Most Overrated Music Artist - Page 4

Jimmy Nugent · 01-30-2002, 02:59 PM

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

Jimmy

Mark Lee · 01-30-2002, 04:06 PM

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 · 01-30-2002, 05:10 PM

"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 · 01-30-2002, 06:05 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-30-2002, 07:24 PM

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 · 01-30-2002, 08:05 PM

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 · 01-30-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

It's amazing, the shit is actuially seeping out of my modem....

Quote:

I remember when I bought The Pixies's Surfer Rosa I at first though...wtf they are just screaming, but the more I listened to it the more I loved it

Very good point. Just thought I'd quote you because it's one of the few SANE posts on this incendiary thread.

Quote:

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 · 01-31-2002, 02:31 AM

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 · 01-31-2002, 03:21 AM

Quote:

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 · 01-31-2002, 03:55 AM

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 · 01-31-2002, 04:57 AM

Quote:

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