Most Overrated Bands Or Musicians

Re: Open to explanations but one muso I don't get is...

very Dro**!

 

Re: Blur , gorillaz , Damon Albarn

Whaaaaatttt! If anything Blur don't get enough recognition. Tender, Out of Time, Sing, No Distance Left To Run, The Universal....

 

Re: Blur , gorillaz , Damon Albarn

It's over, you don't need to tell me
I hope you're with someone
Who makes you feel safe in your sleep tonight
I won't kill myself trying to stay in your life
I've got no distance left to run

 

How did I forget sting...

 

What he said, mainly. Because I am still trying to work out if Mr C was 11 when Some Girls came out. And most of Emotional Rescue was decent too.

Someone asked why they are still going though. Simple answer, money. Have you any idea how much their tours generate? And how much they make from the constant repackaging of their records? Most of the Stones have numerous kids to numerous exes and everyone who has married or been spawned to a Rolling Stone expects to live in the lap of luxury for the rest of their life without lifting a finger. Thats a lot of people they have to keep looking after, hence the mega tours every few years. It's not been about the music since Mick Taylor left (have you heard Keith Richards' guitar work recently?). There aren't many bands who postpone UK tours to reduce their tax bill and maximise their income.

As for most overrated band, it's a bit of a daft question really, because a band can still be very good yet overrated. I think most people have just been putting bands they don't like, which is different. Personally, just taking their musical output into consideration, I cannot see how the following are held in such high esteem. That's not to say I don't think they've done some good stuff, but I just don't think they're worthy of the top table (where seated are the likes of The Beatles, The Stones, Elvis, Dylan, Buddy Holly, etc).

The Who (and how has Pete Townshend escaped any public backlash over THAT incident, particularly if one considers the subject of his album Psychoderelict? He was placed on the sex offenders register for five years for using his credit card to access a child porn website and then comes up with an excuse worthy of John Terry or 'Arry Redknapp, yet he's still universally revered. Then again, look at Michael Jackson if you want to see people burying their heads in the sand)

Nirvana (they're alright and they did start off a movement, particularly in the States, although it's a movement that doesn't particularly interest me, but they were no Sex Pistols or Ramones for goodness sake. Their albums are a little dull if you ask me)

The Beach Boys (their best stuff is very good indeed, but Jeysus, there's tons of dross in their catalogue. And why does Brian Wilson get called a genius all the time? Is it just because he went a bit mad? The only person in popular music I'd label with the tag genius is Bob Dylan. Maybe the Lennon-McCartney-Martin trio at a push, but genius is a very misused word that only ever gets given to Brian Wilson for some reason)

 

You silly person.

 

How stupid.

 

One of the two best song-writers of all time, IMO of course, but currently one of the worst singers. Time to give it up, Paul.

 

Re: Blur , gorillaz , Damon Albarn

Richard hawley... Greasy dee daa

Fan base of 1.1/2 dee daas

 

Re: Blur , gorillaz , Damon Albarn

Rain, mud, grease, cold, miserable, grease, dee daa's, grease.... Thrilling

 

Re: Blur , gorillaz , Damon Albarn

Suggest you look out of the window, you might be disappointed

 

Re: Morrissey

Like The Beatles, I never liked The Smiths when they were about.

Now i like alot of their stuff, within reason. but some of Morrissey's solo stuff is terrific.

Even if he is a bell end

 

Paul is/was a great songwriter indeed, but only with John on his side. That's why I wouldn't call him the best songwriter of all time, but as a band The Beatles were arguably the best songwriters of all time... Much of Paul's solo stuff is actually pretty good (but there's some pretty awful stuff too), but I still prefer George and John.

As for his singing, well... the man's 71 years old! Of course his voice isn't as good as it was 50 years ago. You could say the same about Johnny Cash, his voice was "terrible" on his last album(s) especially, but that just added to the charm.
It's quite obvious that Paul isn't touring and making records for money anymore - he's doing it for the love of music, and for that I really respect him. I for one hope that he keeps doing what he loves for as long as there's life left in him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTht9VqZAe4

 

I agree with everything you've said. Provided I am not subjected to another live performance any time soon - his renditions at the Olympics and Grammy's were enough for my ears. I may go and put some Beatles stuff on now though - my 5-year old knows at least 5 of their songs, which is a pretty good indication that they have stood the test of time and will continue to do so.

 

Errmm I don't think my comment was stupid. It was an opinion expressed on my musical taste(s). Pure and simple as that. Just as Phil Collins annoys the hell out of people so the same applies with me to Mr McCartney. I acknowledge the fact that the Beatles were one of the two most popular music acts in history (Mr Presley being the other) but being popular does not make them exempt from being over-rated. My best friend is a massive Beatles fan but I would never class him as stupid, tasteless mebbes, but not stupid...

 

Phil Collins as a drummer is very good, as a singer less so. But he's a tory nasty *****....Another day in paradise, my arse.