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.
See I don’t really see that much original. They started off as a generic pop band, then they started introducing a bit of an acid rock sound (which was already being defined by The Dead, VU, and Floyd) but still kept solidly in pop, and really there’s a lot of other stuff like it all the way through. I don’t think they’re music ever really evolved near rock, actually I think they got more pop as they went on and the guitar work became mellower and de-emphasized as they added strings and such.
I think they were an above average pop band, that did some fairly interesting stuff periodically. And the certainly revolutionized the business aspect of popular music, they were the first “license to print money” band. But the way people go on and on about them constantly throwing “best” and “most” into descriptions that just don’t make sense they’re clearly overrated. There’s never been a band that’s half as good as the worshipers make the Beatles out to be. And sometimes it’s kind of sad, there’s a lot of people (like Les Paul) never getting the credit they deserve because so many people think the Beatles did everything first; what makes it even sadder is that if you read the actual members of the band talking about stuff they give credit to all these guys that the fans insist don’t even exist.
Your “one simple little sentence” was so absurdly ridiculous that help from a mental health professional is in order. However, I fear they might have “michelle” playing in the background and that could send you over the edge and require the men in white jackets to take you away.
I refuted every idiot comment you made but this is getting boring now since you have nothing valid to say.
You were so over the top that even a lukewarm Beatles fan such as I was drawn into the fray. You don’t even know what “creativity” is what is obvious not the Beatles’ alleged lack of it.
And you can shove your amateur psychoanalyzing up your whazoo. My self worth is wrapped up in the “Fugs” and the Beatles.
Your “one simple little sentence” was so absurdly ridiculous that help from a mental health professional is in order. However, I fear they might have “michelle” playing in the background and that could send you over the edge and require the men in white jackets to take you away.
I refuted every idiot comment you made but this is getting boring now since you have nothing valid to say.
You were so over the top that even a lukewarm Beatles fan such as I was drawn into the fray. You don’t even know what “creativity” is what is obvious not the Beatles’ alleged lack of it.
And you can shove your amateur psychoanalyzing up your whazoo. My self worth is wrapped up in the “Fugs” not the Beatles.
Our friend thinks anyone who defends the Beatles against his moronic comments “worships” them. As I told him I was never a huge fan (preferring the stones for one) but when I see ridiculous I speak up.
Oh look lots of insults. How typical of the Beatles fan, taking it all personally. You weren’t a Beatle, get the hell over it.
No, I only think people that make patently silly statements like “The Beatles were the most creative band ever” worship them, because they do. And your repeated use of insults is very telling, the only people that need insults are the ones that know the facts don’t support them.
Stu and dfwgator are good dudes.
Well said.
I recall the first time I heard any Bealtes song (I Want To Hold Your Hand) and thought I was hearing something from Mars...it was so unlike anything I had ever heard.
Agree on Rubber Soul...In My Life is one of the best love songs ever written.
The Beach Boys were riding high on the success of Pet Sounds, celebrating with a party and someone put on the new Beatles album (Sgt Peppers) and they all KNEW music had just changed again....Sgt Pepper was revolutionary...to suggest they were not creative is like attempting to claim that water is not wet.
It is ok to not care for their music...we are not monolith...we have differing tastes...
As for those who took them too seriously (the lyrics), they just don’t get it...it was about fun...John Lennon said many times that they were just words...nothing more.
Apparently you consider slander of anyone not crapping on the Beatles to be just fine but pointing out ridiculous and/or totally false statements is an “insult”. Consistent stupidity.
Since there isn’t a band which was more creative than the Beatles that fact speaks for itself. Even if I were to give two dozen songs as examples of that creativity you would just ignore them.
Stu’s ridiculous comments deserve all the scorn I have poured over them and more.
I haven’t slandered anybody. You are doing nothing but throwing insults. You just did it again in that post. You’ve fled from every point and now have nothing left but personal attacks. You’ve lost, man up and admit it, or walk away, but save some sense of dignity and stop with these pointless insult post. They do nothing except prove you’ve lost control and perspective and can’t handle polite discussion among adults.
There’s plenty of bands more creative than the Beatles, dozens, maybe hundreds. Heck the Beatles weren’t even the most creative band in the British Invasion, that goes to The Kinks. Who actually are one of the bands that legitimately vie for most creative ever.
Thanks for the completely undeserved support. I’m really just another nerd, I try though.
I don't know you so I won't comment and we'll leave it at that. ;-)
For Journey, as far as vocals, the new kid is okay, he sounds like Steve Perry but it's the music that I went for. They were the third of 3 bands (Cheap Trick and Heart were the others) so they played straight through for about 1-1/2 hours with barely a beat between songs. That big ol' boy, Neal Schon was soaking wet by the end... but he was damn good.
But as far as vocals? Same show, Nancy Wilson...
Favorite JOURNEY songs:
Chain Reaction
Ask the Lonely
Send Her My Love
Hopelessly in Love (The Party’s Over)
Stone in Love
5 Underrated Bands:
Jesus and Mary Chain, The Alarm, Smithereens, Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes, J. Geils Band
I think you mean 40th.
Sorry. You’re right.
I’d never even heard of the 1961 benefit concert.
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.