|
Post by AeroCooper on Apr 28, 2014 17:58:03 GMT -5
These are bands that I've seen as being over-rated. Personally, I only agree for one of them.
I forgot to add 'other', but write it in if none of these.
* Results will be shown after you vote.
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on Apr 28, 2014 18:54:24 GMT -5
I know who's gonna win though.
|
|
|
Post by 4bits4licks76 on Apr 28, 2014 19:20:13 GMT -5
I have to disagree with Kiss being on the list. Only Kiss fans over rate Kiss, not the general public or music critics imo.
I think all the other bands are very well liked in general and another act you could have included would be Springstein & E Street Band. They have that U2 aura where their music is "important to the social fabric of society" and treated like a religion by many. And I like both Bruce and U2, but it's only music after all, the Rolling Stone Magazines of the world need to take it down a notch with respect to their love affair with U2 & Springstein.
I voted for Nirvana.
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on Apr 28, 2014 19:40:10 GMT -5
I also voted Nirvana. I'm guessing KISS will get the most votes though.
|
|
|
Post by VoodooMedicineMan on Apr 28, 2014 21:09:57 GMT -5
I voted for U2. I think they had a few decent albums early on, but overall I find them to be bland and mediocre.
Nirvana and the Beatles are both overrated in their own way. I realize every band out there lists the Beatles as a major influence, but they have a lot of really sappy stuff. Nirvana is an example of someone dying at their pinnacle. I never really hear Queen compared to other bands and they are very unique, so no to them. I consider Zeppelin the gold standard for rock bands with the Stones a little behind them. I hear Metallica crapped on a lot, so I can't consider them overrated. I'd actually consider Kiss to be underrated. Certainly not an all time great, but most seem to look at them as solely a gimmick, and I think they have some fairly good material. They should have made the HOF before they did.
I personally think Guns N Roses are overrated. A very good band, with one great album.
|
|
|
Post by tomass on Apr 28, 2014 21:18:44 GMT -5
I voted U2.. I hate them.. If they weren't there, I would have gone Beatles..
|
|
|
Post by tomass on Apr 28, 2014 21:24:49 GMT -5
I personally think Guns N Roses are overrated. A very good band, with one great album. Man I so disagree.. I lile almost every song they ever released Appeite - Greatest 12 songs ever assembled ! LIES - Also great. Only had 8 songs but so didn't half the 70's album. Not a bad song on there UYI and UYI - There is some filler on these TWO albums but I still like every song on them. There are definately alot of really good/great songs here. Spaghetti - All covers but most are good. Some not so much Live Era - A really good live double album
|
|
|
Post by AeroCooper on Apr 28, 2014 21:33:27 GMT -5
I'd actually consider Kiss to be underrated. Certainly not an all time great, but most seem to look at them as solely a gimmick, and I think they have some fairly good material. They should have made the HOF before they did. +1
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Join Date:
May 21, 2024 6:48:43 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 21:38:19 GMT -5
I disagree with a lot of you. I voted KISS. To me, without their makeup and their gimmicks they are just a bunch of average musicians. As for the Beatles, I still stand by my post in greatest albums when I saw that the White Album is one of the finest pieces of music to be released. And I love Nirvana. In Utero and Nevermind are fantastic. I could care less about U2, and I agree that Springsteen gets an honorable mention. Never been a fan.
|
|
|
Post by livebootleg on Apr 28, 2014 21:44:29 GMT -5
Justin Bieber
|
|
|
Post by tomass on Apr 28, 2014 21:49:40 GMT -5
I'd actually consider Kiss to be underrated. Certainly not an all time great, but most seem to look at them as solely a gimmick, and I think they have some fairly good material. They should have made the HOF before they did. +1 +2
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Join Date:
May 21, 2024 6:48:43 GMT -5
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2014 22:07:50 GMT -5
KISS. How are they anything more than a gimmick, really? They have some great catchy tunes, but I don't see how any of their songs put them anywhere near in a league with anyone else on this list. As 4bits pointed out, though, I'm pretty sure that Kiss fans are the only people who think that Kiss is in a league with The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and the Rolling Stones.
U2 were good at one point at time, and then they became cheesy sellouts. For decades, they've been a totally-overrated mockery of their eighties alterna-rock glory days. Albums like "Joshua Tree" and "October" deserve to have a stellar reputation, but U2,overall, don't deserve to be regarded as legendary rock icons considering EVERYTHING THEY'VE DONE since their last decent record, which was "Achtung, Baby." Zooropa was a hideous mess, and they've just gone for the sellout hit-grabs ever since. They're even worse than Aerosmith when it comes to making generic-sounding radio-friendly corporate sellout pop for the masses.
Everyone else in this list deserves to have the reputations they have.
The Beatles - They made rock'n'roll what it is. Also, Lennon and McCartney had an otherworldly, godly, superhuman gift for melody. Best songwriting duo in the history of rock'n'roll, hands down. Plus, a bunch of iconic songs that are well-loved by all. Yes, they deserve every single bit of the huge reputation they have.
The Rolling Stones - They're just a bit "meh" to me personally, but can't deny the massive impact they've had on rock'n'roll. "Hard rock" would look drastically different if not for the Stones, so they deserve every bit of their huge reputation.
Led Zeppelin - Are the most influential "heavy rock" band of all time. "Hard rock" as we know it, as well as heavy metal couldn't have existed without them - Robert Plant's wailing, John Bonham's crazy drum-pounding and those huge stacks of Marshalls have left an indelible mark on "hard rock" and "heavy metal." They were also a fabulous all-around talented band with great instrumentalists, a great guitarist, a truly vocally-gifted lead singer, and they seamlessly moved amongst many different genres. Yes, they deserve every bit of that huge reputation.
Queen - I don't really get it, they aren't necessarily "rock" enough for me, but Freddie Mercury was a glorious angel of a lead singer, and Brian May a gifted lead guitarist (and astrophysicist!!!) They've penned many iconically classic songs, and I think they more or less deserve their reputation.
Nirvana - Well, they went out at their peak, but they were being talked up as the "Next Great Rock Legends" long before Kurt Cobain went and killed himself. I think they more or less deserve their reputation, although we'll never really know for sure because Cobain died at the peak of his career and didn't have the opportunity to get old and start sucking. I still remember the day it happened - everyone in school was just walking around stunned all day, because he was one of the biggest rock stars on the planet at that time. I can't believe it was 20 years ago.
Metallica - They're the defining heavy metal band, and the entire genre of heavy metal as we know it today basically couldn't have existed without them. Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield are a brilliantly talented guitar duo. Their reputation is well-deserved although, like Aerosmith and U2, they've certainly endured a lot of "sellout" criticism that they've brought on themselves. Metallica would have a better reputation than they currently do if James or Lars had died tragically after "...And Justice For All".
See, we'll never know what kinds of sucky records Nirvana might've made if they'd kept on going for 20 more years. We know all about U2's and Metallica's lame sucky records, because the guys in U2 and Metallica have been blessed with three-decades-long careers. It's not really fair to compare bands like Nirvana to bands like Metallica and U2 and Aerosmith.
I think Aerosmith is kind of overrated. I think they're also kind of underrated. Convincing arguments can be made either way.
Guns'n'Roses were never as great as they could've potentially been, if they hadn't ruined themselves with drugs and infighting and silly spoiled rockstar antics.
|
|
|
Post by jj on Apr 28, 2014 23:11:46 GMT -5
+ 3. I still like the KiSS albums up through Love Gun. I thought Ace was a really good player (haven't listened to recent stuff). though generally an unfavorable opinion, I liked a lot of Gene's bass lines. I thought some of them really made the song. Anyway, I voted U2. I never understood the appeal, and Bono is as self-rightous, or more, than anyone in rock. Nirvana would be my number 2.
|
|
|
Post by aerognr87 on Apr 28, 2014 23:33:40 GMT -5
U2 is definitely overrated. IMO, the Beatles and Led Zeppelin deserve every bit of recognition they get since they did so much in such a short amount of time and really disbanded at the right time. Almost everything they did is golden. Furthermore, the amount of influence they have is profound. Since they were so diverse yet also so simple at times, the Beatles influenced almost everyone under the broad umbrella of rock 'n' roll. Meanwhile, Led Zeppelin has influenced just about everyone in rock and metal. Also, it's hard to argue with their massive album sales.
The Rolling Stones are good, but as they have been blessed with a career spanning 50 years, they've put out a lot of crappy material. Hate to say it, but they should've hung it up in the early 80s. Unlike Aerosmith, I don't think the Stones have held up well over time and never really had a big comeback or anything. All their releases since the early 80s have been very "meh". However, they do have a ton of great classic material. 20, 30, 40, 50 hits that everyone knows. Their influence is definitely profound. So, is the classic 60s-early 80s Stones overrated? No, not at all. Are the Stones over the last 30 years overrated?? Definitely!! I feel like the Stones could release a collection of fart noises and it will still get more recognition and appreciation from critics and the media than any decent Aerosmith record or tour over the last 30 years.
I don't think Kiss is overrated. I will say that their pop cultural status is a little overrated, but their music is in fact a little underrated. Their music isn't on the same level as Aerosmith or AC/DC, but they have a good 10-20 rock classics in their catalog, and a lot of people in the general public don't realize that. They kinda brought that on themselves though.
Nirvana is kinda overrated. I just hate that they're put on a pedestal above all alternative rock acts. To me, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are all equally important.
I feel like Queen is a little overrated. I'm sorry, they're not on the same level as Led Zeppelin or the Beatles or the Stones. Maybe on the same level as Aerosmith and AC/DC and Van Halen, but I actually consider them to be even below that. I can only think of like 15 songs by Queen that I like, or not even that I like, but that I consider classics. With those other bands, they have at least 30 classic songs.
I don't really think Metallica is that overrated. I feel like they've been more of a critics' darling as of late, which is kind of annoying, but I feel like they have enough detractors to keep things fairly level.
U2 is the most over-rated of them all though. They produce very generic, bland, pop music. And for all the talk of them being diverse and experimental, their songs all sound the same. I still, to this day, sometimes have trouble deciphering Where the Streets Have No Name from I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. OK, they tried mixing things up by copying everyone else and doing blues on Rattle and Hum and then being a little bit more rocking on Achtung Baby. But besides that, they haven't done anything spectacular since then. All That You Can't Leave Behind was a decent album with a fair number of hits. But it was nothing they hadn't done before really. And I think every other album besides that one post-1991 has been a dud. But despite all that, U2 is still a decent enough band with a fair number of hits. Still, that doesn't justify the heaps of praise that's bestowed on them from critics everywhere. I feel like they've won more Grammy Awards than anyone. And I feel like all of their albums are listed among Rolling Stones 500 Greatest, when maybe only 2 really qualify. I was so upset when they beat out Aerosmith for Grammys in 2001 and 2002. Not that Just Push Play was the greatest record, but neither was All That You Can't Leave Behind. And actually I think Aerosmith should have gotten credit for being edgy and going in a different direction, as opposed to U2 who just played it safe. And their live show is insanely overrated. So they have giant screens and a big stage every tour. Big fucking deal. Who cares? Do Bono and the Edge have the on-stage charisma, passion, and energy of Steven Tyler, 80s David Lee Roth, 80s/90s Axl Rose, Freddie Mercury, Ozzy Osbourne, Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, Slash, or Joe Perry? Not in the slightest. So why the big fuss?
|
|
|
Post by Zen on Apr 29, 2014 0:24:33 GMT -5
Unfortunately I could only tick one!
I chose Led Zep because I like them the least out of the list...Kiss, U2, and The Stones, I like some songs but not enough to really rate them, I think I own something like a Greatest Hits of each of them. The Beatles I also think are over rated but I love some of their music just not them singing most of it, I prefer rocked up covers of Beatles songs like Aerosmith did with Helter Skelter, I'm Down and Come Together.
|
|