Most overrated/underrated bands since 1970's

Search

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
681
Tokens
Underrated: Social Distortion, Tragically Hip, Depeche Mode, Blood Sweat and Tears

Overrated: Nirvana, Aerosmith, ZZ Top, Oasis

Cheers
 

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
681
Tokens
Horseshoe said:
One for the Rx Canadians..Blue Rodeo..grossly underrated in the States.​

Agreed, as well as the Tragically Hip, the US is missing out on these two bands. For some reason Americans love Alanis Morrisette, who I would like to throw off a cliff, but the Hip and Blue Rodeo have never caught on.
 

2009 RX Death Pool Champion
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
13,603
Tokens
festeringZit said:
The Beatles versus the Rolling Stones



Ask yourself this question: If either the Beatles or the Rolling Stones never existed, which would have the greatest impact on music? Had the Beatles not existed, the British Invasion would still have happened, but with one significant difference: Most bands would still primarily perform other people's songs. The Beatles earliest contribution is simply that they did what Buddy Holly died too early to do: They made the songwriter and performer one. The Stones would still be a cover band if the Beatles hadn't opened that door (although I'm not sure that would be such a bad thing). The Beatles more evident contribution came later as they turned rock n roll (a short and limited phase in music history) into ROCK. They expanded the boundaries with alternative instrumentation, creative production techniques, and a great variety of influences. Prior to Revolver, most rock n roll bands were simply playing a simple amalgamation of C&W and R&B that varied little from the records released in the mid 50s. The Stones never strayed far from this while the Beatles incorporated into this Indian, classical, cabaret, even ska at times. It elevated their music from the limited rock n roll that preceded them to a broad expansive art form. On the other hand, the Stones had only limited success when they got away from basic blues. While the Beatles took all these disparate influences and created cohesive albums, the Stones at best created cohesive songs (and not in a consistent manner). The only time the Stones could be relied on was when they stuck to the simple blues that they knew well.

To return to my initial question, the answer should be obvious. If there hadn't been a Beatles, Rock may not have even happened, because simple blues-based rock n roll would have died for it's inability to re-invent itself. If there had been no Rolling Stones, blues based rock would still exist, because the Yardbirds did it better and they gave us three of the real bastions of blues rock in Clapton, Beck and Page. Of course the Stones did set a standard for drugs and debauchery, but Led Zeppelin soon rewrote that standard without any influence from the Stones.

To those of you who would argue that the Stones are better simply because they've continued on 30 some years past the Beatles, I would reply simply that quantity is no substitute for quality. The Rolling Stones did put out a decent amount of good (not great) material in the 60s and most of that can be heard on the Hot Rocks best-of album. In the last 30 years though, the Stones have released very little that is better than bar-band quality music and even bar-bands can get a decent song or two out over time (see J Geils or 38 Special or Ratt or any other of a huge number of one- and two-hit wonders). This is exemplified in what are three of the best anthology records ever: the Beatles 1962-66, 1967-70 and the Rolling Stones Hot Rocks. While Hot Rocks will give you just about every important Stones song on two records, the four albums of 1962-66 and 1967-70 don't even scratch the surface of the Beatles. You can get pretty much all the Stones you need on a single two-album set and there are NO must-buy regular-release Stones albums. However, the Beatles best-ofs are only a starting point. Their list of must-owns includes: Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, White Album, Abbey Road. These are absolute musts. They are earth-shaking albums that have few if any rivals anywhere. Beyond these, there are still plenty of Beatles albums that should be owned ahead of any Stones albums.
Just remember, without the Beatles, there would still have been a Rolling Stones, but they would have been long forgotten. Many of the Beatles contributions would likely not have come from any other source. Any of the Stones contributions (few as they are) can be reasonably attributed to other bands in their absence. You can like listening to the Stones more than Beatles. As misguided as I think that is, it is your opinion. However, the question of who is really the better band goes well beyond unsubstantiated opinion. The Beatles ARE better than the Rolling Stones. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's not the result of a public opinion poll, but the result of history.



great,they are the kings. will never be another.people always will talk about them even 100 years from now.unbelevable what they did.will never ever ever be another band or artist that will come close what these 4 lads from liverpool did:party:
 

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
7,018
Tokens
I remeber back in 81 when the Stones came to Candlestick Park and a local radio station played an all Stones weekend and I just left it on that channel all weekend.

Quanity is a good thing also

Same in 84 when Bruce was in town (born in the USA was has last great tour)all Bruce all weekend.

Beatles have quanity just like the Eagles have quanity just pulled apart in four different pieces.
Although Ringo and Gearge didn't do a whole lot.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
3,291
Tokens
Gil, do you like the latest Buckingham from this year?

All the reviews by critics I've found, like it, been meaning to grab it for a few months now.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,559
Tokens
Horseshoe said:
Gil, do you like the latest Buckingham from this year?

All the reviews by critics I've found, like it, been meaning to grab it for a few months now.

Liked it a lot. It is VERY stripped down, it's basically just an accoustic guitar. Very little bass and drums. It doesn't quite measure up to "Out of the Cradle" for me, but that's one of my top ten albums ever.

He still has some tour dates coming up, if he comes to your area, definitely go check him out. Great show. Apparently he will be releasing an 'electric' album in the next year as well.
 

2009 RX Death Pool Champion
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
13,603
Tokens
these guys just ooze money. they still sell millions of albums despite 37 years disbanded



All Europe needs is the Beatles' 'Love'
By VARIETY STAFF

LONDON -- Forget the Arctic Monkeys, Lily Allen, the phenomenon of TV's "X Factor" or the comeback of Take That. The biggest event in British rock 'n' pop this year was the "new" Beatles album "Love."

Released by EMI in November, "Love" hit No. 1 in the Europewide album chart with over a million sales inside two weeks. Boosted by rave reviews, the album charted at No. 3 in the U.K. where it has now sold more than 500,000 copies. It reached No. 4 in the U.S. (and No. 1 according to the Coalition of Independent Music Stores), with sales rising week on week to reach 750,000 units so far.

Not bad for a band that disintegrated 37 years ago.

The Fab Four franchise is the bedrock upon which the EMI empire is built. It's hard to think of any other body of work that's sustained its financial value and its creative relevance at such a peak for so long. This has been achieved despite (or maybe because of) the fact that the canon of 13 albums was recorded in the space of seven years, and nothing has been added since 1969 to refresh or dilute it.

Having pioneered the art of pop and of studio recording, the Beatles since their demise have pioneered the art of repackaging. They were among the first great beneficiaries of the CD revolution -- the reissue of all 13 albums in 1987 opened the ears of a new generation to their music and led directly to the Britpop explosion in the early '90s.

They fed the flames with their three "Anthology" discs of previously unreleased material in the mid-1990s. But even EMI was taken aback by the success of the "One" album in 2000. That collection of the band's U.K. and U.S. number ones, which every Beatles fan surely already owned, sold a staggering 21.6 million in its first year of release and has now reached 28 million, which means it is still shifting over a million copies a year.

The "Anthology" and "One" concepts have both been copied by other rock and pop legends. "Love," a selection of Beatles tracks mashed together from the original masters by the band's own producer George Martin and his son Giles, is a step into new territory, mining the motherlode of Beatles recordings and creating new and surprising alloys.

The album was created as the soundtrack to a Cirque de Soleil extravaganza in Las Vegas. That may have led some to expect a cheesy travesty of the Beatles' past glories. But the fortunate few invited to the unveiling of the album at EMI's legendary Abbey Road studios in November soon learned otherwise.

Walking into Studio Two, where the Fab Four recorded most of their music, felt like entering a shrine to the greatest icons in the history of rock 'n' roll. But when the a capella harmonies of "Because" floated from the 5.1 surround sound speakers and merged into the thunderous intro to "Get Back," it became clear that the Beatles are no historical monument, but a living, breathing band whose freshly remixed music still sounds as urgent and original as anything being recorded today.

Critics have raved over the inspiration of combining "Within You Without You" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" into a single track, or picking out stray bass lines or drum breaks from one song or discarded take and fitting them into another.

"It's a first, a unique way of presenting and working with an artist's catalog," says EMI U.K. topper Tony Wadsworth. "Trying to predict where 'Love' was going to go was very difficult indeed, because there's nothing to compare it with. It's not a greatest hits album that you can measure against other greatest hits albums. And it's going to be interesting to see whether other artists emulate this."

Critics have also pointed out, however, that the greatest impact from "Love" comes not from the mash-up of familiar sounds into unfamiliar shapes, fascinating though that is, but from the power of hearing songs such as "A Day in the Life" given a fresh polish and pin-sharp clarity, using the latest technology to bring out what was already there but previously obscured.

After all, it was nearly 20 years ago today that the Beatles albums were first transferred onto CD, back in the prehistoric days of the digital revolution, and the results, by today's standards, are somewhat muddy. EMI is working with the surviving Beatles on freshly remastered versions of all 13 albums for release sometime in 2007.

If "Love" is any guide, the results are likely to be a revelation. So the Beatles phenomenon will renew itself again, and EMI will earn itself another windfall.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
4,948
Tokens
Underated.

Screwdriver
Tracy Champmon
Rightsaidfred

Overated.

Beatles-pure Crap
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Seal
 

2009 RX Death Pool Champion
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
13,603
Tokens
Teddy kgb said:
Underated.

Screwdriver
Tracy Champmon
Rightsaidfred

Overated.

Beatles-pure Crap
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Seal


yeah the beatles suck shit.worst band in the history of bands:lol:
 

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
213
Tokens
Underrated was a canadian band called "Triumph". 70s and 80s power trio. Also if you like it hard BTOs album called " Not Fragile" will knock your socks off circa 1973 ...hardest thing they ever put out, lots of bass and drums. Still sounds good and I rarely say that about old stuff...I was a fan of "Head East" from Mizzou. Big in the midwest but found its way to my "record player". Remember when you could stack a pile of Lps on top of each other and then they would drop one at a time and play....scratch crackle, pop. Old Radio Shack clarinette model with a built in 8 -track.:thumbsup:
 

Rx God
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
39,226
Tokens
Underrated:

Deftones
UFO
Blue Oyster Cult
Jefferson Starship (not Starship)
White Stripes
War


Overrated:

Jimmy Buffett
Grateful Dead
Nickelback
Kid Rock
Guns N Roses


I heard some Nickelback for the first time recently, kind of liked them.
 

New member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
4,746
Tokens
Overrated: half of the bands out there.

Underrated: Ministry, Accept (even tho their front man, Udo Dirkschneider, "outdid" Rob Halford), The Bears (Adrian Belew is one of the guitarits/vocalists) & Marillion (w/ Fish).
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,109,340
Messages
13,459,142
Members
99,469
Latest member
herbalinfusion
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com