# Overrated albums



## regressivetransphobe

Post highly regarded albums that are undeserving of their praise, and explain why. Not intended to start a flamewar, but discussion is encouraged.

Nirvana - Nevermind
Kurt planned to call the next album "Verse Chorus" before deciding on In Utero. Self-deprecation doesn't just make your flaws go away.

My Bloody Valentine - Loveless
A wimpy poppy alt rock album hidden under layers and layers of distortion and delay. A cashier gave me this deer-in-headlights look when I sold it, as if I was some tasteless pleb selling the holy grail of alternative music. Please.

Judas Priest - Painkiller
After sounding like some kind of awesome cross between Black Sabbath and Queen for a few albums in the 70s, they realized they were too interesting for their own good and decided to make The Ramones look complex with the bonehead dong rock of Killing Machine and British Steel. They descended into a middling glossy 80s sound until it was unfashionable, and then suddenly "just kidding! We're still ALL about metal!" So now we get inaudible bass, rigid, mechanical drums, lyrics about "laser bullets," and not a modicum of actual emotion to be found. 
You know the band is smarter than this, so it's not even charmingly cheesy like Iron Maiden (a genuinely dumb band with a couple good releases). A dishonest, horrible record.


----------



## norman bates

regressivetransphobe said:


> My Bloody Valentine - Loveless
> A wimpy poppy alt rock album hidden under layers and layers of distortion and delay. A cashier gave me this deer-in-headlights look when I sold it, as if I was some tasteless pleb selling the holy grail of alternative music. Please.


It must be said that Loveless is actually considered as one of the holy grails of the alternative music. Very few albums in the nineties are so celebrated.
The problem of the album for me is that the writing is just not memorable. In this sense I agree, but I really like the work on the sound of the guitar, that is really original.


----------



## tdc

regressivetransphobe said:


> Nirvana - Nevermind
> Kurt planned to call the next album "Verse Chorus" before deciding on In Utero.


Except the next album was called _Incesticide,_ and like _Bleach_ it was a little less commercial than _Nevermind_ or _In Utero_.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Incesticide was a compilation, so I didn't consider it as an "album." It wasn't as non-commercial as Flipper or Melvins. Just sayin'.


----------



## Guest

Nevermind and Loveless I don't consider overrated.

Painkiller, yes.

Want overrated? Master Of Puppets.


----------



## niv

Nevermind: I don't think using the Verse Chorus structure makes it flawed... At least I don't see it as a flaw. I don't like the record itself enough like some other people do, though.

Loveless: I could never get into it. I like some of the songs, I think the whole point of the record is the sound, but I think there are some similar sounding records like Nowhere by Ride that I enjoy a lot more.

Painkiller: Never heard it. The title song is bitchin tho.


----------



## Schubussy

Loveless is a good album I think but not _that_ great. I always prefered Slowdive for my shoegaze fix.

Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, I hate it. I'll probably think of a ton more to add here later.


----------



## Operafocus

OK, here goes. In fear of creating some controversy 

Beatles - The White Album: With the exception of a couple of tracks... booooriiiing.


----------



## GreenMamba

I like the White Album, but it would have been better if trimmed a bit.

I was going to say Magical Mystery Tour. A nice enough album, but not in the same league as Sgt Pepper's or Abbey Road. I am the Walrus and Strawberry Fields are great, but I think McCartney phoned it in to varying degrees on Fool on the Hill, Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane. Macca could write catchy melodies, but often forgot that there is more to music than that.


----------



## niv

Everybody says the white album needs trimming, but nobody agrees on what to trim.

btw, I absolutely love those three songs on magical mystery tour. If you ask me, if there are weak songs in that record, those are Blue Jay Way, Flying and Baby you're a rich man


----------



## Pennypacker

Nevermind comes to mind first for me as well. Definitely agree on Neutral Milk Hotel. Also Radiohead anything post OKC.


----------



## niv

don't you like at least kid a and in rainbows? D:


----------



## elgar's ghost

Exile on Main St. Great as most of the Stones's music was at that time I still think it didn't have enough diversity to fill four sides - boiling Exile down to about 40 minutes would have made it as perfect as their previous three albums.

Conversely, I'd keep the White Album in all of its original 'warts and all' glory - although by rights it should have a detrimental effect I think the throwaway/novelty stuff manages to make the good material sound even better. The album has a ramshackle structure to it but somehow it just seems right.


----------



## Mesa

GreenMamba said:


> I like the White Album, but it would have been better if trimmed a bit.
> 
> I was going to say Magical Mystery Tour. A nice enough album, but not in the same league as Sgt Pepper's or Abbey Road. I am the Walrus and Strawberry Fields are great, but I think McCartney phoned it in to varying degrees on Fool on the Hill, Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane. Macca could write catchy melodies, but often forgot that there is more to music than that.


MMT is an EP with a bunch of previously non-album bonuses (Penny Lane/Strawbs most notably, released just pre-Pepper's) so it doesn't really count. That said, never much cared for the Fool on the Hill, and only the last thirty seconds of Hello Goodbye is really any good. I Am The Walrus was aces but probably bettered by Oasis. Flying has one of the best drum sounds in the world.

White Album has it's share of gash on it, but the biggest travesty is the omission of two George gems:









Would have made a spectacular 12 or 13 tracker.

Nobody knows what to trim? My Diet White Album!
Back in the USSR
Dear Prudence
Glass Onion 
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Martha My Dear
Blackbird
Don't Pass Me By (Anthology take, 3 or 4?)
Julia
Yer Blues
Sexy Sadie
Revolution 1
Honey Pie
Good Night

Still axing more good songs than the vast majority of bands will ever do, but ho hum...

Anyways, Vitalogy by Pearl Jam? Too much mayo, not enough meat. Never been too thrilled with Vedder's voice, which probably may contribute to my underwhelm.

Stone Roses debut, maybe? Undeniable talent and colour, but leaves me a bit empty and unwilling to listen for two months or so. I've met so many people who claim it's their favourite record.


----------



## MJongo

OK Computer is incredibly boring IMO.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

I would add Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon. Their albums prior to DSOTM were much more interesting. That was the beginning of their commercialization. The same happened to Genesis. Anything from Trick of the Tail onward are way overrated.


----------



## starthrower

Most of Eric Clapton's albums.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Beatles - White Album is one of the most perfect albums of all time. Saying it needs trimming is like saying there's too many notes in Mozart's operas 

Also think OK Computer is marvellous.

Nevermind, along with most of Nirvana's output is dirgy and vapid.

Pink Floyd's The Wall gets my vote as the most over-rated. I love the Floyd but I feel the Wall was a little overblown, tuneless and hard to digest.


----------



## Pennypacker

niv said:


> don't you like at least kid a and in rainbows? D:


Nope. Bored me to death. What a downfall.



MJongo said:


> OK Computer is incredibly boring IMO.


OMG my eyes!!!



Kevin Pearson said:


> I would add Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon. Their albums prior to DSOTM were much more interesting. That was the beginning of their commercialization. The same happened to Genesis. Anything from Trick of the Tail onward are way overrated.


If commercialization means better organized material and breakthrough recording, then I'm all for that. As to anything before DSOTM, personally I would merge Atom Heart Mother (the track) and Echoes (my all-time favorite probably) into one album and throw away the rest. And I don't think Genesis was the same, they just changed genres completely when Collins took over.


----------



## Crudblud

The following immediately come to mind:

The Beach Boys - _Pet Sounds_
Pixies - _Doolittle_
Sonic Youth - _Daydream Nation_
Glenn Branca - _The Ascension_


----------



## MagneticGhost

Pennypacker said:


> And I don't think Genesis was the same, they just changed genres completely when Collins took over.


I simply can't agree with this. There was a gradual transition. The biggest change though was the departure of Steve Hackett.
Wind and Wuthering was one of the best Prog albums of the 70s. And Then There Were Three for all it's charms isn't 
Then there was the intentional effort to make things sound different on Abacab.


----------



## Guest

So much controversy already! _OK Computer_ is not Radiohead's best album (_Kid A _or _In Rainbows_ is; _The White Album_ does not need trimming; _Trick of the Tail_ is the last of Genesis best albums, not the first of the decline.

Anything by The Smiths, Prince, REM is overrated!


----------



## Art Rock

MacLeod said:


> So much controversy already!


Well said - see my comments on your comments. 



> _OK Computer_ is not Radiohead's best album


Agreed so far.



> (_Kid A _or _In Rainbows_ is)


Bzzttt. Disagree, I prefer The Bends by a very large margin....



> _The White Album_ does not need trimming


Cetrainly not to reduce it to one album.



> _Trick of the Tail_ is the last of Genesis best albums, not the first of the decline.


Fully agree, in fact my second-favourite of them after Selling England by the pound.



> Anything by The Smiths, Prince, REM is overrated!


Agree on Prince, mostly on the Smiths, but REM had some great albums and songs.


----------



## Art Rock

Kevin Pearson said:


> I would add Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon. Their albums prior to DSOTM were much more interesting. That was the beginning of their commercialization. The same happened to Genesis. Anything from Trick of the Tail onward are way overrated.


Agree with Genesis if you had picked the albums after Hackett left - ATOTT and WOW are great prog albums.

I do not agree at all about Pink Floyd, but that is as everything else a matter of taste. For me the albums DSOTM, WYWH and Animals are the very best in their career, in addition to Meddle.


----------



## Pennypacker

MagneticGhost said:


> I simply can't agree with this. There was a gradual transition. The biggest change though was the departure of Steve Hackett.
> Wind and Wuthering was one of the best Prog albums of the 70s. And Then There Were Three for all it's charms isn't
> Then there was the intentional effort to make things sound different on Abacab.


Apologies, you're absolutely right. For some reason I thought Gabriel was still around in Wind & Wuthering (wrong by 2 albums).


----------



## Garlic

Loveless isn't about the songs, it's all about the microtones. I think it sounds great.


Overrated:

Everything by Radiohead

Everything by Lou Reed except "Metal Machine Music"

Never Mind the ******** Here's the Sex Pistols

Any album that Pitchfork gives a 10 (except Loveless)


----------



## Garlic

Crudblud said:


> The following immediately come to mind:
> 
> The Beach Boys - _Pet Sounds_
> Pixies - _Doolittle_
> Sonic Youth - _Daydream Nation_
> Glenn Branca - _The Ascension_


I don't know the Branca but otherwise I second this post.


----------



## niv

That's funny. Doolittle, Pet Sounds, and Daydream Nation are three of my fav records . And I definitely cannot agree at all on REM & The Smiths, they rule as far as I'm concerned. 

I'd have to agree with DSOTM, but because I could never get into most of the latter half of the record.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm not sure if it's really fair for anyone to consider albums 'overrated' if the music of the band/artist isn't liked in the first place - otherwise I for one would be dismissing everything by respected acts like Springsteen, Family, Crowded House, REM, Madness and Squeeze in one fell stroke. Surely it's more constructive to question particular albums by people whose music we do like?


----------



## Guest

elgars ghost said:


> I'm not sure if it's really fair for anyone to consider albums 'overrated' if the music of the band/artist isn't liked in the first place - otherwise I for one would be dismissing everything by respected acts like Springsteen, Family, Crowded House, REM, Madness and Squeeze in one fell stroke. Surely it's more constructive to question particular albums by people whose music we do like?


Ah, thanks for the reminder...

...anything by Springsteen!


----------



## starthrower

How about Topographic Oceans, or Relayer by Yes? A lot of fans praise these albums, but they never did much for me. After about 10 minutes of Gates Of Delirium, I have to turn it off.


----------



## elgar's ghost

starthrower said:


> How about Topographic Oceans, or Relayer by Yes? A lot of fans praise these albums, but they never did much for me. After about 10 minutes of Gates Of Delirium, I have to turn it off.


TfTO was a classic case of over-reach and when the first real rumblings of anti-progessive rock discontent were starting to be heard. Even some of the group's more ardent advocates in the music press thought it was way too much - 'Yes - adrift of the Oceans' was one review headline. Rick Wakeman likened to it to baking a huge cake and then being expected to eat it all at once. I don't mind side-long tracks but apart from Ritual I think the album is largely a meandering mess. Relayer I have much more time for - in structure if not in texture it resembles Close to the Edge and although their flirtation with elements such as jazz rock/fusion largely began and ended here, I think the album works well overall. Look on the bright side - had Jon Anderson got his way Relayer would have been another sprawling epic - based on War & Peace, allegedly(!).


----------



## jhar26

Pixies - Doolittle. I like most albums that are considered classics, and even in the case of those I don't like I sorta get why others like them. But why that Pixies album is so highly regarded is a total mystery to me.


----------



## Mesa

It's possibly overrated, but somehow still well within my top 20 albums. Crackity Jones, Mr Grieves and Tame are all a bit shaky, but Debaser, Hey, Here Comes Your Man and Monkey Gone To Heaven rank amongst the finest works in rock music.

Magnificent roulette wheel of a record.


----------



## jhar26

Mesa said:


> It's possibly overrated, but somehow still well within my top 20 albums. Crackity Jones, Mr Grieves and Tame are all a bit shaky, but Debaser, Hey, Here Comes Your Man and Monkey Gone To Heaven rank amongst the finest works in rock music.
> 
> Magnificent roulette wheel of a record.


I take your word for it. I'm sure that it must be great, but for some reason it doesn't do anything for me. My fault, not theirs.


----------



## niv

I think all songs in Doolittle are great. And Hey it's easily one of my fav songs ever by any band artist in any era. When I went to see them live at the luna park in bsas and they played Hey I couldn't help but cry a little.
Besides doolittle, do you people like any other pixies record?

p.s. I love tales of topographic oceans too


----------



## starry

There's too many to mention I feel, and I agree with many mentioned here. Loveless has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. Other 90s things too like electronica then which became fashionable and hyped up then (like Aphex Twin and Boards of Canada).

Much popular music has lived on hype, it hasn't had the time to last on its own merit out of the many thousands of albums that have been released. So hype, marketing, image, hip fashonability has tended to rule. Of course there can be some things that deserve _some_ hype, but even then it would have been fairer if that hype had spread more to other lesser known people. And that's the flip side of this, all those who got buried beneath all the hype of those lucky enough to get the limelight.


----------



## niv

starry said:


> Of course there can be some things that deserve _some_ hype, but even then it would have been fairer if that hype had spread more to other lesser known people.


-

That's why we cherish music forums so much, don't we . About hype, there is some degree of luck involving being hyped. Skills, quality matter, but also luck. e.g. http://www.terry.uga.edu/news/relea...-to-uga-students-about-harvesting-luck-in-the


----------



## starry

I wouldn't just say forums, the internet in general is a vast resource for discovering things for those who are willing to research for themselves.

And hype is obviously about luck in part, much of that being knowing the right people in the music business from journalism to obviously having the kind of marketing and distribution a wealthy record company can bring.


----------



## DeepR

Rock music in general and anything that's remotely associated with it. 

As for electronic: Boards of Canada is indeed hugely overrated. Album: Music has the right to Children. I like how fans say it's deep music while IMO it has no depth at all.


----------



## starry

I've always wanted to say this about that album so I'll say it now...

that music never had any right to have any children, it should have been a dead end in music history.

And with the 80s some people like to turn their nose up at the pop/synth stuff of that period but some of the rock they hold up as being superior does have me puzzled. For example..

The Clash - London Calling
The Replacements - Let it Be
Albums by The Cure
Sonic Youth

And in present times every year it feels like the most hyped albums are completely boring to me, whether it be Frank Ocean, PJ Harvey, The National, Animal Collective, Tame Impala or whoever.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I think something about The Cure just made it "work" for them in their early days, granted their albums are dated. Disintegration and Pornography are super synthy, but at the same time they don't sound willfully artificial like a lot of cheesy new wave. Probably because there's some songwriting there (however simple).

Agreed on the other choices.

I forgot to mention "Are We Not Men?" by Devo. Some nice tunes here and there, but Eno's production doesn't get along with the band's small collection of Chuck Berry riffs, and the sense of humor grates. Just kind of a drab, one-dimensional album.


----------



## Schubussy

I love Boards of Canada, this thread saddens me.

Queen - Anything
Bruce Springsteen - Anything
Tupac - Anything
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois


----------



## elgar's ghost

regressivetransphobe said:


> ...but Eno's production doesn't get along with the band's small collection of Chuck Berry riffs, and the sense of humor grates. Just kind of a drab, one-dimensional album.


I'm having to think very hard here - I just can't imagine Devo and Chuck Berry being mentioned in the same sentence! When I think Devo's debut it's the synthy squiggles and semi-automoton geekery which spring to mind rather than rock 'n' roll guitar.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> And in present times every year it feels like the most hyped albums are completely boring to me, whether it be Frank Ocean, PJ Harvey, The National, Animal Collective, Tame Impala or whoever.


I don't know about 'boring' but certainly the appeal of The National and Animal Collective passed me by.

As for Boards of Canada...not heard of them...will someone who 'rates' them let me know if I'm missing something? Ta.


----------



## Schubussy

BoC are an electronic group that make an eerie, nostalgic style of music. Overrated? Maybe. But I like them a lot.


----------



## Crudblud

starry said:


> The Clash - London Calling


I had been debating whether to risk posting that one, I don't mind getting my head bitten off by ardent fans but calling that one in particular overrated seems to be a sore spot for a lot of people.


----------



## starry

Schubussy said:


> Bruce Springsteen - Anything


I find Springsteen to be better live, there was mid 80s double album that was pretty good, a lot of music on it though. Then again maybe some albums you don't have to play from start to end, maybe you just play a few tracks at a time.


----------



## starry

regressivetransphobe said:


> I think something about The Cure just made it "work" for them in their early days, granted their albums are dated. Disintegration and Pornography are super synthy, but at the same time they don't sound willfully artificial like a lot of cheesy new wave. Probably because there's some songwriting there (however simple).
> 
> Agreed on the other choices.
> 
> I forgot to mention "Are We Not Men?" by Devo. Some nice tunes here and there, but Eno's production doesn't get along with the band's small collection of Chuck Berry riffs, and the sense of humor grates. Just kind of a drab, one-dimensional album.


With The Cure they are the kind of band that had a very consistent style perhaps, or at least it sounds so to me. Maybe it's partly the vocalist and so the kind of melodies they do. So those who love the style end up saying they are one of the greatest groups ever because they do a lot of music with that kind of consistency. But if you don't like the style you wonder why people are such rabid fans of them. I can like melodies like Lovecats and In Between Days, but I just don't think they really replicated that memorability that much. They are obviously more indie sound for their time so the productions are sparer (maybe that's what you mean by less artificial). But really that's just a style, I don't think that necessarily means it's better than songs with a more produced sound.

Husker Du I don't like from the 80s as well.

And with the mention of Eno, of course he will have done some interesting work, but I still feel he is overrated. Bowie as well, I love some songs of Bowie but not a particular album as much as some individual songs. Yeh sure they were influential but I can't look beyond the actual music and how it is for me.


----------



## niv

I have to defend illinois! I love that record.

As for The Cure, I think they have amazing singles but to my ears the only consistent record they put out was the head on the door


----------



## TrevBus

Operafocus said:


> OK, here goes. In fear of creating some controversy
> 
> Beatles - The White Album: With the exception of a couple of tracks... booooriiiing.


Speaking of The Beatles, I feel that way about SERGEANT PEPPERS. Talk about CONTROVERSY!!!!!. I still think there 2 best were RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER.


----------



## TrevBus

Kevin Pearson said:


> I would add Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon. Their albums prior to DSOTM were much more interesting. That was the beginning of their commercialization. The same happened to Genesis. Anything from Trick of the Tail onward are way overrated.


Oh boy!! Well, each to their own I guess. I happen to think it's one of the greatest albums ever produced.


----------



## TrevBus

MagneticGhost said:


> Beatles - White Album is one of the most perfect albums of all time. Saying it needs trimming is like saying there's too many notes in Mozart's operas
> 
> Also think OK Computer is marvellous.
> 
> Nevermind, along with most of Nirvana's output is dirgy and vapid.
> 
> Pink Floyd's The Wall gets my vote as the most over-rated. I love the Floyd but I feel the Wall was a little overblown, tuneless and hard to digest.


Oh Boy, Again!! Like DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, I feel THE WALL, is one of the best ever.


----------



## Guest

niv said:


> I think all songs in Doolittle are great. And Hey it's easily one of my fav songs ever by any band artist in any era. When I went to see them live at the luna park in bsas and they played Hey I couldn't help but cry a little.
> Besides doolittle, do you people like any other pixies record?
> 
> p.s. I love tales of topographic oceans too


I am a big Pixies fan. I really like Doolittle, Bossanova, and Trompe le Monde (even though some claim the last was more a Frank Black album than a Pixies album). Surfed Rosa has some good songs, but I don't listen to it that much. I rarely listen to Come On, Pilgrim.

I disagree with what was said of the Smiths. I loved all their albums, but especially Meat is Murder. The combination of Marr and Morrissey was great. For me, almost all of Morrissey's solo work is overrated.

I think Green Day is overrated. For me they are the weakest of the Bay Area punk bands. Dookie was their peak.

This might stir up some controversy, but I have always thought the entire output of Pearl Jam was overrated. Had there been no Nirvana, nobody would have heard of Pearl Jam. I have never heard a song by them that I even remotely liked. Same for Rage Against the Machine.


----------



## Guest

I think anything by U2 after Rattle and Hum is immensely overrated. For me, War was their best album. I love the Clash, and London Calling, but don't think it was their best. Give 'em Enough Rope was much better.

And I have never seen the appeal of Oasis or the Dave Matthews Band.


----------



## TrevBus

DrMike said:


> I think anything by U2 after Rattle and Hum is immensely overrated. For me, War was their best album. I love the Clash, and London Calling, but don't think it was their best. Give 'em Enough Rope was much better.
> 
> And I have never seen the appeal of Oasis or the Dave Matthews Band.


I agree w/everything said except for Dave Matthews Band. Maybe like "The Boss", they are better appreciated live.


----------



## starry

TrevBus said:


> Speaking of The Beatles, I feel that way about SERGEANT PEPPERS. Talk about CONTROVERSY!!!!!. I still think there 2 best were RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER.


I don't like the last song on Rubber Soul much. Revolver is fine but it's just very different from Sergeant Pepper, Pepper is a colourful kind of album and completely different to me. I do find the crescendo at the end of A Day in the Life a bit ridiculous. Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite is largely about the production than the song. But the fantasy aspect of Pepper is what makes it popular I think. I wouldn't say either is that bad anyway, The White Album is more inconsistent, in particular with the last few songs on it.



DrMike said:


> I am a big Pixies fan. I really like Doolittle, Bossanova, and Trompe le Monde (even though some claim the last was more a Frank Black album than a Pixies album). Surfed Rosa has some good songs, but I don't listen to it that much. I rarely listen to Come On, Pilgrim.
> 
> I disagree with what was said of the Smiths. I loved all their albums, but especially Meat is Murder. The combination of Marr and Morrissey was great. For me, almost all of Morrissey's solo work is overrated.
> 
> I think Green Day is overrated. For me they are the weakest of the Bay Area punk bands. Dookie was their peak.
> 
> This might stir up some controversy, but I have always thought the entire output of Pearl Jam was overrated. Had there been no Nirvana, nobody would have heard of Pearl Jam. I have never heard a song by them that I even remotely liked. Same for Rage Against the Machine.


All of those are overrated to me. Of course I like some Smiths songs, but I can only really enjoy a few of them musically. Pixies I just haven't enjoyed and are one of those puzzles to me where I wonder why people see them as representing music of that period. Maybe that style was hip then, but maybe that's why I was only listening to past classical music rather than the popular pop or rock of late 80s at that time.



Schubussy said:


> BoC are an electronic group that make an eerie, nostalgic style of music. Overrated? Maybe. But I like them a lot.


The second of those videos might be the better for me. I can see why they are popular now as they are about atmosphere and that's what many want these days. But the problem with pieces like that is that most of the time they can seem very superficial, not many have the ability to make them go for any length without losing the concentration and development of the music and making it just seem like wallowing or background music.

I do like some variety in an artist, if it feels like they are just exploiting a particular style for a cult market then it can feel like they are a lazy one trick pony.


----------



## KenOC

Revolver is, without a doubt, the Beatles' finest album (not to slight several of the others). An odd endorsement: "In 2010, Revolver was named as the best pop album of all time by the official newspaper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano." Of course, we have a new pope now...


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> And with the mention of Eno, of course he will have done some interesting work, but I still feel he is overrated.


Nah, he is underrated!!!



niv said:


> I have to defend illinois! I love that record.


Agreed.



DrMike said:


> I think Green Day is overrated.


Oh? Does anyone rate them at all?


----------



## Schubussy

KenOC said:


> Revolver is, without a doubt, the Beatles' finest album (not to slight several of the others). An odd endorsement: "In 2010, Revolver was named as the best pop album of all time by the official newspaper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano." Of course, we have a new pope now...


Does papal infallibility extend to pop music?


----------



## starry

Eno underrated? All I hear on music forums is about how he invented electronic music (wrong), and how he is somebody who can't do anything wrong. Best album I heard by him was _Before and After Science_, but the more uptempo stuff sounded weaker on it. I find his music in general has the sheen of polished production that people love now but often without as much surprise or passion as I think it needs. He's like one of those sacred cows who is constantly referenced by people who have hardly even heard his music.


----------



## elgar's ghost

starry said:


> Eno underrated? All I hear on music forums is about how he invented electronic music (wrong), and how he is somebody who can't do anything wrong. Best album I heard by him was _Before and After Science_, but the more uptempo stuff sounded weaker on it. I find his music in general has the sheen of polished production that people love now but often without as much surprise or passion as I think it needs. He's like one of those sacred cows who is constantly referenced by people who have hardly even heard his music.


I haven't heard much of Eno's music so I'm not going to disagree but his wild card brilliance was essential to those excellent first two Roxy Music albums and Bowie's Low, Heroes and 1.Outside albums, and for that alone I will always be grateful to him.


----------



## Guest

I will say that some artists, regardless of what we think of them, are far from underrated simply because of the effect they had at the time of influencing others. The Pixies certainly exerted a lot of influence on others. The Velvet Underground also falls into this category. I enjoy several bands influenced by the Velvet Underground, but cant point to a single song of theirs that I like.


----------



## niv

I could never get into VU&Nico besides a few songs. So perhaps for me it would be the #1 overrated record. 

But what overrated means, really? I think, we might not like to accept it, but more often than not it means "great records that we don't get or are not in a style we like". So I have a hard time asserting that VU&Nico is overrated.


----------



## Guest

I think the VU without Nico were more influential. White Light/White Heat is hugely influential, although I find it mostly unlistenable.


----------



## neoshredder

DrMike said:


> I think the VU without Nico were more influential. White Light/White Heat is hugely influential, although I find it mostly unlistenable.


Take some LSD and you would probably change your mind.  I'm much better with underrated albums than overrated. But I'll mention Nevermind from Nirvana. Not a Nirvana fan.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> Eno underrated? All I hear on music forums is about how he invented electronic music (wrong), and how he is somebody who can't do anything wrong. Best album I heard by him was _Before and After Science_, but the more uptempo stuff sounded weaker on it. I find his music in general has the sheen of polished production that people love now but often without as much surprise or passion as I think it needs. He's like one of those sacred cows who is constantly referenced by people who have hardly even heard his music.


You won't hear from me that he 'invented electronic music' (and I've not seen any site worth reading that makes such a claim...or any site at all, come to that - can you point to one?) or that he can do no wrong. As for 'polished production' I don't know many artists who were ever really happy with crappy or 'edgy' production, and I don't think the quality of production in any way detracts from his work.

As for your last point, the same could be levelled at all those who 'rate' without having heard enough to make an informed opinion.

As has already been observed of course, under/overrating is a comparative, not an absolute. If I were to say I think he is accurately rated, that could mean well or poorly!


----------



## starry

DrMike said:


> I will say that some artists, regardless of what we think of them, are far from underrated simply because of the effect they had at the time of influencing others. The Pixies certainly exerted a lot of influence on others. The Velvet Underground also falls into this category. I enjoy several bands influenced by the Velvet Underground, but cant point to a single song of theirs that I like.


I couldn't care less about influence, you can't credit a musician for music that they never even did themselves. What is influential is always what just happens to be thought hip and is promoted enough to get that profile anyway.

The Velvet Underground could be overrated, but at least there are a couple of their albums (the first and 3rd) that seem listenable to me.

And I've been on enough music forums to see what is hyped up to be God-like I think. 



MacLeod said:


> As for 'polished production' I don't know many artists who were ever really happy with crappy or 'edgy' production, and I don't think the quality of production in any way detracts from his work.


I don't mean detracts from his work, I mean doesn't make up for some boringness.


----------



## Mesa

elgars ghost said:


> I haven't heard much of Eno's music so I'm not going to disagree but his wild card brilliance was essential to those excellent first two Roxy Music albums and Bowie's Low, Heroes and 1.Outside albums, and for that alone I will always be grateful to him.


And for possibly the most emotionally confusing piece this side of Ravel...





I think most could agree, it sure is beautiful.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

DrMike said:


> I think the VU without Nico were more influential. White Light/White Heat is hugely influential, although I find it mostly unlistenable.


Wimps, every one of them. One of my favorite easy listening records.


----------



## starry

Mesa said:


> I think most could agree, it sure is beautiful.


The problem is a lot of music aims for that now....just to sound beautiful, to have a nice sounding production. But beyond that there can be an emptiness as beauty _on it's own_ can seem without depth.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> The problem is a lot of music aims for that now....just to sound beautiful, to have a nice sounding production. But beyond that there can be an emptiness as beauty _on it's own_ can seem without depth.


Then it's not beautiful .


----------



## starry

I agree, but some people have a very limited definition of 'beautiful' now. They don't want music that demands more of them, I don't think they realise that though. As I said to 'sound beautiful' not to actually _be_ beautiful.


----------



## PianistFingers

'Only by the Night'- Kings of Leon. Their earlier albums were much better! :tiphat:


----------



## Centropolis

MJongo said:


> OK Computer is incredibly boring IMO.


You are crazy! 

OK Computer was probably the best album in the 90s. What's The Story Morning Glory a close 2nd.


----------



## Centropolis

TrevBus said:


> I still think there 2 best were RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER.


Only if they were the mono versions.


----------



## Centropolis

KenOC said:


> Revolver is, without a doubt, the Beatles' finest album (not to slight several of the others). An odd endorsement: "In 2010, Revolver was named as the best pop album of all time by the official newspaper of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano." Of course, we have a new pope now...


I know this is like quoting someone without providing the source but I remember reading an article on the music of The Beatles a few years back, they had an interview of this music professor and he said something to the effect of, if there was an end of the world, and all musical records and memories wiped out, and there could only be one album that survived the apocalypse, he would pick "Revolver".


----------



## Selby

MacLeod said:


> Ah, thanks for the reminder...
> 
> ...anything by Springsteen!


Nebraska?

I can see how Springsteen is dislikable, but Nebraska is a quiet masterpiece.


----------



## MJongo

Centropolis said:


> You are crazy!
> 
> OK Computer was probably the best album in the 90s. What's The Story Morning Glory a close 2nd.


I can at least see some merit in OK Computer, but WTSMG (I refuse to type out the full title) is probably the most bland album I have ever heard.


----------



## Guest

Mitchell said:


> Nebraska?
> 
> I can see how Springsteen is dislikable, but Nebraska is a quiet masterpiece.


Alright, I'll 'fess up. What I object to is the _phenomenon _of Bruce Springsteen as represented by the popular reception of _Born to Run._ (Overblown, self-important) What I've actually heard of ** (not a lot) did not prompt me to rush out and get my own copy (_The River_) but I did like _Dancing in the Dark.
_
** Ironically, the system won't let me type his initials haha!


----------



## techniquest

> How about Topographic Oceans, or Relayer by Yes? A lot of fans praise these albums, but they never did much for me. After about 10 minutes of Gates Of Delirium, I have to turn it off.


Neither TfTO nor Relayer can be considered as 'overrated albums' because they were both heavily criticised by a music press that was desperately trying to show how cool it was by overating punk. TfTO especially is particularly disregarded - by many Yes fans too - though for me it is one of the most important albums ever produced. 'Relayer' suffered from Patrick Moraz' sound being so ill-fitting and some poor production especially on 'Gates of Delerium'.
Staying on-topic, I would nominate 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' as overated; essentially it could be renamed 'Gabriel does New York' which, for me, wasn't what Genesis was all about - certainly not back in those days. There were some great tracks - mostly those penned in the main by Steve Hackett - but as a whole, I think it's way overblown.


----------



## Oreb

techniquest said:


> Neither TfTO nor Relayer can be considered as 'overrated albums' because they were both heavily criticised by a music press that was desperately trying to show how cool it was by overating punk.


Didn't punk come a couple of years after Relayer?



techniquest said:


> Staying on-topic, I would nominate 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' as overated; essentially it could be renamed 'Gabriel does New York' which, for me, wasn't what Genesis was all about - certainly not back in those days. There were some great tracks - mostly those penned in the main by Steve Hackett - but as a whole, I think it's way overblown.


Absolutely agree. They were a quintessentially English band and strayed way too far from their roots with this messy album. (Mind you, I think their next two, _A Trick of the Tail_ and _Wind and Wuthering_, were the best things they ever did and taken together are a peak of 'prog rock')

My nomination? _Astral Weeks_. Not that it's a bad album by any means (no record containing the sublime 'Madame George' and 'Beside You' could be bad), it's just that subsequent ones - particularly _Moondance, St. Dominic's Preview_ and _Veedon Fleece_ - took the best things about it and improved on them. But for some reason _Astral Weeks_ gets all the praise!


----------



## Guest

techniquest said:


> Neither TfTO nor Relayer can be considered as 'overrated albums' because they were both heavily criticised by a music press that was desperately trying to show how cool it was by overating punk. TfTO especially is particularly disregarded - by many Yes fans too - though for me it is one of the most important albums ever produced. 'Relayer' suffered from Patrick Moraz' sound being so ill-fitting and some poor production especially on 'Gates of Delerium'.
> Staying on-topic, I would nominate 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' as overated; essentially it could be renamed 'Gabriel does New York' which, for me, wasn't what Genesis was all about - certainly not back in those days. There were some great tracks - mostly those penned in the main by Steve Hackett - but as a whole, I think it's way overblown.


Who's doing the 'rating'? TLLDOB got a mixed reception at the time of release. Personally, I love it. Along with SEBTP before it and TOTT after, this is the peak of Genesis creativity that was never matched subsequently.

As for the contribution of Steve Hackett, can you quote a source that identifies his contributions? I can't find one. Gabriel wrote much of the words/story, but the music was written by all of them.



Oreb said:


> Didn't punk come a couple of years after Relayer?


Yes.


----------



## techniquest

> As for the contribution of Steve Hackett, can you quote a source that identifies his contributions? I can't find one. Gabriel wrote much of the words/story, but the music was written by all of them.


The tracks 'Hareless Heart' and 'Fly on a Windshield' were probably the only tracks on which Steve Hackett had any major contribution.
By the way, I'd suggest that 'Wind and Wuthering' was the last really outstanding album by Genesis rather than 'Trick of the Tail'. There were some good tracks on some of the later Collins-led albums (tracks such as Burning Rope, Dodo, Dukes' End), but the magic was gone.


----------



## Zerkalo

----------------------------------------------------


----------



## violadude

Zerkalo said:


> ----------------------------------------------------


This information is quite useful.


----------



## Art Rock

violadude said:


> This information is quite useful.


All his four posts are like that - looks like a defective spambot.


----------



## Sudonim

Re the OP: Judas Priest? I don't see how anyone could think of them as overrated. Who rates them highly in the first place?

Moving on, I'll forgive the Springsteen blasphemy. Grudgingly. 

Anyway, my contribution: The Doors. Most overrated "classic" band ever. (I know this thread is about albums, so I really mean _all_ of their albums.) "The End" is okay, and "Riders on the Storm" isn't bad, but I am completely underwhelmed by Jim Morrison. Maybe I feel about him the way others in this thread feel about Springsteen.


----------



## brotagonist

I'm not a Springsteen fan and I agree that Jim Morrison's alleged poetic bent is grossly overrated, often tending to the puerile and moronic, but the Doors really did do some great albums: Waiting for the Sun, LA Woman, Strange Days, Morrison Hotel all deserve the label _classic_.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Sudonim said:


> Re the OP: Judas Priest? I don't see how anyone could think of them as overrated. Who rates them highly in the first place?


It's a very highly regarded metal album. And a crappy one. What can I tell you. It should be obvious to anyone who doesn't take themselves too seriously that their first few releases are great, however.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

The "Jim Morrison is an adolescent pseudo-poetic fool" meme is kinda irritating to me, not because I really disagree, but because so was John Lennon. So is Bob Dylan. So is Lou Reed. Rock n' roll has never been about subtlety. I don't find The Doors' quasi-messianic pretentious posturing any more problematic than any other big rock band's.


----------



## Guest

Sudonim said:


> Re the OP: Judas Priest? I don't see how anyone could think of them as overrated. Who rates them highly in the first place?


Sad Wings Of Destiny is one of the biggest landmarks in the metal genre and possibly a top 5 album of all time for me (definitely top 10). Painkiller, on the other hand...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Death - Symbolic

Their transition into slick verse/chorus rock treacle. But instead of being honest about the music's streamlining and compensating as a frontman, Chuck maintains his inexpressive yeeegghhh YEEEGGHHH yeeegghhh YEEEGH death metal vocal cadence. Bad music.


----------



## Ryan

Senor Justin Biebers BELIEVE (DELUXE EDITION) album es muy sobrevalorado. es malo, muy malo. No me gusta esta Senor Justin Bieber, él es malo. Me gustaría enfrentarse a él en el ring y ver si todavía cree!!


----------



## shangoyal

My List:

1. OK Computer - For the kind of music they make, I'd prefer Lady Gaga over them.

2. Dark Side of the Moon - Just lounge music, a couple of good moments like Brain Damage, but what is with this elevator music that has people hooked? It is incredibly mediocre.

3. Led Zeppelin IV - it's decent but not nearly as good. Three good songs but that's it, the rest is forgettable overblown rock.

4. Most of David Bowie's music...

5. Bob Dylan - Blood on the Tracks - boring, the lyrics are bad, there are no exciting musical ideas, just bland after some time.

6. Miles Davis - Kind of Blue - again, it's good but come on, there is not enough expression in it, as such. It's very celebrated so maybe I need to hear it again, but it's directionless sometimes, the ideas are interesting, but they are in the background, the structure of the music is exciting and fresh but that's it, it's like a lot of bright colours thrown on a canvas.


----------



## brotagonist

Here's my list of over-rated classical albums:


----------



## niv

shangoyal said:


> 2. Dark Side of the Moon - Just lounge music, a couple of good moments like Brain Damage, but what is with this elevator music that has people hooked? It is incredibly mediocre.


Hah! that's interesting because I think Brain Damage is the low point of the record 



shangoyal said:


> 6. Miles Davis - Kind of Blue - again, it's good but come on, there is not enough expression in it, as such. It's very celebrated so maybe I need to hear it again, but it's directionless sometimes, the ideas are interesting, but they are in the background, the structure of the music is exciting and fresh but that's it, it's like a lot of bright colours thrown on a canvas.


A lot of bright colours thrown in a canvas? That sounds much like the visual images that Kind of Blue brings to me. I think it's marvelous.


----------



## violadude

shangoyal said:


> My List:
> 
> 1. OK Computer - For the kind of music they make, I'd prefer Lady Gaga over them.


Dang man, that's harsh. I've never heard OK computer, and maybe it is overrated. But Lady Gaga? That's just club music with lyrics slapped onto it.


----------



## aleazk

shangoyal said:


> My List:
> 
> 2. Dark Side of the Moon - Just lounge music, a couple of good moments like Brain Damage, but what is with this elevator music that has people hooked? It is incredibly mediocre.
> 
> 6. Miles Davis - Kind of Blue - again, it's good but come on, there is not enough expression in it, as such. It's very celebrated so maybe I need to hear it again, but it's directionless sometimes, the ideas are interesting, but they are in the background, the structure of the music is exciting and fresh but that's it, it's like a lot of bright colours thrown on a canvas.


lol, that's some of my favorite non-classical music...


----------



## Garlic

violadude said:


> Dang man, that's harsh. I've never heard OK computer, and maybe it is overrated. But Lady Gaga? That's just club music with lyrics slapped onto it.


At least you can dance to it. OK Computer is like a mixture of the worst of U2 and Pink Floyd.


----------



## Guest

OK Computer? Overrated, yes, but still very good. Lady Gaga - can't stand the media image of the woman - which overrates her - but the songs are pretty good pop!


----------



## shangoyal

violadude said:


> Dang man, that's harsh. I've never heard OK computer, and maybe it is overrated. But Lady Gaga? That's just club music with lyrics slapped onto it.


yeah, I know, but Radiohead are worse because they are Lady Gaga + artistic pretense. They should have stuck to being a britpop band, could have done well.


----------



## shangoyal

niv said:


> A lot of bright colours thrown in a canvas? That sounds much like the visual images that Kind of Blue brings to me. I think it's marvelous.


Yeah, it's just abstract ideas, no drive and propulsion. Compare it with this music, for example:


----------



## Garlic

shangoyal said:


> Yeah, it's just abstract ideas, no drive and propulsion. Compare it with this music, for example:


Bit of a pointless comparison to make really, completely different musical worlds. "No drive and propulsion" seems particularly off base when it comes to KOB and the fantastic rhythm section of Paul Chambers and Jimmy Cobb. Do you like any other jazz?


----------



## violadude

Garlic said:


> At least you can dance to it. OK Computer is like a mixture of the worst of U2 and Pink Floyd.


Oh...I don't dance to music, that must be my problem


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Dang man, that's harsh. I've never heard OK computer, and maybe it is overrated. But Lady Gaga? That's just club music with lyrics slapped onto it.


I'm put in mind of the thread I've just posted in, defending people's right to express dislike, but acknowledging that when it's your own tastes under attack, you might wish to take that right away! And here's an example:



shangoyal said:


> yeah, I know, but Radiohead are worse because they are Lady Gaga + artistic pretense. They should have stuck to being a britpop band, could have done well.


But I guess my earlier posts about those that I think are overrated were just as provocative, so I guess I'll have to just suck it up!


----------



## Winterreisender

I think the most overrated album is Nevermind by Nirvana. It's just whiny and repetitive, three-chord garbage. It is especially overrated when compared with other bands of that era such as Soundgarden, whom I actually really like but who unfortunately remain in Nirvana's shadow.


----------



## niv

shangoyal said:


> Yeah, it's just abstract ideas, no drive and propulsion.


No drive and propulsion...? are we listening to the same stuff???? What a weird comparison. Mozart and Kind Of Blue have different qualities.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Santana - Supernatural. I'm glad Carlos & Co had a rejuvenation chart-wise but I suspect this album had more to do with the plethora of VIPs guesting on it rather than the quality of the material. Although it's just about a notch above his lame efforts from the late 70s through to the 90s it still sounds like a man and band playing well within his and their comfort zone - there's little of the fire and diversity that made Santana such a great band from 1969-1977.


----------



## niv

Who rates that record though? To borrow a few terms from the gaming community, only _casual_ music fans at the time listened to it. I seriously doubt many people are listening to that record TODAY. It isn't rated by the _hardcore_ music fans .

If we're going to call overrated records to records that only casual music fans liked, then I nominate stuff like THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backstreet's_Back


----------



## BurningDesire

Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper are definitely over-rated


----------



## BurningDesire

regressivetransphobe said:


> The "Jim Morrison is an adolescent pseudo-poetic fool" meme is kinda irritating to me, not because I really disagree, but because so was John Lennon. So is Bob Dylan. So is Lou Reed. Rock n' roll has never been about subtlety. I don't find The Doors' quasi-messianic pretentious posturing any more problematic than any other big rock band's.


I always say that any criticism of any artist that involves calling that artist pretentious, basically adds nothing of value to the discourse on that artist.


----------



## KenOC

BurningDesire said:


> I always say that any criticism of any artist that involves calling that artist pretentious, basically adds nothing of value to the discourse on that artist.


Quite true, even of pretentious artists.


----------



## Jos

Thank god Elgars ghost mentioned Santana. On one of our "vinylnights" a couple of weeks back someone wantend to listen to some half an hour guitarsolo by Carlos S. Little chance that chap is going to be invited again......

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## ceobv

Bob Dylan -- Blood on the Tracks


----------



## elgar's ghost

niv said:


> Who rates that record though?


I know some hardcore Santana fans who loved it, but they're the sort that would forgive him almost anything, as I did in the late 70s/early 80s before I decided enough was enough. Apart from that, I recall some reviewers in the press at the time seemed to genuinely consider Supernatural to be a very good album, one going as far to say that it completely restored his reputation.

It was similar to all the gushing over the autumnal output of John Lee Hooker which amounted to little more than having a bigger recording budget than usual and lots of slavering A and B-listers tripping over themselves to play alongside him while the great man himself just sat there noodling along. It didn't so much rejuvenate him (that honour should be reserved for the album he did with Canned Heat in 1970) as give him a pension top-up for his final years.

All I know is that Santana haven't done a half-decent studio album since 1976's Amigos and I'll be surprised if they ever do again.


----------



## jim prideaux

ceobv said:


> Bob Dylan -- Blood on the Tracks


crazy talk......particularly when the obvious choice is Dark Side of the Moon!


----------



## shangoyal

OK Computer takes the crown.


----------



## Guest

shangoyal said:


> OK Computer takes the crown.


Much as I like the album, I'd agree that it is overrated: but one of the problems of looking back is that even if you accept that the hype and hoop-la was overdone at the time, the worth of an album may include an evaluation of its impact at the time. I wasn't listening to Radiohead in 1997, so who am I to judge? Similarly, I wasn't a Pink Floyd fan, nor a Bob Dylan fan, nor a Rolling Stones fan...


----------



## shangoyal

MacLeod said:


> Much as I like the album, I'd agree that it is overrated: but one of the problems of looking back is that even if you accept that the hype and hoop-la was overdone at the time, the worth of an album may include an evaluation of its impact at the time. I wasn't listening to Radiohead in 1997, so who am I to judge? Similarly, I wasn't a Pink Floyd fan, nor a Bob Dylan fan, nor a Rolling Stones fan...


Yeah, the people who place it on a higher pedestal were probably there. I wasn't and I don't really like it either. I used to have a problem with people praising it, but I know better. To each his own.


----------



## shangoyal

Garlic said:


> Bit of a pointless comparison to make really, completely different musical worlds. "No drive and propulsion" seems particularly off base when it comes to KOB and the fantastic rhythm section of Paul Chambers and Jimmy Cobb. Do you like any other jazz?


Hey, I guess I forgot about my posts here, and only returned now! Yeah, I like some music by John Coltrane, including A Love Supreme and My Favorite Things. Also, Charles Mingus' Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. So, yeah, I like me some jazz, but Kind of Blue is mostly atmospheric, it's not the notes that are important, but just the modes and scales, the phrasing is impulsive and a little dependent on the very moment. Of course, jazz is almost always improvised, so it has to be that way. But IMO, precisely because of the improvisation, the results are hit and miss. So, it could be that I will like some live version of So What better than the original...


----------



## Tristan

Any album Drake has ever made...


----------



## ALEXANDREG

Metallica, as a whole, is overrated.
That is just my thought about it;
Since they are the ones who really brought the trash scene to the spotlight their credit is more based in "show-biz" contribution than music it self.


----------



## Guest

Just don't forget that Kill 'Em All is becoming one of the most underrated albums.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Centropolis said:


> I know this is like quoting someone without providing the source but I remember reading an article on the music of The Beatles a few years back, they had an interview of this music professor and he said something to the effect of, if there was an end of the world, and all musical records and memories wiped out, and there could only be one album that survived the apocalypse, he would pick "Revolver".


Revolver began what Abbey Road finished with the latter the better imho and the somewhat over-rated Pepper and slightly overblown White twixt (forgetting the pair of soundtracks)


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Sudonim said:


> ... I am completely underwhelmed by Jim Morrison. Maybe I feel about him the way others in this thread feel about Springsteen.


but... Jim Morrison could _sing._


----------



## Vaneyes

For starters, anything by Led Zeppelin, Canned Heat, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, The Who.


----------



## SixFootScowl

starthrower said:


> Most of Eric Clapton's albums.


He has some good stuff, but not enought to keep me going. One exception is the album titled, From the Cradle, which is a blues album. Very good, probably underrated on that one.


----------



## KenOC

Vaneyes said:


> For starters, anything by Led Zeppelin, Canned Heat, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, The Who.


Good thing you didn't name Cream, or Traffic. I would have had to take measures.


----------



## norman bates

shangoyal said:


> Yeah, the people who place it on a higher pedestal were probably there. I wasn't and I don't really like it either. I used to have a problem with people praising it, but I know better. To each his own.


I was listening to it in 1997 and I was a big fan of it immediately. But I was very young and I knew very little about rock at the time. Basically my knowledge of music was based on what passed on tv. So a piece like Paranoid android sounded incredibly daring compared to much of the other music (the music on tv), and at the time I appreciated a lot more the melodramatic stuff (Jeff Buckley was another favorite of mine).
So in my opinion it is considered so much precisely because it was played on tv all the time, and for an audience who didn't know too much about music. Today I could consider it... not a bad album, but certainly not something that I would consider a desert island album. Very, very far from that idea. There are tons of albums in the nineties that are better in my opinon.


----------



## starry

Vaneyes said:


> For starters, anything by Led Zeppelin, Canned Heat, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, Grateful Dead, Moody Blues, The Who.


The Moody Blues don't get mentioned that much so they are probably underrated.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Actually most pop and rock music is overrated--especially modern stuff.


----------



## Guest

TallPaul said:


> Actually most pop and rock music is overrated--especially modern stuff.


...not so...but some of the old stuff...don't get me started on Dylan!


----------



## SixFootScowl

MacLeod said:


> ...not so...but some of the old stuff...don't get me started on Dylan!


i was being somewhat hyperbolic. But i find little desire to listen to a lot of the 60s and 70s stuff. I do like Deep Purple and a few other bands. Oh, and I have a huge Dylan collection, but he is a poet as is Neil Young--two artists I rate very highly.


----------



## aakermit

GreenMamba said:


> I like the White Album, but it would have been better if trimmed a bit.
> 
> I was going to say Magical Mystery Tour. A nice enough album, but not in the same league as Sgt Pepper's or Abbey Road. I am the Walrus and Strawberry Fields are great, but I think McCartney phoned it in to varying degrees on Fool on the Hill, Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane. Macca could write catchy melodies, but often forgot that there is more to music than that.


I agree with you on the White Album. It is uneven, but still a masterpiece IMO. Songs to be cut include: "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, Dear Prudence and Revolution 9." I would put "Let it Be" in the overrated category, but as I remember it was probably the least well received of the Beatles albums so perhaps overrated doesn't apply. I would put "Thriller" in the overrated category.


----------



## Guest

aakermit said:


> I agree with you on the White Album. It is uneven, but still a masterpiece IMO. Songs to be cut include: "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, Dear Prudence and Revolution 9." I would put "Let it Be" in the overrated category, but as I remember it was probably the least well received of the Beatles albums so perhaps overrated doesn't apply. I would put "Thriller" in the overrated category.


The Beatles did _Thriller_???


----------



## neoshredder

Nirvana Nevermind
Bush Sixteen Stones
Stone Temple Pilots Core 
Pearl Jam Ten
Radiohead Kid A


----------



## Garlic

I second the above post.

Re: the White Album, yes Bungalow Bill is weak but Dear Prudence is a great song! I think I'm one of the few people in the world who really likes Revolution 9 - one of the best things Lennon ever did IMO. 

Speaking of overrated albums, what the hell is so great about Neil Young's "Harvest"? At least some of his other albums have a bit of edge to them.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> I second the above post.
> 
> Re: the White Album, yes Bungalow Bill is weak but Dear Prudence is a great song! I think I'm one of the few people in the world who really likes Revolution 9 - one of the best things Lennon ever did IMO.
> 
> Speaking of overrated albums, what the hell is so great about Neil Young's "Harvest"? At least some of his other albums have a bit of edge to them.


What is 'weak' about Bungalow Bill? And is it reasonable to expect that on a double album, all songs should become rock 'standards'?


----------



## Garlic

MacLeod said:


> What is 'weak' about Bungalow Bill?


The chorus.



MacLeod said:


> And is it reasonable to expect that on a double album, all songs should become rock 'standards'?


I can't think of anything more boring than a "rock standard". But I think there's a handful of double albums much more consistent than the White Album: Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life, Prince's Sign 'O' the Times, Can's Tago Mago, Jimi Hendrix's Electric Ladyland, Miles Davis' 70s albums.


----------



## Guest

Garlic said:


> The chorus.
> 
> I can't think of anything more boring than a "rock standard". But I think there's a handful of double albums much more consistent than the White Album: Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life, Prince's Sign 'O' the Times, Can's Tago Mago, Jimi Hendrix's Electric Ladyland, Miles Davis' 70s albums.


Well, I was using 'rock standard' as representing the idea of 'quality'. I wouldn't give the albums you suggest house room. Well, Stevie Wonder and Can possibly.

And the chorus is the best bit!


----------



## shangoyal

Garlic said:


> I can't think of anything more boring than a "rock standard". But I think there's a *handful of double albums much more consistent than the White Album*: Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life, Prince's Sign 'O' the Times, Can's Tago Mago, Jimi Hendrix's Electric Ladyland, Miles Davis' 70s albums.


Blonde on Blonde?


----------



## SixFootScowl

shangoyal said:


> Blonde on Blonde?


While the early Dylan albums have good stuff, I really like the transition period: Nashville Skyline, John Wesley Hardin, Self Portrait, and New Morning.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Chi_townPhilly said:


> but... Jim Morrison could _sing._


Or scream and yell! :lol:


----------



## elgar's ghost

Let's not forget that the white album weighs in at 93+ minutes, which is nearly close to acceptable triple album length - in other words, there was always going to be more 'opportunity' for some superfluous material. Take away the four or five tracks that most people consider duds and you're STILL going to be left with a double album!

SW's Songs in the Key of Life was a fantastic achievement - and it had to include a free e.p. as there wasn't enough room on the album to accommodate all that fantastic music which just seemed to pour out of him back then.

For a real overrated double try the Manic Street Preachers debut album - it was good, but certainly not as great as the whole of the UK press at the time would have you believe.


----------



## violadude

I think most things by AC/DC seem a little over-rated to me, but I was born in 1991 so maybe it's a "you had to be there" sort of thing.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Hi, Violadude. I don't know if you are referring to AC/DC's material throughout their career but I agree with you as regards most of AC/DC's post-Bon Scott output where they became just another arena-rock band subject to the laws of diminishing or, at best, stagnant creative returns but still managing to sell truckloads of records. 

I suppose there is only so much any band can wring from that kind of incessant blues/rock 'n' roll 4/4 power-riff style but the five studio albums which featured Bon Scott's lacivious, low-life vignettes and gargling-with-broken-glass vocals were the true essence of the group and, for me at least, more than compensated for any stylistic repetition. 

I would imagine that seeing the Bon-era AC/DC up close playing the sweaty UK college and theater circuit in the late 70s was far more of an event than seeing later line-ups in an impersonal enormodome once they became huge after his death.


----------



## BurningDesire

aakermit said:


> I agree with you on the White Album. It is uneven, but still a masterpiece IMO. Songs to be cut include: "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill, Dear Prudence and Revolution 9." I would put "Let it Be" in the overrated category, but as I remember it was probably the least well received of the Beatles albums so perhaps overrated doesn't apply. I would put "Thriller" in the overrated category.


Why would you even think of cutting Revolution 9? Its the dramatic climax of the album, with the soft resolution of Good Night closing it out.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Nirvana Nevermind
> Bush Sixteen Stones
> Stone Temple Pilots Core
> Pearl Jam Ten
> Radiohead Kid A


I think you're off by a decade


----------



## BurningDesire

MacLeod said:


> Well, I was using 'rock standard' as representing the idea of 'quality'. I wouldn't give the albums you suggest house room. Well, Stevie Wonder and Can possibly.
> 
> And the chorus is the best bit!


Electric Ladyland is a masterpiece.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> I think you're off by a decade


Yeah the 2000's were much worse. Hard to pick for that decade as I didn't give it much of a chance due to all the junk on the radio.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> Electric Ladyland is a masterpiece.


Everything from Hendrix was overrated imo. I don't like blues rock though.


----------



## SixFootScowl

neoshredder said:


> Everything from Hendrix was overrated imo. I don't like blues rock though.


The problem is not so much that Jimi is over rated as that Johnny Winter was under rated. You don't like blues rock, so try Johnny Winter's power blues:


----------



## neoshredder

He's got some guitar chops alright. The blues sounds very repetitive to my ears. I prefer bands that are more innovative.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Yeah the 2000's were much worse. Hard to pick for that decade as I didn't give it much of a chance due to all the junk on the radio.


I meant the 80s.


----------



## SixFootScowl

neoshredder said:


> Everything from Hendrix was overrated imo. I don't like blues rock though.


Well, I spun Hendrix' Smash Hits today and was not all that impressed, but for Red House, which is the greatest blues song ever written IMO, and some of the guitar solos. He does have some amazing material though.


----------



## BurningDesire

Jimi Hendrix was a great musician and composer. He is over-rated, but so is Beethoven. So are The Beatles.


----------



## Freddie von Rost

TallPaul said:


> Well, I spun Hendrix' Smash Hits today and was not all that impressed, but for Red House, which is the greatest blues song ever written IMO, and some of the guitar solos. He does have some amazing material though.


Having recently returned to vinyl I bought a copy of Axis - Bold as Love, in the Sister Ray shop in Berwick Street. Asked the chap behind the counter to play the title track, which he did. Boy oh boy. I had forgotten what a show stopper that track is. Hendricks at his best.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Freddie von Rost said:


> Having recently returned to vinyl I bought a copy of Axis - Bold as Love, in the Sister Ray shop in Berwick Street. Asked the chap behind the counter to play the title track, which he did. Boy oh boy. I had forgotten what a show stopper that track is. Hendricks at his best.


I really like Band of Gypsies. There is a nice Hendrix compilation album just called "Blues" that is very good too.

I do like much of Hendrix' music. I just don't listen much because when I want wild and fantastic guitar, I much prefer Johnny Winter. Did you know that Jimi and Johnny jammed together, think it was at The Scene.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Everything from Hendrix was overrated imo. I don't like blues rock though.


Hendrix the guitarist is not overrated. Hendrix the songwriter is overrated though.


----------



## BurningDesire

Also, to write off Jimi's music as "bluesy rock" is to basically ignore alot of his work. Most of his music, even the outright bluesy work forgoes standard 12 bar forms, or presents them in a way that is far from generic.


----------



## BurningDesire

arcaneholocaust said:


> Hendrix the guitarist is not overrated. Hendrix the songwriter is overrated though.


What does that mean. Composition of music or lyricism?


----------



## SixFootScowl

BurningDesire said:


> Also, to write off Jimi's music as "bluesy rock" is to basically ignore alot of his work. Most of his music, even the outright bluesy work forgoes standard 12 bar forms, or presents them in a way that is far from generic.


Good point, and that is the same case for Johnny Winter. Yet Jimi and Johnny are so much different from each other, Jimi playing a lot more rock.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> Also, to write off Jimi's music as "bluesy rock" is to basically ignore alot of his work. Most of his music, even the outright bluesy work forgoes standard 12 bar forms, or presents them in a way that is far from generic.


He uses the blues scale on basically everything. Occassional Mixolydian use. I'm not questioning his guitar chops. I just find his music dull. But so is ACDC and many others that stick to the blues scale.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> Jimi Hendrix was a great musician and composer. He is over-rated, but so is Beethoven. So are The Beatles.


Hey the Beatles are not overrated. I was a fanatic for many years. No one has come close to writing as many great songs as they did. They did it in basically 7 years as well. They must've had no life during that period.


----------



## SixFootScowl

neoshredder said:


> Hey the Beatles are not overrated. I was a fanatic for many years. No one has come close to writing as many great songs as they did. They did it in basically 7 years as well. They must've had no life during that period.


I have to argue that Bob Dylan, whom the Beatles took some inspiration from, wrote more great songs. I suspect that Neil Young wrote as many great songs too. I confess I am not a Beatles fan, but they did write some great songs.


----------



## BurningDesire

The Beatles wrote great music, but they are beyond over-rated. They are deified as these impossibly great artists. That silly nonsense has no place in music, it only belongs in the realm of religion.


----------



## tdc

neoshredder said:


> He uses the blues scale on basically everything. Occassional Mixolydian use. I'm not questioning his guitar chops. I just find his music dull. But so is ACDC and many others that stick to the blues scale.


AC/DC definitely sticks to the blues scale, but Hendrix no. He did use a lot of pentatonics but he also uses all kinds of chromaticism and jazzier scales. Try to improv to one of his solos using only pentatonics - it won't capture his style. His playing was very outside the box.


----------



## norman bates

tdc said:


> AC/DC definitely sticks to the blues scale, but Hendrix no. He did use a lot of pentatonics but he also uses all kinds of chromaticism and jazzier scales. Try to improv to one of his solos using only pentatonics - it won't capture his style. His playing was very outside the box.


I don't know, his music sounds always very influenced by the blues. "Very outside the box" (if we're talking of scales and chords) is something I would say of an Allan Holdsworth.


----------



## BurningDesire

norman bates said:


> I don't know, his music sounds always very influenced by the blues. "Very outside the box" (if we're talking of scales and chords) is something I would say of an Allan Holdsworth.


Bending notes, pentatonic scales, and the electric guitar aren't confined strictly to the blues 

Hendrix of course is influenced by blues music (he wrote tunes that are in that idiom, and he's a rock musician/electric guitarist) But his music explores territory far from any traditional blues forms. Listen to something like _Third Stone from the Sun_ or _Bold as Love_ or _May This be Love_. That stuff is far removed from blues music. You'll hear jazz and impressionistic elements, and use of folky pentatonic scales that are reminiscent of Asian and Native American musics, as much as they are of African-American folk music.


----------



## norman bates

BurningDesire said:


> Bending notes, pentatonic scales, and the electric guitar aren't confined strictly to the blues


I have mentioned Allan Holdsworth, do you think that I don't know that? 



BurningDesire said:


> Hendrix of course is influenced by blues music (he wrote tunes that are in that idiom, and he's a rock musician/electric guitarist) But his music explores territory far from any traditional blues forms. Listen to something like _Third Stone from the Sun_ or _Bold as Love_ or _May This be Love_. That stuff is far removed from blues music. You'll hear jazz and impressionistic elements, and use of folky pentatonic scales that are reminiscent of Asian and Native American musics, as much as they are of African-American folk music.


I already know those tracks, and I haven't said that he's always playing twelve bar blues music, but that the blues is the core of his music. If I had to make a list with the most harmonically sophisticated guitarists, I'd certainly would not put him on it.


----------



## BurningDesire

norman bates said:


> I have mentioned Allan Holdsworth, do you think that I don't know that?
> 
> I already know those tracks, and I haven't said that he's always playing twelve bar blues music, but that the blues is the core of his music. If I had to make a list with the most harmonically sophisticated guitarists, I'd certainly would not put him on it.


How do you even quantify harmonic sophistication?


----------



## norman bates

BurningDesire said:


> How do you even quantify harmonic sophistication?


If everybody could play a chord progression is simple. But ask to 1000 guitarists to play the kind of stuff played by Lenny Breau, Holdsworth, Ted Greene, Ed Bickert, Jimmy Wyble, Mick Goodrick, Dennis Sandole, Ben Monder etc and see how many are capable to do it.
Ask someone with great dexterity but a good but not exceptional knowledge to improvise something like this:





It's something you have to study not for years, but for decades. Now that is difficult. Hendrix has great merits, but his merits imho are in his use of effects, feedback, distortion, wah wah, he had also memorable tunes (if we talk of the rock tradition) but talking of harmonic sophistication he's not on the level of the great jazz players.


----------



## tdc

norman bates said:


> I don't know, his music sounds always very influenced by the blues. "Very outside the box" (if we're talking of scales and chords) is something I would say of an Allan Holdsworth.


I agree Hendrix's music was generally very blues influenced but he definitely went far beyond that, yes there are surely plenty of players that are more complex harmonically, but Hendrix music was very outside of the box if you compare him to bands like AC/DC or the other players of his time within his same genre - rock music. Compare Hendrix playing to Jimmy Page, or Clapton or David Gilmour (all who I think were good players in their own right) and Hendrix can be seen to be quite original and outside of the box in comparison. As far as Holdsworth and harmonic complexity I don't think its really a fair comparison as they are two players from different times in different genres. Hendrix wasn't trying to be a jazz musician, he was fusing rock and blues with certain elements that were all his own.


----------



## elgar's ghost

My mum saw the Jimi Hendrix Experience play in a cinema in Worcester in early 1967. It's one of the few occasions when I've felt cheated for not being born about 10 years earlier, even if he was allegedly on the undercard for the ghastly cabaret singer Engelbert Humperdink.


----------



## Oreb

arcaneholocaust said:


> Hendrix the guitarist is not overrated. Hendrix the songwriter is overrated though.


 Impossible to over-rate the writer of a miracle like 'Little Wing', IMO.


----------



## Guest

Impossible to objectively over, under, rate anyone, isn't it?


----------



## starry

TallPaul said:


> I have to argue that Bob Dylan, whom the Beatles took some inspiration from, wrote more great songs. I suspect that Neil Young wrote as many great songs too. I confess I am not a Beatles fan, but they did write some great songs.


Lyrically they might have (I'm not sure) but musically I think The Beatles did far more.


----------



## norman bates

MacLeod said:


> Impossible to objectively over, under, rate anyone, isn't it?


This comment seems very much in the vein of "Free will and testament" (one of my favorite Wyatt's songs)


----------



## Guest

norman bates said:


> This comment seems very much in the vein of "Free will and testament" (one of my favorite Wyatt's songs)


Great choice, norman!

I'm now reminded of Bilbo's "And I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." Both do my head in!


----------



## SixFootScowl

starry said:


> Lyrically they might have (I'm not sure) but musically I think The Beatles did far more.


I took the above posts to a coworker who is a big fan of both the Beatles and Dylan. He said:


> The Beatles are not overrated. In seven years they changed rock and roll forever. Before the Beatles you had basic rhythms and lyrics epitomized by Elvis and the Beach Boys. They obviously were watered down versions of blues songs. The Beatles introduced complex music with varied instrumentation and rhythms. They developed/introduced psychedelic music, Indian themed and multiple tracks. You can argue Dylan and the Stones had longer impacts but not greater impacts.


----------



## MJongo

> The Beatles introduced complex music with varied instrumentation and rhythms. They developed/introduced psychedelic music, Indian themed and multiple tracks.


I don't think that any of those statements are true. Maybe if you only look at the small cross-section of popular rock music, but definitely not rock in general.


----------



## neoshredder

Everyone wanted to imitate Sgt Pepper at the time. The Beatles were the leaders of that following. Electric Light Orchestra was very influenced by the Beatles. Along with the Power Pop stuff in the early 70's. Great times of Beatles mania.


----------



## Guest

MJongo said:


> I don't think that any of those statements are true. Maybe if you only look at the small cross-section of popular rock music, but definitely not rock in general.


"Rock in general"? Can you give an example of who instead of The Beatles might lay a claim to the things referred to in TallPaul's post?


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Everyone wanted to imitate Sgt Pepper at the time. The Beatles were the leaders of that following. Electric Light Orchestra was very influenced by the Beatles. Along with the Power Pop stuff in the early 70's. Great times of Beatles mania.


No they didn't. And at any rate, Sgt. Pepper was heavily influenced by Frank Zappa's Freak Out and The Beach Boy's Pet Sounds


----------



## BurningDesire

TallPaul said:


> I took the above posts to a coworker who is a big fan of both the Beatles and Dylan. He said:


The Beatles did not do anything that hadn't been explored before. Don't get me wrong, I love The Beatles. I love their music. They were great. But people give them too much credit, like electronic music, and eclecticism, and use of complex rhythms and instrumentations didn't exist prior to them, and it just isn't true. They did great things, but they didn't invent music. They aren't the first rock band to explore electronics and studio effects. They aren't the first rock band to use instruments besides the standard rock ones, or incorporate influences from other musical idioms.

So yeah. They are over-rated, much in the same manner Mozart and Bach are.


----------



## Guest

BurningDesire said:


> and The Beach Boy's Pet Sounds


Which was "heavily influenced" by Rubber Soul.

It's difficult to extract one influence on another as they were feeding off each other.


----------



## shangoyal

If somebody is #1, they are bound to be "over-rated". Look at Pele or Maradona. Or look at Picasso. Or Michael Schumacher. Or anybody who is far ahead of the field. They are always deified because of their perceived super-human ability. They just cannot be talked about in a reasonable way because they always surprise you, and that's the beauty of human ability.

People worship Sgt. Pepper's because it does give them an unusually high amount of pleasure. Almost like a drug. I know it can get out of hand, but that's how it is. The alternative is simply not having any heroes - that's worse I guess?

If anybody says that the Beatles and Bob Dylan are over-rated, they are essentially saying that there was somebody better in rock music, which is plain wrong IMHO. Who would be better than them? Nobody. I think the Rolling Stones were close behind, with the Who, the VU, the Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, and everybody else. But Dylan and the Beatles simply made the best music of the 60s. They are like the Mozart and Beethoven of that time.

And Pet Sounds is a great album. Maybe a touch over-rated, but are we comparing it with OK Computer with respect to how over-rated it is. On an "Over-rated albums" list, my friends, Pet Sounds will still come in at like #789. There is Nevermind, Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, Led Zep IV, Ten, Definitely Maybe, and a host of others...


----------



## BurningDesire

shangoyal said:


> If somebody is #1, they are bound to be "over-rated". Look at Pele or Maradona. Or look at Picasso. Or Michael Schumacher. Or anybody who is far ahead of the field. They are always deified because of their perceived super-human ability. They just cannot be talked about in a reasonable way because they always surprise you, and that's the beauty of human ability.
> 
> People worship Sgt. Pepper's because it does give them an unusually high amount of pleasure. Almost like a drug. I know it can get out of hand, but that's how it is. The alternative is simply not having any heroes - that's worse I guess?
> 
> If anybody says that the Beatles and Bob Dylan are over-rated, they are essentially saying that there was somebody better in rock music, which is plain wrong IMHO. Who would be better than them? Nobody. I think the Rolling Stones were close behind, with the Who, the VU, the Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, and everybody else. But Dylan and the Beatles simply made the best music of the 60s. They are like the Mozart and Beethoven of that time.
> 
> And Pet Sounds is a great album. Maybe a touch over-rated, but are we comparing it with OK Computer with respect to how over-rated it is. On an "Over-rated albums" list, my friends, Pet Sounds will still come in at like #789. There is Nevermind, Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, Led Zep IV, Ten, Definitely Maybe, and a host of others...


Deifying an artist and putting down everybody else in the field as inferior to them is not the same thing as considering an artist great or a hero. I have my own musical heroes that I look up to. But I don't feel the need get out of hand with the hero worship. When I say The Beatles are over-rated, I'm not saying somebody is better. Its not that I don't believe there are differences in quality in music, but I think thats hardly an important thing to take into consideration in the grand scheme of things. I call The Beatles, and many other musicians, even Beethoven, one of my biggest musical heroes, over-rated because its silly to say that somebody is the best ever in a field like music, where there is so much incredible diversity. There's so many different approaches that all can yield incredibly beautiful results. Even within a "genre", its just silly to call anybody "the best". So when people call somebody the best of anything, I'll pretty much always think that the artist is being over-rated. I'm more compelled to say so when its something that is constantly stated by many people as if their opinions are fact based solely on numbers.

Most of the time when I'm saying an artist over-rated, its not a slam against them, but against their critics, the people heaping massive praise thats totally irrational (and kinda rude to the artform) on these artists. And I'm not against passion and getting emotional about music. I'm basically that way almost all the time. Its just that you don't need to basically insult other artists and approaches the be passionate about one particular artist.


----------



## SixFootScowl

How do we define which band was the best? Do we account for how long they were at it (Dylan for 50+ years vs Beatles for 7), how innovative they were, how popular they were...?

Sometimes it is more a matter of someone being in the right place at the right time. Bob Dylan surely was. Would Neil Young have been the Bob Dylan if he had come along about 10 years sooner?

As far as pure Rock bands go, I don't think it gets any better than Deep Purple. But that is my opinion and I do not have the breadth of exposure (in spite of growing up in the 70s and listening almost exclusively to the hard rock station those years) to all the bands that were out there.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Also, I find Stevie Ray Vaughn to be overrated.


----------



## neoshredder

TallPaul said:


> Also, I find Stevie Ray Vaughn to be overrated.


Agreed. Same ol' texas blues riffs over and over again. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## kv466

arcaneholocaust said:


> Nevermind and Loveless I don't consider overrated.
> 
> Painkiller, yes.
> 
> Want overrated? Master Of Puppets.


How is an album that hardly got any radio play and only has about three songs played live over the past fifteen years "overrated"?? Not to mention the fact that it is perfect from beginning to end...


----------



## neoshredder

kv466 said:


> How is an album that hardly got any radio play and only has about three songs played live over the past fifteen years "overrated"?? Not to mention the fact that it is perfect from beginning to end...


It's a great album. But Ride the Lightning was better.


----------



## Jos

> I think I'm one of the few people in the world who really likes Revolution 9


You are not alone! 
As teenagers whenever we passed something onto someone else, be it a beer, a ***, joint or textbook, it came with the text: "take this brother, may it serve you well" , ad nauseam.

Cheers, Jos


----------



## shangoyal

Yeah, sometimes I find the whole exercise of trying to label something as over-rated a little useless. What's the great point in it anyway?

I don't like something, I will just say so. And when I do like something, I will whole-heartedly say it is good. Because that's the whole deal about liking something right? It's where the subjectivity of everything turns into an objective truth for you - when you recognize what you like in it. It's like love.

So saying that you really like some music is better than trying to find fault in somebody who really likes something. 

But what in case our likes and dislikes intersect? When the dot product is zero? I think it's better to resolve debates by having a debate - and sometimes I get the feeling the dialectic/logical method of doing this is really pretty useless. Because when we are trying to eke out some sort of consensus by debating logically, what we are losing is a clear-headed single-person perspective. What we are losing is the focus to see the things which we are talking about in the first place. Dialectic is pro-consensus but anti-understanding. I think shouting and calling somebody a shitbag is more honest than trying to be logical - because that is just taking the discussion to an imaginary place which is compromise, and I don't think a compromise is ever good enough. A better understanding is achieved through a sharper focus and repeated learning, not reaching a consensus.


----------



## Katie

Shango, would you please rephrase your post in a calculus-based formulae grounded in multivariate optimalization theory; though "shitbag" should certainly be re-employed as a coefficient or other such doo-hickey/K


----------



## Katie

Oh yeah, and regardless of whatever salient academic points are otherwise enumerated in your doctoral thesis, Pet Sounds is still WAY overrated...I mean, seriously, have the critical masses actually listened to it or just ejaculated with the rest of the mainstream musical press? 

Deepest apologies. However, Shango did say that raw language and genuine opinions are preferable to cosmetic diplomacy and subjective half-truths (didn't he?).../K


----------



## neoshredder

Pet Sounds is awesome.


----------



## cwarchc

HHmmm seems like we have degenerated into:
what I like is better than yours??
While it can certainly be thought that some albums appear to be overrated?
Surely this is a result of their popularity in the "mainstrream"
Whilst I'm a great Pink Floyd fan, I wouldn't say DSOTM was their best offering
I also like "Pet sounds" is it great, who can say?
It's whatever floats our boat
Anyway this maybe the single malt talking ?
Have a Great new year


----------



## neoshredder

Yeah DSotM is overrated. Though I like Brain Damage. But Money is a weak song imo.


----------



## Haydn man

I suggest you can choose just about any Queen album 
All seemed to have 1 or 2 good songs but far too much bilge filling up the rest.


----------



## starry

Let's get up do date

Among the most overrated albums of the last few years within the ocean of hype that now surrounds music.

2013 - Vampire Weekend, Modern Vampires of the City
2012 - Frank Ocean, Channel Orange
2011 - PJ Harvey, Let England Shake
2010 - The National, High Violet
2009 - Animal Collective, Merriweather Post Pavillion

If you want to sound hip mention these to younger people and most will be very impressed by your knowledge, even if the 'knowledge' is total ignorance, as these aren't actually that good at all.

Some even try and compare Animal Collective to The Beach Boys btw, a totally bogus comparision.


----------



## shangoyal

Pet Sounds is awesome because it's so sunny and melancholic at the same time.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> 2010 - The National, High Violet
> 2009 - Animal Collective, Merriweather Post Pavillion


Certainly I've tried both of these and not been drawn back to them after one listen.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the band Led Zeppelin is overated in my opinion.


----------



## neoshredder

Almost anything from that whiny group Radiohead. Alright I like OK Computer and the Bends but starting with Kid A, they went downhill.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Almost anything from that whiny group Radiohead. Alright I like OK Computer and the Bends but starting with Kid A, they went downhill.


Nah, nah, nah, you got that all wrong...they went uphill!


----------



## shangoyal

neoshredder said:


> Almost anything from that whiny group Radiohead. Alright I like OK Computer and the Bends but starting with Kid A, they went downhill.


Yeah, their best song IMO is either High and Dry or Karma Police.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

OutKast - Aquemini 

After bravely flipping the bird to gangsta rap on ATLiens, here they attempt to compromise with their critics by shoehorning back in some "street" stuff which just makes the socially conscious material come across as totally hypocritical. It's about as long as a movie, and about half of it is lousy. "Chonkyfire" and both Art of Storytelling tracks are corny. "Synthesizer" is an unfunky funk tribute that sounds late 90s in the worst way possible. "Skew It on the Bar-B" has this rigid, plastic beat that's really a million miles away from the organic spacey soul stuff they were doing before--I have that issue with the whole album. It's just so obviously a step down. Yet 5 mics ensured it a spot in every hip-hop list ever.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Almost anything from that whiny group Radiohead. Alright I like OK Computer and the Bends but starting with Kid A, they went downhill.


I see Radiohead as more of a bell curve that reaches it's peak around OK Computer and Kid A. So The Bends and Amnesiac would be the next best and then I just don't know. I guess In Rainbows has some ok songs too.

But yeah, even on their best albums, Thom Yorke's voice has become grating to me.


----------



## Morimur

*Overrated Albums...*

The Beatles' entire catalogue.

It amazes me that people call them 'geniuses'; laughable. The only people that deserve credit are the marketing execs who saw an opportunity and profited from this 'herd' mentality.


----------



## neoshredder

Lope de Aguirre said:


> The Beatles' entire catalogue.
> 
> It amazes me that people call them 'geniuses'; laughable. The only people that deserve credit are the marketing execs who saw an opportunity and profited from this 'herd' mentality.


Well they are geniuses. Look how many hits they made. And still made hits while experimenting with psychedelia. Incredible band.


----------



## Itullian

neoshredder said:


> Well they are geniuses. Look how many hits they made. And still made hits while experimenting with psychedelia. Incredible band.


Agreed, tremendous geniuses. Song after song after song.
it boggles the mind what they would have done if they had stayed together.


----------



## KenOC

I was in first year college when I heard a song being played through a dorm window. I was transfixed. This was a real change from the then-current crop of sappy songs about (for instance) having your girlfriend's name embroidered on your pillow. And the song was good, very very good! Didn't know who it was but found out it was the Beatles -- I Want to Hold Your Hand. I'd never heard of them, no clever marketing involved here.

By the time I was in SE Asia during the Vietnam unpleasantness, a new Beatles album was a major event for everybody. Arguments would rage over which songs were good, which were wastes of time, whether the new album was better than the last, and so forth. One thing was sure, after a few listens: Each album was of a very high quality indeed, none of this two-good-songs-and-the-rest-are-rubbish albums that most other bands were still churning out.

The Beatles kept that quality and inspiration to the end, with few lapses. To credit their artistic success to marketing execs and "herd mentality" is the sign of somebody who simply wasn't there.


----------



## Itullian

They made buying albums the thing to do.
And you got 2 good songs on each single, not 1 and a filler.


----------



## neoshredder

Itullian said:


> Agreed, tremendous geniuses. Song after song after song.
> it boggles the mind what they would have done if they had stayed together.


They made each other better no doubt. But maybe the pressure was too much for the long term. And the 70's was creating a new sound. It would've been interesting to see how they would've adapted to that. I think Electric Light Orchestra is the closest you'll get to the sound of how the Beatles would be in the 70's.


----------



## Itullian

There was a synergy there when they were together. They made each other better and reeled in each others excesses.
I have no doubt they'd have maintained there excellence.
They constantly improved as musicians and were totally unique.


----------



## KenOC

Itullian said:


> They made buying albums the thing to do.
> And you got 2 good songs on each single, not 1 and a filler.


Naturally I must look for an exception: How about "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)", the B side of "Let it Be." This song is not just bad, it's truly horrible. But I guess you could say that it's so bad that it's good. At least I think so! :lol:


----------



## Itullian

KenOC said:


> Naturally I must look for an exception: How about "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)", the B side of "Let it Be." This song is not just bad, it's truly horrible. But I guess you could say that it's so bad that it's good. At least I think so! :lol:


C'mon Ken.
A little Beatles humor there.
I loved it!!!


----------



## Morimur

Sheep's looking at you, fellas.

View attachment 35884


----------



## shangoyal

KenOC said:


> Naturally I must look for an exception: How about "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)", the B side of "Let it Be." This song is not just bad, it's truly horrible. But I guess you could say that it's so bad that it's good. At least I think so! :lol:


With all due respect, I think the song is really great. It's tight, well composed, entertaining, funny. What more do you ask for?


----------



## Guest

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Sheep's looking at you, fellas.
> 
> View attachment 35884


Well I guess I've been a sheep since I was a small lamb and my Ram took me with him to buy _Please Please Me_ for my Ewe in 1963. The only flock I was following was my family.


----------



## Guest

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Sheep's looking at you, fellas.
> 
> View attachment 35884


Between this and the random out-of-place comments like "Mahler crushes both, dude." - well, I'm just not sure about you, son.


----------



## starry

neoshredder said:


> Almost anything from that whiny group Radiohead. Alright I like OK Computer and the Bends but starting with Kid A, they went downhill.


No, I think after Kid A, not starting with. Kid A is one of their more consistent effforts, not saying I love it but it largely succeeds at what it aims to do. After that they became kind of irrelevant.


----------



## starry

Itullian said:


> Agreed, tremendous geniuses. Song after song after song.
> it boggles the mind what they would have done if they had stayed together.


The Beatles actually kept together for a long time as it was and that gave them this chance to develop.


----------



## Polyphemus

Good to see that so many people share my long held view that the Beatles were no more than a pop band and the the much vaunted 'Sgt Pepper' owes more to George Martin and the EMI production team than any genius on the Beatles part. The EMI team masterminded by Walter Legge was part of the golden age of recordings Culshaw with Decca etc. There were far better albums than 'Sgt Pepper' at the time. The Beatles had the advantage of being the first and having the publicity machine. 
The individual contributions by the 'Fab Four' post Beatles, are inconsequential and mostly publicity driven. McCartney's forays into the 'classical' area are laughable.
However this will not convince those infected with Beatlemania and as I always say enjoy your music but do try and explore, it is fun.


----------



## starry

What's wrong with being a pop band? Most rock bands are awful, so there's no way they are automatically better.


----------



## Guest

Polyphemus said:


> Good to see that so many people share my long held view that the Beatles were no more than a pop band and the the much vaunted 'Sgt Pepper' owes more to George Martin and the EMI production team than any genius on the Beatles part. The EMI team masterminded by Walter Legge was part of the golden age of recordings Culshaw with Decca etc. There were far better albums than 'Sgt Pepper' at the time. The Beatles had the advantage of being the first and having the publicity machine.
> The individual contributions by the 'Fab Four' post Beatles, are inconsequential and mostly publicity driven. McCartney's forays into the 'classical' area are laughable.
> However this will not convince those infected with Beatlemania and as I always say enjoy your music but do try and explore, it is fun.


So many? Some, yes...but as with the rest of your post, a trifle overstated!


----------



## Eviticus

Polyphemus said:


> 'Sgt Pepper' owes more to George Martin and the EMI production team than any genius on the Beatles part.


Remind me which song George Martin wrote again??


----------



## neoshredder

Polyphemus said:


> Good to see that so many people share my long held view that the Beatles were no more than a pop band and the the much vaunted 'Sgt Pepper' owes more to George Martin and the EMI production team than any genius on the Beatles part. The EMI team masterminded by Walter Legge was part of the golden age of recordings Culshaw with Decca etc. There were far better albums than 'Sgt Pepper' at the time. The Beatles had the advantage of being the first and having the publicity machine.
> The individual contributions by the 'Fab Four' post Beatles, are inconsequential and mostly publicity driven. McCartney's forays into the 'classical' area are laughable.
> However this will not convince those infected with Beatlemania and as I always say enjoy your music but do try and explore, it is fun.


Not so many people share your opinion.


----------



## Eviticus

regressivetransphobe said:


> Nirvana - Nevermind
> Kurt planned to call the next album "Verse Chorus" before deciding on In Utero. Self-deprecation doesn't just make your flaws go away.


I'm not sure how an album consisting 12 excellently produced catchy records makes a record overrated. No one (including Kurt) ever made any claim that it invented grunge so it was not pretentious. It merely popularized a scene. The album is admired worldwide for the likeable songs; and this is subsequently supported by record sales.

If any Nirvana album is overrated, it is most likely 'Bleach' as the album has had acclaim put upon it that it may never have originally acquired if it had not been for the popularity of the band in the nineties.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

starry said:


> The Beatles actually kept together for a long time as it was and that gave them this chance to develop.


Just months after "Sgt Pepper's" they weren't really "together" at all ever again properly and rarely all in the studio or any other same place at the same time barring the pre-Abbey Road "Let it be" impromptu concert atop the Apple buildings whose recordings Phil Spector later "butchered". The Beatles had ceased touring a year or so ahead of what is considered a 'landmark' album with "Their Satanic Majesties' Request" and the ill-fated "Smiley Smile" left far behind in it's wake and "We're only in it for the money" parodying. Management issues along with Linda Eastman and Yoko Ono coupled with George's growth being "under-represented" on album caused rifts which were never fully repaired though Ringo's "Ringo" a few years later saw all in the studio on the same day collaborating on different album tracks and "almost friendly". When Lennon died it "was a drag" in Paul's words who'd just about gotten over "How do you sleep" which John had writ in response to "believedly concealed" messages in "Ram".


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Polyphemus said:


> McCartney's forays into the 'classical' area are laughable.


Ooh, I love "The Liverpool Oratorio" and would rate it alongside Mozart's "Requiem" ... honest, and God bless Carl Davies.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Eviticus said:


> Remind me which song George Martin wrote again??


Half of the "Yellow Submarine" OST barring the "Yellow Submarine in Pepperland" track though he also arranged the title track. I'd guess these tracks don't count as songs but he was "kind of the fifth Beatle" every bit as much as Brian Epstein since his advice and arrangements as well as orchestrations were instrumental, no pun intended, to what we have on record.


----------



## Itullian

Haut Parleur said:


> Half of the "Yellow Submarine" OST barring the "Yellow Submarine in Pepperland" track though he also arranged the title track. I'd guess these tracks don't count as songs but he was "kind of the fifth Beatle" every bit as much as Brian Epstein since his advice and arrangements as well as orchestrations were instrumental, no pun intended, to what we have on record.


You mean the instrumental stuff that everyone skips?


----------



## starry

Haut Parleur said:


> Just months after "Sgt Pepper's" they weren't really "together" at all ever again properly and rarely all in the studio or any other same place at the same time barring the pre-Abbey Road "Let it be" impromptu concert atop the Apple buildings whose recordings Phil Spector later "butchered". The Beatles had ceased touring a year or so ahead of what is considered a 'landmark' album with "Their Satanic Majesties' Request" and the ill-fated "Smiley Smile" left far behind in it's wake and "We're only in it for the money" parodying. Management issues along with Linda Eastman and Yoko Ono coupled with George's growth being "under-represented" on album caused rifts which were never fully repaired though Ringo's "Ringo" a few years later saw all in the studio on the same day collaborating on different album tracks and "almost friendly". When Lennon died it "was a drag" in Paul's words who'd just about gotten over "How do you sleep" which John had writ in response to "believedly concealed" messages in "Ram".


But for some people their last recording, Abbey Road, was their best.

Also someone said their solo work wasn't any good, I think there were good solo songs. And McCartney's _Band on the Run_ album is pretty good.

The Beatles hardly need defending anyway, most consider them among the best songwriters of their time.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Itullian said:


> You mean the instrumental stuff that everyone skips?


ooh ... nasty


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

starry said:


> But for some people their last recording, Abbey Road, was their best.
> 
> Also someone said their solo work wasn't any good, I think there were good solo songs. And McCartney's _Band on the Run_ album is pretty good.
> 
> The Beatles hardly need defending anyway, most consider them among the best songwriters of their time.


Totally agreed on Abbey as The "Great" White is a bit flabby but with more to commend than Pepper if pruned.

George managed on Cloud 9 to reach Paul's BOTR level but needed Jeff Lynne's aid where his fellow bandmate went on and on with or without Wings albeit with real some "honkers" such as "Give my regards to Broad Street" along the way. Alas, only "poor" Ringo was "completely at sea" without the others whilst John and George were "patchier" though less "poppy" and more "political".


----------



## Guest

Itullian said:


> You mean the instrumental stuff that everyone skips?


Well, not quite everyone!

But the idea that George Martin's contribution to the OST of Yellow Submarine makes him a fifth Beatle is stretching the idea thin. No-one doubts his contribution to the band's sound and success, but this is like suggesting that Elton John and Ken Russell could be considered members of The Who because they contributed to the movie of Tommy!


----------



## MagneticGhost

starry said:


> Among the most overrated albums of the last few years within the ocean of hype that now surrounds music.
> 
> 2011 - PJ Harvey, Let England Shake


I think this is the best album of the decade so far. Far from overrated - it's criminally underrated. Beyond the mercury music prize and PJ Harvey fans - how many people have actually listened to it. Obviously your good self, because you don't like it. I find it that rare breed of concept album with good tunes and atmosphere from beginning to end. PJ Harvey's finest hour.

I think I posted earlier.. but The Wall is overblown and tuneless and has to be Pink Floyd's nadir. But it seems to be quite popular.


----------



## Mahlerian

Haut Parleur said:


> Ooh, I love "The Liverpool Oratorio" and would rate it alongside Mozart's "Requiem" ... honest, and God bless Carl Davies.


The good parts, or the Sussmayr parts?


----------



## neoshredder

The Wall is one of the greatest albums ever. It's NOT overrated. DSotM is though.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

MacLeod said:


> Well, not quite everyone!
> 
> But the idea that George Martin's contribution to the OST of Yellow Submarine makes him a fifth Beatle is stretching the idea thin. No-one doubts his contribution to the band's sound and success, but this is like suggesting that Elton John and Ken Russell could be considered members of The Who because they contributed to the movie of Tommy!


Is Elton John not a member of The Who, damn


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Mahlerian said:


> The good parts, or the Sussmayr parts?


I now wish I'd picked Faure's Requiem


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

neoshredder said:


> The Wall is one of the greatest albums ever. It's NOT overrated. DSotM is though.


Um, I feel that The Wall is a few tracks too heavy whilst Wish you were here is a bit flabby but DSOTM and Animals get the balance right. I did see Pink Floyd live on the DSOTM, Animals and Wall tours and have every PF album on both vinyl and CD - sad, I know. To balance things I've seen a number of "Classical" concerts and have 'The Complete Haydn edition' and a number of other 'Completist' collections.

At the end of all this, however, one has to remember that back in the late 60s PF were "covering" Beatles songs as some artists are still doing. I can't think of anyone other than "Tribute bands" such as, the rather good, "The Australian PF" covering PF songs though. Like Mozart most folks, alive over the last half century, know of The Beatles and, as with the former, most could hum a tune of one or t'other. I am not equating both, before anyone takes me to task, but simply saying that PF simply aren't in the same league any more than Ligeti is within their appropriate musical genre.


----------



## starry

MagneticGhost said:


> I think this is the best album of the decade so far. Far from overrated - it's criminally underrated. Beyond the mercury music prize and PJ Harvey fans - how many people have actually listened to it. Obviously your good self, because you don't like it. I find it that rare breed of concept album with good tunes and atmosphere from beginning to end. PJ Harvey's finest hour.
> 
> I think I posted earlier.. but The Wall is overblown and tuneless and has to be Pink Floyd's nadir. But it seems to be quite popular.


PJ Harvey fans will obviously like it more than me. I'd hardly say it was underrated when it topped some album polls. I just think there was plenty of other stuff that got sidelined in favour of that just because she was already liked by some critics. Best album of the decade? Well as most people have heard very few albums I'd say that's a stretch. I wouldn't dare pick out just one album because there's been too much good music, it's too reductive and overhyping to do that. I've probably found over 300 potentially classic albums from the decade so far and most of them are obscure. And it takes time to even find out what will last with repeated listenings, and people want to hype things straight away.

As for The Wall, the live recording of the album is pretty good.


----------



## MagneticGhost

starry said:


> PJ Harvey fans will obviously like it more than me. I'd hardly say it was underrated when it topped some album polls. I just think there was plenty of other stuff that got sidelined in favour of that just because she was already liked by some critics. Best album of the decade? Well as most people have heard very few albums I'd say that's a stretch. I wouldn't dare pick out just one album because there's been too much good music, it's too reductive and overhyping to do that. I've probably found over 300 potentially classic albums from the decade so far and most of them are obscure.
> 
> As for The Wall, the live recording of the album is pretty good.


I suppose that's the difference between critical acclaim and popular acclaim. An album can sell multi-millions yet be panned by the critics. Whilst Let England Shake won polls, awards and acclaim - It didn't do too shabbily 200,000 copies estimated worldwide - It's never going to be in the same ball park as The Wall which is 23x Platinum. 
That's why I can say Let England Shake is underrated and the Wall is overrated 

Just to clarify - It's *my* album of the decade. Admittedly, I haven't listened to 300 albums in the past 4 years. I'm basing my own reaction on the 50 or so albums I have listened to. And it's between this one and the Guillemots' Hello Land.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

starry said:


> PJ Harvey fans will obviously like it more than me. I'd hardly say it was underrated when it topped some album polls. I just think there was plenty of other stuff that got sidelined in favour of that just because she was already liked by some critics. Best album of the decade? Well as most people have heard very few albums I'd say that's a stretch. I wouldn't dare pick out just one album because there's been too much good music, it's too reductive and overhyping to do that. I've probably found over 300 potentially classic albums from the decade so far and most of them are obscure.
> 
> As for The Wall, the live recording of the album is pretty good.


The Tubes' "What do you want from Live", "Frampton comes alive", "Kiss Alive", "Get yer ya ya's out", "Made in Japan" and "Seconds out" are my favoured Live albums which immediately sprang to mind. I hate a lot of "Popular" Live albums though if only because of their capacity to overblow things like the 10 minute drum solo on an MIJ track or the expansion of "The Song remains the same's" 'Dazed and Confused' from 4 mins to 27 mins with what essentially became a soloing "drone dirge" imo.

Pop music works best in the studio as a general rule of thumb imo and for concerts "you have to be there".


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

MagneticGhost said:


> Admittedly, I haven't listened to 300 albums in the past 4 years. I'm basing my own reaction on the 50 or so albums I have listened to. And it's between this one and the Guillemots' Hello Land.


Have you really only listened to 50 albums in the last 4 years? I'm assuming you mean 50 Pop Music albums as I listen to at least an album a day but split my time between pop and classical and so listen to about 1500 albums over any 4 year period. However, I also listen on my iPod or in the car to stuff I exclude from that count.


----------



## starry

Yeh most of the time live recordings probably aren't that great, maybe people find it hard to replicate the music live and the sound quality isn't good enough, but now and again there can be exceptions.

Also with music critics, they can be notorious for keeping with their favourites every year. To name just one example, The Cure in the 80s. I just like music as less of a fanboy thing.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Haut Parleur said:


> Have you really only listened to 50 albums in the last 4 years? I'm assuming you mean 50 Pop Music albums as I listen to at least an album a day but split my time between pop and classical and so listen to about 1500 albums over any 4 year period. However, I also listen on my iPod or in the car to stuff I exclude from that count.


I've listened to literally 1000s of albums. What I meant was I'm not so up to date. I've only heard probably 50 new pop releases in the last few years. I listen to new (to me) classical all the time. But with pop and rock, it's all becoming a little 'I've heard it all before, only better' - so I tend towards the older favourites. Although 50 isn't too shabby. I know some people who haven't listened to anything new in the pop world for 10 years


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

MagneticGhost said:


> I've listened to literally 1000s of albums. What I meant was I'm not so up to date. I've only heard probably 50 new pop releases in the last few years. I listen to new (to me) classical all the time. But with pop and rock, it's all becoming a little 'I've heard it all before, only better' - so I tend towards the older favourites. Although 50 isn't too shabby. I know some people who haven't listened to anything new in the pop world for 10 years


Ah, yes 50 new over the last 4 years on the 'pop and rock' front isn't too shabby as most is a case of 'same old same old' or maybe it's me that's getting old. I figured it had to be something like that as I, on reflection, under-estimated my own listening which probably averages 10-12 albums a week at home plus another 5-10 in/on planes, trains and automobiles. It's astonishing how much time we spend listening to stuff but it's better than gardening or household maintenance imo :tiphat:


----------



## starry

Haut Parleur said:


> Ah, yes 50 new over the last 4 years on the 'pop and rock' front isn't too shabby as most is a case of 'same old same old' or maybe it's me that's getting old.


It's not much though, with the 1000s of albums that are available for people to hear these days (part of the reason for the modern golden age). And MagneticGhost did say it was the same music but not as good as the past. It's easy to dismiss music we don't have knowledge of, we all do it at sometime or another, maybe as much as anything it's to convince ourselves that we aren't missing anything. Better to speak from a position of knowledge/experience though.


----------



## MagneticGhost

starry said:


> It's not much though, with the 1000s of albums that are available for people to hear these days (part of the reason for the modern golden age). And MagneticGhost did say it was the same music but not as good as the past. It's easy to dismiss music we don't have knowledge of, we all do it at sometime or another, maybe as much as anything it's to convince ourselves that we aren't missing anything. Better to speak from a position of knowledge/experience though.


You're right of course. But I did go through a process. I was listening to loads of new music through the years leading up to this. I decided at this juncture that it just wasn't interesting me as much anymore. So four years back I'd say I was in a position of knowledge. Using that knowledge, I pruned back my pop/rock listening. So I suppose I could be missing out on a new glorious age that started in 2010.
Perhaps you can give me some recommendations from the last few years. When it comes to music, I'm always open minded and always happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## Eviticus

Haut Parleur said:


> Half of the "Yellow Submarine" OST barring the "Yellow Submarine in Pepperland" track though he also arranged the title track. I'd guess these tracks don't count as songs but he was "kind of the fifth Beatle" every bit as much as Brian Epstein since his advice and arrangements as well as orchestrations were instrumental, no pun intended, to what we have on record.


Yellow submarine does not count as a Beatles album. It wasn't even a Beatles project. I totally agree he was the 5th Beatle though. They all learned so much from each other and no other producer could have given us what George did. However, George did what was asked of him by the songwriters (albeit occasionally that and more).


----------



## starry

It could well have got even better in the last few years, or is it just that more and more music is available year on year? And that's a huge difference the actual amount of music, people can just self-release now. The amount you could hear in the 90s and earlier would have been far less, that is likely indisputable.

But really much of this depends on what you look at, for example what_ styles_ of music, there's loads of styles out there and you can't judge music as a whole without being aware of all of them. I don't think it's up to me to convince people, people have to convince themselves. No doubt there are some areas strong now and maybe some weaker. Music that's folk influenced is surely extremely strong including some singer-songwriters, minimalist electronica and experimental music is surely strong. Ambient when at it's best is as good as any there has been. Indie pop is probably as good as any time before. Metal has good stuff as well, though much of it is more extreme or experimental. Synth pop on the indie scene has come back quite strong in the last few years. And even if some styles aren't original enough for some people I don't think it matters if it is done well, and really I don't see the past as being always better at all. The past has plenty of bad music as well as good too, it's only nostalgia that makes people want to think otherwise.


----------



## Alydon

Sorry to say but most by the Rolling Stones - except Exile on Main Street.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Actually one of the best Stones albums is "Out of Our Heads." A lot of old bluesy stuff.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Miles Davis - Kind of Blue

If I'm in the mood for jazz my granny might like, I'll take Blue Train or Saxophone Colossus over this any day.


----------



## Morimur

The Beatles catalogue. Genius? Please. One of most abused words of all time.


----------



## KenOC

Lope de Aguirre said:


> The Beatles catalogue. Genius? Please. One of most abused words of all time.


Going on two generations, still selling pretty well. Obviously they did something right.


----------



## Morimur

KenOC said:


> Going on two generations, still selling pretty well. Obviously they did something right.


Yeah, it's called good marketing. And as we all know, good marketing + nostalgia + mindless sheep = $$$

Justin Bieber is doing quite well, I hear.


----------



## KenOC

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Yeah, it's called good marketing. And as we all know, good marketing + nostalgia + mindless sheep = $$$.


:lol: And Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip, or so Mr. Gould tells us!


----------



## Guest

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Yeah, it's called good marketing. And as we all know, good marketing + nostalgia + mindless sheep = $$$
> 
> Justin Bieber is doing quite well, I hear.


You're still abusing the sheep? Please stop. I can't baah it any longer.


----------



## Morimur

KenOC said:


> :lol: And Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip, or so Mr. Gould tells us!


Pray tell, how long has Beethoven's music been with us? This is where your comparison begins to fail. In this age of ours his music isn't nearly as revered as The Beatles'; more people know and love their their pop deities than they do Beethoven's glorious music.


----------



## shangoyal

I think the Beatles are sufficiently ahead of the competition in pop music on most factors. They are perhaps not that experimental and avant-garde; but as far as middle of the road pop music goes, they are close to the apex. If you think being at the cutting edge of some sort of curve of 'progress' is vital for producing great music, you may not like the Beatles.

Beethoven is also close to the apex in his field, but maybe he also falls short on some people's expectations. 

And the comparison to Justin Bieber is just nonsense. You KNOW that.


----------



## SixFootScowl

The Beatles were amazing, but I am not really into their music. They certainly are much better than most modern pop music.


----------



## Itullian

shangoyal said:


> I think the Beatles are sufficiently ahead of the competition in pop music on most factors. They are* perhaps not that experimental and avant-garde;* but as far as middle of the road pop music goes, they are close to the apex. If you think being at the cutting edge of some sort of curve of 'progress' is vital for producing great music, you may not like the Beatles.
> 
> Beethoven is also close to the apex in his field, but maybe he also falls short on some people's expectations.
> 
> And the comparison to Justin Bieber is just nonsense. You KNOW that.


White Album..........................


----------



## shangoyal

Itullian said:


> White Album..........................


There you go! I was telling these people...


----------



## Morimur

shangoyal said:


> And the comparison to Justin Bieber is just nonsense. You KNOW that.


He stated that they are still selling well. So is Bieber. Do you see the connection now? Money has nothing to do with artistic excellence.


----------



## shangoyal

Lope de Aguirre said:


> He stated that they are still selling well. So is Bieber. Do you see the connection now? Money has nothing to do with artistic excellence.


Sure, it doesn't.


----------



## Guest

Better to let little flames die than to give them fuel, shangoyal. Obviously people are still talking about The Beatles music, including specific songs, techniques, etc. 30-40 years later. Bieber? I'm not sure anyone talks about his "musical" side nowadays and it hasn't been 10 years.

Pretty soon, I predict I'll actually miss the metal elitests I once spoke to.


----------



## Morimur

arcaneholocaust said:


> Better to let little flames die than to give them fuel, shangoyal. Obviously people are still talking about The Beatles music, including specific songs, techniques, etc. 30-40 years later. Bieber? I'm not sure anyone talks about his "musical" side nowadays and it hasn't been 10 years.
> 
> Pretty soon, I predict I'll actually miss the metal elitests I once spoke to.


I predict they'll actually miss you too. Ain't that grand?


----------



## KenOC

Lope de Aguirre said:


> He stated that they are still selling well. So is Bieber. Do you see the connection now? Money has nothing to do with artistic excellence.


Well, if Bieber is still selling well after 40 or 50 years, maybe it'll be time to reassess his "excellence." Your comparison is, of course, quite fallacious.


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. The Beatles had excellent marketing of their albums. 

Imagine how far they would have gone if those Liverpool blokes actually demonstrated musical talent.


----------



## southwood

Sgt.Peppers: the most hyped and over-rated album of all time.


----------



## hpowders

southwood said:


> Sgt.Peppers: the most hyped and over-rated album of all time.


Yeah and I'm the next King of England.


----------



## southwood

The Beatles had lots of talent but so did many other bands. The Beach Boys, Fleetwood Mac, Credence, the Allman Brothers, the Grateful Dead, and what about the Bonzo Dogs ?


----------



## neoshredder

southwood said:


> Sgt.Peppers: the most hyped and over-rated album of all time.


I love that album. If I would pick the most overrated Beatles album, I would pick the White Album.


----------



## shangoyal

neoshredder said:


> I love that album. If I would pick the most overrated Beatles album, I would pick the White Album.


I agree very much with you. Even though the White Album does have a few gems.


----------



## southwood

neoshredder said:


> I love that album. If I would pick the most overrated Beatles album, I would pick the White Album.


If the white album had had its 12 or so finest tracks on a single album it would have been the Beatles' best album. Better even than Help.


----------



## shangoyal

Looks like Paul McCartney ran away with your wife, southwood.


----------



## southwood

shangoyal said:


> Looks like Paul McCartney ran away with your wife, southwood.


Please explain.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> I love that album. If I would pick the most overrated Beatles album, I would pick the White Album.


When the White Album came out, I was in the military in SE Asia. We all gathered 'round in the barracks to listen to it. The general opinion was that the 4th LP side was pretty much throw-away music. Time has proved us wrong.


----------



## shangoyal

southwood said:


> Please explain.


Only that can explain how you are so angered with the Beatles. Or possibly, you played in some garage outfit in the 60s and are just jealous.


----------



## Guest

Interesting word, 'album'. No matter how hard I try, I can't bring myself to throw away the photos that didn't make it into the family album. They are all a part of the whole, even if somehow less significant than the better snaps.

So it is with the White Album. I don't like all tracks equally, but I love the album as a whole, and wouldn't want to part with any of it.


----------



## southwood

shangoyal said:


> Only that can explain how you are so angered with the Beatles. Or possibly, you played in some garage outfit in the 60s and are just jealous.


That is just an absurd comment. How would you know whether I was angered by the Beatles or not ? I am merely expressing my view of an album which has NEVER impressed me. Am I not allowed to express my opinion. I feel you are training to join the Thought Police.


----------



## shangoyal

southwood said:


> That is just an absurd comment. How would you know whether I was angered by the Beatles or not ? I am merely expressing my view of an album which has NEVER impressed me. Am I not allowed to express my opinion. I feel you are training to join the Thought Police.


OK, I concede that it was just your opinion. It's just that negative judgements of anything are more often expressed to gain quick attention. But that might not be the case.


----------



## Katie

Well, if this contentious debate has proved anything, it is that - thanks wholly to Southwood's categorical familiarity with musical aracana - the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band is tragically unrepresented in serious contemporary dialogues about historically significant acts!

Behold, unvarnished artistic genius...


----------



## MJongo

The Beatles are definitely overrated. I can think of at least 100 records that are more interesting than anything they ever did. And this is coming from someone who was obsessed with their music for a good five years. I'm not saying they were a bad band, just that there is far, far better out there, and it is a crime that Sgt. Pepper frequently tops "greatest album" lists.


----------



## Guest

MJongo said:


> The Beatles are definitely overrated. I can think of at least 100 records that are more interesting than anything they ever did. And this is coming from someone who was obsessed with their music for a good five years. I'm not saying they were a bad band, just that there is far, far better out there, and it is a crime that Sgt. Pepper frequently tops "greatest album" lists.


The terms of the OP were "Post highly regarded albums that are undeserving of their praise, and explain why."

I'm not sure anyone has made claims about The Beatles being the greatest ever band, just that one of their albums is great, disagreeing with the assertion that _Sgt. Pepper_ is "undeserving of [its] praise". That doesn't mean that there aren't other bands with great albums too. I too can think of many albums done by others that are as worthy, if not more so, than _Sgt_. _Pepper_. However, when it appears in top ten all time greats lists, it suffers the same hyperbole that any other album suffers - the same hyperbole suffered by Mozart, Beethoven and Bach when they appear in similar polls: there's no such thing.


----------



## MJongo

I see "greatness" as relative. Sgt. Pepper may be a "great" album compared to a majority of recordings the world has seen, but the existence of plenty of music that goes so far above and beyond what it does, makes it a boring listen to me. I think I went a little bit overboard with my previous post, as it is not really reflective of how I feel about aesthetics. I ultimately think that all art is subjective, so feel free to add "in my opinion" or "according to my preferences" after everything I say on the topic.


----------



## Morimur

The Beatles. I wonder if they will still be held in such high regard 200 years from now. Will they even be remembered? Bach was forgotten for a time so that doesn't bode well for them.


----------



## shangoyal

200 years from now, even Bach might not hold the same place - who knows.


----------



## Morimur

shangoyal said:


> 200 years from now, even Bach might not hold the same place - who knows.


Bach's music has been with us for over 200 years already. The Beatles? not nearly as long. :tiphat:


----------



## shangoyal

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Bach's music has been with us for over 200 years already. The Beatles? not nearly as long. :tiphat:


Well, thank God you are at least comparing the Beatles to Bach and not to the Bonzo Dogs. That in itself is a great service to the Beatles.


----------



## MJongo

shangoyal said:


> Well, thank God you are at least comparing the Beatles to Bach and not to the Bonzo Dogs. That in itself is a great service to the Beatles.


What's wrong with the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band? I'd rather listen to their albums than the Beatles'.


----------



## southwood

shangoyal said:


> Well, thank God you are at least comparing the Beatles to Bach and not to the Bonzo Dogs. That in itself is a great service to the Beatles.


LOL. Not a favourable comparison though ? I mean who could compare them with a composer of masterworks such as the Art of Fugue and the Matthew Passion ?

As for the Bonzos, the Beatles were great admirers of them. I believe Paul McCartney, among others such as Steve Winwood and Keith Moon, was involved in one of Viv Stanshall's solo albums. The Bonzos are very under-rated. They had originality, wit, could play rather well, and were so refreshing compared to the majority of groups who were taking themselves sooo seriously. Obviously you are not familiar with their work.


----------



## shangoyal

southwood said:


> LOL. Not a favourable comparison though ? I mean who could compare them with a composer of masterworks such as the Art of Fugue and the Matthew Passion ?
> 
> As for the Bonzos, the Beatles were great admirers of them. I believe Paul McCartney, among others such as Steve Winwood and Keith Moon, was involved in one of Viv Stanshall's solo albums. The Bonzos are very under-rated. They had originality, wit, could play rather well, and were so refreshing compared to the majority of groups who were taking themselves sooo seriously. Obviously you are not familiar with their work.


Yes, I am not familiar with the Bonzo Dogs' work - I am too busy with music which is popular like, er, the Beatles. Maybe once I turn 59, I'll get to the more esoteric stuff.


----------



## MJongo

shangoyal said:


> I am too busy with music which is popular like, er, the Beatles. Maybe once I turn 59, I'll get to the more esoteric stuff.


Why wait? Popularity =/= quality.


----------



## southwood

MJongo said:


> Why wait? Popularity =/= quality.


If it were then Britney would leave Van Morrison miles behind.


----------



## Itullian

The Beatles genius is that they could be popular and creative at the same time.


----------



## southwood

Itullian said:


> The Beatles genius is that they could be popular and creative at the same time.


They were ok but not THAT fantastic. A lot of their singles got to no.1 just on their name alone. Some of their stuff was dreadful: the George Harrison mystical sitar stuff, some of Ringo's kiddie songs, the really outrageous Revolution no.9 and You know my name. Her majesty's a pretty fine girl ? Puleeze !

I see you like Tull. Now THERE was a fine band.


----------



## Itullian

They got to number one cause people liked them.
They weren't afraid to have fun with a small part of their music.
They had a great sense of fun and humor about them.
And George's sitar stuff was very ground breaking at the time. 50 years ago. So was Rev 9.
Sorry you cant see that.
They were FANTASTIC.


----------



## Guest

southwood said:


> They were ok but not THAT fantastic. A lot of their singles got to no.1 just on their name alone. Some of their stuff was dreadful: the George Harrison mystical sitar stuff, some of Ringo's kiddie songs, the really outrageous Revolution no.9 and You know my name. Her majesty's a pretty fine girl ? Puleeze !


Why pick out the least significant songs? It hardly supports the argument that they are overrated (which is still seems to mean no more than "I don't like them as much as other people do.") to offer one track off the White Album and something like Octopus's Garden when they had 17 number one singles to choose from.


----------



## MJongo

Itullian said:


> They got to number one cause people liked them.


Popularity =/= quality



Itullian said:


> They weren't afraid to have fun with a small part of their music.
> They had a great sense of fun and humor about them.


You can say that about most bands that have ever existed.



Itullian said:


> And George's sitar stuff was very ground breaking at the time. 50 years ago. So was Rev 9.


Groundbreaking in what sense? Because they mixed in those songs beside pop songs on their albums? What, for example, did Revolution 9 do that hadn't already been done at least a decade earlier by Stockhausen, Cage, Xenakis, Pierre Henry, etc?


----------



## southwood

Itullian said:


> They got to number one cause people liked them.
> They weren't afraid to have fun with a small part of their music.
> They had a great sense of fun and humor about them.
> And George's sitar stuff was very ground breaking at the time. 50 years ago. So was Rev 9.
> Sorry you cant see that.
> They were FANTASTIC.


They got to no.1 because people liked them. What does them refer to, the group or these tracks ? Surely you can't mean the singles which always had massive advance orders mostly from fans who hadn't heard these tracks. Therefore they were just willing to by Beatles singles having no idea if they were any good. You have proved my point therefore.

As for the "fun" thing, they were not terrific at that. OK Rocky Racoon was quite amusing. Other than that mmm...Give me the Bonzos any day.

As for George's sitar stuff being groundbreaking. So what ? That doesn't make it good music. A big splodge of paint on a canvas was "groundbreaking" in the field of art;it's still garbage. Rev.9 ? Don't make me laugh ? Why are you allowing your intelligence to be insulted ?


----------



## Guest

southwood said:


> Surely you can't mean the singles which always had massive advance orders mostly from fans who hadn't heard these tracks. Therefore they were just willing to by Beatles singles having no idea if they were any good.


I'm not sure how the market worked in the 1960s (no nonsense about 'pre-ordering' in those days) but if it worked for The Beatles, it worked for every other pop band of the time.

But, if the fans didn't like the song they had advance ordered, presumably they would have been less inclined to advance order the next.

No-one would dispute that The Beatles were a 'phenomenon' that was not altogether to do with the music itself. The hype regarding _any _of the 'saints' of the pop and rock world is never wholly about the music. But that does not mean that their work was overrated in musical terms.


----------



## southwood

MacLeod said:


> Why pick out the least significant songs? It hardly supports the argument that they are overrated (which is still seems to mean no more than "I don't like them as much as other people do.") to offer one track off the White Album and something like Octopus's Garden when they had 17 number one singles to choose from.


So you think George's sitar stuff was "insignificant" ? Itullian reckons it was "groundbreaking". Was Rev.9 insignificant too. Again Itullian disagrees. As for the no.1 hits, did you not read my comment ? I said that many of their singles only got to no.1 because of the Beatles name. Paperback Writer, I feel fine and All you need is love are just three I could mention that were mediocre. By any other group they wouldn't have gotten to no.1. Oh, and the singles weren't exactly "insignificant" were they ?
A lot of other groups release far better singles which didn't reach no.1.

As for the White Album, virtually all of side four is mediocre.


----------



## Guest

southwood said:


> As for the no.1 hits, did you not read my comment ? I said that many of their singles only got to no.1 because of the Beatles name.


Yes, I read your comment. I wasn't aware that I am supposed to accept it as a definitive rebuttal, as if my opinion is objectively wrong while your opinion is an incontrovertible fact?


----------



## southwood

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure how the market worked in the 1960s (no nonsense about 'pre-ordering' in those days) but if it worked for The Beatles, it worked for every other pop band of the time.
> 
> But, if the fans didn't like the song they had advance ordered, presumably they would have been less inclined to advance order the next.
> 
> No-one would dispute that The Beatles were a 'phenomenon' that was not altogether to do with the music itself. The hype regarding _any _of the 'saints' of the pop and rock world is never wholly about the music. But that does not mean that their work was overrated in musical terms.


Oh, come on. Other groups didn't have the massive advance orders the Beatles had. They had to really merit their no.1 hits by winning over the consumers. For example, the Kinks' Sunny Afternoon had to climb up the charts to reach the top. The Beatles hardly ever had to do that since their first few singles. As for people not ordering the next single if they didn't like the last one; well, it really didn't work that way. The hype built up anticipation to a frenzy every time. Like I said before some of their stuff was very good, especially on their albums. This helped single sales in a big way. Tell me: would All you need is love have sold so many if it had been by the Joe Bloggs Band ? Doubt it very much.


----------



## Guest

southwood said:


> Oh, come on. Other groups didn't have the massive advance orders the Beatles had.


Reference for this assertion?

If I accept that this was so, what is _your _explanation for their success? Or, put another way, why didn't other bands get the same advance sales?


----------



## southwood

MacLeod said:


> Yes, I read your comment. I wasn't aware that I am supposed to accept it as a definitive rebuttal, as if my opinion is objectively wrong while your opinion is an incontrovertible fact?


I am not saying your opinion is objectively wrong. Not at all. It's a matter of taste in the end. I am merely trying to point out that your charge that I am only using a few insignificant (your word, not mine) tracks surely means you are ignoring my reference to the No.1s. OK ?


----------



## southwood

MacLeod said:


> Reference for this assertion?
> 
> If I accept that this was so, what is _your _explanation for their success? Or, put another way, why didn't other bands get the same advance sales?


"Reference for my assertion"? Oh come on. No other groups went straight to no.1. They had something like a million advance orders. That's how they got straight to no.1.

How about you respond to some of my other "assertions" ? For example regarding the actual merit of some of their singles.
We are arguing in circles here. The Beatles were the first group to become massive because they were different to most of the other pop at that time. They were then massively hyped. No other group no matter how good was ever going to share that level of hype back then. None did.


----------



## Guest

Well, I'd say _you _are going in circles. I'm fine where I am thanks. We both know and acknowledge that they were "hyped" because they were new and different. The difference between us is that I am also prepared to say that they were popular because of the sustained quality of their songs over a 7 year period. _Sgt Pepper_, which is where this debate started, represents
a high water mark in the tide of 60s pop/rock.

No one has claimed (not in this thread, nor anywhere else I think) that everything they wrote was of the same quality.


----------



## southwood

So it's me who is "going in circles". No. It takes two to tango. 

Sgt.Pepper a high water mark ? Well it must have been a pretty dry period back then. You have bought into the hype too.


----------



## Guest

southwood said:


> You have bought into the hype too.


Well, of course it's all my fault...there's no one else to blame.


----------



## neoshredder

Sgt Pepper is not overrated. End of story.


----------



## Katie

Well it was 320 posts ago today
Transphobe put the thread into play
They've been goin' at it ever since
Critical blows that'll make you wince
Neo tried to bring it to a close
With a verdict issued loud and clear
Sargeant Peppers is anything but blaaaaaaaand.

[chorus]

But Southwood said, "you're wrong there"
It's certainly a dud
You're gushing vast hyperbole I'd love to set you straight again and
thinking just like me ...

...have a safe and hippy weekend.../K


----------



## cwarchc

On the hippy theme (I think I must be a repressed hippy?)


----------



## MJongo

neoshredder said:


> Sgt Pepper is not overrated. End of story.


Woah, someone has made an unsupported claim and then said "end of story". Better shut down the argument everyone.


----------



## KenOC

MJongo said:


> Woah, someone has made an unsupported claim and then said "end of story". Better shut down the argument everyone.


I support the claim, so it is no longer unsupported. End of story.


----------



## southwood

In actual fact it was a poor album. End of.


----------



## neoshredder

It was the best album the Beatles made. From beginning to end, it flowed like magic. It basically sent Brian Wilson into a tailspin knowing he couldn't surpass that. Pet Sounds surpassed Rubber Soul imo but Sgt Pepper was another level. Even better than Revolver imo.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> Even better than Revolver imo.


Better than Revolver? Sir, you exceed the bounds of decency!


----------



## neoshredder

KenOC said:


> Better than Revolver? Sir, you exceed the bounds of decency!


Haha they are both great albums. Would be an incredible double album. Revolver leading into Sgt Pepper. Psychedelic magic. But if I had to choose, I would choose Sgt. Pepper.


----------



## southwood

neoshredder said:


> Haha they are both great albums. Would be an incredible double album. Revolver leading into Sgt Pepper. Psychedelic magic. But if I had to choose, I would choose Sgt. Pepper.


Pet Sounds is way better than either of them. The harmonies are far more sophisticated, the arrangements more creative, the tunes more melodious. Didn't McCartney acknowledge Pet Sounds' superiority ?


----------



## shangoyal

southwood said:


> Pet Sounds is way better than either of them. The harmonies are far more sophisticated, the arrangements more creative, the tunes more melodious. Didn't McCartney acknowledge Pet Sounds' superiority ?


Hahaha, this is getting funnier and funnier. Pet Sounds is a great album though. It doesn't deserve to be included in a joke post like this one.


----------



## southwood

shangoyal said:


> Hahaha, this is getting funnier and funnier. Pet Sounds is a great album though. It doesn't deserve to be included in a joke post like this one.


Where's the joke ? I'm serious. BTW Van Morrison's Astral Weeks and Moondance are better than any album the so called fab four did.


----------



## Morimur

Personally I think that the Velvet Underground made better albums than either the Beatles or the Beach Boys.


----------



## Blake

That's not a terrible observation. The VU are just so damn underground.


----------



## Guest

southwood said:


> The harmonies are far more sophisticated, the arrangements more creative, the tunes more melodious.


In your opinion. Unless there is some International Objective Index of Harmony Sophistication (where degrees of sophistication are measured in harmones) you could point me to?


----------



## southwood

MacLeod said:


> In your opinion. Unless there is some International Objective Index of Harmony Sophistication (where degrees of sophistication are measured in harmones) you could point me to?


Hilarious ! Never thought of ears did ye ?


----------



## shangoyal

Yes, I agree about the _Velvet Underground & Nico_, _Astral Weeks_, and also _The Doors_. All better albums than any album the Beatles or the Beach Boys did.


----------



## drvLock

For me, Images and Words, by Dream Theater, is an overrated album. Of course, there they presented us "Metropolis pt.1", "Pull Me Under" and "Under a Glass Moon", but the rest of the songs are just ok. Nothing exceptional about them. 

Now, "Metropolis pt.2: Scenes from a Memory", that's the definitive album by them, IMO.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Digging up this old thread. Throw Nevermind, everything by the Who, and Patty Smith's Horses in there for me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Another load coming through.. hold your nose.. Radiohead's the Bends, OK Computer, U2's Achtung Baby...


----------



## pierrot

The album Remain in Light is very mundane.


----------



## Phil loves classical

pierrot said:


> The album Remain in Light is very mundane.


I like that one! But can also understand why people don't like it.


----------



## Casebearer

Phil loves classical said:


> Digging up this old thread. Throw Nevermind, everything by the Who, and Patty Smith's Horses in there for me.


I love Quadrophenia, Phil. Do you know that one?


----------



## Strange Magic

I'm totally at a loss here. I only remember albums I like--the others disappear rapidly into the same Black Hole that devours so much uninteresting music, like my son-in-law's vast collection of Metal cassettes he gave me when he decided he was done with metallurgy. Out of many hundreds, I saved maybe two? One was Queensryche, and the other wasn't.


----------



## norman bates

pierrot said:


> The album Remain in Light is very mundane.


to me even if it had only The great curve it would be a great album. The great curve to me is one of the great rock masterpieces. Basically a song based on one chord but with an incredible polyrhythmic arrangement with layers of voices, that brings african music in a pop context. And those incredible solos made by Adrian Belew!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Casebearer said:


> I love Quadrophenia, Phil. Do you know that one?


Yes, I hate it. They're earlier stuff was ok for me actually.


----------



## Phil loves classical

norman bates said:


> to me even if it had only The great curve it would be a great album. The great curve to me is one of the great rock masterpieces. Basically a song based on one chord but with an incredible polyrhythmic arrangement with layers of voices, that brings african music in a pop context. And those incredible solos made by Adrian Belew!


Brian Eno definitely had a lot to do with he success on that album. He even made some U2 albums more listenable.


----------



## Casebearer

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, I hate it. They're earlier stuff was ok for me actually.


There earlier stuff was okay for me as well but I've always had a soft spot for the atmosphere Quadrophenia conjures up. I didn't like Tommy that much though.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Spinal Tap - Shark Sandwich


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Spinal Tap - Shark Sandwich


*Shark Sandwich (Polymer, 1980): With this comeback album, its first with Polymer and the first release following the death of Peter "James" Bond, Tap began to explore its heavy metal calling. The result received mixed reviews. While Entertainment Weekly rated it A+ and wrote that "you'd have to go clear back to Brueghel for an equally heady brew of hardworking Everyman earthiness and primal barnyard lust," DiBergi read the boys a two-word review during his documentary that simply said, "**** Sandwich." The album, which was weighted by a disastrous promotion attempt that involved sending shark sandwiches to reviewers, includes the nihilistic "No Place Like Nowhere," the disco hit "Throb Detector" and, of course, the monster "Sex Farm." Derek considers it one of his favorite Tap albums. "It's close to my heart because I snuck into the mixing studio after the other lads had left and turned up my bass part." (WP)"
*


----------

