Most overrated bands ever?

[lucifer_sam]

i've never really liked Physical Graffiti and i got tired of HOTH pretty quickly. i will say that Achilles Last Stand and No Quarter might be the best songs they wrote.

i actually haven't listened to them in ages, not because i gave up on them, just found more interesting things to listen to.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Uh yeah. You can find other reasons to call Zep overrated I'm sure. But they're not that popular here save n00bs who always vanish after a few posts, then there's just me, Sam and JJJ.

I have no idea how well regarded or not they are on this particular board (though the "Official Led Zeppelin Thread" has over 10,000 views so they can't be too unpopular), but I wasn't just talking about this board, I was talking about in general. My reasons for thinking they're overrated have nothing to do with MB, they have to do with all the millions of people who say things like they're "the greatest hard rock band ever". What on earth would make you think I was making a specific comment about MB?

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I have no idea how well regarded or not they are on this particular board (though the "Official Led Zeppelin Thread" has over 10,000 views so they can't be too unpopular),

An overwelming amount of posts on that thread is negative. And again, they're only popular among the non-regulars. It's also non-regulars who come here to make threads about Creed and Disturbed, I wouldn't take their opinions at face value.

but I wasn't just talking about this board, I was talking about in general. My reasons for thinking they're overrated have nothing to do with MB, they have to do with all the millions of people who say things like they're "the greatest hard rock band ever". What on earth would make you think I was making a specific comment about MB?

Because you were responding to a MB poster who was expressing his opinion?

It goes without saying that Zeppelin get too much exposure from the media, but you could say that about everyone from The Beatles to Hendrix, you shouldn't have to discredit a band simply for being very damn popular. And I really hate it how people try to make it out how when people (like me) who listen to a lot of music that just happens to be really popular it means we only like it because it's popular and have never been exposed to the "wonderful sonic soundscapes" of unsigned bands like Ham Radio Donuts and Negro Egg Roll from Buttf*ck Nowhere, Idaho.

I'm not accusing you of being like that, but I hate that kind of attitude and I get it a lot from Zep haters.

The critics also hype stuff like The Jonas Brothers, so it dosen't matter what they think. For me to consider a band to be overrated they have to get a lot of serious praise from critics and music fans, and that only makes them overrated when you think they don't deserve it and of course I think they do, so it's all subjective there.

Like AC/DC they also have their fair share of passionate anti-fanboys. It's very hard for me to find any positive comments about them on this forum from a member that has more than 50 posts.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Because you were responding to a MB poster who was expressing his opinion?

Yes, but I didn't say anything about MB whatsoever in my post. I was referring to the attitude expressed in that post, not making any particular comment about MB one way or the other.

Originally Posted by boo boo

It goes without saying that Zeppelin get too much exposure from the media, but you could say that about everyone from The Beatles to Hendrix, you shouldn't have to discredit a band simply for being very damn popular. The critics also hype stuff like The Jonas Brothers, so it dosen't matter what they think. For me to consider a band to be overrated they have to get a lot of serious praise from critics and music fans, and that only makes them overrated when you think they don't deserve it and of course I think they do, so it's all subjective there.

That last sentence is exactly how I feel about Led Zeppelin. I don't think they deserve the level of praise they get from critics and music fans, therefore I think they're overrated. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Zeppelin, I just don't think they're as good as their reputation suggests. Also, like you, I prefer their later stuff to their earlier stuff.

[Brad Stengel]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Uh yeah. You can find other reasons to call Zep overrated I'm sure. But they're not that popular here save n00bs who always vanish after a few posts, then there's just me, Sam and JJJ.

And me. I don't listen to them as much anymore, but they've aged much better after 5 years than alot of classic rock bands I used to listen to, like Pink Floyd and Skynyrd.

I also prefer their post-blues output. PG is my favorite right now, because for me there's nothing better than Zeppelin's 3 minute pop song genre hops, much of which are on PG.

[Antonio]

i'll agree with you guys that their post blues stuff was the best, so much more ideas involved.

[Mirrorball95]

Originally Posted by Sonace

Anybody who doesn't like Nirvana calls them overrated and says some bull**** about Nirvana "being the worst grunge band". Chris Cornell's vocal's are not anywhere near what Cobain could scream (even on the ending tracks of Nevermind, there tamest studio album, gave me chills).

As for the statement that they were judged by their fashion.... The flanel and style of dress was typical of musicians living around the Seattle area. Do you think some record executive saw them and were like,

"Wow! I know I've seen twenty other kids wearing the exact same thing today, but these guys apparently play music! I'm going to give these sods a record deal!"

Just like the shiney radio pop of the 1980's brought with it leg warmers, just like the rap scenes of the 90's brought baggy pants, the rise in popularity of grunge music brought with it flanel. It was fans of these musicians who immitated them after they had become popular. And seeing as Nirvana was really the first (along with Pearl Jam) "grunge" band to become popular, the "being judged by fashion" thing is moot.

And it figures you only like "Polly", "About a Girl" and "Something in the Way". If you are not a Nirvana fan, that doesn't mean you have to be a ****ing jackass and undermine every actual fan out there.

As for the Kurt Cobain's death thing... so what? It added mystery and a whole new level of emotion into his already existing music. Every fan wonders, why did he do it? Did he do it? Was it to make him immortal through his music? Was it like like Pablo Picasso dying for his art? Was he just sick and tired of the music industry using him as a tool? Was he depressed? Was he murdered? (<---No, IMO)

Nirvana just happens to be my favorite band, they deserve alot of the hype around them. They made absolutely brilliant stuff. Yes, they became popular largly due to hype, but why is that such a bad thing? They made great stuff.

People think it's so original to list bands like Nirvana and The Beatles amoung things they find overrated. That's not really the point.

Sure The Beatles and Nirvana may be overrated, but does that mean you should show complete contempt for the group and piss off about 20 people in one post? No.

Yes, The Beatles are overrated. Does that somehow make them less brilliant? No.

Are you being serious?
If you are then I think you need a hearing aid, (not in terms of taste) but seriously Kurt Cobain was more like a weak growl, Chris Cornell can actually sing at the top of his voice whereas Kurt Cobain was all over the place with his vocals & couldnt sing (IMO).

I dont believe they were judged by what clothes they wore, what I mean is that when a new movement comes out the media always pick one and hold them up and hype them to **** which then makes them the best known, most popular, most talked about/heard of, most fashionable to listen to.
Sure enough they will mention the others now and again but mostly Nirvana.

Perhaps theyre not 'the worst grunge band' but to me they are one of the less impressive ones for me; depending on how you judge them.
Popularity wise they are the best. But for me the music isnt the best.(& thats what I judge it on)
Also why are you so caught up in the 'fashion' side of things?
To me the music matters more, thats why I dont rate Nirvana as the best grunge band.
As for Soundgarden, they were actually doing grunge long before Nirvana
(if you listen to Nirvana's early stuff its more punk than grunge (IMO)) whereas Soundgarden did grunge all along.
To me Nirvana picked up the idea from the likes of them.

I only like a handful of Nirvana tracks as I feel they are pretty mediocre (darent I say it) compared to the other (much better) offerings the Grunge scene gave us.
Also how am I being a '****ing jackass' by stating my opinion.
Of course, its easier for you to just 'jump on the bandwagon' as they say and stick with the most popular bands.
Also when it comes to saying that 'Kurt Cobain' is a better vocalist than 'Chris Cornell' then I have come to the conclusion that either:
a) you have never heard Soundgarden before and are just saying this to cause a stir.
b) You have heard him but because you love Nirvana so much you just cant accept that any singer is better than Kurt Cobain (when its clearly obvious (IMO)).

Please bear in mind this is speaking in terms of actual vocal abilities other than your perception of the music based on your personal taste (which I can totally understand).
If you had an unjaded perception of music and a more open mind then you would be able to accept that Cornell's vocals beat Cobains in terms of ability (but you still prefer Cobain just due to your personal taste).

Now your probably thinking Soundgarden is my favourite band, they're most definitely not. Infact, I havent listened to them in a long while as it isnt my favourite type of music to listen to Chris Cornell's penetrating vocals constantly but I can still recognise that he is probably (in terms of ability and vocal range) the best rock singer of all time (IMO).

No disrespect regarding Kurt Cobain's death, just because I didnt really like his music that much doesnt mean i would want him to die.

What I was saying is that it definitely added to the hype and put a whole lot of nostalgia around Nirvana which got a lot more people interested.
I totally agreed with a lot of your comments that it makes it very interesting about what actually happened etc etc.

I actually saw a programme on the tv a couple of years ago; it was a documentary on Kurt Cobain's death & the issues surrounding it, which I found very gripping and for a few days was kinda hooked researching on the internet so I can see your point there.
But to me thats straying from the music, which is what I judge bands/artists on.

As for your statement about 'they deserve a lot of hype' around them.
I actually have an opposing view to your point.
I dont think that any bands/artists should be 'hyped' by the media at all (even the ones I like) as then they become these 'larger than life' figures and it detatches them from who they really are- normal people like you and me who just happen to be in a band making music that 'we' like.
So they shouldnt be held up and worshipped and **** like that.
Thats what I found extremely disturbing about fans who actually 'worshipped' Kurt Cobain. Its scary how people can be manipulated so easily.
For instance, Im quite a big Led Zeppelin fan, but to me they were over hyped like hell.
Any band who has 'legendary' status is obviously been hyped at some point in their career.

In addition, my listing of Nirvana & The Beatles as being overrated is not to try to be 'original' or anything. Its my opinion, like it or not.

As for the 'piss of 20 people' comment,
I dont care its only a matter of opinion (be it popular or not) & it happens to be mine & not yours, in the right place I could find a certain number of people who agree with me so your comment is totally irrelevant.

I dont make decisions based on popularity & dont think if you have 20 people agreeing with you that my opinion will suddenly change.
If it pisses you off then fair enough, it doesnt piss me off that you like them, it just pisses me off that you dont recognise that they are totally blown out of proportion.

Also why do you have to bring the 'beatles' subject back up again?
So what if i dont like them, this is totally unrelated to the original post.

Also to me if The Beatles are overhyped (which they are IMO) then I would say it makes them less 'brilliant', not in terms of ability or influence but in terms of the music. (not quite sure what you were referring to..)
Finally I'd like to make it clear that Im not denying these bands/groups/artists any lack of talent or influence. I can recognise that, just dont understand all the hype surrounding them.
I try to seperate 'hype' and 'trends' from the music when judging bands.

[TumorAttitude]

Led Zeppy:
Terribly overrated, oversexed, overdrugged, stole some stuff, sang overtly-sexual stuff, "allegedly" Satan-worshiped their way into Rock God-ness, sucked at the end, took touring a bit too far, sold out.....

BUT THEY MADE SOME GOOD MUSIC.
Ahkay?

[boo boo]

Now we're criticizing a rock band for being overtly sexual?

[Neapolitan]

In my opinion, people hide behind the "IMO" and I wonder if they do so because they are afraid of being attack for speaking their mind, saying something they feel is true, "IMO" is just a plea - it really means "don't hassel me for saying this."

There is only one to say about the greatness of Led Zeppelin - & I'm not going hide behind a "IMO"

John Paul Jones and John Bonham make up the best rhythym section ever, it's not an opinion it's a scientific fact!