Most overrated musical act of all time?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Do people really overrate them, though? More popular than their talent would deserve, maybe, but it's not as if people are running around calling them the greatest rock band of all time. They really didn't put out anything of consequence after 1978, save for maybe "Lick It Up."

+1. I love Kiss, but I would never call them a "good band". They're mediocre musicians at best with maybe an album's worth of truly great material over a career of 20+ albums. I see them as more of a winking performance art thing. The marketing & merchandising machine, the proclamations of greatness...it's all just romping around in the playground of rock and roll. Some of today's bands could stand to look like they're having a good time, or at least like they're not being stretched on a rack. On the whole, rock music is kind of stupid (though I'm not trying to say it pejoratively) and they just don't mind embracing it.

He's right. People have to think you're good for you to be overrated. That's why I'd never include people like Nickelback or Britney Spears on a list like this.

 

[pure_mercury]

+1. I love Kiss, but I would never call them a "good band". They're mediocre musicians at best with maybe an album's worth of truly great material over a career of 20+ albums. I see them as more of a winking performance art thing. The marketing & merchandising machine, the proclamations of greatness...it's all just romping around in the playground of rock and roll. Some of today's bands could stand to look like they're having a good time, or at least like they're not being stretched on a rack. On the whole, rock music is kind of stupid (though I'm not trying to say it pejoratively) and they just don't mind embracing it.

He's right. People have to think you're good for you to be overrated. That's why I'd never include people like Nickelback or Britney Spears on a list like this.

Yeah, you could make a 80-minute mix CD of KISS that would be pretty great, but it would basically be highlights from Alive!, Destroyer, and Love Gun. They were certainly about the experience more than the musical innovation.

Is Sufjan Stevens still praised by critics or do they think he sucks now? Because he isn't very good.

 

[Tallulah]

The Velvet Underground, The Doors and The Grateful Dead.

Good calls, all. The Doors, especially. I'll also agree with Nirvana and Coldplay.

I think AC/DC and GnR were mostly just appreciated for what they were--I'm not sure most hair bands aspired to true artistic greatness or anything. It was mostly just fun, loud guitars and chasing after slutty girls.

I don't hate her or anything, but Norah Jones was vastly overrated when her breakout cd hit, and people acted like she was the second coming of Billie Holiday.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I'll echo:

Radiohead
Green Day
U2
Guns'n'Roses
Kiss
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
Nirvana

I think most of them are talented, and I may even like some singles, but overall, I think they get more applause than is warranted.

I notice a trend for people my age & younger to really like Foreigner and Journey. I don't know if it's supposed to be ironic, but they're getting more cred than they deserve also....(and I personally cannot stand them)

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Let's see here....

Radiohead [One of my favorite bands]
Green Day [Hate them]
U2 [Fond of them]
Guns'n'Roses [Not very fond of them]
Kiss [Really not interested]
The Rolling Stones [Not terrible, but, mehhhh]
The Beatles [One of my favorite bands]
Nirvana [Dislike them]

Interesting patchwork there.

 

[pure_mercury]

I'll echo:

Radiohead
Green Day
U2
Guns'n'Roses
Kiss
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
Nirvana

I think most of them are talented, and I may even like some singles, but overall, I think they get more applause than is warranted.

I disagree with pretty much all of these, except maybe 2000s Radiohead, U2 (awesome band, really inconsistent album by album), and Nirvana (like a few other bands, the true fanatics overrate them).

I notice a trend for people my age & younger to really like Foreigner and Journey. I don't know if it's supposed to be ironic, but they're getting more cred than they deserve also....(and I personally cannot stand them)

I think that this is a phenomenon we see with all trends. A subgenre comes along and gets megapopular, people get sick of it and slag it off for years and years, then people go back and realize that not all of it was terrible. The pendulum swings too far in the other direction a lot of the time, though, and popular-but-moderately-talented artists start to be treated with more importance than they warrant. People got sick of disco and then it was totally made fun of through the '80s and into the '90s, then people went back and realized that a lot of disco was actually quite good. Then it happened with AOR and then hair metal. Foreigner and Journey weren't awesome bands, but I'd much rather hear "I Wanna Know What Love Is" or "Wheel in the Sky" than most of the mainstream rock put out now. Again, these are bands who can put together a pretty kickass Greatest Hits, but they aren't godlike geniuses.

 

[Tallulah]

I really like Foreigner and Journey, but like merc says, it was just good radio rock. I don't think anyone's ever really made the case that they were "important," or the voices of their generation, etc. Both had really good lead singers, and Foreigner had some fun guitar and sax work.

 

[r.a]

coldplay
U2
aerosmith
kiss
kanye west
carlos santana
poison
vampire weekend
modest mouse
sublime
red hot chili peppers
philip glass
guns n roses
nine inch nails
grateful dead
the rolling stones
oasis
arcade fire
flaming lips
amy winehouse
311

and

dubstep

 

[pure_mercury]

I am seeing an inordinate amount of people calling The Rolling Stones overrated. Everyone knows they've been pretty bad for the past 25 years. Everyone ought to know they were FUCKING AWESOME the 20 years before that.

 

[Cimarron]

I would've also said KISS several years ago, but they're not even getting as much attention these years to call them "overrated."

Nirvana probably also, though they have some really good songs, their fame is probably in the "overrated" category.

I hadn't even heard about Radiohead until the years when I started spending more time online, when internet became a normal thing, and I noticed everyone was talking about them. I thought..."Who?"

Linkin Park was the most overrated from my teenage years. I guess the reason for their fame was just that there weren't any better bands at the time.

AC/DC I would disagree. They are definitely "generic hard rock," and when I think of a "template" for plain-old hard rock, I think of them. I don't know, that's what I like about the music, it's the perfect "standard rock."

 

[Thursday]

Easily the Beatles

 

[simulatedworld]

Easily the Beatles

I kinda hope that's just a clever little joke for the irony value.

I kinda REALLY hope that, in fact.

The most overrated band is Radiohead.

Unfortunately it's impossible to say this without sounding horrifically condescending, but please trust me when I say I don't expect ISFPs to appreciate the value in Radiohead.

Not that that's a bad thing, just that...it probably factors into your opinion in calling such an obviously talented band "the most overrated"...just shows that you're missing a lot of context.

 

[Queen Kat]

Fergie's solo acts.

 

[metaphours]

I kinda hope that's just a clever little joke for the irony value.

I kinda REALLY hope that, in fact.




Unfortunately it's impossible to say this without sounding horrifically condescending, but please trust me when I say I don't expect ISFPs to appreciate the value in Radiohead.

Not that that's a bad thing, just that...it probably factors into your opinion in calling such an obviously talented band "the most overrated"...just shows that you're missing a lot of context.

+1

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Haha thanks...I know why you said that, but unfortunately calling the Beatles vastly overrated is an even bigger blunder than saying that about Radiohead.

The typical anti-Beatles criticisms I hear are: BUT THEY COULDN'T PLAY FAST AND THEY WEREN'T METAL SO WHO CARES??

sigh.

 

[Southern Kross]

Radiohead?!

The Beatles?!

Seriously people?!

I'm horrified. I don't even know how to respond. That's just wrong on so many levels - blasphemy even.

I'm disappointed in you all (especially you Beatles haters ) and I don't care if I sound pretentious and arrogant in saying so (which is saying something)

 

[metaphours]

^ Haha thanks...I know why you said that, but unfortunately calling the Beatles vastly overrated is an even bigger blunder than saying that about Radiohead.

The typical anti-Beatles criticisms I hear are: BUT THEY COULDN'T PLAY FAST AND THEY WEREN'T METAL SO WHO CARES??

sigh.

Yeah I know. Anyone who openly rips on The Beatles is an ignorant bastard and doesn't know anything about music. The reason The Beatles have become so legendary is because without them, music wouldn't be the way it is now at all. The Beatles were pretty much the blueprint and influence for the next 40 years of music (well, atleast rock music) and they will definitely continue to be for decades to come.

And people who call Radiohead pretentious, are just being dumb. First of all, Radiohead is not "pretentious." Most people call Radiohead pretentious because they are "too wannabe-artsy." Well, under that pretense you could call every other band that's ever experimented with different musical elements, "pretentious." And second of all, whether or not a band is "pretentious," doesn't really matter, honestly, because what matters is...

*drumroll please*

THE MUSIC.

I could care less about who listens to Radiohead, or if they just listen to them to look cool. I know I listen to Radiohead because they make brilliant music and that's that.

 

[simulatedworld]

Okay, well, I agree with all of the above except the part about Radiohead not being pretentious.

They're brilliant and all, but if you don't think they're brutally pretentious, too, then you've never actually read a Thom Yorke interview.

Actually reminds me of a Pitchfork article where they called Tool the "Radiohead of metal" because both were more talented than their peers, both were incredibly pretentious, and both released massively successful records (Lateralus vs. Kid A) to total radio silence.


And about the Beatles--if you don't enjoy their music, that's fine; you have a right to your own musical tastes. But if you don't think they were an amazing band, you're just incorrect.

 

[metaphours]

^I've watched tons of his interviews and he doesn't even come close to how pretentious someone like Brandon Flowers, lead singer of The Killers is.

 

[Lurker]

U2 - I don't think they've done anything of merit since Achtung Baby in '91 (which was their best album, imo).

AC/DC - Formulaic

Coldplay - Just....huh?

Britney Spears - Ok, she's a good performer, emphasis on good. Not great. Her voice is so-so. Her songs are likable. How is she any different than a bunch of '80s female pop stars?

Norah Jones - I think her popularity has waned since she won the grammy. Still, she's another wtf type of deal.

Aerosmith - They had a handful of cool songs a long time ago. You know, on second thought, they used to be overrated...they really aren't now.

Wilson Philips - Back in the early '90s, everyone jammed to tunes like "You're In Love" and "Hold On." Twenty years later, everyone is still raving. I thought they would have their fifteen minutes then vanish. If only!