First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply overrated bands
489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/6/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Ocale wrote:

Everything that I don't listen to.


Fucking brilliant, this is. But seriously, KISS and Guns N' Roses are probably among my list of overrated bands (though they both still make some good songs, especially the former).


For me, radiohead is seriously overrated because an album like ok computer is held to ungodly amounts of praise and acclaim. It seems that without that album no good music would exist in the 21st century. I've listened to songs off of the album before okay computer known as the bends and those songs are better than the ones I have heard off that album. For some, it seems radiohead is the most revolutionary band since the velvet underground, the beatles, the rolling stones, the stooges, any other significant band. No band is that great and no album is not revolutionary.


....what? Eh, whatever. Sure, it's not my favorite album of theirs (Kid A takes the spot), and although The Bends sure is awesome, I would still prefer this album over it. Besides, I can understand why some consider this the "savior of rock," mainly in the accessible, commercial sense. The grunge movement was losing its steam as the 90s goes on, and Radiohead were eager to move on from those roots to make something that's, well, out of the ordinary. One of the most daring, and greatest, albums of the 90s and of all time. I mean, Paranoid Android alone is worthy of the praise. What other rock song sounded like that at the time? It was a successor I'd say to Bohemian Rhapsody and Happiness Is a Warm Gun as this was heavily inspired by those two. Overall, I don't think they're overrated whatsoever...although I will admit I don't understand your reasoning for your opinion whatsoever. Rock music was getting very stale, especially in the mainstream, by then, so this album kind of set it afloat for a little while until it "disappeared" from the music charts (probably for the best, I'd argue).


well, this is where i critique a few of your points. during most of the 90s, alternative rock was being made into a commercial, accessible movement out of the influence of the 80s underground. In fact, nirvana was given the most credit for doing what you claim ok computer did with their album nevermind in that in made alternative rock popular. I for one, think nirvana is overated for the same reasons radiohead is. For one, neither band were the first to have a certain sound and there were a few bands that honestly released material that was just as good if not better than say albums like nevermind and ok computer. The 90s was a huge time for alternative acts from the beginning to the end. bands like weezer, beck, pavement, soundgarden, pearl jam, third eye blind, cake, red hot chili peppers etc all released great material around this time that could have easily challenged these two critically acclaimed albums on a pure artistic and musical level. However, these two bands seem to gain more attention that the rest. Soundgarden could blow out nirvana any day of the week and weezer's first two albums were just as decade defining as ok computer was. your argument for ok computer was that it pushed the standard for rock music in the mainstream, but that wasn't what the 90s was about. It was a time for alternative acts to gain the spotlight and gain attention before what was known as nu metal truly took over the charts in the late 90s and the 2000s and bogged rock down. Bands like the white stripes, the black keys, spoon etc, bands that would later go on to particapte in the indie rock revival perpetuated by the strokes around 2000/2001, were already formed around the time of ok computer and those bands core influences had little to do with radiohead's sound. In fact, radiohead's core influence was the pixies and they did more for alternative rock than radiohead did. In fact, i will list you some bands influence by the pixies: nirvana, blur, radiohead, modest mouse, pj Harvey, arcade fire, and countless others. So many bands released amazing material during the 90s, but radiohead gets most of the glory. I love the 90s and have listened to countless records from that decade that were amazing in their own right, and i just personally think that radiohead actually just shifts below the surface. Unlike most of the bands during the 90s, radiohead were somehow able to get super huge. Also, radiohead really took more form the pixies than the two classic albums that you mentioned earlier. Even as i am writing this, i am listening to ok computer and can name five albums from the 90s that surpassed it. Radiohead didn't even keep rock alive during the 2000s. That honor goes to bands that include: the white stripes, the black keys, the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, modest mouse, franz Ferdinand, and countless others. To say that a single band or album was the savior of rock or kept it alive is ludicrous. Behind every critically acclaimed band with way too much credit, there are five smaller bands that were doing it way before and were releasing material that was just as good. Although I'm not a huge radiohead fan, i don't dislike them. They are just kind of a lukewarm band for me and i think they just get too much credit for something that was helped along by several other bands. Hopefully you understand why i think they are overrated now.


That's fine, but I was just trying to tell you why I feel like they deserve the acclaim they're getting, IMHO. Funny enough, some of those bands you mention, including Radiohead and Nirvana, were getting REALLY sick of their acquired fame. That's why the former did Kid A in particular, and Nirvana got something like In Utero for some to deal with lol. Plus, alternative rock was originally supposed to be "underground," or more specifically distinct from the mainstream rock music of the time. And it was, like with pretty much anything else at the time. Nevermind did lay the groundwork, especially in terms of commercial success, and OK Computer does NOT sound anything like that and any other album at the time, IMO. From influences like the bands you mention plus some prog influences (PF and early Queen in particular) among others makes it stand out, in a good way. That is what I was trying to get across, you know?


Yeah, I get what you are saying. The idea of alternative rock has changed names at least a couple of times. I think the idea of underground music came from the 80s for the most part. From bands such as black flag, bad brains, the replacements, sonic youth, guided by voices, yo la tengo, dinosaur jr, the idea of underground music was formed. Differing from groups such as radiohead, these groups didn't particularly have what is known as commercial appeal. Bands like black flag were too abrasive and bands such as sonic youth were purposely against the grain with their lo-fi noise rock sound. Bands such as husker du and the replacements were more accessible to the public but didn't get as much attention as some other underground acts. I think the idea of alternative rock was a less abrasive form of rock that could be successfully marketed. In many ways, I suppose you were saying that a band like radiohead made it cool and okay to go against the grain and I get that. Radiohead seems to be such an artsy and experimental band that it seems odd that they are so successful especially compared to acts like coldplay that got bigger the more that they embraced the pop side of the spectrum. I see many similarities between groups such as radiohead and bands such as modest mouse and arcade fire in terms of how popular they are despite going against the grain. What you are saying makes sense especially if you have ever watched the documentary DIG!. This is a documentary about two bands from California: the dandy warhols and the brian Jonestown massacre and explores how they feud as one finds success with a major label and the other remains obscure and unappreciated. I highly recommend it as well since those two bands are so unique compared to other bands of that decade and it explores the struggles of signing to a major label and being able to find success. Around that time, major labels were more open to supporting alternative acts up until the idea of signing to a major label began to lose its pomp and circumstance so to speak. In looking at it from a musical history perspective, I find it odd that so many alternative acts lose influence and burn out in time, but radiohead manages to survive and remain relevant. At the very least, I can't name too many bands that have managed to do that. I can at least respect that since it gets harder and harder to find success in the current music industry without "selling out" so to speak. I guess I can't say that many 90s acts still maintain that level of staying power besides radiohead, beck, and the red hot chili peppers.



Totally fucking agree, man. I would also put R.E.M. among that list, especially in regards to commercial success. But that's me, though. and also, in regards to alternative bands having easier possibilities to sign with a major label, I would argue that for pretty much any genre, especially between the 60s to the 90s. And it would only get worse as time went on, like you said.
1224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/6/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Ocale wrote:

Everything that I don't listen to.


Fucking brilliant, this is. But seriously, KISS and Guns N' Roses are probably among my list of overrated bands (though they both still make some good songs, especially the former).


For me, radiohead is seriously overrated because an album like ok computer is held to ungodly amounts of praise and acclaim. It seems that without that album no good music would exist in the 21st century. I've listened to songs off of the album before okay computer known as the bends and those songs are better than the ones I have heard off that album. For some, it seems radiohead is the most revolutionary band since the velvet underground, the beatles, the rolling stones, the stooges, any other significant band. No band is that great and no album is not revolutionary.


....what? Eh, whatever. Sure, it's not my favorite album of theirs (Kid A takes the spot), and although The Bends sure is awesome, I would still prefer this album over it. Besides, I can understand why some consider this the "savior of rock," mainly in the accessible, commercial sense. The grunge movement was losing its steam as the 90s goes on, and Radiohead were eager to move on from those roots to make something that's, well, out of the ordinary. One of the most daring, and greatest, albums of the 90s and of all time. I mean, Paranoid Android alone is worthy of the praise. What other rock song sounded like that at the time? It was a successor I'd say to Bohemian Rhapsody and Happiness Is a Warm Gun as this was heavily inspired by those two. Overall, I don't think they're overrated whatsoever...although I will admit I don't understand your reasoning for your opinion whatsoever. Rock music was getting very stale, especially in the mainstream, by then, so this album kind of set it afloat for a little while until it "disappeared" from the music charts (probably for the best, I'd argue).


well, this is where i critique a few of your points. during most of the 90s, alternative rock was being made into a commercial, accessible movement out of the influence of the 80s underground. In fact, nirvana was given the most credit for doing what you claim ok computer did with their album nevermind in that in made alternative rock popular. I for one, think nirvana is overated for the same reasons radiohead is. For one, neither band were the first to have a certain sound and there were a few bands that honestly released material that was just as good if not better than say albums like nevermind and ok computer. The 90s was a huge time for alternative acts from the beginning to the end. bands like weezer, beck, pavement, soundgarden, pearl jam, third eye blind, cake, red hot chili peppers etc all released great material around this time that could have easily challenged these two critically acclaimed albums on a pure artistic and musical level. However, these two bands seem to gain more attention that the rest. Soundgarden could blow out nirvana any day of the week and weezer's first two albums were just as decade defining as ok computer was. your argument for ok computer was that it pushed the standard for rock music in the mainstream, but that wasn't what the 90s was about. It was a time for alternative acts to gain the spotlight and gain attention before what was known as nu metal truly took over the charts in the late 90s and the 2000s and bogged rock down. Bands like the white stripes, the black keys, spoon etc, bands that would later go on to particapte in the indie rock revival perpetuated by the strokes around 2000/2001, were already formed around the time of ok computer and those bands core influences had little to do with radiohead's sound. In fact, radiohead's core influence was the pixies and they did more for alternative rock than radiohead did. In fact, i will list you some bands influence by the pixies: nirvana, blur, radiohead, modest mouse, pj Harvey, arcade fire, and countless others. So many bands released amazing material during the 90s, but radiohead gets most of the glory. I love the 90s and have listened to countless records from that decade that were amazing in their own right, and i just personally think that radiohead actually just shifts below the surface. Unlike most of the bands during the 90s, radiohead were somehow able to get super huge. Also, radiohead really took more form the pixies than the two classic albums that you mentioned earlier. Even as i am writing this, i am listening to ok computer and can name five albums from the 90s that surpassed it. Radiohead didn't even keep rock alive during the 2000s. That honor goes to bands that include: the white stripes, the black keys, the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, modest mouse, franz Ferdinand, and countless others. To say that a single band or album was the savior of rock or kept it alive is ludicrous. Behind every critically acclaimed band with way too much credit, there are five smaller bands that were doing it way before and were releasing material that was just as good. Although I'm not a huge radiohead fan, i don't dislike them. They are just kind of a lukewarm band for me and i think they just get too much credit for something that was helped along by several other bands. Hopefully you understand why i think they are overrated now.


That's fine, but I was just trying to tell you why I feel like they deserve the acclaim they're getting, IMHO. Funny enough, some of those bands you mention, including Radiohead and Nirvana, were getting REALLY sick of their acquired fame. That's why the former did Kid A in particular, and Nirvana got something like In Utero for some to deal with lol. Plus, alternative rock was originally supposed to be "underground," or more specifically distinct from the mainstream rock music of the time. And it was, like with pretty much anything else at the time. Nevermind did lay the groundwork, especially in terms of commercial success, and OK Computer does NOT sound anything like that and any other album at the time, IMO. From influences like the bands you mention plus some prog influences (PF and early Queen in particular) among others makes it stand out, in a good way. That is what I was trying to get across, you know?


Yeah, I get what you are saying. The idea of alternative rock has changed names at least a couple of times. I think the idea of underground music came from the 80s for the most part. From bands such as black flag, bad brains, the replacements, sonic youth, guided by voices, yo la tengo, dinosaur jr, the idea of underground music was formed. Differing from groups such as radiohead, these groups didn't particularly have what is known as commercial appeal. Bands like black flag were too abrasive and bands such as sonic youth were purposely against the grain with their lo-fi noise rock sound. Bands such as husker du and the replacements were more accessible to the public but didn't get as much attention as some other underground acts. I think the idea of alternative rock was a less abrasive form of rock that could be successfully marketed. In many ways, I suppose you were saying that a band like radiohead made it cool and okay to go against the grain and I get that. Radiohead seems to be such an artsy and experimental band that it seems odd that they are so successful especially compared to acts like coldplay that got bigger the more that they embraced the pop side of the spectrum. I see many similarities between groups such as radiohead and bands such as modest mouse and arcade fire in terms of how popular they are despite going against the grain. What you are saying makes sense especially if you have ever watched the documentary DIG!. This is a documentary about two bands from California: the dandy warhols and the brian Jonestown massacre and explores how they feud as one finds success with a major label and the other remains obscure and unappreciated. I highly recommend it as well since those two bands are so unique compared to other bands of that decade and it explores the struggles of signing to a major label and being able to find success. Around that time, major labels were more open to supporting alternative acts up until the idea of signing to a major label began to lose its pomp and circumstance so to speak. In looking at it from a musical history perspective, I find it odd that so many alternative acts lose influence and burn out in time, but radiohead manages to survive and remain relevant. At the very least, I can't name too many bands that have managed to do that. I can at least respect that since it gets harder and harder to find success in the current music industry without "selling out" so to speak. I guess I can't say that many 90s acts still maintain that level of staying power besides radiohead, beck, and the red hot chili peppers.



Totally fucking agree, man. I would also put R.E.M. among that list, especially in regards to commercial success. But that's me, though. and also, in regards to alternative bands having easier possibilities to sign with a major label, I would argue that for pretty much any genre, especially between the 60s to the 90s. And it would only get worse as time went on, like you said.


yeah I'd put rem in that category too. I guess most of the bands I mentioned never really had the opportunity to sign with a major label. Even if they were signed, it isn't guaranteed that their material would get any better. Most of rem early years were the best. after they signed with warner brothers, I'd say the only really good album was monster. After they signed, that was when the band started wearing down as they weren't touring for automatic for the people and monster was the last of drummer bill berry. In terms of a band like weezer, they signed to a major label but their material, although I hate to admit it, went downhill after pinkerton their 2nd album. The chili peppers couldn't go real far after blood sugar sex magic for most of 90s until californication. A band like husker du only had like one album with a major label and sonic youth signed to a major label in 1990 but still remained a cult band. However, that was more because sonic youth's sound was so experimental and abrasive even for the 90s. signing to a major label was viewed as a must until the 80s and bands like black flag, bad brains, and later fugazi would simply just do it themselves. Another good documentary representing this was the doc American hardcore. A lot of bands spoke about how it was impossible for them to achieve commercial success or even be played on the radio. They had to make their own albums, package their own albums, buy their own equipment, and play anywhere and everywhere to get attention. They might not have made a lot of money, but they sure set a precedent. The 80s was also the period where a band could simply start their own label without being ridiculously rich like led zeppelin. Sonic youth did it, cake did it, and jack white did it practically on accident.

489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Ocale wrote:

Everything that I don't listen to.


Fucking brilliant, this is. But seriously, KISS and Guns N' Roses are probably among my list of overrated bands (though they both still make some good songs, especially the former).


For me, radiohead is seriously overrated because an album like ok computer is held to ungodly amounts of praise and acclaim. It seems that without that album no good music would exist in the 21st century. I've listened to songs off of the album before okay computer known as the bends and those songs are better than the ones I have heard off that album. For some, it seems radiohead is the most revolutionary band since the velvet underground, the beatles, the rolling stones, the stooges, any other significant band. No band is that great and no album is not revolutionary.


....what? Eh, whatever. Sure, it's not my favorite album of theirs (Kid A takes the spot), and although The Bends sure is awesome, I would still prefer this album over it. Besides, I can understand why some consider this the "savior of rock," mainly in the accessible, commercial sense. The grunge movement was losing its steam as the 90s goes on, and Radiohead were eager to move on from those roots to make something that's, well, out of the ordinary. One of the most daring, and greatest, albums of the 90s and of all time. I mean, Paranoid Android alone is worthy of the praise. What other rock song sounded like that at the time? It was a successor I'd say to Bohemian Rhapsody and Happiness Is a Warm Gun as this was heavily inspired by those two. Overall, I don't think they're overrated whatsoever...although I will admit I don't understand your reasoning for your opinion whatsoever. Rock music was getting very stale, especially in the mainstream, by then, so this album kind of set it afloat for a little while until it "disappeared" from the music charts (probably for the best, I'd argue).


well, this is where i critique a few of your points. during most of the 90s, alternative rock was being made into a commercial, accessible movement out of the influence of the 80s underground. In fact, nirvana was given the most credit for doing what you claim ok computer did with their album nevermind in that in made alternative rock popular. I for one, think nirvana is overated for the same reasons radiohead is. For one, neither band were the first to have a certain sound and there were a few bands that honestly released material that was just as good if not better than say albums like nevermind and ok computer. The 90s was a huge time for alternative acts from the beginning to the end. bands like weezer, beck, pavement, soundgarden, pearl jam, third eye blind, cake, red hot chili peppers etc all released great material around this time that could have easily challenged these two critically acclaimed albums on a pure artistic and musical level. However, these two bands seem to gain more attention that the rest. Soundgarden could blow out nirvana any day of the week and weezer's first two albums were just as decade defining as ok computer was. your argument for ok computer was that it pushed the standard for rock music in the mainstream, but that wasn't what the 90s was about. It was a time for alternative acts to gain the spotlight and gain attention before what was known as nu metal truly took over the charts in the late 90s and the 2000s and bogged rock down. Bands like the white stripes, the black keys, spoon etc, bands that would later go on to particapte in the indie rock revival perpetuated by the strokes around 2000/2001, were already formed around the time of ok computer and those bands core influences had little to do with radiohead's sound. In fact, radiohead's core influence was the pixies and they did more for alternative rock than radiohead did. In fact, i will list you some bands influence by the pixies: nirvana, blur, radiohead, modest mouse, pj Harvey, arcade fire, and countless others. So many bands released amazing material during the 90s, but radiohead gets most of the glory. I love the 90s and have listened to countless records from that decade that were amazing in their own right, and i just personally think that radiohead actually just shifts below the surface. Unlike most of the bands during the 90s, radiohead were somehow able to get super huge. Also, radiohead really took more form the pixies than the two classic albums that you mentioned earlier. Even as i am writing this, i am listening to ok computer and can name five albums from the 90s that surpassed it. Radiohead didn't even keep rock alive during the 2000s. That honor goes to bands that include: the white stripes, the black keys, the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, modest mouse, franz Ferdinand, and countless others. To say that a single band or album was the savior of rock or kept it alive is ludicrous. Behind every critically acclaimed band with way too much credit, there are five smaller bands that were doing it way before and were releasing material that was just as good. Although I'm not a huge radiohead fan, i don't dislike them. They are just kind of a lukewarm band for me and i think they just get too much credit for something that was helped along by several other bands. Hopefully you understand why i think they are overrated now.


That's fine, but I was just trying to tell you why I feel like they deserve the acclaim they're getting, IMHO. Funny enough, some of those bands you mention, including Radiohead and Nirvana, were getting REALLY sick of their acquired fame. That's why the former did Kid A in particular, and Nirvana got something like In Utero for some to deal with lol. Plus, alternative rock was originally supposed to be "underground," or more specifically distinct from the mainstream rock music of the time. And it was, like with pretty much anything else at the time. Nevermind did lay the groundwork, especially in terms of commercial success, and OK Computer does NOT sound anything like that and any other album at the time, IMO. From influences like the bands you mention plus some prog influences (PF and early Queen in particular) among others makes it stand out, in a good way. That is what I was trying to get across, you know?


Yeah, I get what you are saying. The idea of alternative rock has changed names at least a couple of times. I think the idea of underground music came from the 80s for the most part. From bands such as black flag, bad brains, the replacements, sonic youth, guided by voices, yo la tengo, dinosaur jr, the idea of underground music was formed. Differing from groups such as radiohead, these groups didn't particularly have what is known as commercial appeal. Bands like black flag were too abrasive and bands such as sonic youth were purposely against the grain with their lo-fi noise rock sound. Bands such as husker du and the replacements were more accessible to the public but didn't get as much attention as some other underground acts. I think the idea of alternative rock was a less abrasive form of rock that could be successfully marketed. In many ways, I suppose you were saying that a band like radiohead made it cool and okay to go against the grain and I get that. Radiohead seems to be such an artsy and experimental band that it seems odd that they are so successful especially compared to acts like coldplay that got bigger the more that they embraced the pop side of the spectrum. I see many similarities between groups such as radiohead and bands such as modest mouse and arcade fire in terms of how popular they are despite going against the grain. What you are saying makes sense especially if you have ever watched the documentary DIG!. This is a documentary about two bands from California: the dandy warhols and the brian Jonestown massacre and explores how they feud as one finds success with a major label and the other remains obscure and unappreciated. I highly recommend it as well since those two bands are so unique compared to other bands of that decade and it explores the struggles of signing to a major label and being able to find success. Around that time, major labels were more open to supporting alternative acts up until the idea of signing to a major label began to lose its pomp and circumstance so to speak. In looking at it from a musical history perspective, I find it odd that so many alternative acts lose influence and burn out in time, but radiohead manages to survive and remain relevant. At the very least, I can't name too many bands that have managed to do that. I can at least respect that since it gets harder and harder to find success in the current music industry without "selling out" so to speak. I guess I can't say that many 90s acts still maintain that level of staying power besides radiohead, beck, and the red hot chili peppers.



Totally fucking agree, man. I would also put R.E.M. among that list, especially in regards to commercial success. But that's me, though. and also, in regards to alternative bands having easier possibilities to sign with a major label, I would argue that for pretty much any genre, especially between the 60s to the 90s. And it would only get worse as time went on, like you said.


yeah I'd put rem in that category too. I guess most of the bands I mentioned never really had the opportunity to sign with a major label. Even if they were signed, it isn't guaranteed that their material would get any better. Most of rem early years were the best. after they signed with warner brothers, I'd say the only really good album was monster. After they signed, that was when the band started wearing down as they weren't touring for automatic for the people and monster was the last of drummer bill berry. In terms of a band like weezer, they signed to a major label but their material, although I hate to admit it, went downhill after pinkerton their 2nd album. The chili peppers couldn't go real far after blood sugar sex magic for most of 90s until californication. A band like husker du only had like one album with a major label and sonic youth signed to a major label in 1990 but still remained a cult band. However, that was more because sonic youth's sound was so experimental and abrasive even for the 90s. signing to a major label was viewed as a must until the 80s and bands like black flag, bad brains, and later fugazi would simply just do it themselves. Another good documentary representing this was the doc American hardcore. A lot of bands spoke about how it was impossible for them to achieve commercial success or even be played on the radio. They had to make their own albums, package their own albums, buy their own equipment, and play anywhere and everywhere to get attention. They might not have made a lot of money, but they sure set a precedent. The 80s was also the period where a band could simply start their own label without being ridiculously rich like led zeppelin. Sonic youth did it, cake did it, and jack white did it practically on accident.



Pretty much, and some of the older artists got on that same bandwagon (King Crimson, even though they're not alternative in the slightest, comes to mind). And these underground bands probably made better music than a majority of the more successful artists of the time, too.
Posted 7/7/16
I agree. Nirvana definitely, metallica, green day, g&r, etc.
1224 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/7/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Ocale wrote:

Everything that I don't listen to.


Fucking brilliant, this is. But seriously, KISS and Guns N' Roses are probably among my list of overrated bands (though they both still make some good songs, especially the former).


For me, radiohead is seriously overrated because an album like ok computer is held to ungodly amounts of praise and acclaim. It seems that without that album no good music would exist in the 21st century. I've listened to songs off of the album before okay computer known as the bends and those songs are better than the ones I have heard off that album. For some, it seems radiohead is the most revolutionary band since the velvet underground, the beatles, the rolling stones, the stooges, any other significant band. No band is that great and no album is not revolutionary.


....what? Eh, whatever. Sure, it's not my favorite album of theirs (Kid A takes the spot), and although The Bends sure is awesome, I would still prefer this album over it. Besides, I can understand why some consider this the "savior of rock," mainly in the accessible, commercial sense. The grunge movement was losing its steam as the 90s goes on, and Radiohead were eager to move on from those roots to make something that's, well, out of the ordinary. One of the most daring, and greatest, albums of the 90s and of all time. I mean, Paranoid Android alone is worthy of the praise. What other rock song sounded like that at the time? It was a successor I'd say to Bohemian Rhapsody and Happiness Is a Warm Gun as this was heavily inspired by those two. Overall, I don't think they're overrated whatsoever...although I will admit I don't understand your reasoning for your opinion whatsoever. Rock music was getting very stale, especially in the mainstream, by then, so this album kind of set it afloat for a little while until it "disappeared" from the music charts (probably for the best, I'd argue).


well, this is where i critique a few of your points. during most of the 90s, alternative rock was being made into a commercial, accessible movement out of the influence of the 80s underground. In fact, nirvana was given the most credit for doing what you claim ok computer did with their album nevermind in that in made alternative rock popular. I for one, think nirvana is overated for the same reasons radiohead is. For one, neither band were the first to have a certain sound and there were a few bands that honestly released material that was just as good if not better than say albums like nevermind and ok computer. The 90s was a huge time for alternative acts from the beginning to the end. bands like weezer, beck, pavement, soundgarden, pearl jam, third eye blind, cake, red hot chili peppers etc all released great material around this time that could have easily challenged these two critically acclaimed albums on a pure artistic and musical level. However, these two bands seem to gain more attention that the rest. Soundgarden could blow out nirvana any day of the week and weezer's first two albums were just as decade defining as ok computer was. your argument for ok computer was that it pushed the standard for rock music in the mainstream, but that wasn't what the 90s was about. It was a time for alternative acts to gain the spotlight and gain attention before what was known as nu metal truly took over the charts in the late 90s and the 2000s and bogged rock down. Bands like the white stripes, the black keys, spoon etc, bands that would later go on to particapte in the indie rock revival perpetuated by the strokes around 2000/2001, were already formed around the time of ok computer and those bands core influences had little to do with radiohead's sound. In fact, radiohead's core influence was the pixies and they did more for alternative rock than radiohead did. In fact, i will list you some bands influence by the pixies: nirvana, blur, radiohead, modest mouse, pj Harvey, arcade fire, and countless others. So many bands released amazing material during the 90s, but radiohead gets most of the glory. I love the 90s and have listened to countless records from that decade that were amazing in their own right, and i just personally think that radiohead actually just shifts below the surface. Unlike most of the bands during the 90s, radiohead were somehow able to get super huge. Also, radiohead really took more form the pixies than the two classic albums that you mentioned earlier. Even as i am writing this, i am listening to ok computer and can name five albums from the 90s that surpassed it. Radiohead didn't even keep rock alive during the 2000s. That honor goes to bands that include: the white stripes, the black keys, the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, modest mouse, franz Ferdinand, and countless others. To say that a single band or album was the savior of rock or kept it alive is ludicrous. Behind every critically acclaimed band with way too much credit, there are five smaller bands that were doing it way before and were releasing material that was just as good. Although I'm not a huge radiohead fan, i don't dislike them. They are just kind of a lukewarm band for me and i think they just get too much credit for something that was helped along by several other bands. Hopefully you understand why i think they are overrated now.


That's fine, but I was just trying to tell you why I feel like they deserve the acclaim they're getting, IMHO. Funny enough, some of those bands you mention, including Radiohead and Nirvana, were getting REALLY sick of their acquired fame. That's why the former did Kid A in particular, and Nirvana got something like In Utero for some to deal with lol. Plus, alternative rock was originally supposed to be "underground," or more specifically distinct from the mainstream rock music of the time. And it was, like with pretty much anything else at the time. Nevermind did lay the groundwork, especially in terms of commercial success, and OK Computer does NOT sound anything like that and any other album at the time, IMO. From influences like the bands you mention plus some prog influences (PF and early Queen in particular) among others makes it stand out, in a good way. That is what I was trying to get across, you know?


Yeah, I get what you are saying. The idea of alternative rock has changed names at least a couple of times. I think the idea of underground music came from the 80s for the most part. From bands such as black flag, bad brains, the replacements, sonic youth, guided by voices, yo la tengo, dinosaur jr, the idea of underground music was formed. Differing from groups such as radiohead, these groups didn't particularly have what is known as commercial appeal. Bands like black flag were too abrasive and bands such as sonic youth were purposely against the grain with their lo-fi noise rock sound. Bands such as husker du and the replacements were more accessible to the public but didn't get as much attention as some other underground acts. I think the idea of alternative rock was a less abrasive form of rock that could be successfully marketed. In many ways, I suppose you were saying that a band like radiohead made it cool and okay to go against the grain and I get that. Radiohead seems to be such an artsy and experimental band that it seems odd that they are so successful especially compared to acts like coldplay that got bigger the more that they embraced the pop side of the spectrum. I see many similarities between groups such as radiohead and bands such as modest mouse and arcade fire in terms of how popular they are despite going against the grain. What you are saying makes sense especially if you have ever watched the documentary DIG!. This is a documentary about two bands from California: the dandy warhols and the brian Jonestown massacre and explores how they feud as one finds success with a major label and the other remains obscure and unappreciated. I highly recommend it as well since those two bands are so unique compared to other bands of that decade and it explores the struggles of signing to a major label and being able to find success. Around that time, major labels were more open to supporting alternative acts up until the idea of signing to a major label began to lose its pomp and circumstance so to speak. In looking at it from a musical history perspective, I find it odd that so many alternative acts lose influence and burn out in time, but radiohead manages to survive and remain relevant. At the very least, I can't name too many bands that have managed to do that. I can at least respect that since it gets harder and harder to find success in the current music industry without "selling out" so to speak. I guess I can't say that many 90s acts still maintain that level of staying power besides radiohead, beck, and the red hot chili peppers.



Totally fucking agree, man. I would also put R.E.M. among that list, especially in regards to commercial success. But that's me, though. and also, in regards to alternative bands having easier possibilities to sign with a major label, I would argue that for pretty much any genre, especially between the 60s to the 90s. And it would only get worse as time went on, like you said.


yeah I'd put rem in that category too. I guess most of the bands I mentioned never really had the opportunity to sign with a major label. Even if they were signed, it isn't guaranteed that their material would get any better. Most of rem early years were the best. after they signed with warner brothers, I'd say the only really good album was monster. After they signed, that was when the band started wearing down as they weren't touring for automatic for the people and monster was the last of drummer bill berry. In terms of a band like weezer, they signed to a major label but their material, although I hate to admit it, went downhill after pinkerton their 2nd album. The chili peppers couldn't go real far after blood sugar sex magic for most of 90s until californication. A band like husker du only had like one album with a major label and sonic youth signed to a major label in 1990 but still remained a cult band. However, that was more because sonic youth's sound was so experimental and abrasive even for the 90s. signing to a major label was viewed as a must until the 80s and bands like black flag, bad brains, and later fugazi would simply just do it themselves. Another good documentary representing this was the doc American hardcore. A lot of bands spoke about how it was impossible for them to achieve commercial success or even be played on the radio. They had to make their own albums, package their own albums, buy their own equipment, and play anywhere and everywhere to get attention. They might not have made a lot of money, but they sure set a precedent. The 80s was also the period where a band could simply start their own label without being ridiculously rich like led zeppelin. Sonic youth did it, cake did it, and jack white did it practically on accident.



Pretty much, and some of the older artists got on that same bandwagon (King Crimson, even though they're not alternative in the slightest, comes to mind). And these underground bands probably made better music than a majority of the more successful artists of the time, too.


They always have

489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


Ocale wrote:

Everything that I don't listen to.


Fucking brilliant, this is. But seriously, KISS and Guns N' Roses are probably among my list of overrated bands (though they both still make some good songs, especially the former).


For me, radiohead is seriously overrated because an album like ok computer is held to ungodly amounts of praise and acclaim. It seems that without that album no good music would exist in the 21st century. I've listened to songs off of the album before okay computer known as the bends and those songs are better than the ones I have heard off that album. For some, it seems radiohead is the most revolutionary band since the velvet underground, the beatles, the rolling stones, the stooges, any other significant band. No band is that great and no album is not revolutionary.


....what? Eh, whatever. Sure, it's not my favorite album of theirs (Kid A takes the spot), and although The Bends sure is awesome, I would still prefer this album over it. Besides, I can understand why some consider this the "savior of rock," mainly in the accessible, commercial sense. The grunge movement was losing its steam as the 90s goes on, and Radiohead were eager to move on from those roots to make something that's, well, out of the ordinary. One of the most daring, and greatest, albums of the 90s and of all time. I mean, Paranoid Android alone is worthy of the praise. What other rock song sounded like that at the time? It was a successor I'd say to Bohemian Rhapsody and Happiness Is a Warm Gun as this was heavily inspired by those two. Overall, I don't think they're overrated whatsoever...although I will admit I don't understand your reasoning for your opinion whatsoever. Rock music was getting very stale, especially in the mainstream, by then, so this album kind of set it afloat for a little while until it "disappeared" from the music charts (probably for the best, I'd argue).


well, this is where i critique a few of your points. during most of the 90s, alternative rock was being made into a commercial, accessible movement out of the influence of the 80s underground. In fact, nirvana was given the most credit for doing what you claim ok computer did with their album nevermind in that in made alternative rock popular. I for one, think nirvana is overated for the same reasons radiohead is. For one, neither band were the first to have a certain sound and there were a few bands that honestly released material that was just as good if not better than say albums like nevermind and ok computer. The 90s was a huge time for alternative acts from the beginning to the end. bands like weezer, beck, pavement, soundgarden, pearl jam, third eye blind, cake, red hot chili peppers etc all released great material around this time that could have easily challenged these two critically acclaimed albums on a pure artistic and musical level. However, these two bands seem to gain more attention that the rest. Soundgarden could blow out nirvana any day of the week and weezer's first two albums were just as decade defining as ok computer was. your argument for ok computer was that it pushed the standard for rock music in the mainstream, but that wasn't what the 90s was about. It was a time for alternative acts to gain the spotlight and gain attention before what was known as nu metal truly took over the charts in the late 90s and the 2000s and bogged rock down. Bands like the white stripes, the black keys, spoon etc, bands that would later go on to particapte in the indie rock revival perpetuated by the strokes around 2000/2001, were already formed around the time of ok computer and those bands core influences had little to do with radiohead's sound. In fact, radiohead's core influence was the pixies and they did more for alternative rock than radiohead did. In fact, i will list you some bands influence by the pixies: nirvana, blur, radiohead, modest mouse, pj Harvey, arcade fire, and countless others. So many bands released amazing material during the 90s, but radiohead gets most of the glory. I love the 90s and have listened to countless records from that decade that were amazing in their own right, and i just personally think that radiohead actually just shifts below the surface. Unlike most of the bands during the 90s, radiohead were somehow able to get super huge. Also, radiohead really took more form the pixies than the two classic albums that you mentioned earlier. Even as i am writing this, i am listening to ok computer and can name five albums from the 90s that surpassed it. Radiohead didn't even keep rock alive during the 2000s. That honor goes to bands that include: the white stripes, the black keys, the strokes, Interpol, arcade fire, modest mouse, franz Ferdinand, and countless others. To say that a single band or album was the savior of rock or kept it alive is ludicrous. Behind every critically acclaimed band with way too much credit, there are five smaller bands that were doing it way before and were releasing material that was just as good. Although I'm not a huge radiohead fan, i don't dislike them. They are just kind of a lukewarm band for me and i think they just get too much credit for something that was helped along by several other bands. Hopefully you understand why i think they are overrated now.


That's fine, but I was just trying to tell you why I feel like they deserve the acclaim they're getting, IMHO. Funny enough, some of those bands you mention, including Radiohead and Nirvana, were getting REALLY sick of their acquired fame. That's why the former did Kid A in particular, and Nirvana got something like In Utero for some to deal with lol. Plus, alternative rock was originally supposed to be "underground," or more specifically distinct from the mainstream rock music of the time. And it was, like with pretty much anything else at the time. Nevermind did lay the groundwork, especially in terms of commercial success, and OK Computer does NOT sound anything like that and any other album at the time, IMO. From influences like the bands you mention plus some prog influences (PF and early Queen in particular) among others makes it stand out, in a good way. That is what I was trying to get across, you know?


Yeah, I get what you are saying. The idea of alternative rock has changed names at least a couple of times. I think the idea of underground music came from the 80s for the most part. From bands such as black flag, bad brains, the replacements, sonic youth, guided by voices, yo la tengo, dinosaur jr, the idea of underground music was formed. Differing from groups such as radiohead, these groups didn't particularly have what is known as commercial appeal. Bands like black flag were too abrasive and bands such as sonic youth were purposely against the grain with their lo-fi noise rock sound. Bands such as husker du and the replacements were more accessible to the public but didn't get as much attention as some other underground acts. I think the idea of alternative rock was a less abrasive form of rock that could be successfully marketed. In many ways, I suppose you were saying that a band like radiohead made it cool and okay to go against the grain and I get that. Radiohead seems to be such an artsy and experimental band that it seems odd that they are so successful especially compared to acts like coldplay that got bigger the more that they embraced the pop side of the spectrum. I see many similarities between groups such as radiohead and bands such as modest mouse and arcade fire in terms of how popular they are despite going against the grain. What you are saying makes sense especially if you have ever watched the documentary DIG!. This is a documentary about two bands from California: the dandy warhols and the brian Jonestown massacre and explores how they feud as one finds success with a major label and the other remains obscure and unappreciated. I highly recommend it as well since those two bands are so unique compared to other bands of that decade and it explores the struggles of signing to a major label and being able to find success. Around that time, major labels were more open to supporting alternative acts up until the idea of signing to a major label began to lose its pomp and circumstance so to speak. In looking at it from a musical history perspective, I find it odd that so many alternative acts lose influence and burn out in time, but radiohead manages to survive and remain relevant. At the very least, I can't name too many bands that have managed to do that. I can at least respect that since it gets harder and harder to find success in the current music industry without "selling out" so to speak. I guess I can't say that many 90s acts still maintain that level of staying power besides radiohead, beck, and the red hot chili peppers.



Totally fucking agree, man. I would also put R.E.M. among that list, especially in regards to commercial success. But that's me, though. and also, in regards to alternative bands having easier possibilities to sign with a major label, I would argue that for pretty much any genre, especially between the 60s to the 90s. And it would only get worse as time went on, like you said.


yeah I'd put rem in that category too. I guess most of the bands I mentioned never really had the opportunity to sign with a major label. Even if they were signed, it isn't guaranteed that their material would get any better. Most of rem early years were the best. after they signed with warner brothers, I'd say the only really good album was monster. After they signed, that was when the band started wearing down as they weren't touring for automatic for the people and monster was the last of drummer bill berry. In terms of a band like weezer, they signed to a major label but their material, although I hate to admit it, went downhill after pinkerton their 2nd album. The chili peppers couldn't go real far after blood sugar sex magic for most of 90s until californication. A band like husker du only had like one album with a major label and sonic youth signed to a major label in 1990 but still remained a cult band. However, that was more because sonic youth's sound was so experimental and abrasive even for the 90s. signing to a major label was viewed as a must until the 80s and bands like black flag, bad brains, and later fugazi would simply just do it themselves. Another good documentary representing this was the doc American hardcore. A lot of bands spoke about how it was impossible for them to achieve commercial success or even be played on the radio. They had to make their own albums, package their own albums, buy their own equipment, and play anywhere and everywhere to get attention. They might not have made a lot of money, but they sure set a precedent. The 80s was also the period where a band could simply start their own label without being ridiculously rich like led zeppelin. Sonic youth did it, cake did it, and jack white did it practically on accident.



Pretty much, and some of the older artists got on that same bandwagon (King Crimson, even though they're not alternative in the slightest, comes to mind). And these underground bands probably made better music than a majority of the more successful artists of the time, too.


They always have



And rightfully so.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.