The "seminal" band that is the most overrated.

Pearl Jam overrated? I would guess most people think they've broken up.

 

There's going to be a well organized, brutal, multisided ATTACK on you complete with flame throwers and tomahawks due to the Pearl Jam comment. I hope you have your invisi-shield ready.

This should be interesting anyhow.

My opinion-Elvis Costello. I think he's had great moments but I think all in all he's overrated.

 

Can one be "over-rated" without being "seminal"? There are a lot of over-rated bands that have had little lasting influence, which is what I think "seminal" means, more or less.


[butthead voice] hu huh. hu huh. he said seminal. [/butthead voice}

 

KISS.

 

I'd agree with Doc's Pearl Jam comments. The movie "Hype" is a good documentary on the phenomenon of Seattle in the early 90's.

I'd also add Aerosmith to the list. They were an OK 70's band but have morphed into this hideous corporate marketing machine in the 80's and 90's.

Murf

 

bands that are considered seminal but that i don't really care for (that is, i think they're overrated): joy division, my bloody valentine, the velvet underground, tons of others.

 

boom shucka shucka

 

U2 I hate U2 can't believe they've lasted this long.

 

i, of course disagree with the pearl jam comment.

VS is a great great great album. So is no code. So is vitalogy. So is yield. Only recently have they started to sag a bit, but riot act sounds pretty solid.

And i think its not really fair to call them overrated, becasue they are not nearly as hyped as some of these other bands (except for on theses boards )

 

Two words:

Led Zeppelin

 

Two more words:

Rolling Stones

 

Let me go ahead an irritate everyone to no end.

The Beatles. They are good, I like them, even listen to them voluntarily, but the aren't THAT good.
I know they influenced everyone and their sister, but that doesn't mean I have to worship them.

I was born in the 1970s and their music just doesn't speak to me that much.

 

OK, I'll let that Beatles comment slide.

My vote: Pink Floyd. oh yeah, and Pearl Jam.

 

I'll join in the heresy:

Nirvana.


I mean, Nevermind was a cool album and Teen Spirit is one of the greatest rock and roll songs ever, but beyond that it's pretty much just Kurt whining.

And whining.

Interspersed with complaining.

Sorta like The Cure with decent guitar riffs.

 

I second that. I cringed every time somebody raved about them and told me they were so original. Original?!? How? What did they do that countless other bands hadn't already done. I mean, I like Nirvana, they were a good band, but their real talent wasn't originality it was combining their influences seamlessly enough: Fugazi, Meat Puppets, Husker Du, etc.

 

YOU HEATHEN!
Next your going to try to tell me that Santa Claus isn't real.

In all honesty, I feel the same way. There a few Beatles songs that I absolutely love...but just a few. I kept going back and forth between saying the Beatles or Elvis Costello.

 

The Beatles were the Babe Ruth, Gretzky and Pele of Rock'n'Roll. Before them, the routine chart-toppers were Bobby Vinton, Connie Francis, Bobby Darin.

Just think what it would be like if nobody shoved Connie Francis out of the way. You don't have to worship them to appreciate how much they raised the bar.

I agree with the Grateful Dead, though. They were just an average band.

 

current band: Creed.
how'd these guys ever get a recording contract?!?

 

Buddie Holly was there and he kicked major butt, as did Chuck Berry.

I totally appreciate how they raised the bar, but its not like they were the only ones doing it, they were just the most popular ones doing it. We had Hendrix, The Doors, The Who and no shortage of others. "Yellow Submarine" and "When I'm 64" are ample evidence that The Beatles were capable of cranking out some big league stinkers.

It is so funny to me how people today always think rock acts lead the way in music. I read a quote by a composer recently (his name escapes me) and he said "Everything rock and roll has ever musically done was acomplished in western classical music by 1860." I thought that was so cool (not to mention right on the mark.) To make the point even further, Chinese musicians were using dissonance hundreds of years ago. It just takes the populace a while to catch up.

Much of what the Grateful Dead did was crap, but you've got to give Jerry Garcia credit for being a great guitarist, and that band did some cool stuff (for the record, I don't own anything by them.) Additionally I think they made a major contribution by turning people back onto "roots" music like bluegrass. Garcia's bluegrass band "Old & In the Way" is a major reason for the bluegrass revival.

 

This can be said for about 99% of current chart toppers.

 

Right on, Nico.

Beatles overrated? I'm not really a Beatles fan, but what part of 200 million records sold (that sounds about right), influenced every band under the sun and still topping the charts don't you people understand?

I remember having the seminal/not seminal discussion with a colleague of mine in Germany. He was all for Kraftwerk and New Order, I was arguing for Aerosmith. Turns out the bands Aerosmith influenced (the Crue, Tesla, Cinderella, Skid Row) weren't really all that successful in Europe, with the exception of GnR, while Kraftwerk influenced all the techno stuff that wasn't really all that successful in the States.

So I think it's largely a question of where you're looking at it from.

 

Like I said earlier, for me, I'm not talking about the influence they had, for me, I'm literally talking about the music.

You've made my point exactly. By the time I bought my first record, John Lennon was already dead. I completely appreciate what the Beatles achieved, but purely musically speaking I appreciate them more historically than I do personally. Since I didn't grow up in the 1950s, when I go back and listen to "Revolver" or "Sgt. Pepper's" it just doesn't sound that revolutionary to me. It sounds leaps and bounds beyond what was there prior, but it sounds tame compared to what I grew up on. Granted what I heard built upon what they did, but like I said it just doesn't speak to me personally.

It is the same reason that I like Arvo Part or Philip Glass or John Tavener more than I like Bach or Beethoven. It is music of my time, and it appeals to me more. It is shaped by my circumstances and I have a greater appreciation of it. It is the same reason I like 'khyal' style Indian classical music as opposed to 'druphad' style. "khyal" is more current.

Once again, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the Beatles' music, but for me, musically (not historically) they are overrated, because sound in general has evolved well beyond what they did, and they aren't in my personal historical frame of reference.

I hope this clears up my take on it.