The Poojer Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 i, too, am a green day fan, but completely understand your point of view...as for pj...i never could stand them..the droning voice of eddie vedder was worse than nails on a chalkboard, then i heard his solo soundtrack of into the wild(?) and gained an appeciation for him...then i heard yellowledbetter and was absolutely blown away by the song(mainly for the obvious jimi hendrix influence). but based on that i have at least been able to listen to pj without getting too violently ill nice play on words. saw them live in the early 80s. still one of my favorite shows. you make fair points, but after giving the Pearl Jam library one more spin, i couldn't go there and was forced in all good conscience to reconsider. jw
Gugny Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 i, too, am a green day fan, but completely understand your point of view...as for pj...i never could stand them..the droning voice of eddie vedder was worse than nails on a chalkboard, then i heard his solo soundtrack of into the wild(?) and gained an appeciation for him...then i heard yellowledbetter and was absolutely blown away by the song(mainly for the obvious jimi hendrix influence). but based on that i have at least been able to listen to pj without getting too violently ill Yep, I love "Yellowledbetter," too. Musically, P.J. is very sound - however, nothing beyond ordinary talent. It's just Vedder whom I believe is vastly overrated.
The Poojer Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 you are too kind, thank you Yep, I love "Yellowledbetter," too. Musically, P.J. is very sound - however, nothing beyond ordinary talent. It's just Vedder whom I believe is vastly overrated.
Gugny Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 you are too kind, thank you I knew it when I clicked "Post," but kept it there anyway. Like the plane in "Black Country Woman."
Delete This Account Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) Yep, I love "Yellowledbetter," too. Musically, P.J. is very sound - however, nothing beyond ordinary talent. It's just Vedder whom I believe is vastly overrated. that's well put, i think. in my opinion, he's kinda like the Bono of U2, good at times, but has tendency to overpower and overshadow the rest of the band. jw ok, time to focus on work. putting together a running game story today. Edited May 30, 2013 by john wawrow
Gugny Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 that's well put, i think. in my opinion, he's kinda like the Bono of U2, good at times, but has tendency to overpower and overshadow the rest of the band. jw ok, time to focus on work. putting together a running game story today. Make sure you give C.J. a rest after every 3rd carry.
May Day 10 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I guess, it would be 'popular' stuff I cannot stand Motley Crue Ozzy (post Sabbath) Kanye I do agree The Boss is overrated, although, I do enjoy some stuff. Bands/acts I feel like dont get their due Queens of the Stone Age Pearl Jam (general public)
Fezmid Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Pearl Jam (general public) I saw Pearl Jam live at Oracle OpenWorld last year - amazing show!
Gugny Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I saw Pearl Jam live at Oracle OpenWorld last year - amazing show! I don't doubt they put on a great show. I'd see them, for the right price. But I gotta tell ya ... I saw Nickelback last summer and they put on an awesome show. I wouldn't be caught dead with their music on in my library, though.
May Day 10 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) (Sidenote: on one of the early versions of compiling this list, i had Pearl Jam in this spot. in retrospect, that was unfair and undeserving. though there's only so much Eddie Vedder growl and distortioned anthems one can take in one sitting before becoming overburdened by ennui, their collection of songs stands up. at the very least they rebounded with their 2006 release "Pearl Jam" after ushering in the new millenium with the totally unlistenable -- and perhaps unpronounceable -- "Binaural." a knock against them is a tendency for being stuck in a rut. whereas David Grohl morphed into the Foo Fighters to carry on the rock and roll torch through a dreadful period of music in the 90s, and the Red Hot Chilli Peppers stretched their limits by putting out not one but two classic double albums, Pearl Jam seemingly kept trying to recapture the urgency of "10," which really wasn't their best album. Vs. was.) jw I see Foo Fighters and Pearl Jam as both carrying the R&R torch well. I dont consider RHCP as "R&R", more a hybrid (I think they are great). Go to either one live, and you see a lot of energy and variability in each and every show. They dont go through the motions. Probably the best 2 live shows I have seen out of hundreds. I also didnt really dig Pearl Jam until I did see them live. Also, Pearl Jam hasnt tried to re-create Ten at all. If anything, the opposite. Every album is different and have progressed as musicians. You also skipped Riot Act, which was between Binaural and Self-Titled. Outside of Vedder, they have talented musicians in Matt Cameron (also the drummer for Soundgarden), Mike McCready, Stone Gossard, and Jeff Ament. Vedder is also ultra talented on numerous stringed instruments, as he plays solo shows and carries 2+ hours all himself. Plus they can cover the s^%$ out of The Who. I think there is a stigma with pearl Jam that annoys people on the surface. They think vedder is a poser or grunts too much, or havent done nothin' since Ten and wont go away. You really think the 90's was "dreadful" for music? In my mind, it is arguably the best decade, and certainly the last hurrah as far as mainstream music goes. Edited May 30, 2013 by May Day 10
shrader Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 The idea that Pearl Jam was constantly trying to re-capture Ten is so far off. If anything, I would expect the public reaction to be the exact opposite, that they evolved too much. If anyone can listen to Ten and then listen to Backspacer (their most recent album which wasn't mentioned) and tell me that there is no progression there, they're crazy.
Fezmid Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I don't doubt they put on a great show. I'd see them, for the right price. But I gotta tell ya ... I saw Nickelback last summer and they put on an awesome show. I wouldn't be caught dead with their music on in my library, though. I don't mind Mickelback for some dumb thoughtless music. And I've been to a couple of their shows and they really are excellent entertainers. And that's the key - they're not musicians at all - they're purely entertainment. Once you realize that distinction, their music is fun to listen to.
Gugny Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I don't mind Mickelback for some dumb thoughtless music. And I've been to a couple of their shows and they really are excellent entertainers. And that's the key - they're not musicians at all - they're purely entertainment. Once you realize that distinction, their music is fun to listen to. I was actually impressed with the drummer. The lead guitarist was very good, but there's a lot of very good guitarists. I was happy we went.
Chef Jim Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 hate to say it, but need more than that. saying they suck without backing it up with examples and an argument leaves one to question why you think this might be so. The Beatles cannot be considered as being over-rated because they did more than foster an Ed Sullivan show craze. they pushed music forward by experimenting with genres before finding something that eventually came to be defined as their own sound. some of it was simple pop, but it was unpretentious pop, and rooted in RandB and country that preceded them. their other work experimented to varying degrees of success and failure with other brands of music. but there can be no arguing with such classics as "Norwegian Wood," "Help!" the very under-ratred "Paperback Writer" or the simple yet perfect "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as anything but over-rated. few bands have been able to craft such music and express it with such simplicity and resonance, no matter what the era. Hank Williams did it. Marshall Crenshaw tried and ran out of steam and melody. Nick Lowe, maybe. and the "sibling rivalry" between Lennon and McCartney, combined with the conscience of George Harrison and playfulness of Ringo Starr made this group click. not the greatest rock and roll band in my opinion, the Stones hold that title in my book, but still very good. jw more to come when i have time. please, i've not called you names or questioned your mental health simply because i called Jethro Tull over-rated. they are, in my opinion, so get a thicker skin ... and a less tinnier ear, perhaps. ... i'm kidding. whysoserious? jw Funny how you can reply to Tom's post about the Beatles asking for specifics as to why the Beatles suck and all you come up with for JT is because Ian Anderson plays a flute and flute does not belong in rock and roll. Well by that narrow criteria you've just contradicted your love for the Beatles seeing they used the flute in a few of their song. Oh and your beloved Stones incorporated a flute in their songs too.
birdog1960 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) i think the beatles were collective genuis. that said they are so revered and beyond criticism to some that i can see why someone would call them over rated. if you say anything less than glowing it's like you've attacked someones now dead, childhood best friend. there's a lot of nostalgia in play i think. got a beatles sheet music book for Christmas a couple years back. when i went to return it to the music store, the owner of the store (who i know pretty well) sharply asked "you don't like the beatles?". he only softened a little when i explained that the music was for B flat instruments and i was wanting to learn it on guitar. Edited May 30, 2013 by birdog1960
Gugny Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 i think the beatles were collective genuis. that said they are so revered and beyond criticism to some that i can see why someone would call them over rated. if you say anything less than glowing it's like you've attacked someones now dead, childhood best friend. there's a lot of nostalgia in play i think. got a beatles sheet music book for Christmas a couple years back. when i went to return it to the music store, the owner of the store (who i know pretty well) sharply asked "you don't like the beatles?". he only softened a little when i explained that the music was for B flat instruments and i was wanting to learn it on guitar. Perhaps I'm biased, as a Beatles fan, but I can honestly say there less than 10 songs, maybe less than 5, that I would consider "not great." The lyrics are great, the guitar work is great, the bass is phenomenal, the singing is superb. I consider Ringo's drumming to be average. They didn't follow trends; then made them. They had the balls to do whatever they wanted to and it always ended up being a masterpiece.
Chef Jim Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 i think the beatles were collective genuis. that said they are so revered and beyond criticism to some that i can see why someone would call them over rated. if you say anything less than glowing it's like you've attacked someones now dead, childhood best friend. there's a lot of nostalgia in play i think. got a beatles sheet music book for Christmas a couple years back. when i went to return it to the music store, the owner of the store (who i know pretty well) sharply asked "you don't like the beatles?". he only softened a little when i explained that the music was for B flat instruments and i was wanting to learn it on guitar. But once again Tom thinks they're overrated because the were revered just as you said and he just doesn't like their music. That's why these thread evolve into musical pissing matches which become stupid. I like what I like, you like what you like and !@#$ off if you don't like what I like and I have no problem !@#$ing off because I don't like what you like.
The Poojer Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 it's funny, on Stern today, Stern and Jim Bruer were having a discussion about whether the Beatles had a sh**ty song...they couldn't come up with one, granted they are both huge Beatles fan, as am I. Perhaps I'm biased, as a Beatles fan, but I can honestly say there less than 10 songs, maybe less than 5, that I would consider "not great." The lyrics are great, the guitar work is great, the bass is phenomenal, the singing is superb. I consider Ringo's drumming to be average. They didn't follow trends; then made them. They had the balls to do whatever they wanted to and it always ended up being a masterpiece.
BuffaloBill Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 hate to say it, but need more than that. saying they suck without backing it up with examples and an argument leaves one to question why you think this might be so. The Beatles cannot be considered as being over-rated because they did more than foster an Ed Sullivan show craze. they pushed music forward by experimenting with genres before finding something that eventually came to be defined as their own sound. some of it was simple pop, but it was unpretentious pop, and rooted in RandB and country that preceded them. their other work experimented to varying degrees of success and failure with other brands of music. but there can be no arguing with such classics as "Norwegian Wood," "Help!" the very under-ratred "Paperback Writer" or the simple yet perfect "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as anything but over-rated. few bands have been able to craft such music and express it with such simplicity and resonance, no matter what the era. Hank Williams did it. Marshall Crenshaw tried and ran out of steam and melody. Nick Lowe, maybe. and the "sibling rivalry" between Lennon and McCartney, combined with the conscience of George Harrison and playfulness of Ringo Starr made this group click. not the greatest rock and roll band in my opinion, the Stones hold that title in my book, but still very good. jw more to come when i have time. Your response is appropriate and fair. What I will say in response is that the original question goes back to the notion of over or under rated. It would be hard to argue that the Beatles are under-rated as arguably history has put them in the status of the most well rated group of musicians to ever play rock and roll. There are also other obvious points about the group such as they were fabulously successful from a popularity standpoint, they were clearly famous and they were a huge commercial success. To me they are over-rated simply because of their success and popularity. I think many people "like" them without even a thought as to why. Given their huge body of work it is easy for anyone to pick a few songs that are appealing to them. I am generally not a fan of the Beatles but even I have a few songs by them that I do enjoy. At the risk of arguing against myself, it is to their credit that they continue to stand the test of time. One could argue that others at the height of their popularity matched the success of the Beatles from a popularity and commercial standpoint. None have sustained that success in the same way. Interestingly, I also think much of the Beatles success over time is they managed to stay relatively free of the excesses and demons that often torment others who were or are great. Some of that was a gift of the age in which their popularity rose. Today people live to see the famous fall and can't wait to expose every act of stupidity or excess on the internet. No doubt that the Beatles as a group had challenges but they were not under the same microscope that exists today. Finally, if you really want to understand the over-rated aspect ask 5 people under the age of 30 three questions: 1) Do you really like the Beatles (inevitably the answer is yes) 2) Why? (you'll get something close to "just because") 3) Tell me the titles of two of their best songs that never made it into the billboard charts (you'll get a blank stare) The final point just exposes the fact that as time moves forward the Beatles popularity is more a function of historical momentum than a true appreciation for the work. btw - thanks for starting this thread - it is one of the best ones that has been on the board in a long time. It is nice to see serious exchange of thought once and a while.
shrader Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 But once again Tom thinks they're overrated because the were revered just as you said and he just doesn't like their music. That's why these thread evolve into musical pissing matches which become stupid. I like what I like, you like what you like and !@#$ off if you don't like what I like and I have no problem !@#$ing off because I don't like what you like. Since they're generally viewed as the greatest of all time, overrated seems like a very likely option.
Recommended Posts