Mike Nesmith wrote quite a few Monkees songs, however, you're correct in that most of the hits were written by outside composers such as Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, Carole King, and Neil Diamond. Guess what, they actually didn't play on a lot of their records as well! However, they had the cream of the LA session players on those cuts - people like Gerry McGee and Louie Shelton.

What the Monkees were, if you strip away the Don Kirshner-isms, was damned good. Micky Dolenz has one great rock and roll voice. There's plenty of scorching rockers in their canon - ever listen to "She"? That song isn't exactly meant for teeny boppers. "I'm Not Your Stepping Stone" packs a wallop. Mike Nesmith's songs are pure proto-country rock - a couple of years before the Byrds and the Burritos.

Overrated act? Radiohead, they're good, but they're not gods.

Totally agree about Fleetwood Mac, but at the end of the day it's only dads who like them.

BBC 6 radio station ran a 'most overrated albums' feature last month:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/events/overrated/

Monkees - I know, I know. Cute. Funny. And... they didn't write their own material. Most of it was written by other people.

So what?

Seriously. So what? Almost nobody, before the Beatles, wrote their own stuff, and a whole lot of major musical talents AFTER the Beatles didn't either. Like 98 percent of Motown acts, for example.

It's the singer, not the song.

The other thing is the importance of the Sex Pistols. That's the reason they're rated so highly--not because of their talent or their songs, but because they pretty much singlehandedly founded the U.K. punk scene, and they certainly shaped its direction by virtue of their high profile. The Clash were the better band, oh Hell yes, and obviously had longer staying power. But the Pistols were the Founding Fathers of British Punk.

Thankfully they were lazy and arrogant so they didn't make it over here - Oasis.

The dictonary definition of overrated. Never had an original tune "borrowed" them from the Beatles, their attitude from the Stones and the three cords from Status Quo.

IF this comment has made you think about going to find out about this band. Don't bother.

Every band "borrows" from other bands. At least Oasis had the good sense to "borrow" from the best.

What drugs are you smoking? I'm not a Puffy/p diddy fan, but he does have "RHYTHM", not beat....that doesn't make sense....He is larger than life , because of his desire to succeed, and become rich doing it...
Please check yourself...add these over-rated bands/singers to your list:
Jennifer Lopez- Vocally challenge, best claim to fame (her butt, which is no bigger than mine)changes men like underwear...
Brittney Spears - No vocal range at all! Totally overrated ...
Ashley Simpson - OVERRATED... No vocal range...
Jessica Simpson- Although she has that All American Girl next door look, and can sing much better that Brittney on any given day...but overrated..including her horrible acting skills....

I don't think Kid Rock and Diddy are all that highly rated in the first place.

Fleetwood Mac is an interesting choice. They're not quite critics' darlings, but they are generally rated a step or two above their arena-rock peers.

Never Mind trhe Bollocks remains, for me, the one defining punk album, and "Holiday in the Sun" one of the two or three greatest songs of the era. If someone wanted to know what punk is, I'd point them to either that album or the Ramones debut to hear the purest example. I can't think of many other examples that sound so raw and so real.

There are plenty of acts out there much less original than Oasis. Oasis have never pretended to be anything other than a straight-forward rock 'n' roll band. Definitely Maybe was the kick in the face British music needed in the mid-90s, although everything since has been devoid of any real inspiration.

Can I throw the name Green Day in here?
They're re-treading 25-year-old influences and bolting on the kind of obvious political allegories that would make Joe Strummer turn in his grave.

regarding comment #1 from the Proprietor. remember "Goin' Down"? Mickey Dolenz sure pulled that one off in the vocals. Quite an exercise...

Scott - I think you and some of the commenters are conflating two different concepts of "overrated."

One concept is "popular even though not very good." That would apply to P. Diddy, Britney Spears, and the like. I think most people know that Diddy is a lame rapper, Britney a lame singer, and the Sex Pistols much more important for their place in history than for their actual music. All of those artists are culturally important in some way, however.

Often, though, when we talk about "overrated" we mean "critically overrated," as in, critics and cultural tastemakers exaggerate their talent. For example, Yashin says Radiohead is "good, but not gods." That's a matter of opinion and taste. Same with your view of Fleetwood Mac. I happen to disagree with you about Fleetwood Mac, and it would be interesting to discuss why you have your opinion and I have mine - that's why discussions of "overrated" are so interesting.

I'd say the Monkees don't fit either definition. If you think they were bad singers are sang bad songs, then you could say you have a valid opinion that they were overrated, but what you criticize them for is being "manufactured," which isn't really germane. They were (in my opinion and most people's) good singers with good songs, ergo not overrated.

My list of most overrated artists - as in, large masses of people think these artists are actually good and I think they're not good at all - would have to include:
- Madonna
- Oasis
- Whitney Houston
- The Cure

From dictionary.com:

Overrated - To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.
------------------
I think the bands I mention are both rated too highly among fans and critics and have their merits/artistic abilities oveestimated.


-----------------
I think you can separate the importance of an artist from the quality of the artist.

Sex Pistols are imporant for being controversial but are there songs themselves stand on their own? How about Dead Kennedys?

------------------
It's true the Monkees were not alone in singing songs written by others but they were a rare breed, no pun intended, because I don't think viewers of the show knew that.

So people rate them base partially on their acting and singing and songwriting when they didn't do two of the three.


Of course every list is subjective so feel free to list here - or start your own thread - of your own.


I agree Whitney Houston and Oasis would also be good contenders for this list.

Getting back to an earlier post about "borrowing" -- the Sex Pistols "borrowed" from the Ramones (their riff), the Dolls (their attitude), and Richard Hell & The Voidoids (their look). Still their importance had nothing to do with their "borrowing" any of the above. They were the voice of marginalized kids on the dole in the UK in '77. Influence! Not to be overlooked, or underestimated!

The Monkees don't belong here. They were in fact most excellent. You could bitch about the division of labor, but neither Frank Sinatra or the Supremes wrote their own songs. Does that make them illegitimate?

Outstanding choice of the Sex Pistols for #1 most overrated.

It's all about opinion and taste, when it comes down to it.

It is clearly the opinion of millions of record buyers that Mariah Carey is worth listening to. It's also clear that there are millions of punters with the exactly opposite opinion of Ms Carey!

Just as the Sex Pistols have hundreds of rock critics foaming at the mouth, there are hundreds more who'd gladly put the boot in.

Both these sets of people are expressing their opinion, it's just that the latter group is a little more wordy about it.

For me, the interest in articles like these is seeing where my own opinions differ and converge with the writer(s), and thinking about why that is.

Yeah, Monkees!

Most overrated: Pink Floyd, who leave me comfortably numb.

Whitney Houston may have emotional problems but how can anyone fault her singing?

She has a great voice, but like so many other "divas," she overdoes it when a simpler approach to a melody would've been just fine.

What are you doing even comparing the Sex Pistols to the Clash?

"Sex Pistols are imporant for being controversial but are there songs themselves stand on their own? How about Dead Kennedys?"

Shit yes: all of Never Mind the Bollocks still holds up extremely well, and about half the songs sound purely anthemic. I have less experience with the Dead Kennedys, but "California Uber Alles" has classic written all over it, and some would make the same case for "Holiday in Cambodia." Yes, all those are great songs. I don't agree with Jon Sobel that "the Sex Pistols [are] much more important for their place in history than for their actual music." Their "actual music" is fantastic, and I play it all the time.

I do fault Whitney Houston's singing. To me, she's a textbook example of someone with an amazing voice used without much soul. Same with Mariah Carey. I'd much rather listen to an imperfect singer with emotional power.

the Monkees don't belong here? on which record did they start playing all of the instruments? i was under the impression that session musicians handled most (if not all) of the heavy lifting.

menudo for beatles fans.

catchy tunes though.

Exactly who played what instruments on the records is irrelevant. The act was great, whatever the division of labor. Otherwise, are we going to put the Supremes on the overrated list? I'm sure the Monkees did more playing of their instruments than Diana Ross ever did.

The Supremes did the singing.

c'mon al, the Monkees were a construction for a television show.

The Monkees certainly did their own singing. Plus they did at least SOME of the playing and songwriting. That's more than any of the girls on the Supremes did.

But I'm saying that none of that matters. What's important is the end product, whoever exactly was responsible for what. "I'm a Believer" and "Stop in the Name of Love" were great classic records, however exactly you wish to divide the credit.

It's sort of like complaining that certain actors didn't actually sing in the great Hollywood musicals. Who cares whether it was Natalie Wood or Marni Nixon? What matters is whether it worked.

Mark: your Supremes contrast is inaccurate. The Monkees did their singing, just as the Supremes did. The difference is that the *band* called "The Monkees" was created for a TV show, just as N'Sync, the Spice Girls and other more recent acts were created for the pop market. And the difference *there* is that the Monkees had such great songs written for them (by Neil Diamond, among others) that they became enduring pop classics. (Also, the "act" was so successful that later on they learned to perform as a real live band, and did OK, from what I understand.) Originally people were fooled into thinking the Monkees were a band that came into being organically, but no one is fooled now, and it doesn't take away one bit from our enjoyment of their music.

Rodney: Recently one of the movie channels showed a version of "My Fair Lady" with Audrey Hepburn's own singing instead of Marni Nixon's voice which was dubbed in later - did you ever see this? Although Nixon was certainly the better singer and did an amazing job, Hepburn's singing was darn good and I found myself almost preferring hearing the songs in the actress's own voice. (Of course, Audrey Hepburn was so charismatic she could probably have sounded like a monkey on quaaludes, or Madonna without studio tricks for that matter, and I'd still have liked it...)

I do think the Sex Pistols were overrated relative to superior, more important, more influential bands like The Clash and The Ramones, but they were still a great band (for one record).

I disagree with basically all the bands listed as overrated in this post and the comments, and I'm someone who usually likes to make fun of mainstream music tastes. You're picking the wrong bands, though.

The Monkees were always tongue-in-cheek, doing TV comedy in addition to their music. I don't think anyone took them seriously as artists, but they had a couple of really good songs.

I'll grant you that maybe Kid Rock is slightly more seriously regarded, but barely. He's only a few years away and a few Southern-fried country-rock songs from being compared to Limp Bizkit.

Radiohead? The Cure? Give me a break. Those are great bands.

I agree with Pink Floyd as overrated. While you're at it, try The Who, The Doors and Led Zeppelin as well.

Beating up on classic rock is too easy, though. Come up with some names from more recently who get undeserved acclaim from critics and fans.

I'm sort of drawing a blank here.

That is all.

Recent bands? Are there any that have been rated highly enough to be overrated?

interesting discussion.

The Sex Pistols could be overrated in that in the general critical consensus they sit among the punk pantheon, and have even been nominated -- though not inducted -- into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, all based upon ONE actual album. Yet, as Rodney says, it's a torrential, roaring prodigious masterpiece and virtually every song holds up proudly and strongly. It's great rock 'n' roll that doesn't really sound like anything else: not hyper fast like the Ramones and early Clash, but seething and threatening and jolly about it at the same time.

A pretty good indication that the Monkees aren't overrated for me personally is that I loved them at the time as a kid, and love them just as much now. You can deduct points from the BAND standpoint in that they didn't play much on most of their hits, but they sang and were at the center of a great organization that may have been "fabricated" but pulled it off with style, humor and panache.

I have little or no opinion on Kid Rock and P Diddy Daddy, but you can't really talk about Fleetwood Mac as a single band: they were a succession of bands centered around the same rhythm section and (for most of the time) Christine McVie. I love some of the versions, am less excited about the brand post-Tusk, but while the album Rumors might be somewhat overrated, I don't think the band as a whole is

The Pistols were a one in a million lightning strike; perfect luck or perfect genius - take your pick. I still think their greatest accomplishment is writing a song about abortion ("Bodies") that can't be used by either the prolife or prochoice movements.

I can't speak about the Brit incarnation of Fleetwood Mac, but while we're on the subject of great pop songwriters and so forth (with regard to the Monkees) please consider the considerable skills of Lindsay Buckingham. Obviously he doesn't have the track record of the Beatles or Stevie Wonder or Prince, but at his best he clearly had that same sense of pop songcraft. The three Mac discs between 1975 and 1980 are awesome examples of a hitmaking machine working at full tilt, due in no small part to him.

The Sex Pistols are like appreciated art. You may not like it, but you have to appreciate how it defined everything that follows it. Most art critics don't love Cezanne, but they see how his work bridged that which came before it with Picasso. The only other difference I have with this list is Fleetwood Mac. Most of you are probably just too young to remember lyrics that tell a story.

Some qualifications.

Funny the Monkees should be overrated when, once, they were totally derided. I guess some overcompensation happened in between.

Yes, Pistols overrated - but not by that much. Marketed like the Beatles, they got through to America in a way a better band couldn't. All better bands owe them.

Fleetwood Mac, presumably the latter, pop-radio incarnation. Man, I always hated this bunch but, then again, I'm a guy. There weren't too many female voices heard on the "real rock" stations in those days and I suspect this group, making the cut, was a real relief to all the girlfriends dreading another block of 38 Special.

And (post '72, corporate) Pink Floyd is TOTALLY the fuck overrated.

the Monkees don't belong here? on which record did they start playing all of the instruments?

Headquarters, in 1967.

P. Diddy has no sense of beat? What exactly do you mean by that? The man produced some of the biggest (and most important) hip-hop records of the last decade and your criticism of him is that he has no sense of beat? Lyrically weak-minded, a horrible dancer, a shameless and cheesy self-promoter, I'll give you all those things and many more, but "no sense of beat"? Nonsense. Stick to rock music.

Recent bands? Are there any that have been rated highly enough to be overrated?

This depends on who you ask (as does this whole subject), but there's been a surprising backlash against Nirvana recently....

Others I'd add on reflection:
Madonna
Chicago ("Does anyone really know what time it is?"Yeah, I do, time for you all to shut up.



Ok, I'll change my complaint about P. Diddy to those faults Doug Smith described. I just know that when I hear him perform I cringe.
And when I hear compliments of him I think they have to be talking about some other guy.


I considered putting Nirvana on this list but I go back and forth on them.
I think they were way overexposes and overhyped but I also don't think it's
fair for me to fault them for that.

They wrote great songs but I also don't see them as the Second Coming, as some critics do.

This is all obviously subjective.

I happen to have an incredible amount of respect for the Clash - for their lyrics, their politics, for not doing silly reunion tours, etc.
I can't say the same for the Sex Pistols pre or post-Sid Vicious.

For me, the only thing sutprising about the Nirvana backlash is that it seems to be overdue. After it runs its course, maybe we'll see where Nirvana sits in the grand scheme of things.

Back to the overrated band business - T. Rex, anyone?

I'm going to add a clarification to the above:
(Correction: Diddy/Daddy has beat and rhythm - he just has no lyrical ability and is so pretentious and self-important in everything he does he makes Donald Trump seem modest.)

Ha! (to the Diddy/Trump connection)

1. R.E.M.
2. The Ramones
3. U2
4. Talking Heads
5. Nirvana

T. Rex -- oh, how the very name just fills the head with pleasant memories.

I have to disagree about REM and Talking Heads being overratd.

I agree, J.R., those are five truly great bands.

Big Al likes the Monkees 'cause they weren't "signifying" monkeys.

Sex Pistols don't belong on a list of overrated bands.

Kid Rock?! Puleeze. Who the hell "rates" him anywhere other than on the "Where Are They Now?" list?

Fleetwood Mac were great before they let those goofy witchy chicks in the band. [see Peter Green ((brit boy blues)) for more]

One of the best 'rock' movies ever: HEAD starring the Monkees.

=====

Shark's Top Five Overrated:

Nirvana - appealed to frustrated, suicidal, historically/culturally challenged teenangster motards

REM - unlistenable; pretentious, and terrible live musicians

U2 - boring, just boring

Ramones - stupid and boring

Radiohead - unbelievably BORING

[JR, great minds... etc., eh?!]

Almost made Shark's List:

Grateful Dead
Dave Matthews Band

I Prefer to think that the Clash are overrated while the Pistols are not. Steve Jones and Paul Cook made them a much more exciting band than the Clash. Rotten's singing brings to mind Dylan on the electic side of "Live '66" (or visa versa). Their demos, some found on "R 'n' R Swindle", add to their legacy. The Clash held little interest once they broke up (or once "Cut the Crap" came out). The only record I have any interest in listening to is "Give 'em Enough Rope".

"Head" is an unwatchable load of shit. But I'm truly impressed by your incredible variety of adjectives regarding U2, the Ramones and Radiohead.

Rodney, those bands are too boring for me to borrow your Roget's.

PS: re. Head -- wow, you're pretty astute when it comes to perceiving tongue-in-cheek statements.

No way, Shark. Compared to the Ramones, both the Sex Pistols AND the Clash are overrated.

feh.

The Ramones are the Arnold Schoenbergs of rock.

ie. highly acclaimed by critics and historians -- sounds like shit

U2, totally correct. I don't mind Edge ripping all of Keith (PiL) Levene's style but to throw Roger Daltry overkill vocals on top - make them go away. Give me Negativland.

I didn't realize that The Monkees were rated. I thought they were considered to be a corporate product (albeit with some good songs). I'd never rank them overrated until I heard people raving about them - and I guess I have now, on this board.

Puffy is no more or less talented than any "groundbreaking" hip-hopper of the last 15 years. Unhh, yeah, alright alright; put your hands in the air.

Pink Floyd is underrated in my book. If the Ramones are Schonberg, Pink Floyd is Wagner: idolized by a small following and ignored by the larger populace.

Whitney Houston is every bit as synthetic as The Monkees, except that Davey Jones can sing with more soul. That was harsh, but really, Whitney injects emotion in the most calculated way.

Jon,

Bizarre comment about The Cure being one of the bands you think are not good at all. To each his own, I suppose, but I can't imagine how anyone can really listen to them and draw that conclusion.

I tend to agree with Oasis and Whitney being overrated, though.

That's a good comparison, Sharky. (And I got it without your Cliff's Note, thanks.) But everybody knows that Randy Newman is the Arnold Schoenberg of rock. The Ramones are the Igor Stravinsky.

1. U2
2. U2
3. U2
4. U2
5. U2

Metallica

Thanks for all the great responses.

Incidentally today is my birthday.
I wrote a special bday message - summarizing what I learned during the last year - at my
blog.

The Monkees didn't play on their records, but neither did the Beach Boys for most of their careers. The difference between those two bands, of course, is that the Beach Boys produced a bona fide masterpiece album in "Pet Sounds" and a crop of fantastic singles as well, while the Monkees had some catchy tunes to soundtrack their TV show. They don't deserve to be overrated simply because not many people (aside from Rhino's reissues committee) give them much credit in the first place. Which is as it should be.

As for T. Rex, please. In the US at least, Bolan has hardly gotten his due, let alone crossed the line into "overrated" (the situation may be different in Britain).

I just realized I should probably be contributing to this discussion, too. So I'll take your Radiohead, sir, and raise you one Mars Volta. How about Joy Division, while we're at it?

Oh, and fucking Bright Eyes. Slaps some pedal steel and Emmylou Harris on his new album, and suddenly he's the new Bob Dylan? Fuck that. He's a mealy-mouthed lightweight who needs to stop confusing "songcraft" with "diary entries."

I have to agree with Godoggo's list (maybe with 3 and 5 switched).

Man, I'm going to be the last Monkees defender. Come on, guys! They did a few actual good albums! And they were the first rock band to use a Moog...

For newer ones, I'll nominate The Vines, The Killers, and Interpol. A lot of my friends swear by 'em and say they're the real deal, but much as I've tried to admire them, they sound like a lot I've heard before.

Vis-a-vis the choices in the article:

Sex Pistols earned every inch of their legend and then some. Musically, they may well be underrated. Johnny Rotten an anti-rockstar that so far has not been duplicated. Jones' economical playing wasn't sloppy, it was sharp. "Pretty Vacant" still gets me to drop everything and immerse myself. And I was a few years late getting into them.

Monkees: I agree with what Zach said. Except for Nesmith, they weren't musicians, they were actors. In a sitcom for teenyboppers. In some ways, it's a miracle that their best tunes are as good as they are. And I speak as a sympathetic non-fan.

Kid Rock: Is a poser and a loser, but I never heard anyone really claim he's great. He sold a fair number of records one summer, that's about it.

Puff Daddy: Again, I'm a non-fan. But I never really thought he was especially high rated, except by his fans.

Fleetwood Mac: Ain't just for daddies, although Yashin (comment #2) is probably more right than wrong. Nor were they a relief to only girl listeners (comment #35, Barry Stoller) circa late-70's Stevie Nicks really was one foxy hot chick whose voice got my adolescent motor running every time I heard it. After Tusk (which I liked a lot, unlike most people at the time), I didn't have much use for them. Overrated? I think they're rated fairly accurately by most sources.

Not to mention the early version of the band, with Peter Green (one of the best guitarists of the 60's) in it, with stuff like "Green Manalishi" and "Oh Well". That version of the group is very underrated in America, where they're not well known.

My votes for 1990's artists would be:
Nine Inch Nails (interesting, and sometimes good stuff, but not a body of work I return to often; for some, NIN is almost a religion)
The Cranberries ("Linger" is a guilty pleasure of mine; most of the rest gets on my nerves. Still, they earned accolades)
Sinead O'Connor (I still love Lion and the Cobra. When she got big in the early 90's, and gained acclaim, I thought she had lost it)
Counting Crows (They said they were the new Van Morrison, Bob Dylan, even. "Hangingaround" is a great anthem to doing nothing, but I never liked the "I want to be Bob Dylan..." one, or most of the others)

1980's:
Michael Jackson (Off The Wall and Thriller are good, maybe very good. That's all.)
Style Council (I never understood what people saw in Weller's fake Motown. I liked his fake mod stuff with the Jam a lot more.)
Culture Club (They said Boy George was the new Smokey Robinson. Not until he can do a believable "Crusin'" he ain't. I tolerated them, and rather liked "Church of the Poison Mind"; but never worked up the enthusiasm others had)
Sting: (Nothing worse than a snobbish middlebrow)
Dire Straits: (Knopfler can play a good guitar, but the band, except for Making Movies, could really get booring over the course of an album)

1970's:
Harry Chapin: (Ever sit through an entire one of his albums? Lyrically naive and disingenuous at best; maudlin and self-pitying at worst. Had a big cult.)
Jackson Browne: (Was ridiculously overrated at the time, but over the years, his reputation has caught up with him)
Kiss: (Their reputation has improved over the years, nobody took them seriously in the day. But a cursury listen to their sludgy albums and pedestrian riffs reminds me that it always was about the merchandise)
Jonathan Richman/Modern Lovers (from the 'you had to be there' files)

1960's
The Moody Blues (after 25 years of their stock declining, they're still somewhat overrated)
Ten Years After (fast, very fast)
Syd Barrett (colorful, whimsical, visionary, insane. But not a "genius")
Tommy. Before Tommy, the Who quite possibly was the best rock group of them all; absolute kings of the 45. Tommy is my 8th favorite Who album. I was already sick of it long before Townshend milked it to death in the 90's with the reformed Who and on Broadway.

1950's
None; almost everyone, including the mediocre ones, are pretty underrated now, by virtue of having been semi- or wholly-forgotten.

"Overrated" really is a tough category, because (as has been pointed out) it's hard to guage how well something is "rated", and how to compile a list even if you could. Is a mediocre band deemed great more egregious than a lousy band deemed good?

But an interesting discussion...

Zach---I'll spot you Bright Eyes---he can definitely come off as too precious and manufactured, in terms of being the next Dylan. But Joy Division? How much Joy Division have you listened to to form this opinion? And be honest. If you heard one song, and were turned off by Ian Curtis' voice, that doesn't count.

Clearly they were not overly popular, so all you could mean would be that they were critically overrated. Blasphemy.

1) U2
2) Nirvana
3) Pearl Jam
4) REM
5) INXS

Wow, I disagree with your #2 and #4. #3 might have some merit.

Was INXS ever really "rated" that highly?

McLaren lost control of the Pistols anyway. He didn't manufacture Johnny Rotten, as much as he wanted to. John Lydon outsmarted him, and manufactured Johnny Rotten himself.

I still maintain that Nirvana and Pearl Jam are overrated. Sorry, EB

No worries -- it's all subjective.

Which is why I fell in love with a Spin article that rated the Top 10 accurately rated bands of all time.

Van Halen was #1 -- rock on!

UAO - I'm surprised Ten Years After made your list. I didn't know that anyone else remembered them. Alvin Lee is one of my favorite guitarists, and while he can play (very) fast, I think of him as a bongwater blues man. Slow meandering solos with a lot of heart. Great tone. Their drummer was also particularly good.

Maybe I'm too loyal to good guitarists. I can't imagine Ten Years After (Lee) or Pink Floyd (Gilmour) as being overrated. The Grateful Dead: there's an overrated band with some average guitar work.

uao, you're one of the most consistently informed of all the music maestros on BC. Also one of the few whose opinions are actually informed, imo.

Extra points for mentioning Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac (see comment #48)

And VERY well done on the backward glance thru the decades; I'd say you've made a very defendable list --

...although the other night, I heard a song on the car radio -- **"Are You Sitting Comfortably" by the Moody Blues and -- during a minor acid flashback -- I thought, "damn, they were really pretty good."

** I must confess my emotions swung somewhere between a cosmic, groovy euphoria -- and a hilarious, hysterical comparison to The Thamesmen doing "Listen to the Flower People". [Spinal Tap]

aside: I saw the Moody Blues once -- and their sloppiness and incompetence LIVE is exceeded only by that of REM. (which says that they were a helluva a "studio band" -- I guess.)

Gotta run; I hear Timothy Leary's dead, so I gotta go ride my seesaw...

the two separate issues here are overrated by the public, ie sales not "justified" by artistic merit; and overrated by the general critical consensus.

So the real question would be, are there artists who are overrated by both the public and the critical consensus?

EricO, yer so level-headed; thanks for defining the criteria; guess that sorta helps in the pickin', eh?!

re:

1) overrated by the public, ie sales not "justified" by artistic merit -

Wow. So much crap, so little time. That would make quite a list in Shark's world!

2) artists who are overrated by both the public and the critical consensus

Bingo!

=====

PS: Hey Eric, didn't ya like my "Ramones/Schoenberg" line?!

that's a great line and works from the critics' side, but I think the connotation is a little off because Arnold is/was so inaccessible -- the critics admire him for being so rigorous and innovative rather than being actually listenable -- and the Ramones are very listenable and user-friendly, especially in retrospect. Their surf and girl group influences are very easy to hear now while they were harder to hear through the roar the first time around

Matt: ha, I knew that Joy Division thing would get me some controversy. I'll clarify: I don't really dislike the band per se, in fact I think "Love Will Tear Us Apart" is one of THE all-time great pop songs. It's just a perfect song.

But most of Joy Division's current stature, not just in critics' eyes but in every "alternative" college dorm room in America, is blown out of proportion. It's the Nirvana syndrome: small body of work, charismatic lead singer commits suicide, instant legend. The majority of their music just doesn't seem remarkable enough to me to justify the myth, therefore I consider them overrated. I don't know, for post-punk I'll take Gang of Four any day. Or James Chance, for that matter.

Public sales versus critical consensus - a whole other can of worms. Does the average public give a hoot about whether their fave band is overrated or not? I don't think so - otherwise, there would be a site called Blogpublics.

Joy Division - I always tell people that Closer is brilliant, but I haven't listened to it in years. Maybe that's an indication something is overrated - you feel obligated to defend its stature in spite of the fact you don't like it anyways.

interesting similarities between Joy Division and Nirvana - but from a conceptual standpoint a key difference is that Joy Division was truly sui generis: they sounded like nothing that had come before. Nirvana's sound was a briefly brilliant synthesis of punk, aggro rock, and roots music. Another difference, I think Joy Division is better in a collection setting whereas Nirvana is best understood and appreciated via a studio album, Nevermind

Rule of thumb: If you list a band here and nobody objects, they don't make the list.

Miles Davis was overrated.

John Coltrane was overrated.

Duke Ellington...pretentious piffle.

whatever.

It IS all subjective, right? I saw Kid Rock live last year, and I will say that he is a decent musician.

Still like U2 and Floyd too. : )

oh...and i forgot Tiffany.

I'm going to make one last Monkees comment here and shut up, or at least save it for my forthcoming post (inspired by this one), "Monkees Fandom: An Existential Crisis."

Where does this myth come from that the Monkees didn't sing on their own records? In fact, even on the ones where they didn't play any instruments, they did ALL the singing. There weren't any session singers, even in the background.

OK, I know, I know. Enough already.

Yeah, lay off the Monkees. Even if they are overrated, they aren't anywhere near the top five, or even the top fifty.

Besides, all was forgiven after Nesmith sang that "One Ton of Melon" segment in Elephant Parts.

shark: have you ever listened to anything by arnold shoenberg besides his serialistic work? I doubt it.

I dunno, the first time I heard Joy Division I thought, "oh, it's like the Velvet Underground with a drum machine." But I see your point: their roots were much less easily traceable than Nirvana's.

Actually, that brings up another question: in a musical era when more or less everything has been done before, isn't subjective "originality" the most overrated thing of all?

thanks mark saleski. Rarely do I read anyone brave enough to criticize Duke Ellington because of his iconic status.

Duke Ellington was just as much of a sellout as Goodman, Miller, or any of the others.

Louis Armstrong made swing famous and I'm willing to bet my life that he borrowed that pulse from some old blind man on the porch.

Jazz raped harmony from the inside out. Jazz players love to fiddle around with their rhythmic instincts but have little understanding of harmonic direction and its pertinence to enriching culture.

uh....that's a joke, son.

ha! then I retract that statement. And, father, luckily I have evaded your groupthink jazz sentiments. Duke Ellington was flavorless. He tipped his hat to himself.

the five most overrated bands are:

1. U2
2. Counting Crows
3. The Greatful Dead
4. Pink Floyd
5. The Smashing Pumpkins

The problem I have with listing U2 as an overrated band is that:

1. The hype about U2 has been so huge that no band in the world could live up to it, so they must be overrated.

2. If any band in the world could live up to the hype, that band would be U2.

It's tough being the greatest band in rock-n-roll.

the whole concept of overrated is overrated.

Mark, that's old news. You are an overrated rater of the overrated overrating methods.

yep, that's what they tell me at the overrater's club meetings.

phillip winn: you'll eat your words one day.

If U2 set up stage today in my back yard for their first gig ever, I'd still hate their sappy pompous noise.

In light of the 35th anniversary of her overdose today, I nominate Janis Joplin as a top 5 overrated artist.

Her and The Rolling Stones post-1985.

uao -- You did not, do not, and will never "have to be there" to get the Modern Lovers. I never heard that great first record until a few years ago, but it's become a permanent part of my playlist. "Roadrunner," "I'm Straight," "Pablo Picasso," and "Government Center" are all personal faves. Any song on that disc blows away anything on the radio now -- and that includes most of oldies radio.

nugget: "shark: have you ever listened to anything by arnold shoenberg besides his serialistic work? I doubt it."

Yes. Overrated.

BTW: When speaking of Schoenberg, I was referring to what he's 'famous' for -- his twelve tone crap.

=======

re: "I doubt it."

nugget, I know you like to ride my ass, but I was studying music and performing at *Univ. of N. Texas before you were born.

'kay?

'Kay.


* possibly the best music school in the world

hey shark. You do understand that serialism = "twelve tone crap"?

Just a clarification. I guess you missed that at the "best music school in the world." Did they teach Music History/Basic Theory?

Also, it would serve your purpose better if you had answered "yes, nugget, and here are some tonal pieces of Schoenberg's I've listened to and deem to be overrated." Instead, you tell me that you were performing before I was born. [edited]

And I'm curious now. On what instrument did you perform? What repertoire and were you solo? did you tour? Do you compose? Why should I take your pompous posts at face value?

Try to answer without one of those "I was a virtuoso at age three!!!" spiels. (it's too predictable)

"You do understand that serialism = "twelve tone crap"'

I understand perfectly. Apparently YOU didn't understand that I was answering your question.

====

re: a pissing match -- meet me behind the gym.

re. lectures on manners

Nuggie, "it would serve your purpose better if you had answered..." without "I doubt it."

See how that works?

Rodney: I felt a little guilty about including Richman, but I still think I'm missing something. I know a lot of people with taste like them.

Surely Steely Dan deserves the #1 spot here. Although they'd have to arm-wrestle it out with Nick Drake.

The Sex Pistols were giants. They changed everything. Were they coughed up by their own private version of the starmaking machine? Sure. But what McLaren did for them is no more than what any major label does for a new package. In a funny way, they're analogous to the Monkees (a guilty pleasure) -- both were monsters cooked up by Frankenstein publicists.

The Sex Pistols and the Monkees should not be on this list. The Sex Pistols were performance art, not music. The Monkees can't be overrated. They arguably had some of the best songwriters of all time working for them. Neil Diamond, Keith Richards, Carol Bayer Sager, Boyce & Hart - can't beat them easily.

Dave

"it would serve your purpose better if you had answered..." without "I doubt it.""

sharky, I didn't ask you to respond. It seemed you served my purposes by tacking on another lame "i'm better than you because..." post.


"I understand perfectly. Apparently YOU didn't understand that I was answering your question."

That's fair. [edited]

This is wild. This is like five times more popular than any other item I've started.

I'm printing out these comments to read after a birthday party tonite.


Dave, the Sex Pistols can be both performance art AND music.
That's like saying we can't evaluate Yoko Ono, Madonna or Back Street Boys because they are manufactured - Monkeees style? - or more about image than music.
Sure we can.

And this place would be less fun if we can't.

The Sex Pistols are music -- just ask anyone who still listens to them, most of who likely never saw them perform in their brief late 1970s heyday. Neil Diamond, Carol Bayer Sager, and Boyce & Hart had some hits; that hardly qualifies them as the best songwriters of all time. As for Keith Richards -- uh, are you sure you aren't thinking of Cliff Richards? Or some other Richards?

additionally. who said I was pretending to be civil? You can't wrestle and play at the same time?

I'm a little disappointed that I haven't inspired virtual violence by dissing Drake and The Dan. Come on: where are all you benighted groupies of the insipid?

DAC: I thought for a moment to hiss and boo, but truth is I only really like a couple of Nick Drake's songs. The rest make me suicidal. (or make me want to buy a VW)

I can't speak for Nick Drake, but critics have been saying Steely Dan are overrated ever since Can't Buy a Thrill, as well as that their tunes are just glorified Muzak. (Their songs do, in fact, go well with sitting in a dentist's office.) It comes with the territory for any group -- or duo, or whatever -- who is that smart, subtle and artsy; they likely know they are going to appeal to intellectuals, and that intellectuals will write reams of gibberish about the deeper meanings of their songs, largely because the songs really do seem to have a subtext, a less obvious story that's not being told. I love listening to them, and I'm always intrigued by what the real story is behind any given song, but negative responses kind of roll off my back, as I suspect they do Becker and Fagen's.

i love a good debate, yes, and this is plenty grounds for one, on acocunt of the sex pistols cannot be overrated. the whole POINT is that the songs were hangin in tatters, there was fuck all else to do, and damn it all to hell, folks were bein convinced rock stars grew out the arses a warlocks. here come these snotty smart-arse holligans sayin sod it, anyone can do it, and here's the hilarity, it sounds ALIVE and CRUCIAL in a way that the bloated pish they destroyed never did. not to mention the bands they inpsired, god almighty. and there WAS talent, Holidays In The Sun, God Save The Queen and Anarchy In The Uk prove this, and Bodies acts as a fine back-up. and then you just need to take a look at pIl for to see that johnny rotten / lydon was far from an idiot.
the point was we're pissed off and bored and sick to the guts of the shite on the radios and the tellys that go off and on all day. in the middle of a garbage strike, with the rats floodin the streets, in the middle of all sortsa horrible economic terrors, thank god for the Sex Pistols, not only are they not underrated, but also, they might be the most important band of the 20th century.
And i supose nows as good a time as any to admit that i wasn't there.
And i found the reunion shows shocking also. but i don't equate that at all with the band who spat Never MInd The Bollocks out back in the day.

argh, Zack in #64, i can't bear to hear this talk of Bright Eyes being over-rated. if there's a better record this year than Digital Ash In A Digital Urn i've yet to hear it, and god almighty, Lifted... is just beautiful beautiful beautiful, a stunning record, totally stunning and inventive and suprising. I'm Wide Awake is humane and fragile and touching. And i WOULD touch him. a whole lot. no, i'll hear no bad words against Oberst. lovely Conor, as he's otherwise known.

Shark, the University of N Texas music school is overrated.

(ack - I can't stop myself)

What a terribly lame premise for an
article. No real argument as to what
it is that makes these bands and/or
performers quote "OVERRATED" unquote.

This isn't writing,this is just flat out embarrassing.

What a sad stab at getting a wee bit of
attention tossed in your direction. As
soon as you post your "Opinion" ya know
full well and good that everyone and
his brother will want to put in their
two cents as well.

I do plenty of writing at length. Check out my posts on the media, book reviews, movies, etc.

I thought I'd try, as a lark, something different before taking a few days off from posting anything, short or long.

Glad others are appreciating the discussion.

Sorry Aaron, Joy Division may have made my overrated list on a technicality but nobody's going to change my mind about king of the haircuts Conor Oberst. Seriously, the dude has only written two songs: "Bowl of Oranges" and everything else.

hah Zach, my lord, "king of the hair cuts!"

but come now, come come, what about Let's Not Shit Ourselves, ten minutes of glorious acoustic rage, what about Going For The Gold, what about the humanity in it all, that totally naked fragility going on? you must admit that even if the music and such is not to your liking, the fella is writin some of the most beautiful words around. for sure, plenty times he's a touch self-indulgent. ok, a lot of times, but there's an honesty that sees it through even the most kinda cringey of moments. And "You Will. You. Will...etc" from off Lifted is just an astounding song.
"You say that i treat you like a book on a shelf,
I don't take you out that often cuase i know that i completed you"
that's just breathtakingly beautiful. which is why i hate him. and yet love his every befringed pore.

Steely Dan is definitely overrated.

As is Beck and Bright Eyes.

Modern Lovers and Jonathan Richman are underrated. Someone else can start that thread.:)

The single, all-time, #1 most overrated band in the history of rock n' roll, using any definition one cares to use is THE GREATFUL DEAD. Period, end of discussion.

Was the Dead really every overrated? They have a longtime cult following (bordering on mainstream appeal by now, I should think) but very little critical support and very few if any hit songs on the charts.

"Touch of Gray," I think?

Again, I think there's a big difference between not liking a band and that band being "overrated."

I'm not a fan of Dave Matthews, for example. But I don't think I'd consider him overrated.

What about not liking a band BECAUSE they're overrated? Or liking a band because the critics hate them? Or because your friends hate them? Actually, that would be pretty shallow - I mean, liking a band in spite of the fact that everyone seems to hate them but you? Maybe those bands are simply overrated by you; or, conversely, maybe they're underrated by everyone else.

overrated as a term is about as meaningful as 'good'.

usually, it boils down to "they're popular and i don't like them".

OK Aaron, you've got me there: Conor does have a way with words. I think I'm especially hard on him because I get the sense that he's reading his own reviews; he hears all this adulation from critics in the indie world, believes it, and suddenly he's too arrogant to discipline himself.

If Oberst learned to write melodies, toned down the theatrics and perhaps cut back on the syllables-to-line ratio, he could be another Elliott Smith. I mean that. I can even see some improvement in the last two albums: "Lua" is a beautiful song, as (albeit a touch mawkish) is "First Day of My Life." But he's still biting off more than he can chew, and it just seems like after three solo albums and seven plus years the guy's talent should be better developed. He's still too raw...and not in a good way.

"Comment 7 posted by Monica on October 3, 2005 11:28 AM:
What drugs are you smoking? I'm not a Puffy/p diddy fan, but he does have "RHYTHM", not beat....that doesn't make sense....He is larger than life , because of his desire to succeed, and become rich doing it..."

Puff diddy just talks over the top of sounds that have already been written.

usually, it boils down to "they're popular and i don't like them".

Well, isn't that what loving (or hating) music is about? Everything's subjective. Maybe it's important for critics to have these pointless discussions every once in a while, just so we can remind ourselves that there is no single musical canon, and that's as it should be.

There is no music history, only histories.

If we're defining overrated with regard to critical acclaim, you've got to include Bonnie Raitt. She's got the unclassifiable country-rock-roots thing which makes airplay unlikely, but also prevents anyone from criticising her. Chris Isaak has a similar style, and is likewise immune to criticism, but I think he's just better.

I always figured that maybe the reason I didn't get the hype about the Dead or Dave Matthews was that I wasn't high when I heard them.

That sparks - no pun intended - another question entirely: Do you rate a band beloved by joint-smoking fans based on what you think of them when high or when not high?

Puff diddy just talks over the top of sounds that have already been written.

That kinda describes the entire hip-hop genre, and no small amount of non-hip-hop artists. (Like Beck.)

Right after The Dan and the Drake, I'd have to place Radiohead (bad prog rock) and Coldplay (just don't get it).

Oh, and Zappa's a solid fifth.

Zappa - definitely overrrated, snob music for low-brows (especially drummers). Steely Dan - definitely; why should "good taste" be so dull?

Overrated = your own opinion of music

Michael, the entire hiphop genre is bunk then, maybe it sounds good, but i give more respect to people who bother to write the music themselves. I wonder if black music in the future will ever have the old days innovation instead of the new days re-hashery.

Luke, please try not to look like a cross between a racist and a total retard.

There is tons of hip-hop that includes nary a sample of other stuff and most of the time if something is used it's done in an extremely creative way, not simply copied wholesale.

To quote the outrageously talented Jurassic 5:

"Nowadays when you sample shit you gotta clear it"

In other words, there hasn't been much straight sampling since the days of Paul's Boutique.

Scott B, if you think these 5 bands are the most over-rated, you need to work on your musical education.

In my opinion the band most over-rated in recent years is, by many a long mile, Oasis. It's true Liam has a pretty tolerable voice but the cheesy warmed over riffs of Noel Gallagher sounds like the worst moments of Status Quo cross-bred with a complete misunderstanding of the Beatles.

How this band has ever become successful, got signed by the most inappropriately named record company of all time ("Creation" Records? The entire company's stock in trade is plagiarism!) and were actually considered cool for a while is one of the most baffling and depressing things that ever happened in the entire history of popular music. So there!!

I think I could get behind the sentiment that Oasis has been overrated from time-to-time. That said, I think they're pretty damned good, particularly their first two albums.

Eric B, I'm shocked!

The right royal Duke sorta puts the Sex Pistols debate to rest. (#115) They do not belong on ANY overrated list.

The End.

(God save the Pistols!)

=======

Butki attempting to repeat a hit:

"...Do you rate a band beloved by joint-smoking fans based on what you think of them when high or when not high?"

Scott, please.

Stop. Just stop.

Thanks in advance.

======

BTW: historical note -

In this "sad old man's" day, ALL music was 'rated' based on a listening while high; it was written high, recorded high, and listeners were expected to listen high.

That, I believe, was required by law.

I haven't done a formal count, but it seems that these names have come up most often so far:

Nirvana
REM
U2
Radiohead

Anyone care to do a statistical analysis of the comments in this post?

Anyone have too much time on their hands?

=====

BTW: Zappa is overrated? Don't you have to be overrated to be overrated?

Zappa has a tiny, fanatical following and a pretty legitimate critical acclaim/analysis/cultural-musical impact.

And you had to be there to understand the impact of The Mothers, esp. Freak Out and Absolutely Free. Jeesus, they were close to being the Sex Pistols of their era.

Impact schmimpact -- I wasn't there (well, I was, but I was in my single digits) and when I really discovered Zappa decades later I found his best records held up perfectly; even the topical references don't really date the records too badly.

While we're on the subject, though -- have you ever understood the appeal of that fucking Mozart? What about that overwrought mediocrity Beethoven? And don't get me started on Bach -- pure bourgeois snob music. And Chopin's little etudes -- does anyone even play them anymore?

Anyone who does NOT have U2 in their top 5 list of OVERrated bands obviously does NOT know the meaning of overrated.

Im having a hard time agreeing with any of the top 5 choices as originally posted, cept maybe P. Diddy, but I dont know many that have ever rated him highly. Who ever claimed that the Sex Pistols, who pre-date the Clash by 5 years or more, were good musicians?

Now, if someone does try to make this claim for the Clash, I would have to say that they are being overrated.

There are many bands that are on the charts today that i feel are overrated but, i think the judgement can really only be made after a signigicant amount of time has passed.

So:

1-U2
2-REM
3-Kenny G
4-The Clash
3-Springsteen (I dont know how many Springsteen fanatics have said, "yeah, but you gotta see him live". i get the feeling that they dont see many concerts.

i would imagine that whoever listed Zappa (the number 1 most UNDERrated musician/composer) and Steely Dan as being overrated probably lists the above among their favorite bands.

Welch: "...have you ever understood the appeal of that fucking Mozart? What about that overwrought mediocrity Beethoven?"

nugget, I believe that's yer cue.

xxoo
S

Agree about Syd Barrett. I think he's overrated as a consequence way the self-appointed arbiters of cool have always looked down their noses at 70s Stadium rock Floyd.

My list of overrateds:

* The Smiths. Too many media people are rabid Smiths fans, and I can only read so much of their hagiographical drivel before throwing up.

* Roxy Music. Even though their early stuff had their moments, they deserve to suffer for their crime of emphasising style over content. This attitude was later to give us Duran Duran and Spandau Ballet. I rest my case.

* The Kinks. Dull, Dull, Dull. I know to avoid any band who cite The Kinks as a major influence, of whom there are far too many.

* Oasis, already mentioned.

* Just about any currently hyped band; especially Coldplay (whiny and boring), Franz Ferdinand (poseurs, all image and no substance), The Killers (see Franz Ferdinand)

Love Roxy Music, love The Kinks. Over the past few months, I bought Country Life and The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society and both of them hold up extremely well -- although hold up may be the wrong word, considering I heard them for the first time. Let's just say they still sound fresh.

Good job defining the debate, Olsen.

Shark has odd taste in music.

The Ramones were great, period. They were a far better band compared to the Sex Pistols and far more influential. In fact, they're so influential that the Pistols and Clash wouldn't have been possible if they hadn't heard the first Ramones show in the UK. The Sex Pistols were better self-promoters and shock artists, but The Ramones are the true beginning of most of the punk bands that have come since (and most of the big punk bands like Green Day and Blink 182). The Clash has had its share of devoted followers as well, like the great 90s band Rancid, but their unique style and politics of the time have been much harder to emulate.

The Smashing Pumpkins probably weren't overrated.

The Cranberries weren't taken that seriously, but were a good little pop band that wasn't overrated by any means.

I too thought about saying Michael Jackson post-"Off the Wall" and U2 but while both are undoubtedly overrated, both are also undoubtedly great, historic music acts that helped define their genres more than perhaps anyone else commercially in the last 25 years.

No one actually respects Kenny G.

Oasis never really truly caught on in America, despite their desire to be the world's biggest band, conquerors from across the Atlantic. And I think their music is for the most part overrated, although they did write one classic song which is maybe the best Beatles song never written by the Beatles, "Don't Look Back in Anger."

I'm with Berlin on the Dead and Dave. The critics hate them (as do I), the people love them. John Mayer would be a closer case since critics sort of kind of like him despite the fact that he's the suckiest suck who ever sucked.

UAO gets brilliance points for thinking Sting. Sting/The Police and Genesis/Phil Collins are embarrassingly overrated (wimpy adult contemporary pop with silly attempts to borrow from reggae and world music) and have an embarrassing yuppie fan base.

If you don't get Joy Division and Nirvana, you just don't get them. I prefer New Order to Joy Division, but I recognize the greatness of Ian Curtis and that unique, melancholic voice. Nirvana was a far, far better band than The Sex Pistols ever were and I think they share a lot of similarity in their approach to music and image.

I don't think anyone took Culture Club seriously critically.

I'll go out on limb to offer someone I think is very, very good but overrated:

Prince.

He made good, sexually charged dance-pop music and some interesting songs, but he got almost as carried away with his supposed "genius" (The Artist Formerly Known As, bizarre marriages with his ingenue proteges) as his fawning white rock critic fans did. I don't think most people who talk about the genius of Prince or the technical merit of his guitar-playing or whatever really GET Prince in any respect. People who have no background in dance music, funk, or soul seem to get a boner over Prince because it's the only thing they could dance to (if they could actually dance, which they of course can't) that they've ever listened to. But Prince wasn't a brilliant social commentator nor can you say that he's been the most influential or revolutionary artist of his era with his experiments in dance.

That is all.

Prince's genius -- and if it isn't genius, then it's at the very least enormous creative facility -- is with well-crafted funk, pop and rock melodies. I think of him as someone like Stevie Wonder in that regard. He's no great shakes as a lyricist though.

Enjoyed your comments, Bob. But wow are you gonna hear from Barger on that Prince comment!

I don't know if I'd say that Sting/The Police and Genesis/Phil Collins are "overrated," because then you'd have to throw in acts like Maria Carey, Boys II Men, and even popular-at-the-time artists like Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer. I guess they'd fall under the popular on the sales side but perhaps not on the critical side. Not "overly" popular, at any rate.

Sting has always been a great singer and often a good writer, and more often than not I think his emotional depth cuts through his banal MOR surroundings.

ok, for even more fun, let us hear bab's thoughts on Elvis Costello!

Yes Rodney, and I think it's a bit unfair to even group Sting/The Police together as that's covering an awful lot of territory.

Right on, Rodney. Prince didn't have the "traditional" funk chops of, say, James Brown or George Clinton, but damned if he didn't write some of the most gorgeously-crafted pop/soul songs in his heyday. Even the simplicity of his lyrics had their (occasional) merits: for my money, "Strange Relationship" is the last word on love-gone-bad songs - just sends chills down my spine. Nowadays he's mostly just pleasant ("Call My Name" was the only real classic on Musicology), but Sign o' the Times is up there with Exile on Main Street and London Calling as far as I'm concerned...one of the few double albums that truly justifies its length.

People who have no background in dance music, funk, or soul seem to get a boner over Prince because it's the only thing they could dance to (if they could actually dance, which they of course can't) that they've ever listened to.

That's a pretty cheap generalization on a few levels. Is it just me, or have you only been listening to his dance tracks? One of the reasons Prince is so critically beloved is because of his versatility. Also, it seems a little ridiculous to accuse all Prince fans of not being able to dance. Maybe you and I should settle this with a dance-off.

In 146, gt asks "who ever said the Sex Pistols were goodmusicians?"

Lots of people. Steve Jones has never had to worry about making rent; he's always been in-demand as a session guitarist. Matlock and Cook were quite good too; Cook also gets a fair amount of session work.

Only Sid Vicious couldn't play, but he was a latecomer.

I nominated Sting, but not the Police; Sting solo is overrated; he's been an adult contemporary hack ever since 1983. The Police were better as a unit. They're probably overrated too, but not by as much.

I'll agree with Tim Hall on The Smiths; that's a good pick. But the Kinks were great; unfortunately, most Americans haven't heard their best stuff (mid-late 60's) I'd be tempted to call them underrated.

On R.E.M.: Their indie records are underrated, and their Warner Brothers records are overrated.

Everyone keeps saying U2; I've hesitated so far because I do respect them. But their reputation really is too great for mere mortals.

Hmmm. Break's over; back to work.

It's on, Zach. Pop and lock at twenty paces.

Berlin: the difference between the 90s R & B groups you list and Sting/The Police and Genesis/Phil Collins is that critics (and critic wanna-bes like ourselves) like the latter and don't even bother to review the former since rock criticism in this country only covers rock music and cross-over rap.

Al won't debate me on Prince because he's terrified of me and because he knows I'm right. You think he can dance?

Here's another one I forgot: Paul Simon.
100%, absolutely.

I love Elvis Costello, but he's been boring, self-serious and irrelevant for over 15 years in his desperate desire to constantly re-invent himself and his sound. I could care less for his orchestras and ballads and collaborations these days. His old stuff is gold, though.

I forgot to say that I agree The Smiths are overrated, with the exception of great songs like "How Soon is Now?" Morrissey's solo stuff is much better and more accessible to my simple tastes and he's one of my favorite personalities in rock music.

When it comes to soulful ballads or just plain funky good times, Prince is great but he's nowhere near Stevie Wonder's level. Stevie's a legend.

That is all.

Oh, and Miles Davis is overrated by soulless critic types. Coltrane is not overrated. But I know crap about jazz.

That is all.

Could 99% of people even clearly state who is "better" than Miles or Coltrane?

Two recent acts from the world of hip hop (which is the new pop since rock is dead, need I remind you again), both commercially successful and critically overrated:

Outkast
Kanye West

Discuss.

That is all.

But I know crap about jazz

yes, bab...that statement is 100% accurate.

Re: The Kinks. They may be underrated in America, but their importance tends of be overemphasised in their native Britain, especially during the Britpop era where *every* second-division three-chord band seemed to namecheck them. You'd almost think they were thought to be as significant as The Beatles of The Stones.

I'm probably biased from seeing them headline the Reading Festival in 1981. They were heavily hyped, and fell flat.

As for Roxy Music, they were still a good band, but I refuse to accept that they were the most significant act of an entire decade, which is what they're often claimed to be. That's my definition of 'overrated'...

Saleski, it's bad manners to pounce on someone else's self-deprecating humor.

And you don't know anything about jazz either, silly.

Rock critic types and critic wannabes need to stop trying to be "down" with the latest cross-over hip hop group or jazz or Prince just because they're supposed to be "down" and hep cats. Know what I'm sayin?

Write about what you know and like.

That is all.

Coltrane's greatness is like Louis Armstrong's or Duke Ellington's or Charlie Parker's -- so far past obvious that it's basically conventional opinion. As for Miles Davis, it's hard to overrate his career. Personally, I've never had much use for fusion, so I don't listen to anything from In a Silent Way onward. But it's impossible to argue with the vast body of work that came before it. The early Prestige recordings, Kind of Blue,, the great live sets from the 1960s, and the Miles Davis Quintet records -- these will make a believer of anyone.

"Welch: "...have you ever understood the appeal of that fucking Mozart? What about that overwrought mediocrity Beethoven?"

nugget, I believe that's yer cue." --shark--


hmph. Now I'm the pedantic snob who clings romantically to those mystic dead Euros. Shark you've figgured me out. shucks.

And whoever quoted that probably doesn't understand the relevance of exegesis in music. At that TIME, the music was incredible...revolutionary. Now, through a couple centuries of aural conditioning and exposure to new styles, we hear beethoven and mozart differently than was heard before. I have no qualms with that statement, however, I would if he had said Bach.

And you don't know anything about jazz either, silly.

that statement is 0% accurate.

ok, mebbe 1%

oh, and whoever was talking about Zappa:

Zappa IS overrated by anyONE who rates him as GOOD. He's one of the worst improvisers I've heard with critical merit. I'll give him points for being odd, but does that make him good? He tried to do what Trey Anastasio did with Phish. You know, be random and cute and then somehow culminate in some wild organization.

Zappa sucks.

hey Bob A Booey. I'll discuss how I like that new Ying Yang Twins song, "Badd".

If someone doesn't like that song, well....

The most sure-fire way to become overrated? Die young. With that in mind, here's my list:

1. The Doors
2. Sex Pistols
3. Janis Joplin
4. Nirvana
5. T Rex

Comment 137 posted by Luke on October 5, 2005 02:37 AM:
Michael, the entire hiphop genre is bunk then, maybe it sounds good, but i give more respect to people who bother to write the music themselves. I wonder if black music in the future will ever have the old days innovation instead of the new days re-hashery.

Comment 138 posted by alienboy on October 5, 2005 05:10 AM:
Luke, please try not to look like a cross between a racist and a total retard.

There is tons of hip-hop that includes nary a sample of other stuff and most of the time if something is used it's done in an extremely creative way, not simply copied wholesale.

How is what I said racist, regardless whether I'm properly informed about how creative hip hop is or not?

Man, for a band that stopped recording 35 years ago, The Doors still get lots of heat... and lots of recognition round these parts.

Signed,
Official BC Doors Apologist / Fan

"Welch: "...have you ever understood the appeal of that fucking Mozart? What about that overwrought mediocrity Beethoven?"

nugget: "whoever quoted that probably doesn't understand the relevance of exegesis in music. blah blah blah blah..."

-- and nugget, whichever internal voice told you to answer Welch's joke doesn't understand satire.

=====

Berlin, I'm amazed that it took this long to get around to the Doors. For the 'critics' who hate 'em, in the immortal words of James Douglas Morrison in concert, "SHUT UP!!!"

=====

Gawd, I am so fucking sick of hearing the word "genius" applied to Prince.

Einstein: genius.

Bucky Fuller: genius.

Prince: androgynous little pop singer who only appeals to closeted homosexual Libertarians.

How does listening to hyper-horny heterosexual funk make you a "closeted homosexual"? Is it one of those "overcompensation" things?

If something is so difficult to understand, is it genius? I'll take J.D. Salinger over James Joyce any day, just like I'll listen to Prince's Black Album before I'd bother with Rainbow Children. On the other hand, Coltrane at his wildest beats Kenny G at his ....er, best.

I would've defended the Doors to the death years ago, but nowadays Mr. Mojo Risin' gives me a nice nostalgic buzz, but not much else.

some difficult to understand stuff IS genius. of course, that doesn't mean we have to like it.

hell, i hear over and over again that Joyce's Ulysses is genius. sorry, i c