Most overrated bands ever?

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

Yep. I am not a punk fan, I can appreciate the more artistic bands like Talking Heads, and the more emotional bands like Rites of Spring, but old-school punk does absolutely nothing for me. It's adolescent in ways I don't tolerate and, despite its rhetoric, artistically regressive. I dislike the Ramones too, but not quite as much.



Again this is exactly why I dislike them. I dislike the genre and they are one of its supreme symbols. I do think that Never Mind the Bollocks actually may well be below par for the genre though because, like I said, it is actually overproduced (too organized, too polished, robbing it of the chaos and energy that a band like MC5 thrived on)--but I won't press the point of it being below par because I have not heard many full-length LPs in the style.



Progressive rock was a genre of rock music in the '70s that was based on unusual structures, arrangements, harmonies, instrumentation etc. and was influenced by classical and jazz. It was very popular in the early-to-mid '70s, but when punk arrived in '76/'77 favoring a stripped-down sound, it fell spectacularly out of commercial and critical favor, such that most of its leading bands either had to break up (ELP) or go pop (Yes, Genesis, Rush) by the early '80s.

Today, prog rock is still widely derided by critics as pretentious, excessive, etc., while punk rock is held up as the movement that saved rock'n'roll. This is unfortunate because while some prog bands like ELP and Rush were indeed self-indulgent, commercial, and ridiculous, others like Henry Cow, the Soft Machine, and Magma were actually way more forward-thinking than the Ramones or Sex Pistols.

Sex Pistols don't even deserve the real credit for that. Prog was already on a decline by the time punk rock came about.

I mean, 1977. What were the big and popular prog releases back then? Besides Animals and A Farewell to Kings?

Exactly.

King Crimson broke up, Peter Gabriel left Genesis, Yes never fully recovered from the critical backlash they got for Topographic Oceans. Jethro Tull, ELP, Gentle Giant, Caravan and Moody Blues were all past their prime.

None of that was the fault of The Sex Pistols, they were just in the right place at the right time.

[Megadead2]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Sex Pistols don't even deserve the real credit for that. Prog was already on a decline by the time punk rock came about.

I mean, 1977. What were the big and popular prog releases back then? Besides Animals and A Farewell to Kings?

Actually, ELP and Yes had their highest charting hits on the UK charts in 1977 (with "Fanfare for the Common Man" and "Wondrous Stories" respectively). Obviously that had more to do with the natural momentum those bands had gathered over time than the actual popularity of those songs, but it does indicate that prog was not already in its death throes when punk arrived. Maybe artistically the original set of bands was in decline, but that would simply have meant that better, more modern younger bands would have taken their place.

lol and lol again

You fell back on a LOL? Weak. I can see we're not going to get along well...

you are missing the point of punk entirely, prog rock had its heaviest influences in classic rock and jazz and it was exactly the kind of music that punk was retaliating against. can you see a bunch of teenage musicians who just picked up the instruments a year ago rocking out to Working Man or In the Court of the Crimson King? punk rock was simple and fun. what sucks is that a movement with such a great message got whored and distorted (like what is happeneing to indie as i type this).

That's the thing, the phrase "simple and fun" ignores that music CAN be fun and be artistic, out-there, innovative as well. Look to Talking Heads for an example of a band who could entertain their audience and engage in intense avant-funk workouts at the same time. Three-chords + backbeat + vocals actually isn't very fun for me, it's tired, but ESPECIALLY in the case of the Sex Pistols, who were drowning in machoismo and lacked any of the dirty swagger of, say, the Troggs. As for being on the level that a teenaged band can play, I don't believe that music should aspire to mediocrity, although technical complexity is not necessary for music to be progressive or to be good ("In the Court" is actually rather easy to play, though admittedly maybe not "rock out" material).

I also don't believe that sounding "teenaged" or "adolescent" is something to be admired. Rock's whole mythology of refusing to grow up is an ugly one. I look for maturity in music. I do enjoy some "childlike" music as well (twee pop, indie pop etc.) because it recaptures a feeling of innocence and simplicity in life, but adolescent music (which includes most trad punk as well as later bands like Dinosaur Jr.) lacks both that simplicity and innocence, and the control and discipline of more mature music. In some cases, adolescent music can work because it captures a very visceral, raw, intense feeling, which is why I can enjoy some of it despite my misgivings (examples I have given include the Troggs and Rites of Spring) but the Sex Pistols were actually no where near as visceral as they are made out to be.

[lieasleep]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

I also don't believe that sounding "teenaged" or "adolescent" is something to be admired. Rock's whole mythology of refusing to grow up is an ugly one. I look for maturity in music. I do enjoy some "childlike" music as well (twee pop, indie pop etc.) because it recaptures a feeling of innocence and simplicity in life, but adolescent music (which includes most trad punk as well as later bands like Dinosaur Jr.) lacks both that simplicity and innocence, and the control and discipline of more mature music. In some cases, adolescent music can work because it captures a very visceral, raw, intense feeling, which is why I can enjoy some of it despite my misgivings (examples I have given include the Troggs and Rites of Spring) but the Sex Pistols were actually no where near as visceral as they are made out to be.

the sex pistols and other old school punk outfits were not adolescent, you are misunderstanding me. their music was VERY simple and COULD be rocked out to by bunch of teenagers in a garage yadah yadah yadah but what they lacked in talent, they made up for in passion and message. i don't hear you getting on folk for being traditionally very simple music. and that is, more or less, what i see punk as being a rock version of. a very anti-political and scathing view on societal norms through the eyes of very passionate, often times angry music. and i mean real punk, none of this Green Day (too much message far to little good music, at least these days), Blink 182 watered down bull**** "punk" and maybe the sex pistols AREN't a great example of that, although i do really like Nevermind the Bollocks and it did have some very anarchical messages . but bands like the Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat, Black Flag, etc. really embodied the punk movement and ideals and were bands that owe a LOT to the sex pistols. punk even gave way to the post-punk movement, Sioxie and the Banshees, the Fall, Joy Division, Echo & the Bunnymen, the Cure, Depeche Mode, etc. were made possible in large part because of the progression of the punk movement that was really spearheaded by the Sex Pistols. Joy Division, for example, started out as Warsaw and made a damn good punk album before changing their sound a bit. but Joy Division only formed Warsaw because they saw a Sex Pistols show. they are very influential and in no way overrated.

[Megadead2]

Originally Posted by lieasleep

the sex pistols and other old school punk outfits were not adolescent, you are misunderstanding me. their music was VERY simple and COULD be rocked out to by bunch of teenagers in a garage yadah yadah yadah but what they lacked in talent, they made up for in passion and message.

That's what I'm saying though, I don't think the Sex Pistols had the passion they're claimed to (or if they did it has been vastly surpassed), and their "message" was, well, idiotic. Just because it's political doesn't mean their politics should be lauded. Moreover, the fact that they delivered their message with no artistry or subtlety gives me the impression that the poltics was more important to them than the art. Also, it takes way more balls in rock to write a pro-establishment song than an anti-establishment one, and in fact the "anti-establishment" IS "the establishment" in rock.

i don't hear you getting on folk for being traditionally very simple music. and that is, more or less, what i see punk as being a rock version of.

The folk music I've been exposed to--mainly '60s singer/songwriters like Dylan and Morrisson and recent indie-folk artists like Devendra Banhart--is music of subtle originality and artistry. Very different from punk.

a very anti-political and scathing view on societal norms through the eyes of very passionate, often times angry music. and i mean real punk, none of this Green Day (too much message far to little good music, at least these days), Blink 182 watered down bull**** "punk" and maybe the sex pistols AREN't a great example of that, although i do really like Nevermind the Bollocks and it did have some very anarchical messages .

Anarchical messages are hardly a good thing since anarchism is pretentious radical-chic nonsense.

but bands like the Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat, Black Flag, etc. really embodied the punk movement and ideals and were bands that owe a LOT to the sex pistols.

I do respect those bands somewhat for their passion and intensity, though I don't really listen to them often. If it were true that they were indebted specifically to the Sex Pistols and not to early punk in general, it might be a case against my argument that Never Mind the Bollocks had a negative effect on music, but it wouldn't make the album any better, it would just show that it has been surpassed.

punk even gave way to the post-punk movement, Sioxie and the Banshees, the Fall, Joy Division, Echo & the Bunnymen, the Cure, Depeche Mode, etc. were made possible in large part because of the progression of the punk movement that was really spearheaded by the Sex Pistols. Joy Division, for example, started out as Warsaw and made a damn good punk album before changing their sound a bit. but Joy Division only formed Warsaw because they saw a Sex Pistols show. they are very influential and in no way overrated.

I LOVE post-punk. Talking Heads are my favorite band of all time, and even the Sex Pistols-derived Public Image Ltd. were shockingly good if only a rare listen for me (probably one of the most evil, zombie-like aesthetics I've ever encountered). But I don't think the sounds those bands had were specifically Sex Pistols-influenced, and in some ways those bands (especially on the synth-pop Depeche Mode side) actually owed as much or even more to art-rockers like David Bowie, Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, and adventurous producers like Giorgio Moroder than to punk rock.

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Bummer for you I guess and also kind of sad if you think laughing is "weak".

It isn't weak to LOL, but it is to LOL in lieu of defending one's opinions. I'm glad this time you've at least started to explain what you take issue with.

The idea that art can be defined as "regressive" strikes me as kind of silly.

How? Power chord-based shock-tactic hard rock is NOT a timeless thing.

Also, hearing a 17 year old saying he or she can't tolerate things that are adolescent is also pretty humorous and, ironically, it's a fairly adolescent way of looking at things.

16 actually, but it's irrelevant, it has no bearing on what I should look for in art. Also, I specifically gave an example of a certain situation in which I can appreciate "adolescent" music, but I don't think the Sex Pistols fall into that category.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

It isn't weak to LOL, but it is to LOL in lieu of defending one's opinions. I'm glad this time you've at least started to explain what you take issue with.

The laughing wasn't in lieu of anything. I lol'd because what you said made me lol.

Originally Posted by Megadead2

How? Power chord-based shock-tactic hard rock is NOT a timeless thing.

Most music in general isn't timeless. What's your point? That has nothing to do with whether or not it makes sense to label art as regressive.

Originally Posted by Megadead2

16 actually, but it's irrelevant, it has no bearing on what I should look for in art.

True. But it does have a direct bearing on how hilarious it is to hear you look down on things that are "adolescent".

Originally Posted by Megadead2

Also, I specifically gave an example of a certain situation in which I can appreciate "adolescent" music, but I don't think the Sex Pistols fall into that category.

I'm by no means saying you are required to like the Sex Pistols, all I'm saying is that a lot of the reasons you've given are pretty dubious.

[lieasleep]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

That's what I'm saying though, I don't think the Sex Pistols had the passion they're claimed to (or if they did it has been vastly surpassed), and their "message" was, well, idiotic. Just because it's political doesn't mean their politics should be lauded. Moreover, the fact that they delivered their message with no artistry or subtlety gives me the impression that the poltics was more important to them than the art. Also, it takes way more balls in rock to write a pro-establishment song than an anti-establishment one, and in fact the "anti-establishment" IS "the establishment" in rock.

The folk music I've been exposed to--mainly '60s singer/songwriters like Dylan and Morrisson and recent indie-folk artists like Devendra Banhart--is music of subtle originality and artistry. Very different from punk.

I LOVE post-punk. Talking Heads are my favorite band of all time, and even the Sex Pistols-derived Public Image Ltd. were shockingly good if only a rare listen for me (probably one of the most evil, zombie-like aesthetics I've ever encountered). But I don't think the sounds those bands had were specifically Sex Pistols-influenced, and in some ways those bands (especially on the synth-pop Depeche Mode side) actually owed as much or even more to art-rockers like David Bowie, Brian Eno, Kraftwerk, and adventurous producers like Giorgio Moroder than to punk rock.

if you want to be really fuc*ing skeptical then i suppose that first paragraph has some validity

folk and post punk are different in sounds from punk but they share much of the same message and roots. post-punk may have only slightly used punk influences in their music but it was the punk ideals and popularity that gave rise to such bands, a lot of amazing bands in that genre came out at the same time. why? punk.

folk just has a very political, protesting message that punk has as well as the genre's simplicity, it just does it in a different way.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

I also don't believe that sounding "teenaged" or "adolescent" is something to be admired. Rock's whole mythology of refusing to grow up is an ugly one. I look for maturity in music. I do enjoy some "childlike" music as well (twee pop, indie pop etc.) because it recaptures a feeling of innocence and simplicity in life, but adolescent music (which includes most trad punk as well as later bands like Dinosaur Jr.) lacks both that simplicity and innocence, and the control and discipline of more mature music. In some cases, adolescent music can work because it captures a very visceral, raw, intense feeling, which is why I can enjoy some of it despite my misgivings (examples I have given include the Troggs and Rites of Spring) but the Sex Pistols were actually no where near as visceral as they are made out to be.

I like mature and immature music alike. I do hate all the people who say "you can't have rock n roll unless it's immature, primitive and stupid" but more the same I'm also annoyed by people who think great lyrics or virtuoso musicianship is a bare necessity.

Thing is, I have those days where I can listen to Larks Tongues in Aspic or Tales From Topographic Oceans and rub my chin like the pretentious f*ck that I am, and then afterwards, I might crank up some Fear.

My house smells just like a zoo
It's chock full of shit and puke
Cokroaches on the walls
Grass growing on my balls
oh well im so clean cut
and I just want to fuck some slut

AHHHHHHHH LUUUUUUUUV LIVING IN THE CITEH!!!

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Megadead2

You fell back on a LOL? Weak. I can see we're not going to get along well...

Bummer for you I guess and also kind of sad if you think laughing is "weak". I just thought what you said was pretty funny. The idea that art can be defined as "regressive" strikes me as kind of silly. Also, hearing a 17 year old saying he or she can't tolerate things that are adolescent is also pretty humorous and, ironically, it's a fairly adolescent way of looking at things.