Most Overrated Bands / Artists

Yeah bit it's more complicated than that, as your example illustrates. The blues was an oral tradition, there's a fine line between 'theft' and doing exactly what the black musicians were doing themselves. Obviously the racial element and context complicates it of course...

You think the white musicians picked up the songs from having the black artists play it to them? Nonsense. They stole them from the recordings by the independent labels.

And, although early blues was an oral tradition amongst black musicians in the USA, there were many recorded albums (with discreet songs under copyright) by black blues artists which didn't achieve commercial success for largely racial reasons. The white artists (and labels) then cynically took whatever they wanted from these records, recorded the songs themselves and made a fortune through 'sanitising' the blues for a white audience. Only much later did some royalties and credit go to the original songwriters through lawsuits and out-of-court settlements.
 
You think the white musicians picked up the songs from having the black artists play it to them? Nonsense. They stole them from the recordings by the independent labels.

No, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying there was a tradition of taking traditional songs and tweaking them, putting a new lyric to them, reworking a riff into another song etc. Stealing original material is a different matter, not that I'm denying it went on.

And, although early blues was an oral tradition amongst black musicians in the USA, there were many recorded albums (with discreet songs under copyright) by black blues artists which didn't achieve commercial success for largely racial reasons. The white artists (and labels) then largely took whatever they wanted from these records, recorded the songs themselves and made a fortune through 'sanitising' the blues for a white audience. Only much later did some royalties and credit go to the original songwriters through lawsuits and out-of-court settlements.

It's not all cut and dried though, the boundaries between theft, influence, tribute etc are sometimes blurry. Like in Modern Times which I've got on at the moment, he reworks old songs, including using John Lee Hooker's talking blues riff, but it's hardly theft because it wasn't his riff in the first place, it's a nod to him as is common in blues and jazz.
 
1. The Doors - I've never got it...just sounds boring to me

2. Nico - feck her off and give the songs to Reed, and it would have been an even better album

3. U2 - dull, boring, crap

4. Nirvana - One class album (same goes for Pearl Jam). Foo Fighters are pants.

5. Hendrix - superb musician, and a far better lyricist and singer than he's given credit for... but the songs are a little overrated



I'd agree with that, except Led Zepp. Most of that's hearsay... Page may have nicked a few riffs, but there's still a shitload of quality original material there

Spot on re Oasis. They were fun when I was a pissed up student... in retrospect they have about five top songs, mostly off the first album, and a lot of dross, and even their good songs mostly have terrible lyrics.

Muse aren't even in Oasis' league... just a blatant, and blatantly inferior, copy of Radiohead.

I found an old Kingmaker record the other day, a band pretty much universally regarded as ridiculous in its time, and listening to it they were far more original than most of the crap around today, the likes of Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs, The Editors (what an amazingly rubbish name btw) etc.

The Doors tend to grow on you. It took me a long time to get in to the music. Same with Pearl Jam's post Ten stuff. It's not everyone's cup of tea, being patient with music is something people are not used to. But that's how it works sometime.

I find it quite ridiculous to see RHCP and Zeppelin in Mike's list. RHCP have been one of the most consistent performers over the 15-20 years, regularly coming out with very good albums. They've never had a perfect album but they have several good ones. Regarding Zeppelin - well, just feck off. Greatest band ever.

Nirvana is one band I'll agree on. They copied their own riffs far too many times.

In the case of Hendrix, I don't think anyone's ever rated him very highly as a complete performer so I don't think it's right to say that he's overrated. He does have some absolutely brilliant songs but he's generally recognized for his abilities with the guitar more than anything else. And that's something he can't be overrated at because he really was that good.

And people posting Elvis, Madonna, McCartney, I have no interest in knowing what you consider good music if you think these artists are overrated.
 
It's not all cut and dried though, the boundaries between theft, influence, tribute etc are sometimes blurry. Like in Modern Times which I've got on at the moment, he reworks old songs, including using John Lee Hooker's talking blues riff, but it's hardly theft because it wasn't his riff in the first place, it's a nod to him as is common in blues and jazz.

I doubt there will be any copyright issues with the latest Dylan album due to the copyright likely having expired on the songs he's adapted. However, I feel he should still give partial song writing credit even though royalties are not an issue.

The difference with the blues in the 50's and 60's is that the black blues artists, as much as you doubt it, were writing original songs and then these were being used by white artists to make a living at their expense. Some song writing credits and royalties were later recovered, for example through Willie Dixon successfully suing Led Zeppelin several times.
 
In the case of Hendrix, I don't think anyone's ever rated him very highly as a complete performer so I don't think it's right to say that he's overrated. He does have some absolutely brilliant songs but he's generally recognized for his abilities with the guitar more than anything else. And that's something he can't be overrated at because he really was that good.

He was, I think his songs are (a bit) overrated. Some of the best he did are covers. For me, The Wind Cried Mary is a great, all-time classic. Foxy Lady, Purple Haze, Voodoo Chile etc. are obviously very good but I'd never really want to play them unless I was listening to the album.
 
Castles Made of Sand, Spanish Castle Magic, Little Wing, Purple Haze, Freedom, Crosstown Traffic... these are all classic songs in my eyes.
 
I doubt there will be any copyright issues with the latest Dylan album due to the copyright likely having expired on the songs he's adapted. However, I feel he should still give partial song writing credit even though royalties are not an issue.

The difference with the blues in the 50's and 60's is that the black blues artists, as much as you doubt it, were writing original songs and then these were being used by white artists to make a living at their expense. Some song writing credits and royalties were later recovered, for example through Willie Dixon successfully suing Led Zeppelin several times.

No, I don't doubt for a minute that they were writing originals, shitloads of great blues songs from that time were originals. And I'll take your word for it re Led Zep. All I'm saying is, it isn't straightforward in all cases, because the genre is one which inherently encourages constant reworking and allusion.

It's a bit like ancient oral poetry in that respect. The Iliad is the culmination of centuries of reworking, variations on themes, inserting traditional passages in new contexts etc. If they'd had copyright in those days no Iliad would have been written down, cos the whole thing is one giant infringement.
 
His best songs were covers definitely. With All Along the Watchtower being the best thing he ever did imo. I'd say that a compilation of his best songs would make a pretty kick ass album but there'd be little good stuff left outside that.
 
I find it quite ridiculous to see RHCP and Zeppelin in Mike's list. RHCP have been one of the most consistent performers over the 15-20 years, regularly coming out with very good albums. They've never had a perfect album but they have several good ones. Regarding Zeppelin - well, just feck off. Greatest band ever.

I better clarify what I mean. RHCP are a very good band who I enjoy and have seen them live twice, but a lot of people see them as a truly great band, which I don't think they are. Their live performances are at best inconsistent, and their albums suffer from running out of material too often. Still a good band, but overrated.

Zeppelin are a great band, without question. But they are just very tarnished to me due to their immoral behaviour in my opinion, maybe that's the writer in me talking :)
 
I'd say that a compilation of his best songs would make a pretty kick ass album but there'd be little good stuff left outside that.

Remember he was only making records for about four years. His ratio of great songs to years is pretty amazing in my opinion.
 
Someday I'll have a radio station of my own and I'll have Led Zeppelin hours every week. Maybe a small Zeppelin temple in the office with little bobble heads of the band.
 
I agree re the Chili Peppers, lots of cracking songs and great charisma but none of the albums I've heard quite make it over the finishing line

Yeah, they don't have any perfect albums.

It's difficult to decide which band is overrated because there's no scale that tells you exactly how rated they are. I'm not even sure if RHCP would make a list of great bands so maybe they aren't really overrated.
 
Anyway, you sad cnuts should get out of the house. Go drink a little on Saturday night. I got a job offer this week so drinks are on me.

I'm off to watch the first final of the CB series (cricket).
 
I'm not even sure if RHCP would make a list of great bands so maybe they aren't really overrated.

Maybe, but a lot of people I talk to when discussing music list them up there with the greats. They're at least a couple of levels below the top tier bands.
 
"The way you squeeze my lemon, the juice is gone run down my leg"

- The Lemon Song

If you're telling me they lifted that lyric from The Iliad, I'll lose all faith in Led Zeppelin :(
 
Anyway, you sad cnuts should get out of the house. Go drink a little on Saturday night. I got a job offer this week so drinks are on me.

I'm off to watch the first final of the CB series (cricket).

I went out, couldn't be arsed to drink much though, I rarely can these days

The whole of central London is crammed with herds of pissed-up, feral children. Literally children, I'm talking twelve-year-olds. Made me just want to go home, so I did.
 
"The way you squeeze my lemon, the juice is gone run down my leg"

- The Lemon Song

If you're telling me they lifted that lyric from The Iliad, I'll lose all faith in Led Zeppelin :(
I think that's one of Willie's.
 
My girlfriend is ill in bed, and she'd get all annoyed if I went out tonight because "I'm not well". Why can't I have fun just because she's sick?

I'm only staying up because I won't be able to sleep with her coughing anyway.
 
"The way you squeeze my lemon, the juice is gone run down my leg"

- The Lemon Song

If you're telling me they lifted that lyric from The Iliad, I'll lose all faith in Led Zeppelin :(

It's from Traveling Riverside Blues by Robert Johnson. I don't recall any Robert Johnson songs being covered by Led Zep, just used some verses.

On Hendrix, he's at his best when playing guitar. I prefer his blues recordings, of which there are a few available. He and Duane Allman were phenomenal guitarists.
 
I agree re the Chili Peppers, lots of cracking songs and great charisma but none of the albums I've heard quite make it over the finishing line

except from Blood Sugar Sex Magic. That was an outstanding album.!
 
This whole Arctic Monkeys are overated thing is total bollocks in my opinion. They exploded on the scene with a sound that was unique to them, when you hear an Arctics tune you know it's one of theirs, granted bands have jumped on their coat tails and tried to copy their sound but up to that point they were pretty much out there on their own.

They were in and around 18 years of age when their debut came out, and to be making such music at that age is quite incredible to me, and then to follow it up with an even better effort, well kudos to them. Not only that but they are probably one of the best live acts around at this moment in time, testimony to this is a show stealing headline set at Glastonbury, they blew far more experienced bands clean off the stage.

Their music may not be mature yet, they are still kids after all, but they can all play and have the ability to write amazingly catchy tunes, examples of this being the fact that they could probably release any of the songs on their two albums and they would storm the charts (not that I pay much heed to the charts).

This is a band for me that will come into their own in the next few albums as maturity takes hold and for me have the talent to write some amazing music in the future.

Overated? Not for me, no.
 
Not only that but they are probably one of the best live acts around at this moment in time, testimony to this is a show stealing headline set at Glastonbury, they blew far more experienced bands clean off the stage.

You go to Glastonbury last year? You planning on going this year?
 
You go to Glastonbury last year? You planning on going this year?

No I didn't, couldn't get tickets unfortunatly.

Won't be going this year as I haven't seen any bands announced that really do it for me. Thinking of doing some smaller festivals this year if I can find any decent ones.
 
No I didn't, couldn't get tickets unfortunatly.

Then I won't necessarily trust your 'blowing off the stage' comment, things are always different on the TV. When I saw the Arctics they were decent, but not up to the standard of the great live bands. Again, I'm not saying they're a bad band at all, but they seem to be treated as if they've done something unique or extraordinary; in my opinion they haven't.
 
Oh btw RedNome cheers for turning me onto Stateless a while back. I love their debut album.
 
Beatles
Muse
Arctic Monkeys
any band like Good Charlotte, Blink 182, New Found Glory etc
Elvis
The Darkness
Black Eyed Peas
Spice Girls
Babyshambles / Libertines / Pete Doherty
Amy Winehouse
Madonna
Kylie
Cher
Tina Turner
Hoosiers
 
Then I won't necessarily trust your 'blowing off the stage' comment, things are always different on the TV. When I saw the Arctics they were decent, but not up to the standard of the great live bands. Again, I'm not saying they're a bad band at all, but they seem to be treated as if they've done something unique or extraordinary; in my opinion they haven't.


I knew that was coming :lol:

I think you can get a view of what bands sound like on the TV quite easily.

Oh and I saw them last year at the LCCC, they were fecking great as franco will testify too, so I can back up my argument.
 
I haven't seen many good live bands, most bands are boring as feck and just play their album exactly the same. One of the reasons I love the Doors is because their songs were always slightly different when live and they often played lots of blues material from their club days. Plus Jim was extremeley charismatic and brought an element of theatre to the stage, which is what he tried to do.

Red Hot Chili Peppers are good live, they do a lot of improvs and are energetic on stage.

Arctic monkeys are hardly a class live act, they just stand still and sing their album exactly the same as it is on the CD.

That's just my opinion though as I like to see some energy injected into a live performance.
 
I haven't seen many good live bands, most bands are boring as feck and just play their album exactly the same. One of the reasons I love the Doors is because their songs were always slightly different when live and they often played lots of blues material from their club days. Plus Jim was extremeley charismatic and brought an element of theatre to the stage, which is what he tried to do.

Red Hot Chili Peppers are good live, they do a lot of improvs and are energetic on stage.

Arctic monkeys are hardly a class live act, they just stand still and sing their album exactly the same as it is on the CD.

That's just my opinion though as I like to see some energy injected into a live performance.


Energy as in jumping around the stage like an idiot or energy being displayed in the music being played?

Because for me it's the latter that is important.

A fine example of this is Blur. In their early days Damon Alburn liked nothing more than to jump around the stage with lots of energy, but this would always be at a detriment to the music and their live gigs being a bit crap. In the last few years he calmed down and concentrated on singing, culminating in me seeing them at the Manchester Apollo on their last album tour in what was one of the most energy filled and excellent gigs I've every been too, why? Because the music being played was that good and that tight, a masterclass if you like.

On your point about playing differently live, fair enough, I like to hear that myself and most of the bands I am into do that. As for the Arctic Monkeys, that will come with experience, at the moment they are still in the early stages of their career and are still perfecting their skills, as I mentioned earlier they are still only boys, you can't expect it to all come together straight away, but the signs are very promissing for them indeed.