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.
Nirvana wasn’t whiny rock. Bush was whiny rock.
Overrated: pop music!
I don't think the Eagles sound at all like the Beach Boys, who came later. I actually think they sound more like the Rays--remember Daddy Cool and Tippity Top?. Nonetheless, they were solid singers, and I haven't heard an Eagles song that I dislike. Here are a couple of my favorites:
I, for one, happen to like "Teen Angel."
Have a listen:
Teen Angel--Dion & the Belmonts, 1958
Over 440 posts, and NO mention, at all, of the ultimate overrated rock band. Some might call them pop, but I have listened to them closely and they are definitely rock and roll too!
Eight times a week in NYC, and all around the world, the curtain goes up for a show which actually won Best Musical of the Year. A story about 4 no talent greasers from Newark New Jersey. Talk about music that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Some groups can do it all, but this group couldn’t do it AT all. The ultimate overrated band:
Frankie Valli and the 4 Seasons
Yep - I can’t stand Dave Matthews singing, but his drummer Carter Beauford is one of the most talented I’ve ever heard or watched.
Since you are all knowing and all wise, perhaps you could create music recorded world wide by thousands of artist...perhaps YOU could sell 200 million records world wide...afterall, YOU know what is GOOD and what is NOT.
The Beatles practically invented the modern recording industry. They took Les Paul's brilliant multitracking to a whole new level. And musically, you're right, before the Beatles, if you wanted hear interesting chord changes you had to go to the Blue Note.
For me Radio Head is overrated and Coldplay is just unlistenable.
The Pogues are the most UNDERrated band on the planet.
Spock's Beard, too.
I find it amusing that the ones declaring the Beatles overrated nevertheless give them credit for universal influence over pop music thereafter.
discotu: You argue that they followed pop structures..this is such a red herring...The subject is rock bands and what rock band is history has not build upon what came before?
All pop songs have at their core a three chord progression, connected by complimentary chords/notes...and all rock music owes its’ basic foundation to the blues.
Other bands, Steely Dan for example, built upon both jazz and pop...but they ALL build upon basic structures...
The geniuses of music over the part 40 years credit the Beatles for having changed music, and for the timeless magic of it....as George Martin has said; “Every generation discovers the Beatles for themselves”. And becuase they were creative and their music both magic and timeless, there is a long running Cirque Du Soleil based on Beatles music.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the same for those you deem worthy.
No the subject of that exchange was uniqueness. I don’t have a problem with bands following the basic structure, 85% of my 300+ GB collection follows the basic structure of whatever the heck kind of music it is. But when you follow the basic structure one claim you surrender is uniqueness.
Actually most of whom I “deem worthy” are marked by two things: they’re highly regarded by others I like, and they’re largely dismissive of the Beatles as just another pop band that made gobs and gobs of money. And many of my “worthies” are on the list of people that INFLUENCED the Beatles (like Zappa, Richard and Cochran).
Zappa was indeed “creative”...but some say so called “modern art” is as well....a talented musician, and his music was fun..but the subject was “over-rated” and Zappa barely makes any charts at all pro or con because he was simply different for the sake of it.
Snobs driven by jealousy will often dismiss those whe are successful..But without exception EVERY professional musican I know LOVES the Beatles....
They all borrow from those that went before and from each other...Crap, Zepplin outright STOLE from Moby Grape and blues artists....Dylan stole...the Stones stole...But I would not suggest that all of these have not been creative.
My hundreds of CD’s and old LPs run the gambit as yours no doubt do...from Western Swing, Big Band, Classical, etc., etc...just NO RAP and NO Opera...sorry the first mentioned is not music and the latter just doesn’t stick to my ribs at all....
Actually Zappa makes a lot of lists for his influence. Because he wasn’t just different for the sake of being different. He was trying whatever he could think of because he didn’t like how narrowly music was defined, he could never understand why nobody had done X before, so he did, and then next week he’d think of a new X. He was also the hardest working guy in music, yeah they always give James Brown that label, but James Brown didn’t release 62 albums in 25 years, all while maintaining a serious touring schedule and an epic groupie habit. A number of his albums fail, that’s the nature of experimentation, but the successes are always fun. And the intricacies of the music means no matter how many times you’ve listened to a particular song it’s got something else to offer you.
Most of the professionals I know don’t really care one way or the other about the Beatles, but find the press incredibly annoying. Van Morrison had a great rant a couple of years ago where he not so patiently explained to the idiot interviewer that music didn’t start with the Beatles and not every who didn’t manage to get a record contract before the Beatles was actually influenced by them. It was beautiful because he accidentally explained exactly what the problem is, it’s not the Beatles, they’re just a band, it’s the worship that’s elevated to the level of ignoring plainly obvious facts, it’s the assumptions by the unwashed that everybody MUST have been influenced by the Beatles. It’s annoying.
I never said the Beatles weren’t creative, actually the opposite, I said repeatedly that the later works were creative. What I was objecting to was one of those typically silly worship statements, the specific claim was that the Beatles were the most creative band in rock history. A claim that’s laughable. The Beatles did a lot of pop music that, if you like that sort of thing, is pretty good, but they never branched out beyond pop music really. Even when they branched out into acid rock they kept close to those pop music structures, acid pop. Creative sure, most creative ever not so much. Really if the Beatles fans could just keep their praise within the bounds of sanity, I don’t even ask for reality just not nuts, it wouldn’t be a problem.
I’ve got some rap. Some of it is actually pretty clever. Totally groove on Sir Mix A Lot, some of the other guys from the early days.
One of the best concerts I ever saw was The Clash opening up for The Who.
I saw that show, too, October 12 or 13, 1982 at SHEA
STADIUM in Queens, NY. I think David Johansen was on the bill.
There famous three LP set was Sandinista.
Ironically I had to deal with a fan of the Saninistas, several years later. In 1985 I was the GOP candidate for City Council on the Commie Upper West Side of Manhattan. My opponent, who later ran for Mayor was RUTH MESSINGER. She was a big fan of Daniel Ortega, head of the Sandys. When he came to New York, they would shop together.
I tried to use this in my campaign, but I was not able to do much with it.
Big Audio Dynamite, with Mick Jones of Clash never reached their fame or popularity, but they were an enjoyable outfit too.
Typo or 2 in frist POST.
I saw that show, too, October 12 or 13, 1982 at SHEA
STADIUM in Queens, NY. I think David Johansen was on the bill also.
Their famous three LP set was Sandinista.
Ironically I had to deal with a fan of the Saninistas, several years later. In 1985 I was the GOP candidate for City Council on the Commie Upper West Side of Manhattan. My opponent, who later ran for Mayor was RUTH MESSINGER. She was a big fan of Daniel Ortega, head of the Sandys. When he came to New York, they would shop together.
I tried to use this against Messinger in my campaign, but I was not able to do much with it.
Big Audio Dynamite, with Mick Jones of Clash never reached their fame or popularity, but they were an enjoyable outfit too.
I saw them at Rich Stadium , Orchard Park , NY. (where I grew up) which is now Ralph Wilson(Buffalo Bills)stadium.
The Clash opened that show.
I saw The Who again at the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, but I think that was either 1983 or 1984. I don’t remember who opened the show.
I worked at the Carrier Dome when I was at SU between 19
83-85. I saw a lot of shows and games for free. I set up and took down everything for events production. The best $5/hr job I ever had. I met Springsteen, Sting, and a few others. Springsteen seemed like a regular guy. Prince was way out there. Sting was very aloof. I also got to see Patrick Ewing and Ron Seikaly play some great ballgames. I still hate Georgetown.
One of the best shows I ever saw was the Clash with the English Beat as the opening act.
More than anything else the Beatles were original. When they hit their stride around Rubber Soul there wasn't really anything else like it. But Lennon and McCartney were not lyricists in the Tin Pan Alley sense. When they started out they were definitely a "rock band." To say the Beatles are not rock is to say that Chuck Berry did not play rock music. Their music evolved into something not quite like rock and more like pop.
Still I don't know how one could listen to Abbey Road or the White Album and say the Beatles don't rock. True, there is a some annoying crap in their catalog (When I'm 64, Obla Di Obla Da, to name two.)
To summarize, the Beatles are overrated by those who pour over their lyrics looking for hidden meanings, and who wonder what John "meant" when he wrote a certain line. Overall, I don't think they are overrated at all.
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.