2
votes

The top 5 most overrated bands of all time

posted November 8, 2006 - 12:29am
The top 5 most overrated bands of all time

Been meaning to put this one up for a while...

1) The Beatles: I need to start this by saying the main reason they hit number 1 on this chart is that they are so highly praised. I’ve listened to the bulk of their catalog and I still cannot figure out why. In the beginning, they were the world’s first boy band. That’s right, The Beatles are directly to blame for New Kids on the Block, NSYNC, and the Backstreet Boys, among countless others. They then developed their sound into something less poppy and more trippy, but lost something in translation: their ability to play their instruments together. Don’t get me wrong, with the exception of maybe Ringo they were all GREAT musicians on their own, but something truly awful happened whenever they got into the same studio. The best evidence for this is all the Beatles covers: they’re ALL better than the originals! By leaps and bounds! Great songwriters, maybe. Great band, absolutely not.

2) The Rolling Stones: In the rock pantheon, The Stones are nothing more than the poor man’s Aerosmith. They get lots of radio play and inexplicably still sell albums and concert tickets LONG after their prime. But what did they ever write that was so great? Brown Sugar? Start Me Up? I’ll give you Paint It, Black, but that’s about it. And that’s not nearly enough to garner the accolades they’ve received. The plain simple truth is that they wrote “rock standards” and nothing more. The problem with rock standards is that they have nothing to do with the band that wrote them except that they were there first to write them. ANY band could have written them, and would have, given the chance. The Rolling Stones are completely non-influential and irrelevant in the grander music scheme.

3) Radiohead: There is no band ever formed that is more boring that Radiohead. For some reason, there are also few bands ever formed that have sold more records than Radiohead. I remember being in college when one of my friends told me I had to check out the greatest record he ever heard, some Radiohead album. I got halfway through the second track before running from the room yelling for someone to give me something sharp so I could stick it in my ears and end the misery. Beyond that, it’s pretentious as all hell. I think that’s why people listen to it: for the same reason they bought Steven Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. They put it on their shelves, maybe crack it open once or twice, and then feel good about themselves. I need to add on here, as an addendum, Coldplay. I have only this to say: Remember when Voltron came out and your parents got you the cheap knock-off plastic Voltron guys because no one in their right minds spent that much on the real metal Voltrons? Coldplay is plastic Radiohead. And Radiohead is no way near as cool as Voltron. Come to think of it, if I could combine their albums to form one big ass-kicking album, I might buy them.

4) Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave: Talk about your one-trick ponies. Rage’s trick wasn’t even a very good! Tom messes around with a guitar while Zack jumps around and screams a lot. The only reason they got any attention at all is because they tried to act all anti-establishment. A big reason these guys are here is that they made the same album, and nearly the same song (Killing in the Name Of) over and over and over again. The biggest reason, though, is that Tom Morello is the single most overrated guitarist of all time. Are monkeys geniuses when they play with Magnetic Poetry and put profound sentences together? No. And Tom Morello’s not a genius for, after finishing assembling his Ikea furniture, using the Allen wrench on his guitar. He’s so overrated he even drags his new band, Audioslave, into a two-way tie with Rage for the number 4 spot.

5) Grateful Dead et al: The et al is for the rest of their jam band ilk. Phish, String Cheese Incident, Dave Matthews Band, yadda yadda yadda. If you have to be in a certain state of mind to appreciate the music, its not very good. I don’t care how long the band was around and how much critics try to spit shine these turds, it doesn’t matter. The fact is that most of their recordings sound barely rehearsed, let alone polished. It’s disappointing sometimes, because some of the songs sound like they had promise. The bottom line, though, these guys all get far more respect than they deserve.


Tags:

Comments

awful

hahaha this is terrible music criticism. you're just saying things that sound like criticism, like that the beatles "can't play together in the studio," but this claim is completely arbitrary. how in the hell did you come to this conclusion? i also don't see the direct connection between them and the boy bands of the 90's. sure, they're the prototypical "boy band" in that they were hugely popular among youth culture, and their extreme success set a precedent to be exploited by marketers of future boy bands, but there was a lot of devolution between them and the manufactured boy bands we have today. their popularity came from musical proficiency, while modern boy bands are put together based on marketing appeal. just because their success spawned vacuous tripe (while influencing countless other GREAT bands) doesn't make them "overrated". and have you listened to sgt. peppers? where are you getting the idea that they don't work together in the studio? where are your examples of covers that were better than their originals? "they're ALL better than the originals! by leaps and bounds!" you're simply trying to be provocative. your claims are completely empty and undefended, so i'm almost embarrassed that i spent the time responding to what is merely contrarian ranting.

I agree.

That would be about the 5 I would choose as well.  The reason the beetles inspired a lot of other bands is because at that time, thats what was 'hot'  Just because a band is inspired by another band, does not make them great. It just means someone liked them enough to incorerated them within their own music. There are many other great bands out there who have made many amazing cds, and once there done, only the former albums live on. They dont continue to create new-er versions of old songs.

Ive been known to like a couple Rage against the machine songs. I'm not sure I would classify them as being in the top 5, but deffinitly the top 10-ish?

 

 

LOL

Just wanted to make it brief. Radiohead is overrated. Coldplay isn't plastic Radiohead that saying is straight blasphemy xD. Listen to a Coldplay song that isn't on the radio; Daylight, Politik, Twisted Logic, A Message, Amsterdam, Lovers In Japan, 42, Everythings Not Lost. hahahaha Its funny how you didn't Mention Metallica, Beyonce or Soulja Boy.

Well, as I stated in my

Well, as I stated in my post, the main reason the Beatles got number 1 on the list is because they are sooooo highly praised, not because they're so terrible a band. And, as for the stones, dude, they so ARE a poor man's aerosmith! I mean, mick jagger even has big lips but not as big as steven tyler's "Thank you for driving carefully through the villiage." That's what the sign says.

Sue makes very good points

I actually have to agree with her Beatles arguement. Though, no Ken, you personally do not have to love, like or even tolerate them, she is correct in her statements about how they affected the shape of rock music. Whether or not THEY were the ones in the right place at the right time could be a matter of opinion. And regarding your comment that the Stones were merely in the right place at the right time, they were there because The Beatles created a place for them to be. However, I freaking LOVE the fact that you called them a "poor man's Aerosmith". ROFL!!

I just need to add here that

I just need to add here that I'm shocked and amazed at the response to the Beatles ranking. On Digg one guy said he'd even start a new account to bury my post further! You'd think I made a cartoon of the prophet Mohammad... "Thank you for driving carefully through the villiage." That's what the sign says.

You make good points. This

You make good points. This wasn't meant to be a scholarly article on the history of music, but rather the 5 bands I think are the most overrated of all time. You're certainly right about Audioslave, I mostly included them to make my Tom Morello joke work. "Thank you for driving carefully through the villiage." That's what the sign says.

I don't have to respect the

I don't have to respect the Beatles' influence on rock at all. See my argument against the Stones! They happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right handlers behind them, that's all. The band, and the musicians, were simply trained chimps banging together two cymbals to ruckus applause. "Thank you for driving carefully through the villiage." That's what the sign says.

I'm going to have to

I'm going to have to disagree with you on a few of your choices here. 1. The Beatles, while immensely popular, contributed immensely to the canon of popular music in the latter half of their tenure. The influence they've exercised is undeniable, and even just by that merit, calling them the most overrated band of all time is hardly fair. Besides their influence, they demonstrated a masterful grasp of melody to a rare degree. As to what you meant when you stated that they, essentially, couldn't play their instruments together, I can't fathom. Besides all that, attempting to force blame on them for boy bands is ridiculous -- even early on, The Beatles did write at least a portion of their own material, a notable difference from the big names in 1950s rock and roll. I don't see any real logical connection here, honestly. 3. Yeah, they're certainly overrated, but putting them in the top five seems like a mistake. You come across as simply not enjoying the music, which, I suppose, is your prerogative, but basing an argument as to Radiohead being overrated on that notion is terribly wrong-headed. As for being pretentious, I'd argue that it's not Radiohead that's so pretentious, but the most vocal of their fans. It's not that they do anything terribly ground-breaking with their music, but they do have an interesting style of songwriting. Your placing of them on the list seems steeped in a certain bias. 5. I won't parrot what others have already said here, but there's an amazing amount of creativity here; if you don't actively enjoy the music, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is no inherent quality. The improvisational skills used are staggering, regardless of whether you enjoy the output or not. I'll agree with The Rolling Stones--certainly not worthy of the overwhelming praise they receive on a regular basis; essentially, they're a rock band infused with blues, nothing terribly exciting here. I'll also agree with Rage Against the Machine, but recognizing that they successfully combined outspoken political views and music, a feat in and of itself. Audioslave, I wouldn't imagine, is terribly highly rated, and should probably be dropped from the list.

Beatles out of Context

The Beatles get so much praise because of their effects on the history of Rock n Roll. By the time 1960 rolled around American Popular music was pretty sad. ALthough the Folk Revivial was in full swing it paled in popularity to girl groups like the Shirells, the Ronettes and other Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" groups. If you have ever heard songs like "Johnny Angel" or "Leader of teh PAck" you would understand what a terrible state of emergency music was in. Chuck Berry was in jail - Elvis had been drafted - Jerry :Lee Lewis had been ruined and most other music legends of the 50s had been silened by scandel and drugs. Record Companies had turned rock n' roll into safe music for middle class white teens to listen to. Bob Dylan wanted to be a rock n roller throughout the fities having a couple bands but in the light of rock being dead by 1959 he got into folk instead. No one was getting into rock anymore. Rock was declared a fad and over - Motown, folk and pop were the new sounds. Although the Beatles appear to be a boy band to you - the Crew Cuts were the Boy Band. The Beatles were the first rock band not to take themselves seriously. They scared white middle class America like Elvis once did. They did have a massive ad campaign behind them but that wasn't what made them successful in America. For instant the Beatles were highlighted on American BAnd Stand where a panel of teens voted on there first single. The first teen said "I give in a 77 (out of 100)." The second kid said "I give it a 65. I can't dance to it." and the 3rd gave them a 70. Then Dick Clark showed a picture of the fab four and everyone laughed saying their hair was ridiculous and that they were funny looking. When they finally hit they brought back rock n roll. After their popularity record companies began investing in rock bands again - hell Dylan was so effected he decided to go electric and return to his rock roots. Thousands of bands across Ameriica emerged - the garage band scene was started as a reaction to the Beatles and the british iinvasion was started from them. Without the Beatles in the picture we would still be hearing bands sing "Shaboom Shaboom, life could be a dream sweet heart!" There would be no garage rock which would lead to greater music later, no Yard Birds, No Clapton, No Cream, No Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" and so forth so on. And no long hair! I just think it is funny that people always say the Beatles were the first boyband when there were actual groups of boys that just sang harmonies and dance songs since the 50s. The Beatles played instruments, meanwhile groups like the Crew Cuts just stood around the mic and sang clean cut white america songs. Face it as much as you hate it - the Beatles get so much hype because they are responsible for how rock was revived in the 60s. Wiithout them we would have to wait for Elvis's comeback concert and you would be less pleased with music today then you are now. As you might have noticed I have mentioned nothing about the Beatles' actula music. That is because you are right. Their songs aren't that great. But you have to respect their influence in the history of rock n roll. I mean - if you call them a boyband you are writing them off with a cheap disservice. AFter all they were doing somthing edgy and different for their time. Got to think in Context. --Sue

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member