Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes: I've got to agree with GnR. They pretty much are The Darkness. They do have some wicked barstompers and November Rain is a personal fave but Axle's concert ditching flakiness has forever ruined his voice for me. Aerosmith has always been a huge sell-out band for sure (and pretty much everything after Toys In The Attic has been strained).
I'd have to say that if Permanent Vacation were to be released to-day but a no name up-and-comer band, it would be Top 10 material, even for the likes of P4K. You can't really even argue that. It just shows how difficult it's become to make a truely steller album. Even the most ardent fan of the best current music would need to concede quite a bit to previous generations. There's a big void developing, and some stupid band is gonna fill it.
Modest Mouse is very overrated. Half of "Good News for People Who Love Bad News" was forgettable and their newer one was not much better.
Underrated? How about a little band called Viva Voce? Saw them opening up for The Shins and they were incredible. Killer guitar, killer songs. Check them out.
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: Modest Mouse is very overrated. Half of "Good News for People Who Love Bad News" was forgettable and their newer one was not much better.
Underrated? How about a little band called Viva Voce? Saw them opening up for The Shins and they were incredible. Killer guitar, killer songs. Check them out.
Modest Mouse is certainly not overrated IMO. I think Good News is incredibly underrated, with Dance Floor being the only stinker on there. I'm not as big as a fan of We Were Dead, but still enjoyed it immensely.
Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover: Modest Mouse is very overrated. Half of "Good News for People Who Love Bad News" was forgettable and their newer one was not much better.
Underrated? How about a little band called Viva Voce? Saw them opening up for The Shins and they were incredible. Killer guitar, killer songs. Check them out.
Modest Mouse is certainly not overrated IMO. I think Good News is incredibly underrated, with Dance Floor being the only stinker on there. I'm not as big as a fan of We Were Dead, but still enjoyed it immensely.
Really? Half of "Good News" was filler I thought. I mean I like some of their stuff but as a whole I think they fall short. And man I heard them on the radio ALOT.
I'd definitely say Radiohead is overrated. As much as I like them, it's only above average brit-pop pretending to be experimental. I can't count the number of times I've listened to OK Computer or The Bends and tried to see the experimentation and emotion everybody talks about. They both have some fantastic tracks (Airbag, Climbing Up The Walls, Planet Telex), but I can't stand how much filler they crank out (Let Down, Subterranean Homesick Alien, No Surprises, etc.) Although Fitter Happier is pretty cool.
Then there's The Beatles. Once again, I like a fair amount of what they have out there. (especially Magical Mystery Tour...) However, I think they're all terribly mediocre at their respective instruments, and the most notable thing about them is how popular they were. It's like Elvis, all about the image with little substance. They look good on their own, but when you compare them to other bands of the time, they don't hold up. However, if anybody can persuade me otherwise on them, I wouldn't have a problem reinstating them as my favorite band like they used to be.
In the way of underrated, I would definitely say Soft Machine. It's progressive rock without all the pomp, just straight jazzy jamming with the song Moon in June singlehandedly putting Robert Wyatt (also underrated, Rock Bottom is incredible) in a class of few songwriters. Also, I've never understood why Krautrock seems to get pushed to the side. While Can and Neu! are my favorite from there, you can't ignore how many good bands came out of there. Finally, Jefferson Airplane deserves more credit than they get. Volunteers and After Bathing at Baxter's are two of the best albums from the entire psychedelic scene that seem to get looked over.
Finally, while they had their (large) share of filler, Spirit deserves some credit as a sort of proto-prog band. Asides from the fact that they practically wrote Stairway to Heaven for Led Zeppelin (a band that toured with them) with their song Taurus a couple years earlier, they had some strong songs.(Elijah, Dark Eyed Woman, Apple Orchard)
I don't understand some of your reasons for not liking The Beatles. Mediocre at instruments? You don't have to have a group of virtuoso's to make incredibly good music. The whole being greater than the sum of it's parts, or some such.
IMO, music doesn't have to be terribly deep or experimental to be great. Give me Spoon over Xiu Xiu any day (not really a fair comparison, as I would take most any band over Xiu Xiu).
but I can't stand how much filler they crank out ->Let Down,
Where's my gun? just kidding...
IMO, The only album besides Pablo Honey that has significant filler is HTTT. But 99% of bands would kill to make songs as good as Radiohead or Beatles "filler" tracks. Just listen to Radiohead's "How Am I Driving" EP. They didn't make the OK Computer cut but it's amazing that those great songs weren't used for a real album. And people complain about the Beatles "White Album" having too much filler...I say if the filler is that strong then give me another serving.
Edit: Oh yeah...Overrated: Aerosmith and AC/DC (by the buying public at least) Underrated: Pulp
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mymindsblank,
Originally posted by Built to Sleep: I don't understand some of your reasons for not liking The Beatles.
I don't mean to say I don't like the Beatles. I actually like almost all of their material from Sgt. Pepper on. (and parts of Revolver) While they had influence in kids starting bands, I don't think they had much real musical importance. It's different for everybody, but I think the Beatles owed a lot to The Crickets and The Beach Boys. Granted, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that a lot of their musical "innovations" were already done by lesser known artists.
quote:
You don't have to have a group of virtuoso's to make incredibly good music.
I completely agree. (That's why Yes' Tales From Topographic Oceans was so miserable.) But for me, that's all it was. Very good music. Not great music that I would put on any "best of" lists or credit with being revolutionary.
quote:
Give me Spoon over Xiu Xiu any day.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Borachon: Specifically, which bands?
The Rolling Stones, The Who, Grateful Dead, early Pink Floyd, The Velvet Underground, and The Doors are a few. (yes, I know they're not exactly unheard of these days, so I'd add Red Krayola, Sandy Bull (not a band, but a very early example of eastern influence-1963! take that George Harrison), and practically the entire Canterbury scene)
quote:
Originally posted by mymindsblank: Just listen to Radiohead's "How Am I Driving" EP.
However, I think (the Beatles) are all terribly mediocre at their respective instruments
People underrate the Beatles as musicians because they didn't have a virtuoso guitarist and Ringo was a functional drummer. But Paul was a great bassist and their vocals and harmonies are second to none in the history of rock. Maybe the Beatles couldn't pull off a 12 minute guitar solo, but Led Zeppelin or Cream could never attempt something like "Because." And I would also argue that they were virtuoso songwriters. So they were virtuosos, but not in the conventional sense
Originally posted by pianoporsche: the Beatles... I don't think they had much real musical importance.
I can barely believe I'm going to start arguing with someone who's going to make a statement like that, then go on to say that The Beatles don't stand up to The Doors. Even if you don't like The Beatles, you surely can't fail to recognise their importance in musical history. As much as I love The Beach Boys, probably even more than I love The Beatles, Brian Wilson has said many times that he always felt like he was playing catch up with The Beatles.
Your whole argument seems to be that The Beatles weren't innovative, then you go and list some of the least innovative bands in musical history. As for listing Sandy Bull as an example of Eastern influence a couple of years prior to Harrison, that's completely irrelevant. If you look at most bands who are considered innovative or experimental, you'll find there was some obscure or unheard of artist that was doing something similar a few years before. A few beardies happen to hear the obscure artist, but 99.9% of the population remain ignorant until it's introduced to the mainstream by a bigger band. It takes a lot of balls for a mainstream band to introduce new sounds and experimentation in to their music at the risk of alienating their fanbase, something The Beatles, and Radiohead never shirked and should be applauded, not derided for.
Also, who says The Beatles were mediocre musicians? Guitar Snob Monthly? I can't ever recall listening to The Beatles and thinking "if only they were better musicians". Absolute deliberately inflammatory nonsense. I bet you love saying that at people's houses or at parties when a Beatles track comes on, just to revel in the reaction you get. Come on, be honest, how often do you reel that one out?
"I know that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully"
good post Borachon. IMO the most overrated bands of all time are...drum roll...RADIOHEAD AND TV ON THE RADIO. Now I don't have anything against Radiohead but they just aren't THAT amazing like they are played out to be. Seen them live twice, they are great, but no "spiritual" experience there. As for TV on the radio, Im still baffled as to how these guys got any hype. I guess I can see why indie hipsters (myself included, no bashing) like "wolf like me" but, seriously c'mon, its not that good at all.
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I have a friend who once stated that Radiohead is simultaneously the most overrated and underrated band in the world. ...as contradictory as that statement is it's somehow true...
As much as I love The Beach Boys, probably even more than I love The Beatles, Brian Wilson has said many times that he always felt like he was playing catch up with The Beatles.
While this is certainly true, remember that Stg. Pepper was largely the Beatles reaction to Pet Sounds (complete with animal sounds). It went both ways...both bands trying to keep up with the other until the Beatles just blew the roof off.
Where's my gun? 
just kidding... 
