Mouse Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Any shite that is in the charts just now...because it is selling more than any other kind of music, and ironically it is also the worst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pop-notmyface Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 The guy did nothing. occasionally, he wrote songs too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quofan Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Oh yeah and Oasis and the Red Hot Chillis. Most bands mentioned i hate but i like Led Zep and Queen just got bored of listening to ppl obsess over stairway to heaven and Bohemian Rhapsody THEY ARE SO FUCKING CRAP! Worst Led Zep song probably and im sick of every Queen song other than Tie Your Mother Down. When will ppl get it into their heads that there is more to music than guitar riffs?Cant stand most bands nowadays, they all seem overrated, apart from the old rockers that are still goin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonty84 Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 U2 is the best call ever. Not written a single decent song since they released Achtung Baby. The most pompous rock group on the planet thrown into the mixture. Plus, I saw footage of them live in Chicago on the recent tour on telly and their fanbase appears to consist solely of thirty-something housewives dancing who think they 'rawk'. That alone is enough to fuck me right off.MogwaiEminem (these days)Chili Peppers are pretty overratedPS: When will ppl get it into their heads that there is more to music than guitar riffs? says 'Quofan'..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quofan Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Cobain did rite songs, true. But they were dire. And surely even insecure Nirvana obsessed pot-smoking 15 year-olds must be sick of Smells Like Teen Spirit by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryn Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 I think all music is technically over-rated, though the actual meaning of that phrase becomes pretty hazy. Every musician's music will always be marketed by people trying to make money off the back of him, subsequently trying to hype him in an effort to 'sell' him. Not a true picture really.Even in the case of a purer, untouched form of music, possibly a local act or even bedroom guitarist. Word-of-mouth only consists of opinion of Mr A influencing a the more critical opinion of Mr B who bad mouths Mr A's judgement to angsty teenage Mr C who happens to love aforementioned group etc etc.. It is impossible to say whether something is musically over-rated or not. Due to the nature of music being subjective, all people can ever offer is opinion.Basically, this thread was destined to turn into a 'who do you dislike thread,' especially with the lack of thought anyone here can apply. However I propose for the time being that, regardless of how impossible it is to say, a band who's recent success is largely based around media hype as opposed to actual musical virtue would be, as previously mentioned (I know theres some contradiction in this) a group like Oasis or U2.Oh, and Chick Corea is awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quofan Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Btw jonty84, if you knew anything at all about Quo you would know that many of their songs are *not* based purely around guitar riffs. They went through an entire 'pop' phase in the 80's and did several songs and have done several more since then based around catchy tunes, lyrics and choruses. Even in the 70's they had some varied and unusual stuff.....But your opinions are probably based on their 'image' as 'three chord wonders'. Utter bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryn Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 They went through an entire 'pop' phase in the 80's and did several songs and have done several more since then based around catchy tunes' date=' lyrics and choruses. .[/quote']Uhh...What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Btw jonty84' date=' if you knew anything at all about Quo you would know that many of their songs are *not* based purely around guitar riffs. They went through an entire 'pop' phase in the 80's and did several songs and have done several more since then based around catchy tunes, lyrics and choruses. Even in the 70's they had some varied and unusual stuff.....But your opinions are probably based on their 'image' as 'three chord wonders'. Utter bullshit.[/quote']I like Quo, but to put them in the same league of talent as Queen is imo stupid. Quo are a good fun band but Queen had both Brian May and Freddie Mercury, both incredible and unique talents in their own right - vocally there are very few if any singer who can stand up to Mercury, certainly not Rossi or Parfitt.. Quo supported Queen in 86 didnt they ?CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulscoconutass Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Coldplay - Depressing and uninspiring.Incubus - New stuff is absolute shat.Nirvana - More depressing, bland crap.Beastie Boys - 2 or 3 good songs, that's it.HIM - Every song sounds the same.Madonna - 'Re-Invents' herself a.k.a. ripping off hip sound at the time.White Stripes - Avarage music at best, cool though gimmicks.Strokes - 4 bars, pause, 4 bars, pause... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quofan Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Im not putting Quo in the same league as Queen....im putting them in the league aboveAnd im not saying Queen are crap. I did mention in an earlier post that i like them but i get bored of them, esp. hearing their songs non stop.I rate Rob Halford of Judas Preist as a better singer. He can really hit the high notes. But who the singer is doesnt make the world of difference if the music doesnt fit and you simply cannot rate a band on the singer alone.And how can ANYONE rate Brian May a better rhythym player than Parfitt or a better lead player than Rossi? Every clip ive seen of May live he rarely does anything but stand there and play the notes. Parfitt and Rossi entertain the crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 This thread makes me wince. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottST Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Every clip ive seen of May live he rarely does anything but stand thereare you sure it wasnt a photograph:up:i love quo, but queen shit all over them. in all respects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inkster Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Who cares if a whole band writes a song or not?If the song is good it's good, if it's not, it's not.The Beatles are overrated and I'm surprised (unless i missed it) that nobody has said Elvis yet cos his stuff just makes me cringe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottST Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 elvis? matthew, how dare you! my vote will be heading down the Oasis route, followed closely by Babyshambles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-matthEw- Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 oh yeah i forgot to add Queen. boring stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pop-notmyface Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Cobain did rite songs' date=' true. But they were dire. And surely even insecure Nirvana obsessed pot-smoking 15 year-olds must be sick of Smells Like Teen Spirit by now.[/quote']YOU my sir, have never listened to that song. obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 problem here is that so many people in the 50 to 60 age group (mostly cliff fans btw) seriously believe these guys are responsible for all contemporary music there after' date=' from jimi to bucks fizz.......[/quote']Steady.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 It's impossible to overrate The Beatles. They were the first band to treat pop music as an art form' date=' and although they didn't directly influence the parallel growth of the blues/hard rock scene, they did take influences from the same roots as Page, Hendrix, Clapton etc. Bands today are influenced by the Beatles even if they don't realise it. They were the first successful rock n' roll collective, in which all members of the band played a part in shaping the sound, rather than following the direction of a dominant "leader". Without the Beatles, popular music would have taken a very different path and would not have the same influence and importance in our culture today.The Beatles were the best band ever, in my opinion, and my knowledge of blues and R+B is pretty wide-ranging, so I don't see where your argument holds water.[/quote']See....told you, overrated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
less_than_stu Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 HIM - Every song sounds the same.Ooh! VERY good point! I really don't understand why they're so popular (Bam Margera' date=' perchance?)I want to add G'n'R to this, because I hate them, but it looks like the most popular votes seem to be [u']U2 and Oasis, which is probably about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Android Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 My thoughts on some of the posts i've readLed Zeppelin could possibly be the most over-rated bandthe beatles are not over rated, many don't rate tehir music or importance highly enoughthe only time radiohead have been over rated was when someone said th "pop is dead" video isn't that badJoy division and the white stripes are both awesomeyes sonic youth imo opinion are better than nirvana but it's hardly a fair comparison and the quo are easily better than queen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 Im not putting Quo in the same league as Queen....im putting them in the league aboveAnd im not saying Queen are crap. I did mention in an earlier post that i like them but i get bored of them' date=' esp. hearing their songs non stop.I rate Rob Halford of Judas Preist as a better singer. He can really hit the high notes. But who the singer is doesnt make the world of difference if the music doesnt fit and you simply cannot rate a band on the singer alone.And how can ANYONE rate Brian May a better rhythym player than Parfitt or a better lead player than Rossi? Every clip ive seen of May live he rarely does anything but stand there and play the notes. Parfitt and Rossi entertain the crowd.[/quote']You must have the most rose tinted glasses in the world mate, Im afraid in reality (thats where we all live) the quo guitarists border on average, there are about 8 or ten guitar players in Aberdeen who are better than both of them put together.May I also add that Status Quo entertained me at many discos in my youth, but the live experience was less than satisfiying when I saw them at the music hall in the early 70's, they were being supported by Savoy Brown who blew them off the stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psydoll Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 This thread makes me wince.I'd like to have seen an honest and comprehensive post during your prime DJing days though I wasn't going to add any bands to this but I was suddenly struck with the image of a few nights ago when I watched Jools Holland with Babyshambles on it and they were absolutely dire. On record I have pretty much the same feeling about them and yet so many fans! At least with bands I don't personally like that much that have total hero worship and obvious musical significance in other people's eyes (Rolling Stones, Led Zep etc.) I can see what people are talking about but Babyshambles? Ah whit?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psydoll Posted January 4, 2006 Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 TerrorizerSeigeEarly carcassDropdeadAgathoclesEarly Napalm deathSore ThroatI'm sick of these chart-bothering over-rated bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemonade Posted January 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 This thread makes me wince.I wish I'd never started it now! It just occured to me yesterday when I was listening to Led Zep 1 that it wasn't really as "era-defining" as it's hailed to be, and thought I'd start a thread about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.