Most Overrated Music Artist (1 Viewer)

[TheoGB]

Well it's not an entirely false statement...if you've only listened to the Beatles' first 3 or 4 albums. Personally She Loves You, Love Me Do, etc. while they are not unpleasant songs, are not tracks I have much interest in. The beatles begin for me with Revolver as an album band.
However, I'll be bloody surprised if the Backstreet Boys can start to produce anything of the calibre of Strawberry Fields, Let It Be, Come Together, etc. in their careers.

 

[Ray R]

TheoGB,

What if the Backstreet Boys started candy flipping and hanging around with Paul Oakenfold?

 

[Tom Ryan]

As always, it's nice to read contributions to the topic, from RicP and Andrew. Thanks guys !

"Snnorreeee!!!" but you belong under a bridge.

Anyways, while it's true some of your average earlier Beatles songs were no deeper in content than your average Backstreet Boys song, the songwriting and musicianship was always solid. And of course we know how they matured later as well. Best band ever (while not my personal favorite).

-Tom

 

[Rain]

...while they are not unpleasant songs, are not tracks I have much interest in. The beatles begin for me with Revolver as an album band.

I can kind of agree with that. The Beatles always were a very tight little band, but the early stuff does not have the creativity of the later works.

However, I'd suggest you go back one more album in the timeline to Rubber Soul.

 

[Mike Broadman]

However, I'd suggest you go back one more album in the timeline to Rubber Soul.

I agree 100%. Rubber Soul through Abbey Road, excluding the White Album, comprise the prime Beatles output, IMO.

 

[KrisM]

Mike and Rain,

I completely agree about Rubber Soul. I might be a little biased though as it was my first album ever. I got Rubber Soul and a Fisher Price record player for Christmas back in late 70s. It is still one of my favorite albums.

KrisM

 

[Jimmy Nugent]

I have no idea what the appeal of Limp Bizkit is... like a dream date with a supermodel, it eludes me.

Jimmy

 

[Mark Lee]

For an artist or group to be considered "overrated," doesn't it have to be "rated" in the first place? I mean, does anyone really argue that the whole N'Sync/Backstreet Boys phenomenon really has anything to do with their music?

 

[chris c]

"I agree 100%. Rubber Soul through Abbey Road, excluding the White Album, comprise the prime Beatles output, IMO."

I used to agree with this, but now I am into the early albums and they are quite amazingly good, deceptively simple (much like Brian Wilson's songwriting that seems trivial upon a first listen, but is actually quite complex and layered). Please Please Me, for example, is stunning when you realize the authority with which the Beatles, in their debut album, make some old tunes their own and write new ones that better the remakes.

Like a friend of mine once said - the best Beatles album is the one that's playing.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well it's not an entirely false statement...if you've only listened to the Beatles' first 3 or 4 albums.

Yes, it IS entirely false. The Beatles offered a variety of brilliant material at every stage of their career. I've never understood why the early years are so frequently disparaged - there's much work in that era that's as good or better than the later stuff...

 

[Jeff_A]

Good man, Colin! This is actually my preferred Beatles era. The songwriting on A Hard Day's Night or Help! easily stands up to the material on their later works. Obviously, the myth continues that you are only a cerebral fan if you believe the Beatles era actually started after Rubber Soul.

 

[TheoGB]

Well I should be clear on a few points then:
Rubber Soul: Like all their early albums like some of it but not all. Yep there are a couple of duffers on Revolver onwards but not to the same degree. Also the albums just 'feel better' to me as albums. Hence I stated that it was as an album band they began for me.
Backstreet Boys: Can't stand their stuff but it's really as much about who they are imagewise and so forth. There are some great tracks in those early Beatles albums but there is a lot of balladic 'nice' stuff.
When the Beatles did it, it was fresh and important, but let's not forget that they had hoardes of screaming teenagers after them. We've heard the stuff from the 'Red Album period' so often it's impossible to be objective about it but it's fair to say (IMHO) that you could draw comparisons with the Beatles and any other pop act. That doesn't mean the Beatles didn't have better songs (they did) but that, music aside, there's little to chose.
IMHO.
I think MikeAW was just being an arse in what he said and trying to get you all to get peeved. But I could be wrong. I certainly can't suss the guy out but then I'm not sure I can be arsed to try, frankly.

 

[Joseph Young]

Unfortunately this thread seems to have deteriorated into 'artists I hate'

Deteriorated? From the beginning this thread was established to knock on the bands we hate. Well let me generalize it and let's be done with it, okay? Here we go.. you ready?
Watch 'The Merchants of Cool' on Nova this week and learn something about where 'overrated' really comes from.
[rant]Any act affiliated with MTV's Total Request Live is overrated[/rant]
There.. we've solved our little problem and can close this pointless thread now.

Peace,
Joseph

 

[MikeAW]

To me, most of the Beatles' catalog "works", because they were more expert and very successful and talented technicians, rather than actual innovators. The slight of hand that "we" fell victim to was actually their radical sense of satorical style, and fashion sense. That they dared to set themselves apart in these Image areas, they were really just riding a of a crest of wave that was already, well, cresting in the UK. Read Andrew Oldhams book, "Stoned" for this backstory, that really was never told by someone who was actually part of It. Insight and the Inside Story.

The innovating for the Beatles came much later in their career, and with the assistance of various psychedelics into their lives. Unfortunately at this point, they were followers...and they never really caught up with what they started with "Sgt. Pepper", and they couldn't follow up with something that "topped" it. In the end, they were lost and just consumed by their own personal demons and excesses.

 

[Tom Ryan]

To me, most of the Beatles' catalog "works", because they were more expert and very successful and talented technicians, rather than actual innovators. The slight of hand that "we" fell victim to was actually their radical sense of satorical style, and fashion sense. That they dared to set themselves apart in these Image areas, they were really just riding a of a crest of wave that was already, well, cresting in the UK. Read Andrew Oldhams book, "Stoned" for this backstory, that really was never told by someone who was actually part of It. Insight and the Inside Story.
The innovating for the Beatles came much later in their career, and with the assistance of various psychedelics into their lives. Unfortunately at this point, they were followers...and they never really caught up with what they started with "Sgt. Pepper", and they couldn't follow up with something that "topped" it. In the end, they were lost and just consumed by their own personal demons and excesses.

This doesn't explain why The Beatles appeal to all demographics even 30 years after they broke up. People today aren't influenced by The Beatles' "fashion" or their "satirical style" (incidentally, "satorical" is not a word. www.dictionary.com is helpful), they simply recognize great music. Look to the success of The Beatles' "One" album for that.
-Tom
P.S. You're a Madonna fan, right ?

 

[MikeAW]

Excuse me, Tom...please re-read what you're disputing here in my post....

"...they were more expert and very successful and talented technicians..."

.....and, P.S. If you re-read your own copy of my post, a little more slowly this time, you will see that I already did spell and use the word correctly. You're welcome!

Jeeeeeez.....Next !!!

 

[Tom Ryan]

Excuse me, Tom...please re-read what you're disputing here in my post....
"...they were more expert and very successful and talented technicians..."
.....and, P.S. If you re-read your own copy of my post, a little more slowly this time, you will see that I already did spell and use the word correctly. You're welcome!
Jeeeeeez.....Next !!!

Mike, try this link: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/di...term=satorical
The irony is that you still think you're spelling it correctly. Really, there's no shame in using www.dictionary.com, I use it myself.
Anyways, if you'll read MY post you'll realize that I was pointing out the error in your assumption that The Beatles became popular because of style and fashion sense, satirical lyrics, etc. Whether The Beatles were innovative or not is another matter, but it's absurd to insinuate their success was due to frivolous things like the clothes they wore. If you study The Beatles, you will realize everything spiraled outward from the music, not the other way around.
Snnoorreee, but your points just aren't logical
-Tom

 

[MikeAW]

Tom, the idea was absurd to me too, until I read Oldham's book...and he should know because he was there to work on both sides, if you will, in The Management End of Fashion

and Music in Pre-Swinging London. He didn't just manage the Stones.

You should challenge your sensibilities and read his book...like I wrote, "Insight".

 

[TheoGB]

I think the word MikeAW might be trying to use was 'sartorial' - a reference to clothing.
Mike, the Beatles invented a lot of stuff. They are the reason we have the phasor pedal because they wanted to get a sound like a radio tuning. Your current statement about them has no connection with your original 'just like the Backstreet Boys' one.
I think you are forgetting that most of the things they did from Revolver onwards were pretty original and unlikely at the time. They might not seem so much now but thankfully the songs laid underneath a lot of that stuff are good ones and therefore people enjoy them.
I think I said early in this thread they are overrated but then that's only because they are rated so highly that no one could possibly reach that level. Doesn't stop them being an important band, even if you don't like them personally.

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Pearls. Swine.