Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This seems pretty stupid:

"As is more understood than the existence of potato chips is the popular insight "After hair metal, Nirvana came in and changed everything". What Nirvana was, was nothing other than the fulfillment of underground rock as constituting the critical quality of music. What would previously be heard as cacophonous and blatantly a-tonal was somehow heard as the greatest sound in the world of that day. This popular fullfillment though was not a victory for music itself, but the victory of immaturity as the identity of what quality music was. Years and years after Nirvana saturated popular music with despair and no real clue for how instruments were to be played, bands would adapt this same style as the evidence of their own instincts, which was negating any sense of personal transcendence for the way of a conspicuous identity in downtrodden personality. The music itself, which often consisted of chorus's where 2 or 3 words would be shouted behind 3 power chords running a speed circle, signified the absolute ease in which anyone could make non-pleasant sounding music. Its with this in mind that immaturity is not to be an analogy for simplicity like many had tried to make it out as. This immaturity in the form of the popularization of music for angry children who tended to live in 2-floor suburban houses, struck not a primal instinct for nature, but the modern instinct for entitlement, which was nothing other than one's insistence for being angry in the face of nothing appearably worth getting angry over. The problem though, was not the fact that nature will have its say in the growth of those younger in age, but that this form to be grown out of was recognized as the most pure quality for the listener, making any sense of musical taste and development static in the face of this puerile sound. The reason for this static sojourn in lugubriousness was not the musical experience of listening to Nirvana, but the most grotesque phenomena to come from the relativity of the social-human in the later half of the 20th century, which was nothing other than the idea of relativity (postmodernism) becoming herd-animalized, when outright expression (for its own sake) became the form of the herd. It's not as if expressionism first saw its ascension in Nirvana and the popularization of vexed underground music though. It has no claim for an appearance in originality. In the earlier part of the 20th century, one was treated to the forms of this mode of music in the likes of Schoenberg ("Survivor from Warsaw" and Alan Berg. The difference was, this music was not herded. One who went to see Schoenberg at the theater knew what he was hearing was purposely not pleasant, and was an index for madness that had no want for being identified by the herd, mostly because there was no herd to easily identify. It's with this in mind that we come to the most fundamental problem of pop music, which is the over exaggerating (over-rating) of bands to mass popularity and herd-mentality. There is no more identifiable band than Nirvana to display this phenomena where a band becomes over-rated purely for identities own sake, in this case, the identity for what is unmusical. This popularity for identifying in what is unmusical is the effect of popular culture in its technological developments combined with the intellectual insistence in the relativity of truth. In other words, when the camera starts taking pictures of angry children wearing dirty clothes. The challenge then for pop music, if its to win for itself true transcendence, is the negation of its own basic form, which is the negation of ones want to be seen a certain way by others via a camera or video recorder, and a rigorous turning to identifying the absolute truth in the universe. It is here where one will find how a band like Nirvana was never something to be idolized, but something to be quickly grown out of. "

Source: old-wizard.com/top10overratedbands.htm

One of.

I give the award to The Beatles, nobody else comes close for being overrated.

-AC

Yes, quite possibly. ..which then brings their first album into question.

Is it possible to be an overrated band, with such an (apparently) important album? ....confuses me at times.

Or was it the ALBUM that was overrated, causing the band to be overrated? Is their a causal relationship here?

Get my drift?

I can think of many more overrated bands...ie U2, Dave Matthews Band...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
One of.

I give the award to The Beatles, nobody else comes close for being overrated.

-AC

Unfortunately, when you're considered the most influential and possibly greatest ever, that will come with the territory.

Originally posted by Mister White
I can think of many more overrated bands...ie U2, Dave Matthews Band...

Really? I think Nirvana's more overrated than them.

Plus those guys have a lot more talent than Nirvana.

I don't even know who half the other bands on that list are...

Who the heck is the Brian Jonestown Massacre?

Originally posted by Selphie
Really? I think Nirvana's more overrated than them.

Plus those guys have a lot more talent than Nirvana.

U2, yes. Dave Matthews? Debatable.

To answer Bobby D's question;

I think Nirvana and The Beatles are overrated for the same reasons. In my opinion they both made very good music, and they both "spearheaded" movements. However, them being at the forefront was just right place/right time.

There were bands before and during their times that were doing what they did, and doing it arguably better than they were. They were just the most famous of their respective movements. Movements that were bound to happen anyway.

That's why I think The Beatles/Nirvana are overrated, it's nothing to do with specific albums. Although they are two bands that, as a result of their fortune of being at the right place at the right time, got a lot of press and a lot of acclaim. This caused people, even today, to be shit scared of saying a bad word against them.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Unfortunately, when you're considered the most influential and possibly greatest ever, that will come with the territory.

A) Then you're not really disagreeing with me. You just covered all bases, in fact. They're considered the most influential and greatest band ever at music by a lot of people (For lots of reasons that don't even involve actual music), that is precisely why they are overrated.

B) Do you lot have alarms that ring whenever someone says anything negative about The Beatles?

-AC

While I like both bands a lot, I do think that Nirvana and AC/DC are two of the most overrated bands in rock music...

That's not to say that they didn't make good music, cuz they did...

It's just, that when you compare Nirvana to the likes of Alice in Chains, Faith No More, and other good bands of the time, they just don't sound as good or write as good songs as them...

And AC/DC is just flat out overrated... Same with their song Back in Black... Highway to Hell and For Those About to Rock are so much better... THOSE songs deserve all the praise Back in Black gets...

Nirvana's influence wasn't so much musical as arguably they had limited talent...it was more a social influence...they hit the nail on the head with a certain niche of the youth world...and while there are alot better bands from the grunge scene that make, in my opinion, far better music...they didn't connect with thier people as totally as nirvana did

so yeah...musically they are overrated...especially if you didn't relate to them and their message

Overrated definitely, but still love the music Joanna Newsom! why is she on the list...

The actual article is cack. They are overrated though.

I wouldn't say the most overrated.

I heard the lead singer killed himself.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
One of.

I give the award to The Beatles, nobody else comes close for being overrated.

-AC

Agreed. Close second to me is U2.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Yes, quite possibly. ..which then brings their first album into question.

Is it possible to be an overrated band, with such an (apparently) important album? ....confuses me at times.

Or was it the ALBUM that was overrated, causing the band to be overrated? Is their a causal relationship here?

Get my drift?

Their first album was Bleach, not Nevermind. Bleach was by no means heralded as revolutionary.

Its sick when a band is sooo overated that people suddenly think Kurt Cobain is the best guitarist in the world.....I know people....

How do you put the Clash on an overrated band list too?

Originally posted by Mister White
It is here where one will find how a band like Nirvana was never something to be idolized. "



No musician or group of musicians should be idolised.


..... and in what sense are they overrated? against what criteria is this evaluated?

That lad's favourite band is Oasis, who are appallingly overrated.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
One of.

I give the award to The Beatles, nobody else comes close for being overrated.

-AC

The Beatles suck, in my opinion. I have never liked anything they came out with.

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
The Beatles suck, in my opinion. I have never liked anything they came out with.

The Beatles are a great band. Sorry to hear that.

They are overrated though.

Oasis? Thats the defination of an overrated band.

Originally posted by Mister White
Oasis? Thats the defination of an overrated band.

I'm not sure they're the defination of an overrated band, but they may just be the definition of an overrated band

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I'm not sure they're the defination of an overrated band, but they may just be the definition of an overrated band I wonder if that sounded witty, smart or funny in your head.

Originally posted by Mister White
I can think of many more overrated bands...ie U2, Dave Matthews Band...

Guns n Roses...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To answer Bobby D's question;

I think Nirvana and The Beatles are overrated for the same reasons. In my opinion they both made very good music, and they both "spearheaded" movements. However, them being at the forefront was just right place/right time.

There were bands before and during their times that were doing what they did, and doing it arguably better than they were. They were just the most famous of their respective movements. Movements that were bound to happen anyway.

That's why I think The Beatles/Nirvana are overrated, it's nothing to do with specific albums. Although they are two bands that, as a result of their fortune of being at the right place at the right time, got a lot of press and a lot of acclaim. This caused people, even today, to be shit scared of saying a bad word against them.



A) Then you're not really disagreeing with me. You just covered all bases, in fact. They're considered the most influential and greatest band ever at music by a lot of people (For lots of reasons that don't even involve actual music), that is precisely why they are overrated.

B) Do you lot have alarms that ring whenever someone says anything negative about The Beatles?

-AC


No, AC. And your response is something I can now appreciate. It's honest, acceptable (even if partially disagreeable), and not nearly as venomous as your tone in the past.

Good for you. thumbs_up

..starting to come around, kid.

Originally posted by BobbyD


No, AC. And your response is something I can now appreciate. It's honest, acceptable (even if partially disagreeable), and not nearly as venomous as your tone in the past.

Good for you. thumbs_up

..starting to come around, kid. Yours on the other hand is insulting, condescending and patronizing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yours on the other hand is insulting, condescending and patronizing.

It's to be expected of Beatlemaniacs.

If he continues to be such, I'll just bring up the fact that until recently he thought Led Zeppelin, one of the most famous British bands ever, were American. That's a smart music fan for you.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yours on the other hand is insulting, condescending and patronizing.



Hoooohahahahaha!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's to be expected of Beatlemaniacs.

Indeed!


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

If he continues to be such, I'll just bring up the fact that until recently he thought Led Zeppelin, one of the most famous British bands ever, were American. That's a smart music fan for you.

-AC

That's not nice. ...had a senior moment.

Many Beatlemaniacs have senior moments.

They're not often younger than 82.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's to be expected of Beatlemaniacs.

If he continues to be such, I'll just bring up the fact that until recently he thought Led Zeppelin, one of the most famous British bands ever, were American. That's a smart music fan for you.

-AC Y-your Beatles are much better than our Led Zeppelin?

Nirvana isn't the only band that was overated at the time... Pearl Jam anyone? I like both bands, but when they arose from the underground, they quickly lost what made them great.

Originally posted by CaptainStoic
Nirvana isn't the only band that was overated at the time... Pearl Jam anyone? I like both bands, but when they arose from the underground, they quickly lost what made them great.

yeah, and at least, Cobain put an end to the shit

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
yeah, and at least, Cobain put an end to the shit

How is Pearl Jam overrated?

Originally posted by Mister White
How is Pearl Jam overrated?

theyre not nearly as good as people think they are. they are just another seattle band that came out around the same time that nirvana did. its all about timing. if stone temple pilots would have come out before them, they would be the greater seattle band, but since they came out later on, they were looked at as a copy band.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wonder if that sounded witty, smart or funny in your head.

I'm not gonna lie, it did... And I'm usually the one who points out spelling mistakes like that...

And no need to be a jackass...

Anyway... Yeah, overrated bands...

Originally posted by zjtrivium
theyre not nearly as good as people think they are. they are just another seattle band that came out around the same time that nirvana did. its all about timing. if stone temple pilots would have come out before them, they would be the greater seattle band, but since they came out later on, they were looked at as a copy band.

Stone Temple Pilots simply weren't as good, that's why.

-AC

since when were stone temple pilots a seattle band anyway?

One of them IMO, maybe not the most. They could make some pretty good songs, but IMO, in terms of pure musical skill, they were not what people made them out to be, IMO of course.

I wonder whether what Dark-Jaxx said is his opinion.

Not as overrated as Kiss.

They seem to have a lot of bands that not many people have heard of on the Old-Wizard list. This is MY top 10:

1. Elvis
2. The Sex Pistols
3. U2
4. Blink 182
5. Matchbox 20
6. Dave Matthews Band
7. Modest Mouse
8. John Mayer
9. Sum 41
10. Nickleback

Originally posted by Mister White
They seem to have a lot of bands that not many people have heard of on the Old-Wizard list. This is MY top 10:

1. Elvis
2. The Sex Pistols
3. U2
4. Blink 182
5. Matchbox 20
6. Dave Matthews Band
7. Modest Mouse
8. John Mayer
9. Sum 41
10. Nickleback

Is Elvis really THAT overrated? I mean, he was revolutionary for his time... And he had some really good songs...

I'd probably replace him with someone else, like:

Nirvana (AC hit the nail on the head with these guys)
AC/DC (good, but not as good as other hard rock bands, like Van Halen)
Guns N Roses (really good, but not as good as people make them out to be)
Maroon 5 (they aren't that good, imo)

Originally posted by Mister White
How is Pearl Jam overrated?

This is the problem with the term 'overrated'.

Who is to decide?

Me.

Backfire

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Is Elvis really THAT overrated? I mean, he was revolutionary for his time... And he had some really good songs...

He didn't write a lot of them, allegedly.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I'd probably replace him with someone else, like:

Nirvana (AC hit the nail on the head with these guys)
AC/DC (good, but not as good as other hard rock bands, like Van Halen)
Guns N Roses (really good, but not as good as people make them out to be)
Maroon 5 (they aren't that good, imo)

Maroon 5 are shit, but not THE most overrated band ever by far.

I swear you were actually praising Airbourne the other day, AC/DC rip off mugs with no identity of their own.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Backfire

The German speaks the truth.

Only when he's taking a break from raping children.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wonder whether what Dark-Jaxx said is his opinion. No, it's fact.

Originally posted by BackFire
The German speaks the truth.

Only when he's taking a break from raping children. Obviously...why would I speak while raping children?

Do you think if it wasn't for Cobain's suicide, that they would have just faded out like other grunge bands?

Originally posted by Mark Question
Do you think if it wasn't for Cobain's suicide, that they would have just faded out like other grunge bands? i think if Cobain didnt commit suicide then Nirvana would not be as overrated, but i also think they would have sold out IMO.

Nirvana wasn't the most talented band ever, but then again, how many really bad Nirvana songs are there ? Not many in my opinion. Even the so and so songs are still pretty good.

The most overrated artist ever is Elvis. Not that I don't like him - he's okay - but it's not like he wrote his songs himself. At least Kurt Cobain wrote his own songs (music and lyrics).

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
In what way? as bat dude said they started to sell out in 1991, i could imagine them going on into a sorta more alternative rock kinda sound, cabians lyrics mostly had meanings behind them and i could imagine them becoming a angels and airwaves or U2 type band, but still with grunge influences. but i love nirvana and nevermind is my fave album, so if cobain didnt commit suicide i would have guessed itd take a few more years for nirvana to sell out

Originally posted by Kid Kurdy
Nirvana wasn't the most talented band ever, but then again, how many really bad Nirvana songs are there ? Not many in my opinion. Even the so and so songs are still pretty good.

The most overrated artist ever is Elvis. Not that I don't like him - he's okay - but it's not like he wrote his songs himself. At least Kurt Cobain wrote his own songs (music and lyrics). it would be great to see people dressing up and trying to be kurt cobain like they do with elvis

Elvis isn't a dead artist anymore, he's become a religion.

Someone should start a poll...more overrated: Elvis or Nirvana?

So I take it everyone agrees with the Old-Wizard list then? Nirvana is the most overrated band???

Elvis is cool because he ate himself to death and died while taking a shit.

Cobain was a ****-crybaby and shot himself like a puss.

Nirvana is definitely overrated but I think the most overrated band award goes to the beatles...

Originally posted by Mister White
They seem to have a lot of bands that not many people have heard of on the Old-Wizard list. This is MY top 10:

1. Elvis
2. The Sex Pistols
3. U2
4. Blink 182
5. Matchbox 20
6. Dave Matthews Band
7. Modest Mouse
8. John Mayer
9. Sum 41
10. Nickleback

I'd say Sum 41 are underated. Everyone knows them because of the shit like Fat Lip and In Too Deep. Those songs unfortunetly shadow some greats songs like Were All Too Blame and Angels With Dirty Faces. Agree with the rest tho.

I'd also say Arctic Monkeys and Morrisey!

Originally posted by BackFire
Elvis is cool because he ate himself to death and died while taking a shit.

Cobain was a ****-crybaby and shot himself like a puss. QFT.

Originally posted by BackFire
Elvis is cool because he ate himself to death and died while taking a shit.

Cobain was a ****-crybaby and shot himself like a puss.

awesome

Originally posted by Mister White
They seem to have a lot of bands that not many people have heard of on the Old-Wizard list. This is MY top 10:

1. Elvis
2. The Sex Pistols
3. U2
4. Blink 182
5. Matchbox 20
6. Dave Matthews Band
7. Modest Mouse
8. John Mayer
9. Sum 41
10. Nickleback

As I was back-reading this forum looking for the top albums of the '90s thread, I stumbled upon this one and decided to give it a quick look over.

If this is a top ten list for most overrated bands of all time, I absolutely and completely take issue with John Mayer being on there, as well as U2 and maaayyybbbeeeee DMB (even as a hardcore fan of those guys, I'd readily admit they haven't released anything of quality since they scrapped their Lillywhite Sessions back in '00).

John Mayer gets press coverage because of the women he ****s...nothing is ever mentioned about his music...which is, in fact, ****ing brilliant...he wears his influences on his sleeve quite literally and anyone who brings the names of Hendrix and SRV to a new and young audience has to be doing something right. He's, quite frankly, one of the best and most soleful blues guitarists going...are there more techincally gifted players out there?...yes....are there better pure blues players out there?....yes...but he brings a diversity and style that is sadly lacking in modern music.

anyone who disagrees should watch this performance...his idea of "less is more" and having respect for players who deliberately hold back rather than constantly ripping out blistering solos is to be applauded.

WEgUUTkqRRQ

I don't think Nirvana is overrated, but almost everyone around them at the time was like soundgarden and pearl jam. Hell it was good music and in a role reversal, it finally helped get sonic youth the level of exposure they deserved.

nirvana maybe overrated, but to go as far as to say there the most overated band of all time is absurd.

I don't think so.

IMHO, the most overrated band is Radiohead.
And their songs all sound the same.

Ok i think what they wrote was shit, what they did though for music was interesting.
They made grunge acceptable.
I don't know how but that's what happened.
Overrated, definitely, most overrated? no way
Try the Beatles, Elvis or The bee jees.
Still, i hate them accept for David roll, that man is a champ.

I wouldn't call Nirvana a grunge band by any stretch of the imagination. If you've ever heard the Wipers, you'd know that they fit neatly into the category of Northwest punk.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I wouldn't call Nirvana a grunge band by any stretch of the imagination. If you've ever heard the Wipers, you'd know that they fit neatly into the category of Northwest punk.

We're not talking about the wipers, we're talking about nirvana and yes they are grunge

Then why does every other "grunge" band sound so different from Nirvana and so much more "metal". if we're going to play the music categorization game, whereas nirvana sounds most like a weird combination of the wipers, the melvins, black flag and flipper?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Then why does every other "grunge" band sound so different from Nirvana and so much more "metal". if we're going to play the music categorization game, whereas nirvana sounds most like a weird combination of the wipers, the melvins, black flag and flipper?

Because grunge wasn't just a sound...It was a social and thematic thread that ran through a lot of bands regardless of sound. Although i don't think it can be denied that, vocally, bands like AiC, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Nirvana are all pretty similar.

Granted, early AiC were very much more metal than grunge but their sound changed radically the more Layne was addicted to heroin.

After reading through this thread... all I really have to say is that saying a band is overrated all comes down to point of view, I think. One person will think The Beatles are overrated and that their songs should not be as worshipped as they are, and someone else will think that each song they wrote deserved every piece of praise it got.

Though I also agree with AC's statement about being in the right place at the right time for Nirvana and The Beatles both, leading movements and whatnot. Some of the most popular bands in musical history have been spearheads in some way.

Originally posted by Captain REX
After reading through this thread... all I really have to say is that saying a band is overrated all comes down to point of view, I think. One person will think The Beatles are overrated and that their songs should not be as worshipped as they are, and someone else will think that each song they wrote deserved every piece of praise it got.

Though I also agree with AC's statement about being in the right place at the right time for Nirvana and The Beatles both, leading movements and whatnot. Some of the most popular bands in musical history have been spearheads in some way.

I'd say more figureheads than spearheads...Very rarely is a big band the 1st to do something. They merely make something that was already around hugely popular.

nirvana was a good band, the broke the barrier of metal rock of the 80's and brought the 90's grunge rock. but in my opinion i think aic was the best band along with stp and soundgarden and pearl jam.

Figureheads works for me, jaden101.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
One of.

I give the award to The Beatles, nobody else comes close for being overrated.

-AC God knows how many times you said that.

No, Nirvana's great. End of discussion. Next question.

I prefer Melvins and even Kurt Cobain himself thought the same.

There were overrated indeed. The system needed these kind of celebrity so they made them popular