|
Post by michael on Oct 7, 2006 8:48:39 GMT
I was listening to a song on the radio today and I thought to myself: "Boy, these guys were really overrated." ::)That got me thinking that there were a few albums in the annals of Rock'n Roll history that didn't deserve the their hype. And since Al has done such a great job of polling for the most "Unique Voice," I thought it would be fun to discuss those "classic" albums that we--the most intelligent of music connoisseurs because of our affinity for Kate--thought were overrated. I don't mean to imply that any of the albums I submit were "bad;" however, they are albums that I don't believe deserve the standing they've attained in Rock history. I expect there to be annoyance and outright anger for at least 2 of my candidates, but that's the point. Hopefully, there will be opinion, and then, afterwards, other candidates for the most overrated albums in Rockdom. Here, then are 3 of those classic, great, watershed moments in Rock that weren't (as I hear them!) ;D! P.S. This is not a poll! I don't have Al's patience. 1. The song I was listening to when I thought of this thread was "God Save The Queen" from "Never Mind The Bullocks" by the Sex Pistols. A lot of energy and a lot of bullshit. I actually saw them and the album was better than their concert, but not by much. The Clash (and many others) blew them away and owed TSP's no debt, as is quite often claimed. . But they didn't start nothin' It was going there anyways. Outrageous only goes so far! And it doesn't last long. (The movie was better). 2. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" by . . . some obscure band out of Liverpool. Whatever. Great arrangements by George Martin (the greatest Beatle), but not the quintessential, eclectic, everything for everyone album that "changed Rock forever" " that many think it to be. Great shit. "A Day in The Life" is, and will forever be, a signature song of the times; however, "Revolver" was that album and "Pet Sounds" was 2nd (in my very humble opinion). 3. Please let me take cover before you shoot! "Nevermind" by . . . Zen. No, I'm sorry, Nirvana. That's it! Good, solid album. But: Was it really the album that should have changed rock history for all time or was it the just the right songs at the right time? If I could have understood all of the lyrics, I would have a more more definite opinion (which, I know, is part of their allure); however, Rock shoud be meaningful--that is sort of the point--and I don't think their lack of a point or style should make that album one of the greatest of all time. However, they do score bonus points for ridding the world of "Poison" and the other bands whose hair were on the verge of taking over the world. Style can kill! There, kiddies, a wonderworld of critical thinking. Are we who we thought we were because they were who they (and others) thought they were? Let me know.
|
|
|
Post by matanchik on Oct 7, 2006 9:19:07 GMT
i agree with your opinion about Sgt. Pepper, although it's still a great album, it's absolutely not the best album ever made and not even the Beatles's best album (i think "the magical mystery tour" is their best)
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Oct 13, 2006 19:40:13 GMT
1. Never Mind the Bullocks - "God save the queen her fascist regime"A lot of energy and a lot of bullshit describes their view of English society so OK I'll say it is an appropriate description of this song in particular and their music in general, and one too that I like. But they didn't start nothin' Anon is the greatest songwriter of all-time so I won't argue about who actually started what but what other bands of any significant note were playing punk at the time the Sex Pistols made it big? I think it deserves its acclaim but then again it's not an album that I listen to often. An album of its time certainly as well as a reaction against the megastars of the pop world who had hung on for far too long - so it's appropriate I think that they quickly imploded. Speaking of which - The Clash were a far more musically diverse band than the Sex Pistols were, certainly - but they too didn't last long. "I hate the Army and I hate the RAF" - The Clash, Career Opportunities 2. Sgt. Peppers - I don't like this album but good grief when The Rolling Stones immediately copy you ( as well as do the majority of lousy bands for decades) you've made an impression. 3. Nevermind - yeah, if for no other reason than ridding the world of Hair Metal it deserves its acclaim. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My overrated album choices... Bruce Springsteen - Born in the USA One of the most successful albums of the 80s but man Nebraska and others are far better - not to mention the very early ones. Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon. ehh I thank Gilmour for helping Kate but I sure can't stand his/Floyd's music. Thank God for the Sex Pistols!
|
|
Paul
Reaching Out
Posts: 478
|
Post by Paul on Oct 14, 2006 0:21:49 GMT
hmmm...
Black Sabbath - Paranoid. Not their best album in my opinion. yet the critics seem to like it.
Iron Maiden - Number Of The Beast. NO! The best Maiden album is Powerslave, with Iron Maiden and Seventh Son not far behind. Fact.
Nirvana - Nevermind... I'll agree with that choice and it's DEAD EASY to play on guitar.
Can't think of anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Adey on Oct 15, 2006 17:03:30 GMT
"NEVER MIND THE ***" etc: Oh yes - completely overrated. Actually how can something retrospective like Punk Rock be artistically significant?
Leave "SGT PEPPERS" alone - important and hugely creative (IMHO)
"THE WALL": I'm a Pink Floyd fan, but this was always such utter bilge. Agree with Gilmour, "yes fell for it at the time, but now I realise it's just a bit of a winge.."
"TOMMY": Stunning idea, but the end result would have made a fine EP..
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Oct 16, 2006 14:52:50 GMT
"NEVER MIND THE ***" etc: Oh yes - completely overrated. Actually how can something retrospective like Punk Rock be artistically significant? Punk being a major form of rock in the late 70s and early 80s and Bollocks being its first(?) (certainly one of the early ones) major album - in itself makes it significant album. I'm not sure however if you're making some distinction with the "artistically" tag; ehh... are you? retrospective is another term I'm unsure of in this context... I mean, take out "Punk" from your sentence and there's this: Actually how can something retrospective like Rock be artistically significant? ...and now it's referring to Led Zeppelin, Cream, Hendrix, The Who et al... their main departure from blues being as much due to the instrument as it is was from the bands themselves. nah... bollocks is a right bloody topical album. btw, I listened to this album last week not suspecting that it would become part of any discussion and was (again) quite impressed with it: clever lyrics, good guitar (this being punk), and crisp production. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Post by Adey on Oct 17, 2006 16:24:56 GMT
As a piece of r'n'r, "Never Mind.." is just fine - and yes, Steve Jone's guitars are nicely tracked up and competently played. But it is just r'n'roll after all. The album has acquired this great mystique, as the crowning achievement of this so called revolution - "this tidal wave of simplicity, energy and truth".. Well it ain't - it's just r'n'r is all. As for topical ~ well it's just a product of it's era isn't it? In the same way that the relentless wall of young 'cute' boy bands broke over us here in the late 90s, was topical. Or have I missed your point? Is it that the abum was released in the Queen's silver jubilee year? I don't see anything particularly topical about Holidays in the Sun, Pretty Vacant etc.
I agree with your assertion that rock music is a retrospective re-telling of an earlier (probably blues based) era. I guess that by 1969 it had already all been done..
If clever lyricism constitutes (and I quote from memory) "God save the Queen, a fascist regime, made you a moron, potential 'H' bomb.." then we clearly disagree on what is 'clever'.
Of all the music from that era - I actually felt that the Stranglers did a much better job. But then they were comitted to music and had paid their musical dues well enough to justify the hype, rather than the Pistols stated objective of making a million dollars..
Sorry to any that disagree, but I still see "Never Mind the B*ll*cks" as overrated, and that is what the question asked of me is it not?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Oct 18, 2006 18:59:03 GMT
But it is just r'n'roll after all. ... just rock'n'roll? What then is rock'n'roll? Artistic endeavors affect those who hear/see/experience them and for this reason it is never just anything. Yes, it is an album of its era. The difference between the Pistols and the boy bands is that the the former had a point and the latter didn't. I'll get to "the point", as I see it, later on when I briefly mention a few of the songs. [/i][/quote] Pretty Vacant - A comment on the upper crust to middle class section of English society. Oh we're so pretty oh so pretty vacantSame today as it ever was... Holidays in the Sun - A cheap holiday in other peoples misery! is the beginning. This is how the Empire marketed its empire building endeavors. The song starts with the sound of marching boots. This is certainly a song with a point. I think this song pairs well with a line from Pretty Vacant - I don't believe illusions 'cos too much is real.God Save the Queen has a POV to to it and it is that there is no future in England's dreaming. It's the point of the album. and so on... I have heard the Stranglers, but only barely - I've heard an album called The Raven (I believe) and I do recall liking it. I'll add them to "The List." The Sex Pistols, individually, were a collective mess with Johnny Rotten being the sane one of the bunch. Really, I don't believe it an accurate blanket statement to say that they were not commited to music - Johnny Rotten/Lydon is still making music and if he really was in it just for the money then he's gone about things in a very strange way since Public Image Ltd hasn't been exactly a radio friendly band. And anyway, as far as stated objective - all artists are liars, and are particualry so when talking about their own music - I don't believe any of 'em. That said, I do imagine that they wanted to make some money - but that's just rock 'n' roll. Yes, certainly; I have no problem with this discussion. I don't believe it's an overrated album but I won't argue your right to believe it is.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 19, 2006 21:16:38 GMT
Well, I'm glad to see this generated some discussion. Again, I didn't think any of the albums I mentioned were bad per se, I just don't believe they deserve the rep they now have. Sgt. Peppers was the hardest for me to include on the list, because I did spend many hours listening to it ("A day in the Life" had the only great drumming Ringo ever did . . . being a drummer I can say that) , but in the end I really feel it lacks the essential energy of r'n'r; it's too sterile. Sex Pistols were all energy but there was a Frisco band from the 60's, Blue Cheer (one of my guilty pleasures) who were considered the forerunners of both punk and heavy metal and who had it all over them (and one of rock's greatest drummers). I found it interesting that 2 Pink Floyd albums were mentioned by others; I tend to agree because I loved their earlier stuff and they seemed to lose steam (energy)on their popular stuff, but I, too, will always be grateful to Gilmore for Kate (and about 4 of his solos). As for rock in general, it is always a product of the times and part of "great" works is their influence, I suppose. Punk was an answer to the contrivance of disco and REO rock and Grunge an answer to mousse rock. While we can be grateful for that influence, in hindsight it's possible to judge purely on their artistic merits. Do they stand that test? Hendrix, Kate's The Kick Inside and all the rest, Gabriel and many other still resonate and are valid today in all respects. The Beatles have their place in rock locked in, but I think Kate's many English musical theater meets progressive rock excursions ("There Goes a Tenner," "Wuthering Heights," etc.) were far superior to the ones that were prevalent on Sgt. Pepper). ;D
|
|
Gelid
Reaching Out
An owl on the sill.
Posts: 309
|
Post by Gelid on Oct 20, 2006 2:38:14 GMT
Michael, I agree that those albums you mentioned aren’t as good as they are made out to be, but like it or not, they are important releases, because of their effect on the musical landscape. Rock music shouldn’t be held up to the same standards as other music: It is all about appealing to the public, and that public is fickle. A great rock album has to first be a product of it’s time, or define it’s time. It can be more, but it has to at least be that. ... Rock shoud be meaningful--that is sort of the point-- ... Rock doesn’t have to be meaningful. It’s nice when a song has a real-world point to it, and the performers manage to clearly get it across, but the whole point of rock is to party all night, sleep all day, and get laid often. It’s been that way since the mid 1950’s. I love rock and roll, but I don’t like to see people hold it up as some high art form because it isn’t. That’s probably why albums like The Beatles’ SPLHCB are so overrated. As an album it’s not bad, but it got people thinking differently about what they could write and record. It defined it’s time, and many more bands followed its example with better releases. The Beatles will always be known for their great ability to write and deliver catchy pop songs; THAT is their legacy. Nirvana came out in the right place at the right time. The hair bands of the latter 80’s were probably truer to the spirit of rock and roll, but toward the end got waaay too over the top, actually laughable. Nirvana was a reaction to that and started the whole Seattle grunge thing. The Sex Pistols were a reaction to the Prog Rock era, and ushered in the Punk movement and opened the door for New-Wave. These bands were good enough to be there at the right place to be heard at the right time.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin2 on Oct 21, 2006 15:54:35 GMT
Rock music shouldn’t be held up to the same standards as other music: It is all about appealing to the public, and that public is fickle. I don't believe that it all about any one particular thing. I don't see any reason either why it should be held to a different standard than is rap, blues, jazz, classical, etc. - I have yet to see any form of music that does not attempt to appeal to the public. Bob Dylan's song Hurricane, to pick one of many possible examples, is most certainly not all about appealing to the public. It is just as clear too that the artist is not all about appealing to the public. Bob Dylan is of course in Rock; how then can rock be all about appealing to the public? Artists such as this are every bit as much a part of rock/pop music as are Styx, Journey, REO Speedwagon, 'N Sync, Black-Eyed Peas, Fall Out Boy, and so on... and for every Stickwitu or My Humps there is an Ohio or Running Up That Hill. Yes I agree and even though I'll say it a bit differently I believe it has the same or very similar view behind it: It is very difficult for a content-free album to be considered an overrated album. Despite all its sales and popularity I have never heard anyone say that Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet album is overrated - it's simply not in the playing field. I can think of a few content-free albums that can be granted the status of being influential enough to be considered overrated - the first Van Halen album, well OK that's all I can think of at the moment - but even though I'm pretty sure I could come up with more they are pretty rare and I think they will almost exclusively rely on outstanding instrumentation and/or highly unusual vocals. So yeah, it's not enough for an artist to be considered overrated if they simply write catchy pop songs. I disagree it has ever been the whole point. What was the point of The Beatles' Revolution? Well I'm sure you aren't arguing that there are no meaningful songs to be found in Rock... so I'm mostly unsure about why you are also arguing that Rock is all about sex and drugs and all about appealing to the public. I mean, I know you're not unfamiliar with indie/alt artists - they are most certanly not all about appealing to the public and whatever their sex or drug habits may be many of them do manage to write songs containing a POV. Even if you are correct it doesn't then follow that it should be relegated to the lowest common denominator either. And really, what is a high art form? Is it one that doesn't appeal to the public? Shakespeare's theater was attended by the common blokes of the area - or so I've heard. And yet despite that the plays of Shakespeare are now considered to be works of high art - I guess they are anyway. If a work of art inspires the viewer/listener to think outside of herself then it meets my working definition of high art. It has more to do with the listener/viwerer than it does the artist. Re: Sgt. Peppers And unfortunately it also inspired a great vast horde of bands to record far worse albums. ehh.. all in all, I view this album as being probably the single most unfortunate event in the history of Rock. And on that note... EDIT: I mean, Grimm... your sig is a quote by Robert Fripp!
|
|
|
Post by matanchik on Oct 21, 2006 16:17:39 GMT
Rock music shouldn’t be held up to the same standards as other music: It is all about appealing to the public i think you are confusing here Rock with Pop, Pop is the genre that is all about apealing to the public, Rock have allways been and will be less commercial than pop, although there are lots of exceptions. i must disagree with all the nirvana bashing, although i agree they were a bit overrated, their'e still a great band whose music wins the test of time , Nevermind for me is the Sgt. pepper of alternative music, an album which represent a whole generation. and i disagree with Xan that you allways need to hear the words the singer sings, that's what lyrics sheet is for
|
|
Gelid
Reaching Out
An owl on the sill.
Posts: 309
|
Post by Gelid on Oct 21, 2006 18:54:58 GMT
[I disagree it has ever been the whole point. What was the point of The Beatles' Revolution? Well I'm sure you aren't arguing that there are no meaningful songs to be found in Rock... so I'm mostly unsure about why you are also arguing that Rock is all about sex and drugs and all about appealing to the public. I mean, I know you're not unfamiliar with indie/alt artists - they are most certanly not all about appealing to the public and whatever their sex or drug habits may be many of them do manage to write songs containing a POV. You're right, I don't mean there aren't any meaningful songs in rock. People use it as a vehicle to express a point of view (The Beatles' Revolution, Dylan, Indie & Alt rock) and rock evolves through the years, but it always cycles back to three or four players singing about having a good time, whatever that may involve. [And really, what is a high art form? Is it one that doesn't appeal to the public? Shakespeare's theater was attended by the common blokes of the area - or so I've heard. And yet despite that the plays of Shakespeare are now considered to be works of high art - I guess they are anyway. If a work of art inspires the viewer/listener to think outside of herself then it meets my working definition of high art. It has more to do with the listener/viwerer than it does the artist. Shakespeare’s training, whether self taught or schooled, was well rounded. (I’m a little out of my league there, but humor me…) whereas Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis … they were good at a specific style. Anyway, my point was rock can be molded to suit lots of different tastes, and played in it’s most basic form with minimal musical training as compared to classical, opera, jazz, etc. which require a certain amount of formal training and commitment. Didn’t mean to issue a blanket statement saying Michael is wrong and I am right, because rock is many different things to many different people. I do, however, agree on your selections for overrated albums, Michael! When I first heard the complete Sergeant Pepper’s album when I bought it in 1987 I was very disappointed. Influential, yes. Good, eh … some people liked it. To save a derailed topic, here is my pick for an overrated album: Born To Run by Bruce Springsteen. It has some classic songs, but as an album I don't think it's that good.
|
|
|
Post by Xanadu on Oct 22, 2006 1:58:16 GMT
and i disagree with Xan that you allways need to hear the words the singer sings, that's what lyrics sheet is for Did I say that? I don't care if they're singing in Pig Latin, I just like to have lyrics around somewhere to relate to. Hey, but even I have softened on that and listen to a lot of French, German and Italian singing now. I like opera, right? ;D
|
|
|
Post by matanchik on Oct 22, 2006 6:51:35 GMT
as far as overrated i would mention coldplay, not just one album but as a band, i just can't understand why the critics are so enthusiastic about a band which music is so bland and unoriginal (they even admitted that "speed of sound" is actually a re-work of Kate's "running up that hill")
|
|