Dream Theater - Technical gods that leave something to be desired and I just find them outright boring a good deal of the time. The only album I can truly say I like is the EP, "A Change of Seasons".
Tool - Too much atmosphere for my taste to really like them despite their creativity and intelligence. When I listen to music, I want it to move me with emotional rifts, lyrics and/or solos. Tool usually lacks what I seek. Moreover, Tool fans really put me off even more so to them. Doesn't help.
Bob Marley - Decent stuff but, stoners would swear that he was god.
Pink Floyd - A little overrated imo but, not too much.
Nightwish - Personally they just don't really do anything for me. They're okay at best.
Radiohead - They are okay but that's as good as it gets with them. They don't shine in any big way for me. Ambient indie rock, whoop-dee-doo.
Greenday - Overrated for sure but, not really my taste of music to begin with. I only liked "Dookie".
Disturbed - Generic as hell.
Van Halen - I hate David Lee Roth. He annoys the hell outta me and most people like him better as the lead vocals. I don't get it. I'd take Hagar over Roth any day.
Linkin Park - I was a fan when I was younger but, my tastes have changed considerably. I don't feel that they deserve the credit that they get.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
With all due respect, people often make their opinions of Radiohead being overrated irrelevant.Simply because nobody seems to actually understand what they are.
"Ambient indie rock.", really? Listening to them first helps.
-AC
I may have mislabeled them but, it doesn't change the fact I can't really get into them.
That doesn't make a band overrated.
I like The Beatles. They're actually the single most overrated band ever, though.
Not understanding why people like something doesn't mean it's overrated, i.e: Tool or Radiohead.
The Beatles made simple, good rock 'n' roll. How this makes them better than any band before, during or since their existence, I'll never know, but they're consistently rated as that, or close to that. Radiohead make more innovative, creative music than The Beatles ever have, and they get a fingertip of the recognition and acclaim.
They're not overrated, you just don't see what's so great about them. There's a difference. I don't see what's so great about Mudvayne, but people raved about them for a while. Doesn't mean they're overrated.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That doesn't make a band overrated.I like The Beatles. They're actually the single most overrated band ever, though.
Not understanding why people like something doesn't mean it's overrated, i.e: Tool or Radiohead.
The Beatles made simple, good rock 'n' roll. How this makes them better than any band before, during or since their existence, I'll never know, but they're consistently rated as that, or close to that. Radiohead make more innovative, creative music than The Beatles ever have, and they get a fingertip of the recognition and acclaim.
They're not overrated, you just don't see what's so great about them. There's a difference. I don't see what's so great about Mudvayne, but people raved about them for a while. Doesn't mean they're overrated.
-AC
If one is informed enough to make a decision if something is being valued more than its worth. You can then say whether or not something is overrated.
Being creative and innovative gets a nod but it only takes you so far. I don't see why being different gives you such praise.
Feeling that someone gets more praise than they deserve for what they do is a valid reason. In this case, the innovation and creativity that Radiohead has is really nothing different from other bands I've come across. The underground scene is jam packed with similar music. And there are even some bigger groups that are alike I.e. The Verve, The Flamming Lips, Blur and Placebo to name a few.
There are even elements that you would find in a Radiohead album that you could also find in other groups that are of a different genre. Groups like Front Line Assembly or The Cure.
I've listened to all of "The Bends", "OK Computer" and some of "Kid A" mostly because a lot of my friends were fans. They kept getting rave reviews from people I knew and didn't. I didn't fall in line because their music didn't make me look at music differently or wow me in any big way.
I find it ironic that you'd compare The Beatles who was more arguably more influential than any other band to Radiohead. Of course they are rated in such high regards. They moved music. They influenced everything around them.
Radiohead really isn't that original. Funny thing is, didn't Radiohead gain momentum years after they released "The Bends"? So the majority of people didn't even get them when they started out till several albums later.
Despite what you may think, I see the appeal they just don't appeal all that much to me, considering.
To be more exact, they are just another prog-rock, indie band from the UK, to me. And to be honest, that's not a band thing, it's just not different.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That doesn't make a band overrated.I like The Beatles. They're actually the single most overrated band ever, though.
Not understanding why people like something doesn't mean it's overrated, i.e: Tool or Radiohead.
The Beatles made simple, good rock 'n' roll. How this makes them better than any band before, during or since their existence, I'll never know, but they're consistently rated as that, or close to that. Radiohead make more innovative, creative music than The Beatles ever have, and they get a fingertip of the recognition and acclaim.
They're not overrated, you just don't see what's so great about them. There's a difference. I don't see what's so great about Mudvayne, but people raved about them for a while. Doesn't mean they're overrated.
-AC
to be fair...i would say that any band who get an album rated as the greatest album of all time are somewhat being overrated because it's simply an impossible thing to judge...and Radiohead have had that with OK computer
I also don't like the argument that if you don't like a band or think they are overrated then somehow you don't understand them...it's a pointless thing to argue if you don't know the person you are debating it well enough to judge their understanding of concepts and themes in music.
my dislike of Radiohead doesn't stem from non understanding of what they are trying to do...just that i don't like the songs they make and the sound of their work (although some of the collaborations such as Thom Yorke with Unkle i have liked)
although i think we're tredding old ground with this debate as it's been done to death before.
but anyway...the beatles, pink floyd, coldplay, the killers, kings of leon (who i actually like but their popularity and rating has gotten utterly ridiculous since their last 2 albums, the poorer of the 4), Nirvana...AC/DC, Damien Rice, Jack Johnson
each of those acts, i think, get huge praise and acclaim in their respective genres despite having more unknown bands with far more talent, or bands around at the same time which got less praise
for example...why is Damien Rice getting all the praise when Foy Vance and Glen Hansard are far superior?....why is Jack Johnson the supposed figurehead of the mellow surfer acoustic scene when Amos Lee, Ben Harper, John Butler trio and Donovan Frankenreiter all far better...why do the beatles get all the praise when the rolling stones were better....why do KoL get the praise when BRMC are better
Pretty much every critically acclaimed band ever is overrated, due to their most accessible music usually being the stuff people judge them on. Example, Radiohead used to simply be judged on 'Creep', which in no way presented them as what they were, or The Beatles being judged on their basic pop-rock songs and albums, while not taking into considerations such as their (in my opinion) greatest work: The White Album. Definitely not the straightforward Beatles music most people judge them on.
Other examples are Pink Floyd with "Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall", Led Zeppelin with "IV", Nirvana with "Nevermind", etc., etc.
Pretty much every one of those bands real great work is hidden behind these albums that, while all great pieces of work, are maybe not as deep and complex as the respective bands more experimental kind of work. Basically, any band that is heavily overrated is then also heavily underrated, with the best stuff being hidden away and not heard by most casual listeners.
Originally posted by geshien
If one is informed enough to make a decision if something is being valued more than its worth. You can then say whether or not something is overrated.Being creative and innovative gets a nod but it only takes you so far. I don't see why being different gives you such praise.
Feeling that someone gets more praise than they deserve for what they do is a valid reason. In this case, the innovation and creativity that Radiohead has is really nothing different from other bands I've come across. The underground scene is jam packed with similar music. And there are even some bigger groups that are alike I.e. The Verve, The Flamming Lips, Blur and Placebo to name a few.
The fact that you say Placebo and The Verve, The Flaming Lips and Blur are similar to Radiohead pretty much proves beyond any DOUBT that you have no clue what you're talking about. They are 100% totally different bands.
Originally posted by geshien
There are even elements that you would find in a Radiohead album that you could also find in other groups that are of a different genre. Groups like Front Line Assembly or The Cure.
I appreciate that you're trying to qualify your statement by making it sound like you know about music, but what you're doing is just making yourself sound like an ignorant person. Radiohead are literally nothing like any of the bands you've listed.
Originally posted by geshien
I've listened to all of "The Bends", "OK Computer" and some of "Kid A" mostly because a lot of my friends were fans. They kept getting rave reviews from people I knew and didn't. I didn't fall in line because their music didn't make me look at music differently or wow me in any big way.
Hahaha, how did I know you'd say that? "A bit of Kid A.". It's ok, everyone says that. Kid A is generally too advanced for people who think The Verve and Placebo make advanced music.
It doesn't matter whether or not you liked it, because we're not judging that. You have absolutely no clue who Radiohead are or what they are like, as evidenced by your list of bands that are like them.
Saying Radiohead are like Placebo is honestly like saying The Beatles are like The Ramones.
Originally posted by geshien
I find it ironic that you'd compare The Beatles who was more arguably more influential than any other band to Radiohead. Of course they are rated in such high regards. They moved music. They influenced everything around them.
There're two major kinds of influence. Those who influence people and those who influence music. The Beatles influenced people, not music. The Beatles didn't change music in any way, really. Frank Zappa changed more than they did, he even gave them the idea for their most acclaimed album, Sgt. Peppers. It's because you know nothing of music besides surface history that you will end up looking silly in this debate, as you already have.
Originally posted by geshien
Radiohead really isn't that original. Funny thing is, didn't Radiohead gain momentum years after they released "The Bends"? So the majority of people didn't even get them when they started out till several albums later.
No, they gained momentum with their debut album. Everybody knows that Creep made them famous. They lost fans as time went on, because they kept getting better in a way that extended beyond the kind of fan that listens to Placebo and The Verve. They continued gaining acclaim where it mattered, though.
Originally posted by geshien
Despite what you may think, I see the appeal they just don't appeal all that much to me, considering.
Yes, and this doesn't make them overrated, in my opinion.
I'd hestitate to agree that you see the appeal, considering you haven't the first clue about Radiohead.
Originally posted by geshien
To be more exact, they are just another prog-rock, indie band from the UK, to me. And to be honest, that's not a band thing, it's just not different.
Hahaha, Radiohead are progressive rock and also an indie band?
Do yourself a favour; stop commenting on Radiohead. You continually prove that you know absolutely NOTHING about them OR their music. If you knew anything about music, if you'd ever properly listened to them, you'd know they're not indie and they're NEVER prog rock.
Typical "I don't understand Radiohead, so I'll be negative." response.
-AC
Ha, says you.
I see similarities between said bands, you don't.
I'll grant that you're an avid listener while, I am not. But, I don't need to be, so long as I've had enough time to listen to the material and assess how I feel about it.
Thing is you're an fan because you like it. Me not so much. So your knowledge is more extensive than mine but, the determining factor that makes the difference is what we get out of the music.
I've listened to a couple albums and I tried to give it a chance yet, it didn't reach me nor was I impressed.
I see the appeal but, it takes all kinds to make a world and not everyone will see things the same way, esp. with anything concerning aesthetics.
You're being a bit rude by saying I've absolutely no understanding of them, which I take as an insult for I do.
Realize your opinion is just that and that whining about how people don't see what you see, are wrong.
And I disagree strongly about The Beatles not changing music. When they did something the majority of the music scene followed. For that majority they mirrored themselves after The Beatles simply to try and make a name for themselves. And The Beatles were evolving and with them so did the scene.
I sympathize in a way, with you. You are a big fan of Radiohead. If someone were to say they didn't understand a band that I loved, and they had only had listen to a quarter of their albums I would defend the notion that they didn't understand the music because they weren't "listening" to them, or listening to enough of the material. I would attempt to share and explain what it is that they were missing. But with all due respect, I don't feel the same way as you do, because music is something you can't define as black and white. If someone just didn't "get it" I would conceit that we were of different taste or that they weren't listening.
Like I've said, I like Radiohead and I've listened to more than a few albums, even own two but, I don't feel strongly enough to rate them so highly, which is reason enough to say to a group that feels the opposite about them, that they are overrated. Of course you feel like I don't know what I'm talking about, you're biased.
It's not like saying, a successful sports team is garbage when the record speaks for itself. It's like saying that a piece of art like the Mona Lisa is one of the greatest pieces of art. It's an opinion that is backed by ones personal emotions. What makes some music better than others? I'll tell you, a matter of opinion.
I don't need to convince you, nor am I going to put forth any more effort. I've said my piece, whether you hear where I'm coming from or not, or either way agree of disagree, it's not important.
Originally posted by geshien
Ha, says you.I see similarities between said bands, you don't.
Yeah, and that makes you unqualified, because the bands you listed as being like them are...nothing like them AT ALL.
Originally posted by geshien
I'll grant that you're an avid listener while, I am not. But, I don't need to be, so long as I've had enough time to listen to the material and assess how I feel about it.
How long's that, five minutes? That's all I can assume, because to say "They are prog rock.", and "They sound like Placebo.", or whatever it was you said...well...it suggests you haven't spent any time listening to them at all.
That's a comparison that I have literally heard nobody ever make. The Verve, Placebo and Blur are like Radiohead? You obviously have not heard much of them. No journalist or fan, or non-fan for that matter, has ever made such a ludicrous statement.
Originally posted by geshien
Thing is you're an fan because you like it. Me not so much. So your knowledge is more extensive than mine but, the determining factor that makes the difference is what we get out of the music.
Exactly, and you got "They are prog rock and sound like The Verve.", so obviously you're in no position to judge music.
They're factually nothing close to prog rock, first off. I'm not sure where or how you got that idea, but put it back.
Originally posted by geshien
I've listened to a couple albums and I tried to give it a chance yet, it didn't reach me nor was I impressed.
Good, I'm glad.
Secondly, that doesn't make them overrated.
Originally posted by geshien
I see the appeal but, it takes all kinds to make a world and not everyone will see things the same way, esp. with anything concerning aesthetics.
Yes, taste is subjective, but that doesn't make someone overrated.
Originally posted by geshien
You're being a bit rude by saying I've absolutely no understanding of them, which I take as an insult for I do.
No, I'm sorry, you don't. You evidently do not, because you're making very silly comments about them being like Blur and being prog rock. You obviously do not understand Radiohead, nor have you listened to much music involving any of the bands you've named.
Originally posted by geshien
Realize your opinion is just that and that whining about how people don't see what you see, are wrong.
No, not really. You're factually wrong to say they are prog rock, and you're dumb for saying they sound like the bands you mentioned. The first is not opinion, the second is.
Originally posted by geshien
And I disagree strongly about The Beatles not changing music. When they did something the majority of the music scene followed. For that majority they mirrored themselves after The Beatles simply to try and make a name for themselves. And The Beatles were evolving and with them so did the scene.
Exactly, they influenced the people, not the music.
Originally posted by geshien
I sympathize in a way, with you. You are a big fan of Radiohead. If someone were to say they didn't understand a band that I loved, and they had only had listen to a quarter of their albums I would defend the notion that they didn't understand the music because they weren't "listening" to them, or listening to enough of the material. I would attempt to share and explain what it is that they were missing. But with all due respect, I don't feel the same way as you do, because music is something you can't define as black and white. If someone just didn't "get it" I would conceit that we were of different taste or that they weren't listening.
Someone who judges Radiohead with such limited knowledge, calling them ambient, indie prog rock and saying they sound like The Flaming Lips truly doesn't deserve to listen to them at all, in my opinion. So at the end of the day, good. Hold that incorrect view and continue listening to bands that aren't Radiohead.
The fact of the matter is, you have expressed views on them that quite blatantly proves you do not know their material or music well enough to judge. Nobody in their right mind has ever called them prog rock.
Originally posted by geshien
Like I've said, I like Radiohead and I've listened to more than a few albums, even own two but, I don't feel strongly enough to rate them so highly, which is reason enough to say to a group that feels the opposite about them, that they are overrated. Of course you feel like I don't know what I'm talking about, you're biased.
I'm not biased. Jaden doesn't like Radiohead for valid reason; he doesn't like their music. So what? Taste is subjective. I don't care if people dislike Radiohead because they don't like the music, it bothers me when people judge them because they don't get them, like you. Nobody with an educated view of music would describe Radiohead as you have.
Originally posted by geshien
It's not like saying, a successful sports team is garbage when the record speaks for itself. It's like saying that a piece of art like the Mona Lisa is one of the greatest pieces of art. It's an opinion that is backed by ones personal emotions. What makes some music better than others? I'll tell you, a matter of opinion.
We're not talking about taste, we're talking about things that are quite blatantly objective. Radiohead aren't a prog rock band, and it's more or less objective that they do not sound like Blur or Placebo.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSomeone who judges Radiohead with such limited knowledge, calling them ambient, indie prog rock and saying they sound like The Flaming Lips truly doesn't deserve to listen to them at all, in my opinion . So at the end of the day, good. Hold that incorrect view and continue listening to bands that aren't Radiohead.
-AC
Then what would you call 'em?
Also I find it a bit rich that you say he doesn't deserve to listein to them because his genre definition of their music doesn't sit well with you.
Are you trying to put your opinions on a pedestal.
labels are a bit pointless when they start getting too focused and specific...i don't really see an need to go beyond the basics of rock, metal, hip-hop, classical etc...fair enough, some are there to give a little bit more of a guide as to what to expect in terms of tempo and style...indie (although this clearly has a different meaning in the UK than it does in the US), alternative, hard rock etc...but when it starts getting into "shoe-gaze" and "art rock" and other such nonsense then it starts getting pointless...
often it's a way for people to try and show they have some knowledge of what they're speaking about and more often than not it serves to do the complete opposite.
if you don't like a band then what other reason is there than not liking their music?...everything else is silly...like stopping liking a band because they've supposedly sold out...when the reality is they've just changed to a musical style you don't like
for me, with regards to Radiohead...i don't like the music...if i bothered to dig a little deeper into the themes and influences behind their music that may get me interested in those things...but it wouldn't make me like their music
so there may be people who would "get" radiohead if they liked their music...just as there is more than likely alot of people who DO like them but don't "get" them
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If the man has such uneducated, unfounded opinions as he does when judging a band, then yes, I'll say my opinions are worth more in this case.He's judging a band he quite blatantly has no clue of.
They're not progressive rock, they're not indie. They're a rock band. Alternative rock if anything.
-AC
Yet I still find it rich you saying he doesn't deserve to listein to them because his genre definition of their music doesn't sit well with you.
To be honest if I was asked to name rock bands Radiohead wouldn't be a name/band that comes into my head, but I'll be damned if anyone tells me what I should and shouldn't be listeining to on the account I don't want to call 'em a Rock band and wish to call 'em something else instead.