Most Overrated Bands / Artists

LoveInTheAsylum said:
Cheers for the response, great point about their prolificness. 14 platinum albums still comes as a surprise to me though & even if no album sold a huge amount, the demand was obviously there for them to continue to make so much music that sold in its millions. I do dislike their sound (even the early stuff that I know) and consider that period a nadir for rock music, but that's just taste - bad taste you'd say! The extent of their success compared to their contemporaries just surprises me. What did you mean by first to release a live album please?
Click to expand...

First is the wrong word. Breakthrough is better. Alive is considered a very good album and sold very well. Before that bands or artists pretty much didn't release live albums. If there were any they were mostly bootlegged.
They weren't making much money before the album. Album sales only really started after the album and they amassed a bigger crowd because essentially they were a "live band". They put on a show, not a concert.

I don't mind you not liking them. There are a bunch of artist that are god awful singers yet are very popular. Like Bob Dylan for example. He should write songs for other people. That way there would also be less harmonica.
 
Mockney said:
The singer artist thing really twists my mellon. I'm inclined to give no one who doesn't write their own stuff the artist label, but that's obviously fallacy, since there are some who deserve it. But how do you define it? Voices are largely subjective. If Winehouse didn't write would her voice be worthy of artistry? Some think so, many not.

It's a bit of a cluster feck. I'm inclined to say feck it. Tony Mortimer > Elvis, and be done with it.

Alright?
Click to expand...

Definition is too bloody subjective, clearly it's not set in stone. Like I said...for me an artist's work should be personal...because art is a form of expression, but I dunno, a singer evoking emotion in the listener could also be regarded as an artist because he or she has pathos in their singing... Empathy or pathos are key elements. But deep down I only regard singers who perform their own work as artists, that personal expression is the most important thing for me.
 
Spoony Kobayashi said:
Definition is too bloody subjective, clearly it's not set in stone. Like I said...for me an artist's work should be personal...because art is a form of expression, but I dunno, a singer evoking emotion in the listener could also be regarded as an artist because he or she has pathos in their singing... Empathy or pathos are key elements. But deep down I only regard singers who perform their own work as artists, that personal expression is the most important thing for me.
Click to expand...

I see the point you're making but can't agree. Lennon/McCartney, Jones/Richards, Pete Townsend, Jim Morrison and countless others have spoken about their lives in terms of pre-hearing Elvis & post-hearing Elvis. He changed their lives forever as well as the face of popular western culture.

Takes more than a "singer" to do that.
 
Elvis expressed himself through the way he moved too. Before him no white man did anything like that. You should also factor in his gospel music and doing crazy karate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.