The Most Overrated Bands
There are bands whose accolades, both critical and cultural, far exceed that which they deserve. Most of these bands are fairly decent, and a few have produced some genuinely great music. But do they really deserve to be considered among the greatest artists ever? Read on and decide for yourself.
-
Aerosmith
It’s hard to imagine any band as ridiculously overrated as Aerosmith. Looking at their most popular songs on Rhapsody we get Dream On, Sweet Emotion, I Don’t Want To Miss A Thing, and then Janie’s Got a Gun. The first two are basically fine songs, but the drop in quality between those and Janie’s Got A Gun is huge. If Aerosmith weren’t already famous that song would have only received modest rotation.
There is nothing in the Aerosmith catalog that goes beyond that of a mediocre bar band. Yet they are considered one of the greatest bands ev-ar. Well, I’m here to tell you: No.
I mean really, look at this picture to the right. If you saw them in a bar you’d make fun of them the whole friggin’ time.
-
The Police
This is the band that prompted this article because of the recent reuniting of the band. These guys are bland. Super bland. Yet the general impression is that they are not only one of the most popular acts ever, but also one of the most important. Fans adore them for their singles, and musicians adore them for their supposed musicianship.
But take a look at their songs and I think you will find that most of them are just fine. There are some great ones like Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic. But are Canary In A Coalmine, King of Pain, or Tea In The Sahara really such great songs that people should be going into apoleptic fits over them getting back together?
We tend to forget that the majority of Police songs feature Sting’s wailing whiny vocals and Stewart Copeland’s tricky but dull drumming. And really, did the world actually need a rockin’ reggae band?
-
Eric Clapton
Everyone who thinks this guy is the greatest guitarist of the rock generation step forward. Not so fast, there, Eric Clapton! The heaps of lavish praise showered on Clapton is outlandish, especially considering a large portion of it came from the guitarist himself.
The John Williams of rock and blues, Clapton has directly stolen every riff he’s ever played from blues artists like Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, and others. Yet he is still recognized as a singular talent who is able to create the sound of the universe crying through his brilliant fretwork. C’mon. Wonderful Tonight and I Shot The Sheriff are fine songs, but that’s it. They’re fine.
-
Michael Jackson
Strip away the eccentricities and controversy surrounding Michael Jackson, and the world still agrees that he is one of the most talented entertainers of the 20th century. People were outraged when that dumb Hootie and the Blowfish album outsold Thriller. But is that such a shame, really? In terms of longevity, other acts of the ’80s have demonstrated that their music is worth listening to today. Prince, for instance, made music that still sounds exciting today. When’s the last time you heard someone singing PYT or Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’?
Off the Wall, arguably his best album, benefited from the fact that Michael Jackson released it. If Cameo or Kool and the Gang made that album (not much of a stretch), it would be regarded as a solid album in the funk/pop era of the late ’70s/early ’80s. Though, if Cameo put it out, we’d still be wondering why that dude was wearing a codpiece.
(Side note: The more surgery Michael Jackson has, the more he looks like the dum-dum son of Sean McNamara on Nip/Tuck.)
-
Bruce Springsteen
At this point in the list the artists show more merit than those above, but still have success and acclaim beyond what their music deserves.
This is a tough one because The Bruce is pretty darned good… or is he? As a songwriter there’s very little to complain about. On the other hand, covers of Springsteen songs are way more enjoyable then the original performances. Blinded By The Light is a part of rock canon, but it’s not the original version, it’s Manfred Mann’s groovy synthesizer-driven hit.
It’s hard to fully understand the accolades foisted upon Bruce Springsteen. This is a guy who’s manager was a critic who quit being a critic just to be Bruce’s manager. Thank god Bob Christgau never felt that way, or we would have had the review, “Yello? Chickenshi.”
-
Metallica
I want to take back what I just said about artists having merit as we get farther away from number one, but truthfully Metallica is a decent band. Grotesquely, insanely, blindingly, horrifyingly, violently overrated, but still pretty decent. Personality-wise, they all pretty much complete jerks, especially former tennis pro turned public nuisance Lars Ulrich.
But are they “easily the best … heavy metal band of the ’80s?” After creating a brilliant, if rough around the edges debut, they followed it with three undeniably classic metal albums. Unfortunately, they followed these up with four of the most disappointing, if not downright embarassing metal albums ever created. Unfortunately their fans seem to have missed the fact that Metallica has not made a decent album since 1988 and still hail them as being a truly masterful band, instead of the sad disappointment they turned out to be.
There is also a severe question of their sincerity in their anger. Their music purports to be angry, and yet it always sounds like a teenage girl freaking out at her father because he won’t give her a Mercedes for her 16th birthday. The genuine psychotic anger of artists like Foetus or John McLaughlin is absent in this music.
-
U2
It is very hard to accurately estimate the value of U2. On the one hand they have made some genuinely landmark music. On the other hand, they have repeatedly told us this since their inception. They are pompous, aggravating jerks, and that often shows in their music. If Bono were to “shut up about Africa,” as Liam Gallagher suggested, would they make better music or would they spend more time in the studio working on their next genius work of art?
With Or Without You is really just okay, and Pride (In The Name Of Love) is fairly dull. Sunday Bloody Sunday is a song I never need to hear again. Outside of a handful of songs, how much of what they’ve made is truly great?
-
The Doors
This could be the number one most overrated band if it weren’t for one thing: They are occasionally very good. Few bands have made such an adventurous first album which included The Crystal Ship, Alabama Song, Light My Fire, and The End. The follow up albums, on the other hand contained more than their fair share of poo. I Can’t See Your Face In My Mind could be a parody of The Doors, while Yes, The River Knows is supremely cheesy (though it could have been a very good Genesis song, oddly). And seriously, My Wild Love is so dopey.
Though they did occasionally make some great music after the first album (Hello, I Love You, Five To One, Riders On The Storm), the hosannas remained despite weaker efforts. And really, Morrison? Not so much the poet.
-
Nirvana
There was a time when the importance of Nirvana was inescapable. Popular music in the beginning of the ’90s was pretty horrible and Nirvana was the most famous of the new bands that brought Rawk back to fans. But they weren’t the only band in the grunge scene, nor were they the style’s biggest innovators. More importantly, had it not been for the enormous popularity of classic rock radio Nirvana would have been nothing more than another indie band.
Being fresh and innovative isn’t the most important thing in music, of course. Passion and sincerity are more important. Unfortunately, like the Doors, they were amateurish with the patina of sincerity and passion. Regardless, people think of them as being the innovators and creators of a new style of music–a style that was ostensibly being played on classic rock radio.
What does it mean that I like Foo Fighters more than Nirvana?
-
The Beach Boys
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Beach Boys. I have most of their albums (up until L.A.) and even the Pet Sounds Sessions box set. They made some of the best songs in the history of music (God Only Knows, Good Vibrations). But Brian Wilson has made more crap than just about any of the other rock greats, including John Lennon who almost made this list. Making the situation worse is the input of Mike Love, possibly the biggest moron ever in one of the great bands. The myriad problems with the Beach Boys include:
– Mind numbingly stupid lyrics: A Day In The Life Of A Tree, Student Demonstration Time….
– Inconsistent production: Depending on who wrote the song, their music could sound like completely different groups. Listen to Surf’s Up, my 2nd favorite BB album, and there’s a world of difference between Disney Girls, Surf’s Up, and Long Promised Road.
– Laziness: Brian Wilson did make a number of masterpieces, but he was also lazy as all get out. Smile might have been an excellent album, but it would never be finished because it was too hard for him to do. It took him nearly thirty years, therapy, and a hardcore group of fanboys to make the new Smile album even come out.The great music they made will stand as the great music is deserves to recognized. But you can’t overlook the overwhelming poop that they have produced in a ratio of 2:1 to that great stuff. The problem is that there is this acceptance that the Beach Boys are great, and no one really knows why.
It pains me to say this. But it also pains me that John Stamos toured with the Beach Boys as a replacement for Carl Wilson (see picture).
Disagree with my choices? Think I torqued it up on the ranking? Lemme know! Let’s get this settled once and for all.
Thanks to Mike Hollinger, Skip Smith, and Geoff Lowrey for their help in compiling this list.
Yr fthfl buddy,
Mike
I really think that the peppers of red hot chilli should be somewhere in the top five. Probably replacing Springsteen, I”ve never heard people go on and on about him.
Would it be evil of me to suggest Johnny Cash doesn’t deserve his iconic status? I mean as far as I can tell he wasn’t much of a musician, he didn’t really write any of his good songs, and it’s not as though he was an amazing singer or anything.
Allow me to sum up…
Though I hate to sound overly critical or too negative, and maybe I’m missing a joke behind this one, but that’s a lot of reading to just reach the same reason each time. In short, the ruling opinion seems to be “they did X number of decent/fine/OK songs, but otherwise they’re weird, jerks, etc. and the rest of what they’ve done just sucked.” So they impressed you a few times but didn’t blow your skirt up every time? Isn’t that true of any band/artist in existence? For example, I happen to hold Mozart as my favorite musical artist of all time, yet I still think “The Magic Flute” is wonderous while “Don Giovanni,” as brilliant as it may be, doesn’t always “do it” for me. But do I claim he’s on my shit list for a few perceived bad works? Nope. Besides, these bands and artists have clearly done well with their music, so there must be something of worth in what they’ve done – good and bad.
OK, that being said, what about the Dave Matthews Band? Are half garbled/mumbled lyrics and the SAME MUSICAL SOUND in every song really worth more merit than the bands Mikey discusses here? And personally, the previously mentioned Hootie and the Blowfish amounts to nothing more than possibly the most widely-heard college band ever, but in the end, most people are embarrassed to have “Cracked Rear View” spotted in their CD collections.
Also, is it really fair to judge these artists beyond their music? If we’re to include personalities as well as music as part of the assessment, why only focus on the negative? Yes, some may find Bono to be a world class jerk, Metallica’s “anger” may be fake and Brian Wilson was never accused of breaking any work speed records (get it?), but Bono is also a brilliant proponent about world affairs, Metallica managed to tap into some relevant and subconscious anger in society and…er…well I really can’t think of anything Brian Wilson has done to benefit mankind (though his sounding like Bill Murray in “Caddyshack” arguably is enough).
Basically, what I’m getting at is there are far worse bands and artists out there, and music being subjective, I’ve heard more than a few of Mike’s beloved bands and artists that I probably would die happily never hearing again. Besides Mike, you didn’t say a word about Bon Jovi, Def Leppard or Mr. Mister and we know how much you can’t stand their music!
You’re fucking retarded
Nirvana overratd? They unarguably revolutionised music and completely shifted he way american’s listened to music. Sure, there will always be those who insist that Nevermind was more of cultural import than musical, but they will also be full of shit: Nirvana are, a decade later, still regarded as the greatest and most legendary band of the 1990s. This band proved to a whole new generation that technical prowess has no bearing on quality, inspired their fans to seek out the music that slipped beneath the commercial radar, and then had the balls to be ridiculously, unthinkably fucking brilliant.