Am I Really The Only One?
 

Who finds Metallica, Nirvana, Oasis, and Modest Mouse, INCREDIBLY OVERRATED?

lets think about this for a bit,

Metallica = everything from 80s sounds exactly the same, everything after is just plain crap. very very bland.

Nirvana = Bleach - Decent
Nevermind - Amazing
In Utero - Good
Overall they really werent anywhere near as good as people think.

Oasis = everything sounds exactly the same after Definitely Maybe and WTS(MG) and even those albums arent that great, just good.

Modest Mouse = also another very bland band, everything besides their 2004 release was not good at all.

How are Modest Mouse bland? Good News for People Who Love Bad News isn't even close to being their best calling it their only good album is completely laughable.

I dunno I don't hear people rave about Modest Mouse much, but they have been playing for a while and have not been afraid of changing things which i respect. I'm not really a fan of any of those bands and have not listened to a bunch, so I can't really make claims of how overrated they are.

damnit rave on then

Band's who achieve a certain amount of success will always garner an overated tag. In the case of Metallica I agree a little. I listen to lots of Metal bands instead of them, yet growing up they were my favourite band for a few years. As for bands like Nirvana and Oasis, their albums hit at the right time regarding the populace although Bleach is far superior to Nevermind IMO.

I wouldn't call Modest Mouse bland, more like an experiment to see how annoying music can possibly get.

I certainly wouldn't call Nirvana bland, I was obsessed with them for a time, and they're still one of my favorite bands. I also love a lot of old Metallica.

I do however agree completely about Oasis. Not only are they bland, I think of Oasis as being somewhat of the best way to measure music quality. Through extensive scientific research, it has been proven that Oasis make the most average music known to mankind. They are the very definition of average.

So when it comes to determining weither something is good or not I think of it this way, is it better than Oasis? If so its good, if not its bad.

Nirvana & Metallica-Overrated maybe but w/e...Last thing i care about is "xxx magazine naming them the best band ever/yyy group giving them the greatest band status/zzz website listing them in the top 10 bands of all time". Let them have the status they deserve/don't deserve(whatever you want to take it as) as long as it really doesn't affect me.
I enjoyed listening to their stuff and its the only thing that matters. All these overrated sentimental bullsh!t belongs in the dustbin for me.

Oasis-Overrated, they are ok.(have a few awesome songs but thats about it)
But as i said, i really don't care whether any band is overrated or not. If i don't like them, i just don't talk about them.

Modest mouse-I really don't like them at all...but thats my opinion. No comments here.

Nirvana - still like them, great band

Oasis - listening to one of their albums really was the most boring musical event of my life

Modest Mouse - pretty good band, nothing "wrong" with them, just never listen to them anymore.

Metallica - never cared for them, but I haven't really heard a lot (and have no intention to), so no comment.

Cant believe people call Modest Mouse overrated. They're pretty much underrated over on this side of the pond.

They're still hyped a lot in most indie circuits though.

As mentioned already - all bands that have peaked in popularity in whatever genre they are associated with always be considered overrated. The key is to look beyond how over rated they are & just listen to their music. If you like it, then great - if you don't, then come up with another valid explanation than just being over rated.

Metallica - Possibly , they have a hell of a lot of fanboys still. Personally I don't really like anything they've done since Master Of Puppets. And I don't think i've even played those in over 10 years.

Nirvana - I've gone into long painstaking detail about them before so i'll just say yes.

Oasis - Show me one person who actually rates Oasis since 1995.
Not over-rated in the slightest

Modest Mouse - Heard a couple of their early albums years ago & to me nothing stood out whatsoever. It was almost like they set out to become the most average band in the world. Can't say I like them . can't say I hate them either in fact i'll stop now before I get bored of writing anymore about them.

I hate being so alone in the Modest Mouse hate camp. But its refreshing just to find someone who dosen't like them

i think with a lot of those bands, especially nirvana and metallica. you really had to be there to get their full impact.

one thing i've noticed since i started frequenting music message boards a few years ago is that younger people have a hard time truly grasping how music moved through society before the net. it's one thing to know the terms, it's another to have lived with them.

it's not to say that music was better back in the day. hardly. but there was significantly more work involved in getting new music for both the artist and the listener.

it's easy to sit back and reflect on how you perceive things to have been back in the day but it's hardly accurate unless you were there. metallica all sounded the same in the 80s? perhaps if you're listening to them with current ears (compare 'jump in the fire' with 'leper messiah' or 'creeping death' with 'blackened' there's a fair amount of growth). nirvana is overrated? only if you're comparing their early 90s output with everything you've downloaded since the early 2000s (it was one thing to read about early pavement, pixies, sonic youth, husker du albums - it was an entirely different thing to actually find those albums on a shelf if you didn't live in a large city)

oasis WAS mostly hype though, they were in competition with blur to be the next big thing from the UK in north american press once grunge started repeating itself.

Actually it was the other way around.

It was Blur who were hyped to death. Blur were from London and were middle class. The people who worked for the NME & Melody Maker were from London and middle class. The last thing they wanted was a bunch of northern working class oiks muscling in. Most of the Oasis hype came from Noel & Liams mouths.
Blur were the media darlings , while Oasis were the people's favourite.

The whole Blur vs Oasis thing was all down to Damon Albarn & his buddy Steve Sutherland who just happened to be the editor of the NME. They thought they could sell more papers & records by instigating the whole thing. It was Blur who moved release dates so that their stuff would come out the same day as Oasis.
Sadly it backfired on them badly , Blur released easily their worst album ever in The Great Escape while Oasis went on to become the biggest selling British band in the UK ever and have 10% of the entire population of the UK apply for tickets to their 2 Knebworth gigs.

These days Albarn refuses to even discuss what happened during that whole time while Noel just laughs about it. Which for me says everything.

Man, there is a ton of Modest Mouse hate here. Have you guys listened to their stuff previous to these last two albums? They are a pretty decent alternative band, and they deserve some acclaim.

I don't know if Oasis is overrated, they don't really get any critical acclaim. They are a pretty awful band, that's for sure.

Nirvana's only good album was In Utero, largely in part to Steve Albini. Nevermind is a joke, and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" doesn't belong anywhere near any top songs of the 90's lists. It's a really mediocre Pixies rip-off that fails miserably.

And Metallica...lol.

M&A

And no, if anything they deserve to be lynched. Too many crimes against music to count.

ROFL

no.
 

RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

how can you say the great escape was a bad album? it was a fantastic release, not their best album, but easily their 2nd or 3rd best.
every single song on wts sounded exactly the same, because all oasis does is writes the same songs over and over again, hoping to release another album like wts. and lets not even begin to talk about how bad everything they released after it, be here now and forward were basically terrible.
blur on the otherhand changed styles multiple times throughout their lifetime, just look at how much they changed from "Parklife" (which was one of the greatest brit pop albums ever along with "Modern Life Is Rubbish") to "13" all the way to "Think Tank".

taking all this into account, tell me again why oasis was better than blur

also, blur were FAR from being the media favorite, just look at how arrogant and proud Liam was whenever in interviews, he was ALWAYS trying to be a john lennon, when all he was in reality was an *******.


also, the past couple days i really listened to some of modest mouse's really early stuff (from like 01 and back)
some of it is actually really quite good. i think everything they put out after that was just wayyy too average, and i think they were trying too hard.

I didn't say it was a bad album , I said it was their worst , and it was based on the 4 albums they'd released up till that point.


You couldn't have read what I wrote then , because I never expressed a preference anywhere.

What did I say again?

And it had to , they weren't best buddies with the editor of the NME.

1. now tell me, was it a good album then?

2. no, but throughout the whole statement, you were leaning towards oasis. now tell me, who do you prefer?

3. you said that Blur was the media favorite, and im saying no, oasis were the media favorite for a few reasons. 1. they were more popular = more media coverage 2. they were the biggest band in the world at that time 3. they released the top selling albums. even METALLICA (ooooooh) said that blur were a bunch of pansy prettyboys and that oasis were superior, now who are the metal fanboys going to lean toward.

4. NME wasnt the only music magazine at the time, and no, damon albarn was not best friends with the editor, they just knew eachother well.

He said 2001 and back, there's no disagreement between you guys there.

dood, i said modests mouse's best stuff was 2001 and back, the moon and antarctica came out in 2000. disregard the original post.

also think tank was NOT a pile of sh*t, it was brilliance. listen to Out Of Time, and tell me it wasnt the best song of 2003. also Ambulence and Good Song are works of genius.

find me an oasis song that does ANYTHING out of the ordinary, whether it be time signature or anything that tries something new from what they have done in the past.

Like I said , I beleive it to be the worst they'd released up till that point

Why does it have to be so black and white? I think Blur are a better albums band and Oasis are the better live band.

And i'm saying yes , Why? because I read those magazines at the time

Yes they got that media coverage AS A RESULT of their popularity. Not like Blur who were regually in the indie press ever since their debut single scraped into the lower reaches of the charts. There are two types of bands that featured in weekly music publications. Bands that are in there because the writers want them in there , regardless of record sales. Think of them as a kind of pet project. Examples: Elastica , Menswear , Suede , and yes Blur were one of those bands too to start with.
And there are bands in there who they are forced to cover to sell papers because they are popular Examples : Oasis , Kula Shaker , Ocean Colour Scene
You see how it works now?
Slayer probably , I wasn't aware of the great Oasis/ Kerrang love in.

No it wasn't but it was the leading weekly and had a lot of influence. And the editor and Albarn cooked up the whole Blur vs Oasis thing , it was Blur who moved release dates to clash with Oasis , not the other way around.

1. Out of Time was the best song of 2003 <-- 2003

2. i apologize that Think Tank wasnt like every other album out at the time, they tried something new and succeeded brilliantly.

3. basically Oasis went from writing Rock songs that sounded exactly the same to writing ballads that sounded exactly the same.

4. you listen to ABBA, therefore your argument is invalid.

1. i still love you
2. how was the album NOT adventurous, they tried something that neither they nor many other mainstream bands were doing.
3. they didnt sound the same per se but they were all very similar content wise and how they were written. and you say that blur wasn't adventurous.
4. i was joking.

I read this and put Modest Mouse on to see if I could discover anything bad enough in their music to merit such a comment. I don't hear anything outlandishly bad at all, the vocals are the only thing I can think that might aggravate people...but then, so might Frank Black or Robert Plant's vocals. MM's vocalist does sound like Frank Black at times, as well.

So I'm going to ask you, what exactly is so bad about Modest Mouse? I don't give a **** about the band, but sitting here listening to them I am inclined to say they made some GOOD MUSIC that I can really enjoy, even if EVERY Modest Mouse album has filler. What do you find so abominable about them?

boo boo can't comment because we've restarted our Zeppelin/Modest Mouse pact however I will respond for him.

I just don't like Modest Mouse man. - boo boo.

cant wait to see how long this will last

Never Liked Metallica or Modest Mouse.

Out of the bands listed,
I only like Nirvana

I do not agree.
Metallica - I liked until Lars came out as a flaming homo.
Nirvana - Listen to usually daily.
Oasis - Love them.
Modest Mouse - Probably the very last band I would call "bland."

Metallica - "I liked until Lars came out as a flaming homo." Agreed! He's like the little yappy chihuahua to Hetfield's pitbull-ishness.
Nirvana - Never really got into Nirvana. I'm not denying they wrote some decent lyrics/songs, I just couldn't get into them.
Oasis - Used to love, love, love these guys back in the 90's. Still have my "(What's the story) Morning Glory" t-shirt. For me personally though, they were just a fad, and they got old after a while.
Modest Mouse - They are definitely an "acquired taste", though far from bland and unadventurous.

Metallica: I honestly can't stand them.
Nirvana: Big fan obviously. For the time they did something different.
Oasis: Not bad, I like listening to them every hear and there.
Modest Mouse: After listening to their music I just have the urge to "Float On"....Yes, I was trying to say I like them. They make me mellow.

When was he not one?

agree about all 4 bands

Recent Metallica is just not good. I've never followed Modest Mouse enough to comment on them. I've never liked Oasis so I won't comment on them either.

Metallica in the 80s does not sound all the same. Yes, some songs are similar but most do not. the Ride the Lightning album is amazing.

um...you do realize that exactly zero of the Albini mixes ended up on the studio version of that album, don't you?

I thought not.

I agree for the most part with that. I do not think though they are even close to the level of Nirvana, Metallica, and all those bands. If you go ask the everyday average music listener the only song they will know is Wonderwall.

Therefore i don't think they are that highly overrated, but still definitely given to much credit than they deserve.

:laughing:

This is a band who put out a B sides album and had it sell over 2 million copies. I think their other stuff is a bit more known that you give them credit for.

It's probably been said before but any band who gets even half a decent sized following will be called over-rated by somebody. It's all about taste. I for one don't care for any of those bands.

That may be true, idk.

Tomorrow i will go out and ask 10 people to name as many Oasis songs as they can. Ill report my findings back here.

Plus, record sales do not always mean people are well informed about a bands members or song titles.

Like if you show some one the Pearl jam album Ten, they will for every song be like..."ooooo thats who this is by"or "oo i didnt this was the name"