PDA

View Full Version : Most overrated band in rock history?



redsfanmia
07-25-2005, 06:12 PM
My vote goes for the Rolling Stones. I have seen them live twice and they were absolutely horrible each time. I think that if you take the best songs off of all their albums you could make two good albums thats it, they have released some very weak albums and songs in my opinion.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 06:17 PM
The Beatles...by far.

pedro
07-25-2005, 06:21 PM
Both of yous is crazy I say, crazy.

I'll admit that the Stones aren't very good live, but they have a ton of great albums (although none since 1978's some girls)

And the Beatles, well if you don't like them there's not much I can say.

Maybe it's a generational thing. How old are you guys?

BTW- My vote goes for Queen- They have maybe 5 good songs.

I think Led Zeppelin is overrated too, and I'm sure I'll get pounded for that.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 06:22 PM
Oh both of you please.

Without the Beatles it's doo-wop and Frankie Vallie.

The Stones are a great studio band from the 60's and the 70's... those other guys are pitchmen for a lifestyle commercial.

Overrated?

Let's start with Europes favorite Queen.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 06:22 PM
Both of yous is crazy I say, crazy.

I'll admit that the Stones aren't very good live, but they have a ton of great albums (although none since 1978's some girls)

And the Beatles, well if you don't like them there's not much I can say.

Maybe it's a generational thing. How old are you guys?

BTW- My vote goes for Queen- They have maybe 5 good songs.

I think Led Zeppelin is overrated too, and I'm sure I'll get pounded for that.

He aint'y heavy he's my brother.

And I agree on both counts.

pedro
07-25-2005, 06:24 PM
He aint'y heavy he's my brother.

And I agree on both counts.

I would like to lose 10 pounds though. :)

Ravenlord
07-25-2005, 06:24 PM
Metallica
The Rolling Stones
Ozzy Osbourne
Slipknot
Metallica
Motley Crue
The Sex Pistols
Led Zeppelin
Blink 182 and all their clones
Metallica
ManOwaR (somehow the most popular metal band in the world, the look and sound of Spinal Tap is based heavily on them)

registerthis
07-25-2005, 06:30 PM
Oh both of you please.

Without the Beatles it's doo-wop and Frankie Vallie.
Yes, you may not personally *like* their music, but good grief you have to give the Beatles respect for what they did.

My two votes: U2 and Bruce Springsteen (yes, I know, not a band, but i still think he's grossly overrated.)

U2, I even like them...but, particularly recently, their stuff just seems formulaic and by-the-numbers. Half of the Joshua Tree was good, Achtung baby was killer, and some of their other albums varied from average to pretty good...but they are simply not one of the best bands of all time.

Springsteen...well, if the man has written a song containing more than three chords, I haven't heard it yet.

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 06:31 PM
Can I be an honorable woy/pedro brother? Cuz you guys done stoled my answer.

Larkin Fan
07-25-2005, 06:32 PM
Queen, hands down.

alex trevino
07-25-2005, 06:34 PM
Van Halen

Ravenlord
07-25-2005, 06:36 PM
i forgot Van Halen, Springsteen and U2.....Aerosmith is up there too.

oneupper
07-25-2005, 06:36 PM
C'mon guys...

Queen has some great songs that weren't "radio-ready", especially in their early albums. (You don't have to agree with the lifestyle...we're all Manly Men here ).

Rolling Stones and Beatles are classic, can't mess with classic.
(I'll admit She Loves You and other "early" Beatles make me want to puke nowadays).

Blink (and their clones) is great stuff -- just fun (enjoy it).

My vote:
Nirvana

Kurt Gobain doesn't die and they're nothing.
(I still like some of their songs).

:D :D :D

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 06:38 PM
C'mon guys...

Queen has some great songs that weren't "radio-ready", especially in their early albums. (You don't have to agree with the lifestyle...we're all Manly Men here ).

Rolling Stones and Beatles are classic, can't mess with classic.
(I'll admit She Loves You and other "early" Beatles make me want to puke nowadays).

Blink (and their clones) is great stuff -- just fun (enjoy it).

My vote:
Nirvana

Kurt Gobain doesn't die and they're nothing.
(I still like some of their songs).

:D :D :D

Heck, if only Queen were MORE gay. They did just enough to be totally uninteresting, which is aesthetic death.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 06:40 PM
Queen has some great songs that weren't "radio-ready", especially in their early albums. (You don't have to agree with the lifestyle...we're all Manly Men here ).

I love Sheer Heart Attack myself, then only a few songs.

Queen is music black liqurice.

Overrated?

Journey?

Boston?

T Rex?

The Dead?

Phish?

Dave Mathews?

Probably.

Overrated?

Garth Brooks?

Fer sure man... CCR too.

And Elvis too...

CrackerJack
07-25-2005, 06:41 PM
My vote goes for the Rolling Stones. I have seen them live twice and they were absolutely horrible each time. I think that if you take the best songs off of all their albums you could make two good albums thats it, they have released some very weak albums and songs in my opinion.

Of all the bands out there I can't believe you singled out the greatest rock band of all-time. Sure they've been lame for the last 15 years but the 30 before that will be unsurpassed. I won't even go into this it's someone's opinion and their right to feel that way.

My vote goes to either "Phish" or The Dave Matthews Band. Flame away.

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 06:42 PM
I love Sheer Heart Attack myself, then only a few songs.

Queen is music black liqurice.

Overrated?

Journey?

Boston?

T Rex?

The Dead?

Phish?

Dave Mathews?

Probably.

Overrated?

Garth Brooks?

Fer sure man... CCR too.

And Elvis too...

Elvis? Now you've crossed the line. Was Boston ever "rated?" Tom Scholz designed guitar pedals for garsh sakes. Nerd.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 06:42 PM
Van Halen

I have a Van Halen story.

Friend of mine knows a guy who is a persona star Valet, gets called for 2-3 week gigs with the stars.

Anyway, he's on tour with Van Halen and apparently Eddie has to fly in his own plane. the rest of the band is clean, but Eddie is puffing cigs and still drinking on his own plane with Wolfy in tow. Wolfy apparently is not as svelt as daddy was during the Carter era.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 06:43 PM
Elvis? Now you've crossed the line. Was Boston ever "rated?" Tom Scholz designed guitar pedals for garsh sakes. Nerd.

he invented the Polaroid Instamatic IIRC

BoydsOfSummer
07-25-2005, 06:44 PM
My vote goes to Nirvana.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 06:46 PM
My vote goes to Nirvana.

Nirvana enabled MTV to drive away from pop... they and their ilk of non conformists killed both Hair Metal and MTV Videos.

It's a double sided sword if there ever was one.

BoydsOfSummer
07-25-2005, 06:50 PM
It's not so much that style of music (I like Pearl Jam,SoundGarden and Nirvana et al). It's just I think they get way over rated.

EDIT: While I do love me Heavy Metal, anything speeding the early demise of the likes of Poison is a good thing.

registerthis
07-25-2005, 06:52 PM
Elvis? Now you've crossed the line. Was Boston ever "rated?" Tom Scholz designed guitar pedals for garsh sakes. Nerd.
Nothing wrong with that--at least he was adventurous. Which is about ten times more than you could say for Keith Richards.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 06:54 PM
Nothing wrong with that--at least he was adventurous. Which is about ten times more than you could say for Keith Richards.

Monkey Man on a resume is pretty nifty IMO.

registerthis
07-25-2005, 06:57 PM
Monkey Man on a resume is pretty nifty IMO.
S'alright.

It's also one riff out of...eh, how many songs? Hundreds? thousands? I just don't like him much. But i can see why people do dig the Stones, it's why I didn't include the band as a whole as "overrated". But I certainly think Keith Richards is.

Same way people think Ringo was a good drummer.

pedro
07-25-2005, 06:59 PM
Nothing wrong with that--at least he was adventurous. Which is about ten times more than you could say for Keith Richards.

Are you talking about Elvis?

I know peanut butter and bacon sandwiches sound pretty revolutionary, and that baby blue sequined jumpsuit, well enuff said, but come on if it wasn't for Elvis's guitar player (who was a god) he'd have had almost no impact on popular music IMO.

Musically speaking, the competiton between Keith and Elvis isn't even close, at least in terms of actually writing songs. I'll admit, Elvis has great voice, but he didn't write most of his songs.

MWM
07-25-2005, 07:05 PM
The entire genre is WAY over-rated. :evil:











<sits back and waits for Pedro's response/> :pimp:

pedro
07-25-2005, 07:07 PM
The entire genre is WAY over-rated. :evil:













<sits back and waits for Pedro's response/> :pimp:

hey, Rock N Roll's not everyone's bag. It isn't exactly brain surgery, I know. :)

CrackerJack
07-25-2005, 07:14 PM
Nothing wrong with that--at least he was adventurous. Which is about ten times more than you could say for Keith Richards.

Noooo! The greatest rythym guitarist of all-time wasn't creative or adventorous? (not sure what that means as it applies to guitar styles) He defined the role in guitar rock bands. Is it because he didn't bust out bow or popularize the hammer method like Eddie V? Just because he looks like he's about to fall over doesn't mean he can't play.

So far I've seen the Stones, Queen, The Dead, and Nirvana as overrated bands.

There simply has got to be better examples than that, my God I am shocked. I need to leave this thread for good now. :)

redsfanmia
07-25-2005, 07:16 PM
[QUOTE=CrackerJack]Of all the bands out there I can't believe you singled out the greatest rock band of all-time. Sure they've been lame for the last 15 years but the 30 before that will be unsurpassed. I won't even go into this it's someone's opinion and their right to feel that way.

The Beatles are the greatest rock band ever hands down. The Beatles could have done things the way the Stones did but the Stones could not have done the Beatle thing.

MWM
07-25-2005, 07:16 PM
hey, Rock N Roll's not everyone's bag. It isn't exactly brain surgery, I know. :)

I know. I posted for your benefit only. :) BTW, I don't hate the genre, I'm just very selective with what I can handle. My wife likes a lot of the new stuff so it's starting to grow on me.

Rojo
07-25-2005, 07:17 PM
Overrated by whom? When? Dave Mathews is probably underrated by most the people I know, who absolutely loathe him. On that note I'll nominate (ducking) The Ramones. I love them too but these days you'd think they invented Rock. They were revolutionary in some ways (although not as much as people imagine) and provided the much need prick to bad 70's prog-rock but they didn't grow much beyond that.

pedro
07-25-2005, 07:18 PM
I know. I posted for your benefit only. :) BTW, I don't hate the genre, I'm just very selective with what I can handle. My wife likes a lot of the new stuff so it's starting to grow on me.

I knowd it. :)

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 07:18 PM
Nothing wrong with that--at least he was adventurous. Which is about ten times more than you could say for Keith Richards.

Virtuosity, IMO, represents a mere fraction of artistic enjoyment. I'll take the rumble and crunch of Keith's sloppy telecaster over Tom Scholz's goofy, letter-perfect yet bloodless solo wankery anyday.

Now Zappa was adventurous, if you want to talk about the marriage of virtuosity and soul. Or the Allman Brothers.

SunDeck
07-25-2005, 07:18 PM
Dave Matthews Band gets my vote, with John Maher as a close second.

Can't understand anyone who would think the Beatles are overrated, and it's not just because I'm nostalgic. It's just pretty hard to get from the 50's to today without going through them. Similarly, it is very hard to get to todays hard rock and heavy metal without stopping for a while on Jimi Page's repertoire.



Springsteen...well, if the man has written a song containing more than three chords, I haven't heard it yet.

Bill Monroe didn't either.

pedro
07-25-2005, 07:19 PM
You know what's not overrated?

Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain by Pavement.

Just Sayin'

WVRed
07-25-2005, 07:22 PM
How can a list not start with this band?

http://www.queenmania.net/images/fotografie/il_gruppo_dei_queen/queen_79.jpg

Just sayin'.

redsfanmia
07-25-2005, 07:22 PM
I said the Stones because I thought that they would provoke a response but I think that for them to be called the greatest band ever is a joke. I like Queen but they are overrated and Nirvana basically started a new genre in music (which sounded to me to be a heavier 70's rock sound). These threads and questions are all opinion but I think they are kind of fun and can spark some interesting answers and commentary.

pedro
07-25-2005, 07:25 PM
I said the Stones because I thought that they would provoke a response but I think that for them to be called the greatest band ever is a joke. I like Queen but they are overrated and Nirvana basically started a new genre in music (which sounded to me to be a heavier 70's rock sound). These threads and questions are all opinion but I think they are kind of fun and can spark some interesting answers and commentary.

I agree that is was a good idea for a thread. And we all know what Machiavelli said, make sure your first attack is the most vicious.

Mutaman
07-25-2005, 07:40 PM
T Rex?

.. CCR too.

And Elvis too...

I give up. What can I say. Let's just talk about T-Rex. Hell, Bolan isn't even in the Hall of Fame. Moreover they certainly wern't overated in the USA, they were only popular here with musicians. In any event back in the early 70s when Arena Rock was destroying everything, Bolan kept the 3 minute single alive and has been very influential over the years. Lou Reed, Bowie, Mott, Johnny Rotten,Roxy Music, most punk bands,particularly the Ramones, have all stated their debt to T-Rex. Bolan invented glam, and glam led to punk.

Joey Ramone said - “It (the Ramones) was born out of a chemical imbalance between me, Dee Dee & Johnny. Rock & roll had got so bloated & lost its spirit. We stripped it down & reassembled it under the influence of the MC5, The Beatles & the Stones, Alice Cooper & T-Rex.”

Put on Electric Warrior - it still sounds great.

"Meanwhile, I'm still thinking..."

Now as for Elvis....

westofyou
07-25-2005, 07:48 PM
Put on Electric Warrior - it still sounds great.

I heard Greg Kihn rip on Bolans playing one day on Classic Rock Radio in San Jose.

Irony.

Ya know what's not overrated?

The Modern Lovers first LP.

wheels
07-25-2005, 07:51 PM
I heard Greg Kihn rip on Bolans playing one day on Classic Rock Radio in San Jose.

Irony.

Ya know what's not overrated?

The Modern Lovers first LP.

I'm listening to that right now.

How's that for strange?

Overrated?

It's a tie between Coldplay, Pavement, and Ween.

Honorable mention goes out to Ani Difranco.

Blechhh....

Mutaman
07-25-2005, 07:51 PM
Musically speaking, the competiton between Keith and Elvis isn't even close, at least in terms of actually writing songs. I'll admit, Elvis has great voice, but he didn't write most of his songs.

Not that old argument again. How many songs did Sinatra write? or Billie Holliday? or Aretha? Elvis was a singer, not a songwriter. But such an incedible and revolutionary singer (like Sinatra) that the fact that he didn't write his songs doesn't diminsh his greatness. And i'll bet you dollars to donuts Keith would be the first one to agree with me.

Mutaman
07-25-2005, 07:56 PM
I heard Greg Kihn rip on Bolans playing one day on Classic Rock Radio in San Jose.

Irony.

Ya know what's not overrated?

The Modern Lovers first LP.

Bolan (who was slightly nuts) claimed to be a better guitarist than Pete Townsend to which the Who guitarist professionally replied "I've always dug Marc Bolan and he knows it, and he also knows that I'd let him get away with murder because of what he's doing for rock & roll".

The Modern Lovers have always slipped under my radar, but i keep hearing good things about them. One of these days.

Mutaman
07-25-2005, 08:02 PM
Are you talking about Elvis?

I know peanut butter and bacon sandwiches sound pretty revolutionary, and that baby blue sequined jumpsuit, well enuff said, but come on if it wasn't for Elvis's guitar player (who was a god) he'd have had almost no impact on popular music IMO.

.

And annother thing, which guitar player are you talking about? Scotty Moore, Hank Garland ( Little Sister) , or James Burton (Burning Love)? All three were/are incredible and the King sounded great in front of all three. Coincidence?

Stewie
07-25-2005, 08:14 PM
While I agree with those who said Queen, for me, the most overrated band by far is KISS. Their music just wasn't very good (IMHO), and I just don't find the whole makeup/costume thing to be that interesting, either. I guess maybe if I saw them live I may have a different opinion, I don't know. I had the unfortunate pleasure of seeing mini-KISS (midgets playing KISS songs) perform once, and that was disastrous.

I just never really got what all the hype was about.

M2
07-25-2005, 08:15 PM
Nothing wrong with that--at least he was adventurous. Which is about ten times more than you could say for Keith Richards.

The guy writes "Gimme Shelter" and he's not adventurous? The man's a walking riff machine. Can't think of anyone else I'd even put near him in that category - all right I can think of one guy, Neil Young.

Anyway, my vote for most overrated goes to The Beatles. IMO, they got credit for being the radio-friendly face of a lot of stuff others were doing better. Perhaps they'd have been less bubble gum out of the gate were it solely their choice, but when the AOR guys signed every band in England what we discovered was that many of them played far edgier stuff with a more driving tempo than anything The Beatles were churning out in their "She Loves You" phase.

The old saw is The Stones followed The Beatles at every turn. Certainly their marketing followed and some of their tunes did (Ruby Tuesday), but they always had an alley cat relfex that The Beatles (who had more of a hardscrabble upbringing) never could match, grinding out tunes like "Satisfaction", "Let's Spend the Night Together" and "Mother's Little Helper".

The Beatles couldn't howl like The Stones did on "Paint It Black" or go down the darkest of alleys like in "Sympathy for the Devil". I've always figured when the Stones cut "Let It Bleed" in 1969 is when they officially ripped the mantle of world's greatest living rock band off The Beatles. At that point it became clear that the boys from Liverpool didn't have that gear. Finally, as the Beatles were petering out with "The Long and Winding Road", The Stones were belting out "Brown Sugar". IMO, it ate at Lennon something fierce. That's the band he wanted to be in. I'm not saying The Stones are the greatest thing ever, just that what I hear when I listen to a Beatles record is a band often playing catch up with The Stones, The Beach Boys and a host of others.

The Beatles brought the music industry through some new doors and wrote lots of great songs, but I figure they were about 25% as good as their press. That's still awfully good, but a louder, broader sound was coming with or without them.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 08:17 PM
BTW- My vote goes for Queen- They have maybe 5 good songs.



Um....you do know what "overrated" means right?

Queen have NEVER been overrated in this country, quite the opposite in fact.

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:18 PM
And annother thing, which guitar player are you talking about? Scotty Moore, Hank Garland ( Little Sister) , or James Burton (Burning Love)? All three were/are incredible and the King sounded great in front of all three. Coincidence?

scotty moore. elvis always had a good band.

WVRed
07-25-2005, 08:22 PM
Um....you do know what "overrated" means right?

Queen have NEVER been overrated in this country, quite the opposite in fact.

Maybe we should have made it into a poll instead.;)

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:22 PM
Not that old argument again. How many songs did Sinatra write? or Billie Holliday? or Aretha? Elvis was a singer, not a songwriter. But such an incedible and revolutionary singer (like Sinatra) that the fact that he didn't write his songs doesn't diminsh his greatness. And i'll bet you dollars to donuts Keith would be the first one to agree with me.

you get points for saying "dollars to donuts". that always cracks me up. i like frank too.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 08:23 PM
Heck, if only Queen were MORE gay. They did just enough to be totally uninteresting, which is aesthetic death.

Only those without a sense of humor find Queen to be "totally uninteresting."

RosieRed
07-25-2005, 08:24 PM
I'm listening to that right now.

How's that for strange?

Overrated?

It's a tie between Coldplay, Pavement, and Ween.

Honorable mention goes out to Ani Difranco.

Blechhh....

Who is overrating Ani Difranco? And how so? :confused:

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:26 PM
Um....you do know what "overrated" means right?

Queen have NEVER been overrated in this country, quite the opposite in fact.

Um, I also know that they've sold more albums than any band in european history, I didn't know that they had to be overrated in the US to be overrated.

I also know that you don't like the Beatles, so there probably isn't much use for us to discuss music. But that's cool.

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 08:27 PM
Only those without a sense of humor find Queen to be "totally uninteresting."

Oh, I see.

That's the thing: they thought they were funny. But they weren't. They were kitschy. And that's not funny. They wrote lame pop kitsch and sold billions of records...in the U.S. That's overrated. Being hugely popular gets you "rated," sucking at your craft gets you "overrated."

paintmered
07-25-2005, 08:28 PM
I think 30 Seconds to Mars is the most overrated band ever. EVER.

(runs and hides from Rosie)

:p:

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:28 PM
Queen's Live Aid voted best rock concert ever:-
London July 25, 2005 5:11:19 PM IST

Queen's Live Aid appearance has been named the best rock concert ever, with the band's performance at Wembley in 1985, fronted by singer Freddie Mercury, winning approximately 80 percent of votes.

According to the Sun, while the Beatles' rooftop performance at Apple studios got the second place in the poll by Sony Ericsson, Pink Floyd's 1980 show at Earl's Court was voted third.

Top 5 rock concerts are:

1. Queen's Live Aid performance at Wembley2. Beatles' rooftop performance at Apple studios3. Pink Floyd's show at Earl's Court4. Led Zeppelin at Earl's Court5. The Clash's New York Palladium (ANI)

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 08:32 PM
Um, I also know that they've sold more albums than any band in european history, I didn't know that they had to be overrated in the US to be overrated.

I also know that you don't like the Beatles, so there probably isn't much use for us to discuss music. But that's cool.

Check your facts, Queen are not the biggest selling band in Euro history.

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:35 PM
Check your facts, Queen are not the biggest selling band in Euro history.

I couldn't find the article, perhaps it was that they'd been on the charts longer than anyone in european history. It actually happened last week. They passed Pink Floyd if IIRC, and since that would mark them as very popular, and since I don't really like them, I do believe that that would qualify them to be called overrrated by me.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 08:36 PM
Oh, I see.

That's the thing: they thought they were funny. But they weren't. They were kitschy. And that's not funny. They wrote lame pop kitsch and sold billions of records...in the U.S. That's overrated. Being hugely popular gets you "rated," sucking at your craft gets you "overrated."

Queen are the 50th.....50th, best selling band in the US. They were consistently dogged by the press here.....just how were they "rated" to begin with?

If you think they "suck", it's your loss, not mine.

The Beatles wrote just as many "lame pop" songs as Queen, shall we do a comparison? How many sickeningly bad pop songs did they start off with....if the Beatles had started in the 90s, they'd be the Backstreet Boys. Regardless of where they ended up, they began as a *COUGHboy bandCOUGH*

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 08:36 PM
I couldn't find the article, perhaps it was that they'd been on the charts longer than anyone in european history. It actually happened last week. They passed Pink Floyd if IIRC, and since that would mark them as very popular, and since I don't really like them, I do believe that that would qualify them to be called overrrated by me.

I know what else isn't funny: people haranguing others over their OPINIONS.

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:37 PM
Check your facts, Queen are not the biggest selling band in Euro history.


well my facts were a bit off but here it is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4648611.stm

Queen top UK album charts league

Queen are one of the most successful UK bands of all time
Queen have beaten The Beatles to become the most successful music act in UK album chart history, according to Guinness World Records.

The band - whose first self-titled album debuted in 1973 - have spent 1,322 weeks on the chart.

It is the first time Queen have overtaken the Fab Four in the chart, which is compiled by the Book of British Hit Singles and Albums.

Madonna, in seventh place, was the highest female artist in the list.


'TOP 10 UK ALBUMS CHART OF ALL TIME'
Madonna
1. Queen (1,322 weeks)
2. The Beatles (1,293 weeks)
3. Elvis Presley (1,280 weeks)
4. U2 (1,150 weeks)
5. Dire Straits (1,136 weeks)
6. Simon and Garfunkel (1,114 weeks)
7. Madonna (1,032 weeks)
8. David Bowie (1,005 weeks)
9. Elton John (989 weeks)
10. Michael Jackson (966 weeks)
Source: Guinness World Records

Queen, whose albums include A Kind of Magic, The Miracle and Innuendo, have spent 29 weeks more in the chart than the Beatles.

Elvis Presley, who earlier this year was named the most successful music act of all time by the British Hit Singles and Albums, was at number three in the album chart.

David Roberts, editor of the book of British Hit Singles and Albums, said: "Given that Queen's chart career has been much shorter than those of The Beatles and Elvis, this is an incredible achievement.

"They've long been written about with reverence in the pages of our book, and this just serves to cement their legendary status."

Queen frontman Freddie Mercury died in 1991, but the band have continued to perform.

They wind up their current 32-date European tour with former Free and Bad Company singer Paul Rodgers this week with a performance in London's Hyde Park on Friday.

Other artists in the top 10 include Irish rockers U2 at four with 1,150 weeks in the chart and Michael Jackson with 966 weeks.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 08:38 PM
I couldn't find the article, perhaps it was that they'd been on the charts longer than anyone in european history. It actually happened last week. They passed Pink Floyd if IIRC, and since that would mark them as very popular, and since I don't really like them, I do believe that that would qualify them to be called overrrated by me.

The article in question was about them posting the most time on the *UK* albums chart. That's quite a bit different than A) selling the most number of albums and B) doing it throughout all of Europe.

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:42 PM
The article in question was about them posting the most time on the *UK* albums chart. That's quite a bit different than A) selling the most number of albums and B) doing it throughout all of Europe.

fine, but it sure sounds like they were pretty popular to me.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 08:49 PM
fine, but it sure sounds like they were pretty popular to me.

Popularity alone does not make you overrated. If that were the case, Britney Spears would be overrated as well.

paintmered
07-25-2005, 08:50 PM
Popularity alone does not make you overrated. If that were the case, Britney Spears would be overrated as well.

I think she's overrated for that reason.

RosieRed
07-25-2005, 08:51 PM
I think 30 Seconds to Mars is the most overrated band ever. EVER.

(runs and hides from Rosie)

:p:

:p:

Hard to be overrated when no one even knows about the band (http://www.thirtysecondstomars.com)! (Yet, anyway ... give me time and EVERYONE will know about them!)

Mutaman
07-25-2005, 08:51 PM
I know what else isn't funny: people haranguing others over their OPINIONS.

It may not be funny, but it sure is fun.

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 08:56 PM
It may not be funny, but it sure is fun.

Well, I think your comments were just sparring; I didn't find your contentions to be ad hominem attacks at all. I get the fun in that. A certain someone else's posts strike me as personal.

pedro
07-25-2005, 08:57 PM
Popularity alone does not make you overrated. If that were the case, Britney Spears would be overrated as well.

The thread was not called the "Most overrated band who were popular in the USA and rated by Rock Critics"

I think you may be taking this all a little too seriously. Really, you can like Queen if you want to, it's OK. I like the Beatles, you don't, so what? I don't think any less of myself because you don't like them and I don't think any less of you because you like Queen. let it go.

Mutaman
07-25-2005, 08:59 PM
The guy writes "Gimme Shelter" and he's not adventurous? The man's a walking riff machine. Can't think of anyone else I'd even put near him in that category - all right I can think of one guy, Neil Young.

Anyway, my vote for most overrated goes to The Beatles. IMO, they got credit for being the radio-friendly face of a lot of stuff others were doing better. Perhaps they'd have been less bubble gum out of the gate were it solely their choice, but when the AOR guys signed every band in England what we discovered was that many of them played far edgier stuff with a more driving tempo than anything The Beatles were churning out in their "She Loves You" phase.

The old saw is The Stones followed The Beatles at every turn. Certainly their marketing followed and some of their tunes did (Ruby Tuesday), but they always had an alley cat relfex that The Beatles (who had more of a hardscrabble upbringing) never could match, grinding out tunes like "Satisfaction", "Let's Spend the Night Together" and "Mother's Little Helper".

The Beatles couldn't howl like The Stones did on "Paint It Black" or go down the darkest of alleys like in "Sympathy for the Devil". I've always figured when the Stones cut "Let It Bleed" in 1969 is when they officially ripped the mantle of world's greatest living rock band off The Beatles. At that point it became clear that the boys from Liverpool didn't have that gear. Finally, as the Beatles were petering out with "The Long and Winding Road", The Stones were belting out "Brown Sugar". IMO, it ate at Lennon something fierce. That's the band he wanted to be in. I'm not saying The Stones are the greatest thing ever, just that what I hear when I listen to a Beatles record is a band often playing catch up with The Stones, The Beach Boys and a host of others.

The Beatles brought the music industry through some new doors and wrote lots of great songs, but I figure they were about 25% as good as their press. That's still awfully good, but a louder, broader sound was coming with or without them.


You've really got this thing about the Beatles, sort of like Charles Foster Kane and Rosebud. I'm a Stones man myself, but I figure any band that covers Larry williams and Buck Owens on the same album (Help, UK version) is ok in my book.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:03 PM
I think she's overrated for that reason.

Overrate \O`ver*rate"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Overrated; p. pr.
& vb. n. Overrating.]
To rate or value too highly.

I ask again, just how are Queen rated or valued highly?

When you see those lists from major rock critics and musicians, etc, how often and/or how high are the band or their albums place?

redsfanmia
07-25-2005, 09:03 PM
Im sorry but compare the Beatles to the Backstreet boys is quite a stretch. The Beatles were marketed as a boy band yes but the Backstreet Boys didnt play or write the music, I see your point in calling the Beatles a boy band but really. Without the Beatles music would be totally different today I think everyone realizes that. You may not like the Beatles but you have to give them the credit they deserve for revolutionallizing the entire face of music and the music business itself.

pedro
07-25-2005, 09:06 PM
Can we stop getting all bent out shape about semantics? This is supposed to be fun. Ease up a little.

redsfanmia
07-25-2005, 09:06 PM
The Beatles were never playing catch up to another band the other bands were playing catch up to them.

paintmered
07-25-2005, 09:06 PM
Overrate \O`ver*rate"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Overrated; p. pr.
& vb. n. Overrating.]
To rate or value too highly.

I ask again, just how are Queen rated or valued highly?

When you see those lists from major rock critics and musicians, etc, how often and/or how high are the band or their albums place?

Since when were the opinions of critics and other bands the only ones that counted?

Ravenlord
07-25-2005, 09:06 PM
who is Ani DiFranco, Pavement, and 30 Seconds to Mars? :confused:

somehow i forgot Kiss, the band i probably hate the most from Rock N' Roll. "Unholy," "Creatures of the Night," and "God of Thunder" are the only thing they've done that hasn't sucked.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:09 PM
The thread was not called the "Most overrated band who were popular in the USA and rated by Rock Critics"

I think you may be taking this all a little too seriously. Really, you can like Queen if you want to, it's OK. I like the Beatles, you don't, so what? I don't think any less of myself because you don't like them and I don't think any less of you because you like Queen. let it go.

Well how many ways do you want it? Either you give an opinion once and move on (which you haven't done) or you debate it (which you have)?

Forums are for discussion and you partake but then you suggest I shouldn't..."let it go." Which way are we going here?

If people don't understand the definition of "overrated" or don't like having their opinions challenged, that's not really my problem is it? How BORING would this place be if people didn't engage each other over what they say? Some might not *like* what I say because I challenge them but isn't that the nature of the beast?

pedro
07-25-2005, 09:10 PM
who is Ani DiFranco, Pavement, and 30 Seconds to Mars? :confused:

somehow i forgot Kiss, the band i probably hate the most from Rock N' Roll. "Unholy," "Creatures of the Night," and "God of Thunder" are the only thing they've done that hasn't sucked.

Pavement is the best slacker rock band of the 90's IMO. People either love them of hate them generally.

Ani DiFranco is a woman who self produces her own albums on her own record label and was one of the first to break out of the record comapny chains and do it on her own. I'm not a big fan but you have to give here props because she was making it happen for herself from avery young age and befire the internet.

30 seconds to mars is RosieReds favorite band. Jared Leto from the TV show My So Called life is the front man.

I can't stand Kiss either.

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 09:11 PM
I have a quote that might answer the comparison of the Beatles to the Backstreet Boys. It comes from Frank Bidart, and it refers to the nature of all great art:

"We fill pre-existing forms and when we fill them we change them and are changed."

Who cares what box the Beatles were marketed in? It's what they did against the tension of being forced into a canister that made them great. The Stones were exquisite surfers. But the Beatles were the wave.

paintmered
07-25-2005, 09:14 PM
FCB,

I'm not too up on the history of the Beatles, but I've heard they were a local bar band prior to setting their sights on invading America.

Any truth to this?

Falls City Beer
07-25-2005, 09:14 PM
Well how many ways do you want it? Either you give an opinion once and move on (which you haven't done) or you debate it (which you have)?

Forums are for discussion and you partake but then you suggest I shouldn't..."let it go." Which way are we going here?

If people don't understand the definition of "overrated" or don't like having their opinions challenged, that's not really my problem is it? How BORING would this place be if people didn't engage each other over what they say? Some might not *like* what I say because I challenge them but isn't that the nature of the beast?

When you make a cogent argument against a person's opinion and not the person, maybe I'll reconsider your opinion.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:15 PM
Im sorry but compare the Beatles to the Backstreet boys is quite a stretch. The Beatles were marketed as a boy band yes but the Backstreet Boys didnt play or write the music, I see your point in calling the Beatles a boy band but really. Without the Beatles music would be totally different today I think everyone realizes that. You may not like the Beatles but you have to give them the credit they deserve for revolutionallizing the entire face of music and the music business itself.

You know, it's comments like this that actually bother me. This is overrated..crediting the Beatles by basically saying they made music what it is today.

Somewhere Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Elvis are laughing.

The Beatles made an impression, yes (with a GREAT heaping of nostalgia and the almost slavish love of the world's media) but to completely discount those that came BEFORE the Beatles, the very ones who INSPIRED them, is very insulting to what they did. Would the Beatles have been "The Beatles" without Berry and Richard and countless other R&B/soul/RnR artists that came before?

pedro
07-25-2005, 09:16 PM
Well how many ways do you want it? Either you give an opinion once and move on (which you haven't done) or you debate it (which you have)?

Forums are for discussion and you partake but then you suggest I shouldn't..."let it go." Which way are we going here?

If people don't understand the definition of "overrated" or don't like having their opinions challenged, that's not really my problem is it? How BORING would this place be if people didn't engage each other over what they say? Some might not *like* what I say because I challenge them but isn't that the nature of the beast?

Personally I think arguing over the subjective interpretation of the word "overrated" as it relates to rock music is pretty boring.

I'd rather talk about music.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:16 PM
The Beatles were never playing catch up to another band the other bands were playing catch up to them.

That's not being factual. You can thank The Beach Boys for making the Beatles up their game.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:20 PM
Since when were the opinions of critics and other bands the only ones that counted?

Critics help write history and are part of the media onslaught convincing the masses of who is great and who is crap. We might not like it but those who write history are the ones who help define it.

westofyou
07-25-2005, 09:20 PM
Personally I think arguing over the subjective interpretation of the word "overrated" as it relates to rock music is pretty boring.

I'd rather talk about music.

Pavement when they were fighting on stage was always a good time.

How do ya like those semantics?

westofyou
07-25-2005, 09:21 PM
We might not like it but those who write history are the ones who help define it.

Yep... and the Beatles rocked!!

redsfanmia
07-25-2005, 09:22 PM
That's not being factual. You can thank The Beach Boys for making the Beatles up their game.
Your right Pet Sounds inspired the Beatles to bigger and better things, and your right about Chuck Berry, Elvis, and LIttle Richard as well. I guess the Beatles fan in me got a little emotional.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:23 PM
Personally I think arguing over the subjective interpretation of the word "overrated" as it relates to rock music is pretty boring.

I'd rather talk about music.

Consider the very title of the thread, if some don't know the definition of the word, how can they have a valid opinion on it?

paintmered
07-25-2005, 09:23 PM
Critics help write history and are part of the media onslaught convincing the masses of who is great and who is crap. We might not like it but those who write history are the ones who help define it.

So then what is driving the media onslaught that is Brittany?

I think the collective voices of millions of 12 year-old girls has some bargaining power too.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:27 PM
Your right Pet Sounds inspired the Beatles to bigger and better things, and your right about Chuck Berry, Elvis, and LIttle Richard as well. I guess the Beatles fan in me got a little emotional.

Well, it's perfectly natural to feel that way but at least you recognize it and say so.

I just wish some others would do the same...."The Stones were great surfers but the Beatles were the wave." It's almost as if they don't realize just how appropriate those comments are to the thread. Kinda funny if you think about it. I certainly haven't been making such comments about Queen.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:29 PM
So then what is driving the media onslaught that is Brittany?

I think the collective voices of millions of 12 year-old girls has some bargaining power too.

and who brought Spears to those 12 year olds in the first place though? That's right, the media.

redsfanmia
07-25-2005, 09:32 PM
I dont detest Queen I think they have a few really good songs and quite a few other really catchy ones. I grew up a Beatles fan and to be honest with you I have tired of them for the moment. I tried to see the Stones thing but when I saw them live it really turned me off. The Stones have a 10 or 12 songs I like but they also have 250 or so that I think are just album fillers. I just dont get the Stones as the greatest band ever, thats just my opinion.

RedsBaron
07-25-2005, 09:33 PM
Not that old argument again. How many songs did Sinatra write? or Billie Holliday? or Aretha? Elvis was a singer, not a songwriter. But such an incedible and revolutionary singer (like Sinatra) that the fact that he didn't write his songs doesn't diminsh his greatness. And i'll bet you dollars to donuts Keith would be the first one to agree with me.
Yep. Elvis had his limitations as an artist, but I can't think of anyone who came after him who could equal him as a singer. He couldn't write songs, his taste in material was sometimes wanting, but his range was incredible, and his influence enduring. Has any other artist ever been able to combine rock, rhythm & blues, gospel, country, and pop standards the way Elvis could? His versatility still amazes me.

REDREAD
07-25-2005, 09:36 PM
Didn't we have this thread a couple months ago?

My nomination: Maddona.. She had a few good songs (I admit, I like "Beautiful Stranger" and a couple others).. But I can't believe how popular she was in her day.

Michael Allred
07-25-2005, 09:38 PM
Didn't we have this thread a couple months ago?

My nomination: Maddona.. She had a few good songs (I admit, I like "Beautiful Stranger" and a couple others).. But I can't believe how popular she was in her day.

She was an expert at marketing...and that's about the only positve thing I can say for her.

M2
07-25-2005, 09:50 PM
You've really got this thing about the Beatles, sort of like Charles Foster Kane and Rosebud. I'm a Stones man myself, but I figure any band that covers Larry williams and Buck Owens on the same album (Help, UK version) is ok in my book.

I don't hate them. It's just when I go back to them now they seem terribly overblown. Like a lot of others born in the 60s, I was raised on them, but I was raised on Gilligan's Island too and Bob Denver is not the auteur I once thought he was either.

RosieRed
07-25-2005, 09:53 PM
30 seconds to mars is RosieReds favorite band. Jared Leto from the TV show My So Called life is the front man.

But that is not WHY they're one of my favorite bands.

Everyone should go listen! :p: www.thirtysecondstomars.com

Ravenlord
07-25-2005, 09:54 PM
But that is not WHY they're one of my favorite bands.

Everyone should go listen! :p: www.thirtysecondstomars.comjust listened.

Coheed and Cambria's better. :)

Rojo
07-25-2005, 09:55 PM
but I was raised on Gilligan's Island too and Bob Denver is not the auteur I once thought he was either.

Now there's a dismissive comparison. Yet you say you don't hate them. Odd.

M2
07-25-2005, 10:09 PM
Who cares what box the Beatles were marketed in? It's what they did against the tension of being forced into a canister that made them great. The Stones were exquisite surfers. But the Beatles were the wave.

The Beatles early stuff contained a lot of naive drivel (and some R&B covers that make it clear they knew better). Even for back in the day some of those early hits were sugar-coated. I give 'em tons of credit for running from it, but I've got the wave and the surfers exactly opposite of the way you've got it.

IMO the Beatles were listening to the Stones and Phil Spector and Stax records and Motown and the Beach Boys and a host of others and trying to keep up. They were fine generalists and they brought a lot of sounds to people who wouldn't have heard the better purveyors otherwise. The Beatles strike me as a band in a never-ending legitimacy battle. Lennon striving for it. McCartney trying to make peace with his catchy tune tendencies. Harrison discovering his own form of it, but pushed off to the side. Starr enjoying the ride.

The Stones never worried that much about it because they had it.

Despite all the accolades and being handed the perch of band-that-made-everything-happen by the boomers, I don't see a lot of Beatles influence out there today, at least not in the stuff that catches my ear. Oasis, sure, but that's a band I could live without, forever.

M2
07-25-2005, 10:09 PM
Now there's a dismissive comparison. Yet you say you don't hate them. Odd.

Can't a guy have a little fun? Just a little?

Dom Heffner
07-25-2005, 10:12 PM
Prince and the Revolution- GAG!
Dave Matthews
Rush

Rojo
07-25-2005, 10:13 PM
Can't a guy have a little fun? Just a little?

I'm not one to begrudge someone a dig. But the Bob Denver of Rock? Could you go as high as Don Adams?

savafan
07-25-2005, 10:15 PM
The Greatful Dead

The Spice Girls

And I love them, but I gotta also say The Monkees

Jimmy Buffett. He's still selling out concerts playing the same songs he played fifteen years ago.

Rojo
07-25-2005, 10:22 PM
IMO the Beatles were listening to the Stones and Phil Spector and Stax records and Motown and the Beach Boys and a host of others and trying to keep up. They were fine generalists and they brought a lot of sounds to people who wouldn't have heard the better purveyors otherwise.

Who wouldn't have heard the Beach Boys or Motown?

And this is a real brief period we're talking about -- Rock was redefined in about 3 years. A lot of acts were leapfrogging each other on the innovation trail in the mid-to-late 60's. It seems to me you fault the Beatles for being the dumb boy band that the Stones never were (but the Beach Boys were). But they got there about the same time as everyone else and sometimes led the way.

Rojo
07-25-2005, 10:24 PM
Jimmy Buffett. He's still selling out concerts playing the same songs he played fifteen years ago.

One of the endearing mysteries of our times. Someday, I hope scientists will unlock the key to Buffett's baffling popularity.

Matt700wlw
07-25-2005, 10:35 PM
The Beatles...by far.

I am in complete shock

Matt700wlw
07-25-2005, 10:39 PM
Of all the bands out there I can't believe you singled out the greatest rock band of all-time. Sure they've been lame for the last 15 years but the 30 before that will be unsurpassed. I won't even go into this it's someone's opinion and their right to feel that way.

My vote goes to either "Phish" or The Dave Matthews Band. Flame away.

I'll agree with Dave....like some of his stuff, but I can't agree with Phish.

bucksfan
07-25-2005, 10:45 PM
One of the endearing mysteries of our times. Someday, I hope scientists will unlock the key to Buffett's baffling popularity.

That one I get personally - sings a lot of clever stories about places that sound neat or sitautions I have lived or wish I did. And for the most part I appreciate/understand the musical most of the big artists mentioned in this thread. I don' t like 'em all though - U2, Dave Matthews, Rush etc. not to my tastes - so by that I'd have to call them overrated in the "spirit" of this thread.

Back in the day when I had time/money to go, I wish Buffett had not been so popular. That way I could have gotten tickets more easily....

RFS62
07-25-2005, 10:55 PM
Sweet sassy molassy, people.

The most overrated artist in history was Slim Whitman.

You know, the guy who sold more albums than Elvis and the Beatles.

Dom Heffner
07-25-2005, 11:04 PM
Amost forgot: Nine Inch Nails

M2
07-25-2005, 11:13 PM
Who wouldn't have heard the Beach Boys or Motown?

And this is a real brief period we're talking about -- Rock was redefined in about 3 years. A lot of acts were leapfrogging each other on the innovation trail in the mid-to-late 60's. It seems to me you fault the Beatles for being the dumb boy band that the Stones never were (but the Beach Boys were). But they got there about the same time as everyone else and sometimes led the way.

I agree completely about the leapfrogging thing and new bars constantly being set. Absolutely the Beatles set new standards at the time. What I bristle at is the notion that they set all or most of the new standards. They didn't.

I don't think the Beatles were a dumb boy band or anything like it. They did have as distinct pop phase which I don't think they ultimately came to feel was representative of them (a big reason why they stopped playing live shows, IMO, was so they didn't have to play "She Loves You" and its ilk anymore). They strike me as a highly self-conscious band. The Stones, by comparison, strike me as a highly self-unscious band.

The best rock 'n' roll, for me, tends to come from the unscious side of the ledger.

BTW, Bob Denver did play one of the great characters on one of the great shows in TV history. Maynard G. Krebs was the original Kramer.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2005, 12:37 AM
I can't believe this thread has gone six pages and no one has mentioned Pink Floyd.

Never trust a man named Pink.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 12:39 AM
I can't believe this thread has gone six pages and no one has mentioned Pink Floyd.

Never trust a man named Pink.

I agree. I can't stand Pink Floyd. Overblown bunk.

cincinnati chili
07-26-2005, 02:25 AM
REM

Repetitive and passionless songs. Their lead singer's full of baloney and has the charisma of a deer tick.

If an artist mentions REM as a key influence, I can almost guarantee I'll them. It probably means they can't play their instruments, and that they define themselves as minimalists because they lack the chops to be maximalists.

cincinnati chili
07-26-2005, 02:41 AM
Honorable mentions:

Eric Clapton
The Cure

Comment on the Beatles-bashing: I think that you can make a good argument that the Beatles were overrated. They certainly were "rated" very highly, and people literally worshipped them. By extension, if you did not "worship" them, you rated them less highly.

I don't agree that the Beatles were copycats to the likes of the Stones and the Beach Boys. Word has it that when Brian Wilson heard Sgt. pepper, it was enough to put him in the loony bin. He recognized the greatness of the Beatles, even if the likes of Michael Stipe never did. Their true peers admired them. It still astounds me that they went from playing Motown covers and bubble gum pop to the level of Sgt. Pepper/Abbey Rd./White Album, etc. in a period of a half decade or so.

As for Queen. What can i say? Some like them, some don't. Michael has a point though that the Americans didn't rate them very highly, relative to the Euros.

A lot of these arguments come down to how one values the various musical elements in song-based music (melody vs. rhythm vs. chord structures vs. lyrics, etc.). It's become very fashionable with the rise of rap music in black artists and minimalism in white rock artists to associate melody with wussiness. People who buy into this are more likely to downgrade bands like the Beatles and completely dismiss bands like Queen.

The drums are my instrument, but melody will always be king for me.

WVRed
07-26-2005, 06:17 AM
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks2.jpg

GAC
07-26-2005, 08:14 AM
The Beatles wrote just as many "lame pop" songs as Queen, shall we do a comparison? How many sickeningly bad pop songs did they start off with

They weren't sickeningly bad songs to the generation that experienced/grew up to them. I guess one had to be old enough to have been there and experience it. So I can understand those of the younger generation thinking the Beatles were over-rated - you just had to be there. It is a generational thing.

My Dad thought that the Great Band Era of the 40's, with such artists as Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, and many others, was the greastest decade ever. I thought it was over-rated. ;)

I still find freshness in those early Beatle albums, and such songs as "I Saw Her Standing There, Twist and Shout, and so many others.


if the Beatles had started in the 90s, they'd be the Backstreet Boys. Regardless of where they ended up, they began as a *COUGHboy bandCOUGH*

If it weren't for the doors the Beatles opened there wouldn't have been a Backstreet Boys (and alot of other bands). A terrible comparison too.

I still remember when some said the Knack were the next Beatles. :lol:

Have you ever listened to the Beatles beginning from Meet The Beatles through Abbey Roads? Their music/sound evolved. IMO, they were the most innovative and progressive band ever. They not only opened doors, but weren't afraid to take chances and experiment musically.

When the Beatles hit the scene in the early 60's, America was being unindated with such muzak like Bobby Darin, Gene Pitney, Jan and Dean, Neil Sedaka, Johnny Rivers, and so many others. The English invasion, led by the Beates, put the "nail in the coffin" to may of those musicians (and thank God!).

And the Rolling Stones of the 60's/70's were also a highly revolutionary and innovative band. They should have gave it up after Tattoo You though. I look at them now, and I'm glad there never was a beatles reunion. It would have probably destroyed the intrigue and mystique.

Over-rated?

Genesis
Journey/Styx/Kansas (that whole lot)
Kiss (never liked them)
Men At Work
Duran Duran (sorry Kitty ;) )
U2
Queen ( I agree with woy - Sheer Heart Attack had some good stuff)
Madonna


And I'm tired of these reunion tours. Some of these bands I'm trying to forget.

Blimpie
07-26-2005, 09:10 AM
I have a Van Halen story.

Friend of mine knows a guy who is a persona star Valet, gets called for 2-3 week gigs with the stars.

Anyway, he's on tour with Van Halen and apparently Eddie has to fly in his own plane. the rest of the band is clean, but Eddie is puffing cigs and still drinking on his own plane with Wolfy in tow. Wolfy apparently is not as svelt as daddy was during the Carter era.Nice to hear that lopping off half of his cancerous tongue hasn't slowed Eddie down in the smoking arena... :rolleyes:

Blimpie
07-26-2005, 09:20 AM
Personally I think arguing over the subjective interpretation of the word "overrated" as it relates to rock music is pretty boring.

I'd rather talk about music.That depends on the definition of what "is" is....... ;)

Blimpie
07-26-2005, 09:23 AM
I can't believe this thread has gone six pages and no one has mentioned Pink Floyd.

Never trust a man named Pink.There's probably a reason that nobody mentioned them.....

Johnny Footstool
07-26-2005, 09:36 AM
Led Zepplin gets my vote. Boring, plodding blues with the soul sucked out of it. Songs about hobbits and druids and all that "mystical" nonsense. Overplayed, overrated, and overblown.

I also never understood The Clash. Just a bunch of dudes with bad teeth and hollow voices draining the life out of punk.

Dom Heffner
07-26-2005, 09:39 AM
Sweet sassy molassy, people.

The most overrated artist in history was Slim Whitman.

You know, the guy who sold more albums than Elvis and the Beatles.

Then you can't leave off Richard Clayderman....

registerthis
07-26-2005, 09:41 AM
The guy writes "Gimme Shelter" and he's not adventurous? The man's a walking riff machine. Can't think of anyone else I'd even put near him in that category - all right I can think of one guy, Neil Young.
Neil Young??? I've had my guitar fall off its stand and make more interesting sounds than Neil Young has. The guy is the epitome of the one trick pony. As far as Keith goes...some interesting riffs, perhaps--but writing some catchy riffs does not make you "adventurous". I've always found Keith--and the Stones in general--to be insufferably boring. Perhaps in their heyday in the late 60s-early 70s they were more interesting, but even then their output was perhaps slightly above average--and they're walking caricatures of themselves now.


The Beatles brought the music industry through some new doors and wrote lots of great songs, but I figure they were about 25% as good as their press. That's still awfully good, but a louder, broader sound was coming with or without them.
Sorry, but "Sgt. Pepper", "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Let It Be" trumps anything the Stones ever put out. The Stones tried to top "Sgt. Pepper" with "Her Satanic majesty's Request", and failed miserably. "Brown Sugar" is catchy, has a good beat, and that's really all I could say about it. The depth and layers of the songs the Beatles did during the second half of their career was practically unheard of for a band at that time. You take the Beatles away, you take half of today's pop music along with them.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 09:46 AM
Prince and the Revolution- GAG!
Dave Matthews
Rush
Er....how is Rush overrated?

zombie-a-go-go
07-26-2005, 09:58 AM
I also never understood The Clash. Just a bunch of dudes with bad teeth and hollow voices draining the life out of punk.

That's because the Clash weren't punk. They left that label behind with Give 'Em Enough Rope, and only got better from there.

westofyou
07-26-2005, 10:14 AM
Er....how is Rush overrated?

All I know... is Neil told me. ;)

Roy Tucker
07-26-2005, 10:24 AM
The problem with this is that for a band to be overrated, they have to have some germ of talent and accomplishment to them, i.e. at one time they were the Next Big Thing. So they have to have that flash of oh-wow talent and then not really deliver.

The problem with rock is that it's a young man's (and woman's) game. Hang around in rock much past your twenties and it becomes very difficult to remain creative, inventive, and fresh. Some much of rock is attitude and attitude can't be faked. It has to be genuine. Otherwise you run a very real risk of appearing very stupid.

Being a huge music fan of the 50's/60's/70's/80's, it pains me to tag some of my favorite bands of those eras as overrated. For me, it's a little difficult to distinguish between "overrated" and "hung around way too long". Some comments...

- The Stones and Pink Floyd definitely belong on this list. The last truly creative thing they did was in the 80's and even then, it's dodgy to say that. For God's sake, give it up and retire.

- Led Zep got to be a dinosaur fast and probably belongs there. Their meld of great old blues and hallucinogens was mind-boggling. But drugs, money, and stardom quickly bloated them out.

- I can't include the Beatles since they were the Sandy Koufax of rock and got out pretty close to their peak value. "Abbey Road" is not a bad way to leave the scene. Sure, an argument can be made about whether or not they created or followed the trends, but they were the gold standard in music for quite a while.

- Jimmy Buffett belongs there mostly due to his fans. Jimmy has never pretended to be a big star, realizes his musical limitations, and tries to be inventive within the genre, but his fans goes bonkers over every little thing he does. I ceased going to his shows waaay long time ago because they could put a boom box playing Buffett tunes up on stage and 3/4 of the people wouldn't notice.

- Eric Clapton belongs here. He did some incendiary guitar work back in his Cream/Blind Faith/Derek and the Dominoes days, but has settled into a comfortable "pretty good" groove. He is the Don Sutton of rock making beer commercials. He tries to go back to his blues roots but being a megamillionaire makes it tough to have the blues.

- It's hard to include the Sex Pistols, Clash, Ramones, etc. on this list because they never pretended to be a big deal (well maybe the Clash got pretentious with their revolutionary stance). They all had a new attitude but musically weren't much. And burned out quick.

- Neil Young tries hard to stay current and I can't include him here. He's reinvented himself several times over. His attempts at new stuff aren't always successful, but at least he *tries* something new and takes chances.

- The Queen discussion is interesting. I've never been a huge Queen fan and thought their top 40 stuff was interesting but that's about it. I can't overrate them because I never thought all that highly of them to begin with.

- A band not mentioned but belongs on the list is Aerosmith. They've made a long career out of being a Stones ripoff.

- One guy that definitely does not belong is Bob Dylan. I try to catch one of his shows every year and the guy continues to amaze me with his efforts at reinventing himself time and time again and trying to keep his songs fresh and inventive. Sometimes he has off nights, but he is constantly on the road and I think we all fail to realize the national treasure we have in Dylan and his chronicles of the times.

savafan
07-26-2005, 10:34 AM
- A band not mentioned but belongs on the list is Aerosmith. They've made a long career out of being a Stones ripoff.



I believe Ravenlord mentioned them.

As for your signature line, I've been to a Kiss concert. My parents took me when I was five years old. The memory of it is still burned in my head as for how great a show it was.

Roy Tucker
07-26-2005, 10:57 AM
I believe Ravenlord mentioned them.

As for your signature line, I've been to a Kiss concert. My parents took me when I was five years old. The memory of it is still burned in my head as for how great a show it was.
Missed Ravenlord's mention. Whoops.

My sig is a line from a Jimmy Buffett song. We were in Florida on the beach last week and I was listening to his songs ("Boats, Beaches, Bars & Ballads") with my feet in the Gulf, sweating up a storm, and drinking a beer. I wanted something to remind me of my vacation just a little longer. So still listen to Buffett. I guess I'm a dinosaur.

NJReds
07-26-2005, 11:03 AM
Interesting thread -- surprised to see three of the "big four" (Beatles, Zep, Stones, The Who) mentioned. I guess The Who wins out for not getting any "overrated" votes.

I was never a big fan of the Beatles, but there's no denying their impact, and it's hard to say a band that's been around (and popular) for almost 40 yrs. is overrated (Stones).

I like some of Queen's stuff, and Mercury has an amazing voice, but I understand why a lot of people would consider them overrated because they're known for a very short list of songs.

One band I haven't seen listed: The Grateful Dead -- maybe I don't get it because I'm not drugged up, but I don't get it.

RFS62
07-26-2005, 11:13 AM
Adam Dunn.


No wait, wrong thread.

NCRed
07-26-2005, 11:18 AM
Hands down
U2

savafan
07-26-2005, 11:22 AM
One band I haven't seen listed: The Grateful Dead -- maybe I don't get it because I'm not drugged up, but I don't get it.

I mentioned The Dead, because I don't get it either.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 11:28 AM
All I know... is Neil told me. ;)
D'ems fightin words, mistah!

(Card carrying member of the 'Neil Peart Is God' club...)

registerthis
07-26-2005, 11:30 AM
Hands down
U2
I agree--and like I said, I even like a lot of their stuff.

But "pretentious" doesn't even begin to describe Bono. And the music is average at best.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 11:30 AM
I mentioned The Dead, because I don't get it either.

Pretty much any band that puts its lifestyle or politics before songwriting gets my vote for crapsteak of the year. Just write a good song, ya goof!

westofyou
07-26-2005, 11:32 AM
I mentioned The Dead, because I don't get it either.
Skippin' through the lily fields I came across an empty space,
It trembled and exploded, left a bus stop in it's place.
The bus came by and I got on, that's when it all began,
There was cowboy Neal at the wheel of the bus to never ever land.

RedsBaron
07-26-2005, 11:58 AM
Adam Dunn.


No wait, wrong thread. :laugh:

pedro
07-26-2005, 12:12 PM
D'ems fightin words, mistah!

(Card carrying member of the 'Neil Peart Is God' club...)

You have your Neil, we have ours. :)

Rojo
07-26-2005, 12:21 PM
Chili, great call on REM. The SECOND most enduring mystery of our time is why "Losing My Religion" was such a monster hit.

pedro
07-26-2005, 12:22 PM
Neil Young??? I've had my guitar fall off its stand and make more interesting sounds than Neil Young has. The guy is the epitome of the one trick pony.

I certainly can understand not liking Neil. He does have a pretty bad voice and the drummer for Crazy Horse is AWFUL, but I don't think the "one trick pony" label is accurate. Neil has as varied a catalog of albums as any artist out there.
Sure he's not a technical wizard on guitar but the has a hell of a feel for the thing. You ever see Neil live? He plays acoustic, he plays electric, he plays harmonica and piano. He's actually pretty versatile although he isn't a virtuoso on any of it.

Not to mention that he is one of the great rock lyricists IMO.

Rojo
07-26-2005, 12:47 PM
Neil Young??? I've had my guitar fall off its stand and make more interesting sounds than Neil Young has. The guy is the epitome of the one trick pony.

We'll just have to go to our neutral corners on this one. The thing with NY is his guitar DOES sound like it fell of its stand -- and that's what makes it interesting. He's the anti-Joe Satriani.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 12:47 PM
You have your Neil, we have ours. :)
Ah, but see, MY Neil can actually play. ;)

westofyou
07-26-2005, 12:50 PM
Ah, but see, MY Neil can actually play. ;)

Songs with an Ayn Rand theme have small legs, Thrasher still makes me cry 27 years later.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 12:50 PM
We'll just have to go to our neutral corners on this one. The thing with NY is his guitar DOES sound like it fell of its stand -- and that's what makes it interesting. He's the anti-Joe Satriani.
But the diff is I don't hear much actual *talent* in NY's playing. You can be talented and not play like Satriani--I think Tom Morello, or the Edge, is a good example of that. Johnny Marr too--not flamboyant, not over done, but as a good a guitarist as there is out there.

But Neil Young's playing strikes me as amateurish and poor strictly because it *is* those things--and I don't believe intentionally. I just don't think he's very good. Thus, the "overrated" label.

But, of course, everything musically-based is subjective. So, we're just going to (as you put it) agree to disagree on this one.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 12:52 PM
Songs with an Ayn Rand theme have small legs, Thrasher still makes me cry 27 years later.
Meh, he left the Rand-themed songs behind long ago. Besides, I admire him for his playing ability--not necessarily his lyric writing, which can alternate between sublime and gut-wrenchingly awful, sometimes on the same album.

westofyou
07-26-2005, 12:55 PM
Playing is one thing, I know lots of players who couldn't craft a song if their life depended on it.

Neil writes beautiful music that goes beyond his dirty, sloppy chord action on Sedan Delivery... which by the way is totally awesome too.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 12:59 PM
That's why NP doesn't write the music, Geddy and Alex do.

Roy Tucker
07-26-2005, 01:01 PM
Songs with an Ayn Rand theme have small legs, Thrasher still makes me cry 27 years later.
And here I thought it was just me.

CrackerJack
07-26-2005, 01:04 PM
Hands down
U2

Can't agree! Lately, yes, their new CD is terribly overrated IMO and I am long-time U2 fan of the highest order.

If anything U2 is underrated and has been since their inception to an extent.

No rock band can even touch them in the last 20+ years. They are the Stones of our generation - continually reinventing themselves and evolving and being ultra creative with incredible talent and drawing sold out crowds at huge stadiums that no other band could ever do today on a consistent, long term basis.

Bono's act is old and tiresome and ridiculous at this point - he fashions himself as Jesus (with his huge audience and charitable nature that's ok to an extent) but he's just not cool anymore.

Yet I think it's easy to wear all black and try to look scary and evil and create angry music for the waywards kiddies - but I truly admire musicians who aren't afraid to influence people positively and do it well without being cheesey. Something U2 has done for a long time and not many others are capable of doing the same - I truly admire that.

westofyou
07-26-2005, 01:08 PM
That's why NP doesn't write the music, Geddy and Alex do.

I'm sure Neil and Rush could get together and talk some hockey too.

This could go back and forth all day, simply put I can't imagine my life without Neil Young. I've been listening to him for 30 plus years, I've seen him a dozen times or so (broke my ankle at his 85 Riverbend concert) Lived in the same town as him etc... plus Natural Beauty is a beautiful song that doesn't even have one electronic instrument in it.

wheels
07-26-2005, 01:11 PM
My Dad listens to some Neil Young album or another every Sunday morning.

The only one I don't really kinda like is Harvest Moon, but I could probably still sing along with every song.

It's weird how Neil Young kinda weaseled into my conciousness.

westofyou
07-26-2005, 01:14 PM
It's weird how Neil Young kinda weaseled into my conciousness.

Someone and someone were down by the pond
Looking for something to plant in the lawn.
Out in the fields they were turning the soil
I’m sitting here hoping this water will boil
When I look through the windows and out on the road
They’re bringing me presents and saying hello.

Singing words, words between the lines of age.
Words, words between the lines of age.

Rojo
07-26-2005, 01:15 PM
But Neil Young's playing strikes me as amateurish and poor strictly because it *is* those things--and I don't believe intentionally. I just don't think he's very good. Thus, the "overrated" label.

I agree that Young probably couldn't break out the chops, even if he wanted to. The thing is, I'm sure he doesn't want to. And I'm sure that nobody else does either. Virtuosity is dull. And it aint' art.

wheels
07-26-2005, 01:17 PM
For all of you "The Beatles started everything" folks, try this link.

Click on the soundfiles, listen.

Contrary to the writeup, alot of those bands predate the Beatles, especially the more psychadelic stuff. There were bands stretching the limits in England way before the Beatles became Hindus or what have yous.

www.rhino.com/store/ProductDetail.lasso?Number=76787

savafan
07-26-2005, 01:18 PM
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers anyone? John Cougar...er, John Cougar Mellencamp...I mean John Mellencamp....or John Mougar Cellencamp...you know, that guy who's like rock and country, we'll call it crock, and he loves Indiana and everything, covers Van Morrison songs...you know, that guy?

wheels
07-26-2005, 01:21 PM
Virtuosity is dull. And it aint' art.

Man!

There's no way I could agree more with anything that's ever been said.

Ever.

Thank you.

Johnny Footstool
07-26-2005, 02:05 PM
That's because the Clash weren't punk. They left that label behind with Give 'Em Enough Rope, and only got better from there.

All their stuff pretty much sounds the same to me -- bad.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 02:14 PM
Virtuosity is dull. And it aint' art.
Really, how could you possibly defend a statement like that? So, once you get "too good" at your instrument what you do is no longer art? That's just preposterous.

Rojo
07-26-2005, 02:18 PM
Really, how could you possibly defend a statement like that? So, once you get "too good" at your instrument what you do is no longer art? That's just preposterous.

Maybe I should've said "virtuosity alone". Coltrane is a virtuoso but he plays with feeling and intuition. Otherwise you have a palor trick and how inspiring is the world's fastest typist.

wheels
07-26-2005, 02:21 PM
If you try to survive on virtuosity alone, you'll end up sounding like Phish or Joe Satriani.

Onanists unite!

registerthis
07-26-2005, 02:38 PM
Maybe I should've said "virtuosity alone". Coltrane is a virtuoso but he plays with feeling and intuition. Otherwise you have a palor trick and how inspiring is the world's fastest typist.
OK, *that* I can agree with--and it's why I seriously dislike joe Satriani. Simply playing quickly or proficiently for its own sake doesn't gain a lot of artistic merit in my book. But there are many, many musical virtuosos who are fantastic artists as well.

All of this, mind you, takes places around the subjectiveness of art. Art is what you think it is--see John cage's "4:33" (http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/silence.html) for more on this...

westofyou
07-26-2005, 02:42 PM
All of this, mind you, takes places around the subjectiveness of art. Art is what you think it is--see John cage's "4:33" for more on this...

Please, only if Merce dances to it.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 02:46 PM
Maybe I should've said "virtuosity alone". Coltrane is a virtuoso but he plays with feeling and intuition. Otherwise you have a palor trick and how inspiring is the world's fastest typist.

True dat. Is Shakespeare great because he mastered the form of the sonnet or because he revolutionized the form of the sonnet?

There's a bunch of people who could play the hell out of an instrument but didn't bleed the life out of it: Zappa, Greg Allman, Eddie Hazel, Paul Thompson, Buddy Rich, Coltrane (as mentioned), Cannonball Adderly, Milt Jackson, Miles Davis, Ornette Coleman, Charles Mingus, Willie Nelson (one of THEE most underrated guitarists in musical history). The list is endless. Virtuosity takes you roughly a third of the way to greatness; the rest is idiosyncracy, how much you stretch the form to do your bidding without utterly dissolving into chaos. That's art.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 02:52 PM
All of this, mind you, takes places around the subjectiveness of art. Art is what you think it is--see John cage's "4:33" (http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/silence.html) for more on this...

Some smart guy said, "All art is context."

Put that urinal in a museum. Voila, art!

I agree and disagree. Art is subjective, but there are rules, said Kant, a posteriori.

Blimpie
07-26-2005, 02:54 PM
- Eric Clapton belongs here. He did some incendiary guitar work back in his Cream/Blind Faith/Derek and the Dominoes days, but has settled into a comfortable "pretty good" groove. He is the Don Sutton of rock making beer commercials. He tries to go back to his blues roots but being a megamillionaire makes it tough to have the blues..By any description of the word "overrated"--Eric Clapton does NOT belong on this list. Being able to write, perform or simply enjoy listening to The Blues is in no way correlated to the amount of money one possesses. He has lived a long and troubled life fraught with abandonment, drug addiction, personal insecurities and death. I dunno, but I would wager that Clapton would gladly sacrifice all of his past commercial success in order to hold his son one more time. But, I guess, you feel that his bank account balance mitigates any ability he might have to know about "the real blues..." :rolleyes:

pedro
07-26-2005, 02:54 PM
FCB, glad to see you give the props to willie. He may not be able to keep time but he is one of the most lyrical guitar players ever. Just beautiful.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 02:56 PM
FCB, glad to see you give the props to willie. He may not be able to keep time but he is one of the most lyrical guitar players ever. Just beautiful.

Damn straight. His voice and picking often bring tears to my eyes.

westofyou
07-26-2005, 02:58 PM
Damn straight. His voice and picking often bring tears to my eyes.
He offered my friend a mustache ride.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 02:58 PM
He offered my friend a mustache ride.

Even better.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 03:06 PM
I agree and disagree. Art is subjective, but there are rules, said Kant, a posteriori.
And what might those be?

What rules could you possibly attach to a field that, by its nature, is about pushing boundaries and definitions? Some people hear Neil Young and think "talented artist". others hear him and think "talentless hack".

There is plenty of garbage created under the name of "art" that I don't think much of. Twisted hunks of metal labeled as a "sculpture". But who am I--or anyone, for that matter--to make the determination as to what is art and what is not? I'm not going to make that call for someone else, no matter how right I may believe my opinions to be.

Cage's piece was about this very topic--how do you define the boundaries of art?

westofyou
07-26-2005, 03:09 PM
Even better.

The same day she hit Neil Young in the head with a hackey sack

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 03:15 PM
And what might those be?

What rules could you possibly attach to a field that, by its nature, is about pushing boundaries and definitions? Some people hear Neil Young and think "talented artist". others hear him and think "talentless hack".

There is plenty of garbage created under the name of "art" that I don't think much of. Twisted hunks of metal labeled as a "sculpture". But who am I--or anyone, for that matter--to make the determination as to what is art and what is not? I'm not going to make that call for someone else, no matter how right I may believe my opinions to be.

Cage's piece was about this very topic--how do you define the boundaries of art?

Is the shape of a crab nebula art? Is a solar flare art? Is the world art?

While the boundaries are subjective, there is chaos and there is order. Somewhere in the tension between those two things good and bad art are made. And our determinations(our "rules," if you will), our terms for praising or condemning an artwork are a posteriori, after the fact. There is no a priori "recipe" for art, for instance. Some other smart guy said, there is good art, there is bad art, then there is chaos. You know it when you see (hear, taste, smell) it.

My personal belief is that for something to be art, the human will must have been exerted upon nature in some fashion. But I'm anthropocentric. I can't go around naming things like Adam and call them art willy-nilly.

guttle11
07-26-2005, 03:27 PM
The Doors- ok, but not that good
U2- their lastest album is a piece of trash, yet it wins awards??
Stones- tough one, but not as good as Beatles-which they are rated by most
Elvis-worlds first pop star. not that good, popular because of contraversy
Blink 182- nothing good since Budda

Roy Tucker
07-26-2005, 03:27 PM
By any description of the word "overrated"--Eric Clapton does NOT belong on this list. Being able to write, perform or simply enjoy listening to The Blues is in no way correlated to the amount of money one possesses. He has lived a long and troubled life fraught with abandonment, drug addiction, personal insecurities and death. I dunno, but I would wager that Clapton would gladly sacrifice all of his past commercial success in order to hold his son one more time. But, I guess, you feel that his bank account balance mitigates any ability he might have to know about "the real blues..." :rolleyes:
Easy there cowboy. I'm a Clapton fan too. I just don't think he's turned out anything truly consequential since the mid 70's and has rested on his laurels for a long time. I'm guessing you don't. That's all cool with me. Different strokes.

Your blues comment is an interesting one and caused me to think about it for a while.

I feel that great art often comes out of great talent fused with great suffering or conflict. Not always, but there is a big correlation there. I think Clapton through his youth and into young adulthood was going through a lot of turmoil and that was reflected in his works. I think his early stuff was great. Not just a groove or pretty good, but *great*.

But I also think all that struggle and turmoil often resolves itself into a more healthy and constructive (and positive) lifestyle. Much better for the person, much better for all their loved ones, but it does take the edge off their art. I think Clapton's life has taken this path and I'm happy for him it has.

When I listen to a blues record it's got to have authenticity. Like anything by Robert Johnson or John Lee Hooker. Maybe it's just me, but knowing Clapton is sitting on a pile of cash while singing the blues takes the edge off that credibility. He has to reach a long ways back in his life to pull that authenticity out. He makes noble and honest efforts, but it's too far IMHO.

registerthis
07-26-2005, 03:27 PM
I believe each individual has their own definitions for what does and does not constitute a work of art.

I do not, however, believe that a universal standard does - or can - exist.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2005, 03:32 PM
I do not, however, believe that a universal standard does - or can - exist.

I suspect not either. But I know when I see bad art why it's bad art, and I know when I see good art why it's good art. I know there are standards, I just don't always know how they can be applied or when or why. Because what makes something work in one piece of art can ruin it in another. It's very tricky.

Michael Allred
07-26-2005, 04:57 PM
Just for the heck of it, a press release put out yesterday:


QUEEN + PAUL RODGERS TO ROCK IN THE U.S.A.
AT MEADOWLANDS AND HOLLYWOOD BOWL
WITH DATES COME 2-CD SET AND DVD

They’ve sold more than 200 million albums, released more than 50 CDs and totaled up an enormous collection of #1 hits around the world. Now, as Queen + Paul Rodgers, they’re bringing their sold-out European arena concert show to North America.LONDON, July 25, 2005 _ Legendary rock icons Brian May and Roger Taylor of Queen, and Paul Rodgers of Bad Company and Free, just off a sold-out, 32-date arena tour of Europe under the banner of Queen + Paul Rodgers, are headed for the U.S. later this year. They will bring their acclaimed show to the U.S. for two rare performances this fall, touching down on each coast before heading out for a stadium tour of Japan.

Queen + Paul Rodgers today confirmed much-anticipated shows for October 16 at Continental Airlines Arena (The Meadowlands) in East Rutherford, N.J., and October 22 at the Hollywood Bowl in Hollywood, Calif.

Tickets for the Continental Arena date will go on sale at 10 a.m. EST on Saturday, July 30, and for the Hollywood Bowl date at 10 a.m. PST on Sunday, July 31. Tickets can be purchased via Ticketmaster or http://www.queenpluspaulrodgers.com, http://www.queenonline.com, or http://www.paulrodgers.com. (Check the Web sites for information on pre-sales and special VIP ticket opportunities.)

Following the pair of U.S. dates, Queen + Paul Rodgers will continue on to Japan, where their dates include the Super Arena in Saitama on October 26 and 27, the Dome in Nagoya on November 1, and The Dome in Fukuoka on November 3.
It’s been 23 years since Queen played concerts in the United States – in 1982 they sold out a 30-date arena tour.

During the following four years, the band defined stadium rock around the world, with mega-shows throughout Europe, Japan, South America and Australasia.

The glory that was Queen during those record-breaking years – at Brazil’s Rock in Rio Festival (January 1985) the band reached a record-setting audience of more than 350,000 in a single show – would never again be seen in the U.S. In 1986 lead vocalist Freddie Mercury was stricken with the then-relatively unknown HIV/AIDS virus. Without the benefit of modern retroviral treatments, Mercury died of an AIDS-related illness, in 1991. Since Queen stopped touring North America in 1982, an entire era of subsequent Queen anthems has been lost to those audiences, only now to be discovered, with the 2005 dates.

“I never thought I would be doing this again,” said May. “I was always against the idea of putting someone in there trying to impersonate Freddie in any way. Then suddenly I’m looking at this guy who doesn’t in any sense try to take the place of Freddie. He comes from his own place musically and we can reinterpret these songs with someone who understands us – the songs would mean something new.”

The collaboration was cemented last fall when May, Taylor and Rodgers performed in public together for the first time, bringing the house to its feet at the first annual U.K. Music Hall of Fame Awards in London. They served up blistering versions of “We Will Rock You,” “We Are The Champions” and the finale, “All Right Now.”

“There was a natural chemistry between us when we performed together in London,” said Rodgers. “The idea took hold for us to do something together after that, and the momentum has taken on a life of its own.”
Taylor noted: “Paul is one of the people who’s influenced so many of the singers out there at the moment, and Freddie was a great fan of his. I always hoped we would tour again, and I’m thrilled we’re doing it. After all, it’s our profession; it’s what we do and what we’re good at.”

The Independent in London commented in a review: “All right now – even without their killer queen. There was a kind of magic in the air when Queen played their first concert since 1986…. Rodgers gives good front-man…. Queen remains a right royal treat.”

“ ... a marvelous night that ranks as one of the gigs of the year,” added The Guardian newspaper in the U.K.

Queen was formed in 1971 and spent the next 20 years writing and recording such multiplatinum albums as News of the World, The Game (#1 for five weeks), A Night at the Opera, Classic Queen and Live Killers. According to the book of “British Hit Singles & Albums,” published by Guinness World Records, Queen recently overtook The Beatles as the most successful albums artist in U.K. chart history. They scored 1,322 weeks on the U.K. albums chart, 29 weeks more than The Beatles and 42 weeks more than Elvis Presley.

As of June 2005, according to the RIAA, Queen had sold more than 31.5 million albums in the United States, ranking them the 50th-biggest-selling artist in the States. Foo Fighters Dave Grohl and Taylor Hawkins inducted Queen into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.

Paul Rodgers’ voice is one of rock’s platinum assets. As a multi-instrumentalist and songwriter, Rodgers has written, produced and recorded some of radio’s biggest hits. He first exploded onto the music scene at 18 with “All Right Now,” written by Rodgers/Fraser, then in Free. The song became a #1 hit in 20 territories and in the 1990s was awarded the Multi Million Award by the British music industry for reaching two million radio plays in the U.K. ASCAP recognized “All Right Now” for passing one million radio plays in the U.S. The members of Queen have long cited Free’s Fire and Water album as “one of our bibles when we were starting off.”

In 1973 Rodgers formed Bad Company with guitarist Mick Ralphs. They wrote, produced and recorded six multiplatinum albums in five years, including such global hits as “Feel Like Makin’ Love,” “Can’t Get Enough,” “Rock and Roll Fantasy,” “Shooting Star” and “Bad Company.” Rodgers played guitar and piano on several of these recordings.

Rodgers partnered with guitarist Jimmy Page in the mid-’80s as The Firm. They released two CDs, with singles “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Radioactive” written by Rodgers, and had two top-grossing world tours.

Since the ’90s, as a solo artist, Rodgers has been honored with a Grammy nomination for his Muddy Water Blues album and worked with Jeff Beck, Joe Walsh and, most recently, Aretha Franklin, The Temptations and The Four Tops for their TV/DVD special, “From the Heart,” which celebrated the Tops’ 50th anniversary.

Between them, Queen and Paul Rodgers have released more than 50 albums during their long careers and sold in excess of a staggering 200 million records.

Queen + Paul Rodgers concerts will feature songs from both catalogs. The set list has showcased such Queen mega-hits as “Crazy Little Thing Called Love” and “Another One Bites the Dust,” plus “We Are the Champions” and “We Will Rock You,” both anthems in the sports world, and the six-minute opus “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which cracked the Top 10 twice: first on its initial release, in 1976, and again in 1992 when it appeared in a memorable scene from the comedy film “Wayne’s World.” The shows have also featured such Rodgers classics as “All Right Now,” “Can’t Get Enough,” “Feel Like Makin’ Love” and “Wishing Well.”

May (guitar and vocals), Taylor (drums and vocals) and Rodgers (vocals and guitar) are joined on tour by Danny Miranda (ex-Blue Oyster Cult) on bass, Jamie Moses (former Brian May band member) on second guitar, and Spike Edney, longtime Queen sideman on keyboards. (Though supportive of his band mates, Queen bassist John Deacon has elected to retire from touring.)

Queen + Paul Rodgers concluded their European tour this month with large outdoor concerts in Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands, and returned to London’s Hyde Park, where Queen performed a free show before a then-record crowd of 150,000 in 1976. This time their show, postponed a week by terrorist bombings, was dedicated to the city’s emergency workers.

Over the past four years, Queen has also successfully developed and launched their musical, “We Will Rock You,” around the world, in partnership with Robert De Niro’s Tribeca Productions. Now in its fourth sold-out year in London, it has also enjoyed successful runs in Spain, Australia and Russia, and is packing them in nightly in Las Vegas, Tokyo and Cologne, where it is the #1 German theatrical show. More than four million people have seen the production.

A double-sided Queen + Paul Rodgers single of “Reaching Out”/“Tie Your Mother Down” b/w “Fat Bottomed Girls” was released to radio earlier this month by Hollywood Records. It was recorded live May 9, 2005, at Sheffield Arena, in Sheffield, England.

The U.S. dates will be topped and tailed by the release of a live, two-CD set, Return of the Champions, released on Hollywood Records September 13, and a DVD set of the show filmed by renowned director David Mallet, released on October 24. They were also recorded and filmed, respectively, during the May 9 Sheffield Arena performance.

The DVD set will contain extensive bonus material, including rehearsal and backstage footage, and highlights of their European shows.

Hollywood Records is also issuing a Queen tribute album – Killer Queen – on August 9, 2005. Artists performing Queen songs include Gavin DeGraw (“We Are the Champions”), Jason Mraz (“Good Old Fashioned Loverboy”), Flaming Lips (“Bohemian Rhapsody”), Eleven featuring Josh Homme (“Stone Cold Crazy”), Joss Stone (“Under Pressure”), Los Lobos (“Sleepin’ on the Sidewalk”), Sum 41 (“Killer Queen”), Rooney (“Death on Two Legs”), Jon Brion (“Play the Game”), Be Your Own Pet (“Bicycle Race”), Ingram Hill (“’39”), Breaking Benjamin (“Who Wants to Live Forever”), Antigone Rising (“Fat Bottomed Girls”), Shinedown (“Tie Your Mother Down”) and “American Idol” finalist Constantine with the cast of “We Will Rock You,” from the Las Vegas production (on a second version of “Bohemian Rhapsody”).

At the end of the year, Queen will commemorate the 30th anniversary of their two-time hit, “Bohemian Rhapsody” (first released in the U.S. December 7, 1975), with a special anniversary DVD and CD of the band’s classic album A Night at the Opera.

cincinnati chili
07-27-2005, 12:34 AM
Really, how could you possibly defend a statement like that? So, once you get "too good" at your instrument what you do is no longer art? That's just preposterous.

Register, As someone who listened to nothing but Rush, Yes and other members of the "musical aristocracy" for about 12 months in high school, I have to say that I see what your debate partners are getting at. Neil Peart almost made me quit playing drums, since I knew I'd never have his chops. But then I got into the Beatles and other mortal forms of popular music, and realized that's silly. It's rock n' roll, not quantum physics.

It takes a lot of skill to juggle chainsaws, but it doesn't mean that I'd pay to watch someone do it.

Virtuosity is something OTHER MUSICIANS will always admire, but unless you can use your virtuousity to touch the hearts/minds of non-musicians, you're wasting your talent. Likewise, if an artist can make LASTING impressions on people by playing 3 chords, then god bless 'em.

cincinnati chili
07-27-2005, 12:40 AM
Chili, great call on REM. The SECOND most enduring mystery of our time is why "Losing My Religion" was such a monster hit.

That's the one that haunts me for its nothingness. "Bang and Blame" is another uber-turd.

Even the few REM songs I like could probably be a verse or two shorter and could use a bridge.

Mutaman
07-27-2005, 12:43 AM
By any description of the word "overrated"--Eric Clapton does NOT belong on this list. Being able to write, perform or simply enjoy listening to The Blues is in no way correlated to the amount of money one possesses. He has lived a long and troubled life fraught with abandonment, drug addiction, personal insecurities and death. I dunno, but I would wager that Clapton would gladly sacrifice all of his past commercial success in order to hold his son one more time. But, I guess, you feel that his bank account balance mitigates any ability he might have to know about "the real blues..." :rolleyes:

I had the pleasure of seeing both Muddy and The Wolf late in their careers, when both were at the point where they were making a pretty good living. I can definitly say that their financial status did not affect their ability to play the blues.

cincinnati chili
07-27-2005, 12:48 AM
The problem with rock is that it's a young man's (and woman's) game. Hang around in rock much past your twenties and it becomes very difficult to remain creative, inventive, and fresh. Some much of rock is attitude and attitude can't be faked. It has to be genuine. Otherwise you run a very real risk of appearing very stupid....

Being a huge music fan of the 50's/60's/70's/80's, it pains me to tag some of my favorite bands of those eras as overrated. For me, it's a little difficult to distinguish between "overrated" and "hung around way too long". Some comments...

- I can't include the Beatles since they were the Sandy Koufax of rock and got out pretty close to their peak value. "Abbey Road" is not a bad way to leave the scene. Sure, an argument can be made about whether or not they created or followed the trends, but they were the gold standard in music for quite a while.

- Eric Clapton belongs here. He did some incendiary guitar work back in his Cream/Blind Faith/Derek and the Dominoes days, but has settled into a comfortable "pretty good" groove. He is the Don Sutton of rock making beer commercials. He tries to go back to his blues roots but being a megamillionaire makes it tough to have the blues.

- A band not mentioned but belongs on the list is Aerosmith. They've made a long career out of being a Stones ripoff.




I highlighted some points from your post that I strongly agree with.

The Koufax analogy is dead ib. It may apply to Hendrix too. If John Lennon or Jimi Hendrix lived into the 1990's, it's a safe bet that The Beatles and The Experience would have reformed and whizzed all over their legacies with really bad middle-aged-rich-guy schlock.

See your first sentence for the reason why I think so.

M2
07-27-2005, 03:22 AM
Neil Young??? I've had my guitar fall off its stand and make more interesting sounds than Neil Young has. The guy is the epitome of the one trick pony. As far as Keith goes...some interesting riffs, perhaps--but writing some catchy riffs does not make you "adventurous". I've always found Keith--and the Stones in general--to be insufferably boring. Perhaps in their heyday in the late 60s-early 70s they were more interesting, but even then their output was perhaps slightly above average--and they're walking caricatures of themselves now.

I'll give you walking caricatures now. I'm guessing where our opinions part is you like noodlers and I like grinders. Young goes into a delerium and comes out with "Cowgirl in the Sand" and "Down by the River". He picks up a guitar and a song comes out. Not a self-indulgent solo, not an attempt to impress other noodlers, an actual song (often with a big hook).

Spent my formative music years in the 70s and 80s and I'm more convinced than ever that if you've heard one rockin' solo, you've heard them all. When I see a live show, I appreciate a certain amount of virtuosity like anyone else, but I care more about how good the songs are. Too often, for my tastes, the tunes are nothing more than window dressing for the guitarist's virtuosity. I find that insufferably boring.

You seem to like Rush. They make me want to bash my head in with a hammer. That's WAY too much pretention for me. I used to needle my Rush friends (of whom I've had many) that the band when to hell when John Rutsey left.


Sorry, but "Sgt. Pepper", "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Let It Be" trumps anything the Stones ever put out. The Stones tried to top "Sgt. Pepper" with "Her Satanic majesty's Request", and failed miserably. "Brown Sugar" is catchy, has a good beat, and that's really all I could say about it. The depth and layers of the songs the Beatles did during the second half of their career was practically unheard of for a band at that time. You take the Beatles away, you take half of today's pop music along with them.

Count me as one who doesn't consider "Sgt. Pepper" that much to top. IMO it's almost anti-rock 'n' roll and one of the Beatles' weaker efforts. Yeah, yeah, I know how much it's been deified and I grew up listening to it like everyone else. But if you take "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "Good Morning" off of it, it's a fairly toothless art project. Sets me to yawning. "Help from my Friends" is drivel and "When I'm Sixty-Four" reaches the "Theresa Brewer" mark on the cutesy meter (IMO).

GAC
07-27-2005, 08:08 AM
What about "A Day In The Life"?

redsfanmia
07-27-2005, 08:50 AM
I am a huge Beatle fan but I have not listened to Sgt Pepper in years it was never one of my favorites. The White Album, Abbey Road, Revovler, and Rubber Soul were much better in my opinion and even though its not better I enjoy Let it Be more that Sgt Pepper. That said Sgt Pepper was a landmark.

registerthis
07-27-2005, 09:32 AM
Register, As someone who listened to nothing but Rush, Yes and other members of the "musical aristocracy" for about 12 months in high school, I have to say that I see what your debate partners are getting at. Neil Peart almost made me quit playing drums, since I knew I'd never have his chops. But then I got into the Beatles and other mortal forms of popular music, and realized that's silly. It's rock n' roll, not quantum physics.

It takes a lot of skill to juggle chainsaws, but it doesn't mean that I'd pay to watch someone do it.

Virtuosity is something OTHER MUSICIANS will always admire, but unless you can use your virtuousity to touch the hearts/minds of non-musicians, you're wasting your talent. Likewise, if an artist can make LASTING impressions on people by playing 3 chords, then god bless 'em.
Well...if only other musicians admire it, what is the problem with that? The most talented and proficient musicians are frequently the ones that most people have never heard, simply because what they do goes over the heads of the vast majority of people. But it doesn't mean that it isn't *art*...and as Rojo later mentioned, you can be a virtuoso and still be accessible to the mainstream.

I seriously doubt that Adrian Legg, or Charlie Hunter, or Dennis Chambers, or what have you feel that they are "wasting their talent" by playing "above the mainstream". There's no inherent praise in simply playing TO the mainstream, either.

If you're a musician who appreciates precise playing, you're going to find similar artists entertaining. Likewise, if you're not impressed by 100 MPH solos and arpeggios, you're not going to appreciate musicians who do those things. Which gets right back to my original point: That all art is subjective depending on the person viewing/hearing/reading it.