Posted on 03/25/2011 1:05:27 PM PDT by GSWarrior
There is no way to quantify if a band or artist is overrated. It’s more of a feeling than anything else.
There exists in popular music a hierarchy. It’s been created, and is constantly altered, by both natural and artificial means. At the top sits The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Elvis, Michael Jackson, U2, and Madonna. At the bottom rests the 8th place American Idol contestant. Everyone else fall somewhere in between.
Determining which artists are overrated and which are correctly rated is not a science. It’s not even an art. It’s just an exercise to start a conversation. It’s a lot like asking the question who is the greatest guitarist of all-time or what rocker, if still alive, would be a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice.
For this article, Land of Punt will throw out five artists we think are overrated and why we think that way. Hopefully our choices will elicit a response other than apathy. Maybe you’ll cheer, maybe you’ll purse your lips in anger, or maybe you’ll do a little of both.
LOP’s intention with this list isn’t to denigrate the five artists enumerated below, but to examine the machinations and politics of music and the music industry. The hierarchy of artists we refer to is that of the macrocosm not the pecking order of your own personal microcosm.
Bob Dylan
Before you freak out and delete our bookmark from your favorites, hear LOP out. When we say Bob Dylan is overrated we are not disparaging his contributions to popular music. What we are saying is if Dylan is rated a 9 (for example) Land of Punt believes his rating should actually be an 8.3. He’s just a bit overrated but overrated nonetheless.
First of all, the dude has released over 60 albums in his career but has only sold 70 million units. Almost assuredly if you own one Dylan album you own them all. So if you do the math there are about 1.16 million Dylan fans in the world.
By the way, only five of his albums have reached number one. To put that in perspective, Dylan has the same amount of number one albums as Metallica and less than half the amount of Jay-Z.
Dylan has probably composed a gazillion songs in his life, but not once has he charted a number one single or written a bridge.
The reason why Dylan is so highly rated is Rolling Stone Magazine. They absolutely love the guy. Sure, he’s influenced a bunch of artists but the number of people who actually say “Hey, let’s listen to some Dylan” is rather small. Dylan is not synonymous with fun.
Of course, if you’re a songwriter or a poet you’re a big Dylan fan. But to most of us he’s like a Socratic dialogue. You know that it’s brilliant but you don’t want to experience it unless you’re getting college credit.
To prove our points, in 2004 Rolling Stone Magazine named Dylan’s “Like A Rolling Stone” the number one song of all-time. That’s just Rolling Stone being sycophantic about a song that most people only need to listen to once in their life.
Fleetwood Mac
Fleetwood Mac could launch an arena tour of America right now and sell out every show. They are one of the biggest bands from the 1970′s, they’ve sold over 100 million albums throughout their career, and the lineup of Lindsey Buckingham, Stevie Nicks, Christine McVie, John McVie, and Mick Fleetwood is legendary.
Yet, they are a one album band. Rumors. 1977. That’s it!
Okay, their self-titled 1975 album was pretty good and 1982′s Mirage went number one, but most people drive to a Fleetwood Mac concert with Rumors blaring in the CD player.
The band has been around since 1968, and with the exception of a few years in the 1970′s, Fleetwood Mac has mediocre at best.
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young are members of the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame as both a group and as individuals.
How in the heck did they swing that?
For one, they are beloved by Rolling Stone Magazine. Secondly, they epitomize the bleeding heart liberalism of the 1960′s. Ignorant baby boomers, with their free love and ridiculous peacenik attitudes, love them some CSN&Y.
But the main reason CSN&Y are rated so highly is the guys were well-liked. They knew everyone. If rock and roll in the late 1960′s and throughout the 1970′s was a high school, then Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young was the popular kid who always wore the fashionable jacket.
That has to be it because how else would they have joined the immortals of rock and roll?
In more than 40 years as band they’ve released just 16 albums. That includes studio, live and compilations. They’ve only seen one of their studio albums reach number one and most of their stuff is just downright awful.
Their highest charting single is “Just a Song Before I Go” which reached #7 in 1977. Their only other top ten hit was “Wasted on the Way” which peaked at #9 in 1982.
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded some good stuff but certainly not enough to warrant a place in the hall of fame.
Tom Petty
This one is easy. Is Tom Petty a big enough star to perform at a Super Bowl halftime show? The answer is no. But he did as much in 2008 at Super Bowl XLII.
Now, Petty has been extremely successful throughout his career. He’s sold more than 50 million albums worldwide and Tom Petty concerts continue to sell out year after year.
But, he’s never had a number one album or a number one single.
One of the reasons why he’s on our list is because ever since his 1981 album, Hard Promises, all his stuff sounds the same.
Another reason why he’s overrated is he doesn’t elicit much enthusiasm. He’s not very exciting. Yes, LOP likes him and you probably do too, but when you hear the name Tom Petty your eyes don’t light up and your heart doesn’t flutter. More than likely you just shrug your shoulders and say “meh.”
Green Day
Furthermore, the Bay Area punk trio is often credited with ushering in the 1990′s wave of punk-pop bands. Music critics often cite them as progenitors of a whole new generation of punk.
And that’s why they are on our list–their association with punk music. For as we all know, they’re not punk rockers they’re pop stars. They write catchy tunes that feature whining lyrics about contrived political oppression.
Yet, they have more in common with Burt Bacharach than they do in Johnny Lydon.
If they lost the ridiculous eye makeup, dropped the bogus teenage angst, and shopped at the Banana Republic they’d make one heck of a pop band.
Only two types of people think Green Day is actually punk. The first type is record executives who want a safe, accessible brand of pop/rock music they can label and sell as punk. The second type is kids who want to listen to punk music as they drive around in their parents BMW.
In the shopping mall of popular music, Green Day is the store “Hot Topic.”
After all, what do a bunch of American kids born in 1972 have to rebel against? Not having cable? No Goonies 2? Sega Dreamcast not given enough of a chance to succeed?
Bottom line, the last thing any punk band would ever want is their music used in a Broadway musical. If punks thought mainstream music was commercial and corporate (both anathema to their world view), they should know Broadway is ten-times worse.
Thanks for the link, I liked it.
Yep -- world rocked by that one, eyes awash at their Star Spangled Banner!
Thanks, jtal -- they've got a brand-new Texas fan.
The Beatles were history , how could you EVER say they are over rated. That’s beyond absurd. Even if you HATED then , they single handedly changed popular music forever . DUMB statement man ..sorry
Neat coinkydink: I first heard the old-time Dixie Chicks at Waterloo Ice House (6th and Lamar) many moons ago (and bought my Thank Heaven for Dale Evans cassette from the talented hand of Robin Macy on the spot).
SRV = The Best Friend a Guitar ever had.
Again, revolutionizing doesn’t equal good.
I notice that over and over the Beatles defenders keep running to the late stuff, which I’ve already said REPEATEDLY, is when they actually started getting kind of interesting. My complaint, which you guys keep fleeing right past, is the painfully repetitive canned love songs they built their career on. Not only their career but the career of every canned pop band that’s been destroying top 40 radio since. It’s the PRE-Revolver I shall forever hate the Beatles for, and every single time you guys run to Revolver and beyond you’re proving me right.
The Beatles aren’t rock and roll either. They were a POP band, especially in the early days when they replaced Teen Angel with I Wanna Hold You Hand. It’s the same freaking music. The Beatles didn’t take rock and roll anywhere, they were making the EXACT same POP you’re saying was killing rock and roll. They’re STILL killing it. That’s their big accomplishment, still managing to destroy rock 40 years after breaking up.
BWHAHAHAHAHA, variety in the Beatles catalog?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
They made the same stupid pop song for 6 albums, then started doing drugs and figured out that they didn’t need to have songs make sense. That’s not variety.
You mention Zappa, now THAT’S variety. Jazz, classical, doo-wop, rock. Zappa had more variety in his first 4 albums than the Beatles have in their entire catalog including solo work. Oh and there’s a lot more being mocked than the Beatles in WOITFTM. Though it’s funny you bring that up since McCartney says FZ was influential on Sgt Peppers. It’s kind of a typical piece of Beatle worship there, the press touted Sgt Pepper as the first concept album ever, completely ignoring the concept albums that helped make Sgt Pepper exist in the first place.
Yes. I am admittedly biased - they were the band of my youth - but, I think that's a fair and accurate assessment.
They released and preformed Meddle and Dark Side of the Moon when I was 14-16 and saw them a couple time then at Saratoga. Great memories.
Phil Collins is a terrific drummer and a passable singer. If you want to hear him drum and not sing, check out some old Brand X (the fusion band from the 70s).
Ok now I know you’re goofing on everyone. Hendrix revolutionized music and you say he’s over rated. Either your pulling our leg or you artistically illiterate
I agree with the Beatles. Especially after the first couple albums. They were like 4 Justin Beavers that lasted longer than he will.
PROBABLY THE SINGLE MOST IGNORANT STATEMENT EVER MADE ON THE INTERNET ..EVER WOW
You sir have zero to say about music after that statement. Most major composers , musicians and music critics would agree . You actually have no clue what you’re talking about . It’s not even a matter of taste .
Thanks for mentioning Springsteen. He doesn’t sing, he just screams. Way overrated, in my book.
Fair statement-don’t know that much about drummers. Knowledge is limited to Ian Pace and Neil Peart. and those are about the only ones I can name :)
Not a big drum afficianado-I know they are a big part of the music, but they just don’t do much for me.
“and you can hardly say inagaddadavida is overated? can you? since like no one you know has actually listened to the entire long version. including me.”
Obviously you weren’t a teenager in the late 60’s. Cheech and Chong ridiculed it as the most overplayed song of all time.
I have the "Live at Gdansk" DVD where Gilmour and Wright did Echoes in it's entirety, pure magic, and I was glad that Wright had one more chance the play those tunes before he passed on.
You sir got nothing but insults and silliness. The facts stand. The Beatles were an above average pop band at best, and yet all their worshipers always have top insist they were the best at everything. Actually 90% of the problem with the Beatles isn’t actually with the Beatles, it’s with the deluded fans that can’t seem to accept the simple truth that they were a cute pop band and not the best at anything... well OK McCartney/ Lennon could pop hook the hell out of you, but earworming people to the point of suicide isn’t really something to be proud of.
You got one thing right though, it isn’t a matter of taste. It’s matter of facts, the fact is all the Beatles worshipers have deep emotional issues and way to much of their sense of self worth tied up in the Beatles. They were just a band, you weren’t even a member, it shouldn’t bother you if other people think they sucked eggs.
Cut myself off there.
While many of the songs of their first couple of albums are somewhat conventional in form they are still generally better music.
While I do not know when they started doing drugs I also don’t really care and the songs generally make a great deal of sense. Recall that ordinary love song “Eleanor Rigby” are you claiming that song doesn’t make sense? What about “Taxman”? It could be the theme song for the Tea Party. How about “Back in the USSR” one of my favorites, does that not give you great sound and something to consider?
WOIIFTM was only possible after Sgt. Pepper’s. But for me Zappa hit his peak with the first album, “Freak Out”, after the second the guy couldn’t keep my attention. FO was outstanding though. I repurchased it on cd a little while ago.
My regard for any group is totally independent of what the “press” touts or doesn’t tout. I only go by the sounds I hear and I heard a lot of great ones from the Beatles and still do. What happened to you did John piss on your leg? Or Paul snake your girlfriend from you?
Rubber Soul was really the first album in which the Beatles started stretching their musical imaginations and marked their breakthrough into a new musical format. But ALL the other albums were fun and listenable very much so.
Their “painfully repetitive” long songs they initially sang were their training like the early blues of the Stones were their training and their first albums reflect that and are limited to that. And to a great extent is has remained the starting point for the Stones songs. I don’t condemn them for that at all. But where the Stones were taking from Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley the Beatles were taking from Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Elvis, and Little Richard. Why would anyone find that worthy of condemnation?
Sounds like you are complaining that rock and roll groups start out playing rock and roll.
Teen Angel is NOT I want to hold your hand. They are completely different in intent and sound. There is a place for both of them in my musical universe.
The Beatles reignited the Rock and Roll world which had fallen back somewhat since Elvis skyrocketing to the top. I guess you won’t have much good to say for Elvis either, though. He was so repetitive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.