|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I can't and won't speak for the most under- or overrated bands of all time, but I did have a couple on my mind when I opened this topic. I could never understand how people got behind A Perfect Circle. Yeah, it had Maynard, but without the support of the other powerhouses from Tool it just had a boring sound. And my God, Tool can never, ever get more praise than it deserves. Every member in that band produces great music that fits together perfectly. Not a single member outshines another.
So, my addition to the topic...
Overrated: A Perfect Circle.
Underrated: Tool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I think there is a huge differene between liking a band and how they are "rated."
Artists like Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley and the Wailers, the Sex Pistols, the Ramones, Michael Jackson and Nirvana are all highly rated because of what they did for pop music and all have a place in music history, period.
You don't have to like them to recognize that. I would say that none of these musical artists are over-rated.
My most over-rated band/album is the Eagles Hotel California. The song has cryptic lyrics and is okay at best. The album has three decent songs on it and a lot of filler. No way do the Eagles deserve the hype they get.
In terms of Grunge, I would go with Alice in Chains as most over-rated. For the most part their lyrics are terrible, and though they make a lot of noise, they didn't do much else. I would also put Radiohead and Pearl Jam up there as well.
Most under-rated would be the Kinks. They rocked for a long time, in a number of different styles, putting out songs with great musicianship and great lyrics yet very few people are aware of their greater discography than one or two of their songs that actually charted. They also had a great affect on the history of music.
As for modern/alternative music, I would go with Beck. The guy was a great experimenter with sounds and words. I know he has consistantly been liked by the critics but except for some of early stuff, he has seen little commercial success.
Fun thread! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I never got while all the grunge era bands get lumped in together. The big 3 (Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Soundgarden) all are real different bands in their influences and what they were trying to do with there sounds. Pearl Jam had the whole Neil Young influenced classic rock thing, Nirvana was all about the 80s punk thing and Soundgarden wanted to be Black Sabbeth. Strikes me as the whole label of grunge was just marketing that people are still caught up in |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gibberish wrote: |
I will motherf***ing kill you, that is how angry your tripe makes me 
All in all, I say different strokes and live and let live. Musical tastes are one of those things people seem to focus on with a particularly annoying amount of snobbery. I never really got why people get so angry about other people's musical tastes. |
Music invokes strong emotions in a lot of people. To many it's almost like a significant other. Someone else insults that and you get angry.
Pink Floyd used 7/4 in the early 70s? Whoopty doo! Bela Bartok used it a hundred years ago, and he ripped it off much older Hungarian folk music. Musically, most bands are stuck in the Renaissance or Baroque eras: music from 300+ years ago, simple dynamics and simple chord progressions designed to please the masses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| I never got while all the grunge era bands get lumped in together. The big 3 (Pearl Jam, Nirvana and Soundgarden) all are real different bands in their influences and what they were trying to do with there sounds. Pearl Jam had the whole Neil Young influenced classic rock thing, Nirvana was all about the 80s punk thing and Soundgarden wanted to be Black Sabbeth. Strikes me as the whole label of grunge was just marketing that people are still caught up in |
I personally go out of my way to avoid the label just because I hate how even alluding to it will inevitably lead to the "there's no such thing as grunge" argument.
That said, I think there is a common thread between bands like Nirvana, Dinosaur Jr., Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, early STP before they became a parody of themselves, early Weezer before they sold out like crazy, and even later but aesthetically similar groups like Queens of the Stone Age. Even the totally lame stuff on the radio during the '90s like Pearl Jam shared something with the actually good stuff coming out during that era in that if we all traveled back in time blindfolded to the early to mid '90s and were made to listen to a contemporary rock station, most of us would probably know what decade we were in. The same would be true for the '80s.
There's a vague edge to the distortion, lack of production, and lyrical/vocal self-consciousness that generally defines what people talk about when they throw around the term "grunge." I think the idea that "grunge" is meaningless as a label is more of a gimmick than the label itself ever was. It's pretty much a given that nine out of ten bands you ask will say they aren't whatever genre everyone else identifies them as. Which reminds me, I also realized at some point that the self-deprecating, minimalist quality to the '90s era's take on music and Gen-X culture in general might be the reason that earlier musical movements get so much more of that universal acclaim vibe going for them. It might be less that "Classic Rock" is this incredibly transcendent work of art and more that the fans from that era are more shameless in promoting their own contemporary entertainers.
EDIT: And that's not to say you're not right about there being huge differences between something like Nirvana and something like Soundgarden. I think of those differences as subcategories rather than categories themselves though. Alice in Chains is probably closer to Soundgarden in that both were kind of "grungy" metal/metallic "grunge." Nirvana and Dinosaur Jr. are closer together as pure low-fi "grunge." The category's meaningful to me in that I can't chill out to metal from any other category (straight up metal, speed metal, death metal, etc.). I don't think it's a coincidence that just about all the metal sounding music I can relax to came from the era known for its slacker ethos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robot
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: Underated, overated bands |
|
|
| Bloopity Bloop wrote: |
Underrated: The Rakes (why do bands like Bloc Party, the Arctic Monkeys, and even Maximo Park get so much more attention?) |
I was just looking for this comment on the Rakes, and coincidentally it's yours, BB. I guess we have different tastes on music. 
I don't care for the Rakes primarily because I don't find them very original or interesting. Their songs have decent energy, but they just sound recycled; it's just a bunch of angular Wire guitar lines loosely strung together with surprisingly hookless vocals. As well (and this is a very personal opinion), I find the singer's accent annoying.
Bloc Party does a better job in this genre, mostly because their drummer is incredible and he really powers their songs. But outside of a few amazing tracks, they suffer the same problem of their stuff sounding like rehashed stuff from 2001 (which is when the genre was interesting with the Strokes dropping "Is This It?"). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
warmachinenkorea
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most bands are successful because they are in the right place at the right time. Nirvana isn't that complex but turned the page on all the hair metal stuff at the time. It's what appeals to the masses. Zepplin didn't really sound like anyone else. The Beatles sure didn't write symphonies but they could harmonize.
I can't understand why some bands like U2, The Rolling Stones or Coldplay are so popular. But on the other hand I love Pearl Jam and Nirvana. I don't listen to Nirvana on purpose much. If it comes through the iPOD on a shuffle setting I do. But I still listen to Ten and Vs. from Pearl Jam allot.
I like Pink Floyd but only because of David Gilmore. ZZtop is the same. If they didn't have Billy Gibbons they wouldn't be.
And someone said they liked Weezer before they became commercial. I think that is 1/2 of there gig. I can listen to most of there stuff again and again.
In a world full of unbeliviable musicians who go onto write huge musical works what is played on the radio is just ear candy for he masses. All relative and taste.
Anyway for my underrated pick is Will Hoge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Morphine never got the love they deserved, cure for pain is a top 5 album for me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding grunge I have to say Alice in Chains is totally underrated and Nirvana is totally overrated. However, I think they're both good. I just think AiC don't get the due they deserve. My older sister was really into grunge and metal at the time and she and her friends mostly listened to Alice while us younger kids were blaring Nirvana. Even now most people I know will go to Alice to re-visit grunge more than any other band, even Pearl Jam. I was just listening to them last night and I have to say their tunes stand up more than anyone else from the time (withing the genre anyway).
| Dev wrote: |
Overrated: The Sex Pistols - c'mon, they were good, but they're not rock God status.
Underrated: Iggy Pop - This guy stood in his friend, David Bowie's shadows for some years, but in fact blows David Bowie away in my opinion.
The Pretenders - The band has just put out a new dvd - Live in London. The entertainment paper in my city gave it 5 stars. I have to agree. Chrissie is a unique talent. |
I totally agree Iggy Pop was/is underrated but I wouldn't say it's because of Bowie and I certainly wouldn't say he's more talented. I would say they're about the same, or at least they were in the 70s. It's just that the public wasn't willing to accept a loud-mouthed drunk cutting himself with glass onstage. An androgynous drug addict covered in outrageous make-up claiming to be from outer space singing about the destruction of mankind was so much more palatable at the time. I would say Iggy's self-destructive ways hurt him more than anything, as it did for Bowie until he got himself straightened out in the 80s.
As for the inexplicable resonance of U2: I think it's due to their ability to make 'important' songs (Sunday Bloody Sunday, In the Name of Love, Where the Streets Have No Name, etc.). It sounds important, so if you don't like it then you must be shallow and uneducated. No, I like to think about important things in a more authentic way. But I do have to say when those songs come on the radio I'll sing along. It's fun, just not deep, certainly not as deep as their rabid fans think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kurtz
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Location: ples bilong me
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's talk about the meaning of overrated and underrated.
Does this mean record sales? Many bands that "make it" are a carefully constructed "product" ready to be sold by major record companies.
Big record companies want to make money. They want to make money off bands which they sign to their label. They spend money to promote their bands through advertising and hype, and then pay off radio stations to play the band to create even more hype. Enter The Strokes!
Some music labels like Sub Pop and Earache Records are formed by music lovers who sign bands just to give the band a home, not to make zillions of dollars off of them.
In some cases, major labels think they can make money off an underground scene and then sign them up. lI can name bands like Mudhoney, Yo La Tengo, Pavement who I think are underrated, and even though they were signed at some stage to a major, they didn't have the commercial zeal to make it. Nirvana is a classic case of an underground band making it to the big time, even though they gave up their low- fi raw sound on Nevermind (ever heard Bleach? quite a different album to Nevermind) and I think Kurt Cobain's enigmatic persona gave credence to their popularity, rather than their power riffing music.
Mudhoney's "Superfuzz Bigmuff" is way better than anything Nirvana did (OK that's IMHO) and even though they flirted with a major label (yet still recorded cheaply and used the remaining studio budget to build homes thus staying true to the grunge/lo-fi image), they never "made it", I guess people are just pretty stupid.
Experimental music like Mr Bungle is horribly underrated, but music like they play would never appeal to a massive audience as it's not the kind of thing you can tap your foot too. It's a serious crime against humanity in that we've had to endure Oasis for so many years, making the same record over and over and over again, horribly overrated.
People in general are pedestrian. People in general aren't individuals and thus they seek out things in which they will be accepted into in large groups. Ever asked a person what music they like and their response is "I dunno, whatever is in the charts", it's people like that who I think influence who are underrated and overrated, people who have no passion in life, people I don't want to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dosed_neurons
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
I can't and won't speak for the most under- or overrated bands of all time, but I did have a couple on my mind when I opened this topic. I could never understand how people got behind A Perfect Circle. Yeah, it had Maynard, but without the support of the other powerhouses from Tool it just had a boring sound. And my God, Tool can never, ever get more praise than it deserves. Every member in that band produces great music that fits together perfectly. Not a single member outshines another.
So, my addition to the topic...
Overrated: A Perfect Circle.
Underrated: Tool. |
yeah, pretty much...although APC isn't too well-known. I love Tool for Lateralus alone...they are pretty highly rated though, overall, at least in my circles.
My Morning Jacket is greeeat live, I'll rarely pass them up when they come.
Also...guys, check out GIANT ROBOT, the Finnish band...incredible stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurtz wrote: |
| Ever asked a person what music they like and their response is "I dunno, whatever is in the charts", it's people like that who I think influence who are underrated and overrated, people who have no passion in life, people I don't want to know. |
I was with you until you said this. A huge number of people say "I have an eclectic taste in music. Anything from Nickelback to Eminem and maybe even some obscure stuff like Metallica. Most people think they're on the cutting edge of music.
Still, there are probably people who sneer at me for being "mainstream" when I cite The National or Wolf Parade as my favorite bands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kurtz
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Location: ples bilong me
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Kurtz wrote: |
| Ever asked a person what music they like and their response is "I dunno, whatever is in the charts", it's people like that who I think influence who are underrated and overrated, people who have no passion in life, people I don't want to know. |
I was with you until you said this. A huge number of people say "I have an eclectic taste in music. Anything from Nickelback to Eminem and maybe even some obscure stuff like Metallica. Most people think they're on the cutting edge of music.
Still, there are probably people who sneer at me for being "mainstream" when I cite The National or Wolf Parade as my favorite bands. |
It might be logical to assume I'm a music snob from that sentence, but in fact I like some mainstream music, well quite a bit in fact. I was more trying to point out that I think in general people let other people, or hype influence what bands they listen to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fromtheuk
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sigue Sigue Sputnik and Bass Piano.
Did I mention I am giving my album away totally free? It's true! 
PM me for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| soakitincider wrote: |
OR- Most Pop
Ur- Most quality players and singers who aren't good looking. Man, I'm old.
 |
Actually I'd have to say in a sense that most pop music is underrated while many an obscure band is overrated.
Contrary to popular opinion, making a song that is pleasing to a large number of people and is 'catchy' is not easy.
I'd also have to say that rock bands in general are overrated and that non-rock music is underrated given the responses on this thread.
Oh and how come no one has mentioned Nickelback yet? THAT is surprising considering this kind of topic should have gotten at least a dozen mentions of them by now. Are we even on the internet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
