Overated Acts:

[Cylob]

Do you ever get sick of the music press hailing bands who you consider to be pants?

Which acts in your opinion are overated???

The Strokes *slap*
The White Stripes *slap*
Oasis (post 1994) *slap*
The Libertines *slap*

I have more, but I don't wanna piss too many dudes off in one go.

[Merlin]

Nirvana.

Cobain was NOT a genius.

[Raz]

Too true Merlin. Nirvana was good but not that good. If they died down respectively instead of suddenly like they did people wouldn't be worshipping him and raping everything about him.

[Mattress]

Radiohead

[Cylob]

Radiohead definitely. Talk about a bunch of depressives.

A bit of a shock to see Nirvana up there, 'Nevermind' was a superb album. Of course Kurt the man was a complete tosser, but credit where credit's due!

[Cylob]

Oh yeah, Coldplay & Travis. My spaniel has more talent.

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by Merlin
Nirvana.

Cobain was NOT a genius.

Yes, the way the media talks, he was the most artistic personality of the 90's. It's ridiculous.

[Shenlong]

I always hear this stuff about Trapt on my local rock stations, but I have still yet to see what all the fuss is about...Sound like every other damn no-name rock band out there... *cliché statement*

[Namelessv1]

Originally posted by Shenlong
I always hear this stuff about Trapt on my local rock stations, but I have still yet to see what all the fuss is about...Sound like every other damn no-name rock band out there... *cliché statement*

Yeah, Trapt is way overrated. It seems like everytime some band comes up with some catchy song that gets alot of radio play, they're a "huge hit."

[Raz]

I heard one song, three words: 'Good''Charlotte''Two'

Ack.

[randman]

Marilyn Manson

[Merlin]

Yes, he doesn't sing or play an instrument (as far as I know), all he does is look weird and talk in a raspy voice. Woo, cutting edge.

Travis aren't really 'rated' (hyped), Cylob, so they don't count.

[Cylob]

Originally posted by Merlin
Travis aren't really 'rated' (hyped), Cylob, so they don't count.

They are by their 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 fans. But fair point.

I love Manson's Disposible Teens, very well done, excellent vocals. But everything else is piss.

[thedoggfather]

I hate Aerosmith and Lynerd Skynerd (sp??), and I live in Texas where that is all anyone on the 70's rock station wants to hear.

[Cylob]

Originally posted by thedoggfather
I hate Aerosmith and Lynerd Skynerd (sp??), and I live in Texas where that is all anyone on the 70's rock station wants to hear.

Just smash your radio.

[Semantics]

Fleetwood Mac, Journey, Forgeiner, Lynard Skynard, Boston, REO Speedwagon, Limp Bizket, Metallica, Bon Jovi, Rush, Toto, Creed...they are all very overrated. Shouldn't even be rated. Just not my idea of good music. Yuck.

[Tarron_D]

Originally posted by Semantics
Fleetwood Mac, Journey, Forgeiner, Lynard Skynard, Boston, REO Speedwagon, Limp Bizket, Metallica, Bon Jovi, Rush, Toto, Creed...they are all very overrated. Shouldn't even be rated. Just not my idea of good music. Yuck.

Okay, this is kind of turning into an opinion fest. I know you don't like it, neither do I, but a hell of a lot of people do. Ya know? Thats like clumping an entire genre into a pile and saying its all over rated. 70\80's pop\rock bands may be old hat, but they still have fans.

[ShyShy]

now, now boys, play nice! :D

and no one has mentioned J-Lo yet??? wow, that's a surprise. and I've got to agree with Semantics on Limp Bizket, Fred Durst is a POSER. and if i've offended anyone with my last remark, oops.

[Shenlong]

Originally posted by ShyShy
now, now boys, play nice! :D

and no one has mentioned J-Lo yet??? wow, that's a surprise. and I've got to agree with Semantics on Limp Bizket, Fred Durst is a POSER. and if i've offended anyone with my last remark, oops.

Yes, "oops" is right... :p

But really...I think I might be giving limpbizkit a bit of renewed respect. Hopefully Wes leaving was a wake-up call to Fred to stop with the rap shit. Stop hanging out with people like Redman, DMX, all them rappers...Go back to rock...Either way, their new guitarist Mike just has a harder edge than Wes could ever have. They surpised me when they did a cover on "Sanitarium" on the MTV Icon on Metallica...I didn't think they would ever be THAT good! :D

And how could Rush be overrated? When I found out about their new album "Vapor Trails", I hardly heard any publication about it...

...as for overrated bands, I wanna speak on a Louisville, Ky-local level for a minute here; Outspoken. Compaired to other Louisville bands like Tantric and FLAW, they are just absolute noise...Sorta like what you get when you mix Trapt with a hint of Sum 41...If you havv't heard of Outspoken; GOOD! I hope for the best that you don't...

[laz]

hmm... KISS?
I have stoped watching MTV (for good reasons) and stoped listening to corporet radio (have this kick ass collage radio that plays non-corporet stuff, and hell some of it is just odd/crap/amazingly insainly good, www.widr.org they have an internet stream too), So I dont know who the biggest band right now is, so I can not really add anything that has not been said.
but I feel Staind is over rated by far, their first (mass-market) album was good, but everything passed that sucked.

I wonder if I could get away with saying TOOL... :D ;) they are about the only good "comercial" band still out there...

[Tarron_D]

Originally posted by laz9999


I wonder if I could get away with saying TOOL... :D ;) they are about the only good "comercial" band still out there...

No, you couldn't.:D Tool is a great band. Its not all over the tv, but everyone still knows it. I hope it stays that way.

[Shenlong]

I bought this KISS Alive collection...About $27, 2 CDs, about 20 tracks per CD, all live performances...There was one good song on it...Everything else just SUCKED ASS! What a waste of money!

[Bob the Tomato]

Overrated bands:

Any "new punk" band. You know, the ones with unimaginative arrangements, samey guitar chords, and vocalists that all sound like they have their nuts in a vice.

Ja Rule
Aerosmith - they're good, but not god-like.
Marylin Manson
Madonna
Metallica - What happened? They used to be awesome. Oh,right. They went sober. Ever notice that always happens? Good band goes sober, music loses that edge they used to have?
Godsmack - THEY SUCK! THEY SUCK! THEY SUCK! WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SEE THAT?
Evervescance - Since they only have one album out right now, I'll go easy on them, give them room to improve, but the songs they released are not very good.

[Cylob]

I go with all of the above. It's a shame about Madonna, she rocked in the 80's. Now she's just adhering to the rule that artists must become crap with age. Ah well, she was a rebel once.

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by Cylob
Ah well, she was a rebel once.

It is quite difficult to commodify one generations' dissent, much less two or three.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Cylob
Radiohead definitely. Talk about a bunch of depressives.
i disagree.

Originally posted by Cylob
Oh yeah, Coldplay & Travis. My spaniel has more talent.
i agree. especially about travis.

linkin park are way overrated, as are koRn a lot of the time.

[Cylob]

Is there a difference between Linkin Park & Korn then?

[zootm]

linkin park have a DJ and two singers.

[laz]

Originally posted by Tarron Dashle
No, you couldn't.:D Tool is a great band. Its not all over the tv, but everyone still knows it. I hope it stays that way.

I agree, good to see people actulay like good music.
As for overrated sellouts, I agree on Linkin Park, Metallica, Korn, Orgy (they even alive anymore?), Staind, Limp biscut, and soo soo many more older acts...
Well to make it simple, anything on MTV.

[Merlin]

MTV? That's right laz! Hate the mainstream, it makes you stand out, like everyone else. :up:

[Tarron_D]

Originally posted by Cylob
Radiohead definitely. Talk about a bunch of depressives.


Im not going to let you get away with that. :D Radiohead is great because they are, im not going to put any fox news superlatives on it.;)

[Cylob]

Alright then! Radiohead aren't depressives, they're a bunch of happy & content chaps who bring us melodic, upbeat summer tunes. Great tunes to whistle to.

[Cylob]

I've just played the Libertines album Up the Bracket (heavilly lauded by the experts). It's one of those records where you say at the end 'did I just play an album or not, I can't remember)????? God it's awful!

[Fickle]

Nirvana was overrated. Kobain knew the difference between himself and John Lennon. Shame half the country doesnt.

Overrated: Evanescence or whatever. They really brought nothing new to the table, despite that's what everybody says.

[zootm]

the beatles were - and still are - hugely over-rated.

[Cylob]

I don't believe the Beatles were overated, it's not as if they wrote crap albums (far from it)! It's easier to disregard them 40 years on, there are mountains of superior music around now. But purists like me will always (to the irritance of some) point back to the 60's and say 'thanks guys for bringing me every album I own'. That's just the way it is, the Beatles laid the egg.

[zootm]

their albums always seemed kinda off-on... some good songs, but not very consistent.

[randman]

40 years after they hit it big, their CD's still sell like crazy and their music fills the airwaves. Let's stop and think how many bands since the Beatles can that be said about?

[zootm]

that doesn't really prove anything, other than their music is especially wasy for a mass market to consume. i mean - they had a whole lot of good songs, but they were by no means the best band ever that they seem to get labeled as by many people.

i'm not saying they're bad, remember - i'm saying they're overrated...

[dlinkwit27]

i'm so late :eek: but here is what i like about some bands y'all don't. If i don't mention them, i don't like 'em that much :):

linkin park, I like them a lot, idk why, but I do. SO sue me
limp bizkit: 3 dolla bill y'all rocked. everything since (except for 'no sex') sucked.
k0rn: sure their stuff gets kidna old, but i like their sound for some reason or another
staind: they are ok
slipknot: just fun to listen to when you want to hear a lot of yelling, or when I want to piss old people off i drive up next to them and turn it up realyl loud :)

[oNaMiSsIo]

Linkin Park: it's all in the studio, if you like that that's your problem. They _suck_ live. Period.

I agree with dlinkwit on Limp Bizkit. They were good until they hit it big.

Creed, Godsmack, Nirvana, Metallica, Slipknot, all overraten imo.

Personally, I think the Beatles were the beginnings of the first boy band. They played their own instruments and wrote their own songs, so they still count as artists in my book, but the legions of screaming girls that drove their record sales gave the record companies teh first inkling of an idea for a boy band as you see it today, imho.

[Fickle]

the difference is that the Beatles lasted longer than three years.

The Beatles aren't overrated, they are just media whores now, the two left, anywhoo. Ringo is a loser, a mediocre drummer at best. Paul McCartney carries flags he doesnt understand and told Michael Jackson to invest in music, so the freak outbid him on all the Beatles copyrights.
The Beatles were the greatest band. I have yet to see a better band, but nowadays its all smoke and mirrors.

[Cylob]

The Rolling Stones always struck me as being overated. Just beacuse you have big lips it doesn't mean you can sing.
http://www.oneposter.com/UserData/Poster/Poster_6270.jpg

[oNaMiSsIo]

i thought they were overrated too, until I started listening to their music. get 40 licks and listen to it a while, you might discover something you love. :)

[zootm]

the rolling stones were fantastic songwriters, but i'm still sceptical about their actual ability to play. it seems that covers of rolling stones songs seem to realise the songs a lot better, to me...

[oNaMiSsIo]

i dunno... whenever i hear Satisfaction i have to get up and dance like that guy in Apocalypse Now. :)

[edit] /me goes off to play the song... i can't resist it :D

[Twilightseer]

Don't get me started on the Beatles. Any band that chooses Ringo Starr as a drummer has serious issues :D

Can't think of any overrated acts, I'm not too much into the metal/new rock bands thing. Now, Coldplay are a much better band than Radiohead : I hate their rock numbers but some of their ballads like 'The Scientist' or 'Trouble' are superb.

[Cylob]

The best thing about Coldplay's their name. I can't stomach Martin's voice! You shouldn't be allowed to have depressing lyrics delivered with desolate vocals, it's enough to send the most optimistmic of people on a downer. Or are they funded by Glaxo & Pfizer?

Coldplay remind me of another overated act - Starsailor.

[Twilightseer]

I've noticed that my fave bands usually have a lead singer with a 'love it or hate it' voice : The Cure, The Smiths, Placebo, Muse...
I'm not FOND of Coldplay but the singer is OK, imo :)

[Cylob]

The voice is a big factor. Beautiful music & clever lyrics mean nothing if you can't stand the vocals. If Coldplay had another vocalist I'd probably love 'em. As it is, I can't stomach it.

[Merlin]

Morrissey's voice positively freaks me out, but that doesn't stop me spinning The Smiths.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Fickle
Nirvana was overrated. Kobain knew the difference between himself and John Lennon. Shame half the country doesnt.
i really don't see john lennon as any better musically than kurt cobain. both as good - and as bad - as one another, in my opinion.

[Fickle]

both thier lyrics struck a major cord with the public at the times. Lennon was considered almost a music god because what he wrote about was the way the nation felt at the time. Very influential.

You may be right, though. meh.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Fickle
Lennon was considered almost a music god because what he wrote about was the way the nation felt at the time. Very influential.
this applies to cobain, too, though... he wrote about what his generation felt, and showed the emotion through the haphazard music of nirvana - the raw, harsh yelling and guitar-playing coupled with the occasional mumbles and lazy arpeggios expressed an apathetic generation who inside longed to be something else, even if that meant yelling and being violent to be noticed. in my opinion.

[Cylob]

Ah yeah, Pulp. They specialised in unexciting music ('Common People') but were lauded. Why?

[Twilightseer]

Originally posted by Cylob
Ah yeah, Pulp. They specialised in unexciting music ('Common People') but were lauded. Why?

Damn, I remember buying a 2-cd best-of of them. Still have to get past song 3 of cd1 :D

[Cylob]

Sorry for resurecting that bad memory! I always considered Pulp to be the butt-end of Britpop.

[Merlin]

One bad joke is one too many :p

Again, I didn't really notice Pulp ever being lauded, hyped, or rated. :) Same goes for a band some people have mentioned called "tool". Who the hell are they?

[Cylob]

Originally posted by Merlin
Again, I didn't really notice Pulp ever being lauded, hyped, or rated. :) Same goes for a band some people have mentioned called "tool". Who the hell are they?

You don't remember the days when Jarvis Cocker was on the front of NME every other week??? When every other song on the radio was 'Common People' (the other song being 'Wake Up Boo!'). I think the Pulp album (don't remind me of the name) was highly rated ny Q, Melody Maker & NME, and finished in the top 10 in all 3.

I think 'Tool' are a boyband or something.

[zootm]

i find that most people who play an instrument, and listen to louder music, like tool. other people tend not to "get" them.

[Ghoti]

Originally posted by zootm
their albums always seemed kinda off-on... some good songs, but not very consistent.
I can almost agree with you there zoot-ster. The Beatles' albums are pretty much a product of an orchestral/big band producer learning the ropes of how to capture a new "sound" in the studio.

And I will only mention in short passing their forging of new studio techniques that pre-echoed the new technologies in today's modern recording studio.
You knob-twisters know exactly what I mean.

Their original songs, on the other hand, spanned a broad range of styles that were never tailored to conform to the "trend of the day".

Even their covers brought out a new voice to some old musics. In effect, they (along with other Brit-rockers) gave Americans, who would otherwise have never heard it, a taste of their own "black" music and it was GOOD!

Overrated?
Sure, to some; everyone becomes a "toss-up" in these discussions.
But seeing them in the "big picture", I cannot include myself among them.

I have to close now . . . you've made me use a semi-colon.

[Cylob]

3 more overated acts:

Kings of Leon (crap)
The Jets (crap)
Cooper Temple Clause (crap)

Yet someone's out there buying records.

[apola_anamisha]

I wonder no one mentioned any of the boy-bands here................very good!

[NJK]

there's a differance between overated acts and plain stupid acts

[Cylob]

Boy bands aren't rated in the first place apola. So, you shouldn't see much West Life bashing going on here.

In theory...

[Twilightseer]

Originally posted by Cylob
Boy bands aren't rated in the first place apola. So, you shouldn't see much West Life bashing going on here.

In theory...


GO WEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTtttttttttttttttttttt !


Erm, nevermind :p :D

[Cylob]

Very funny 'seer!! :D

It's just as well I have my portable (with Siouxsie & the Banshees album) for the trip home. Otherwise it'd be GO WEST in my head for half (an orrible) hour. :eek:

[orac]

the stone roses

[sidd]

the beatles might be slightly overated.. but they are still an absolutley nsano band.. I personaly wouldnt say overated at all.

btw, nice sig merlin.

[marvinbarcelona]

..hhmmm.... I to think the Beatles are over-rated. I have all the albums, they made great music, but they weren't the be-all and end-all that some make out. The same goes for Nirvana. The Rolling Stones aren't overrated, mainly because I don't think they were ever rated. They were over shadowed by The Beatles. From their formation until about 1972, The Rolling Stones were a fanastic band, after that...sh*te.

I'm glad no one has mentioned The Beach Boys because that would mean....http://www.fileheaven.org/forum/images/smiles/greenchainsaw.gif

[marvinbarcelona]

Sorry about all the smilies...but I've some I like and I'm having fun.

[OutlawJim]

Nirvana are very overrated in my opinion, and semantics, don't ever say anything bad about bon jovi. ever. :p

[sidd]

their albums always seemed kinda off-on... some good songs, but not very consistent.We must be talking bout a differnt "the beatles". The beatles influenced too many bands to count, and kicked off the music industry by making it part of EVERYONES life, but they also were just as imaginative and talented song writers as any band i know today. Especially considering the amount of predecessors they had to draw influences from.

[Cylob]

Originally posted by orac
the stone roses The roses were over-hyped, bot not overated. No way! We're talking some of the best guitar music of all time.

You reminded me marvin, the Beach Boys are well overated. Terrible surf-board trash.

[orac]

the stone roses were totally overated... especially the debut album.. what is so good about it.. its lame.. and then the follow up took 6 years or something..

the beach boys?? you obviously haven't heard pet sounds... the recording techniques were way ahead of the time.. like sgt peppers..

[Cylob]

Originally posted by orac
the beach boys?? you obviously haven't heard pet sounds... the recording techniques were way ahead of the time.. like sgt peppers.. Apparently it's the best album of all time. Bah!!!!!

With regards to the Stone Roses, cast your mind back to '89. A landscape of tacky house music, early rave, Jason & Kylie, Shakespear's Sister, London Boys (need I go on).... Then you had the roses' debut.

It opens with 'I Wanna Be Adored', closes with 'I Am the Ressurection'. All the songs in between are crap, but who cares? Second Coming is a much better album, but unfortunately Blur and Oasis were running the show then. It was tragically overlooked.

[orac]

In 1989 you were listening to Def Leppard, Aerosmith, Rush and Magnum... yeah you were not listening to that list you quote there - that was your older bros domain.. (right said fred etc.!!)

The stone roses would of turned out different if they had be signed by the best label in the world.... Factory.. problem is Mr Wilson called them too Gothic!

Also pet sounds the best album of all time? no chance - its a good album, but nothing more..

[Cylob]

Originally posted by orac
The stone roses would of turned out different if they had be signed by the best label in the world.... Factory.. problem is Mr Wilson called them too Gothic!As if Joy Division and early New Order weren't!!!!

This is the man who signed 'A Certain Ratio'.:D

[marvinbarcelona]

Originally posted by Cylob
...You reminded me marvin, the Beach Boys are well overated. Terrible surf-board trash.

...telegram for Cylob.....telegram for Cylob...http://www.fileheaven.org/forum/images/smiles/faqyou.gif

---->Cylob...http://www.ynwa.org/6/ws/lynchstill.gif

http://www.ynwa.org/6/ws/yelrotflmao.gif

[sidd]

the rofl one is gold

[marvinbarcelona]

I collect them as I wonder through various forums. Some of the smiles out there are pure genius.

One of my favourites-----> http://www.ynwa.org/6/ws/,s,959603441/ernaehrung005.gif

[sidd]

NOTHNG BATS TEH SMILEIS AT D3VIANTARTCOM1!!!1!! OMG WTF LOL

http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html

[liquidmetallic]

I'll have to partially agree with the whole Radiohead being overrated idea. Anything after Kid A, in my opinion, was downhill. The Bends was by far their best album.

Now for Nirvana... tisk tisk. Here in Houston they are so overplayed it's just sad. Same with Metallica and the Goo Goo Dolls (who were good up to anything after Dizzy up the Girl).

Of course that's just what I think, and I just now really started posting here... so go ahead and ignore me. :D

[Cylob]

You'll find this forum to be uniquely accommodating liquidmetallic. Co-existing are metal-heads, goths, indie/alternative fans, 60's, 70's and 80's freaks, classical music lovers, someone with a dish-wiping fetish, we even have a boy band fan now.

So....

[Cylob]

The Smiths were always overated. Their ratio of excellent tracks is about 25%, probably less. But their attitude makes all the difference.

I can visualise Morrissey lying in his bed (1985), listening to the voices in his head: 'tomorrow you'll wear a tree down your trousers and a nice pair of NHS spectacles'... That is class.

[sidd]

morrissey was another poser, just like cobain. Everyone wants to look insane in their own special way.

They both wrote nice music though.

[Cylob]

Morrissey just writes lyrics (or poetry rather). People like that are born to be stars. There must be some gene at play.

[WolfendraK]

Originally posted by oNaMiSsIo
Linkin Park: it's all in the studio, if you like that that's your problem. They _suck_ live. Period.

Didn't you see them (or seen the DVD) Live In Texas??

[MidnightViper88]

I like Linkin Park, and I saw some of the stuff from the Live in Texas concert DVD, but meh...I've got DVDs from Metallica, Rush, and Ozzy Osbourne that are more exciting than that...

I also don't like the White Stripes...It's catchy, simple music, but that's it...Alot of people priase them, but what's there to take too seriously?

[zootm]

i've seen linkin park live, it's nothing to write home about.

saw therapy? supporting the wildhearts last night, and both of those bands would wipe the floor with linkin park in a stage or studio setting...

[webthing]

Wow I'm impressed. I was expecting too to see alot of my bands being trashed here. Then again most of my bands don't even rate in the main stream.

You guys got good tastes. :up:

Here is somemore crap some bozo's trying to feed us.

Kid Rock

Eminem & D12

There is some much crap out their now the list would be to long to list here.

[ShyShy]

Sometimes, I waste precious seconds on wondering how in the hell Justin Timberlake was allowed to survive post N'Sync. Going solo, he first ripped off Michael Jackson, and now Stevie Wonder???

And I'm not allowed to say anything bad about the Beatles, my mom would kick my ass in a heartbeat :D

[MidnightViper88]

Originally posted by webthing
Kid Rock

I like Kid Rock... :D

I saw them in concert about a month ago...2nd time, and it was better than when I first went in 2001...After his recent self-titled album, I've been a bit disappointed (Going towards a Southern Country style a bit for some songs), but then again, unlike his past albums, I've heard very, very little of what I heard on his previous albums: Rapping... :D

I'd like to add another band to the list: Slipknot

Does it really take 9 monkeys to scream and beat on cans and sticks with strings with very little talent, or have I missed something here? :weird:

[webthing]

Kid Rock did do some shows for the USO
http://www.uso.org/pubs/uploads/USO_DOHA_SHOW_7_wp.jpg
So that was very cool. :up:
And I think he's ok, but......... just overated.
Just to much hype. He'd be better staying a underground act.
Who the fuck cares about your personal life and how hard you party. Just get on stage and rock. And rock fucking hard. Basically I don't see a "Classic Hard Rock Album" coming from him. :eek:


Have I missed something here? Where's the 9 monkeys screaming and beating on cans and sticks with strings with and very little talent? That sounds like fun. :up:

[dlinkwit27]

we'll have to ask hugh whether or not shyshy is overrated ;) :p



(j/k)

[Xerxes]

Originally posted by MidnightViper88

Does it really take 9 monkeys to scream and beat on cans and sticks with strings with very little talent, or have I missed something here? :weird:

It's all attitude and visuals with no musical substance.

But I guess that could be a blanket statement about the last 60 or so years. :down: ;)

[Twilightseer]

Originally posted by Cylob
The Smiths were always overated. Their ratio of excellent tracks is about 25%, probably less. But their attitude makes all the difference.

I can visualise Morrissey lying in his bed (1985), listening to the voices in his head: 'tomorrow you'll wear a tree down your trousers and a nice pair of NHS spectacles'... That is class.

25% :eek: You're being harsh here. Every band produces average songs and The Smiths are no exception to the rule but to me, their ratio of excellent songs is more about 80%. I think most bands would consider it a lifetime achievement to produce something half-as-good as There Is a Light That Never Goes Out :)

[Cylob]

Yes, looking back I was harsh.

I'd say 50%.

[zootm]

hell, i only like about 30% of the songs on their greatest hits album. i guess i'm just not a smiths person...

[Cylob]

But the 30% are great! I've reviewed my position.......

40%!

If anything, that's generous. The Smiths are one of the most inconsistent bands I know of...... you get brilliance and crap intermingled, and as zootm said, even on a Greatest Hits comp (one of their 100 Greatest Hits comps).:D

[Twilightseer]

Ok, what tracks qualify as crap according to you ? Just to see :p

[Cylob]

Okay then 'seer! But, this isn't pretty! The crap tracks indicated thus:

From the 1984 classic - Hatful of Hollow:

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drf500/f594/f59498vfw4d.jpg

1.
2.
3. These Things Take Time
4.
5.
6. Handsome Devil
7. Hand in Glove
8. Still Ill
9.
10. This Night Has Opened My Eyes
11. You've Got Everything Now
12. Accept Yourself
13.
14. Back to the Old House
15.
16.

8 out of 16, giving a 50% ratio. But other albums fare worse!

[Twilightseer]

"You've Got Everything Now" is crap ? :eek:
"Hand In Glove" ? :eek:

etc...

Needless to say I disagree but well, to each his own opinion :)


People, don't listen to Cylob. The Smiths rock, decide for yourself, but they do rock at more than 50% per album. Forgive Cylob, his life is tough...
:D

[UNIQHORN911]

very few albums have ever had more than 4 or 5 good tracks in them, teh rest are all just fodder. tahnk god stock aitken and waterman died they churned out more crap tunes from overrated artists than any other label in history.

and when will elvis presley fans stop referring to him as the king? he only ever ruled his beer bottles

[Cylob]

Originally posted by UNIQHORN911
and when will elvis presley fans stop referring to him as the king? he only ever ruled his beer bottles :up:

Indeed.:) KING OF WHAT? EXACTLY?

@seer - note to Marr/Morrissey - 'try harder next time'! I saw that on many a school report. And even at work.:( But it hasn't happened in bed yet.;)

[EnDurA]

Originally posted by Shenlong
I always hear this stuff about Trapt on my local rock stations, but I have still yet to see what all the fuss is about...Sound like every other damn no-name rock band out there... *cliché statement*

i like Trapt, i got thier album off a friend and it sounds pretty good.

I don't know what all the hype about evanescence is, i bought their album and listened to it for about 3 weeks untill i got sick of it, and every live performance i've seen has totally sucked.

i'm not too fused on Jet, but they've only started their career so its too early to call judgement

[MidnightViper88]

Man, my statement on Trapt is old...

Last fall, local concert holding LRS Fest (Live concert held here in Louisville by rock station 105.1 WLRS with a buncha bands, some local, some from elsewhere, at least 1 or 2 big-name bands) had Trapt as one of the bands performing, and they were just fucking awsome live...I just totally changed my mind after that... :D

[Raz]

The Ramones

[shakey_snake]

not to tick anyone off, I love the Beatles, but I do think people give them too much credit, especially when you look at things released a year or so before Sgt. Pepper. That album kind of framed the flower generation, but it certianly wasn't that different from things already happening.

[edit]
And any band marketed today is overrated, because we live in such a overmarketed, fast paced society that has no true appriciation(sp) for truly outstanding music.

If it says it does, its just trying to market artfulness to the wannabee intellectual, art poser clique of society, that undoubtedly many of you belong.

[doobey]

decide for yourself!

www.betterpropaganda.com

from the creators of epitonic, reviews of the newest music and free legal mp3s. you can make a mix of all the stuff you read about, put it on your mp3 player and decide for yourself!

[Volospion]

The Beatles.
The Rolling Stones.
Nirvana

[Smeggle]

Originally posted by Cylob
:up:

Indeed.:) KING OF WHAT? EXACTLY?



emm how about beingthe biggest grossingartist of the last 50years? consistently still outselling most artists of the last twenty years? I'd say that give's him a good start on being king..apart from the crap he had in his personal ..Hey shucks ..so do we all..he had one of the finest singing voices I have had the pleasure to hear. I prefer Roy Orbison myself as I thought he had better range but thats a personal preference...

@shyshy - You'd deserve it as well for having a go at the one of the most influential bands in modern music ;)

[Cylob]

That reminds me...... ROY ORBISON!

He's like a mannequin wearing shades.... only your average mannequin wouldn't irritate the hell out of you with that 'voice'.

I think I'd have prefered swimming from Dover to Calais to attending one of his 'gigs'. Whatever the sea conditions.

[Raz]

McCartney is very over-rated. Lennon was definately not over-rated.

[ShyShy]

Beyonce freakin' Knowles :weird: