Most overrated bands ever?

[Carmensoul]

Rolling stones. For some reason, I just don't get it with them.

[Dr_Rez]

I realize i will be hated/flamed for saying this, but Radiohead is greatly overrated.

Many of my friends who are super fans share the opinion of many that they are the most talented group, and if you do not think they are good as everyone says you know nothing of music.

[jamesem]

lol P.O.D. indeed

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by Laughing Boy

"I really wasn't quite ready for the unity. It felt like it all belonged together. Rubber Soul was a collection of songs...that somehow went together like no album ever made before, and I was very impressed. I said, 'That's it. I really am challenged to do a great album.'" - Brian Wilson. That challenge turned into Pet Sounds. So there wouldn't have been a Pet Sounds without Rubber Soul. So really it was the Beatles own influence that was responsible for Sgt. Peppers. Funny how that works.

So, Wilson was inspired by the apparent conceptual unity (which didn't exist because McCartney has indicated in interviews since, that there was no such unity intended on Rubber Soul or even Revolver - moreover, any credit for order at that stage goes to the producer). The album (Rubber Soul) itself sounds heavily influenced by the album Mr Tambourine Man (1965) by The Byrds, who were among the real pioneers of folk rock (and indeed country rock and acid rock). So, it was some mirage of conceptual unity that inspired Wilson, not the sound of the album. As for Sgt Pepper, it was inspired by the baroque pop/orchestral ideas expressed on Pet Sounds. Once again, the great pioneer of an idea turns out to be some other dude who did it a year earlier. What else... ah yes. The multi-part harmonies that were so important to The Beatles' sound and indeed some other Merseybeat bands? The trend was also started by The Beach Boys when they merged the harmonies of vocal groups (such as Four Freshmen) with the rock'n'roll rhythm of the late 50s (e.g. Chuck Berry).

Boo boo, mate, you do not get what I am saying. I'm not criticizing the Beatles for having influences. I'm merely stating the point that they don't seem to have been pioneering anything at all, at any particular point in their tenure. The way it worked was this: some form became an established standard at one end of the rock spectrum (so was pioneered elsewhere). Lennon and McCartney then wrote a few songs in that style, to live up to it and to keep up with the times.

With regard to Abbey Road, "You Never Give Me Your Money" all the way up to "The End" is supposed to be a faux-conceptual Vaudevillian operatic sort of thing. That is, not REALLY an opera (of course not) but with the illusion of being one. This is made crystal clear when Carry That Weight actually reprises the main motifs of I Want You and You Never Give Me Your Money. I am surprised that not that many fans ever took notice of that. The influence, of course, were things like the work of Zappa and even The Who with Tommy. Again, it was merely living up to the new standards of the time. Hah, even The End is just a parodic take on the improvised jamming becoming standard in heavy rock in the late 60s.


Alright, new point of discussion: I am interested boo boo why you think Sgt Pepper is so important to prog. I think it would be interesting to have a look the songs themselves and see why it could be cited as influencing prog, as opposed to other records of the time or earlier.

Above all I think this discussion is useful because it leads to more insight on the era of the late 60s and just what was (and was not) happening.

[Laughing Boy]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

So, Wilson was inspired by the apparent conceptual unity (which didn't exist because McCartney has indicated in interviews since, that there was no such unity intended on Rubber Soul or even Revolver - moreover, any credit for order at that stage goes to the producer). The album (Rubber Soul) itself sounds heavily influenced by the album Mr Tambourine Man (1965) by The Byrds, who were among the real pioneers of folk rock (and indeed country rock and acid rock). So, it was some mirage of conceptual unity that inspired Wilson, not the sound of the album. As for Sgt Pepper, it was inspired by the baroque pop/orchestral ideas expressed on Pet Sounds. Once again, the great pioneer of an idea turns out to be some other dude who did it a year earlier. What else... ah yes. The multi-part harmonies that were so important to The Beatles' sound and indeed some other Merseybeat bands? The trend was also started by The Beach Boys when they merged the harmonies of vocal groups (such as Four Freshmen) with the rock'n'roll rhythm of the late 50s (e.g. Chuck Berry).

Boo boo, mate, you do not get what I am saying. I'm not criticizing the Beatles for having influences. I'm merely stating the point that they don't seem to have been pioneering anything at all, at any particular point in their tenure. The way it worked was this: some form became an established standard at one end of the rock spectrum (so was pioneered elsewhere). Lennon and McCartney then wrote a few songs in that style, to live up to it and to keep up with the times.

With regard to Abbey Road, "You Never Give Me Your Money" all the way up to "The End" is supposed to be a faux-conceptual Vaudevillian operatic sort of thing. That is, not REALLY an opera (of course not) but with the illusion of being one. This is made crystal clear when Carry That Weight actually reprises the main motifs of I Want You and You Never Give Me Your Money. I am surprised that not that many fans ever took notice of that. The influence, of course, were things like the work of Zappa and even The Who with Tommy. Again, it was merely living up to the new standards of the time. Hah, even The End is just a parodic take on the improvised jamming becoming standard in heavy rock in the late 60s.


Alright, new point of discussion: I am interested boo boo why you think Sgt Pepper is so important to prog. I think it would be interesting to have a look the songs themselves and see why it could be cited as influencing prog, as opposed to other records of the time or earlier.

Above all I think this discussion is useful because it leads to more insight on the era of the late 60s and just what was (and was not) happening.

Are you trying to prove you know more about the creation of Pet Sounds than Brian Wilson? I don't think anyone ever claimed the Beatles or the Beach Boys invented vocal harmonies either. You seem to spend more of your time trying to disprove claims no ones made but trying to make it sound like they're the same claims someones made.

[can_i_say]

POD overrated? Didn't realise they were rated by anyone.

Green Day sucks big time, their fans are lame c*nts.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by Laughing Boy

Are you trying to prove you know more about the creation of Pet Sounds than Brian Wilson? I don't think anyone ever claimed the Beatles or the Beach Boys invented vocal harmonies either. You seem to spend more of your time trying to disprove claims no ones made but trying to make it sound like they're the same claims someones made.

Wilson was influenced by the so-called unity of the album. That each song seemed to lead into the next (any such effect at any rate is the work of George Martin who assembled the tracks). Wilson was not influenced by the SOUND. The Beatles, on the other hand, were influenced by the SOUND of Pet Sounds. What part of that is difficult to understand?

I brought up the vocal harmonies thing merely as another example of The Beatles not pioneering, but rather drawing inspiration from a great idea that was pioneered elsewhere (i.e. by the Beach Boys).

Also, that statement about me "trying to disprove claims no one's made" is based on a single comment that I made. So it seems a bit odd to say "you seem to spend more of your time doing X".

[Laughing Boy]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Wilson was influenced by the so-called unity of the album. That each song seemed to lead into the next (any such effect at any rate is the work of George Martin who assembled the tracks). Wilson was not influenced by the SOUND. The Beatles, on the other hand, were influenced by the SOUND of Pet Sounds. What part of that is difficult to understand?

I think you're just showing your ignorance of the Brian Wilson and the Beatles here. Rubber Soul challenged him to make a great album, not just a flowing group of songs, one listen will show you Pet Sounds it's much more than that. Hearing Rubber Soul would spark a the most beneficial to music rivalry ever. Without Pet Sounds Sgt. Peppers wouldn't have happened and without Rubber Soul Brian Wilson would've never felt the competitive need to top anything and never made Pet Sounds. Why is it so hard for you to give the Beatles some credit?

I brought up the vocal harmonies thing merely as another example of The Beatles not pioneering, but rather drawing inspiration from a great idea that was pioneered elsewhere (i.e. by the Beach Boys).

The Beatles had been using vocal harmonies since Please Please Me. It wasn't a new concept then and it wasn't when the Beach Boys used it either. I couldn't tell you how old of an idea it is but the Weavers were doing it too back in the 40s.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by Laughing Boy

I think you're just showing your ignorance of the Brian Wilson and the Beatles here but trying to motivate it to your own needs. Rubber Soul challenged him to make a great album, not just a flowing group of songs, one listen will show you Pet Sounds is much more than that. Hearing Rubber Soul would spark a the most beneficial to music rivalry ever.

Why an ignorance? An ignorance of what? Demonstrate where the ignorance is, don't just claim that there is one. That is bad discussion. There are but a few simple points here:

1: Wilson was influenced by the unity and flow of Rubber Soul (not the Sound). Wilson was led to make Pet Sounds.
2: The Beatles and Geroge Martin were deeply moved by the SOUND and ideas contained within the actual music of Pet Sounds.
3: The Beatles were led to make Sgt Pepper.

That ties in with the general gist of my point. The Beatles were continuously motivated by the sounds of other bands of the time.

The Beatles had been using vocal harmonies since Please Please Me. It wasn't a new concept then and it wasn't when the Beach Boys used it either. I couldn't tell you how old of an idea it is but the Weavers were doing it too back in the 40s.

Read what I said first. I said that the Beach Boys basically started the fire of merging the multi-part harmonies of earlier vocal groups like The Four Freshmen with the Rock'N'Roll rhythms of the late 50s, like Chuck Berry. The Beatles and other Merseybeat bands were influenced by the complex harmonies+rock'n'roll of the Beach Boys.




Now, finally, you seem BENT on trying to make this personal or something. Stop. It does you no credit. You have things to share, and that's fine, I'm interested to hear. You do not need to throw around words like "ignorant" or start claiming that I'm just trying to disprove things nobody has claimed. That lowers you. Stick to discussing the points. I'm here for a discussion, not for a personal bash. I have no issues with you, so do not try to create any. That's not how to conduct a discussion and just makes you appear angry and incapable of sticking to points without having to get in some angry-natured word at the person you're discussing with. This is peaceful. Please keep it that way. If you disagree with something, say and explain why, and avoid the jabs at me personally. It's foolish.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by boo boo

What other pop/rock group was doing this kinda thing?

Check out Donovan's Sunshine Superman, 1966.