5 Most Overrated Bands of All Time

347893 wrote:

Literally any rock band is overrated. Its not like it takes a ton of arrangement or creativity. It isn't an Orchestra. Its usually one basic beat lead by a guitar or drums, with 99% of the time terrible vocal abilities from the lead singer and even the background singers (if it even has any).

It's not fair to compare a rock group to a Symphony Orchestra, that isn't the question's intent.

There are a lot of extremely talented rock musicians who probably could have chosen a classical music path.

Bob Marley

My Chemical Romance

Rammstein

Billy Eilish

Dragonforce

1. Billy Joel! (Writes songs that sound like nursery rhymes for adults in Long Island)

2. Beatles (good but overrated)

3. The Who

4. AC/DC

5. Aerosmith

6. Foo Fighters

7. Queen

1. Marching Bands

2. Jazz Bands

3. Christian Rock Bands

4. Boy Bands

5. Jam Bands

347893 wrote:

Literally any rock band is overrated. Its not like it takes a ton of arrangement or creativity. It isn't an Orchestra. Its usually one basic beat lead by a guitar or drums, with 99% of the time terrible vocal abilities from the lead singer and even the background singers (if it even has any).

May I say that I notice some real potential here?

Assume a tone which conveys you are better than everyone else (and their worthless opinions), try not to be quite so coherent, and I think you could give Bad Wiggins a run for his money.

Just needs a little work on the delivery and you too could achieve that level of illustrious distinction!

I'll go with

KISS - what? 2 good songs? Tons of fashion and fireworks, no taste.

Radiohead - 1 good song and hours of endless boredom

Metallica - tons of attitude and fashion sense, ounces of songwriting.

Big Star. Please. They never got famous because they stunk.

Jimi Hendrix. Not a songwriter. A guitarist.

Pink Floyd. Not rock and roll so maybe shouldn't be here.

Steely Dan - ditto as for Pink Floyd

Pearl Jam. Not a bad band but overrated.

Foo Fighters - they seem to be considered the greatest non-metal rock and roll band still writing songs but come on they are terrible songwriters

And let me just say that anyone who says something like the Beatles are overrated...you need to sit down and have a rethink of your life. Was Leonardo overrated? Bernini? Michelangelo? When you are the absolute best ever at something you cannot be overrated.

Steely Dan is certainly not a traditional rock and roll band, but it's hard to argue that those guys aren't genius musicians.

If anything, I would put Steely Dan in the "underrated" category, they always seemed to fly under the radar compared to their talent level. And I'm not a die hard fan, they are probably in my top 100 of all time but are not in my heavy rotation, they are moody, acerbic, and a bit too jazzy for me so I have to be in the mood to listen.

agip wrote:

I'll go with

KISS - what? 2 good songs? Tons of fashion and fireworks, no taste.

Radiohead - 1 good song and hours of endless boredom

Metallica - tons of attitude and fashion sense, ounces of songwriting.

Big Star. Please. They never got famous because they stunk.

Jimi Hendrix. Not a songwriter. A guitarist.

Pink Floyd. Not rock and roll so maybe shouldn't be here.

Steely Dan - ditto as for Pink Floyd

Pearl Jam. Not a bad band but overrated.

Foo Fighters - they seem to be considered the greatest non-metal rock and roll band still writing songs but come on they are terrible songwriters

And let me just say that anyone who says something like the Beatles are overrated...you need to sit down and have a rethink of your life. Was Leonardo overrated? Bernini? Michelangelo? When you are the absolute best ever at something you cannot be overrated.

Hi, Agip!

Funny story about Steely Dan. For sure, they started out with Rock format for their songs, with their first two albums solidly in that genre (Can't Buy A Thrill and Countdown to Ecstasy) but each album became progressively less so. I remember a critic saying upon the release of their fourth album, Katy Lied, that they if they got any more more mellow, they would cease to exist.

And FWIW, I have heard a couple of their songs even played on light Jazz stations (Bad Sneakers and Doctor Wu).

But that said, I have to say, they were superb, regardless of the genre.

Likewise, Jimi Hendrix. If he is overrated, who would be his equal? And while he may not have written some of his most famous songs, any song he touched would never be the same. In many respects, playing covers worked to his strength in that his improvisational flourishes might get lost in a less well known song, if you follow my drift.

Yeah I hear you on Jimi. I suppose it depends on how much you value songwriting over musicianship. I tend to put songwriting at the very top so I don't value Jimi as much as I value a Townsend or McCartney.

To your argument, I don't think John Entwistle was much of a songwriter, or Ringo for that matter, but I value their musicianship greatly. So I'm clearly not being fair to Jimi in that way. I suppose I just don't like his music all that much.

I do wonder how much his appearance has made him beloved. If he dressed in jeans and a t-shirt instead of all that 60s psychedelic stuff would be be considered a cornerstone of the 60s? Probably not.

Remember that Ian Stewart was kicked out of the Rolling Stones because he looked like a shoe salesman, not a rock star. Appearance really matters and Jimi nailed that. Which I sort of hold against him, weirdly.

The Rolling Stones

agip wrote:

And let me just say that anyone who says something like the Beatles are overrated...you need to sit down and have a rethink of your life. Was Leonardo overrated? Bernini? Michelangelo? When you are the absolute best ever at something you cannot be overrated.

Eh, the number of people who think the beatles are indisputably the greatest of all time, as if that's even a thing with an objective answer, put them in contention for most overrated, even if they're your favorite

Quite a repertoire of songs he wrote,

To name just a few, Cross Town Traffic, Foxy Lady, Voodoo Child, IF 6 was 9, Purple Haze, Angel, and The WInd Cries Mary.

agip wrote:

And let me just say that anyone who says something like the Beatles are overrated...you need to sit down and have a rethink of your life. Was Leonardo overrated? Bernini? Michelangelo? When you are the absolute best ever at something you cannot be overrated.

First of all, both Da Vinci and Michelangelo cannot be the absolute best ever. So pick your GOAT. And there are many people who think neither is the best ever.

And I actually think most GOATs of any category are overrated. There are many people who believe they are the greatest ever, simply because other people say so. Pele and Jordan are perfect examples. And the Beatles are certainly among them. There are many people who assume they are the best ever, just because that's what they have heard from others. So just because you are the best ever, that does not mean you cannot be overrated. It could actually be the opposite.

Kiss

Aerosmith

Stones

Nirvana

Metallica

Surpsied how many people are putting Pink Floyd and the Dead on here. .

I guess thats the fun everyone has different opinins. I wanted to put the Beatles on here just cause of ppl on here comparing them to Michaelangelo lmao but they are still good and groundbreaking so I'm leaving them off

347893 wrote:

Literally any rock band is overrated. Its not like it takes a ton of arrangement or creativity. It isn't an Orchestra. Its usually one basic beat lead by a guitar or drums, with 99% of the time terrible vocal abilities from the lead singer and even the background singers (if it even has any).

This sort of stupid opinion is mostly held by people who are not creative and good musicians. Maybe they play the flute very well while reading music someone else wrote as part of a big orchestra, but they can't write a tune themselves and can't play a thing by themselves that makes anyone tap their feet or clap their hands.

No one who has ever tried seriously to make good music in a small ensemble could share this sort of dumb opinion.

leonardo could be the best painter, michelangelo the best sculptor. That's what I was getting at.

but obvi there is no objective way to prove best, sure.

I will say that having listened to pop music for 50 years and doing a lot of reading and observing....I don't think there's any serious way to say that the Beatles aren't the pinnacle of pop and rock and roll. Any other band's best songs would sort of equal half an album of Beatles songs. If you don't appreciate that or don't think they were great....there is something wrong with your ear. (not saying this about you - talking generally)

But you also said Kiss had two hits (They have volumes) and Metalilca is about fashion (they mostly wear street clothes)? Both of which couldnt be farther from the truth (regardless of whether they are overrated).

Beatles can be awesome but overrated at the same time. They were great pop song writers, possibly the greatest, but we act like they are musical virtuosos. How were the Beatles much different than say the Beach Boys? Churning out one catchy ditty at a time.

Classic.

the LR conclusion is that every single rock band sucks.

Furthermore, all runners are slow, everyone is stupid, and everything on earth sucks. Nothing is good and we should all just kill ourselves.

Lol

huh?

Here are Kiss's top 10 songs, back when charts meant something.

Beth

Forever

that is two hits. Two.

You want to go to top 20 singles?

add

Rock and Roll All NIght

hard Luck woman

Calling Dr Love

I was made for loving you

So that's 2 or 6, depending how you count. Please. That is not volumes.

As for metallica's clothing choices well that's a bit of a silly point on my part but all that black and hair and attitude...and formerly a lot of leather. But sure, fine, whatever on their clothes. I still say they depend a whole lot more on attitude than songwriting.