Most overrated band?

Stupid, negative, woefully OVERDONE topic.

heyitsthatguy wrote: Peter wrote: Stupid, negative, woefully OVERDONE topic.   WTF is "overrated?"  Get over it, grow up, and accept the fact that with music, it's all a matter of personal taste. Why condemn the tastes of many others, just because they differ from yours?  the topic starter is a friend of mine, he's just trying to get a rise out of people...you'll notice he made the "overrated movies" thread as well

laplace wrote: equivocating about personal taste on a forum that doesn't exist for any other reason is almost as overrated as deep purple

Peter wrote: Stupid, negative, woefully OVERDONE topic.   WTF is "overrated?"  Get over it, grow up, and accept the fact that with music, it's all a matter of personal taste. Why condemn the tastes of many others, just because they differ from yours?

I think a serious discussion on the merits of music does not have involve taste at all. I do not care for Gentile Giant but I can appreciate their music and the talent involved. I think we can have a generally objective discussion if we set the right parameters. Tone down the biased opinions and back up your statements with facts, do some research and share your findings.

In the world humans know almost nothing, but we setup standards or benchmarks based on agreed knowledge to create structure, order and fact. Music has the same benchmarks based on years of experimentation and psychological study (see my previous post). These studies have determined  what music works with the brain (what it likes) or  what does not work  (what it does not like)  and at what levels does the brain react to either.  This application of music theory  is very broad and diverse but is strictly  put into these two camps. There are certain musical combinations that universally light up the brain and send it surging with activity, while other combinations of sounds slow it down or can even do damage by inducing the brain to release negative chemicals. These functions which are our deepest root to music can be offset by outside prejudices (again see my first post one page back).

The point is (without getting into the whole thing again) that there are certain criteria we can use to evaluate music  (good or bad) without resorting to taste. This is especially true since we all have at least a base of shared musical trust. An example is the band Nickleback. It does not matter if you love them or hate them (which being on a Progressive rock website there might be a general consensuses)  "I think they sound like a product rather than trying to be original".  The reason I say  this? "Their songs tend to be the same tempo with the same pre-established hooks and their vocals seem to follow the trend of other mainstream bands. I personally can not tell one song from another and do not get much brain stimulation when I listen to them. With this mainstream approach they have received nine Juno Awards and were nominated for two more in 2007".

If good music is defined in applied music theory as intellectual or cognitive stimulation than Nickleback with their generic and safe sound are not musically effective. But than again some people do not want a deep enriching musical experience than Nickleback is your average Canadian product band at work. Product bands are designed to work in the superficial areas of your brain, always hanging out in the midterm memory but never strong enough to make it into the longterm memory. This allows the record company to sell you songs with a similar theme as the structure of the previous offering dissolves before it gets emotional ingrained in your memory. They use extreme outside prejudice (as in advertisements, promotions etc) to convince that quick thinking part of the brain to like what it hears.

Reasonings for being overrated (like them or not)

1. In twenty years, despite selling 25 million records will Nickleback even be remembered?

2. If the sales culture and extreme outside prejudice was not around and the mass audience had been pre-exposed to more original music, would Nickleback still be popular?

3. Do they hold up in pre established musical categories (such as tone, pacing, instrumental and vocal arrangement, lyrical integration, lyrical depth, verity of sounds, technique, originality, authenticity, appropriate creativity, communicative beyond the basic interpretive level)  as much as the masters do?

4. can they be easily replaced?

These are four basic parameters that someone can objectively reason if something is overrated (the term perhaps meaning something given much more success or praise than it should by an examination of facts or an analyzation of a recognized comparable or historical example).

Each band can be weighed on their own and have different circumstances that  may change the questions.

SolariS wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Threads about overrated bands are overrated.     posts about overrated threads are overrated.

led zeppelin. way too overated! They're alright, but come on! we have people these days that wear led zeppelin t-shirts and don't even know who they are!!! absurdity!

Music is overrated. and i vote on it time and time again.

pink floyd and pnk floyd and pink floyd and led zep

Easy Money wrote: RUSH

schizoid_man77 wrote: bluetailfly wrote: Easy Money wrote: RUSH   I see Rush as over-berated.   I dont like Rush nearly as much anymore, certainly influential though.   but... I do find Alex Lifeson extremely overated.