# Who are the 10 musicians / composers whose importance is the most overrated?



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

David Bowie
The Beatles
Miles Davis
DSCH
Michael Jackson
Leonard Bernstein
Hendrix
Elvis Presley
Bob Dylan
Stravinsky


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Mods please change title to:

Who are the 10 musicians / composers (in any genre) who are the most overrated in terms of importance?

Thank you.


----------



## Bulldog

ABBA
Carpenters
James Brown
John Williams
Beyonce
Stockhausen
Bruce Springsteen
Paganini
Eric Whitacre
John Rutter


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I agree that all of the names listed by Bulldog are overrated in terms of importance - save Stockhausen.


----------



## Art Rock

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Mods please change title to:
> 
> Who are the 10 musicians / composers (in any genre) who are the most overrated in terms of importance?
> 
> Thank you.


Can't - title is too long.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Meh just leave it then.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Bulldog said:


> ABBA
> Carpenters
> James Brown
> John Williams
> Beyonce
> Stockhausen
> Bruce Springsteen
> Paganini
> Eric Whitacre
> John Rutter


I agree, even as someone who likes Bruce Springsteen a lot there's really nothing special about him. He's not an an especially gifted musician and even from a pure songwriting perspective there's tons of others who outshadow him.

I haven't listened to much of Paganini, mostly because I assume he mostly wrote shallow show-offy BS. Technically inpressive virtuosic BS, but still BS.


----------



## mikeh375

I'd have to take four _off_ that list of yours BWAGM - nos 2,3,4 and 10. I'm more aligned to Bulldog's list (but not completely), although my wife might take me to task over ABBA. John William's influence and importance in media is substantial for example, liked or not.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Is _of_ supposed to say _off_ Mike? Seems strange to italicize "of".


----------



## mikeh375

ooops...corrected. It was a pre-coffee post.


----------



## Agamenon

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> David Bowie
> The Beatles
> Miles Davis
> DSCH
> Michael Jackson
> Leonard Bernstein
> Hendrix
> Elvis Presley
> Bob Dylan
> Stravinsky


Bob Dylan is vastly underrated.
The Beatles are partially underrated ( albums from 1966 - 1969), nobody knows this period.

My list:

BRAHMS: over over overrated.
Schubert.
Ravel.
Donizetti
Puccini


----------



## Art Rock

Agamenon said:


> The Beatles are partially underrated ( albums from 1966 - 1969), nobody knows this period.



..................................


----------



## SanAntone

> The Beatles are partially underrated ( albums from 1966 - 1969), nobody knows this period.


That is an odd opinion, IMO - that period contains their most famous albums, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road, Let It Be - and many of their most famous songs.

I don't think the Beatles are underrated and cannot be overrated, IMO.

I don't like the idea of negative threads, so no list from me.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Agamenon said:


> Bob Dylan is vastly underrated.
> The Beatles are partially underrated ( albums from 1966 - 1969), nobody knows this period.
> 
> My list:
> 
> BRAHMS: over over overrated.
> Schubert.
> Ravel.
> Donizetti
> Puccini


None of this is serious, is it?


----------



## Red Terror

Beatles
Beyonce
Kanye West
Adele
Kendrick Lamar
Bruce Springsteen
Bob Dylan
Nirvana
Lang Lang
Khatia Buniatishvili


----------



## Amadea

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> David Bowie
> The Beatles
> Miles Davis
> DSCH
> Michael Jackson
> Leonard Bernstein
> Hendrix
> Elvis Presley
> Bob Dylan
> Stravinsky


Are you sure you understood the history of music? :lol:
I'll try to break it down to you:

1) David Bowie - while I can perfectly understand why you'd consider him overrated, his use of media, theatre, costume and production (Brian Eno!!) influenced all the stars, expecially in pop.
2) The Beatles. They basically teached everybody how to produce songs, hits and albums with different influences and styles. Do you know why many bands change style/combine more than one style in every new album they do? Because of The Beatles. 
3) Miles Davis. He did the first Modal Jazz album (Kind of Blue) and fusion/jazz-rock (Bitches Brew). He gave jazz new life. Unless you hate jazz and wanted it to die earlier, you can't consider him overrated. 
4) Shostakovich. Understandable. But he had an hybrid style from which everyone can learn. He composed under dictatorship, interesting case of study. 
5) Michael Jackson. I agree but he teached popstars how to produce dumb hits and be faboulus dancing clowns. So... Thanks for Katy Perry..?? 
6) Bernstein. As what? Conductor or composer? I wouldn't define him essential to music but he is rated right.
7) Hendrix. When someone says Hendrix is overrated, I know he means "I don't like him" and doesn't get what he has done. Before Hendrix, it was like guitars weren't even electrical. He gave Rock new colours, tones, expressions and he was the first guitar hero. He explored the possibilities of the instrument like nobody before him. It would be a bit long to explain, but every guitarist who came after, own him something. Even those who don't like him. Listen to Hendrix's contemporaries. He was something else. People were shocked. It was like he came from a different planet. If for you it is "just noise" you didn't understand rock's history. 
8) Elvis. Ok. But he bringed Rock to white people. 
9) Bob Dylan. Along with Leonard Cohen, the greatest lyricist of all times. He's the god of folk rock and The Model Songwriter, he influenced every single songwriter and spread important political ideals. He is the most important songwriter of all times. 
10) Stravinsky. Innovator both rhythmically and harmonically, he influenced so many and was the most important neoclassical. He was The avant-gardist.

Honestly, I feel like you just dislike these artists, because the majority of them was truly important to music's history. Are you sure you just didn't get them?


----------



## arpeggio

Since I am not a musicologist another I do not know.


----------



## Amadea

Bulldog said:


> Paganini


No Paganini= No virtuosism for how we know it today, not only in violin but also in piano, since he inspired Chopin and Liszt to explore fully the possibilities of their instrument. He arguably inspired other musician with different instruments. I think he also invented new techniques, even in guitar.


----------



## fbjim

Is Schubert really given that much for influence? Kind of hard when much of his work was only appreciated years after his death.


----------



## Amadea

My list:

1)Wagner (because some fanatics consider him as important as Beethoven, the most influential composer etc, in this case he is overrated) 
2) Kanye West (he did nothing truly innovative like they say. He just made hip-hop suitable for bourgeois) 
3) Michael Jackson (teached all popstars how to be what they are today... So I think he did no good.) 
4) Joy Division (listen to the Wire. Greater band and more innovative imo).
5) Radiohead (I feel like they innovated less than their fans believe, despite being very influential and talented). 
6) Maria Callas. The greatest soprano, yes, but only for romantic opera! There are also other types of opera!!! She wasn't the greatest for Mozart or Handel etc. 
7) Ligeti. I get his importance but some do exaggerate it imo. Maybe my dislike is just the result of the annoying fans. 
8) Queen. People consider them the greatest band. Why?? Not many solid albums and songs except the hits, innovation very little. The hits are great, great performers, but there are greater bands imo. 

I can't think of other names...


----------



## Amadea

fbjim said:


> Is Schubert really given that much for influence? Kind of hard when much of his work was only appreciated years after his death.


Yeah. I feel like some didn't get overrated doesn't equal dislike.


----------



## fbjim

I actually think Public Enemy were the first hip-hop group to get traction with "the bouregois" if you define that as "the white music press". I've definitely heard that said before about West, though (and Outkast)


----------



## Highwayman

Amadea said:


> No Paganini= No virtuosism ...


I can live with that.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Amadea said:


> Honestly, I feel like you just dislike these artists, because the majority of them was truly important to music's history. Are you sure you just didn't get them?


Amadea, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will respond in full later.

For now I will only say the following:

I do not dislike any of these artists. In fact, many of them are among my all-time favorites (Beatles, Miles Davis, Dylan, and Stravinsky). And I do think I "get" all of them and have an understanding and appreciation for how they influenced the development of music.


----------



## Amadea

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Amadea, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will respond in full later.
> 
> For now I will only say the following:
> 
> I do not dislike any of these artists. In fact, many of them are among my all-time favorites (Beatles, Miles Davis, Dylan, and Stravinsky). And I do think I "get" all of them and have an understanding and appreciation for how they influenced the development of music.


Good to know. I obviously didn't know what you/others might know, expecially in other genres than classical. I'm used to "[insert name of popular musician] is overrated", expecially Hendrix. Most people don't get why they're rated so high, parti ally because they are so far from what we listen to today. Take Hendrix's american hymn at Woodstock as example. People today don't understand he was imitating the sounds of the Vietnam war, the bombs falling from the sky, the sounds of rifles, the cries. It was shocking to hear that mixed with the american hymn. On YouTube I've spent a lot of time explaining others why some authors are rated right. I also was one of those who thinks the Beatles and Bob Dylan are overrated. I'm confused by your choice to insert them in your personal overrated list, but I guess I have to wait your full response. I feel like It has to do more with how their fanbase perceives them, right?


----------



## Amadea

Highwayman said:


> I can live with that.


I can understand today virtuosism has turned many musicians into freak phenomena and people think playing fast equals playing good, so some people might hate virtuosism. But maybe without it our knowledge of the instruments and their possibilities would be limited and as a consequence music would be limited.


----------



## Bwv 1080

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I agree that all of the names listed by Bulldog are overrated in terms of importance - save Stockhausen.


No way, how can anyone overrate the Godfather? The man invented funk


----------



## starthrower

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> David Bowie
> The Beatles
> Miles Davis
> DSCH
> Michael Jackson
> Leonard Bernstein
> Hendrix
> Elvis Presley
> Bob Dylan
> Stravinsky


Maybe it's easier for younger people to take a number of these artists for granted but I couldn't disagree more strongly about the importance of most of these artists. Volumes have been written about The Beatles, Miles, Bernstein, Dylan, and Hendrix for good reason. Even Elvis who was not a great musician. But his cultural impact and place in time at the birth of rock n roll is immeasurable.

Miles along with Ellington, and Armstrong is one of the greatest icons of modern jazz. Everyone was in awe of Hendrix when he came on the scene including Miles, Zappa, and every aspiring rock guitarist in England. And Dylan? The voice of a generation who pretty much created the singer/songwriter genre and got millions thinking with his penetrating lyrics and original songs. Bernstein was huge and a revolution in the classical world. A truly charismatic figure, the first American to lead a major symphony orchestra, brilliant teacher and communicator, composer, lecturer, Mahler champion, etc.

I don't believe Stravinsky's early ballet scores are overrated. I'm not a huge Shostakovich fan so I can't weigh in on his importance although many here hold him in high regard. Michael Jackson, and Bowie? Not as significant as the others on your list. Held in high esteem in the pop world but The Beatles' influence on subsequent pop artists was much greater. They wrote the book.


----------



## Kreisler jr

fbjim said:


> Is Schubert really given that much for influence? Kind of hard when much of his work was only appreciated years after his death.


He could easily be overrated since, say 1900 or 1950. It would still be the impression most living listeners today have. Not only the immediate influence matters.
Schubert's C major symphony was premiered a good 10 years after his death (1839) and not only hailed by Schumann but since then became one example how to write symphonies besides Beethoven. His lieder were also highly regarded and influential. Brahms, Bruckner, Dvorak, the 2nd viennese school were all fond of Schubert, even Berio, Leibowitz and other 20th century modernists where one wouldn't expect this.
But his most influential piece was probably the Wandererfantasie as it gave the first and convincing example of cyclic form with the same theme for the traditional four movements of a sonata. This and Weber's f minor concert piece are the major influence on all these romantic sonatas etc. having movement-like section within one large structure like Schumann, Liszt, Franck etc.
Admittedly, most of his great late instrumental music does not make a good paradigm to copy and most of his piano sonatas were only introduced into the repertoire in the mid 20th century. But they were established and are now played/recorded frequently.


----------



## Kreisler jr

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> DSCH
> 
> Stravinsky


I think Stravinsky is rated justifiedly high but I also have the strong suspicion that (like for Bach and some others) a lot of his works are more admired than loved by many listeners. Obviously, his popularity is extremely skewed towards a handful of works that only show a fraction of what he achieved.
I think Shostakovich was a bit underrated until the 1980s or so (when he was not modern enough for most modernists and a "soviet" for the more conservative listeners) but he is grossly overrated nowadays. When I listened to the 4th Zemlinsky quartet last week, I couldn't help thinking how unfair it was that this is almost a niche piece whereas every other year we get another complete recording of DSCH quartets, hardly any of which I would rate higher. And the quartets are among his best works; he has a huge oeuvre, of course, but it is of extremely varied and quite a bit of it is very close to shallow socialist trash. I am not claiming he is bad, but nowadays many people put Shostakovich not only ahead of Prokofiev (debatable) but of Stravinsky (not debatable) as one of the three or so most important 20th century composers. He might be top 10 but not top 3 and hardly any of the greats has so many mediocre works


----------



## Kreisler jr

Amadea said:


> No Paganini= No virtuosism for how we know it today, not only in violin but also in piano, since he inspired Chopin and Liszt to explore fully the possibilities of their instrument. He arguably inspired other musician with different instruments. I think he also invented new techniques, even in guitar.


He clearly inspired his contemporaries. However, I believe that virtuoso piano soloists would have been important in the 19th century in any case as these were developments (also in piano building) that had been under way before. We have musicians like Clementi, Beethoven, Hummel, Weber who came before Paganini.

I also think that Paganini is rated roughly correctly. Not even his first violin concerto really became a repertoire piece. He is considered a great virtuoso but at best a second rank composer with the solo caprices maybe his only outstanding piece.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

starthrower said:


> Maybe it's easier for younger people to take a number of these artists for granted but I couldn't disagree more strongly about the importance of most of these artists. Volumes have been written about The Beatles, Miles, Bernstein, Dylan, and Hendrix for good reason. Even Elvis who was not a great musician. But his cultural impact and place in time at the birth of rock n roll is immeasurable.
> 
> Miles along with Ellington, and Armstrong is one of the greatest icons of modern jazz. Everyone was in awe of Hendrix when he came on the scene including Miles, Zappa, and every aspiring rock guitarist in England. And Dylan? The voice of a generation who pretty much created the singer/songwriter genre and got millions thinking with his penetrating lyrics and original songs. Bernstein was huge and a revolution in the classical world. A truly charismatic figure, the first American to lead a major symphony orchestra, brilliant teacher and communicator, composer, lecturer, Mahler champion, etc.
> 
> I don't believe Stravinsky's early ballet scores are overrated. I'm not a huge Shostakovich fan so I can't weigh in on his importance although many here hold him in high regard. Michael Jackson, and Bowie? Not as significant as the others on your list. Held in high esteem in the pop world but The Beatles' influence on subsequent pop artists was much greater. They wrote the book.


You make a good point. Not having been around to witness any of these artists in their heyday, I can only make retrospective judgements about their originality and influence. However, based on my exploration of these folks' lesser-known contemporaries, I am generally of the opinion that - in the arts - the importance of the biggest names does tend to be overrated (with many exceptions of course). But admittedly the cultural element is essential, and that's something you can't really grasp if you weren't around.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think most famous pop culture artists and most famous classical conductors/soloists of the 20th century (or at least since the 1940s) are usually overrated but this is an almost unavoidable feature of stardom and the leveraging mechanisms of mass media. Up to the mid-20th century there can be some cases of artists so poorly documented on recordings that their reputations suffered or they got forgotten quickly, or more precisely there were other who eclipsed them because of better media presence or preservation.
(Of course the actual influence via mass media is real, so one could say they are not overrated because hugely influential. But since the 1940s or so, media leverage can be such as to easily trump artistic quality and originality.)

And while I don't think that there is an infallible verdict of history and that a few of the same mechanisms are also at play in times before mass media, I think that with sufficient historical distance most things are rated roughly adequately. I can't draw a clear line after which we have sufficient distance but I'd say that most composers who died before 1950 are rarely totally misrated, especially if one takes an average of their popularity with their status in encyclopedias and scholarly works.


----------



## Chilham

Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney
Paul McCartney

I can only think of nine. Maybe that guy who made his name off the back of John Lennon. What was his name?


----------



## starthrower

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> You make a good point. Not having been around to witness any of these artists in their heyday, I can only make retrospective judgements about their originality and influence. However, based on my exploration of these folks' lesser-known contemporaries, I am generally of the opinion that - in the arts - the importance of the biggest names does tend to be overrated (with many exceptions of course). But admittedly the cultural element is essential, and that's something you can't really grasp if you weren't around.


The thing about the cultural impact of the famous artists is that they can point you in the direction of many of the interesting people that were an inspiration and influence. And of course you end up learning about all of the black artists and other people on the margins who did great work but were ignored by the media. Elvis was a non threatening pretty white face that was useful for marketing black music to white audiences. With a bit of hillbilly flavor mixed in to make it palatable.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Palestrina
Chopin
Brahms
Cage
Ornette Coleman
Led Zeppelin
Wayne Shorter (post-60's) (received lots of flack on this one. My impression is he's bold, but can't fulfill the ideas in the lines he puts forth. He was able to follow up his ideas in the 60's with something relevant and interesting and it worked then)
Radiohead
Nirvana (a lightweight compared to the Pixies who influenced them)
Arcade Fire


----------



## hammeredklavier

Chilham said:


> Maybe that guy who made his name off the back of John Lennon. What was his name?


Mark David Chapman. Made his name by shooting Lennon in the back.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Amadea said:


> 1)Wagner (because some fanatics consider him as important as Beethoven, the most influential composer etc, in this case he is overrated)





Amadea said:


> Are you sure you understood the history of music? :lol:
> I'll try to break it down to you:
> 10) Stravinsky. Innovator both rhythmically and harmonically, he influenced so many and was the most important neoclassical. He was The avant-gardist.


So you have problems with people considering Wagner as important as Beethoven, the most influential composer etc, but no problems with people considering Stravinsky as important as Beethoven?

BBC music magazine asked 174 contemporary composers to vote for 5 composers as the 'greatest' of all time, then they tallied up the results to come up with a list of 50. Here are the results:

1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
...


----------



## Dorsetmike

Einaudi
Gorecki
Stockhausen
Cage
Pladico Domingo
Michael Jackson
André Rieu
Sun Ra
Beyoncé
Arvo Part


----------

