Bands that are overrated...

[FORD]

Originally posted by PlexiBrown

The Stones after the mid 70's

Uhhhhh....... would 1978 be considered "mid 70's"??

'cause this rocks!!

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UsjE-Jl4Rik"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UsjE-Jl4Rik" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[DrMaddVibe]

The Stones live IS overrated!

Just gimme the studio stuff.

Mick always sounds like he's singing while he's running on a treadmill.

Keith and Ron/Mick/Brian always sound muddy.

The only ones that sound decent are Charlie and Bill.

I'm glad i passed on seeing them last time they came around. Blah.

[DavidLeeNatra]

don't touch the stones here...they have bad days live sometimes...but they still smoke all the above mentioned bands any day....

[DrMaddVibe]

Let me know when they have a good day live, because in all the times I've seen them live and on bootlegs its exactly as I described them.

I love their material, but live they fall apart for me.

[MERRYKISSMASS2U]

Their exorbitant ticket prices suck as well.

[gunsnmotley]

hmm. well

Green day
Metallica
U2
Guns n roses(as much as i love them, really 1 great cd does not make a career)

Nirvana- its kind of a joke when this guy gets rated higher than EvH in guitar polls...

[GO-SPURS-GO]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Let me know when they have a good day live, because in all the times I've seen them live and on bootlegs its exactly as I described them.

I love their material, but live they fall apart for me.

They are the sloppiest live band ever! Mick and Axl are the worst live singers i have ever heard. In the studio they can tune and clean up your voice/sound and not to mention you have as many takes to get it right, but live, you can be exposed. was it the Super Bowl last year or the BCS title game when they performed at halftime and they sounded freakin horrible? My choice was The Beatles, I didn't think of the Stones until you brought them up. At least The Beatles didn't sound that sloppy live, just cheesy.

[GO-SPURS-GO]

Originally posted by FORD
Uhhhhh....... would 1978 be considered "mid 70's"??

'cause this rocks!!

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UsjE-Jl4Rik"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UsjE-Jl4Rik" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

You know FORD, we have been fighting together ever since I joined this board and we are gonna disagree again. To me, that's horrible. If that's from 1978, then put that next to Little Dreamer, On Fire or even the worst song on VH1 (YRGM) and that Stones song just melts. They are hailed as the best Rock-n-Roll band ever. That's the biggest over statement ever! Well, maybe calling Paris Hilton a celebrity is. I'm trying to find common ground with you FORD.

[binnie]

Natra, that pic in your sig fuckin' rules!

[binnie]

Queen.

I just don't get the appeal. However, I recognize that I'm in the minority on this one, so maybe it's my issue rather than a problem with the band.

Rock Opera has just never done much for me...

[fe_lung]

Originally posted by Shaun Ponsonby
Van Hagar are overrated?

If they are rated at all then they are overrated.

[fe_lung]

Maroon 5
John Mayer
Fleetwood Mac
Elton John

[fe_lung]

There are some bands whom I would argue are both underrated AND overrated (or maybe they're just celebrated for the wrong reasons - I dunno)

Bowie - praised for the image changes but people often don't mention the musical changes that accompanied them.

Sex Pistols - For a lot of people it's all about Sid. It should be about John's lyrics and Steve's guitar. Sid was rebellious for it's own sake - John had a point.

U2 - Unlike a lot of you I love 'em - But the first 3 records were mostly filler. They're great live but for a band with their catalog, they should mix up the set-lists more. If Bono would focus less on meeting with politicians and more time on his real job, they could be so much more.

The Clash - wrote some great songs but they certainly released some experimental stuff that should have stayed in the vault.

Prince - another amazing musician and songwriter who doesn't seem to understand that some things just suck and they shouldn't be kept around much less released. When you hear some of his stuff you have to think "If this is what he releases then how much must the stuff in his legendary vault suck?"

Lou Reed - Amazing songwriter - still. His reputation is based around (about) ten songs. There's a lot of good stuff that people don't know about (and, again, a lot of crap that should have stayed burried).

[FORD]

Originally posted by fe_lung


U2 - Unlike a lot of you I love 'em - But the first 3 records were mostly filler.

OK, I've heard a lot of weird, crazy, and downright criminal things said about U2 on this board, but I'll admit, that's a new one.

First three albums filler??

Boy - like most bands' debut albums, the best of the material that they had. Songs that they had been playing live for a few years, and a few that had even been released as singles - though different versions.

October - I could see how this one could be branded as "filler" if you didn't know the circumstances behind the album's recording. Bono's lyric notebook was stolen in Portland, so when they got into the studio, they literally had to record from scratch. I love the record myself, because the spiritual vibe behind it (look up how the song "Gloria" came to be) was perfect for where I was in my life at the time, and it's still great for that reason once in a while. Though obviously some songs like "Is that all" were abandoned almost immediately by the band, when they took that riff and tacked it on to the live version of "Electric Co."

As for "War", probably my favorite album of the 80's. "Fair Warning" is a very close second.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EbErxyQrTsg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EbErxyQrTsg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[PumpedUpMidget]

Originally posted by FORD
October - I could see how this one could be branded as "filler" if you didn't know the circumstances behind the album's recording. Bono's lyric notebook was stolen in Portland, so when they got into the studio, they literally had to record from scratch. I love the record myself, because the spiritual vibe behind it (look up how the song "Gloria" came to be) was perfect for where I was in my life at the time, and it's still great for that reason once in a while. Though obviously some songs like "Is that all" were abandoned almost immediately by the band, when they took that riff and tacked it on to the live version of "Electric Co."

As for "War", probably my favorite album of the 80's. "Fair Warning" is a very close second.

October and War are easily U2's greatest albums...