wrong they were a great band and definitely up there as one of the best but I hate the way people make out it's "a fact" that they are the greatest ever and they are miles better than bands like Led Zep, Pink Floyd........etc. It's just not true!
Arch Stanton
26-07-2002, 23:02
It's certainly not the Rolling Stones. O.K. there a sad travasty nowadays but give Beggers Banquet or Exile on Main Street a listen. There certainly pretty damn far from an average band.
Anyway Mr Stanton would put forward Pink Floyd ( after Syd left) Sorry can't see there appeal there just dull and then some. I think it's the 10 minute guitar solo's.
id say manic street preachers
Jazzatola
26-07-2002, 23:27
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Anyway Mr Stanton would put forward Pink Floyd...I think it's the 10 minute guitar solo's.
Although I know your generalising, I would have to say there are no Pink Floyd songs with 10 minute guitar solos. The closest would have to be live performances of Comfortably Numb where the solo can stretch to about 5 or 6 minutes. Anyway, I get your point, just as a Floyd nut I couldn't let that pass. :)
Back to the thread, my vote goes to Oasis. Really can't work out what all the fuss is about. I can only put it down to some kind of bizarre peer pressure.
Mr Dubby
26-07-2002, 23:50
OOH Controversy
My vote(s): Oasis & U2:eek:
Arch Stanton
26-07-2002, 23:52
Originally posted by Boink!
Fred Durst.
But nobody over 14 ever rated him.
Well apart from Fred himself.
Pisces Iscariot
27-07-2002, 00:04
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
But nobody over 14 ever rated him.
Well apart from Fred himself. The moron rates himself enough for everyone! :D
minicooper69
27-07-2002, 00:13
I'd agree with The Manic's, I'd also agree with the Sex Pistol's, who sayly have made a career o fbeing self parrodies. I would say that although I can see why people say The Beatles are over rated, there i sno Denying their important place in the way Pop music is premoted.
And if anyone say's a cross word about Floyd then :mad:
My vote goes to that posturing little mediocrity Robbie Williams - who you may remember was voted in the top 10 most important songwriters of the last 1000 years in a particularly fatuous Millennial poll a couple of years back (the fact he's not actually a songwriter - he contributes lyrical ideas - seemed irrelevant).
As far as the Beatles / Stones - I'm no particular fan of either, but it's hard to see how bands which virtually invented / defined their respective musical genres can be called overrated!
Pisces Iscariot
27-07-2002, 01:54
Originally posted by Jon
As far as the Beatles / Stones - I'm no particular fan of either, but it's hard to see how bands which virtually invented / defined their respective musical genres can be called overrated! Why not?
Even the greatest things can be overrated.
Lenny Nero
27-07-2002, 02:40
The Beatles, 'NSuck and all their copycats are all overrated, and very similar, to me anyway. Stupid boy bands whining, ugh.
Definitely The Beatles.:eek:
Jimmyboy
27-07-2002, 03:34
I'd say that both The Rolling Stones and The Sex Pistols were/are over rated so you and your mate are both right.
;)
Radiohead
27-07-2002, 08:51
I'd have to go for Oasis. They've always sounded formulaic and derivative to me.
robbiejm
27-07-2002, 09:00
No contest, Radiohead.
Walrus Man
27-07-2002, 10:31
I can't decide which, but it's obvioulsy either The Beatles or Oasis.
probably oasis, they represent just about everything that's bad about popular music.
basegreen
27-07-2002, 12:33
My money is on the beatles too, very crap.
Idle Child
27-07-2002, 12:43
oasis representing all that's bad with popular music? :eek: do me a favour and define what's popular. I thought Teeny bopper boy bands, Nu Metal, or that even R&B was more popular than rock N roll?
And as for the Radiohead fans trouncing Oasis, there's N Surprises ;) there, is there? Seeing as Noel digs into Tom Yorke at every opportunity, it's tit for tat aint it mate?
kohoutec
27-07-2002, 13:29
id say Oasis as well. they had it for about a year with the first album, and quickly lost it again with all subsequent releases imho
And as for the Radiohead fans trouncing Oasis, there's N Surprises there, is there? Seeing as Noel digs into Tom Yorke at every opportunity, it's tit for tat aint it mate?
hmm then of course there is the side issue of music and if you have no particular desire to listen to utterly banal, derivative trad rock with incoherent, inane lyrics, oasis have very little appeal.
Idle Child
27-07-2002, 15:16
Originally posted by xtrmntr
hmm then of course there is the side issue of music and if you have no particular desire to listen to utterly banal, derivative trad rock with incoherent, inane lyrics, oasis have very little appeal.
whatever.. :oh-hum: that's pretty much how i'd sum up Radiohead.. add to that pretencious, and you've got RH down to a tee. ;)
Originally posted by robbiejm
No contest, Radiohead.
Cloth Ears Award. Well done !
Mike.
that's [utterly banal, derivative trad rock with incoherent, inane lyrics] pretty much how i'd sum up Radiohead.. add to that pretencious, and you've got RH down to a tee.
robbiejm
27-07-2002, 17:06
Originally posted by Flimber
Cloth Ears Award. Well done !
Mike.
Poor joke award. Well done!
:rolleyes:
Johnny Vodka
27-07-2002, 19:38
The Beatles &
Nickleback :clap:
Tool
i agree, were it not for their shameless self publicity and achingly trendy garage rock sound, nobody would listen to Tool ;)
Pisces Iscariot
27-07-2002, 20:04
Originally posted by Quint
Tool. Damn right! ;)
ralph wiggum
27-07-2002, 21:07
U2,The Beatles and Stereophonics,(the man just can't sing)
jonathan_d
27-07-2002, 22:42
damn elvis :mad:
Disappearer
27-07-2002, 23:04
Originally posted by xtrmntr
probably oasis, they represent just about everything that's bad about popular music.
You can dis Oasis but I'd hardly say they represent everything bad about pop music. Wouldn't someone like Gareth Gates fit that description a bit better? An over-exposed karaoke singer who's being used purely to suck money from the public is surely as bad as it gets.
Anyway, I'd agree with Arch Stanton and say Pink Floyd are the most overrated band ever.
And for those knocking the Stones and the Pistols - forget what they became, just listen to 'Nevermind The ********' or 'Sticky Fingers' and learn!
I agree with most of the suggestions made here..but with caveats.:)
so:-
Rolling Stones .. anything after 1980-ish
Pink Floyd.. after about 1982
Radiohead, anything after OK Computer
Oasis.. anything after their 2nd album
I'd add to the list
Bruce Springsteen virtually everything since 1990 (apart from GoTJ)
David Bowie - most after 1985 ..(though the new album is better).
they are all big artists still... sell big, do big gigs.. but the acclaim now is way over the top.
its getting depressing now how many albums are put out with an interview that says something like:-
"this is a good album, much better than the previous one"
"the previous one was c**p" or "we didn't enjoy making it"
strangely enough, the previous albums were usually described in exactly the same way.
a definite feeling of deja vu, especially with the Gallagher brothers.
and I see that someone mentioned U2... okay but not wonderful.
christ, how did "Beautiful Day" get Best Song of the Year at the Grammies/MTV Awards.. (I think)...
sounds uncannily like Aha "Sun Always Shines on TV" if you sing the chorus.
and no.. I am not saying A-ha are/ were ever critically acclaimed.:eek: ;)
Jimmyboy
28-07-2002, 01:10
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Idle Child
oasis representing all that's bad with popular music? :eek: do me a favour and define what's popular. I thought Teeny bopper boy bands, Nu Metal, or that even R&B was more popular than rock N roll?
Geez, there's always one that has to get on the old high horse aint there !.
The guy is entitled to his opinion & in answer to your question - Although Teeny bopper bands and Nu-Metal do represent the many flaws in popular music, they are not over rated. People accept them for what they are and therefore are not relevent to this thread nor is that a valid counter-argument against the gentleman you were responding too.
And as for the Radiohead fans trouncing Oasis, there's N Surprises ;) there, is there? Seeing as Noel digs into Tom Yorke at every opportunity, it's tit for tat aint it mate?
Im sure its got nothing to do with Noel trying to create a little free publicity for his profit wagon now is it.
Damon Albarn, Eddie Vedder, Robbie Williams, Mick Jagger, Thom Yorke, The Elastica vocalist, are just a few of the people Oasis have mocked so far. I don't quite see how 1 bands desperate (and obviously failing) attempts at self publicity is anything to brag about. Its no different to when Eminem makes a refference to Britney Spears or Nsync.
Boozyuzi
28-07-2002, 01:20
Led Zep and Deep Purple - I just cant get into them. And I am lots of trouble with Bob Dylan too !!!
Idle Child
28-07-2002, 14:47
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Geez, there's always one that has to get on the old high horse aint there !.
The guy is entitled to his opinion & in answer to your question - Although Teeny bopper bands and Nu-Metal do represent the many flaws in popular music, they are not over rated. People accept them for what they are and therefore are not relevent to this thread nor is that a valid counter-argument against the gentleman you were responding too.
[/QUOTE
oh dear jimmy boy. Rattled your cage have i for sticking up for a band i believe in? nu metal, teeny boppers, they ARE over-rated, at least imo, and it goes without saying, i can only vouch for my opinion with the statements that i make. At no point ever did i say xtrmntr wasn't entitled to an opinion for christs sake, but with a statement like "they're all that's wrong with popular music", i expect the poster to clearly declare what he considers "popular music" to be. i stated what i consider "popular" to counter the point, so what's your problem mate? if anyone's on their high horse here, son, it's you.
we all know you hate Oasis. Do something different for a change and astound me, instead of attacking Oasis or their fans. You can certainly be a troll when you want to be... :rolleyes:
Jimmyboy
28-07-2002, 17:24
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Idle Child
oh dear jimmy boy. Rattled your cage have i for sticking up for a band i believe in? nu metal, teeny boppers, they ARE over-rated, at least imo, and it goes without saying, i can only vouch for my opinion with the statements that i make. At no point ever did i say xtrmntr wasn't entitled to an opinion for christs sake, but with a statement like "they're all that's wrong with popular music", i expect the poster to clearly declare what he considers "popular music" to be. i stated what i consider "popular" to counter the point, so what's your problem mate? if anyone's on their high horse here, son, it's you.
Whatever,
The point is this thread is/was about listing bands which you feel are over rated. Nobody else felt the need to start defending their favourite artists probably because most people realised that arguing for and against a band wasnt the reason this thread was created.
What exactly is wrong with the guy's statement anyway, I cant really see why you need it explained in anymore detail than what it already has been.
Are you under the impression that Oasis arent popular enough to be considered over rated, or are you one of these people who have this rather naive view that a band with a guitar player in it can't ever be regarded as pop music ?.
Oasis are both 'pop' and 'pop'ular so I don't really see what the guy said that needs explaining any further.
While I see your point that the pop idol types do represent all things bad about popular music, Oasis themselves have shown almost no originality (thats not a criticism btw) & have manipulated the media better than any popstar could hope for over the past 8 years. For a band thats supposedly making real music I can fully understand why someone would consider them to represent all thats bad about popular music.
we all know you hate Oasis. Do something different for a change and astound me, instead of attacking Oasis or their fans. You can certainly be a troll when you want to be... :rolleyes:
Yes I hate Oasis so much that I own all of their albums.
Sorry, but just because someone is critical of a band doesnt mean they hate them. I don't hate them, but I can fully understand why others would & I see them for what they are, a mildly entertaining band making simpleton music which is both very easy to listen to & rather underwhelming.
Idle Child
28-07-2002, 17:43
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Oasis are both 'pop' and 'pop'ular so I don't really see what the guy said that needs explaining any further.
Oasis are not a pop band. They may be "popular", and share some similarity in respects to their melodies being formulaic "pop", but they are NOT a pop band, they are a rock and roll band.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
While I see your point that the pop idol types do represent all things bad about popular music, Oasis themselves have shown almost no originality (thats not a criticism btw) & have manipulated the media better than any popstar could hope for over the past 8 years...
I don't hate them, but I can fully understand why others would & I see them for what they are, a mildly entertaining band making simpleton music which is both very easy to listen to & rather underwhelming.
that's your opinion on Oasis, nothing more. You do not believe they are original. You call them a band making simpleton music... care to define what you mean exactly by that statement? Also on the flip-side of that, what exactly do you consider "intellectual" music to be, care to name a few examples? how have Oasis manipulated the media? Since when was speaking your mind openly and honestly media manipluation? All these slurs are your opinion, and are not concrete set-in-stone truth as your tone would have us believe. Personally i'm glad that both Liam and Noel are true to themselves and wont tow the line when it comes to praising people or bands they dont like as if just for the simple fact that they are "popular" should mean they keep quiet about things. You think they are out to create controversy, i do not. I believe it's media spin and rhetoric that sensationalises an honest opinion that doesn't kiss ass. So they may not like Tom Yorke.. or George Michael's new single? So what?
I really can't see why you'd own all their albums if you think they're simpleton music makers and media whores.. to me that's laughable. I tend to stay away from bands i have a low opinion of, and bizarrely NOT buy their records.. ;)
JamieC460
28-07-2002, 18:22
I would say U2.
I saw them at Wembly stadium during the Joshua Tree tour and they were good, but shortly after this they vanished up their collective back side.
I'd also have to go for Oasis they're boring live :zzz: .As for there lyrics (whats that I just stood in) :p
sharp_circle
28-07-2002, 19:12
Manic Street preachers - I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that band.
LiviLion
28-07-2002, 19:28
Tempted to go for Noel Gallacher. Bit of an idiot IMHO and his songwriting after the first two albums leaves a lot to be desired.
LL
Johnny Vodka
28-07-2002, 19:56
I also think Oasis are highly overrated. Frankly, I'm surprised they are still going (though Songbird off the new album is nice).
At the moment I'd say Coldplay.
jroadley
28-07-2002, 21:19
Oasis :zzz:
Pork Chop Express
28-07-2002, 22:59
Radiohead :P
Originally posted by jonathan_d
damn elvis :mad:
Wot he said.
Why he was/is so popular is beyond belief - absolute pile of poop :p
phalmachine
29-07-2002, 00:25
The White Stripes and The Streets.
They make great copy, the critics love 'em but I think their just plain talentless IMHO. But someone may be able to convince my otherwise. Maybe I just don't 'get it'.
Jimmyboy
29-07-2002, 01:01
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Idle Child
Oasis are not a pop band. They may be "popular", and share some similarity in respects to their melodies being formulaic "pop", but they are NOT a pop band, they are a rock and roll band.
Sure, they are a rock n roll band but as the definition of a pop band is more open then you seem to want to believe they are equally a pop band & I've even heard Noel himself use those exact same words when talking about his band.
You do not believe they are original. You call them a band making simpleton music... care to define what you mean exactly by that statement?
I think its plainly obvious.
I think a better question would be would you care to explain what makes you think they are original and their music anything other than simple ?.
how have Oasis manipulated the media? Since when was speaking your mind openly and honestly media manipluation?
You mean speaking your mind right after you've phoned up Mr.Domonic from the Sun newspaper & right before you've got a single, album, and/or tour to promote ?.
All these slurs are your opinion, and are not concrete set-in-stone truth as your tone would have us believe. You think they are out to create controversy, i do not.
Opinions on music can never be set in stone.
My opinion on media manipulation couldnt be more concrete if it was written in stone.
Quite how anyone can claim Oasis have never set out to create controversy and keep a straight face is beyond me.
I believe it's media spin and rhetoric that sensationalises an honest opinion that doesn't kiss ass. So they may not like Tom Yorke.. or George Michael's new single? So what?
Of course its media spin, but its media spin which is filtered from management to publicist to create publicy disguised as news.
I think you have a rather naive view of the entertainment industry to be honest if you genuinely believe Oasis are the constant victims of Media sensationalism.
You never once questioned why several members of the bizzare column at The Sun newspaper are drinking partners with Noel and Liam ?, you never once question why Liam and Robbie Williams had several public slagging matches during the release of Standing on the shoulder of giants and then strangely made up after the tour had ended and the last single had been released ?.
and you claim Oasis don't manipulate the media or create controversy for free publicilty.
:confused:
I really can't see why you'd own all their albums if you think they're simpleton music makers and media whores.. to me that's laughable. I tend to stay away from bands i have a low opinion of, and bizarrely NOT buy their records.. ;)
I dont have a low opinion of them. I buy their music because its listenable in a nursery ryhme kinda way. Their not a terrible band & they have their moments but overall they dont move away from the mould enough to be anything more than average.
You might think differently but then you'd be wrong.;)
Idle Child
29-07-2002, 02:04
jimmyboy, your arrogance is astounding. Oasis do not manipulate the media like you suggest. Granted they do have publishists, press officers, and management - but all bands have these, and what you call media manipulation, is what i call extreme coincidence and sensationalism. Liam's gone on record in the TOTP2 oasis special to say he's not even once spoken to the Sun news paper directly in so called "exclusives". Your cynical view of the band is getting mighty irritating when you're clearly reading far to much into nothing..
You still haven't named me an intellectual band yet.. or music that you think breaks the mould. I'll be glad to hear your selections if you care to put your money where your mouth is.
Oasis' lyrics aren't as simpleton as you suggest. Again, begs the question what pretentious drivel are you listening to if you demand more "complex" music and lyrics in order to enjoy your music. I suggest if you want to learn something, you read a book instead? Noel has an ear for melody, terrace anthems and has proven himself as an accomplished songwriter in the eyes of many, not to mention his piers.
I do not claim that they are the road to enlightenment, but you're doing them a great disservice with your bashing, when you simply dont appriciate what they're here for.. good old rock and roll tunes at their roucous and life affirmating best. least, that's my opinion anyway..
again, it's bizzare that you should spend money on a band you choose to slag off so frequently, and is quite beyond my understanding. But hey, at least you're helping their record sales, so more power to you. :p
Pisces Iscariot
29-07-2002, 02:17
Originally posted by Idle Child
....and what you call media manipulation, is what i call extreme coincidence and sensationalism.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Idle Child
29-07-2002, 02:32
is that too naive? :eek: oh, i wish i could be cynical where my favourite band is concerned.. but then, i read most of their real interviews (referenced sourced material from proper music mags/press, and tend to avoid the crap in the Sun or the Mirror, about the punch-ups and bust-ups..
Pisces Iscariot
29-07-2002, 02:43
It doesn't seem like you can be objective where your favourite band are concerned either.
Idle Child
29-07-2002, 02:54
who can? could you? i try and remain objective, but how can i ignore the fact that i like their music, and if i do like their music, i understand exactly why i do so. there's being objective, and there's unrelenting criticsim and over-analysis.. i can be objective with Oasis, but i'm first and foremost about their music.. their attitude least concerns me..
Pisces Iscariot
29-07-2002, 03:12
Could I be objective with regard to my favourite band? Yes. As you say the music is the most important thing so if someone said they were simplistic or they manipulated the media I would be able to objectively assess those claims and respond as neither have any bearing on whether I like their music or not.
Then again I doubt someone could seriously accuse Tool of either of them. :p
Idle Child
29-07-2002, 03:14
are you saying i didn't objectively assess claims and respond? :confused: dont cart me off to the nick just yet for feeling passionate about something... sorry gov..
Jimmyboy
29-07-2002, 03:28
Pisces Iscariot - Just let the guy believe his fictional world where Oasis are the poor innocent victims of media spin.
What can you say to a guy who is aware of all the stunts Oasis have pulled over the last 8 or so years & yet still believe's such incidents co-insiding with record release's were all purely coincidence.
What, a coincidence that a Sun newspaper journalist nearly always happened to be in the same room ?.
A coinidence that Liam started a slagging match throughout the entire promotional campaign of SOTSOG ?. Of course he couldnt do this privately (despite having Robbie's personal phone number), instead all insults had to go via the media and more importantly The Sun newspaper.
A coincidence that another public slaggin match took place with Blur during the entire promotional campaign of Whats the Story ?.
A coincidence that Oasis suddenly decided to hate Eddie Vedder and started slagging him off (again via the media) during their failed attempt at breaking into the US mainstream ?.
These are just a handful of examples off the top of my head, and
I wonder how popular Oasis would be if they never received any of this supposedly unwanted attention from the red tabloids ?.
Im sure Noel knows the answer.
Idle Child
29-07-2002, 03:51
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Pisces Iscariot - Just let the guy believe his fictional world where Oasis are the poor innocent victims of media spin.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
What, a coincidence that a Sun newspaper journalist nearly always happened to be in the same room ?. dont read the sun, it's comic, not a serious paper.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
A coinidence that Liam started a slagging match throughout the entire promotional campaign of SOTSOG ?. Of course he couldnt do this privately (despite having Robbie's personal phone number), instead all insults had to go via the media and more importantly The Sun newspaper.
that's misinformed. Not quite the scenario you suggest. Again, it's tit for tat, they were both laying into one and other. But seriously who cares?
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
A coincidence that another public slaggin match took place with Blur during the entire promotional campaign of Whats the Story ?. Noel doesn't like Damon Albarn. He's vocal about that. so what?
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
These are just a handful of examples off the top of my head, all from a joke newspaper. You seem only interested in what the Sun report. that's very sad, and hardly reliable sources of information where "celebs" are concerned..
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
I wonder how popular Oasis would be if they never received any of this supposedly unwanted attention from the red tabloids ?.
Im sure Noel knows the answer.
the simple answer is they'd be a lot better better off and sell a lot more records. People are turned off by what they consider an arrogant and outspoken pair of brothers. If Oasis shut their mouths about things, then of course they'd shift more records, they'd do better in America, they'd be just another gutless guitar band. They've got the balls the say what they feel, and be damned by the subsequent bashing they recieve from readers of the Sun, such as yourself(?).
Again.. just what this has got to do with their music is beyond me. your talking about mindless articles from a joke newspaper and you seriously expect that arguement to have pull any weight on a debate about "over-rated bands"? come on, it's weak, is what it is. Talk to me about matching the feeling that tunes like Liver Forever, Whatever, Some Might Say, Wonderwall, The Masterplan, Let's All Make Believe, Champagne Supernova, Stop Crying Your Heart Out, Songbird and other tunes (the list could easily go on) inspire in the soul and uplift the spirit, connecting on that fundamental level, and maybe i'll listen to your arguement and give it some credence, but so far, what have you got to stand on? All it boils down to is your diatribe about "oasis manipulating media" and your sources are the sun newspaper! Which in my opinion is balls.
Oasis arent afraid of backlashes, they speak their mind and that's all there is to it. you've got one warped idea of who Oasis are i think, this from someone who's supposedly bought every album? :rolleyes: but you're not a fan anyway, i bet you consider yourself a conessieur of music no doubt? lol. :clap:
nick dare
29-07-2002, 08:42
I've not read the rest of thread but I'd just like to say
GENESIS
Originally posted by Antx1
I'd also have to go for Oasis they're boring live :zzz: .As for there lyrics (whats that I just stood in) :p
What? Boring? Well none of the Oasis gigs i have been/seen/or heard about were boring!
As for most overated band/artist i would go for Coldplay at the moment. Dull as hell!
Headstar
29-07-2002, 10:19
Radiohead, Oasis and Coldplay
I think that the answer to this question should be:
WINGS - band gives me the runs
U2, oasis, MSP *shudder*, coldplay, travis, stereophonics, the beatles, the strokes, slipknot ;) , elvis....i could go on for ages
Most Indie (Could the bands sound anymore alike) & the Manics ....
Vinyl-Pants
29-07-2002, 12:05
Couldn't agree more with Caldach and add another mark again Radiohead, Coldplay, Oasis from me - all utterly mind numbingly boring and repetative. What is so good about listening to some ****** up manc wailing into a microphone?
Also, possibly THE most over-rated band of late no one has mentioned and it is more of the same indie cack - Travis.
jamesdeanbradfield
29-07-2002, 12:12
RPG, minicooper69, sharp_circle, shufty and caldach - curse you all!!!! ;)
I'm not surprised to see so many people mentioning them though - they've wound plenty of people up over the years. Each to their own I guess.... :)
Originally posted by Headstar
Radiohead, Oasis and Coldplay
:eek: .... and just when i woz fallin' in lurve with ya! :p
For the record, my "over-rated" bands are ...
Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd & *ducks for cover* .... Nirvana! :eek:
sharp_circle
29-07-2002, 12:30
Originally posted by jamesdeanbradfield
RPG, minicooper69, sharp_circle, shufty and caldach - curse you all!!!! ;)
I'm not surprised to see so many people mentioning them though - they've wound plenty of people up over the years. Each to their own I guess.... :)
I don't know what it is about them I hate. but the force is strong.
:D
Radiohead are complete and utterly overrated - but i know plenty like them :oh-hum:
Coldplay, ok they've done a couple of ok radio tunes yellow and their lastest offering but watching them perform on Glaston. and TOTP I just wonder when the lead singer will realise his head has disappeared arse bound and unfortunately got stuck - totally overrated mediocrity.
Would agree with the Manics being overated and Oasis.
I do like a lot of Radioheads stuff but its getting to the stage where if Thom Yorke farted into the mic and recorded it Q would give it 5 stars.;)
U2 post Joshua Tree.
Can't agree with people slagging the Beatles off though (revolution no.9 aside, what were you thinking of John!!). Any band that has had such a profound influence on popular music can't be overated IMHO.
Originally posted by jamesdeanbradfield
RPG, minicooper69, sharp_circle, shufty and caldach - curse you all!!!! ;)
*kiss* :D
Jimmyboy
29-07-2002, 16:22
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Idle Child
dont read the sun, it's comic, not a serious paper.
and ?.
that's misinformed. Not quite the scenario you suggest. Again, it's tit for tat, they were both laying into one and other. But seriously who cares?
Of course they were, there was money to be made for Robbie too you know. The fact is the argument was started by Noel in an interview with the sun newspaper. Right before the release of SOTSOG as well but Im sure that was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:
Noel doesn't like Damon Albarn. He's vocal about that. so what?
Not so much now though eh ?.
Im sure its nothing to do with Damon being considered small fish these days and therefore quoting his name wont get the same reponse as say, Robbie Williams or Thom Yorke ?.
What exactly did Damon do to Noel ?, Does Noel even know Damon ?, in which case what was it that suddenly made him get up and start publicly insulting the guy on a personal level other than the fact that Blur happened to be kings of Brit-pop at the time ? (coincidence ?, I dont think so). Should we put it down to plain immaturity ?.
:rolleyes:
all from a joke newspaper. You seem only interested in what the Sun report. that's very sad, and hardly reliable sources of information where "celebs" are concerned..
LOL, you seem to be completely missing the point that Noel is actually good friends with several of The Sun reporters and reads the paper himself.
The credibility of the sun newspaper is irrelevent when the stories being printed are written by people who know the band on a personal level & are actively promoting them, and how can these insults thrown at people by Noel & Liam be considered 'invented' by the likes of The Sun anyway when their doing it on TV ?.
Its backscratching plain and simple, and the way you simply dismiss any of these criticisms so naively is quite laughable.
the simple answer is they'd be a lot better better off and sell a lot more records.
OK, so drastically reducing a bands publicity equals more records sold now does it ?.
I agree with that logic. :rolleyes:
People are turned off by what they consider an arrogant and outspoken pair of brothers.
They are an arrogant outspoken pair of morons.
The Sun newspaper never created that image, its one Oasis are pround to live up to.
If the red tabloids stopped giving the brothers a place to air their laundry in public then Oasis would have been just another run of the mill Brit-pop bands. Its their juvinile & drunken behaviour which was used as a distinct angle to sell the band (with the help of the tabloids).
If Oasis shut their mouths about things, then of course they'd shift more records, they'd do better in America, they'd be just another gutless guitar band.
There'd be just another guitar band alright. Without the controversy they would have gone well and truely under some time ago.
Again.. just what this has got to do with their music is beyond me.
Well it wouldnt even have come up if you hadnt of felt the need to question the guys opinion on Oasis in the first place.
The fact is you wanted reasons as to why Oasis represented all thats wrong with popular music, and media manipulation is one of them.
your talking about mindless articles from a joke newspaper and you seriously expect that arguement to have pull any weight on a debate about "over-rated bands"? come on, it's weak, is what it is.
Whats weak is Oasis using this so-called joke newspaper as a promotional tool for over 8 years. The Sun has helped keep Oasis in the spot light when ever they needed to remind people that their still about & make sure that all important album charted somewhere respectable.
As said before, many of these stunts took place in front of TV camera's (coincidence ?), so questioning the credibility of The Sun and accusing them of making up stories don't hold no water.
Talk to me about matching the feeling that tunes like Liver Forever, Whatever, Some Might Say, Wonderwall, The Masterplan, Let's All Make Believe, Champagne Supernova, Stop Crying Your Heart Out, Songbird and other tunes (the list could easily go on)
Most are good songs yes, but then I could double those songs listed with the amount of fillers Oasis have released.
and maybe i'll listen to your arguement and give it some credence,
No please dont.
Your insistence that Oasis are victims of 8 years of Media lynching which has help hinder their success is so completely moronic its laughable.
I'd rather you didnt listen to my arguement because I'd hate to think what you might come out with next if you actually started to think more deeper than your "I luv Oasis and they are immune from criticism viewpoint".
but so far, what have you got to stand on? All it boils down to is your diatribe about "oasis manipulating media" and your sources are the sun newspaper! Which in my opinion is balls.
Oh boy!,
OK, I can see you are either very very stupid to completely misunderstand the fact that the sun newspaper arent the source, totally naive as to how the music industry relies on the support of media backing, or so blind with devotion for your beloved Oasis that you cant view the situation objectively.
If I have so little to stand on, then what exactly have you got to back up your claims, nothing except a rather naive opinion that Oasis pulling stunts at the sametime as their latest records coming out are always purely coincidence. :nuts:
Geee, hard concrete evidence their mate.
Oasis arent afraid of backlashes, they speak their mind and that's all there is to it. you've got one warped idea of who Oasis are i think, this from someone who's supposedly bought every album? :rolleyes: but you're not a fan anyway, i bet you consider yourself a conessieur of music no doubt? lol. :clap:
Yawn,
Look mate you've already had someone else tell you that your opinion on Oasis and the media is a mile short of the mark, and lets not count the amount of people who have also posted that Oasis are over rated. Your the one with a warped view of Oasis, I can view the band from a outsider perspective unlike yourself who is pure fanboy material.
Im not gonna carry this on anymore, Its not that I want to throw in the towel, rather your opinion is so completely pear shaped that Noel himself could put it in writing that they pull strings at the red tabloid newspapers & you still wont believe it.
The basis of your defense seems to be that The Sun newspaper isnt a credible source whilst overlooking the fact that The Sun is a perfect place to promote a band like Oasis as they pride themselves on doing it for the working man, plus the fact that The Sun were often reporting incidents which took place infront of camera's & caught on film.
Still enough from me, feel free to have the last word if only to give me a chuckle.
Shingster
29-07-2002, 17:21
I'd just like to mention:
Richard Ashcroft
plus:
The verve.
Idle Child
29-07-2002, 17:35
Jimmyboy, you're sounding like broken record.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Of course they were, there was money to be made for Robbie too you know. The fact is the argument was started by Noel in an interview with the sun newspaper. Right before the release of SOTSOG as well but Im sure that was just a coincidence. :rolleyes:here's where i stand on the coincidence thing.
The sun news paper, or whatever music mag asks Noel a question about his opinions on various bands or people in the public eye, then Noel answers openly and honestly. I very much doubt that Noel phones up the press to tell them what he thinks of Robbie, Yorke, Damnon Albarn.
Goes without saying that at the time they promote their albums is when they'll be doing the most interviews, and so therefore have more questions thrown their way about X,Y or Z. and they answer questions put there way. Simple as that mate, but no, it's all some media frenzy circus whipped up by media mogle Noel gallagher, right?
MY ****!!!
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
What exactly did Damon do to Noel ?, Does Noel even know Damon ?, in which case what was it that suddenly made him get up and start publicly insulting the guy on a personal level
right... i'm not to clear on why things kicked off, because like i say, i dont put much importance on what Oasis or anyone says in the press, the music it what should do the talking (as Noel's clearly stated on an NME interview record by Fierce Panda Records). I'd assume that it kicked off with Damon Albarn because of a personality clash during the time of the Brit Awards or before.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
other than the fact that Blur happened to be kings of Brit-pop at the time ? (coincidence ?, I dont think so). Should we put it down to plain immaturity ?.
:rolleyes:
that's a joke statement if ever i heard one. Blur were kings of nothing. The britpop movement was sparked up by them and Oasis and a whole host of other british indie type bands. The fact that Blur managed a No.1 with that gimmick record Country House and beat Roll With it to No.2 doesn't mean Blur were kings of the scene, simply that more people bought Country House than Roll with It, that and the fact that Roll With it had an error on the barcode stopping the sales topping Blur (Radio 1 reported). That's around the time the bitterness started. Blur were mighty pleased they topped Oasis, and threw in some digs. Oasis have that swagger and self-believe about them that they wouldn't lie down.. and look who's came out better in terms of the longer run success? Oasis by a mile. Where are Blur? Albarn can't even decide what type of music he wants to make!
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
LOL, you seem to be completely missing the point that Noel is actually good friends with several of The Sun reporters and reads the paper himself.
The credibility of the sun newspaper is irrelevent when the stories being printed are written by people who know the band on a personal level & are actively promoting them,
Just because Noel knows someone in the Sun doesn't mean it'll always be a bed of roses and adoration by the newspaper, where the editor's decision is final, and the tide can and often does turn at the drop of a hat.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
and how can these insults thrown at people by Noel & Liam be considered 'invented' by the likes of The Sun anyway when their doing it on TV ?.
Right, firstly what programs.. please name your sources before i even consider that a valid point. What program on TV have Oasis slagged off a band/celebrities.. secondly, please use direct quotes.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Its backscratching plain and simple, and the way you simply dismiss any of these criticisms so naively is quite laughable.
Noel might know someone in the Sun, if i'm to actaully believe your claims. Doesn't mean the Sun will always champion everything Oasis do or support the band unconditionally. They are still out to sell papers. You talk as if Noel is in bed with The Sun..
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
OK, so drastically reducing a bands publicity equals more records sold now does it ?.
I agree with that logic. :rolleyes:
first off i didn't say reducing PUBLICITY increases record sales, if you're gonna quote from me, please do so correctly. ;) I said without the controversey they cause, they'd increase record sales from people who do not like their swaggering attittude, but enjoy their music. If they were more LOW-KEY about their views on other bands or people in the lime-light, but STILL publicised their records through standard media interviews, without answering questions directly aimed at them about say Robbie, or Tom Yorke, then YES, they would sell more records - because it's safe, it's gutless, it's a yawn, and people are frightened of hearing honest opinions that may differ from their own. There's nothing more dangerous than an opinion.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
They are an arrogant outspoken pair of morons.
No, they're just outspoken.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
The Sun newspaper never created that image, its one Oasis are pround to live up to.
Oasis are happy to speak their mind when asked direct questions on A,B or C.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
If the red tabloids stopped giving the brothers a place to air their laundry in public...
Oasis dont seek to "air their laundry" in public.. The media snares a story and airs it for them. You're naive if you refute that.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Its their juvinile & drunken behaviour which was used as a distinct angle to sell the band (with the help of the tabloids).
Their juvenile behaviour didn't make me buy all their albums or all their singles. Was it their juvenile behaviour that led you to do so? Their music sold their records. their spirit sold their records, not their drunken behaviour. Incidently, name a few examples..
Noel's gone on record to say he's not interested in the controversey that Liam may cause.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
There'd be just another guitar band alright. Without the controversy they would have gone well and truely under some time ago.
Oasis have their legacy of 1995-1996. Their first two superb albums have ensured that. 2 superb albums secured a loyal and devoted fan base in the mid-nineties. It's them for the most part who buy their albums and attend their gigs. Oasis are still big enough for fans buying albums back then to still buy their albums today. Without the apparent controversey, Oasis would appeal more to the "middle-of-the-road" listener, Oasis would be safer bets, Oasis would be far more "popular".
Incidently, real fans dont give a damn about all this "controversey" which is whipped up out of a nothing incidentle quote and mascaraded as some kind of war cry on other musicians...
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Well it wouldnt even have come up if you hadnt of felt the need to question the guys opinion on Oasis in the first place.
I questioned what he considered "popular" to be. i still haven't got an answer from him yet. All this fuss is over you bashing a band you dont much respect or understand. you never miss an oportunity to dig in the side-swipe at Oasis and you have the bare-faced cheek to question the reasons why they might be snide about people who they dont much respect, when you're doing what amounts to the same thing they do. it's ok for you to have an opinion is it? but not Oasis?
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Whats weak is Oasis using this so-called joke newspaper as a promotional tool for over 8 years.
I dont read the sun, not every fan does. I haven't ever once seeked it out for information on the band. Whether a reporter of theirs is a friend of Noel's or not.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
The Sun has helped keep Oasis in the spot light when ever they needed to remind people that their still about & make sure that all important album charted somewhere respectable.
So the Sun is the secret to the success of Oasis? Do me favour mate, it's getting old, REAL fast all this praising the Sun newspaper and their gob-***** reporting. If you think the Sun are single-handedly responsible for every album sale, single sale and airplay Oasis reciece, you're foolish.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
As said before, many of these stunts took place in front of TV camera's (coincidence ?),
oh really!? what TV program, when was it aired, what channel, what stunt? Surely your warped interpretation? All you do is bash the band anway for the sake of doing so, jimmyboy..
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Most are good songs yes, but then I could double those songs listed with the amount of fillers Oasis have released. All a matter of opinion. The simple fact is you dont seem to like like Oasis very much and would call most of their songs fillers, you would say their views (or rather soundbytes in a national newspaper) are deliberate controversey. Your opinion - an insanely predicatble, heard-it-all-before rehash of an arguement, where you can't even quote sources for all this apparent misdemeanour.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
No please dont.
I'd rather you didnt listen to my arguement because I'd hate to think what you might come out with next if you actually started to think more deeper than your "I luv Oasis and they are immune from criticism viewpoint".
right. whatever. So your opinion is the law around here is it? i didn't say they were immune to criticism.. most of the criticsim comes from quarters that dont even read their interviews or listen to the bulk of their music. That's hardly a grounds for an informed decision..
but please, continue with your fanboy slurs..
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
OK, I can see you are either very very stupid to completely misunderstand.. how the music industry relies on the support of media backing,
i know all bands need media backing. But the backing that Oasis get from the media, i'm sure Oasis could do without. oh, and stop trying to flame me, please. i'm trying to have a discussion here, no need for the insults..
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
or so blind with devotion for your beloved Oasis that you cant view the situation objectively.
likewise i could say that the Gallaghers have annoyed you by their opinions enough for you to hate every word they mention in the press. You call it controversey for controversey's sake and then launch into a flame war over my support for oasis. I'd say it's YOU who cant see the situation objectively.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
If I have so little to stand on, then what exactly have you got to back up your claims, nothing except a rather naive opinion that Oasis pulling stunts at the sametime as their latest records coming out are always purely coincidence. :nuts:
Oasis are asked for opinions, they give them. They are asked more questions at the time of interviews on promotional exercises.. stands to reason.. there's nothing sinister or manipulative about it.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Yawn,
Look mate you've already had someone else tell you that your opinion on Oasis and the media is a mile short of the mark
not quite what he said, but still..
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
and lets not count the amount of people who have also posted that Oasis are over rated.
oh i get it, so because Oasis get more posts against them on this forum means that the majority opinion is the law? hell, others think they're over-rated.. so it must be true, obviously!? right...
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Your the one with a warped view of Oasis, I can view the band from a outsider perspective unlike yourself who is pure fanboy material.
you've said nothing objective about them. All your "objective" comments have deteriorated into flaming them as media whores and drunken idiots. You believe FAR too much press.
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
Noel himself could put it in writing that they have managers who pull strings at the red tabloid newspapers & you still wont believe it.
that's something slightly different. If the management believe that pulling strings and giving the tabloid some choice cut soundbites from an NME interview is good for publicity, then that's the management, and not Noel himself, who is owned by management. i personnally dont think that those tactics do Oasis any favours, and judging from Noel's recent comments in an Norwegian interview, neither does he. He's always said he doesn't find the apparent controversy appealing, and when all is said an done about this band, they still have their place in the 90s secured, and in 30 years time, the controversey which you're so hung up on, will mean NOTHING..
Originally posted by Jimmyboy
The basis of your defense seems to be that The Sun newspaper isnt a credible source whilst overlooking the fact that The Sun is a perfect place to promote a band like Oasis as they pride themselves on doing it for the working man, plus the fact that The Sun were reporting incidents which have been filmed on many occasions.
But Oasis arent a band that set out to play up to cameras or live a media circus.. not in my eyes anyway. Anything makes news in the Sun. They herrald nothing incidences as sensational exclusives..
in short: i'm a fan yes, and by the looks of it, you're not. So let's leave it at and agree to disagree. i dont believe they call up the press and demand to be voiced on certain issues or indeed stage things for the cameras, the press give them that forum naturally, to lure the fans into buying the paper.. i'm not sold on that. And then the press dress up the boys as drunken mindless buffouns when the tide has turned on Oasis, and it's a current trend to bash them. because they're not as fashionable anymore as they were back in the mid-nineties..
but either way, less of the name calling please..
[edit] damn my spelling & typos! :oh-hum:
Headstar
29-07-2002, 19:38
Jimmyboy and Idlechild.....why don't you just agree to differ? everyone has their own opinion on these bands. I realise that both of you feel very strongly about the reasons why you like/dislike a band, but I don't want to see this thread descend into a flame-war between two members
:)
Originally posted by Headstar
Jimmyboy and Idlechild.....why don't you just agree to differ? everyone has their own opinion on these bands. I realise that both of you feel very strongly about the reasons why you like/dislike a band, but I don't want to see this thread descend into a flame-war between two members
:)
[/whispers] shhh,its always good to watch two people argue over something irrelevant. Plus I got a little side bet over who's gonna admit defeat first [/whispers]
Headstar
29-07-2002, 19:43
Originally posted by RobbieM
[/whispers] shhh,its always good to watch two people argue over something irrelevant. Plus I got a little side bet over who's gonna admit defeat first [/whispers]
maybe so, but it's starting to get personal between them and that's not on
Originally posted by Headstar
Smiddyboy and Idlechild.....why don't you just agree to differ? :)
Don't think Smiddyboy would want to get roped in too ;)
Jimmyboy :p
oops! sorted now - apologies, but it's too hot to think straight ;)
Johnny Vodka
29-07-2002, 19:46
Will agree Coldplay are overrated.
And most people are too stoopid and narrow-minded to see the utter genius behind the last two Radiohead albums. :p
Idle Child
29-07-2002, 19:59
Originally posted by RobbieM
[/whispers] Plus I got a little side bet over who's gonna admit defeat first [/whispers]
:confused: personally speaking, i'm not out to win arguements, i'm just out to voice an opinion, that's all. In this case I saw Jimmyboy attacking my opinion of Oasis, and i tried to counter it.
not a case of winning or admitting defeat. No matter what Jimmyboy's opinion of Oasis, he can not change my mind on this to make me see Oasis his way.
Headstar
29-07-2002, 20:00
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
And most people are too stoopid and narrow-minded to see the utter genius behind the last two Radiohead albums. :p
oh well, guess I'm stoopid then as I hate everything after The Bends - whiny, monotonous pap;)
Headstar
29-07-2002, 20:04
Originally posted by Idle Child
:confused: personally speaking, i'm not out to win arguements, i'm just out to voice an opinion, that's all. In this case I saw Jimmyboy attacking my opinion of Oasis, and i tried to counter it.
not a case of winning or admitting defeat. No matter what Jimmyboy's opinion of Oasis, he can not change my mind on this to make me see Oasis his way.
fair enough - no-one said either of you had to change the way you think of Oasis, I just don't want it to end up with two forum members at each others' throats.
Just trying to keep a lil peace and sanity in my part of the forums ;)
Van Morrison and Bob Dylan.
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 00:58
Originally posted by agnetha
Bob Dylan. :eek:
He's one of the most influential song writers ever! :confused:
willsteptoe
30-07-2002, 12:58
Originally posted by agnetha
Bob Dylan.
I will just take that as a joke, as it is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum. He is 61 now, and has spent 41 of them writing the greatest music/lyrics that have or will ever be, and has influenced everyone that is anyone in music (either directly or indirectly).
And you disregard this in a second?! Do you even know anything about Dylan? Have you ever heard his music?! Doubt it. Some people :oh-hum:
Headstar
30-07-2002, 13:05
Originally posted by willsteptoe
I will just take that as a joke, as it is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum. He is 61 now, and has spent 41 of them writing the greatest music/lyrics that have or will ever be, and has influenced everyone that is anyone in music (either directly or indirectly).
And you disregard this in a second?! Do you even know anything about Dylan? Have you ever heard his music?! Doubt it. Some people :oh-hum:
i've heard his music...I realise a lot of people have been influenced by it, but it doesn't mean that I have to like him either
willsteptoe
30-07-2002, 14:20
Originally posted by Headstar
i've heard his music...I realise a lot of people have been influenced by it, but it doesn't mean that I have to like him either
But thats not what this thread is about :oh-hum: :rolleyes: :zzz: I don't give a monkeys if you love his music or not, just like you don't care if I like it or not. This thread is about which artists are overated, and Dylan is not overated, he gets little press now, and as always, lets his music speak for itself.
Headstar
30-07-2002, 14:25
Originally posted by willsteptoe
And you disregard this in a second?! Do you even know anything about Dylan? Have you ever heard his music?! Doubt it. Some people :oh-hum:
I was replying to this remark.......
and in my personal opinion Dylan is overated
Originally posted by Headstar
oh well, guess I'm stoopid then as I hate everything after The Bends - whiny, monotonous pap;)
*Ahem!* ... "No Surprises", "Karma Police", "Lucky", "Paranoid Android" to name a few .... I wouldn't exactly deem them to be monotonous pap! :p
I will admit that their last few albums require a lot of patience to appreciate them & certainly aint as good as previous albums.
Headstar
30-07-2002, 14:44
Originally posted by TonyG
*Ahem!* ... "No Surprises", "Karma Police", "Lucky", "Paranoid Android" to name a few .... I wouldn't exactly deem them to be monotonous pap! :p
I will admit that their last few albums require a lot of patience to appreciate them & certainly aint as good as previous albums.
lol - well I do! Maybe Paranoid Android is OK, but the rest :oh-hum:
WildWayz
30-07-2002, 15:28
The Beatles : Whilst I can appreciate what they done, they are boring. I HATE new bands who say "yeah, the Beatles are our inspiration!" when that is clearly a lie.
Oasis : No talent. Absolutely ****** 'band' formed by monkeys.
Travis : Boring.
Muse : Was ok to start with then got boring VERY quickly.
Spice Girls : Scrawny scabs not even worth the air they breathe.
James
cjbarker
30-07-2002, 15:30
U2
Might as well turn this thread into what bands cant you stand, rather than who is overated :oh-hum:
Headstar
30-07-2002, 15:40
Originally posted by Quint
Might as well turn this thread into what bands cant you stand, rather than who is overated :oh-hum:
one in the same, where I'm concerned ;)
Originally posted by willsteptoe
spent 41 of them writing the greatest music/lyrics that have or will ever be, and has influenced everyone that is anyone in music (either directly or indirectly).
And you disregard this in a second?! Do you even know anything about Dylan? Have you ever heard his music?! Doubt it.
Don't be so patronising. It's not like I've said I think Bob Dylan is crap, I just think he is overrated.
I knew this would be controversial - it's purely personal, I just don't see the big deal in him. Granted he's a good songwriter but, like Neil Young, I tend to prefer other artists versions of his songs. I think it's Dylan's voice that I have a problem with mainly - I can stomach about two minutes of his weedy, reedy voice before wanting to switch off. As for his contribution to music it goes without saying, though I'd argue he was only an influential source in the 60s and has treaded water for the most part since.
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 15:50
I was going to write some of the reasons why Dylan was so important but this extract from a biography does it better than I could of -
Bob Dylan's influence on popular music is incalculable. As a songwriter, he pioneered several different schools of pop songwriting, from confessional singer/songwriter to winding, hallucinatory, stream-of-conscious narratives. As a vocalist, he broke down the notions that in order to perform, a singer had to have a conventionally good voice, thereby redefining the role of vocalist in popular music. As a musician, he sparked several genres of pop music, including electrified folk-rock and country-rock. And that just touches on the tip of his achievements. Dylan's force was evident during his height of popularity in the '60s — the Beatles' shift toward introspective songwriting in the mid-'60s never would have happened without him — but his influence echoed throughout several subsequent generations. Many of his songs became popular standards, and his best albums were undisputed classics of the rock & roll canon. Dylan's influence throughout folk music was equally powerful, and he marks a pivotal turning point in its 20th century evolution, signifying when the genre moved away from traditional songs and toward personal songwriting.
Over-rated=
1) Dylan - you sound like a shouty tramp who hangs round the bus station arguing with pigeons.
2) The Doors - bad 6th form poetry and for inspiring the Bunnymen / Simple Minds / INXS
3) Love - big fan of 60's jangly west coast music, but this is just hatstand man!
Under-rated
1) Big Star - melody of the Beatles and agression of the Stones
2) The Clash - big band, big rep, but constantly in the shadow of one-trick ponies the Sex Pistols
3) Brian Eno - produced some floaty garbage but Here Come The Warm Jets, Another Green World, Apollo and Music for Airports are genius
sharp_circle
30-07-2002, 16:26
:lol:
this thread is the best thread so far...I love it when a rumble looks iminant.
and and to whoever said muse were over rated....go back to listening to nsync you idiot :D
j/k
I have to agree with regard to Bob Dylan. It just proves that no matter how good or clever your lyrics are, if u have a crap voice & no tune .... the songs suck!
Same goes for Neil Young & Pearl Jam (didn't ANYONE mention to them that u gotta have some kind of melody?)
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 16:42
You're supposed to put chewing gum in your mouth not your ears! :p
why are ppl so defensive about the bands they like. doubt theyd stand up for you in a scrap.
get over yourselves for crying out loud
Headstar
30-07-2002, 16:48
Originally posted by TonyG
Same goes Pearl Jam (didn't ANYONE mention to them that u gotta have some kind of melody?)
WHAT????????
You and I are going to have a serious falling out in a minute TonyG ;)
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 16:56
Originally posted by shufty
why are ppl so defensive about the bands they like. doubt theyd stand up for you in a scrap.And for that I'm thankful as I'd probably have a heart attack if I saw Kurt Cobain and Jimi Hendrix fighting my corner! :nuts: :D
Originally posted by Pisces Iscariot
And for that I'm thankful as I'd probably have a heart attack if I saw Kurt Cobain and Jimi Hendrix fighting my corner! :nuts: :D
Or realise you are infact insane :p
Originally posted by Headstar
WHAT????????
You and I are going to have a serious falling out in a minute TonyG ;)
Yikes! :eek: ... Ehhhh, well u dissed my beloved "OK Computer" album .. so i woz just gettin' my own back! :p
P.S. ... I suppose "Jeremy" woz listenable... :p
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 17:13
Go download Yellow Ledbetter and say that isn't a great song! :p
Headstar
30-07-2002, 17:13
Originally posted by TonyG
Yikes! :eek: ... Ehhhh, well u dissed my beloved "OK Computer" album .. so i woz just gettin' my own back! :p
P.S. ... I suppose "Jeremy" woz listenable... :p
you and me....outside NOW!!!! ;)
touche :p
Originally posted by Pisces Iscariot
Go download Yellow Ledbetter and say that isn't a great song! :p
Good but its no better man ;)
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 17:19
People who've been listening to PJ for all of 5 minutes have no frame of reference! ;) :p
Originally posted by Pisces Iscariot
People who've been listening to PJ for all of 5 minutes have frame of reference! ;) :p
So when i get to sit insode all day for 8 years I can comment then :nuts:
Got in there before you added the no ;)
Originally posted by Headstar
you and me....outside NOW!!!! ;)
YAY! ... I've pulled!! .... I'll get my coat. :norty:
Headstar
30-07-2002, 17:26
Originally posted by TonyG
YAY! ... I've pulled!! .... I'll get my coat. :norty:
*thwack!*
you now have a black eye to be going on with! ;)
Originally posted by Headstar
*thwack!*
you now have a black eye to be going on with! ;)
Cuddly moderator my a*se ;)
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 17:31
Originally posted by Quint
So when i get to sit insode all day for 8 years I can comment then :nuts: No you can comment when you actually know the names of their songs! ;)
Shingster
30-07-2002, 17:41
Originally posted by TonyG
I have to agree with regard to Bob Dylan. It just proves that no matter how good or clever your lyrics are, if u have a crap voice & no tune .... the songs suck!
Same goes for Neil Young & Pearl Jam (didn't ANYONE mention to them that u gotta have some kind of melody?)
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Are you deaf? :nuts:
Seriously though, Dylan might not have a great voice, but he's more than just a "good lyricist" he's a great musician as well!
As for Pearl Jam, you think Eddi Vedder has a crap voice? :eek: :eek:
Originally posted by TonyG
I have to agree with regard to Bob Dylan. It just proves that no matter how good or clever your lyrics are, if u have a crap voice & no tune .... the songs suck!
Same goes for Neil Young
I was going to mention Neil Young but I don't mind him. Don't think he's a god though.
More overrated - Brian Wilson... Frank Sinatra... Iron Maiden (there are FAR better metal bands out there)... Bruce Springsteen... Elvis Costello...
Johnny Vodka
30-07-2002, 18:40
Okay, people who went off Radiohead after The Bends or OK Computer...
I know a few of them (who would have rated them at some point as their favourite band) and they tend to only like music when it involves guitars (which is a bit narrow-minded, if you ask me).
The people I know who like Kid A and Amnesiac (including myself) already had a taste for experimental music/electronica/jazz. I can understand how these albums might sound a bit odd to some, but I think that says more about the listener than the quality of Radiohead's recent music.
sharp_circle
30-07-2002, 19:03
Pearl Jam???...no melody???......well it just goes to show that there are still cretins in the world with opinions. Its ok to have an opinion......
as long as its the right one :D
willsteptoe
30-07-2002, 19:10
Man I hate this forum: everyone (inc me) has totally different views about everything ;) , no-one can agree to disagree (inc me), which results in no-one getting anywhere and evryone just going round in circles :)
And the worst thing: people spout a load of BS apart from me ;) :nuts: about Dylan. He is an incomparable genius.
Here I go again: getting nowhere and going round in circles trying to make people believe me :sad: :nuts:
:nuts: :)
sharp_circle
30-07-2002, 19:11
bob dylan is an ass.......an ass that can't sing.
robbiejm
30-07-2002, 19:19
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
The people I know who like Kid A and Amnesiac (including myself) already had a taste for experimental music/electronica/jazz. I can understand how these albums might sound a bit odd to some, but I think that says more about the listener than the quality of Radiohead's recent music.
Ah music snobbery at its finest, "it isn't crap, you just don't get it". :nuts:
This reviewer sums it up well:
"Radiohead's latest effort, Amnesiac, released to deafening fanfare in early June, satisfies all these requirements. Moody and mostly beatless, the wildly unconventional songs drone with lyrics as readily comprehensible as any given excerpt from Ulysses. For these reasons, it's largely considered one of our generation's Big Important Records (BIR).
But the truth is that, for all the same reasons, it's no BIR at all.
Because consider, if you will, Sgt Pepper. Consider Blonde on Blonde or What's Goin' On or, perhaps most appropriately, the mid-'80s work of David Bowie. For all their off-kilter experimentation, records like Heroes and Lodger -- the A-sides, anyway -- are still firmly rooted in the basic premise of good melody and careful songwriting.
Amnesiac, by contrast, sounds lazy. It's one loping synth line after another topped with Yorke, whose four-note vocal moans sound not so much like he's searching for hope or truth, but rather seeking out a decent melody. And while so much of what is celebrated about Radiohead is how they apparently make their own rules, it's also awfully easy to pole vault when you're setting the bar yourself.
Amnesiac's other glaring problem runs exactly counter to the serious rock fan notion about the accessibility of a great record, namely that its virtues should only be obvious to an enlightened few (a premise so rooted in elitism and insecurity it would take hundreds more column inches to illustrate its manifold dangers). The fact is that, with a handful of exceptions, the bulk of truly defining rock records over the last 30 years have always carried some sort of populist appeal. Radiohead's decision to retreat to the interior landscape, to make difficult records for a cadre of fans who baldly praise everything they do doesn't signify victory in the war against mediocre pop. It signifies surrender.
Originally posted by sharp_circle
bob dylan is an ass.......an ass that can't sing.
Sure, Dylan kinda lost his way for a while before his conversion...but I think he has to be one of the greatest song-writers of all time...
Songs like Tangled Up In Blue,I Shall Be Released,Desolation Row,Love Minus Zero/No Limit,All Along The Watchtower,The Times They Are A'Changin,Mr Tambourine Man...the list goe's on and on.
Some artists nowadays couldn't write these songs if they had a team of writers let alone by themselves!
The Boogerman
30-07-2002, 19:32
The also rans of current popularity make money by rereleasing the same song with a different title - Coldplay, Travis.
5. Britney Spears - average looking silicon enhanced wannabe catapolted into stardom by tapping into male obsession for school uniforms, never lived up to promise of first single.
4. Nirvana - Undoubted some very fine songs, but mainly alot of feedback fueled average (pre)teenage angst fodder to alienate your parents with, while you're waiting for your gonads to drop.
3. Robbie Williams - professional self publicist and officially nice guy. Fantastic debut lead vocals with Take That's could it be magic, leads now to dreary singalongs - didn't know he wanted to be Max Bygraves.
2. Oasis - Good but repetative first LP. Career slightly hampered by desire to become The Beatles. Simplistic songs appeal well to the crossover market of pre-teen boys looking to get into grown up music, but who remain unconvinced that its OK to like the music if you think the singer and guitarist are idiots (comment from a colleagues 8 year old son, not me).
1. The Beatles - Never been a fan. Best summed up as the most over rated by being the only British band that the average (i.e. non-forum member or friends or family) American can name (in the same way Benny Hill and Monty Python are mentioned for comedy).
willsteptoe
30-07-2002, 20:38
Originally posted by RobbieM
Sure, Dylan kinda lost his way for a while before his conversion...but I think he has to be one of the greatest song-writers of all time...
Songs like Tangled Up In Blue,I Shall Be Released,Desolation Row,Love Minus Zero/No Limit,All Along The Watchtower,The Times They Are A'Changin,Mr Tambourine Man...the list goe's on and on.
Some artists nowadays couldn't write these songs if they had a team of writers let alone by themselves!
What he said: nice one RobbieM :clap: but remone the "Some" at the beginning of the last sentence ;)
sharp_circle
30-07-2002, 21:05
Originally posted by RobbieM
Sure, Dylan kinda lost his way for a while before his conversion...but I think he has to be one of the greatest song-writers of all time...
Songs like Tangled Up In Blue,I Shall Be Released,Desolation Row,Love Minus Zero/No Limit,All Along The Watchtower,The Times They Are A'Changin,Mr Tambourine Man...the list goe's on and on.
Some artists nowadays couldn't write these songs if they had a team of writers let alone by themselves!
mr tamborine man i agree with....the rest ******
Originally posted by sharp_circle
mr tamborine man i agree with....the rest ******
Nah that was crap as well.
"Along The Watchtower" is a the only great song there*
* Hendrix version.
sharp_circle
30-07-2002, 21:34
Originally posted by Bish
Nah that was crap as well.
"Along The Watchtower" is a the only great song there*
* Hendrix version.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 22:08
This is comoing from one Puddle of Mudd fan and one Nickelback fan! :lol:
sharp_circle
30-07-2002, 22:13
nothing wrong with either of those bands......although nickelback are beginning to **** me off with the amount of airplay.
and what the hell is comoing?
Flying Scotsman
30-07-2002, 22:14
Originally posted by Bish
Nah that was crap as well.
"Along The Watchtower" is a the only great song there*
* Hendrix version.
Surely u jest, and meant to say the U2 version??? :clap:
sharp_circle
30-07-2002, 22:14
Originally posted by Flying Scotsman
Surely u jest, and meant to say the U2 version??? :clap:
:D:D:D
Pisces Iscariot
30-07-2002, 22:31
Originally posted by sharp_circle
nothing wrong with either of those bands......although nickelback are beginning to **** me off with the amount of airplay.
Nickelback are below average and overplayed while PoM are lousy and have an awful singer. It's also fair to say neither will ever be accused of being influential or groundbreaking!
This is only my opinion though. :D
and what the hell is comoing? Are you sure you want to know! :norty: :p
if u have a crap voice - TonyG
Eh? Eddie Vedder has a crap voice? Regardless of your opinion of the band, that is a ridiculous statement!:confused:
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 09:41
Originally posted by Pisces Iscariot
This is comoing from one Puddle of Mudd fan and one Nickelback fan! :lol:
:clap: :clap:
And they have the nerve to slag-off Dylan :eek: :rolleyes: :oh-hum: Those bands and Dylan shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Worlds apart in terms of quality.
What ******** me off is all these people (sharp_circle, Bish , FS) who are slagging off Dylan and it is obvious that they have only heard a couple of songs and made their mind up that they didn't like it based upon that. How can you base a music cataloge of over 40 years on that :oh-hum: :confused:
Once again. This forum really ******** me off.
Must stop reading it :nuts:
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 10:10
moan moan moan........this thread is for people YOU think are over-rated. I respect your opinion that you think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Please repect mine that I think he's a bunch of arse that is wasting valuble oxygen :D:D
please take this in the spirit it was written. No SOH failures please
Headstar
31-07-2002, 10:14
Originally posted by sharp_circle
moan moan moan........this thread is for people YOU think are over-rated. I respect your opinion that you think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Please repect mine that I think he's a bunch of arse that is wasting valuble oxygen :D:D
please take this in the spirit it was written. No SOH failures please
:clap: :clap:
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 11:13
Originally posted by sharp_circle
moan moan moan........this thread is for people YOU think are over-rated. I respect your opinion that you think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Please repect mine that I think he's a bunch of arse that is wasting valuble oxygen :D:D
please take this in the spirit it was written. No SOH failures please
Just shot yourself in the foot there. As you stated: this thread is about people that are over-rated. It is NOT about who you like and don't like (which you inform us in the second and third sentences).
I am not dis-respecting the fact that you hate Dylan's music: I couldn't give a steaming crap. What I have a problem with is that you are saying he is over-rated just because you don't like his music :mad: Once again: this isn't what this thread is about :oh-hum:
WHY do you think he is over-rated other than the fact you don't like his music?! Who exactly has over-rated him?
IMO, an artists over-ratedness is only genuine if the hype surrounding the artist is greater than the music deserves. Like 99.9% of pop today, Dylan doesn't (and never has) relied on hype to sell. He has simply made music and toured. Does his own thing. That's it. In what way can you class that as being over-rated?!?!?!
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 11:25
Originally posted by willsteptoe
Just shot yourself in the foot there. As you stated: this thread is about people that are over-rated. It is NOT about who you like and don't like (which you inform us in the second and third sentences).
and where did I say that prey tell?
lmao....who's shot theirself in the foot now?
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 11:29
Originally posted by willsteptoe
I am not dis-respecting the fact that you hate Dylan's music: I couldn't give a steaming crap. What I have a problem with is that you are saying he is over-rated just because you don't like his music :mad: Once again: this isn't what this thread is about :oh-hum:
WHY do you think he is over-rated other than the fact you don't like his music?! Who exactly has over-rated him?
IMO, an artists over-ratedness is only genuine if the hype surrounding the artist is greater than the music deserves. Like 99.9% of pop today, Dylan doesn't (and never has) relied on hype to sell. He has simply made music and toured. Does his own thing. That's it. In what way can you class that as being over-rated?!?!?!
If I don't like him, and all the critics rave about him do I not think he is over-rated??? I think he is definately over-rated and can't understand why he gets the priase he does. So there. ner-ner ner ner ner.
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 11:53
Tell ya what sharp_circle: listen to Blonde On Blonde (66), Blood on the Tracks (75) and Time Out of Mind (97).
Then find out the number of years between his first and last album is. This number is also how many albums he has. Maybe even read some reviews.
THEN and only then can you comment on if he is over-rated, as you clearly don't know or have heard enough to make a justifyable and personal comment.
Or you could just go back to your Nickleback albums :lol:
jamesdeanbradfield
31-07-2002, 11:53
Why is everyone getting so overheated about bands they like being slated by others? Surely if you like them yourself, you don't need other people's validation for your choice. Loads of people on here have slated the Manics - fair play to them, but it doesn't mean my appreciation of them is going to diminish!
Don't follow the sheep people - follow your own path....
:)
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 11:55
Originally posted by sharp_circle
and where did I say that prey tell?
lmao....who's shot theirself in the foot now?
Errr are you blind?! You state that this thread is about over-rated artists. Then you go on to give a personal opinion upon IF YOU LIKE his music :lol: . Once again, this thread is NOT about that :rolleyes: :oh-hum:
Headstar
31-07-2002, 11:58
try and play nice peeps ;)
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 12:15
Originally posted by willsteptoe
Errr are you blind?! You state that this thread is about over-rated artists. Then you go on to give a personal opinion upon IF YOU LIKE his music :lol: . Once again, this thread is NOT about that :rolleyes: :oh-hum:
over-rated is the same as not liked imo. I dont like him and I think he's over rated ...get over it....I don't see the need to defend bands I like with the vigor you do, see my comments about Muse and Nickelback......some people dont know when to take a joke...get a sense of humour........... please before you slip into a sea of obscurity........just like bob dylan...lmao :D
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 12:20
I'm not even going to bother replying to that pathetic and inane post. Please re-read:
Tell ya what sharp_circle: listen to Blonde On Blonde (66), Blood on the Tracks (75) and Time Out of Mind (97).
Then find out the number of years between his first and last album is. This number is also how many albums he has. Maybe even read some reviews.
THEN and only then can you comment on if he is over-rated, as you clearly don't know or have heard enough to make a justifyable and personal comment.
Or just answer me this truthfully: how many Dylan songs have you heard?
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 12:25
Originally posted by willsteptoe
Or just answer me this truthfully: how many Dylan songs have you heard?
enough to know he's crap. Jesus mate you need to take a chill pill, why do you give a crap what I think? I certainly don't care what you think, you'll never change my opinion. So I like Nickelback, people slag nickelback off all the time, so what? I don't care...I like them, thats all that matters. Don't get ****** off cause you see something in Dylan that I don't, people are different and have different views. To rubbish my opinion just because yours differs is, as you would put it pathetic and inane.
Headstar
31-07-2002, 12:30
willsteptoe and sharp-circle......
I think you both need to walk away from this as neither of you are going to be able to convince the other how you feel :) as I've mentioned before, I don't want this thread to descend into a slanging match between members and I can see this happening if you both carry on in the same vein
:)
Originally posted by willsteptoe
What ******** me off is all these people (sharp_circle, Bish , FS) who are slagging off Dylan and it is obvious that they have only heard a couple of songs and made their mind up that they didn't like it based upon that. How can you base a music cataloge of over 40 years on that :oh-hum: :confused:
Once again. This forum really ******** me off.
I dislike Dylan and get no enjoyment from listening to his music and contrary to your belief I’ve heard enough material from all decades of his career to make a fair decision. I’m sorry if you disagree with me but that’s just tough, deal with it and move on. I find it insulting that you should tell me and others what we should like.
I’ve heard Blonde On Blonde many many times and I took great satisfaction when my cousins little brother decided to use his copy as a frisbee thus rendering the vinyl disc unplayable :D. If I never hear that record again I’ll die a happy man.
If this forum ****** you off so much I suggest you go elsewhere as we will never all like the same music. It's called having a difference of opinion.
Originally posted by Headstar
willsteptoe and sharp-circle......
I think you both need to walk away from this as neither of you are going to be able to convince the other how you feel :) as I've mentioned before, I don't want this thread to descend into a slanging match between members and I can see this happening if you both carry on in the same vein
:)
To be fair Headstar it’s called having a healthy debate and as long as the posts don’t resort to personal attacks then I see no harm in having a heated discussion.
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 12:45
Originally posted by Bish
To be fair Headstar it’s called having a healthy debate and as long as the posts don’t resort to personal attacks then I see no harm in having a heated discussion.
I agree, there have been no attacks at me or willsteptoe, its just a debate. Me thinks the mods are a little too ready to close threads these days. BTW not a complaint, just an observation. OK it is a complaint but a light hearted one :D
Headstar
31-07-2002, 12:45
Originally posted by Bish
To be fair Headstar it’s called having a healthy debate and as long as the posts don’t resort to personal attacks then I see no harm in having a heated discussion.
yes I know it's a debate, but I don't want the posts to start being personal attacks - that's why I was suggesting they back off a bit - I'm only trying to take preventative measures here.....
Headstar
31-07-2002, 12:48
Originally posted by sharp_circle
I agree, there have been no attacks at me or willsteptoe, its just a debate. Me thinks the mods are a little too ready to close threads these days. BTW not a complaint, just an observation. OK it is a complaint but a light hearted one :D
fair enough, but I'm new at all this and it's very difficult to gauge how people are feeling about stuff - if I'm too lax, then people will moan and if I'm too tough, then people will moan too - just trying to find a happy medium :)
and I'm not suggesting that the thread be closed at all
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 12:52
That wasn't directed just at you mate, it was all mods. People don't seem to be able to have a debate without it being shut down. Mind you like I said earlier in the thread, I love it when flame wars begin so I'm probably not the best one to judge :D
Headstar
31-07-2002, 12:53
OK then, just remember, I'm watching you lot! ;)
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 13:00
s_c and Bish: Points taken. Not trying to force my opinion onto you and probably should have let it lie.
As for agnetha who originally suggested Dylan and then dissapeared before the ensuing war:
your head: :brickwall
:eek:
Only jokin ya ;) :)
I wouldn't hurt a fly :norty:
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 13:05
see, all friends again :D
People disagreeing on all just about everything, yeah,
Makes you stop and all wonder why.
:D:D
Can an artist you like be overated?
I sometimes like Jamiroquai's work, but think he's a pillock.
Fatboy Slim and Moby are similarly pushed hard by the music industry, and they do come out with good stuff. But it's not the second coming of Christ.
That's Alicia Keys. ;)
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 15:07
Originally posted by gagsy
Can an artist you like be overated?
I sometimes like Jamiroquai's work, but think he's a pillock.
Fatboy Slim and Moby are similarly pushed hard by the music industry, and they do come out with good stuff. But it's not the second coming of Christ.
That's Alicia Keys. ;)
Alicia Keys?!?!?!?! :eek: :eek: Here we go again :norty: :nuts: :norty:
sharp_circle
31-07-2002, 15:54
didn't notice the Dylan quote there then willsteptoe?
:D
Headstar
31-07-2002, 15:57
Originally posted by sharp_circle
didn't notice the Dylan quote there then willsteptoe?:D
stop stirring! ;)
willsteptoe
31-07-2002, 16:52
Originally posted by sharp_circle
didn't notice the Dylan quote there then willsteptoe?
:D
Very clever Mr Circle :clap: Didn't even notice it:
Never made it as a wise man, and to be honest, I'm tired of livin' like a blind man.
Ahh well you win :sad:
:norty:
Johnny Vodka
31-07-2002, 18:59
Ah music snobbery at its finest, "it isn't crap, you just don't get it".
I don't really see how that's snobbery. My point is people need to be careful when commenting on something they know little about. I wouldn't begin to make any statement on classical music (like such and such is overrated) because my ears, brain or whatever can't tune into it.
When people slag Kid A and Amnesiac, I always wonder how much of the albums they've listened to and if they've made any effort to get into it. Some will say they're tuneless, but I just don't get that at all. Maybe they just mean in relation to Steps, The Stereophonics or Nickleback (cause that's all the radio stations seem to play all day, anyway).
Most good music does take a little bit of geting into. Many of my favourite albums - from Screamadelica to Deserter's Songs - seemed odd at first, then unique. If they sounded similar to everything else, they wouldn't be so special.
Re: the review you quote. Radiohead would have been lazy had they made another record in the style of The Bends. If you want to hear laziness, try Oasis, Travis or Nickleback, bands only content to rip off old sounds rather than try something new.
Right people, flame me... ;)
Originally posted by willsteptoe
Never made it as a wise man, and to be honest, I'm tired of livin' like a blind man.
stickleback :rolleyes: :oh-hum:
I've got five words in my head,
Are we having fun yet?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
My point is people need to be careful when commenting on something they know little about.
So I don't rate those albums as highly you therefore I must know next to nothing about them !!!. If that isn't a case of musical snobbery I don't what is.
When people slag Kid A and Amnesiac, I always wonder how much of the albums they've listened to and if they've made any effort to get into it.
I don't rate either album very high to be honest and it's not for the want of playing them. I own both and while they do contain some good songs I wouldn't class them as anything but average. The best part of Amesiac for me is the very nice book packaging.
Most good music does take a little bit of geting into.
I agree which is why I have playedboth albums far more than I should have.
Radiohead would have been lazy had they made another record in the style of The Bends. If you want to hear laziness, try Oasis, Travis or Nickleback,
Very true but in this case give me laziness any day (Travis excluded)
Johnny Vodka
31-07-2002, 22:28
Bish -
I wasn't saying EVERYONE who hates (or dislikes) Radiohead knows nothing, but I do think a lot of people who slag them don't know much about them (probably think they're "that miserable band").
If you've made the effort to listen to the albums a few times (and still don't like them), fair enough.
I think the main problem is, despite being labelled as a 'rock' act, they are most definitely not (not now, anyway), so people expecting 'rock' will be disappointed. You know, there are people out there who actually rate Kid A as their best album. I guess what part of their career you like most will depend on whether you prefer stadium rock or electronica.
Originally posted by willsteptoe
Or just answer me this truthfully: how many Dylan songs have you heard?
Loads, as someone I work with insists on playing his albums in the office all the time. Great songwriter yes but I don't think there's one song of his that I don't prefer the (more famous) cover version of.
I've just thought of another vastly overrated band - The Clash. There were *far* better punk bands, and I always felt The Clash were just a bit too contrived, studied and, well, fake.
Oh, and the creme de la creme of overrated albums - Van Morrison 'Astral Weeks'. How boring is it?
Originally posted by willsteptoe
s_c and Bish: Points taken. Not trying to force my opinion onto you and probably should have let it lie.
As for agnetha who originally suggested Dylan and then dissapeared before the ensuing war:
your head: :brickwall
;) I didn't disappear, merely stood back while the flames rose, heh heh. Still think Dylan's overrated mind you...
Pisces Iscariot
31-07-2002, 23:01
Originally posted by agnetha
Still think Dylan's overrated mind you... Well that's your opinion and it's wrong! ;) :p
robbiejm
31-07-2002, 23:14
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
You know, there are people out there who actually rate Kid A as their best album.
Which people? Deaf ones? :nuts:
Jimmyboy
01-08-2002, 00:49
I prefer the new Radiohead sound.
P Honey aint great and Bends is vastly over rated.
Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
If you've made the effort to listen to the albums a few times (and still don't like them), fair enough.I'm not saying I don't like, just that I don't think either of them are anything special.
sharp_circle
01-08-2002, 13:21
Originally posted by Pisces Iscariot
Well that's your opinion and it's wrong! ;) :p
scum supporters have no frame of reference :p
willsteptoe
01-08-2002, 14:25
Originally posted by sharp_circle
scum supporters have no frame of reference :p
Shut up you gimp :p
No offence ;) :)
Pisces Iscariot
01-08-2002, 16:19
Originally posted by sharp_circle
scum supporters have no frame of reference :p I'm not going to bother as it's clear to anyone with a brain why Dylan is rated so highly and if you don't understand then you are beneath me and not worth my time! ;) :p
sharp_circle
01-08-2002, 16:20
:zzz: :zzz:
soulsaver
01-08-2002, 18:58
Can I mention Oasis as well, great car music but please...(now get rid of liam, let Noel sing, give Andy lead guitar and more songwriting duties and you might have something:) )
Nirvana, no way, good band yes but if it weren't for teen spirit doubt they would of been as big as they were
Can't believe Mr Dylan has been mentioned, is it the man/voice or his music you dislike? could understand not liking the voice not everyones cup of tea but the music itself, find it hard to believe that you could overrate his songwriting:confused:
As for the beatles not a fan thats for sure but I cant go as far to say overrated, yes if they were to appear today then maybe yes but don't forget this was 40 years ago...mmmm yea maybe a bit over-rated then
Found Coldplay to be over-rated, the first lp was half great songs and I mean really great songs but the other half lame supermarket music but I think the second will be, from what I have heard of it, a really great lp so I am holding judgement on them.
The Manics really did shot themselves in the foot by having a second lp, should of stuck to plan A one great lp then disappear.
Never going to convinced me that Radiohead and pearl jam are over-rated, under-rated more like but thats just my view what do I know :nuts:
Could go on for ever really, its not how good you are its how good you pr team is these days, could the worlds crappest band but with right team behind you you can become the most rated band on the planet(bit like oasis really ;) )
Johnny Vodka
01-08-2002, 19:45
Which people? Deaf ones?
John Peel and Mary Anne Hobbs, for starters.
I probably rate Kid A and Amnesiac as high as The Bends and OK Computer (all essential albums). What's good about Radiohead is that all their albums are different (as well as excellent, bar Pablo Honey), which is more than can be said for most bands/artists. How many bands are this amazing five albums into their career (six if you include the live one)? I think they're here to stay.
John Murray
01-08-2002, 20:06
Genesis
Yes
and the truly apalling Emerson Lake & Palmer
& all those other dry as dust twonk bands that the spotty lads with no girlfriends used to like when I was at school.....
robbiejm
01-08-2002, 20:11
Well, in my opinion they've made 2 excellent albums and have lazily coasted about in a self-indulgent haze ever since. And I feel it takes a bit more effort to produce a song like Fake Plastic Trees than leaving a keyboard on demo, ******* off to the pub, and coming back later and releasing whatever happened to be recorded.
And who cares what Mary Ann Hobgoblin thinks? :D
Elvis Presley (Did he ever write his own hits?)
Johnny Vodka
01-08-2002, 20:21
Miss Hobbs is a supporter of some pretty decent