[Closed] Most Over Rated Band In History.

Wet Wet Wet

Stone Roses

beatles

Wrong..

Westlife.

beatles

This

edit: or queen

Or the "What band do a lot of people like but I just don't?" thread.

Beatles

Oasis. that is all.

Radiohead

Vengaboys

U2

Oasis - and you van tell Liam I said so.

Oasis, utter utter shite...

Arcticdan - Member

U2

Coldplay

Oasis - to be fair, one good album, then each one was slightly worse. Sorta like a Nightmare or Elm Street, Halloween, or Friday the 13th of the music world.

beatles or u2 (one of the worst bands to come out of the Netherlands)

Florence and her w@nk machine

Never find 'em when you need them. Never up to the job as they always break. No longevity as they become brittle and break after time. Buy a box, lose a box, buy another box, lose another box.
COMPLETE WASTE OF F***ING SPACE!
[img] [/img]

Or the "What band do a lot of people like but I just don't?" thread.

No, the 'most hyped up way beyond their true musical worth and genuine talent' thread.

Beatles is a pretty good shout. People forget they were a semi-'manufactured' boy band doing commercial pop music to begin with. Then were 'influenced by (copied, basically) other bands and musicians of the time. If you actually analyse their work critically, they weren't as good as many artists throughout the period they were active for. Loads more talented, inventive and original stuff out there, the Beatles enjoyed success cos they were relatively 'safe' and undemanding. Not unlike many of today's pop stars really.

Yeah, they had some good stuff, granted, couple of good albums, but tbh there's loads of better stuff out there really. They were never really inventive or original; they helped popularise a lot of other music, but weren't 'pioneers' in any real sense. And some of John Lennon's stuff is absolutely dire; wishy washy hypocritical sentimental tosh. Goddam Hippy.. George Harrison did some interesting stuff with Indian music for a bit, worked with the likes of Ravi Shankhar, but again, a bit insipid really. And as for McCartney; ye Gods where to begin? 😯

Yeah, Beatles for me too I think.

Oh, and for individual artist; Madonna. Yeah she's bin a round a very very long time, but what has she ever done where you can stand back and truly say 'that's great'?

oasis,oasis,oasis.oasis

Oh, and for individual artist; Madonna. Yeah she's bin a round a very very long time, but what has she ever done where you can stand back and truly say 'that's great'?

Beatles

Yeah we know that, Don, it's all 'pop' music of some sort really, in't it? No matter how seriously it takes itself.

I used Madonna cos she's always the 'most whatever' artist blah blah blah without ever having really produced anything genuinely outstanding.

What method are we using to rate, apart from personal opinion?

The [b]Elfinscale[/b] on the [b]Elfinometer[/b]; that tried and trusted barometer of what is good and what isn't.

There is no better evaluative mechanism.

MUSE

Beatles

coldplay +1

the smiths

There's a few!

The Beatles
Radiohead
Oasis
The Clash
The Rolling Stones

Pointless thread of course as music is quite possibly the most subjective thing in the world.

I'll go for Beatles, U2 and Coldplay. Seen Muse live and they were awesome, albeit some of their later stuff is a bit poo

Pink Floyd

Yeah we know that, Don, it's all 'pop' music of some sort really, in't it? No matter how seriously it takes itself.

Beatles...right place, right time but that is it...

i thought my suggestion for Beatles would be controversial but obviously not

Beatles; complete rip off of the Rutles imo

Another addition on mine:

Elbow "I'm a boring man, who sings sond like a child sitting in a pram"..yadda..whine....moan

Artic Monkeys "You look good, sitting on someone elses face.." yadda yadda"

The Doors I reckon are the most over-rated.

One of the most under-rated I think is the Kinks. Every time I hear one of their songs I am extremely impressed, and yet most people just think of 'you really got me'.

For me the hair metal stuff Bon Jovi that sort of thing. Nothing to say, tedious by the numbers dad rock. Awful

AC DC

There's Pop music where it's done simply for the money and I believe there are genuine artists out there who do it for the love of music and not popular acclaim.

So you're saying the VengaBoys [i]din't[/i] do it for the money, then? 😯

Plenty of people who 'do it for the love of music and not popular acclaim' are crap though. Which is why they never have much 'success'.

And I personally know some very talented musicians, who [i]only[/i] do it for the money.

And you can't accuse Timmy Mallet of ever believing his music would make him an incredibly wealthy world-renowned megastar....

One of the most under-rated I think is the Kinks

I agree and I prefer them way more than the Beatles - always thought Davis was a far better wordsmith than he ever got credit for. I bloody hate "You really got me" though 😮

hair metal

what is the genre of metal I appear to have missed it?

Ohhh another..

Status Quo "a boring song, dinky, dink, dinky dinky"

So you're saying the VengaBoys din't do it for the money, then?

And I personally know some very talented musicians, who only do it for the money.

And you can't accuse Timmy Mallet of ever believing his music would make him an incredibly wealthy world-renowned megastar....

metallica

Red hot chilli peppers

nine inch nails

what is the genre of metal I appear to have missed it?

Also known as cock-rock.
Examples;
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

All feature heavily on my playlists...! 8)

(Bonus point for naming all four....Without looking at image titles!)

Double post edit

hmmm seems to be almost crossing over into glam rock, which was a different beast all together.

I take it this is a lazy teminology used by townies and the like such as anyone in leather was a "sweaty" regardless of the subculture. 🙄

[img] [/img]

Anything at the centre of this handy venn diagram 8)

Radiohead for me too. I just could never get them, and I used to like some right old 90s indie tat.

Rolling Stones
Bob Dylan
Duran Duran
U2

Beatles is a pretty good shout. People forget they were a semi-'manufactured' boy band doing commercial pop music to begin with.

Loads more talented, inventive and original stuff out there, the Beatles enjoyed success cos they were relatively 'safe' and undemanding.

modern era U2 and Oasis for me

DD yeah for the Kinks hes got platic legs right up to his plastic bum

Some proper classics as well as some jokey stuff

The Beautiful South

Guns 'n' Roses .

Never quite understood what all the fuss was about when they first started out in the mid 80's even though I've been brought up on a diet of rock/metal my whole life.

(Bonus point for naming all four....Without looking at image titles!)

I got the first two.

Y'know, I was reading this thread thinking, there's nothing jumps immediately to mind, some suggestions are crap and some are just misinformed. I was getting behind Oasis, when someone mentioned:

AC/DC.

I don't doubt they're a decent band. But I simply do not get the adoration and idolisation they receive. They 'headlined' Donington a couple of years ago as the "biggest rock band in the world" and yeah, they were alright, but not even remotely worth the pomp and circumstance and disruption that surrounded their appearance. They wouldn't allow anyone to put their name on festival merchandise (including programmes), at which point I think, get over yourselves.

Coldplay +1,000,000
Radiohead post 1995
Oasis post 1995
The Beatles to an extent
The Stone Roses apart from one or two songs, and I like Ian Brown's solo stuff.

Anybody who has said The Rolling Stones, U2 or Queen does not have a clue about music!

Bon Jovi etc.. hindsight is an interesting thing. Nowadays you can put a few tracks on a CD and it's good fun, but back then it was everywhere all the time, along with all the lesser knock off bands clogging up the airwaves...

Radiohead are quality though. As were Queen, who were one of the very very few truly innovative bands. Their music is not like anything else, and no-one else can do anything like it.

If you understand how music and in particular pop music is created, you'll appreciate Queen, the Kinks and possibly the Stones too.

All of the above

Pink Floyd. Boring as hell and sound like rod, Jane and Freddy.

Aerosmith, schmaltzy blubbing crap of the highest order.

REM, dull, so dull...

Oasis, disappeared up their own butts a long, long time ago.

pretty sure thats just bollocks they formed themselves there was no manager who formed them

Well, it was Epstein who 'discovered' then promoted them, and pushed them towards stardom (and no doubt loads of wonga for himself), not unlike yer Loius walsh/Simon Cahwell/S.A.W. etc. Notice I said 'semi' manufactured...

Yes the drugs stuff was pretty safe as was bigger than jesus not to mention the outfits, and Sgt peppers was pretty derivative and not original. What about the videos?

They followed whatever trend was 'cool' at the time; have a look around at artists and musicians during the Beatles time, and you will see where all their 'influences' came from. Anything the Beatles did, you can pretty much guarantee someone less famous had done it previously. The 'bigger than Jesus' thing barely raised an eyebrow here, it's just that there were (and still are) a lot more reactionary people in the US. As for drugs; Keith Richards consumes more drugs in one year than all the Beatles put together during their entire careers... 😉

Pink Floyd

You are wrong of course, but I respect your right to be. 😉

Aerosmith, schmaltzy blubbing crap of the highest order.

strange that when they started they were some of the most notorious coke fueled shag monsters of dirty rock n roll in christendom. They did not age well 😆

+1 junkyard. The Beatles were already operating as The Quarrymen before they became The Beatles. A letter Paul wrote to a drummer who answered Paul's advert for a drummer was signed 'Paul McCartney and The Beatles'
I think elfin's mixing them up with The Monkees. Easy mistake to make, really.
As far as the more talented people around at the time is concerned, the ones playing music that wasn't 'safe and undemanding', well yes there were lots, like Cliff and The Shadows, Frank Ifield, Gerry And The Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer and The Dakotas, Brian Poole and The Tremelos, John Leyton, Helen Shapiro, Frankie Vaughn, Danny Williams, Temperence Seven, Del Shannon, Cilla Black, Bachelors, Searchers...
Wow, elfin, you're right, the Beatles were [i]so[/i] 'safe and undemanding' by comparison to such a bunch of raucous frothing lunatics! I mean, the nations youth were seriously at threat from [i]Wayward Wind[/i], by Frank Ifield, weren't they. Please, elfin, enough of your Stalinist revisionist attempts to re-write music history just to fit your own music preferences.

Nothing more subjective than music but that ‘Madchester’ scene back in the 90’s was a huge pain in the balls.

Inspiral Carpets
Stone Roses
Happy Mondays
James
The Charlatans.

Parpping moaning unadulterated pish.

I've never read such rubbish in all me loif.
Not that I read any of it.

Radiohead by a country mile in recent times. Class band but the critical fawning over them was orders of magnitude out of line. By Kid A it was emperors new clothes time.

[i] have a look around at artists and musicians during the Beatles time, and you will see where all their 'influences' came from. Anything the Beatles did, you can pretty much guarantee someone less famous had done it previously.[/i]

really?

Go on then, this I have to see. 😆

+ 1 4u2

really?

Go on then, this I have to see.

Listen to music of the 50s and early 60s, Rock n roll, Rhythm and Blues, Motown and that. The Beatles were heavily influenced by the music of Chuck Berry, Elvis, Little Richard, the Beach Boys, Buddy Holly and others. Later, you've got yer Pink Floyd who were an infinitely more talented bunch of musicians, doing some way more avant-garde stuff than the Beatles ever did. I'm sure I could play you stuff that you'd think 'ooh that sounds a bit like the Beatles', but then you'd discover it was done first...

Don't get me wrong, I [i]like[/i] the Beatles. Enjoy quite a number of their songs. But as mentioned earlier, they were very much in the 'right place at the right time'.

I have no doubt as to their subsequent influence on other musicians, but I just think they're overrated for what they actually were, which was a fairly commercial pop band who along with Epstein had a combined talent for making other peoples' ideas popular....

I love this revisionist bollocks Effin's spouting. Funniest shite he's come up with in ages. Where's that flipping Yeovil shirt you thief.

Oasis

Got all the bands above but struggled with the last one a bit - probably because I didnt like them much 🙂

Please don't lump van halen in with the rest of the hair metal crap. The fact that they feature one of the most influential guitarists in history is, on it's own, enough to set them apart.

I will partially agree with the Beatles suggestion, although i still think they were an inventive and original band. Alot of what they did was also incredibly derivative.

every music style /musician is influenced by what came before it but really elfin this is troll tastic

you will be telling us led zep were a semi manufactured boy band because of the role of their manager next.
Neither myself or emsz were alive when the beatles split [ I nearly was] and we are a generation apart and yet we both like them --- now that is a legacy few can compete with except Yeovil obviously
Of those you mention , whilst the yoofs will know then I doubt anyone is a massive fayn

I think noone overrates JLS quite as much as I do 🙂

I forgot all about Led Zep. Them, what a load of tosh. Or maybe UB40, I'm not sure.

Muse are another one that everyone seems to love. They are, and always have been a pile of poo.

Boomtown rats & U2.

Muse are another one that everyone seems to love. They are, and always have been a pile of poo.

I own no Muse albums and I'm not a huge fan. However, saying they're overrated is lunacy; they are criminally underrated if anything. They're technically superb.

Metallica???? Are you taking the piss??? How can they ever be considered as overrated? Pioneers of the whole thrash metal genre!!!

AC/DC.
I don't doubt they're a decent band. But I simply do not get the adoration and idolisation they receive. They 'headlined' Donington a couple of years ago as the "biggest rock band in the world" and yeah, they were alright, but not even remotely worth the pomp and circumstance and disruption that surrounded theirs pretty appearance. They wouldn't allow anyone to put their name on festival merchandise (including programmes), at which point I think, get over yourselves.