Music: Please post your 10 most overrated albums

[Roo Returns]

U2 in my mind were at their best captured live at Red Rocks circa 1984 (?) with I Will Follow, New Year's Day, Sunday Bloody Sunday, etc., Also, I thought the best song from the Joshua Tree recordings was Silver And Gold which didn't make the cut. Anyway, I quite like JT but you're right it doesn't have the energy that it might have had and not really one of the top 40 of all-time or whatever.

I was driving with a friend to Lake Tahoe (from Saskatoon--what a drive) but we listened to the Joshua Tree twice through and it was good and everything Then we put on Morrison Hotel by The Doors and I just couldn't help but notice how much better, angrier, energetic with better songs and performances Morrison Hotel had in contrast to Joshua Tree. Not that anyone has ever directly compared the two albums (why would they?) but it just seemed so obvious listening to them back-to-back that The Doors just had something that U2 lacked. It is all personal preference and all but at that moment it kind of hit me how much better Jim Morrison and company were.

My Best-Carey

Jim Morrison was a super intense singer. There was also a mystique about him. The Doors were better players and more interesting players than U2 has been as well.

 

[Unholy Diver]

If you're a baseball fan think of a hitter like Dave Kingman or John Kruk for The Chronic. It's either a homerun or a strikeout. The best is the best, the interludes and non singles are so bad they kill the pace and momentum. Very important album though, I will not argue that.

Poor choice, John Kruk was a consistently solid to good hitter, 3 time all star, .300 career avg, didn't really strike out much or hit a lot of homers

 

[Roo Returns]

Poor choice, John Kruk was a consistently solid to good hitter, 3 time all star, .300 career avg, didn't really strike out much or hit a lot of homers

Alright Matt Stairs

 

[Shareefruck]

I find many classic albums overrated to varying degrees (like The Wall, London Calling, The Bends, Nevermind, etc), but one of the few that I outright actively dislike and don't see much of a silver lining in is My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy by Kanye West. I've never bought into the narrative that "he may be an ***-hole, but he makes undeniably great music!" in general. Most of his stuff sounds bad to my ears, and I don't like his sensibilities at all.

I also don't care for Paul McCartney's solo/Wings career, including Band on the Run or Ram (especially the way it was regularly treated as being equal to Lennon/Harrison's solo career-- None of McCartney's output comes remotely close to Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass, IMO) or The Ramones (there's some basic appeal, but it doesn't get past the superficial surface level for me-- they're like catchy, throwaway jingles to me that I never go back to, and are actually the furthest thing from what I love about that punk aesthetic).

The Wall is a weird one for me in that I like a lot of the way certain chunks of it sounds and the construction overall (it's at least a good album), but can't shake the impression of Roger Waters feeling himself, stroking his own ego, and pretentiously thinking that he's being such a brilliant genius throughout the album. Very melodramatic, inorganic, whine-y, obnoxious, and heavy-handed, IMO, even though it has a great sound and some great tracks that anchor it down. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it's like... the opposite of feeling effortless-- you can kind of inherently feel a desperate, try-hard, overly ambitious perfectionism to it that was more off-putting than awe-inspiring for me. Oddly enough, I didn't have that issue with Animals at all and think that's a nearly flawless album.

Another weird one is Forever Changes by Love, which is a very solid, in some ways beautiful, impressive, dynamic, and cohesive album that I do generally kind of like and admire, but the flowery awkward nonsense lyrics combined with the tortured-poet delivery bug the **** out of me (kind of in a MacArthur Park kind of way).

I also feel like there are tons of accessible, mid-level gateway alternative albums/bands from the 90s/2000s that college-aged males understandably eat up but that I don't think should be elevated to where they are, such as Nirvana, Arcade Fire, Muse, Interpol, Wilco, The Strokes, Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis, Nine Inch Nails, Modest Mouse, early Brit-pop Radiohead etc, likely because there's a shortage of accessible bands from those eras that actually deserve that level of praise (there's an obvious general thirst for it that would cause a lot of things to become overrated, IMO-- everyone wants to find their own generation's version of The Beatles, whether it actually exists or not) and they happen to be really easy to get into. I understand why people like them (I was obsessed with some of them when I was younger too), but that feeling hasn't held up for me over time at all.

I don't know if that impression comes from bias as a result of having grown up with them and buying into the hype too hard, but these types of bands are actually an example of how I don't get the concept of nostalgia-- it seems to have the opposite effect on me. For example, I used to think Turn on the Bright Lights was a masterpiece in college, but then the moment I sunk my teeth into Unknown Pleasures, I was immediately like "Oh my god... that other album that I've been fawning all over is actually really lame!" In general, any sentimental value that I can associate with something being an important part of my development tends to be completely superseded by a slightly embarrassed, "what the hell was I thinking?" feeling. I'm harder on them, if anything.

If we're nitpicking the all time greats, there are also a number of prototypical male-targeting, relatively normal, accessible, consistent, and easy-to-understand-why-they're-great bands such as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who that admittedly are great, but that I think don't quite deserve to be elevated to that Mt. Rushmore-esque Dylan/Beatles status as they so often are. I feel like less accessible/popular artists such as The Velvet Underground, Brian Eno, Joy Division, Can, and Captain Beefheart are more deserving of being placed alongside that company instead, at least when it comes to how good and rewarding and interesting they actually are (I see the argument for Pink Floyd/Jimi Hendrix as well, but they'd be in the next tier after that for me, personally). The Stones, Zeppelin, and The Who are way way down that list for me, and their supposed masterpiece albums have never felt like masterpieces to me (especially The Who's studio albums, which to me, are far beneath their live performance capabilities and talent level, and rock operas are generally a cheesy idea, in my opinion).

 

[Xelebes]

So the criteria I'm going to use is albums which are often recommended to me but utterly deflate any interest into listening to albums as a format. Since I didn't really grow up listening to albums, thinking of a gateway for people who listens to lots of music but doesn't listen to albums as a format is certainly vexing.

1. Kind of Blue

The kind of album that is often recommended because it was an album that showcased high fidelity recording of jazz musicians playing without particularly odd mastering choices. I can understand it for the landmark it is, but the musicians on this album are of middling interest at best. Miles Davis has better albums that fit my taste, Bill Evans his playing style where he is trying to transform jazz into furniture music, Chambers, Cobb and Adderly have better recordings. This album also has Coltrane on it and it is this album which is Exhibit A of the obnoxiousness of Coltrane.

2. The Beatles' concept albums

The songs sound fine enough but I would rather listen to the songs on their own as singles. The album format is not sold well by this album as each song stand on their own quite well and because of that, I find listening to it as an album is a slog.

I'll think of more later.

 

[Aladyyn]

Sunbather x10

 

[Eisen]

Marillion's Misplaced Childhood. If it wasn't for Pseudo Silk Kimono and Kayleigh I'm not sure it would have been so highly regarded.

 

[Stylizer1]

I find many classic albums overrated to varying degrees (like The Wall, London Calling, The Bends, Nevermind, etc), but one of the few that I outright actively dislike and don't see much of a silver lining in is My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy by Kanye West. I've never bought into the narrative that "he may be an ***-hole, but he makes undeniably great music!" in general. Most of his stuff sounds bad to my ears, and I don't like his sensibilities at all.

I also don't care for Paul McCartney's solo/Wings career, including Band on the Run or Ram (especially the way it was regularly treated as being equal to Lennon/Harrison's solo career-- None of McCartney's output comes remotely close to Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass, IMO) or The Ramones (there's some basic appeal, but it doesn't get past the superficial surface level for me-- they're like catchy, throwaway jingles to me that I never go back to, and are actually the furthest thing from what I love about that punk aesthetic).

The Wall is a weird one for me in that I like a lot of the way certain chunks of it sounds and the construction overall (it's at least a good album), but can't shake the impression of Roger Waters feeling himself, stroking his own ego, and pretentiously thinking that he's being such a brilliant genius throughout the album. Very melodramatic, inorganic, whine-y, obnoxious, and heavy-handed, IMO, even though it has a great sound and some great tracks that anchor it down. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it's like... the opposite of feeling effortless-- you can kind of inherently feel a desperate, try-hard, overly ambitious perfectionism to it that was more off-putting than awe-inspiring for me. Oddly enough, I didn't have that issue with Animals at all and think that's a nearly flawless album.

Another weird one is Forever Changes by Love, which is a very solid, in some ways beautiful, impressive, dynamic, and cohesive album that I do generally kind of like and admire, but the flowery awkward nonsense lyrics combined with the tortured-poet delivery bug the **** out of me (kind of in a MacArthur Park kind of way).

I also feel like there are tons of accessible, mid-level gateway alternative albums/bands from the 90s/2000s that college-aged males understandably eat up but that I don't think should be elevated to where they are, such as Nirvana, Arcade Fire, Muse, Interpol, Wilco, The Strokes, Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis, Nine Inch Nails, Modest Mouse, early Brit-pop Radiohead etc, likely because there's a shortage of accessible bands from those eras that actually deserve that level of praise (there's an obvious general thirst for it that would cause a lot of things to become overrated, IMO-- everyone wants to find their own generation's version of The Beatles, whether it actually exists or not) and they happen to be really easy to get into. I understand why people like them (I was obsessed with some of them when I was younger too), but that feeling hasn't held up for me over time at all.

I don't know if that impression comes from bias as a result of having grown up with them and buying into the hype too hard, but these types of bands are actually an example of how I don't get the concept of nostalgia-- it seems to have the opposite effect on me. For example, I used to think Turn on the Bright Lights was a masterpiece in college, but then the moment I sunk my teeth into Unknown Pleasures, I was immediately like "Oh my god... that other album that I've been fawning all over is actually really lame!" In general, any sentimental value that I can associate with something being an important part of my development tends to be completely superseded by a slightly embarrassed, "what the hell was I thinking?" feeling. I'm harder on them, if anything.

If we're nitpicking the all time greats, there are also a number of prototypical male-targeting, relatively normal, accessible, consistent, and easy-to-understand-why-they're-great bands such as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who that admittedly are great, but that I think don't quite deserve to be elevated to that Mt. Rushmore-esque Dylan/Beatles status as they so often are. I feel like less accessible/popular artists such as The Velvet Underground, Brian Eno, Joy Division, Can, and Captain Beefheart are more deserving of being placed alongside that company instead, at least when it comes to how good and rewarding and interesting they actually are (I see the argument for Pink Floyd/Jimi Hendrix as well, but they'd be in the next tier after that for me, personally). The Stones, Zeppelin, and The Who are way way down that list for me, and their supposed masterpiece albums have never felt like masterpieces to me (especially The Who's studio albums, which to me, are far beneath their live performance capabilities and talent level, and rock operas are generally a cheesy idea, in my opinion).

After his third album he stopped making good music. He had the hits hear and there but his creativity made for some terrible projects.

 

[Roo Returns]

I find many classic albums overrated to varying degrees (like The Wall, London Calling, The Bends, Nevermind, etc), but one of the few that I outright actively dislike and don't see much of a silver lining in is My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy by Kanye West. I've never bought into the narrative that "he may be an ***-hole, but he makes undeniably great music!" in general. Most of his stuff sounds bad to my ears, and I don't like his sensibilities at all.

I also don't care for Paul McCartney's solo/Wings career, including Band on the Run or Ram (especially the way it was regularly treated as being equal to Lennon/Harrison's solo career-- None of McCartney's output comes remotely close to Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass, IMO) or The Ramones (there's some basic appeal, but it doesn't get past the superficial surface level for me-- they're like catchy, throwaway jingles to me that I never go back to, and are actually the furthest thing from what I love about that punk aesthetic).

The Wall is a weird one for me in that I like a lot of the way certain chunks of it sounds and the construction overall (it's at least a good album), but can't shake the impression of Roger Waters feeling himself, stroking his own ego, and pretentiously thinking that he's being such a brilliant genius throughout the album. Very melodramatic, inorganic, whine-y, obnoxious, and heavy-handed, IMO, even though it has a great sound and some great tracks that anchor it down. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it's like... the opposite of feeling effortless-- you can kind of inherently feel a desperate, try-hard, overly ambitious perfectionism to it that was more off-putting than awe-inspiring for me. Oddly enough, I didn't have that issue with Animals at all and think that's a nearly flawless album.

Another weird one is Forever Changes by Love, which is a very solid, in some ways beautiful, impressive, dynamic, and cohesive album that I do generally kind of like and admire, but the flowery awkward nonsense lyrics combined with the tortured-poet delivery bug the **** out of me (kind of in a MacArthur Park kind of way).

I also feel like there are tons of accessible, mid-level gateway alternative albums/bands from the 90s/2000s that college-aged males understandably eat up but that I don't think should be elevated to where they are, such as Nirvana, Arcade Fire, Muse, Interpol, Wilco, The Strokes, Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis, Nine Inch Nails, Modest Mouse, early Brit-pop Radiohead etc, likely because there's a shortage of accessible bands from those eras that actually deserve that level of praise (there's an obvious general thirst for it that would cause a lot of things to become overrated, IMO-- everyone wants to find their own generation's version of The Beatles, whether it actually exists or not) and they happen to be really easy to get into. I understand why people like them (I was obsessed with some of them when I was younger too), but that feeling hasn't held up for me over time at all.

I don't know if that impression comes from bias as a result of having grown up with them and buying into the hype too hard, but these types of bands are actually an example of how I don't get the concept of nostalgia-- it seems to have the opposite effect on me. For example, I used to think Turn on the Bright Lights was a masterpiece in college, but then the moment I sunk my teeth into Unknown Pleasures, I was immediately like "Oh my god... that other album that I've been fawning all over is actually really lame!" In general, any sentimental value that I can associate with something being an important part of my development tends to be completely superseded by a slightly embarrassed, "what the hell was I thinking?" feeling. I'm harder on them, if anything.

If we're nitpicking the all time greats, there are also a number of prototypical male-targeting, relatively normal, accessible, consistent, and easy-to-understand-why-they're-great bands such as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who that admittedly are great, but that I think don't quite deserve to be elevated to that Mt. Rushmore-esque Dylan/Beatles status as they so often are. I feel like less accessible/popular artists such as The Velvet Underground, Brian Eno, Joy Division, Can, and Captain Beefheart are more deserving of being placed alongside that company instead, at least when it comes to how good and rewarding and interesting they actually are (I see the argument for Pink Floyd/Jimi Hendrix as well, but they'd be in the next tier after that for me, personally). The Stones, Zeppelin, and The Who are way way down that list for me, and their supposed masterpiece albums have never felt like masterpieces to me (especially The Who's studio albums, which to me, are far beneath their live performance capabilities and talent level, and rock operas are generally a cheesy idea, in my opinion).

Interesting take. For the 70s, The Who and Led Zep definitely had some classic stuff and came into their own. I'd say Zep III-Presence was the peak and those 5 albums were all classics. Even Presence which takes a lot of critique has excellent songs and I can listen to it straight through and enjoy all of it.

The Who from Whose Next to Who Are You is my favorite period. I actually like their albums with Kenny Jones too.

Some of those albums were originally "shorter" like 45 min mark but since they were all before my time, I'm used to the remastered versions with b-sides and bonus tracks included.

The late-90s definitely had a shift. like 97-99. A lot of good music came out in that era but if you loved the bands that dominated 91-95 like I did (I grew up in the era), it was definitely a downgrade in quality.

I never cared for those bands in the early 2000s that were garage rock or trying to be Joy Division. I like Interpol but I don't think I've ever gone out of my way to listen to their albums. The Strokes are a one trick pony, The Hives bore me, and The Killers are extremely overrated in my opinion. Franz Ferdinand just took "That's All" by Genesis and put a hipster dance beat over it.

 

[kihei]

Doesn't this thread amount to a "get out of jail free" card for people to whine over-confidently about artists/albums they already don't like. Ergo, "I don't like it; therefore, me being wonderful and all, it must be overrated."

 

[x Tame Impala]

Doesn't this thread amount to a "get out of jail free" card for people to whine over-confidently about artists/albums they already don't like. Ergo, "I don't like it; therefore, me being wonderful and all, it must be overrated."

HF does this from time to time. I read the thread title and thought “What’s the point of making a thread like this???”. After reading the posts it’s clear some people just want to let everyone know how contrarian they are.

I’m waiting for the inevitable “The White Album was overrated” post.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Double

 

[Aladyyn]

Doesn't this thread amount to a "get out of jail free" card for people to whine over-confidently about artists/albums they already don't like. Ergo, "I don't like it; therefore, me being wonderful and all, it must be overrated."

I tried to come up with some stuff but it's really tough to find something I find truly "overrated" rather than simply "not for me." Bands like Radiohead, The Who, Neutral Milk Hotel never did anything for me, but I have no idea whether they're overrated or not, how could I tell? I have no frame of reference, no idea what a "good version" of these bands sounds like and if I did I might just dislike it too.

I will die on the Sunbather hill though. Never seen a more overhyped album.

 

[Aladyyn]

HF does this from time to time. I read the thread title and thought “What’s the point of making a thread like this???”. After reading the posts it’s clear some people just want to let everyone know how contrarian they are.

I’m waiting for the inevitable “The White Album was overrated” post.

I'm super surprised at how little Led Zeppelin there is in this thread so far

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I find many classic albums overrated to varying degrees (like The Wall, London Calling, The Bends, Nevermind, etc), but one of the few that I outright actively dislike and don't see much of a silver lining in is My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy by Kanye West. I've never bought into the narrative that "he may be an ***-hole, but he makes undeniably great music!" in general. Most of his stuff sounds bad to my ears, and I don't like his sensibilities at all.

I also don't care for Paul McCartney's solo/Wings career, including Band on the Run or Ram (especially the way it was regularly treated as being equal to Lennon/Harrison's solo career-- None of McCartney's output comes remotely close to Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass, IMO) or The Ramones (there's some basic appeal, but it doesn't get past the superficial surface level for me-- they're like catchy, throwaway jingles to me that I never go back to, and are actually the furthest thing from what I love about that punk aesthetic).

The Wall is a weird one for me in that I like a lot of the way certain chunks of it sounds and the construction overall (it's at least a good album), but can't shake the impression of Roger Waters feeling himself, stroking his own ego, and pretentiously thinking that he's being such a brilliant genius throughout the album. Very melodramatic, inorganic, whine-y, obnoxious, and heavy-handed, IMO, even though it has a great sound and some great tracks that anchor it down. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it's like... the opposite of feeling effortless-- you can kind of inherently feel a desperate, try-hard, overly ambitious perfectionism to it that was more off-putting than awe-inspiring for me. Oddly enough, I didn't have that issue with Animals at all and think that's a nearly flawless album.

Another weird one is Forever Changes by Love, which is a very solid, in some ways beautiful, impressive, dynamic, and cohesive album that I do generally kind of like and admire, but the flowery awkward nonsense lyrics combined with the tortured-poet delivery bug the **** out of me (kind of in a MacArthur Park kind of way).

I also feel like there are tons of accessible, mid-level gateway alternative albums/bands from the 90s/2000s that college-aged males understandably eat up but that I don't think should be elevated to where they are, such as Nirvana, Arcade Fire, Muse, Interpol, Wilco, The Strokes, Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis, Nine Inch Nails, Modest Mouse, early Brit-pop Radiohead etc, likely because there's a shortage of accessible bands from those eras that actually deserve that level of praise (there's an obvious general thirst for it that would cause a lot of things to become overrated, IMO-- everyone wants to find their own generation's version of The Beatles, whether it actually exists or not) and they happen to be really easy to get into. I understand why people like them (I was obsessed with some of them when I was younger too), but that feeling hasn't held up for me over time at all.

I don't know if that impression comes from bias as a result of having grown up with them and buying into the hype too hard, but these types of bands are actually an example of how I don't get the concept of nostalgia-- it seems to have the opposite effect on me. For example, I used to think Turn on the Bright Lights was a masterpiece in college, but then the moment I sunk my teeth into Unknown Pleasures, I was immediately like "Oh my god... that other album that I've been fawning all over is actually really lame!" In general, any sentimental value that I can associate with something being an important part of my development tends to be completely superseded by a slightly embarrassed, "what the hell was I thinking?" feeling. I'm harder on them, if anything.

If we're nitpicking the all time greats, there are also a number of prototypical male-targeting, relatively normal, accessible, consistent, and easy-to-understand-why-they're-great bands such as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who that admittedly are great, but that I think don't quite deserve to be elevated to that Mt. Rushmore-esque Dylan/Beatles status as they so often are. I feel like less accessible/popular artists such as The Velvet Underground, Brian Eno, Joy Division, Can, and Captain Beefheart are more deserving of being placed alongside that company instead, at least when it comes to how good and rewarding and interesting they actually are (I see the argument for Pink Floyd/Jimi Hendrix as well, but they'd be in the next tier after that for me, personally). The Stones, Zeppelin, and The Who are way way down that list for me, and their supposed masterpiece albums have never felt like masterpieces to me (especially The Who's studio albums, which to me, are far beneath their live performance capabilities and talent level, and rock operas are generally a cheesy idea, in my opinion).

Not sure if that's what Stylizer was talking about, but I like the first two McCartney albums quite a bit. I wouldn't put them at the level of Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass, but they're better than quite a few of what Lennon and Harrison produced afterwards. The Wings period was a disaster, but for one amazing song: Mull of Kintyre. One the prettiest post-Beatles songs, all artists included (McCartney might have produced the single prettiest post-Beatles song with Junk, but like pretty much the whole All Things Must Pass album - which also contains a few very pretty songs - it kind of was Beatles cutting floor material). Still, none of these songs is my favorite, Monkberry Moon Delight being to me a masterpiece.

 

[Shareefruck]

Doesn't this thread amount to a "get out of jail free" card for people to whine over-confidently about artists/albums they already don't like. Ergo, "I don't like it; therefore, me being wonderful and all, it must be overrated."

HF does this from time to time. I read the thread title and thought “What’s the point of making a thread like this???”. After reading the posts it’s clear some people just want to let everyone know how contrarian they are.

I’m waiting for the inevitable “The White Album was overrated” post.

I always hear these types of sentiments, but personally, I don't see how thinking something is "overrated" or "underrated" is any more self-aggrandizing/arrogant/overconfident/contrarian than thinking something is good or bad or beautiful or awful (which is equally informed by subjective preferences but could be read as some authoritative objective thing if someone chose not to be charitable). People assign all of these negative egregious assumptions to it that I think are unwarranted and isn't actually suggested by the term itself.

Everyone undeniably has opinions and impressions about whether or not they think credit is due (and how much)-- and they're most likely never going to line up with everyone else across the board, nor should they. I see nothing wrong or overconfident about sharing that perspective/perception, which is essentially all it is. It should be assumed/understood that it's not meant to be an absolutely certain objective authoritative statement about everyone else having a different opinion that you've indirectly stepped on the toes of (just as we understand and treat that as a given whenever someone thinks something is good or bad-- we don't all jump the gun and go "Are you saying I'm wrong for thinking the opposite!?").

To me, a comparable would be if a student thinks that a paper is misgraded. That's just a difference of opinion regarding the paper's worth in a vacuum, relative to what was assigned to it, not an implication of their own qualifications or a judgement of the person who graded it's ability to grade papers. That would be such a wildly unreasonable leap to make and be offended by or to have a "How dare you speak up! You think you know better than me!?" attitude about.

It should really only be viewed as "I don't see as much value in it as others do, and I've considered other possible explanations that could account for that and don't think they're the driving force of that impression, therefore I tentatively cannot deny that I currently think it's overrated/underrated, even though I can be proven wrong later." It doesn't have to have anything to do with thinking you're wonderful or being contrarian. You would just be unfairly putting words into people's mouths by suggesting that it does, in my opinion.

I also think it's perfectly reasonable to find The White Album overrated (I tend to flip-flop on that one myself). While sometimes I completely buy the narrative that its imperfections are part of its charm, it's really asking a lot for that to be agreed upon, in my opinion.

 

[Shareefruck]

Interesting take. For the 70s, The Who and Led Zep definitely had some classic stuff and came into their own. I'd say Zep III-Presence was the peak and those 5 albums were all classics. Even Presence which takes a lot of critique has excellent songs and I can listen to it straight through and enjoy all of it.

The Who from Whose Next to Who Are You is my favorite period. I actually like their albums with Kenny Jones too.

I actually don't disagree with a lot of that (again, just nitpicking the greats rather than saying that anyone's bad), but for me, that's not necessarily enough for a band to be elevated to the greatest of all time pedestal. They're all great, consistent bands with a lot of talent and many albums in a row that I would consider very good/historically notable, but their peak rewards just don't feel that transcendent or truly outstanding to me, like others do. I also think that for the most part, they only write songs that sound good/fun, are technically well considered, and that entertains me-- they never really connect with or creatively inspire me or make me think or feel much beyond that. Like, when Jagger or Plant get personal, I don't really buy it-- it always feels more like they're just showmen flexing their performance chops and enthusiasm, and I value that a lot less.

After his third album he stopped making good music. He had the hits hear and there but his creativity made for some terrible projects.

I listed like twenty bands in that post and have no idea which one you're referring to.

Not sure if that's what Stylizer was talking about, but I like the first two McCartney albums quite a bit. I wouldn't put them at the level of Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass, but they're better than quite a few of what Lennon and Harrison produced afterwards. The Wings period was a disaster, but for one amazing song: Mull of Kintyre. One the prettiest post-Beatles songs, all artists included (McCartney might have produced the single prettiest post-Beatles song with Junk, but like pretty much the whole All Things Must Pass album - which also contains a few very pretty songs - it kind of was Beatles cutting floor material). Still, none of these songs is my favorite, Monkberry Moon Delight being to me a masterpiece.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that, but personally, things only really register for me and become notable when they're at least around that All Things Must Pass level. Being better than Harrison/Lennon's non-standout material doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. Most of their solo material, outside of two or three classics among the three of them and a few songs here or there, I don't find that interesting, especially compared to their Beatles output. In fact, Plastic Ono Band is probably the only album in their solo careers that I think is on par with their best as a group.

And for the record, I just generally am not quite as impressed by McCartney's sensibilities/tastes as I am by Harrison/Lennon sensibilities/tastes as a whole, so that plays into it as well.

 

[Stylizer1]

I actually don't disagree with a lot of that (again, just nitpicking the greats rather than saying that anyone's bad), but for me, that's not necessarily enough for a band to be elevated to the greatest of all time pedestal. They're all great, consistent bands with a lot of talent and many albums in a row that I would consider very good/historically notable, but their peak rewards just don't feel that transcendent or truly outstanding to me, like others do. I also think that for the most part, they only write songs that sound good/fun, are technically well considered, and that entertains me-- they never really connect with or creatively inspire me or make me think or feel much beyond that. Like, when Jagger or Plant get personal, I don't really buy it-- it always feels more like they're just showmen flexing their performance chops and enthusiasm, and I value that a lot less.
I listed like twenty bands in that post and have no idea which one you're referring to.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that, but personally, things only really register for me and become notable when they're at least around that All Things Must Pass level. Being better than Harrison/Lennon's non-standout material doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. Most of their solo material, outside of two or three classics among the three of them and a few songs here or there, I don't find that interesting, especially compared to their Beatles output. In fact, Plastic Ono Band is probably the only album in their solo careers that I think is on par with their best as a group.

And for the record, I just generally am not quite as impressed by McCartney's sensibilities/tastes as I am by Harrison/Lennon sensibilities/tastes as a whole, so that plays into it as well.

Just realized that. Kanye.

 

[Roo Returns]

@x Tame Impala @kihei I don't think this convo is malicious or negative, just a change up. No one here is being nasty or trashing music tastes. Just interesting how some artists and albums move people but other people don't care about them.

From time to time, certain bands go from being loved to hated. A lot of that is who is writing the articles and production trends. Zep's been mentioned here a few times. I love them and to me growing up, they were like THE classic rock band. There's been a slight shift.

Personally, I understand the influence of Dylan/Springsteen/Dire Straits, to me personally, I'm not going to put on music by either for pleasure/workout, just not my groove. Ditto for Beyonce. I don't find anything in her music I like or care about.

Late 70s arena rock with bands like Styx, .38 Special, Supertramp, Kansas, Journey, and to a much lesser extent Boston and Cheap Trick (I really like the last two bands and hate to group them in but it's when they got big) I consider that a low point for mainstream rock compared to 5-6 years earlier, which is why stuff like Joy Division, Killing Joke, The Cure, Siouxsie and The Banshees, Magazine, Japan, etc. that was going on in the UK was much more interesting to me but to others may not be.

 

[Roo Returns]

I actually don't disagree with a lot of that (again, just nitpicking the greats rather than saying that anyone's bad), but for me, that's not necessarily enough for a band to be elevated to the greatest of all time pedestal. They're all great, consistent bands with a lot of talent and many albums in a row that I would consider very good/historically notable, but their peak rewards just don't feel that transcendent or truly outstanding to me, like others do. I also think that for the most part, they only write songs that sound good/fun, are technically well considered, and that entertains me-- they never really connect with or creatively inspire me or make me think or feel much beyond that. Like, when Jagger or Plant get personal, I don't really buy it-- it always feels more like they're just showmen flexing their performance chops and enthusiasm, and I value that a lot less.

Interesting take. Plant to me has always had this mystique. I just don't know much about his personality besides wiki and the occasional interview but since his prime was over a few years before I was born (and Zep was over too) it's easier to just see pictures, hear so much about him, and create an image that MTV had very little to do with. His lyrics could be intelligent and thoughtful at times. Especially some of the later darker stuff he did once they got past the all lov and innuendos all the time of LZ II.

Jagger to me is total ham. He's a talented showman who just happened to play in a rock band. He hasn't been interested in rock in decades. When I listen to the Stones it's not for him.

 

[stan the caddy]

I like The Bends and OK Computer. The stuff after was overrated.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Doesn't this thread amount to a "get out of jail free" card for people to whine over-confidently about artists/albums they already don't like. Ergo, "I don't like it; therefore, me being wonderful and all, it must be overrated."

Of course it is. What's wrong with that?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

And for the record, I just generally am not quite as impressed by McCartney's sensibilities/tastes as I am by Harrison/Lennon sensibilities/tastes as a whole, so that plays into it as well.

Same. I think any sane person would agree.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

HF does this from time to time. I read the thread title and thought “What’s the point of making a thread like this???”. After reading the posts it’s clear some people just want to let everyone know how contrarian they are.

I’m waiting for the inevitable “The White Album was overrated” post.

So

HF does this from time to time. I read the thread title and thought “What’s the point of making a thread like this???”. After reading the posts it’s clear some people just want to let everyone know how contrarian they are.

I’m waiting for the inevitable “The White Album was overrated” post.

And i suppose you like every single “critically acclaimed album”?

 

[Shareefruck]

Same. I think any sane person would agree.

Really, what makes you say that? I would assume that most people would prefer McCartney's sensibilities (they're more universal/accessible/radio-friendly/catchy/melody-driven), which is why he and his songs are more popular.