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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Top 5 Overrated Bands

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

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



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

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

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

How about critic and record store clerk favorites, Radiohead?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

See? Now you're writing parodies, Chucky

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

See? Now you're writing parodies, Chucky



My parody attempts are far worse than that.

and there is one on amiright somewhere.  Just one.

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

How about critic and record store clerk favorites, Radiohead?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flame on...

Flame on...



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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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



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

Overrated bands:

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

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

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

Greetings Billy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GTR -- SHT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Scott

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

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


Rick,

Thanks for the good words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dare to dream.

Scott

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

I enjoyed reading all of this and the responses.

These two bits struck a particular chord with me:

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

and

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


Vote 1 for Scott  :)  Hallejujah  :D

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


Rick,

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

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

Scott

I enjoyed reading all of this and the responses.

These two bits struck a particular chord with me:

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

and

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

Vote 1 for Scott  :)  Hallejujah  :D


Peregrin,

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

Scott

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

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


Rick,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott

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

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

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


Rick,

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

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

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

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

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

Scott

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

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

You OOPS it and the vocal drops out.

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

Rick,

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

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

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

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

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