Things that ARE overrated

[BuffaloBill]

Hey now you knock that off Mr. Beeeeeeerbaaaaaaaaaawwwwl.

 

Deano is our resident music snob.

Chef is our resident wine snob.

I'm our resident cheap beer snob.... errr nevermind.

 

 

[The Big Cat]

The Boss is one of the greatest performers in the history of ever...who cares about proficiency? By the way, he IS proficient.

 

And if Born to Run doesn't speak to you, then what does?

 

Also, listen to his 2002 album The Rising, if you haven't already...and then tell me how he's not proficient.

 

You're a smart, thoughtful guy, and 99/100 I agree with and appreciate your posts.

 

But since I know you're like a 19 year old Cornell student, you've just masterfully demonstrated why the Boss is f-cked out and over-rated.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

You're a smart, thoughtful guy, and 99/100 I agree with and appreciate your posts.

 

But since I know you're like a 19 year old Cornell student, you've just masterfully demonstrated why the Boss is f-cked out and over-rated.

 

20.

 

And what? I'm not allowed to appreciate music that was before my time? They make these things called CDs that you can listen to in your car and elsewhere...I've heard all of his stuff and been to 3 Boss concerts, and I've found all of it magnificent. He's a great performer, a great songwriter, a great lyricist, and a great musician. What more can you ask?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but how exactly did I demonstrate the Boss being overrated? Just curious...

[The Big Cat]

20.

 

And what? I'm not allowed to appreciate music that was before my time? They make these things called CDs that you can listen to in your car and elsewhere...I've heard all of his stuff and been to 3 Boss concerts, and I've found all of it magnificent. He's a great performer, a great songwriter, a great lyricist, and a great musician. What more can you ask?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but how exactly did I demonstrate the Boss being overrated? Just curious...

 

I'm not saying you don't like the music, per say. I was simply hinting at the vast chasm which exists between early 70's New Jersey and the 2009 Ivy League. Now, if you're 20 and YOU paid for the Springsteen tickets, it means you probably saw him perform sometime in the last five years which means you've paid almost $500 to see the Boss live. Suddenly the chasm deepens.

 

I think it's important to note these differences because Springsteen's popularity was and is just as much attributed to what he represents as it's beholden to the music itself, which, IMO isn't that "great." However, I understand and appreciate what his music means to some people, and I'm skeptical that it has the same resonance with someone of your (our, I should say) age and ilk.

 

Also not trying to pick a fight, and I apologize if my presumptions miss the mark.

[The Dean]

The Boss is one of the greatest performers in the history of ever...who cares about proficiency? By the way, he IS proficient.

 

And if Born to Run doesn't speak to you, then what does?

 

Also, listen to his 2002 album The Rising, if you haven't already...and then tell me how he's not proficient.

 

 

Let's tackle the "performer" issue first. Honestly, I don't give a s#it about "performers" when I go to see a musical artist. To me, dancing and pandering to the crowd only diminishes the musical performance, in most cases. There are some exceptions, but they usually involve what look to be something more spontaneous and/or personal than Bruce's mechanical/purposeful/manipulative interaction with the audience. When I went to the show I was very pumped to see Bruce and the band. I expected Bruce to play the guitar. He MAY have touched it once. Otherwise he pranced onstage and acted like a rock star, not a musician.

 

Now, to the substance of the material. I kind of liked Greetings from Asbury Park and absolutely LOVED The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle (which I consider one of the top rock albums of all time). Those albums had superb music (for rock) that was diverse, complex (at times) and interesting. I was looking forward to the next album.

 

Unfortunately, I thought Born to Run was just OK...and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Most of the magic of the previous album is missing, IMO. The songs became more monotonous and obviously commercial. Still, it was great, compared to what was about to happen.

 

Springsteen chased his muse for a while and I can respect something like Nebraska, although I don't like it. Artists who change and grow, irrespective of commercial implications is something to be lauded in this age, IMO. Even though I wasn't crazy about the outcome, I thought maybe he really WAS going to be the new Dylan. Born in the USA changed that, right quick.

 

Born in the USA may be the most despicable rock album of all time. The monotony of the songs is epic. But the "rock anthem" sells, and Bruce ran to the cash. From then on, everything I hear from Bruce is either monotonous rock anthem, or droning uninteresting softer tunes, that don't hold up when compared to his early work.

 

I gave up on Bruce a long time ago, as I did with Elton John, Billy Joel, Steve Winwood (starting to win me back...but I hold a grudge) and others with so much potential, who stopped making great music and sold their soul for filthy lucre. If you say The Rising is good, fine. I never gave it the time of day. I did hear Radio Nowhere, from a few years ago, and thought it was a poorly disguised rip-off of Jenny 867-5309. His televised concert appearances always leave me un-entertained.

 

I'm harsh on Bruce because he had potential, and I liked him quite a bit. He made great music, at one time. But now he is "Bruce", "The Boss" and has an onstage persona and a political agenda. Music is far, far down the list of things that are important to Mr. Springsteen. At least that's the way it appears to me.

 

One last thing. I want to note that political activism is really not a reason to dislike a musician, IMO, if you really like the music, otherwise. I actually probably agree with much of Springsteen's beliefs. But to me it doesn't add to the music, at all. Some are fans of artists BECAUSE of the politics/attitude/appearance/etc of the artists. That's equally stupid, IMO. It's all about the music.

[Beerball]

Charlie Brown's parents were overrated, his teachers too.

[Chef Jim]

Anyone who, on a regular basis, performs in front of tens of thousands of people is not in it for the music. I have seen several performances of varied types of music in the past four months and the largest crowd was maybe 2000 where the majority of the crowd was within yards of the stage and connected with the musicians and vice versa. That's what music is all about in my book.

[Chef Jim]

Charlie Brown's parents were overrated, his teachers too.

 

They weren't overrated..........they were muted trumpets.

[BuffaloBill]

Charlie Brown's parents were overrated, his teachers too.

 

 

I can't decide if I like the new Avatar. On one hand the kid makes me laugh because it looks like he is having a "cathartic evacuation" moment. On the other, it's distracting to me.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Let's tackle the "performer" issue first. Honestly, I don't give a s#it about "performers" when I go to see a musical artist. To me, dancing and pandering to the crowd only diminishes the musical performance, in most cases. There are some exceptions, but they usually involve what look to be something more spontaneous and/or personal than Bruce's mechanical/purposeful/manipulative interaction with the audience. When I went to the show I was very pumped to see Bruce and the band. I expected Bruce to play the guitar. He MAY have touched it once. Otherwise he pranced onstage and acted like a rock star, not a musician.

 

Now, to the substance of the material. I kind of liked Greetings from Asbury Park and absolutely LOVED The Wild, the Innocent and the E Street Shuffle (which I consider one of the top rock albums of all time). Those albums had superb music (for rock) that was diverse, complex (at times) and interesting. I was looking forward to the next album.

 

Unfortunately, I thought Born to Run was just OK...and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Most of the magic of the previous album is missing, IMO. The songs became more monotonous and obviously commercial. Still, it was great, compared to what was about to happen.

 

Springsteen chased his muse for a while and I can respect something like Nebraska, although I don't like it. Artists who change and grow, irrespective of commercial implications is something to be lauded in this age, IMO. Even though I wasn't crazy about the outcome, I thought maybe he really WAS going to be the new Dylan. Born in the USA changed that, right quick.

 

Born in the USA may be the most despicable rock album of all time. The monotony of the songs is epic. But the "rock anthem" sells, and Bruce ran to the cash. From then on, everything I hear from Bruce is either monotonous rock anthem, or droning uninteresting softer tunes, that don't hold up when compared to his early work.

 

I gave up on Bruce a long time ago, as I did with Elton John, Billy Joel, Steve Winwood (starting to win me back...but I hold a grudge) and others with so much potential, who stopped making great music and sold their soul for filthy lucre. If you say The Rising is good, fine. I never gave it the time of day. I did hear Radio Nowhere, from a few years ago, and thought it was a poorly disguised rip-off of Jenny 867-5309. His televised concert appearances always leave me un-entertained.

 

I'm harsh on Bruce because he had potential, and I liked him quite a bit. He made great music, at one time. But now he is "Bruce", "The Boss" and has an onstage persona and a political agenda. Music is far, far down the list of things that are important to Mr. Springsteen. At least that's the way it appears to me.

 

One last thing. I want to note that political activism is really not a reason to dislike a musician, IMO, if you really like the music, otherwise. I actually probably agree with much of Springsteen's beliefs. But to me it doesn't add to the music, at all. Some are fans of artists BECAUSE of the politics/attitude/appearance/etc of the artists. That's equally stupid, IMO. It's all about the music.

 

Fair enough, I suppose. I still think he's great, and most of his stuff really speaks to me.

 

I'll agree with you on Born in the USA, his worst album by orders of magnitude. He was bordering on John Cougar Mellencamp territory right there. But his two most recent albums (The Rising and Magic) have been a HUGE return to form from what you may see as his more commercial days.

 

As to your general theme regarding "selling out"...who the hell hasn't? What popular musician never sold his soul a little bit to cash in at the bank? There are very few pure musicians out there, and we probably haven't even heard of most of them. I'll be impressed if you can conjure up more than a couple recognizable names who never made slightly sub-par music that would appeal to audiences a little bit more and make them more dough. Hell, the entire foundation of the freakin BEATLES was that crappy bubblegum pop I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

[The Big Cat]

Hell, the entire foundation of the freakin BEATLES was that crappy bubblegum pop I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

 

Whoa.

 

Easy does it, now you're speaking out of turn.

[The Dean]

Fair enough, I suppose. I still think he's great, and most of his stuff really speaks to me.

 

I'll agree with you on Born in the USA, his worst album by orders of magnitude. He was bordering on John Cougar Mellencamp territory right there. But his two most recent albums (The Rising and Magic) have been a HUGE return to form from what you may see as his more commercial days.

 

As to your general theme regarding "selling out"...who the hell hasn't? What popular musician never sold his soul a little bit to cash in at the bank? There are very few pure musicians out there, and we probably haven't even heard of most of them. I'll be impressed if you can conjure up more than a couple recognizable names who never made slightly sub-par music that would appeal to audiences a little bit more and make them more dough. Hell, the entire foundation of the freakin BEATLES was that crappy bubblegum pop I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

 

 

I don't have time to totally answer this now, but I will get back to it when I return. But the Beatles actually went from early commercial tunes (like I Want to Hold Your Hand) to more complex and interesting stuff.

[Chef Jim]

Fair enough, I suppose. I still think he's great, and most of his stuff really speaks to me.

 

I'll agree with you on Born in the USA, his worst album by orders of magnitude. He was bordering on John Cougar Mellencamp territory right there. But his two most recent albums (The Rising and Magic) have been a HUGE return to form from what you may see as his more commercial days.

 

As to your general theme regarding "selling out"...who the hell hasn't? What popular musician never sold his soul a little bit to cash in at the bank? There are very few pure musicians out there, and we probably haven't even heard of most of them. I'll be impressed if you can conjure up more than a couple recognizable names who never made slightly sub-par music that would appeal to audiences a little bit more and make them more dough. Hell, the entire foundation of the freakin BEATLES was that crappy bubblegum pop I Wanna Hold Your Hand.

 

Thar she blows! It takes work to find the true musicians grasshopper. Sometimes a stroll though the subway or the local farmer's market uncovers them.

[X. Benedict]

They weren't overrated..........they were muted trumpets.

 

Muted trumpets are overrated.

 

That, and the Pac-Man dying sound.

[The Big Cat]

I don't have time to totally answer this now, but I will get back to it when I return. But the Beatles actually went from early commercial tunes (like I Want to Hold Your Hand) to more complex and interesting stuff.

 

This is more for Sagey than Deano:

 

Yes, but to write off the "commercial" stuff is pure ignorance.

 

Firstly, "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was about as scandalous as it got on the radio. Hardly a "cookie-cutter" song.

 

More importantly, unlike the other "bubble gum" and "commercial" pop of the EARLY 60's, the Beatles actually wrote the songs they performed. If you don't understand how important this is, then this argument is moot.

 

But even if you WERE to classify it as "bubble gum," put it up against any other "bubble gum" from the same era, and tell me which one holds even a fraction of the relevance to today's music.

[BuffaloBill]

This is more for Sagey than Deano:

 

Yes, but to write off the "commercial" stuff is pure ignorance.

 

Firstly, "I Want to Hold Your Hand" was about as scandalous as it got on the radio. Hardly a "cookie-cutter" song.

 

More importantly, unlike the other "bubble gum" and "commercial" pop of the EARLY 60's, the Beatles actually wrote the songs they performed. If you don't understand how important this is, then this argument is moot.

 

But even if you WERE to classify it as "bubble gum," put it up against any other "bubble gum" from the same era, and tell me which one holds even a fraction of the relevance to today's music.

 

 

Just to throw out an opinion neither the Beattles nor "the Boss" hold much of any appeal for me.

 

However, probably any musician(s) that has sold a significant number of records (a term that obviously dates me) has most likely had to play to commercial interests.

 

Genesis stands out as an example of this to me. Gabriel's departure likely had influence but look at the early stuff vs. the later years. No doubt the group (and perhaps most especially Phil Collins) made a hard turn off Broadway into the land of confusion (pun very much intended).

 

If you split their music into the "musician era" and the "commericial era" I can easily argue that there are songs that I like or dislike from both.

[extrahammer]

I agree, however, either way, I get turned off with an artist when they use their platform for their political beliefs. It seems as though every musical artist is almost required to do that nowadays. Whatever happened to just good ole rock n roll like from the 70s and 80s?

 

I'm harsh on Bruce because he had potential, and I liked him quite a bit. He made great music, at one time. But now he is "Bruce", "The Boss" and has an onstage persona and a political agenda. Music is far, far down the list of things that are important to Mr. Springsteen. At least that's the way it appears to me.

 

One last thing. I want to note that political activism is really not a reason to dislike a musician, IMO, if you really like the music, otherwise. I actually probably agree with much of Springsteen's beliefs. But to me it doesn't add to the music, at all. Some are fans of artists BECAUSE of the politics/attitude/appearance/etc of the artists. That's equally stupid, IMO. It's all about the music.

[Reed83HOF]

I agree, however, either way, I get turned off with an artist when they use their platform for their political beliefs. It seems as though every musical artist is almost required to do that nowadays. Whatever happened to just good ole rock n roll like from the 70s and 80s?

 

There was good rock-n-roll in the 80's? (Note: Grew up in the 80's & yes I do like some hairbands)

 

I hate to break this to you, LOTS of artists use their platform for political beliefs....I Imagine there was even one Beatle who did this...during these 70's that you speak of none the less...

 

Part of rock-n-roll is rebellion and speaking your beliefs...regardless if it is political, relgious, or what not...

[Chef Jim]

There was good rock-n-roll in the 80's? (Note: Grew up in the 80's & yes I do like some hairbands)

 

I hate to break this to you, LOTS of artists use their platform for political beliefs....I Imagine there was even one Beatle who did this...during these 70's that you speak of none the less...

 

Part of rock-n-roll is rebellion and speaking your beliefs...regardless if it is political, relgious, or what not...

 

Reminds me of my favorite exchange from the Last Waltz. I added the last bit for clarity

 

Levon Helm: Bluegrass and country music ... if it comes down into that area and if it mixes there with the rhythm and if it dances, then you've got a combination of all that music ...

Martin Scorsese: What's it called?

Levon Helm: Rock and roll....you dip shiit.

[Jim in Anchorage]

I don't have time to totally answer this now, but I will get back to it when I return. But the Beatles actually went from early commercial tunes (like I Want to Hold Your Hand) to more complex and interesting stuff.

When the 5th Beetle joined-Dr Timothy Leary.