Most Overrated Music Artist (1 Viewer)

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

I can't start my day without a little ray of sunshine from MikeAW.

 

[Philip Hamm]

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

 

[Mike Broadman]

I think MikeAW writes for Spin magazine.

 

[Ray R]

I think I'm going with the camp that thinks over rated bands are those who have little to no talent and are pushed onto us by record labels. I think this would include U2, all the boy bands, the teen tramps, and most of all Metallica since their testicles were removed around the release of And Justice for All.

Some of the other bands that were listed such as the Grateful Dead, Velvet Underground and such are extremely creative and musical. I think those who listed these bands as over rated are really making a statement about the type of music. Many people do not appreciate creativity in popular music that doesn't follow the standard verse, chorus, verse, chorus, verse, chorus and rap the song up in 3.5 minutes. Just because someone doesn't "get" a certain type of music shouldn't mean that it is over rated.

To me something is over rated when the value is made seem more than what the actual content can support. How can the Grateful Dead be considered over rated? Thousands of people have placed a high value on their music over many years. On the other hand bubble gum rock can be easily over rated and this can be proven. Go back and listen to the top 5 songs from say 1990. One or two might seem to have some musical value, but the others have no musical value since the hype that took those songs to the top is gone. All that is left is the music.

If someone, anyone, can truely appreciate a band's music without the MTV hype, constant radio play, what they are or aren't wearing, then I don't think the band can be considered over rated.

 

[Carlo_M]

How about this for inflammatory?
The most overrated band: YOUR FAVORITE.

Just go ahead and say it, MikeAW.

 

[Craig_T]

CREED. Oh wait, it's already widely known that they suck.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

How can the Grateful Dead be considered over rated? Thousands of people have placed a high value on their music over many years.

So the Dead weren't overrated because a lot of people liked them for a long time. By that measure, how can you consider U2 to be overrated? (Foisted on the public by the record companies - what a load on tripe...)

 

[StevenW]

Macy Grey :shudder:
My dead dog could sing better than her

 

[RicP]

Some people are just clueless...it's really that easy.

 

[Nathan A]

of all time....maybe jimmie hendrix. or santana.

terrible guitar players. hendrix could write ok, but santana is horrible on all fronts.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Unfortunately this thread seems to have deteriorated into 'artists I hate'. To return to the original spirit of the thread, I have never understood why critics like the following (and believe me, I've listened to all of these artists intensively before giving up on them):

Beach Boys - okay, Brain Wilson is a producing genius, but it's always the same f***ing song.

Radiohead - all of Pink Floyd's bombast, but none of the melodies.

Madonna - astute marketing, but can you *honestly* say that her *songs* are your favourites? Thought not.

Nirvana - produced one brilliant song in 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', but seemingly on the principle that monkeys banging away at typewriters could eventually produce 'Hamlet'.

Van Morrison - I've just never heard anything of his that didn't sound meandering and didn't set my teeth on edge.

Rap acts obsessed with either cop killing or extreme misogyny - this should be self-evident, but not apparently to music critics.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Madonna - astute marketing, but can you *honestly* say that her *songs* are your favourites? Thought not.

You got me - after almost 17 years as a fan, after 11 concerts and umpteen CDs and other media, it turns out I just did all this due to marketing. What a fool I was! :rolleyes

 

[andrew markworthy]

Sorry, Colin, but I've got to say as I find. I've a very good memory for tunes, but I can safely say that with the exception of a couple of her early hits (not written by Maddy) I can't remember a single one of her songs five minutes after the video has finished. Other people will obviously disagree, such as your good self. However, the thread is about *personal* disagreements with critics. I'm sure my personal faves (Pet Shop Boys and Genesis amongst them) will raise similar hackles amongst many people here!

 

[Jeff_A]

of all time....maybe jimmie hendrix. or santana.

I won't even attempt to argue with your choices as controversy runs rampant in this thread. However, could you PLEASE at least have the decency to spell the name right?
It's JIMI Hendrix!

 

[MikeAW]

I love Madonna...and how she challenged our sensibilities about Women, and Women in Music. Her hype didn't mature with her own Image, unfortunately...as say Marlene Dietrich did over the years, with lots of Class and Charisma and Glamour.

Madonna is still holding onto her Marilyn Image...and she's looking a little long in the tooth these days, and the Music isn't maturing either. I was interested up until

"Like A Prayer". Now Madonna is a characature of her former self.

 

[Rain]

So, you love Madonna, but Lou Reed and the Grateful Dead are overrated?
The reasons you have stated your admiration for Madonna releate more to her marketing of herself than her actual music.
As for challenging our sensibilities about women, I beg to differ. Madonna has wrapped being a sex symbol in the guise of being a feminist of sorts. This strikes me as a bit ridiculous, since nobody has been more eager to exploit the lowest common denominator of objectifying female sexuality than Madonna has.
Bob Dylan never had to get naked to sell a record (and thank goodness for that!).
To even discuss Madonna as being in the same league as Reed, Dylan, the Grateful Dead, etc. seems a bit silly to me.
She belongs with the likes of Janet Jackson, Ricky Martin and Enrique Igleses (who the hell knows how to spell that?). And that ain't a compliment.
All IMHO of course.

 

[MikeAW]

Rain, I find it a little hard to believe that even the hardest of hearts, could not get caught up in the infectious beats, and deny her competency and ability to sing and dance, a good Pop song by Madonna or anyone else!

I could understand a person being able not succumbing to her feminine wiles, but one can't deny her Talent!

If you can, fine and good. But you're missing out on some good music in this world, and all in the name of being a little too much above it all.

 

[Rain]

Well, Mike, in actual fact I do own one Madonna album, which I enjoy immensely, that being Erotica. How ironic, eh? considering it was released during her most blatantly sexual period.

I also enjoy a good lavish Hollywood musical immensely. Seeing Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor dancing about and singing in Singin' in the Rain gives me enormous pleasure.

But again, it's not quite the same thing as the craftsmanship found in some of the work of those you have characterized as overrated.

Certainly Madonnna has made an enormous impact on the world of entertainment, as has Gene Kelly in his day, but that's not the same as having an impact on music.

I will also go on record giving Madonna kudos for what she has done with her label Maverick Records. To give the artists on that label autonomy to do the kind of thing they want to do is certainly a breath of fresh air.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Eric Clapton.

He hasn't produced ANY good music since his days with John Mayall, and the Yardbirds. When he left the Yardbirds, supposedly, for their psuedo-pop direction, that was the last time he made any real decision to make music, and the music he actually loved to make.

Unfortunately, he has been rewarded by ga-ga Fans who think he is, ahem, "God", and started to actually believe his own press notices. Cream and Blind Faith were whistle stops on the way to insecurity and drug addiction...unhappiness. But this is the stuff Music Legends are made from.

His lowest moment, artistically, was the highest success in his entire career...the constantly teary eyed, "Tears In Heaven" Melancolia tours...wherein he actually had the nerve to sing the blues in Armani suits, and the Public rewarded him with even more Worship and Star Status...if that is possible. But then he knew he could get away with it!

Today he stands, a mere mediocre guitar technician singing/playing the same old song, affluent beyond his wildest dreams, artistically beyond reproach, and a prisoner in an artistic jail of his own making...the very antithesis of what he started out to be.

Sacrificing your principles and being what your fans want you to be, carries a heavy burden, but you can be rich selling it in the Marketplace...where everything is for sale.

This is one of the biggest loads of garbage I've heard in a long time. Are you a musician? Have you ever actually PLAYED the blues? If you had, perhaps you'd realize that the blues is in the soul, it's in the heart, it's transcribed by the fingers. You could be wearing full drag and still play the blues with SOUL.

I find it particularly crass that you mock Clapton's pain over the loss of his son by implying that he wrote the song for money and fame. Clapton doesn't need those things. He was frigging set up for life just based on the things he did in the 60's. The reason Tears In Heaven and the unplugged album struck such a chord with the public is simply that the song and album are some of the best ever created. He reached deep inside and drew out his essence, laid it out on TELEVISION (that takes guts) and was loved for it.

It's pretty interesting that you ignore the sheer reverence the music community actually has for Clapton, also. I mean real musicians, not just people who sit in their garages listening to CDs. There's a reason Clapton and B.B. King are such good friends, there's a reason Clapton was friends with Jimi Hendrix, George Harrison, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and many many others. They all recognize him for the enormous talent that he is.

Today, Clapton is slowing down. But he's experimenting, and trying to make music he loves. He's not in as much of an upswing as the glory days in the late 60's and 70's, or the early 90's, but he's still making great music, imo. If you don't like it, that's not a reason to insult his integrity and personal life.

-Tom

 

[Rain]

I find it particularly crass that you mock Clapton's pain over the loss of his son by implying that he wrote the song for money and fame. Clapton doesn't need those things.

I have to admit that I also found it rather in poor taste that he cleaned up big time on that song, given the subject matter. If he already had enough money, why didn't he donate the proceeds to a children's charity or something?

However, I don't think that a musician's talent should be judged based on how he conducts his personal affairs.