Most overrated bands ever?

[lieasleep]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

Mahavishnu are not and have never been a commercial juggernaut, but they are definitely well-known and respected among music geeks like ourselves.

Anyway, I consider the two most overrated bands of all time to be the Sex Pistols and AC/DC. I can, and have ranted on and on about why I don't like the Sex Pistols, but basically I just think they're a slick, commercial, macho, shock-tactics-reliant, elementary rock band that is really no different from KISS, Warrant, or Twisted Sister, but gets more cred because they're seen as political (by the way, did you know there's a song on Never Mind the Bollocks that calls women who have abortions "animals" and "disgraces"?). They aren't even particularly fun--aside from "Anarchy in the UK" the album is actually rather boring and trite hard-rock powerchording + tuneless vocals, not to mention that it's polished and organized in such a way that completely sucks any punk rock chaos or vitality out of it. As an unabashed prog-rock fan I also feel that they had a negative effect on music overall.

...so basically you are hating them because they are an old school punk rock band. i mean they are no stooges or MC5 but they really defined the genre. a please elaborate on this negative effect because you can't just say that without giving any evidence.

[Megadead2]

Originally Posted by lieasleep

...so basically you are hating them because they are an old school punk rock band.

Yep. I am not a punk fan, I can appreciate the more artistic bands like Talking Heads, and the more emotional bands like Rites of Spring, but old-school punk does absolutely nothing for me. It's adolescent in ways I don't tolerate and, despite its rhetoric, artistically regressive. I dislike the Ramones too, but not quite as much.

i mean they are no stooges or MC5 but they really defined the genre.

Again this is exactly why I dislike them. I dislike the genre and they are one of its supreme symbols. I do think that Never Mind the Bollocks actually may well be below par for the genre though because, like I said, it is actually overproduced (too organized, too polished, robbing it of the chaos and energy that a band like MC5 thrived on)--but I won't press the point of it being below par because I have not heard many full-length LPs in the style.

a please elaborate on this negative effect because you can't just say that without giving any evidence.

Progressive rock was a genre of rock music in the '70s that was based on unusual structures, arrangements, harmonies, instrumentation etc. and was influenced by classical and jazz. It was very popular in the early-to-mid '70s, but when punk arrived in '76/'77 favoring a stripped-down sound, it fell spectacularly out of commercial and critical favor, such that most of its leading bands either had to break up (ELP) or go pop (Yes, Genesis, Rush) by the early '80s.

Today, prog rock is still widely derided by critics as pretentious, excessive, etc., while punk rock is held up as the movement that saved rock'n'roll. This is unfortunate because while some prog bands like ELP and Rush were indeed self-indulgent, commercial, and ridiculous, others like Henry Cow, the Soft Machine, and Magma were actually way more forward-thinking than the Ramones or Sex Pistols.

[lieasleep]

you make a VERY valid point but...

you are missing the point of punk entirely, prog rock had its heaviest influences in classic rock and jazz and it was exactly the kind of music that punk was retaliating against. can you see a bunch of teenage musicians who just picked up the instruments a year ago rocking out to Working Man or In the Court of the Crimson King? punk rock was simple and fun. what sucks is that a movement with such a great message got whored and distorted (like what is happeneing to indie as i type this).

also, those bands didn't HAVE to do anything. ELP was on a downslope anyway, and even if they did break up DIRECTLY because of the rise of punk then isn't it childish to think the band just went "aw man people don't like us anymore, we better quit :[" Other prog bands that eventually went more classic rock and more pop did so as a result of money. if they did want to stay prog, they could have. there has always been and will always be a very hardcore and dedicated prog rock fan base, enough to at least make a living on.

prog rock was VERY interesting. i am a huge fan and have a lot of admiration for it as a genre because they really did try and break boundaries and walls of the popular music world. it was VERY creative but punk wasn't about being forward thinking it was about simplistic and energetic music, two very opposed ideas but still two music movements that, i think, have a lot to offer. but not liking a genre is no reason to call it overrated...

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

Yep. I am not a punk fan, I can appreciate the more artistic bands like Talking Heads, and the more emotional bands like Rites of Spring, but old-school punk does absolutely nothing for me. It's adolescent in ways I don't tolerate and, despite its rhetoric, artistically regressive. I dislike the Ramones too, but not quite as much.

lol and lol again

[jaalma220]

Blink 182 is awesome. I love listening to their stuff, although I must say that I try and listed to the edited stuff. Too much of their language just is overwhelming for me. A lot of their stuff is really catchy though. I think they are a good band. They seem to be really popular.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

Yep. I am not a punk fan, I can appreciate the more artistic bands like Talking Heads, and the more emotional bands like Rites of Spring, but old-school punk does absolutely nothing for me. It's adolescent in ways I don't tolerate and, despite its rhetoric, artistically regressive. I dislike the Ramones too, but not quite as much.



Again this is exactly why I dislike them. I dislike the genre and they are one of its supreme symbols. I do think that Never Mind the Bollocks actually may well be below par for the genre though because, like I said, it is actually overproduced (too organized, too polished, robbing it of the chaos and energy that a band like MC5 thrived on)--but I won't press the point of it being below par because I have not heard many full-length LPs in the style.



Progressive rock was a genre of rock music in the '70s that was based on unusual structures, arrangements, harmonies, instrumentation etc. and was influenced by classical and jazz. It was very popular in the early-to-mid '70s, but when punk arrived in '76/'77 favoring a stripped-down sound, it fell spectacularly out of commercial and critical favor, such that most of its leading bands either had to break up (ELP) or go pop (Yes, Genesis, Rush) by the early '80s.

Today, prog rock is still widely derided by critics as pretentious, excessive, etc., while punk rock is held up as the movement that saved rock'n'roll. This is unfortunate because while some prog bands like ELP and Rush were indeed self-indulgent, commercial, and ridiculous, others like Henry Cow, the Soft Machine, and Magma were actually way more forward-thinking than the Ramones or Sex Pistols.

Sex Pistols don't even deserve the real credit for that. Prog was already on a decline by the time punk rock came about.

I mean, 1977. What were the big and popular prog releases back then? Besides Animals and A Farewell to Kings?

Exactly.

King Crimson broke up, Peter Gabriel left Genesis, Yes never fully recovered from the critical backlash they got for Topographic Oceans. Jethro Tull, ELP, Gentle Giant, Caravan and Moody Blues were all past their prime.

None of that was the fault of The Sex Pistols, they were just in the right place at the right time.

[Megadead2]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Sex Pistols don't even deserve the real credit for that. Prog was already on a decline by the time punk rock came about.

I mean, 1977. What were the big and popular prog releases back then? Besides Animals and A Farewell to Kings?

Actually, ELP and Yes had their highest charting hits on the UK charts in 1977 (with "Fanfare for the Common Man" and "Wondrous Stories" respectively). Obviously that had more to do with the natural momentum those bands had gathered over time than the actual popularity of those songs, but it does indicate that prog was not already in its death throes when punk arrived. Maybe artistically the original set of bands was in decline, but that would simply have meant that better, more modern younger bands would have taken their place.

lol and lol again

You fell back on a LOL? Weak. I can see we're not going to get along well...

you are missing the point of punk entirely, prog rock had its heaviest influences in classic rock and jazz and it was exactly the kind of music that punk was retaliating against. can you see a bunch of teenage musicians who just picked up the instruments a year ago rocking out to Working Man or In the Court of the Crimson King? punk rock was simple and fun. what sucks is that a movement with such a great message got whored and distorted (like what is happeneing to indie as i type this).

That's the thing, the phrase "simple and fun" ignores that music CAN be fun and be artistic, out-there, innovative as well. Look to Talking Heads for an example of a band who could entertain their audience and engage in intense avant-funk workouts at the same time. Three-chords + backbeat + vocals actually isn't very fun for me, it's tired, but ESPECIALLY in the case of the Sex Pistols, who were drowning in machoismo and lacked any of the dirty swagger of, say, the Troggs. As for being on the level that a teenaged band can play, I don't believe that music should aspire to mediocrity, although technical complexity is not necessary for music to be progressive or to be good ("In the Court" is actually rather easy to play, though admittedly maybe not "rock out" material).

I also don't believe that sounding "teenaged" or "adolescent" is something to be admired. Rock's whole mythology of refusing to grow up is an ugly one. I look for maturity in music. I do enjoy some "childlike" music as well (twee pop, indie pop etc.) because it recaptures a feeling of innocence and simplicity in life, but adolescent music (which includes most trad punk as well as later bands like Dinosaur Jr.) lacks both that simplicity and innocence, and the control and discipline of more mature music. In some cases, adolescent music can work because it captures a very visceral, raw, intense feeling, which is why I can enjoy some of it despite my misgivings (examples I have given include the Troggs and Rites of Spring) but the Sex Pistols were actually no where near as visceral as they are made out to be.

[boo boo]

Well I guess you could say Sex Pistols really brought about the whole anti-talent movement.

But, really, did prog ever die? No it didn't. Marillion had a very strong following in the 80s, a lot of their albums made the top 40 UK album charts, even a few hit singles. In fact, Midsplaced Childhood went number one.

King Crimson had a sucessful comeback in the 80s. Discipline, Beat and Three of a Perfect pair all made the Billboard 100.

Bands like Dream Theater, Spocks Beard, Flower Kings and Ozric Tentacles had a heavy following in the 90s.

And with bands like Porcupine Tree, Mars Volta and Tool, prog is a lot more popular now than it was before The Sex Pistols.

[Megadead2]

Prog didn't die, new bands did emerge, and it has been gaining in popularity since 2000, you're right. But it will never again reach the heights of critical laud and commercial success of the early 1970s. Well, maybe it will. Right now The Mars Volta, Porcupine Tree are really very popular cult bands. Tool is the only with huge mainstream name recognition (and Muse if they are considered progressive).

[lieasleep]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

I also don't believe that sounding "teenaged" or "adolescent" is something to be admired. Rock's whole mythology of refusing to grow up is an ugly one. I look for maturity in music. I do enjoy some "childlike" music as well (twee pop, indie pop etc.) because it recaptures a feeling of innocence and simplicity in life, but adolescent music (which includes most trad punk as well as later bands like Dinosaur Jr.) lacks both that simplicity and innocence, and the control and discipline of more mature music. In some cases, adolescent music can work because it captures a very visceral, raw, intense feeling, which is why I can enjoy some of it despite my misgivings (examples I have given include the Troggs and Rites of Spring) but the Sex Pistols were actually no where near as visceral as they are made out to be.

the sex pistols and other old school punk outfits were not adolescent, you are misunderstanding me. their music was VERY simple and COULD be rocked out to by bunch of teenagers in a garage yadah yadah yadah but what they lacked in talent, they made up for in passion and message. i don't hear you getting on folk for being traditionally very simple music. and that is, more or less, what i see punk as being a rock version of. a very anti-political and scathing view on societal norms through the eyes of very passionate, often times angry music. and i mean real punk, none of this Green Day (too much message far to little good music, at least these days), Blink 182 watered down bull**** "punk" and maybe the sex pistols AREN't a great example of that, although i do really like Nevermind the Bollocks and it did have some very anarchical messages . but bands like the Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat, Black Flag, etc. really embodied the punk movement and ideals and were bands that owe a LOT to the sex pistols. punk even gave way to the post-punk movement, Sioxie and the Banshees, the Fall, Joy Division, Echo & the Bunnymen, the Cure, Depeche Mode, etc. were made possible in large part because of the progression of the punk movement that was really spearheaded by the Sex Pistols. Joy Division, for example, started out as Warsaw and made a damn good punk album before changing their sound a bit. but Joy Division only formed Warsaw because they saw a Sex Pistols show. they are very influential and in no way overrated.