Music: Most Overrated and Most Underrated Rock Band in History

[Lshap]

Overrated/Underrated is really a comment on people's perceptions of an artist, not the artist themselves. Get too much love and the artist becomes overrated; ignored and they become underrated. The artist hasn't changed, only our perception of them.

I'm surrounded by a lot of musicians, so we lean towards the dudes who are off the map or more complex. In my world, the Beach Boys are never underrated because we're always picking apart their moving harmony parts and analyzing Brian Wilson's weirdo arrangements. The songs may have become background muzak to today's crowd, but most musicians still worship at Wilson's savant gift.

But I'm not a snob. I was never a big Stones fan, but I recognize a catchy groove when I hear it. And however you judge charisma, Jagger has it in spades. Their sound has never strayed far from their wheelhouse, but it's rock comfort-food.

Here's a nominee for underrated: Yes. I never cared about the band either way before. I know they get dismissed as pretentious, overproduced prog-rock, and really... does every song have to be 8 minutes? But I was just listening to a few of their tracks from the 70s and early 80s and, holy shit, were these guys amazing musicians! Great melodies sung by one of the most unique voices in modern music, plus arrangements that fuse together creatively and perfectly. Yeah... the tunes are still too long, but if you have the patience, Yes is worth revisiting.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Overrated/Underrated is really a comment on people's perceptions of an artist, not the artist themselves. Get too much love and the artist becomes overrated; ignored and they become underrated. The artist hasn't changed, only our perception of them.

I'm surrounded by a lot of musicians, so we lean towards the dudes who are off the map or more complex. In my world, the Beach Boys are never underrated because we're always picking apart their moving harmony parts and analyzing Brian Wilson's weirdo arrangements. The songs may have become background muzak to today's crowd, but most musicians still worship at Wilson's savant gift.

But I'm not a snob. I was never a big Stones fan, but I recognize a catchy groove when I hear it. And however you judge charisma, Jagger has it in spades. Their sound has never strayed far from their wheelhouse, but it's rock comfort-food.

Here's a nominee for underrated: Yes. I never cared about the band either way before. I know they get dismissed as pretentious, overproduced prog-rock, and really... does every song have to be 8 minutes? But I was just listening to a few of their tracks from the 70s and early 80s and, holy shit, were these guys amazing musicians! Great melodies sung by one of the most unique voices in modern music, plus arrangements that fuse together creatively and perfectly. Yeah... the tunes are still too long, but if you have the patience, Yes is worth revisiting.

Strangely enough I never listened to Yes much either and I just started listening a couple of weeks ago. I agree. Amazing musicians.

 

[PANARIN BREAD FAN]

Overrated/Underrated is really a comment on people's perceptions of an artist, not the artist themselves. Get too much love and the artist becomes overrated; ignored and they become underrated. The artist hasn't changed, only our perception of them.

I'm surrounded by a lot of musicians, so we lean towards the dudes who are off the map or more complex. In my world, the Beach Boys are never underrated because we're always picking apart their moving harmony parts and analyzing Brian Wilson's weirdo arrangements. The songs may have become background muzak to today's crowd, but most musicians still worship at Wilson's savant gift.

But I'm not a snob. I was never a big Stones fan, but I recognize a catchy groove when I hear it. And however you judge charisma, Jagger has it in spades. Their sound has never strayed far from their wheelhouse, but it's rock comfort-food.

Here's a nominee for underrated: Yes. I never cared about the band either way before. I know they get dismissed as pretentious, overproduced prog-rock, and really... does every song have to be 8 minutes? But I was just listening to a few of their tracks from the 70s and early 80s and, holy shit, were these guys amazing musicians! Great melodies sung by one of the most unique voices in modern music, plus arrangements that fuse together creatively and perfectly. Yeah... the tunes are still too long, but if you have the patience, Yes is worth revisiting.

during the period when the metal guitar players was at the max heights of popularity those guys would always claim that they could play anything. whenever someone, "what about the yes song the clap?" the answer was always yeah everything but that one.

 

[Roo Returns]

Age is not always a factor with the older music. I love the Stones, Hendrix, The Doors, The Band, and many others Zeppelin just does nothing for me. The song writing and storytelling was much better when I was younger. Nothing against the most recent music it’s just how I feel.
I graduated in 1984 so a lot of the music we grew up with is what you are going to like the most. I do think that is a big factor, it’s just not 100 percent true.

The argument I have with this post is the "does nothing for me/that's how I feel".

Zep was the biggest rock band in the 70s. They sold records and sold out concerts. Their songwriting was sophisticated once they got to III and that continued to In Through The Out Door.

I know there's the scientific argument we tend to gravitate towards the music of our early adolescents. Somewhat true. Zep was done before I was born, and post punk was pretty big in the underground. All stuff I love.

I can make a counter; I think Taylor Swift makes Starbucks quality soulless music for the plain Janes and Nick Cave makes the most pretentious droning music ever, however I can't say that either are overrated based on influence and popularity.

Out of the grunge/alternative genre Soundgarden is the best out of them all. Badmotorfinger was almost a perfect record. Besides Chris Cornell was one of the best frontmen ever.

In some ways they get underrated because they only had one huge record in SuperUnknown. Badmotorfinger did well and is an excellent record, just not as mainstream as the other 91-93 grunge albums. And Down On The Upside gets overlooked.

 

[Roo Returns]

Almost all of Pearl Jam's timeless songs / hits predate Cobain's death though.

As a band they changed about halfway through Vitalogy. They became arena rock.

 

[Roo Returns]

I can maybe see that with McCartney, but personally, I think Lennon and Harrison have more of a knack for coming across as feeling sincere in that type of music (regardless of any real-life contradictions).

Just on a surface level, without any deeper analysis, when I hear Mick Jagger, I'm just thinking "yeah right this is something you care about" the whole time, and Robert Plant, I'm just thinking "this guy's in love with hearing his own voice and probably treats lyrics like nothing more than a means to that end or something."

And maybe they actually are sincere, but as artists, I feel like they're pretty bad at creating that illusion/image when they do it, or at least that's how they come across to me.

Plant's lyrics matured after Led Zep II. He also stopped singing high after his accident, before Presence.

Jagger has always been a style over substance guy. That's a big part of the feud with Richards for the better part of 30 years.

Stones and AC/DC I'd say are both great bands. A con of either is the guitar playing/tone is always relatively dry compared to their peers.

 

[Shareefruck]

Hmmm, if I read this post ten times, then I'd possibly get your point(s). At least right now I'm struggling a bit; it's Saturday afternoon, and apparently I'm feeling, er, too good.

The best AC/DC songs and albums have legendary riffs AND they are 'undoubtedly catchy' AND they really move ('the ape in') me. That's good enough as far as I'm concerned, and it's not as simple or easy as it maybe sounds imo. What, should their music also make me cry too? Or make me have some deep thoughts? There's plenty of other music for that, but on the other hand, it doesn't 'kick ass' as hard as the best of AC/DC does. Musical development or challenges, that's not AC/DC, but in their own niche, I don't consider them overrated.

Only my opinion, of course, and admittedly, I haven't listened to their post For Those About to Rock (1981) material in ages, so my rants concern mostly the earlier stuff.

My entire post was basically about me feeling that it has nothing to do with deep thoughts, making you cry, musical development, or challenge as well. I'm saying that personally, even when it comes to "kicking ass", appealing to the "ape" in me, or giving me a gutteral-ly exhilarating, primal feeling, I don't think AC/DC really does that very well, or at all for me (there's nothing particularly rough/raw/harsh/extreme/unhinged about their sound, so it barely feels like it's going far enough in any direction to even attempt to go after my more primal/gutteral feelings).

To my ears, they mostly just sound like baseline serviceable entertaining/catchy party music that helps the time pass in a pretty neutral/safe way and not much else (kind of similarly to crowd-pleasing top 40 pop music, but with riffs), but obviously your mileage may vary.

 

[MK9]

Overrated? Toss up between Rage Against The Machine and System Of A Down.

Or...Ghost. Ghost is another solid choice for that one.

Underrated...would be very difficult to pick just one.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Overrated/Underrated is really a comment on people's perceptions of an artist, not the artist themselves. Get too much love and the artist becomes overrated; ignored and they become underrated. The artist hasn't changed, only our perception of them. ...

Overrated: Queen.

Underrated: MN's The Replacements, Peter Green's British Fleetwood Mac, The Band, XTC, The Cramps.

 

[Lshap]

You could say this about anything, it just avoids the subject and says nothing.

Nothing 'says nothing' like proclaiming someone's comment says nothing.

Thank you for a pointless and rude reply.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Overrated/Underrated is really a comment on people's perceptions of an artist, not the artist themselves. Get too much love and the artist becomes overrated; ignored and they become underrated. The artist hasn't changed, only our perception of them.

I'm surrounded by a lot of musicians, so we lean towards the dudes who are off the map or more complex. In my world, the Beach Boys are never underrated because we're always picking apart their moving harmony parts and analyzing Brian Wilson's weirdo arrangements. The songs may have become background muzak to today's crowd, but most musicians still worship at Wilson's savant gift.

But I'm not a snob. I was never a big Stones fan, but I recognize a catchy groove when I hear it. And however you judge charisma, Jagger has it in spades. Their sound has never strayed far from their wheelhouse, but it's rock comfort-food.

Here's a nominee for underrated: Yes. I never cared about the band either way before. I know they get dismissed as pretentious, overproduced prog-rock, and really... does every song have to be 8 minutes? But I was just listening to a few of their tracks from the 70s and early 80s and, holy shit, were these guys amazing musicians! Great melodies sung by one of the most unique voices in modern music, plus arrangements that fuse together creatively and perfectly. Yeah... the tunes are still too long, but if you have the patience, Yes is worth revisiting.

Yes was my favourite band for many years. (I still think very highly of them, but I no longer rank them first).

There are few bands, in any genre, that can match their six-album run from the 1970's ("The Yes Album", "Fragile", "Close to the Edge", "Tales from Topographic Oceans", "Relayer" and "Going for the One"). The level of musicianship is extraordinary. Each of the four main instrumentalists (Chris Squire - bass, Rick Wakeman - keyboards etc, Bill Bruford - drums and Steve Howe - guitars) are among the most technically proficient musicians in the history of rock music. Their songs are complex and lengthy (they released three consecutive albums where the shortest composition was nine minutes long) - but, at least during the 1970's, they consistently wrote songs with interesting and memorable melodies. (I'll contrast that with King Crimson. They're another one of my favourite bands, but even at their peak, they wrote countless songs that were aimless, intentionally abrasive, and lacked a strong melodic foundation).

The three main criticisms of Yes (besides the fact that their songs are so long, and clearly not intended for the radio) centre around inconsistency, John Anderson's vocals, and "pretentiousness".

I agree that the band was inconsistent. Nothing that they released outside of that six album stretch was extraordinary. But, like I said, few bands have ever had such a strong, sustained peak. Besides , nobody's forcing anyone to listen to "Union".

Anderson isn't for everyone. Yes, his vocals are high-pitched, but I don't see that as a serious criticism given the popularity of AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, etc. His lyrics are highly abstract ("Shining, flying, purple wolfhound, show me where you are"), but, at times, they convey his emotions in subtle and interesting ways. Anderson is one of the least charismatic singers in rock history. He's not trying to amp up the crowd. But his vocals fit perfectly into Yes's songs. He consistently wrote great vocal melodies. I can't see him being the lead singer for nearly any other band; at the same time, I can't see Yes working with another vocalist.

The most serious criticism is that Yes is "pretentious". Yes, they had some grandiose projects (including an album with four 20 minute songs based on a book about an obscure Hindu figure). But I don't see the band's (considerable) ambition as a negative. There were thousands of bands in the 1970's that wrote weepy ballads or energetic hard rock. Yes should be praised, not criticized, for pushing the boundaries of the genre. Another related criticism is that Yes is "soulless" or "sterile". I disagree with that assessment. The band had some surprisingly dark songs - "South Side of the Sky" is about freezing to death. "Gates of Delirium" covers the prelude to war, the battle, and then surveying the damage (it's easy to picture the survivors walking through the plains, grimly observing the bloody corpses). The one-two punch of "Sound Chaser" and "To Be Over" is staggering. Ultimately, I agree that Yes is pretentious - but, at least at their peak, they had the musicianship and creativity to justify their grandiose ideas.

I can't pretend to be objective about Yes. They were my favourite band throughout most of university (and I still rank them very high on my list of favourite musicians). Clearly, given the structure of their music, they're not for everyone. But it's a shame that modern "classic rock radio" has essentially reduced them to just three songs ("Roundabout", "I've Seen All Good People" and "Owner of a Lonely Heart") - when there's so much more to their repertoire.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Overrated/Underrated is really a comment on people's perceptions of an artist, not the artist themselves. Get too much love and the artist becomes overrated; ignored and they become underrated. The artist hasn't changed, only our perception of them. ...

All we can know is our perceptions. By your argument no one can say anything about artists because their comments are "a comment on people's perceptions". This is simply wrong and bad freshman Philosophy. Real opinions about real bands exist in reality. Your off-topic paragraph literally says nothing about the topic which is overrated and underrated rock bands.

 

[Lshap]

All we can know is our perceptions. By your argument no one can say anything about artists because their comments are "a comment on people's perceptions". This is simply wrong and bad freshman Philosophy. Real opinions about real bands exist in reality. Your off-topic paragraph literally says nothing about the topic which is overrated and underrated rock bands.

You entirely misunderstood what I said. Like totally.

 

[Shareefruck]

I rarely understand the "songs too long" criticism. It happens, sure, but I feel like in general, the conventionally considered acceptable length of songs tend to be too short rather than the other way around, and most of my favorite tracks tend to be the ones that are considered too long (7-8 minutes feels about right, with several multiplying that number).

I feel like most 2-4 minute songs aren't as fleshed out and given sufficient room to breath and groove and spread themselves as they ideally should be. When I listen to Tomorrow Never Knows or something for example, as much as I love it, I find myself wishing it was a more "full" 7-12 minutes long experience, personally.

I also don't really understand the expectation that bands need to go on forever and remain good their entire career to be consistent. A solid six album stretch sounds absolutely massive and what you ideally aim for in a careety, in my eyes. That is consistent. I feel like most artists I've come across and like tend to be somewhat dismissible beyond their peak six album stretch. I can think of exceptions, but not a ton.

I'm saying both of these things as a non-Yes-fan.

 

[Cas]

I rarely understand the "songs too long" criticism. It happens, sure, but I feel like in general, the conventionally considered acceptable length of songs tend to be too short rather than the other way around, and most of my favorite tracks tend to be the ones that are considered too long (7-8 minutes feels about right, with several multiplying that number).

I feel like most 2-4 minute songs aren't as fleshed out and given sufficient room to breath and groove and spread themselves as they ideally should be. When I listen to Tomorrow Never Knows or something for example, as much as I love it, I find myself wishing it was a more "full" 7-12 minutes long experience, personally.

I also don't really understand the expectation that bands need to go on forever and remain good their entire career to be consistent. A solid six album stretch sounds absolutely massive and what you ideally aim for in a careety, in my eyes. That is consistent. I feel like most artists I've come across and like tend to be somewhat dismissible beyond their peak six album stretch. I can think of exceptions, but not a ton.

I'm saying both of these things as a non-Yes-fan.

Some songs are too long because they plod and don't go anywhere - Electric Wizard and Iron Maiden, both in recent years, are very guilty of this.

I don't think that applies to Yes.

 

[VMBM]

The one-two punch of "Sound Chaser" and "To Be Over" is staggering. Ultimately, I agree that Yes is pretentious - but, at least at their peak, they had the musicianship and creativity to justify their grandiose ideas.

Oh man, "Sound Chaser" is one of those songs that for me are fairly easy to admire but totally impossible to love; where is the heart and soul in it? If — in the future — there is music made by robots for other robots, I bet it sounds something like that! I didn't like it even when Yes was my favorite band in the mid-1990s. But I guess that's Yes at their closest to jazz fusion as they ever got, and I'm just not a big fan of it. "Gates of Delirium" (Relayer) is brilliant, though.

 

[Roo Returns]

Overrated: Queen.

Underrated: MN's The Replacements, Peter Green's British Fleetwood Mac, The Band, XTC, The Cramps.

Really? Have you listened to many of their albums? I'd say Bohemian Rhapsody is an overplayed song, but their discography even only if you go up to at earliest News of the World and as late as Flash Gordon has more than enough substance.

And The Prophet Song is a top ten banger of all time.

 

[sr edler]

Smashing Pumpkins were/are underrated not commercially but critically because their frontman was/is such a whiny weirdo.

 

[pegcity]

Every-time I see a list of overrated rock bands/artists, it's usually U2, Bruce Springsteen, ACDC, G&R, Nirvana etc.

IMO, all those bands are a little bit of an acquired tastes (Yes, even Nirvana when you exclude Smells like Teen Spirit). There were periods of my life that I did not like them, but they all grew on me.

Every song of ACDC sounded the same (just loud yelly noise). But if you are in the mood, they have catchy, energizing, fun tunes. They are going to bring that loud sound every time (their concerts are/were great).

For Springsteen, I originally went off of his commercial successful song, which aren't a representative sample of his music. When you dig into his catalogue (there is ALOT of catalogue), every album has memorable passionate song(s) that are not commercial friendly. Great nighttime listening.

Anyway, so the correct answer for overrated is the Foo Fighters . I mean they are okay, but how they are selling out Stadiums is beyond me.

For underrated, I'll go with the Glorious Sons. They are doing well in Canada, playing arenas, but in the USA, they are playing a lot of bars. Over the past 10 years, they have been my favourite band.

 

[Roo Returns]

Every-time I see a list of overrated rock bands/artists, it's usually U2, Bruce Springsteen, ACDC, G&R, Nirvana etc.

IMO, all those bands are a little bit of an acquired tastes (Yes, even Nirvana when you exclude Smells like Teen Spirit). There were periods of my life that I did not like them, but they all grew on me.

Every song of ACDC sounded the same (just loud yelly noise). But if you are in the mood, they have catchy, energizing, fun tunes. They are going to bring that loud sound every time (their concerts are/were great).

For Springsteen, I originally went off of his commercial successful song, which aren't a representative sample of his music. When you dig into his catalogue (there is ALOT of catalogue), every album has memorable passionate song(s) that are not commercial friendly. Great nighttime listening.

Anyway, so the correct answer for overrated is the Foo Fighters . I mean they are okay, but how they are selling out Stadiums is beyond me.

For underrated, I'll go with the Glorious Sons. They are doing well in Canada, playing arenas, but in the USA, they are playing a lot of bars. Over the past 10 years, they have been my favourite band.

Foo Fighters have like 3-4 really good albums. The reason they get so much press is because Dave Grohl is a really nice and funny guy, and he has no problem telling you and everyone about it.

There was like a five year period where the press would go to him for a quote or he'd have what seemed like fireside chats with the press on any subject. The most ridiculous was asking if he'd play in a Rush reunion, and his basic perfect PR quote about Billie Eilesh.

I'm glad he seems like a genuine dude, that's great. The problem is whether intentionally or unintentionally, he's become like the keeper of the 7 decade legacy of rock music. There are other people out there too.