7 most overrated rock bands of all times?... corrected!!!
Raja
http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Artists_of_Rock_N'_Roll
Then I looked at the fan album rating website rateyourmusic.
http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
I chose the artists which are both top 100 artist list and which do
not even even 2 albums in the RYM top 1000. These were the
dishonorable ones who did not even 2 albums (and that includes live
albums) in the top 1000
The Beach Boys
Queen
U2
Van Halen
Cream
The Eagles
Aerosmith
The Police
The Sex Pistols
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
Of these 10 bands, The Sex Pistols made only one studio album. So they
are disqualified. Cream made 4 albums (only 2 of them proper studio
albums) and lasted about 3 years only and the second lowest in terms
of albums made, so they are also disqualified. This leaves 8 bands who
had a lot of chances to make classic albums since they lasted a long
time.
Of these Beach Boys (30th), Queen (219th), U2 (921st) are the only
ones which had one album in top 1000. Since Beach Boys Pet Sounds is
ranked 30th on RYM, they are disqualified as well. So that leaves.....
1) Queen - unable to put out a consistent album if their life depended
on it
2) U2 - tedious and one dimensional albums lacking quality
3) Van Halen - worthless hard rock show offs with no songwriting
talent
4) Eagles - boring soft rock shit - a cure for insomnia
5) Aerosmith - the longest lasting mediocre band ever?
6) Police - five worthless half-cocked albums across six years,
unforgivable
7) Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers - corporate rock at its worst!
This list is not that different from my earlier list actually. Beach
Boys gets replaced by Queen and Fleetwood Mac gets replaced by
Aerosmith. Actually Fleetwood Mac were lucky - they had one album from
Peter Green era (Then Play On) and one from Nicks era (Rumours). And
they were nowhere close to being the same band.
Gracchus
> Actually Fleetwood Mac were lucky - they had one album from
> Peter Green era (Then Play On) and one from Nicks era (Rumours). And
> they were nowhere close to being the same band.
"Rumours" was their biggest seller from the Nicks era (Buckingham-
Nicks era, really), but I prefer the Fleetwood Mac "white" album from
1975. After "Rumours," they began to degenerate with "Tusk," but for
a while, still had a smattering of good songs on uneven albums.
zepf...@yahoo.com
Their s/t album is ranked as their 3rd best (2675th) behind Rumours
and Peter Green's Then Play On
josephm...@netzero.com
> I looked at two very different top 100 artists listshttp://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> Then I looked at the fan album rating website rateyourmusic.http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
You are now indulging in hyperbole in order to make the gap between
these bands' reputations and their quality seem larger than it
actually is. I don't care very much for Van Halen, except for a few
songs, but they were not "worthless." The Police were far from
worthless, as discussed at length in another recent thread. I'm not
really an Aerosmith fan either, but at their best they were a very
good band, not a mediocre one. U2 I've already discussed (and I notice
that you are much harder on them in this thread than in your first
one). I agree that the Eagles were largely boring, but I would
hesitate to call them "overrated" because I don't think they were ever
rated that highly -- they were simply very popular. Tom Petty and the
Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
term is usually understood.
Joe Ramirez
globular
Not a great fan of U2 either. Unfortunately Simple Minds became too
influenced by them in the mid-80s.
> 3) Van Halen - worthless hard rock show offs with no songwriting
> talent
> 4) Eagles - boring soft rock shit - a cure for insomnia
> 5) Aerosmith - the longest lasting mediocre band ever?
> 6) Police - five worthless half-cocked albums across six years,
> unforgivable
> 7) Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers - corporate rock at its worst!
Non comprendo
zepf...@yahoo.com
yes compared to the other great hard rockers like Black Sabbath, Deep
Purple, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Who etc, they are dire. I tried 1984, it
was quite awful. Then I tried their debut (usually considered their
best) and it stank too except (Aint Talking About Love and Eruption)
>The Police were far from
> worthless, as discussed at length in another recent thread.
They had a few good pop songs, good enough to fit a single disc of a
best of collection, nothing more.
>I'm not
> really an Aerosmith fan either, but at their best they were a very
> good band, not a mediocre one.
They were better than Van Halen, definitely. But that is not an
achievement
> U2 I've already discussed (and I notice
> that you are much harder on them in this thread than in your first
> one).
I disagree with you on U2. You are biased towards 80s alternative rock
bands.
>I agree that the Eagles were largely boring, but I would
> hesitate to call them "overrated" because I don't think they were ever
> rated that highly -- they were simply very popular.
What???? Who gave you that misinformation that they are not highly
rated? Look at this glowing Rolling Stone review. They are immortals
apparently.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7248609/the_immortals__the_greatest_artists_of_all_time_75_the_eagles
"The Eagles forever changed country and rock, but I just think of what
they did as being great American music. It's amazing how one band
could take all those influences -- country and rock, of course, but
also soul, R&B and folk -- and still sound so distinctive"
... that sentence wanted me wanna puke.
> Tom Petty and the
> Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
> term is usually understood.
Okay I meant commercial when I said corporate rock.
>
> Joe Ramirez
Gracchus
> You are now indulging in hyperbole in order to make the gap between
> these bands' reputations and their quality seem larger than it
> actually is. I don't care very much for Van Halen, except for a few
> songs, but they were not "worthless." The Police were far from
> worthless, as discussed at length in another recent thread. I'm not
> really an Aerosmith fan either, but at their best they were a very
> good band, not a mediocre one. U2 I've already discussed (and I notice
> that you are much harder on them in this thread than in your first
> one). I agree that the Eagles were largely boring, but I would
> hesitate to call them "overrated" because I don't think they were ever
> rated that highly -- they were simply very popular. Tom Petty and the
> Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
> term is usually understood.
When it comes down to it, we are all speaking our opinions about these
bands. If we say something is good and someone else says it's bad,
what is there to do then but cite some supposed authority's critical
opinion or polls demonstrating that large numbers of fans agree with
us? Pull up any album on Amazon, for instance, and you'll see some
rating it a masterpiece and others calling it the worst garbage
they've ever heard.
That said, I think the early Eagles had some good songs, as did the
early Police. Many people also love Van Halen. And if their hearts are
gratified by tasteless guitar playing and shrieking vocals, who am I
to say they're wrong. To each their own. ;)
zepf...@yahoo.com
I dont think David Lee Roth shrieked. He didn't have the range for
that. He was an average singer though. The big problem with Van Halen
was they couldnt write songs, but they did make some funny videos. And
oh yeah, Eddie Van Halen was a bit of an attention seeking tool
zepf...@yahoo.com
>
> > You are now indulging in hyperbole in order to make the gap between
> > these bands' reputations and their quality seem larger than it
> > actually is. I don't care very much for Van Halen, except for a few
> > songs, but they were not "worthless." The Police were far from
> > worthless, as discussed at length in another recent thread. I'm not
> > really an Aerosmith fan either, but at their best they were a very
> > good band, not a mediocre one. U2 I've already discussed (and I notice
> > that you are much harder on them in this thread than in your first
> > one). I agree that the Eagles were largely boring, but I would
> > hesitate to call them "overrated" because I don't think they were ever
> > rated that highly -- they were simply very popular. Tom Petty and the
> > Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
> > term is usually understood.
>
> When it comes down to it, we are all speaking our opinions about these
> bands. If we say something is good and someone else says it's bad,
> what is there to do then but cite some supposed authority's critical
> opinion or polls demonstrating that large numbers of fans agree with
> us? Pull up any album on Amazon, for instance, and you'll see some
> rating it a masterpiece and others calling it the worst garbage
> they've ever heard.
lol, how can you trust Amazon. People rate albums there after buying
them.
Gracchus
> I dont think David Lee Roth shrieked. He didn't have the range for
> that. He was an average singer though. The big problem with Van Halen
> was they couldnt write songs, but they did make some funny videos. And
> oh yeah, Eddie Van Halen was a bit of an attention seeking tool
According to Merriam-Webster: "shriek" =
1: to utter a sharp shrill sound 2 a: to cry out in a high-pitched
voice : screech
Strictly speaking, then, you are right about Roth. He merely bellowed,
but Sammy Hagar still may have shrieked.
The only good thing about Eddie Van Halen that I can think of is that
he had a few good guitar solos (like on "Beat It"), but far more often
he unimaginatively overplayed. And yes, except for the cover tunes
they did, the songs themselves were weak.
zepf...@yahoo.com
100% agree. I get pissed off when I see Eddie Van Halen in top 10 of
guitarist lists. He didnt invent the finger tapping technique as many
of his fans claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapping
"One of the first rock guitarists to record using the tapping
technique was Steve Hackett from Genesis [2]. Two examples of
Hackett's complex tapping can be heard on the song "Dancing with the
Moonlit Knight", from 1973, and "The Return of the Giant Hogweed",
from 1971. Harvey Mandel, well-known for his psychedelic guitar
playing, also employed 2-handed fretboard tapping in the 1960s. Mandel
was one of the first rock guitarists to utilize this technique, years
before Eddie Van Halen and Stanley Jordan first appeared.
Tapping was also used by Ace Frehley as early as 1975, for his live
solo at the end of the song "She" during Kiss's performance on the
Midnight Special. The technique would remain a part of Frehley's solos
from 1977 through the Kiss reunion during "Shock Me". Various other
guitarists such as Frank Zappa, Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top, Brian May
from Queen, Duane Allman [3] from the The Allman Brothers Band and
Leslie West from Mountain were using the tapping technique in the
early 1970s as well. Ace Frehley and Frank Zappa used a guitar pick
for their style of tapping.
Eddie Van Halen helped popularise the tapping technique for the modern
audience and influenced many guitarists in his wake. Thus, many people
wrongly assume that Eddie actually invented tapping. His explanation
is that he was inspired to use tapping after hearing the fluid left-
hand only pull-offs in Jimmy Page's guitar solo for "Heartbreaker",
and expanding this technique by adding his right hand finger(s) out of
necessity in reaching higher notes. Perhaps the most well known
employment of tapping is the short piece "Eruption" on the first Van
Halen album which was released in 1978, which features very fast
tapping triads and formed the blueprint for heavy metal lead playing
throughout the 1980s."
zepf...@yahoo.com
>
> > I dont think David Lee Roth shrieked. He didn't have the range for
> > that. He was an average singer though. The big problem with Van Halen
> > was they couldnt write songs, but they did make some funny videos. And
> > oh yeah, Eddie Van Halen was a bit of an attention seeking tool
>
> According to Merriam-Webster: "shriek" =
> 1: to utter a sharp shrill sound 2 a: to cry out in a high-pitched
> voice : screech
>
> Strictly speaking, then, you are right about Roth. He merely bellowed,
> but Sammy Hagar still may have shrieked.
Sammy Hagar was pathetic.
josephm...@netzero.com
>
> "The Eagles forever changed country and rock, but I just think of what
> they did as being great American music. It's amazing how one band
> could take all those influences -- country and rock, of course, but
> also soul, R&B and folk -- and still sound so distinctive"
>
> ... that sentence wanted me wanna puke.
Yeah, I agree that's a pretty big load. Eagles ... "forever
changed" ... in the same sentence? But I think (hope?) such tripe is
not representative of critical opinion.
> > Tom Petty and the
> > Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
> > term is usually understood.
>
> Okay I meant commercial when I said corporate rock.
But your evaluation is still way off. Commercial rock "at its worst"?
You can't honestly believe that. Even if you don't like the TP & the
Heartbreakers, I'm sure you can think of many commercial outfits that
were much, much worse.
Joe Ramirez
josephm...@netzero.com
> On May 21, 9:06 pm, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 8:57 pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > I dont think David Lee Roth shrieked. He didn't have the range for
> > > that. He was an average singer though. The big problem with Van Halen
> > > was they couldnt write songs, but they did make some funny videos. And
> > > oh yeah, Eddie Van Halen was a bit of an attention seeking tool
>
> > According to Merriam-Webster: "shriek" =
> > 1: to utter a sharp shrill sound 2 a: to cry out in a high-pitched
> > voice : screech
>
> > Strictly speaking, then, you are right about Roth. He merely bellowed,
> > but Sammy Hagar still may have shrieked.
>
> Sammy Hagar was pathetic.
I will accept the proposition that Van Hagar, specifically, were
worthless.
Joe Ramirez
Diabolik
"Gracchus" <cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:94ae1d03-c8e0-4063...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Tasteless guitar playing? LOL
He was the most innovative guitarist of that era in his genre.
Diabolik
<zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f749f44-1b6d-44d1...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 21, 9:06 pm, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 8:57 pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I dont think David Lee Roth shrieked. He didn't have the range for
> > that. He was an average singer though. The big problem with Van Halen
> > was they couldnt write songs, but they did make some funny videos. And
> > oh yeah, Eddie Van Halen was a bit of an attention seeking tool
>
> According to Merriam-Webster: "shriek" =
> 1: to utter a sharp shrill sound 2 a: to cry out in a high-pitched
> voice : screech
>
> Strictly speaking, then, you are right about Roth. He merely bellowed,
> but Sammy Hagar still may have shrieked.
>
> The only good thing about Eddie Van Halen that I can think of is that
> he had a few good guitar solos (like on "Beat It"), but far more often
> he unimaginatively overplayed. And yes, except for the cover tunes
> they did, the songs themselves were weak.
100% agree. I get pissed off when I see Eddie Van Halen in top 10 of
guitarist lists. He didnt invent the finger tapping technique as many
of his fans claim.
LOL. So what if he didn't invent it? He made it popular.
zepf...@yahoo.com
But they aren't as much rated as much as Tom Petty, so they dont
matter. I dont care if Journey was far worse than TP and
Heartbreakers, no one rates them
zepf...@yahoo.com
> <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Since Hackett, May and Allman were very popular guitarists, they would
have popularized it first.
barc...@hotmail.com
>
> "The Eagles forever changed country and rock, but I just think of what
> they did as being great American music. It's amazing how one band
> could take all those influences -- country and rock, of course, but
> also soul, R&B and folk -- and still sound so distinctive"
>
> ... that sentence wanted me wanna puke.
>
> > Tom Petty and the
> > Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
> > term is usually understood.
>
> Okay I meant commercial when I said corporate rock.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Geebus - What's wrong with tightly written songs that are radio
friendly with lyrics that can be examined on many levels? That is what
you get with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Mike Campbell played
guitar to fit the song, and not as an act of self-worship. As for
"corporate", Petty was one of the few who really made a difference for
Artist's Rights. When he realized the band would never recoup the
advances under the bad contract their former manager got from the
record company, he told everybody that the band was going to declare
bankruptcy to free themselves. And they held the tapes on their soon
to be smash album, Damn the Torpedos, to prove they were serious. The
record company caved, and gave them a new fair contract. Later, the
record company wanted to use the draw of a TP and the H album to move
the market to a higher price level. Petty fought this publically for
the fans, and the album was priced normally. Who else had the guts and
was in a position to do this?
RichL
"Innovative" implies that he invented something or broke new ground in
some way with his playing. He's talented and popular but I really
wouldn't call him innovative.
Brian May was doing tapping before Van Halen was around, as were many
before him.
who?
> I looked at two very different top 100 artists listshttp://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> Then I looked at the fan album rating website rateyourmusic.http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
> I chose the artists which are both top 100 artist list and which do
> not even even 2 albums in the RYM top 1000. These were the
> dishonorable ones who did not even 2 albums (and that includes live
> albums) in the top 1000
>
> The Beach
> U2
> Van Halen
> Cream
> The Eagles
> Aerosmith
> The Police
> The Sex Pistols
> Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
>
> Of these 10 bands, The Sex Pistols made only one studio album. So they
> are disqualified. Cream made 4 albums (only 2 of them proper studio
> albums) and lasted about 3 years only and the second lowest in terms
> of albums made, so they are also disqualified. This leaves 8 bands who
> had a lot of chances to make classic albums since they lasted a long
> time.
>
> Of these Beach Boys (30th), Queen (219th), U2 (921st) are the only
> ones which had one album in top 1000. Since Beach Boys Pet Sounds is
> ranked 30th on RYM, they are disqualified as well. So that leaves.....
>
> 1) Queen - unable to put out a consistent album if their life depended
> on it
> 2) U2 - tedious and one dimensional albums lacking quality
> 3) Van Halen - worthless hard rock show offs with no songwriting
> talent
> 4) Eagles - boring soft rock shit - a cure for insomnia
Back in the day when "Bread" was popular, I felt the same way as
you feel about the "Eagles. Today I would rather listen to bed
than the Eagles.
zepf...@yahoo.com
Thats is precisely what was wrong about their music. Yes they wrote
radio-friendly half baked rock and sold a lot. They deserve as much
respect as say Steve Miller Band or Bob Seger or John Cougar
Mellancamp. Nothing more. They are way too high on rock lists. I dont
like Bruce Springsteen either but he had more artistic integrity (well
at least early on).
Diabolik
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eaudnaamlO28uYvX...@supernews.com...
He did break new ground, with his distinct sound, riffs and by popularising
tapping.
He's one of the role models for modern guitarists.
> He's talented and popular but I really
> wouldn't call him innovative.
I would.
> Brian May was doing tapping before Van Halen was around, as were many
> before him.
Sure, but if it wasn't for Van Halen it probably wouldn't be as popular.
The Nice Mean Man
2] The Doors
3] The Doors
4] The Doors
5] The Doors
6] The Doors
7] The Doors
TNMM
JohnB
Gosh, all those doors! Do the decent thing, old chap, and use one of
them to leave by ...
James Tiberius Kirk
Gracchus
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > He's talented and popular but I really
> > wouldn't call him innovative.
> I would.
Yes, because you are ignoring the word's definition.
> > Brian May was doing tapping before Van Halen was around, as were many
> > before him.
> Sure, but if it wasn't for Van Halen it probably wouldn't be as popular.
Irrelevant. Popularizing something doesn't compare to originating it.
There's nothing wrong with Van Halen using techniques that others
pioneered, but there's no point in pretending that he invented them.
And I reiterate that he was *not* a tasteful guitar player. All Eddie
Van Halen did was help perpetuate a trend toward playing more notes
faster without much consideration for the notes chosen. In doing so,
he spawned countless guitar players who couldn't distinguish flash
from substance.
Diabolik
On May 21, 11:43 pm, "Diabolik" <Diabo...@noemail.com> wrote:
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > He's talented and popular but I really
> > wouldn't call him innovative.
> I would.
> Yes, because you are ignoring the word's definition.
I define as *creating your own style and sound* as inovative, and that what
Van Halen did.
> > Brian May was doing tapping before Van Halen was around, as were many
> > before him.
> Sure, but if it wasn't for Van Halen it probably wouldn't be as popular.
> Irrelevant. Popularizing something doesn't compare to originating it.
I didn't suggest it was.
> There's nothing wrong with Van Halen using techniques that others
> pioneered, but there's no point in pretending that he invented them.
Who's pretening he invented them?
All I suggested was that he created his own *distinct* sound, and playing
style.
> And I reiterate that he was *not* a tasteful guitar player. All Eddie
> Van Halen did was help perpetuate a trend toward playing more notes
> faster without much consideration for the notes chosen.
Of course he didn't have the substance of, for eg, a blues player, but he
did have subtance, unlike other guitarists of his generation, like Malsteem.
> In doing so,
> he spawned countless guitar players who couldn't distinguish flash
> from substance.
Substance comes from the soul, and you either got it or not, irrelavant of
the techniques you use.
Gracchus
> I define as *creating your own style and sound* as inovative, and that what
> Van Halen did.
By that definition, any artist/band who doesn't sound like someone
else is an innovator. That's setting the bar pretty low. A few
examples of people I'd call innovators would be Charlie Parker, Les
Paul, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, etc. They changed music, recording,
technology in a major, lasting way. Van Halen did none of that.
> Substance comes from the soul, and you either got it or not, irrelavant of
> the techniques you use.
I totally agree. So far, I've seen no evidence that Van Halen has it
or ever did.
progea
Diabolik
On May 22, 8:27 am, "Diabolik" <Diabo...@noemail.com> wrote:
> I define as *creating your own style and sound* as inovative, and that
> what
> Van Halen did.
> By that definition, any artist/band who doesn't sound like someone
> else is an innovator. That's setting the bar pretty low.
Well he has to be as popular and successful as Van Halen of course, or
what's the point fo being an innovator if nobody knows who you are?
> A few
> examples of people I'd call innovators would be Charlie Parker, Les
> Paul, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, etc. They changed music, recording,
> technology in a major, lasting way.
For sure.
> Van Halen did none of that.
Well he was the basis for many modern guitarists, so I think he changed a
lot in guitar playing.
> Substance comes from the soul, and you either got it or not, irrelavant of
> the techniques you use.
> I totally agree. So far, I've seen no evidence that Van Halen has it
> or ever did.
I have, even though not to the extent of Hendrix and the likes.
Gracchus
> "Gracchus" <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:24fd4735-702b-479d...@m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 8:27 am, "Diabolik" <Diabo...@noemail.com> wrote:
> Well he has to be as popular and successful as Van Halen of course, or
> what's the point fo being an innovator if nobody knows who you are?
Sadly, many great innovators have been virtually unrecognized in their
own lifetimes, only to be appreciated later. Many more are appreciated
by their peers, but not the general public. Among guitar players, I'd
cite Nick Drake, Richard Thompson, Danny Gatton, and Roy Buchanan as a
few examples.
josephm...@netzero.com
Robert Quine.
Back to VH, you can be influential without being truly innovative.
Eddie Van Halen certainly was the former.
Joe Ramirez
number_six
Anyone know whether Stanley Jordan developed the tapping technique, or
does it predate him?
Gracchus
> Robert Quine.
Absolutely. I loved Quine's playing with Matthew Sweet (especially
alongside Richard Lloyd). I was sad to read a few years ago about his
death.
The Nice Mean Man
Sorry that I stepped on your toes there, 'chap'. You obviosly suffer
from a case of
1] Arrested adolescence
2] Arrested adolescence
3] Arrested adolescence
4] Arrested adolescence
5] Arrested adolescence
6] Arrested adolescence
7] Arrested adolescence
Now... why don't you go and dust off Break On Through for the 30
millionth time. Sounds like you need another fix.
The Nice Mean Man
Relayer
What I never liked about the Doors were they keyboards, that sounded
like one of the air organs you would by at Woolworths as a kid
The Home Guard
> I looked at two very different top 100 artists lists
> http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> Then I looked at the fan album rating website rateyourmusic.
> http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
> I chose the artists which are both top 100 artist list and which do
> not even even 2 albums in the RYM top 1000.
Allow me to paraphrase what you are saying: 'These bands have got a low
*rating* on *Rate* Your Music, therefore they're *overrated*'.
Ummm... Haven't you just picked out RYM's most *underrated* bands,
statistically speaking?
--
My band: feedback always welcome
www.myspace.com/thehomeguardinfo
http://cdbaby.com/cd/homeguard
zepf...@yahoo.com
<contac...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info> wrote:
> Raja wrote:
> > I looked at two very different top 100 artists lists
> >http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
>
> > Then I looked at the fan album rating website rateyourmusic.
> >http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
> > I chose the artists which are both top 100 artist list and which do
> > not even even 2 albums in the RYM top 1000.
>
> Allow me to paraphrase what you are saying: 'These bands have got a low
> *rating* on *Rate* Your Music, therefore they're *overrated*'.
>
> Ummm... Haven't you just picked out RYM's most *underrated* bands,
> statistically speaking?
RYM is rated by fans, DDD is rated by critics, VH1 is rated by critics
as well.
I compared the three list. These bands are highly rated by critics but
are lowly rated by fans. Now got the clue?
josephm...@netzero.com
Have you considered the possibility that the critics are right and the
fans wrong? Maybe the critics have broader, more cultivated tastes
than the fans. Maybe the self-selected fan voters on music websites
have narrow, geeky preferences that condemn some middle-of-the-road
music just for being middle-of-the-road. Or maybe there's no
statistically significant difference between an album that's ranked
750 and one that's ranked 1,250, so that not having an album in the
top 1,000 is not a meaningful metric. Maybe having 10 albums in the
top 5,000 is a more significant artistic accomplishment than having
two albums in the top 1,000.
In other words, your methodology does not seem adequately rigorous to
me. I think you looked at lists you knew would generate the types of
bands you wanted to trash anyway. Don't you think it's surprising --
or to the rest of us, suspicious -- that a purportedly data-driven
list of overrated bands should fail to include a single band that you,
personally, really like? You simply happen to despise *all* the bands
your "study" identified? Right.
Joe Ramirez
zepf...@yahoo.com
> On May 22, 5:26 pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 2:12 pm, The Home Guard
>
> > <contac...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info> wrote:
> > > Raja wrote:
> > > > I looked at two very different top 100 artists lists
> > > >http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
> > > > andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Artists_of_Rock_N'_Roll
>
> > > > Then I looked at the fan album rating website rateyourmusic.
> > > >http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
> > > > I chose the artists which are both top 100 artist list and which do
> > > > not even even 2 albums in the RYM top 1000.
>
> > > Allow me to paraphrase what you are saying: 'These bands have got a low
> > > *rating* on *Rate* Your Music, therefore they're *overrated*'.
>
> > > Ummm... Haven't you just picked out RYM's most *underrated* bands,
> > > statistically speaking?
>
> > RYM is rated by fans, DDD is rated by critics, VH1 is rated by critics
> > as well.
>
> > I compared the three list. These bands are highly rated by critics but
> > are lowly rated by fans. Now got the clue?
>
> Have you considered the possibility that the critics are right and the
> fans wrong?
No critics dont base quality as a factor. They go by historical
importance.
> Maybe the critics have broader, more cultivated tastes
> than the fans. Maybe the self-selected fan voters on music websites
> have narrow, geeky preferences that condemn some middle-of-the-road
> music just for being middle-of-the-road.
Well if you are middle of the road, then you are nowhere.
> Or maybe there's no
> statistically significant difference between an album that's ranked
> 750 and one that's ranked 1,250, so that not having an album in the
> top 1,000 is not a meaningful metric. Maybe having 10 albums in the
> top 5,000 is a more significant artistic accomplishment than having
> two albums in the top 1,000.
>
> In other words, your methodology does not seem adequately rigorous to
> me. I think you looked at lists you knew would generate the types of
> bands you wanted to trash anyway.
Hardly! I would have loved to trash The Who. And their rate him on
RYM. Also some of the bands I dont care for at all like Talking Heads
did very well on the critics list and fan votes on RYM.
>Don't you think it's surprising --
> or to the rest of us, suspicious -- that a purportedly data-driven
> list of overrated bands should fail to include a single band that you,
> personally, really like? You simply happen to despise *all* the bands
> your "study" identified? Right.
I like Moody Blues very much. Their best ranked album is outside the
top 1000. And they are not on VH1s list but on DDD list. So I couldnt
include them since they are not rated very high by critics or fans.
>
> Joe Ramirez
zepf...@yahoo.com
> list of overrated bands should fail to include a single band that you,
> personally, really like?
Okay lets put this way.
1) Highly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Highly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Highly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Floyd, Who,
Velvet Underground)
2) Lowly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Highly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Highly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Sabbath, Joy Division, Purple, Yes,
VDGG)
3) Highly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Highly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Lowly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Talking Heads, Radiohead, Allman
Brothers, Grateful Dead)
4) Lowly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Lowly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Highly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Hawkwind, Rush, Verve)
5) Highly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Lowly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Lowly rated by me
- several bands like that are (U2, Beach Boys, Police) ---- the one
on this thread
6) Lowly rated on critic list (DDD, VH1) - Lowly rated on fan list
(RYM) - Lowly rated by me
- several bands like that are (Motley Crue, Poison, Creed)
Professor X
With a lot of critics, and this is with anything from food to music to
art, a culture prevales whereby it is almost blasphemous to say
anything negative about certain artists or acts. A good example would
be The Beatles, who we are supposed to blindlt ACCEPT as being the
greatest band of all time. Indeed, to say that they were anything else
makes you liable for the death penalty! You also have to remember that
the fan vote, whilst it may not represent a broader understanding of
music on an individual level, it will do so as a collective. I'm sure
that 100,000 fan votes must count for more than the opinion of one
critic?
RichL
The fans voted for the Beatles with their wallets.
Fans yes, critics no (e.g., Britney Spears) -- usually bad but
occasionally good..
Fans no, critics yes (e.g., Velvet Underground) -- sometimes good,
sometimes bad.
Fans yes, critics yes -- c'mon. You're deluding yourself.
Gracchus
> With a lot of critics, and this is with anything from food to music to
> art, a culture prevales whereby it is almost blasphemous to say
> anything negative about certain artists or acts. A good example would
> be The Beatles, who we are supposed to blindlt ACCEPT as being the
> greatest band of all time. Indeed, to say that they were anything else
> makes you liable for the death penalty!
Submit your own choice for greatest band of all time. Only then will
we decide if you are subject to the death penalty. :)
Really, what is more important is what "great band" means to any given
person. If you are rating instrumental proficiency or live
performance, loads of bands would be better than the Beatles. Their
great strengths were composition, arranging, and studio work. If you
don't value these things, then they are not a great band. If you do,
they are very great indeed.
I agree with you, though, that there seem to be unwritten rules about
bands that are sacrosanct. Pink Floyd also comes to mind as one of
them.
RichL
Like everything else, critics' comments should be taken with a grain of
salt. I personally like some (but not all) of Floyd but I never really
read much in terms of critics' opinions when deciding what music I
should buy. Mostly I just listened to the radio or what friends had
bought and decided for myself what I liked and what I didn't.
The Beatles are a strong contender for the greatest band of all time
simply because they have stood the test of time, much more so than most
other bands. That means people still like to listen to their music and
their songs still sell.
The Arranger
Once again, Rich strikes to the heart of the matter.
Most of us can agree that contemporary sales say little about quality;
in general, the public doesn't want to be *too* challenges, although
there are also tiems when the public gets it right (Sinatra, the
Beatles). I think that the degree of interest in a composer, performer
from those who WEREN'T *there at the time* tends to be the ultimate
arbiter of quality. Duke Ellington outsells Kay Kyser, and Mel Torme
outsells Eddie Fisher, and Miles Davis outsells Herb Alpert. We're
already seeing the effect with early rock and roll - the Little
Richard bins in the dying music stores are better stocked than the Pat
Boone.
There is no doubt in my mind that The Beatles are clearly the greatest
band of the rock era. Some may PREFER the Rolling Stones, but believe
me, decades from now, arguing that the Stones were greater than the
Beatles will be akin to arguing for Marlowe or Jonson over
Shakespeare. To switch anologies, the Beatles are Ellington, the
Stones are Basie, and the rest (Who, Kinks, Zeppelin) are the Jimmy
Luncefords and Chick Webbs -- 40 years from now they will be loistened
to only by the "specialists" in that field.
The historical verdict on the Sixties won't really shake out for some
time, but the process is well underway.
The Arranger
zepf...@yahoo.com
Pink Floyd is frequently dismissed as a band for druggies.
who?
Even when I used to hang around with druggies in my youth,
(I prefered alcohol) I could never get into Pink Floyd, as much as I
tried.
Sometimes I would take a toke or two to see if I could understand
their
popularity, but it never happened
Gracchus
> Even when I used to hang around with druggies in my youth,
> (I prefered alcohol) I could never get into Pink Floyd, as much as I
> tried.
> Sometimes I would take a toke or two to see if I could understand
> their
> popularity, but it never happened
A friend once gave me "The Wall" as a gift. I listened several times,
thinking it might eventually sound less tedious. This never happened
either.
amy
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i will notify the moodies I'm sure they would puke
amy
>
> - Show quoted text -
they are for dope heads and you are a dope
Worf son of Mohg
> Pink Floyd is frequently dismissed as a band for druggies.
And vag lubers.
who?
LOL
p...@me.not.invalid
> On May 22, 5:25�pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> With a lot of critics, and this is with anything from food to music to
>> art, a culture prevales whereby it is almost blasphemous to say
>> anything negative about certain artists or acts. A good example would
>> be The Beatles, who we are supposed to blindlt ACCEPT as being the
>> greatest band of all time. Indeed, to say that they were anything else
>> makes you liable for the death penalty!
>
> Submit your own choice for greatest band of all time. Only then will
> we decide if you are subject to the death penalty. :)
Modern Talking.
Diabolik
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mM-dnZj4yvLwpIrX...@supernews.com...
IMO one of the reasons why music from The Beatles is great and has stood the
test of time is because their music is simple, except for when they were on
drugs and go into psychedelic (even though there are exceptions like "A day
in the life").
Diabolik
"Gracchus" <cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c8ce38b-b9ab-4e26...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
I rate "The Wall" as one of the best albums of all time.
I think the arrangements on this album are fantastic and sets a precedent to
future arrangements.
Dale Houstman
> test of time is because their music is simple, except for when they were on
> drugs and go into psychedelic (even though there are exceptions like "A day
> in the life").
>
>
I don't think this is a particularly insightful notion. It begs more
questions than it even hints at answering ("what is simplicity, and are
there different forms of it, and are some forms of 'simplicity' more apt
to generate longevity of fame than other forms?" "why does a lot of
supposedly 'simple' music (most pop music) not indeed gain longevity of
fame and (conversely) why does a lot of VERY complex music (Bach,
Beethoven, Duke Ellington) gain longevity of fame?" "where in this
theory do such songs as 'I Am The Walrus""Come Together" "Strawberry
Fields Forever" fit, and - since you claim 'A Day in the life' as an
exception to the proffered rule 'psychedelic music is too complex to be
long appreciated' WHY is it an exception (which - frankly - it is
not)?""which songs were actually written while on drugs, which were not,
and how does this affect the creative process?""why is 'psychedelic' a
lesser category than 'simple' and are there example of 'simple
psychedelia' - i.e. are some non-psychedelic songs more complex than
some psychedelic songs, and then does the simplicity ameliorate or
aggravate the problem?""what is precisely "psychedelic?" - and so on, ad
infinitum. The hypothesis is too simple and vaguely constructed to
actually make do as an answer to the question: why has Beatles music
stood the test of time?
dmh
LOL
> Diabolik wrote:
> > "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Has it really stood the test of time? The Beatles are well respected
because of their immense popularity once. Their songs were poppy and
catchy enough to be covered even now. But how much of respect as
musicians they have these days? They were great songwriters and were
versatile. But they weren't a great live band and weren't that good
with their instruments. Also none of their albums were great from
start to finish. But they are undoubtedly the best singles bands of
all times.
RichL
Yes.
> The Beatles are well respected because of their immense
> popularity once.
And their continued popularity today.
> Their songs were poppy and catchy enough to be covered
> even now.
Some were "poppy" and some weren't. One key to their continued
popularity is their refusal to be pigeonholed into a single genre.
> But how much of respect as musicians they have these days?
Very much, at least among musicians who value more than narrow technical
proficiency. Go to one of the guitar groups and see what they think
about George Harrison. It's not about how many notes one can cram into
a measure.
> They were great songwriters and were versatile.
Indeed.
> But they weren't a great live band and weren't that good
> with their instruments.
Utter nonsense. They were head and shoulders above their peers (i.e.,
other bands who were on the scene *at the same time* that they were a
live band). They consciously decided to stop touring and concentrate on
studio work.
They were more than good enough with their instruments to create what
*they* wanted to create.
> Also none of their albums were great from start to finish.
More utter nonsense. You decide what's great on the basis of your own
tastes and you selectively dig out what you think is "proof" to support
your preconceived notions.
The Home Guard
Actually, the point I was trying to make was this: why is one list more
valid than another? Using exactly the same statistics, it's possible to
reach precisely the opposite conclusion if you start from a different
standpoint.
Purely out of interest, what are you listening to at the moment?
Personally, I happen to be thoroughly enjoying the new album from
Madness. Without looking, I doubt they're particularly highly rated on
any of the lists you provided. I also doubt that The Liberty of Norton
Folgate is even on the radar of most people reading this. But - you know
what? - I don't let that spoil my enjoyment of what I think is a top
quality release.
Now, are you going to tell me I'm wrong to like Madness and that their
new album isn't as good as I think it is because that's what the
statistics tell you? Or can you accept that some people like some kinds
of music, other people like other kinds, and none of them is "right" or
"wrong"?
Diabolik
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:qpOdnSn5PIAzZIrX...@skypoint.com...
> Diabolik wrote:
>> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message IMO one of the reasons why
>> music from The Beatles is great and has stood the test of time is because
>> their music is simple, except for when they were on drugs and go into
>> psychedelic (even though there are exceptions like "A day in the life").
>
> I don't think this is a particularly insightful notion. It begs more
> questions than it even hints at answering ("what is simplicity, and are
> there different forms of it,
If you over-analyse you'll never have a definition of simplcity, even though
there are many forms of it.
But as an attempt, what I define as the Beatles earlier albums being
"simple" is their compositions, arrangements, and the chords they used, even
though they were brilliant and innovative in their simplicity.
> and are some forms of 'simplicity' more apt to generate longevity of fame
> than other forms?" "why does a lot of supposedly 'simple' music (most pop
> music) not indeed gain longevity of fame
Because most of it is crap and not innovative.
> and (conversely) why does a lot of VERY complex music (Bach, Beethoven,
> Duke Ellington) gain longevity of fame?
Because they were awesome composers.
" "where in this
> theory do such songs as 'I Am The Walrus""Come Together" "Strawberry
> Fields Forever"
These songs were definitelty more complicated than their earlier music. But
like I wrote, there were exceptions in every album like 'A Day in the life',
Strawberry
Fields Forever", etc.
IMO most of the songs in these albums were overdone with their compositions,
arrangements, etc. In other terms, I think they tried to hard. But of course
every album had a few great songs, whereas I think their earlier music was
ALL great.
> fit, and - since you claim 'A Day in the life' as an exception to the
> proffered rule 'psychedelic music is too complex to be long appreciated'
> WHY is it an exception (which - frankly - it is not)?
See above, because IMO most of the music in these albums was over-done.
""which songs were
> actually written while on drugs, which were not, and how does this affect
> the creative process?""
Drugs can effect the creative process in a positive or negative way,
depending on the person.
> why is 'psychedelic' a lesser category than
> 'simple'
I never wrote that it is.
> and are there example of 'simple psychedelia' - i.e. are some
> non-psychedelic songs more complex than some psychedelic songs, and then
> does the simplicity ameliorate or aggravate the problem?""what is
> precisely "psychedelic?" - and so on, ad infinitum. The hypothesis is too
> simple and vaguely constructed to actually make do as an answer to the
> question: why has Beatles music stood the test of time?
I don't think it's too complex.
I think it stood the test of time because of the brilliant and innovative
compositions, arrangements and chords.
Most musicians I know, including me, started with The Beatles music as a
basis.
Many pop songs of today are simple, but not innovative.
Gracchus
<contac...@theSPAMTRAPhomeguard.info> wrote:
If Raja were to accept what you propose, he would have to stop posting
lists and find a new compulsion. :)
I don't mind the lists myself. Often they give rise to interesting
discussions. But he does seem to believe that there is a "final word"
to be had. (e.g., Robert Plant is the greatest singer in the history
of rock, The Beatles' rockers were bad, Steely Dan sucked, etc.). For
support, he'll usually turn to "expert testimony," citing cherry-
picked links leading to critics' articles or polls that coincide with
his own opinions. This is comparable to what a number of rst posters
do when trying to prove "their" tennis player is GOAT, except that
it's even more bogus when applied to art. Using winning percentage or
slam count at least says something about a player's record in
competition. Album sale stats and fan ratings only prove popularity,
and critical opinion is entirely subjective.
There is NO right or wrong when it comes to musical
appreciation...with the possible exception of Kenny G.
Dale Houstman
Well - since the "time" we are talking about is only 40 or so years ago
(not a great span in terms of a culture) one might argue that it is far
too early to determine how "fixed" their contribution is. But in terms
of influence on the greater musical culture, the story is in: their
"sound" (or rather all the components of their "sound") was and
continues to be widely copied. This aspect of influence is a most
important one in assessing musical impact. And your use of the word
"musician" is misleading - they are respected as songwriters, and
songwriting IS musicianship. If you mean how do they continue to rate as
instrumentalists, it's a different tale, although not one easily
dismissed. George's guitar sound (if not his mastery) has been imitated
quite a lot, and Paul's bass is still considered as tops in the melodic
bass-line department. I'm not overly concerned that they will not be
listened m,any decades from now. So I'd predict (and lay money on the
forecast) that time will embrace them, and they will be a permanent
landmark on the road of Pop.
As for none of their albums being "great" from start to finish - I'm not
sure how this is to be assessed. There aren't really all that many
records (by anyone) that might be considered as "great from start to
finish" and I think the Beatles come as close as most do on that score.
And I think it is also open to debate how good they were as a live band,
especially since they stopped touring fairly early. But - by all
accounts - their stage presence in the Hamburg days was startling, and
chaotically powerful, pre-punk in its ferocity, and as versatile as you
say. These aren't small claims. That they became a studio band later is
without doubt, but - given their artistic ambitions and their will power
- I don't think we can say accurately how they might have fared as a
live band. Very well is my guess.
But it is as a studio band they will be judged, and I think - in that
department - they have little danger of being "left behind"...
dmh
josephm...@netzero.com
> On May 22, 4:44 pm, josephmrami...@netzero.com wrote:
>
> > Have you considered the possibility that the critics are right and the
> > fans wrong?
>
> No critics dont base quality as a factor. They go by historical
> importance.
I doubt that this is entirely true, but if it is, then you're guilty
of methodological malfeasance. It was up to you to select evaluations
based on similar criteria. If we're comparing apples and oranges --
one group looks at quality, while the other looks at history -- that's
your fault.
Joe Ramirez
josephm...@netzero.com
That's an exaggeration, but of course you're correct that the
overwhelming consensus is that the Beatles were a great band. Still,
if you can make out the contrary case, go right ahead. But please be
sure to distinguish between showing that the Beatles were not a great
band and merely showing that you don't *like* the Beatles. (Remember
that there's no obligation to like them even if they were great.)
> You also have to remember that
> the fan vote, whilst it may not represent a broader understanding of
> music on an individual level, it will do so as a collective. I'm sure
> that 100,000 fan votes must count for more than the opinion of one
> critic?
I disagree with this contention for several reasons:
First, collective "man in the street" opinion is often good at
answering "common sense" questions, or making judgments about
personalities and attitudes, but is usually poor at dealing with
complex or technical matters. Uninformed or misguided opinions about
science, logic, art, etc., don't suddenly become accurate and
insightful when multiplied.
Second, there is a difference between taste and judgment -- whether I
like something, and whether I deem it good. This distinction is
sometimes hard to respect, but good critics at least make the effort,
and their background and training help them. The typical fan makes no
effort to separate these views and almost always conflates them
completely.
Finally, whatever value collective fan opinion may have depends on an
unbiased method for compiling it. Even if I trusted in the wisdom of
fan preferences, I wouldn't give much credence to a pile of opinions
submitted by self-selected voters. Many website voters are motivated
by a desire either to boost their favorite artists (somehow, every
album you enjoy becomes an all-time classic :)) or to tear down the
ones they hate. What such rating websites tend to provide is a summary
of extreme opinion from a nonrepresentative sample of music fans,
namely, those who love geeking out on music rating websites.
Joe Ramirez
josephm...@netzero.com
Pink Floyd is effete. Their vintage '70s material rocks less than
virtually any "great" rock music I've ever heard. And they fail to
make up for their lack of energy with attractive melodicism.
Before you ask, yes Raja, I will concede that "Piper" is more
energetic than Floyd's non-Syd material, and actually has some cool
garage-psych tunes. But the music the band is most famous for --
that's effete.
Joe Ramirez
Dale Houstman
>
> First, collective "man in the street" opinion is often good at
> answering "common sense" questions, or making judgments about
> personalities and attitudes, but is usually poor at dealing with
> complex or technical matters.
I don't even think this is true: "man in the street" opinion (since
anyone can be the "man in the street" at the precise moment a question
is being asked) is not even good at answering "common sense" questions,
unless one thinks any and all humans at any given moment are godd at
answering "common sense questions" at which point the entire idea of
"common sense" must come into question. Which it should actually.
"common sense" is usually just someone's reading of a culture's
aggregate "mood" at any given moment in time and space. Thus it would be
"common sense" to beat a nagging wife if you had been living during the
time (most of recorded time) when women were mere chattel. Still "common
sense" for many people and some cultures. As for making judgments about
"personalities and attitudes" what could one say for a "man in the
street" who thinks torture is perfectly okay if it's done by the "good
people"? Or any number of "man in the street" opinions on social
attitudes. As for personalities: most people i've run into can't even
make valid judgments on their own spouses and children. So although "man
in the street" statements can be amusing, and (now and then) accurate or
insightful (0r incite-ful) they still have to be assayed one by one, and
a lack of knowledge is a lack of knowledge.
Most people are uninformed and incapable of expressing complex thoughts.
dmh
rfor...@msn.com
> On May 21, 8:52 pm, Raja <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I looked at two very different top 100 artists listshttp://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html
> > andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Artists_of_Rock_N'_Roll
>
> > Then I looked at the fan album rating website rateyourmusic.http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time
> > I chose the artists which are both top 100 artist list and which do
> > dishonorable ones who did not even 2 albums (and that includes live
> > albums) in the top 1000
>
> > The Beach Boys
> > Queen
> > U2
> > Van Halen
> > Cream
> > The Eagles
> > Aerosmith
> > The Police
> > The Sex Pistols
> > Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
>
> > Of these 10 bands, The Sex Pistols made only one studio album. So they
> > are disqualified. Cream made 4 albums (only 2 of them proper studio
> > albums) and lasted about 3 years only and the second lowest in terms
> > of albums made, so they are also disqualified. This leaves 8 bands who
> > had a lot of chances to make classic albums since they lasted a long
> > time.
>
> > Of these Beach Boys (30th), Queen (219th), U2 (921st) are the only
> > ones which had one album in top 1000. Since Beach Boys Pet Sounds is
> > ranked 30th on RYM, they are disqualified as well. So that leaves.....
>
> > 1) Queen - unable to put out a consistent album if their life depended
> > on it
> > 2) U2 - tedious and one dimensional albums lacking quality
> > 3) Van Halen - worthless hard rock show offs with no songwriting
> > talent
> > 4) Eagles - boring soft rock shit - a cure for insomnia
> > 5) Aerosmith - the longest lasting mediocre band ever?
> > 6) Police - five worthless half-cocked albums across six years,
> > unforgivable
> > 7) Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers - corporate rock at its worst!
>
> You are now indulging in hyperbole in order to make the gap between
> these bands' reputations and their quality seem larger than it
> actually is. I don't care very much for Van Halen, except for a few
> songs, but they were not "worthless." The Police were far from
> worthless, as discussed at length in another recent thread. I'm not
> really an Aerosmith fan either, but at their best they were a very
> good band, not a mediocre one. U2 I've already discussed (and I notice
> that you are much harder on them in this thread than in your first
> one). I agree that the Eagles were largely boring, but I would
> hesitate to call them "overrated" because I don't think they were ever
> rated that highly -- they were simply very popular. Tom Petty and the
> Heartbreakers were commercial, but were not "corporate rock" as that
> term is usually understood.
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Petty rocked the hardest over his first four albums I'd say, but
anyway he is about the opposite of corporate rock, Raja obviously you
don't know much about the story of their band. I think you are using
"corporate rock" to mean that the band is not one of yur favorites.
richforman
83LowRider
"Dale Houstman" wrote
> I don't even think this is true: "man in the street" opinion (since anyone
> can be the "man in the street" at the precise moment a question is being
> asked) is not even good at answering "common sense" questions,
<translation> people are dumbasses?
> unless one thinks any and all humans at any given moment are godd at
> answering "common sense questions" at which point the entire idea of
> "common sense" must come into question.
uhh, yeah... that's just.. uhh.. common sense.
do you TRY to make this shit up or is this just how your brain flows?
dunno if I can do this one, but I'll try..
<translation> a) consensus of the dumbasses?
b) general opinion of the masses, who remember,
are for the most part, dumbasses...?
> Which it should actually. "common sense" is usually just someone's reading
> of a culture's aggregate "mood" at any given moment in time and space.
<translation> what we're feelin' here and now.
> Thus it would be "common sense" to beat a nagging wife if you had been
> living during the time (most of recorded time) when women were mere
> chattel. Still "common sense" for many people and some cultures.
<translation> "I wish I woulda lived long long ago???
but I do give you a point or two for "chattel".. don't get to see
that one everyday.
> As for making judgments about "personalities and attitudes" what could one
> say for a "man in the street" who thinks torture is perfectly okay if it's
> done by the "good people"?
think we went down that road with my previous post..
> Or any number of "man in the street" opinions on social
> attitudes.
That's why they're called opinions, and not facts.. everyone
is entitled to their own, even those that go against yours.. as
much as you hate that.
> As for personalities: most people i've run into can't even make valid
> judgments on their own spouses and children.
People do tend to be blind to that which surrounds them.
> So although "man in the street" statements can be amusing, and (now and
> then) accurate or insightful (0r incite-ful) they still have to be assayed
> one by one, and a lack of knowledge is a lack of knowledge.
I have two doctor friends.. both great at what they do I'm sure.
Neither one is capable of changing a spark plug, replacing a leaky
washer, or most other things many consider to be common or mundane.
Very intelligent, both of them.. studied long and hard. Unfortunately, they
never took their noses out of the books long enough to learn anything else.
Of course, like some 'dumber' people, it doesn't mean they don't have the
ability if they tried and/or wanted to. "Knowlege" is a very loose term,
and comes in many forms. A friend of mine, has a brother most would
consider to be 'a bit slow'.. put him in the woods tho, he'll name every
bird, animal, tree, mushroom etc.. and with what he can carry in a small
backpack, he hikes trails for days/weeks at a time. If the proverbial shit
ever did hit the fan, I'm following him while you eloquently assess the
situation, debate the possibilities, and wonder where your next meal is
coming from.
> Most people are uninformed
As to what??
Very presumptious of you..
Then again, if you're in the top ten percentile, then congrats,
and remember, if not for the 'lowly' 90% you wouldn't be able
to achieve that smug, self-righteous feeling that, like Chris Matthews
from Obama, sends that chill up your leg.
> and incapable of expressing complex thoughts.
Don't use the ten-dollar word when the fifty-cent one will do.
Mark Twain
There are many like you, that are very gifted with a speaking 'style'..
usually they fall under the categories of lawyer/politician/used car
dealer/snake-oil salesman. Some are even tv evangelists or wanna be
writers (usually with alcohol related problems - you drink a little??).
Do you fall under one of these? A musician, bitter because with all
your expressiveness, it just never came together for ya? Makes ya feel
a little better to slag on the peons that piss you off daily? I'm not trying
to single you out, pick on you, piss you off.. so feel free to have the last
word, as I'm sure you will, and are entitled to.. I'll let it go at that
(unless I
just can't stand it again) and return to lurking. :)
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" wrote
>
>> I don't even think this is true: "man in the street" opinion (since anyone
>> can be the "man in the street" at the precise moment a question is being
>> asked) is not even good at answering "common sense" questions,
>
> <translation> people are dumbasses?
No - mistranslation: MOST people are pretty stupid. you might be one of
them.
>
>> unless one thinks any and all humans at any given moment are godd at
>> answering "common sense questions" at which point the entire idea of
>> "common sense" must come into question.
>
> uhh, yeah... that's just.. uhh.. common sense.
>
> do you TRY to make this shit up or is this just how your brain flows?
> dunno if I can do this one, but I'll try..
>
> <translation> a) consensus of the dumbasses?
> b) general opinion of the masses, who remember,
> are for the most part, dumbasses...?
>
>> Which it should actually. "common sense" is usually just someone's reading
>> of a culture's aggregate "mood" at any given moment in time and space.
>
> <translation> what we're feelin' here and now.
I'm sorry/I offer my apologies that I have a different/variant/alternate
way/manner/fashion of speaking/opining/expressing
myself/conversing/communicating than you do. It must be
bothersome/irritating/aggravating/vexing to you. Tough titty/too
bad/them's the breaks/no sweat off my nose/how droll/so what?/I couldn't
care less/so's yer old man/so tell it to the chaplain/I don't come to
your shithouse and tell you how to wipe yer ass/where do you get off the
chuckle wagon?/is this a real poncho or a Sears poncho?/what the
hey/whatever floats your rubber duckie/jesus h puffenstuff mcgregor...
> That's why they're called opinions, and not facts.. everyone
> is entitled to their own, even those that go against yours.. as
> much as you hate that.
No I don't - we're not talking/conversing/jawing/palavering about what I
hate or like, but about whether or not "man in the street" interviews
are a critical tool rather than an amusement - whether or not 10,000
random opinions are "obviously" (that "common sense" again) more useful
than one educated commentary. It may well be that amongst those 10,000
people an individual or two might improvise a bon mot/wise
word/scintilla of wit/diamond in the rough/out of the mouths of
children/folk wisdom blossom, but the totality/aggregate/entirety will
be a chaos of errors/falsehoods/urban legends/what they had for
breakfast/who the hell are you/I don't do well in front of microphones/I
fell asleep in that class/I'm a doer not a thinker/look at my muscles/am
I on the TV?!/wha?/angry hangover/racist diatribe/nonsense - useless as
a critical instrument. fine as entertainment.
>
>> As for personalities: most people i've run into can't even make valid
>> judgments on their own spouses and children.
>
> People do tend to be blind to that which surrounds them.
...and to that which they've never actually had any contact with. So
that covers that.
>
>> So although "man in the street" statements can be amusing, and (now and
>> then) accurate or insightful (0r incite-ful) they still have to be assayed
>> one by one, and a lack of knowledge is a lack of knowledge.
>
> I have two doctor friends.. both great at what they do I'm sure.
> Neither one is capable of changing a spark plug, replacing a leaky
> washer, or most other things many consider to be common or mundane.
Putting aside your "comic book" put-down of intellectualism and
education (i.e. I don't believe you), this is precisely why "man in the
streets opinions" (the average of a lot of conversations) are not
particularly useful in setting aesthetic standards: most of the speakers
won't have any practical knowledge of what is being discussed. Even
"common sense"/mundane things. Thanks for making the point...
> Very intelligent, both of them.. studied long and hard. Unfortunately, they
> never took their noses out of the books long enough to learn anything else.
You're attempting to make this an "us versus them" thing, as if I had
claimed that college educated people were immune to speaking utter
nonsense when asked for an opinion on the street, or as if setting an
aesthetic standard by averaging out the opinions of 10,00 randomly
chosen people (some of them uneducated, some well educated, some just
come from stuffing their spouse's corpse up a flue, etc.) were the same
thing as fixing a doorknob - which by the way, all my college-educated
friends are quite capable of. Our car mechanic is a engineer. But we are
NOT talking about "this guy" verus "that guy" - we are talking about an
averaging of a large group of random speakers versus one able critic.
That large group might even have a critic or two in it, although the
format will work against their producing a superior bit of work - but it
is the group's average you are proposing as a useful aesthetic tool.
Frankly your tired old "I read books so I can't fix a toilet" cartoon is
both insipd and irrelevant.
>
> As to what??
As a group (you keep forgetting that's what we're talking about) - "Most
People" (which could include you or myself) will not be experts on any
question put to them, and (like by the way ALL of us) they will also
express some ignorance as to the psychology of their own lives: the whys
to their wherefores, etc. Why? Because that's life...
>
> Very presumptious of you..
No - it's an observation of "man on the street" interviews.
>
> Then again, if you're in the top ten percentile, then congrats,
> and remember, if not for the 'lowly' 90% you wouldn't be able
> to achieve that smug, self-righteous feeling that, like Chris Matthews
> from Obama, sends that chill up your leg.
You continue to misunderstand the form of the argument: it isn't about
"us versus them""me versus you""educated versus folksy" etc. - any "man
in the street" group COULD include you, me, the educated, the great
unwashed, etc. I am both college educated and a lifelong member of the
working class. I can change a spark plug, drive a car, put on my own
pants, and cook. You're the one making judgments about individuals here,
and applying your rather cartoonish cultural stereotypes to them. And
what in hell does Chris Matthews or Obama have to do with any of this?
We're not talking about your politics here: we're talking about the
value of "common sense" in the field of aesthetics. Try and keep up...
>
>> and incapable of expressing complex thoughts.
>
> Don't use the ten-dollar word when the fifty-cent one will do.
> Mark Twain
You think there's a "ten dollar word" in that sentence?! Wow...you must
be used to a real five and dime vocabulary. Or is "vocabulary" a "ten
dollar word" to you also?
>
> There are many like you, that are very gifted with a speaking 'style'..
I weren't gifted with nuthin: I had to work for it.
> usually they fall under the categories of lawyer/politician/used car
> dealer/snake-oil salesman.
Again with your (inaccurate) and aggressive instereotypes: I am not a
lawyer/politican/used car dealer/snake-oil salesman. I work for a car
rental company, and I drive cars. I have been a factory worker, a
security guard, a custodian, a dishwasher, an orchard worker, a
proofreader, a college newspaper cartoonist, a poet, an artist, a
husband, and any number of other things: very few of which would make me
either elite or in the top 10 percentile or whatever.
> Some are even tv evangelists or wanna be
> writers (usually with alcohol related problems - you drink a little??).
How droll and nasty you become when you run out of thoughts on a
subject. Do I drink a little? Do you drink a little? Have you stopped
beating your wife and kids? What do you whisper in your dog's ear when
you "come inside to play? Are any of THOSE questions pertinent to the
subject at hand?
> Do you fall under one of these? A musician, bitter because with all
> your expressiveness, it just never came together for ya? Makes ya feel
> a little better to slag on the peons that piss you off daily? I'm not trying
> to single you out, pick on you, piss you off.. so feel free to have the last
> word, as I'm sure you will, and are entitled to.. I'll let it go at that
> (unless I
> just can't stand it again) and return to lurking.
Came in ignorant, dropped a little turd blossom, and crawled back under
the rock, dumb as the day we first laid eyes on him...
dmh
LOL
> On May 22, 10:12 pm, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 8:55 pm, "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Even when I used to hang around with druggies in my youth,
> > > (I prefered alcohol) I could never get into Pink Floyd, as much as I
> > > tried.
> > > Sometimes I would take a toke or two to see if I could understand
> > > their
> > > popularity, but it never happened
>
> > A friend once gave me "The Wall" as a gift. I listened several times,
> > thinking it might eventually sound less tedious. This never happened
> > either.
>
> Pink Floyd is effete. Their vintage '70s material rocks less than
> virtually any "great" rock music I've ever heard.
I agree actually. I consider WYWH a well manufactured rock album. It
hardly has rocking moments. Animals is similar except that is even
less memorable. The Wall has some rocking moments (Young Lust, In the
Flesh, Another Brick In the Wall) but overall does not measure as a
hard rocking album.
But I have disagree about The Piper, most of A Saucerful of Secrets,
some of Meddle and most of The Dark Side of the Moon. They rock.
>And they fail to
> make up for their lack of energy with attractive melodicism.
>
> Before you ask, yes Raja, I will concede that "Piper" is more
> energetic than Floyd's non-Syd material, and actually has some cool
> garage-psych tunes. But the music the band is most famous for --
> that's effete.
I doubt it. Many rock fans hate Animals. And the songs they usually
prefer from WYWH are the nice ballad WYWH and Have A Cigar (which is
the only rocking tune in the entire album).
>
> Joe Ramirez
LOL
I mean corporate rock in terms of music which was designed to get
played on radio. I wouldnt call Grateful Dead as corporate rock even
though I hardly like them.
LOL
Yes, you may be right. But you see their poppiest and flakiest songs
are the ones sung/covered these days on American Idol and other
mainstream shows. Their experimental stuff which were great as well
are forgotten. They are remembered as a once immensely popular band
which wrote pop singles. In short in the mainstream they are
remembered more for Yesterday than A Day In A Life.
>
> > The Beatles are well respected because of their immense
> > popularity once.
>
> And their continued popularity today.
okay, but once the baby boomer generation is gone, will their music
stand the test of times?
>
> > Their songs were poppy and catchy enough to be covered
> > even now.
>
> Some were "poppy" and some weren't. One key to their continued
> popularity is their refusal to be pigeonholed into a single genre.
Well none of the great bands could be pigeonholed. They were
versatile. Labels dont matter anyway. If you go by labels, Beatles can
be pigeonholed as pop/rock.
>
> > But how much of respect as musicians they have these days?
>
> Very much, at least among musicians who value more than narrow technical
> proficiency.
Not just musical proficiency, it terms of advancing the instruments...
Harrison did lesser than say Beck and Hendrix. Paul McCartney is your
strongest bet here. The others were good, but lets say not top 10 in
terms of importance.
> Go to one of the guitar groups and see what they think
> about George Harrison. It's not about how many notes one can cram into
> a measure.
>
> > They were great songwriters and were versatile.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > But they weren't a great live band and weren't that good
> > with their instruments.
>
> Utter nonsense. They were head and shoulders above their peers (i.e.,
> other bands who were on the scene *at the same time* that they were a
> live band). They consciously decided to stop touring and concentrate on
> studio work.
Are you sure they were as good as The Yardbirds on Five Live
Yardbirds. They were not better than The Who and The Rolling Stones as
well as a live band (at least in terms of reputation). Which peers are
you exactly talking about? Oh yeah, they were better live than say The
Beach Boys and may be The Kinks.
But The Kinks were technically equal if not better.
>
> They were more than good enough with their instruments to create what
> *they* wanted to create.
Then how come some of the covers are better? Also dont you think a
better and more prominent drummer and guitarist would have done
wonders to some of the listless and constipated songs of theirs.
>
> > Also none of their albums were great from start to finish.
>
> More utter nonsense. You decide what's great on the basis of your own
> tastes and you selectively dig out what you think is "proof" to support
> your preconceived notions.
You would agree every Beatles album has at least 2-3 songs, you would
live without.
LOL
Quality is more reliable, dont you think.
>
> Joe Ramirez
RichL
"In the mainstream", meaning the American Idol set? Sure. That goes
without saying. But does this group even know about Deep Purple, for
example?
You look at bands today outside of the mainstream major-label stuff and
you'll find lots of bands covering The Beatles' more experimental music.
>>> The Beatles are well respected because of their immense
>>> popularity once.
>>
>> And their continued popularity today.
>
> okay, but once the baby boomer generation is gone, will their music
> stand the test of times?
Most likely. Based on what I see from people in their late teens and
early 20s who are escaping the narrow genre-focused music today and
going back to explore the musical roots, a lot are coming away with a
deep appreciation of the Beatles.
>>> Their songs were poppy and catchy enough to be covered
>>> even now.
>>
>> Some were "poppy" and some weren't. One key to their continued
>> popularity is their refusal to be pigeonholed into a single genre.
>
> Well none of the great bands could be pigeonholed. They were
> versatile. Labels dont matter anyway. If you go by labels, Beatles can
> be pigeonholed as pop/rock.
>
>>
>>> But how much of respect as musicians they have these days?
>>
>> Very much, at least among musicians who value more than narrow
>> technical proficiency.
>
> Not just musical proficiency, it terms of advancing the instruments...
> Harrison did lesser than say Beck and Hendrix. Paul McCartney is your
> strongest bet here. The others were good, but lets say not top 10 in
> terms of importance.
"Advancing the instruments" is part of "musical proficiency". Beck and
Hendrix will always be recognized as "great guitarists". But the
Beatles prove that you don't need to be a "great guitarist" to have a
great band.
The case of Eric Clapton more or less proves that the opposite is true
as well. The closest he came to greatness band-wise was with Cream, and
that didn't last long at all. He's an acknowledged "great guitarist",
yet...
>
>> Go to one of the guitar groups and see what they think
>> about George Harrison. It's not about how many notes one can cram
>> into a measure.
>>
>>> They were great songwriters and were versatile.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> But they weren't a great live band and weren't that good
>>> with their instruments.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. They were head and shoulders above their peers (i.e.,
>> other bands who were on the scene *at the same time* that they were a
>> live band). They consciously decided to stop touring and concentrate
>> on studio work.
>
> Are you sure they were as good as The Yardbirds on Five Live
> Yardbirds. They were not better than The Who and The Rolling Stones as
> well as a live band (at least in terms of reputation).
I'm not talking about reputation, I'm talking about the impact that they
made when they were a live band. Massive stadium concerts, unheard of
before their day.
> Which peers are
> you exactly talking about? Oh yeah, they were better live than say The
> Beach Boys and may be The Kinks.
> But The Kinks were technically equal if not better.
No, I love the Kinks but I can't say thay were better than the Beatles
in concert. As players, Mick Avory and Pete Quaife (and yes, even Ray
Davies) had little impact at all. Dave Davies was adequate for what The
Kinks wanted to accomplish yet is known for very little in the guitar
community except for punching a hole in his amp speaker to achieve a
distorted sound.
What set The Kinks above other bands of the era were (a) the songwriting
and (b) Ray Davies' whimsical vocal style.
>>
>> They were more than good enough with their instruments to create what
>> *they* wanted to create.
>
> Then how come some of the covers are better?
That's a purely subjective comment. C'mon.
> Also dont you think a
> better and more prominent drummer and guitarist would have done
> wonders to some of the listless and constipated songs of theirs.
"Listless and constipated" - again subjective (and rather foolish)
assessments. Just because YOU think so doesn't mean everyone else
thinks so. Replacing George and Ringo with players who had more flash
certainly would have changed the band but not necessarily for the
better.
>>> Also none of their albums were great from start to finish.
>>
>> More utter nonsense. You decide what's great on the basis of your own
>> tastes and you selectively dig out what you think is "proof" to
>> support your preconceived notions.
>
> You would agree every Beatles album has at least 2-3 songs, you would
> live without.
And I would also say that the same is true of all the albums that you
consider "perfect". See? It depends on who's doing the listening.
BTW I there are few Beatles albums containing 2-3 songs I could do
without. The White Album for one, which is a lot of peoples' favorites.
Let It Be, for another. Outside of those two, not really. But that's
just me.