Most Overrated Prog Bands Of All Time Poll

god I love these threads...  perhaps the next one should have a definition of overrated.

not to pick on Hercules.. but the man does beg for it. Personally I think he loves the attention.. he is a neo fan you know.

I don't like Fripp's guitar style at all...

holy sh*t!!!!!   There you go.. King Crimson thus is OVERRATED!!  hah...

Hercules wrote: Logan wrote: Hercules wrote: King Crimson or Van de Graaf Generator. Pick either. I loathe them both. I would say that those two are the most underrated Prog bands, at least underrated by you. I know why you don't like Van der Graaf Generator, it's because of Hammill's vocals, but I don't recall why you loathe King Crimson so much. 1) I don't like Fripp's guitar style at all 2)Too self indulgent 3) Poor composition (with the honorable exception of Epitaph, ITCOTCK and The Night Watch) 4) Jamie Muir (on LTIA)

Micky already responded, but since you put the effort into replying, I feel I should do the same. Thanks for answering, by the way

1) I don't think Fripp employs just one style across his albums, and guitar is not omnipresesnt anyway.

One could not enjoy Fripp's guitar and still enjoy this, for instance ((I'm not saying one should enjoy it, I being less into rock generally than most here probably enjoy it more than most here):



2) Maybe sometimes -- I think that good artists commonly are self-indulgent -- they make music to please themselves rather than try to pander to an audience, which is more the music industry side of things. Experimentation and doing what you want to in the arts is not a bad thing generally-speaking, methinks, even if it does hurt some delicate ears. If the exercise is pleasurable to them and doesn't really hurt anyone else, more power to them, I say.

3) Can't see why you would limit not poor composition to just those tracks across its oeuvre, and it makes me wonder if you've really listened to all of its albums (or even just the ones up to 1974) attentively over recent years.
Sure it's no Bach, but from a Prog perspective I cannot see how one could claim that KC is objectively poor at composition when compared to most other Prog acts. Be good to get some music conservatory trained people here to weigh in on this who have studied composition in real depth. I think that King Crimson is actually better than average in Prog circles when it comes to the ability to compose in different styles and in terms of harmony and in utilizing different techniques in varied compositions (more skilled than ye average Neo Prog band I would think both in musicianship and in composition). I'm not claiming that KC is academic music, but it's music that I think even most music academics could find some appreciation for if they were exposed to enough of it and compared it to other Prog bands such as Pendragon, IQ, and Marillion (I have no proof of this, and I may be wrong).

4) I happen to think that Jamie Muir is a talented percussionist, and that it shows on Larks' Tongues in Aspic, but I'm no drummer.

I know that to each his or her own tastes, but your repetitive and rather extreme disapproval for King Crimson (loathing is a very strong emotion) has rather baffled me since King Crimson is quite diverse in style and even in instrumental approach. I could imagine someone into Prog who likes Red who does not like Islands for instance, and I could imagine someone who likes Lizard not liking Discipline, and someone who enjoys In the Wake of Poseidon not really liking Larks' Tongues in Aspic, but I would think that most who appreciate Prog would at least respect the band for what they have accomplished, and that most Prog aficionados would find enough to like not to hate the band at the very least.

Like what one likes, but I think that one should be careful when one uses words such as poor, and in terms of this overall topic, when one claims that music is overrated. It's commonly intellectually lazy and often intellectually dishonest, not that I'm claiming to be any sort of intellectual. That would be blatantly dishonest of me.

Replayer wrote: Atavachron wrote: Chilltoss wrote: Perhaps ELP. They do have their moments with songs like "Lucky Man" or "The Sheriff", however the rest of their work is filled with pretentious, self-indulgent, and bombastic noodling(half the bands on your list are probably similar in this regard, but I've yet to listen to them and don't plan to). Look no further than Karn Evil 9. ab-so-lute rub-bish   Hmmm.  Interesting definition of rubbish.  You create something better and then we'll talk.   Manuel wrote: The "Overrated" title seems a bit radical to me, since most people don't even have a clue on how to play an instrument, what to speak of writing a song, and yet, decide that somebody's music is good or bad, pretentious or overrated etc, based on our personal taste and opinions, which are as faulty, if not more, than the people who wrote the music we criticize. I'm not trying to defend Chilltoss' dismissive attack on a talented prog band, but I do take exception to the argument that someone criticizing a work requires the critic being able to produce something better. For example, I can criticize an actor's performance while not possessing any acting ability because I can compare the actor's performance to that of other actors. See here.   That being said, a musician will generally be able to offer more insight and better substantiate his arguments when expressing his opinion, so I am not trying to argue that all opinions have the same value.

True it may be a musicocentric thing to suggest that one produce something better, though from the reactions of those who responded to that point, it seems an impression held by others as well.   It's also probable that the musicians here, of which there are many, would be more likely to respond to that post in the first place.  

But your point is taken.

crispytreats wrote: https://rateyourmusic.com/list/WithACloud/the-most-overrated-prog-bands-ever/ So what do you guys think ?

Edited by Hercules - March 09 2017 at 08:07

Tapfret wrote: Manuel wrote: The "Overrated" title seems a bit radical to me, since most people don't even have a clue on how to play an instrument, what to speak of writing a song, and yet, decide that somebody's music is good or bad, pretentious or overrated etc, based on our personal taste and opinions, which are as faulty, if not more, than the people who wrote the music we criticize. Thank you. Every few months this thread comes along without searching for the numerous existing incidents of the same thing so a handful can sling about the p-word and feel they are somehow clever and original while ignoring that such behavior is the quintessence self-indulgence.

I do have one question about the format of the list. The thread topic mentions a poll, but I don't see any results on that list. Is this list just something the OP or someone else came up with?

crispytreats wrote: https://rateyourmusic.com/list/WithACloud/the-most-overrated-prog-bands-ever/ So what do you guys think ?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: micky wrote: god I love these threads...  perhaps the next one should have a definition of overrated. not to pick on Hercules.. but the man does beg for it. Personally I think he loves the attention.. he is a neo fan you know. I don't like Fripp's guitar style at all... holy sh*t!!!!!   There you go.. King Crimson thus is OVERRATED!!  hah... This is my definition: Overrated: Millions thinks that band is great for different reasons, but they are all wrong, because I say so. Now. I don't like most KC and nothing from  GG or VDGG, but this doesn't make them overrated, by the contrary, I believe they receive less credit than they deserve for doing what they love, despite the opinion of anybody.

That is how many use overrated. I'm not defining this for you, nor disagreeing with you, Ivan, as I know that you know what it means, and I agree with your attitude. Overrated means assessed or valued to highly by others (can refer to one person or many people). I think there's a place to use such a term in a rational and reasonably objective manner. For instance, someone claims that the Beatles was THE most important influence on developing raga due to him teaching Ravi Shankar how to really play the sitar. Of course that's factually inaccurate, but also I would say that that person has overrated the Beatles influence on the development of Raga. I have come across some similar very questionable claims on significance by individuals about many things that is borne by ignorance where I would counterclaim that they have overrated something based on their premises and conclusion which they present as objective reasoning and fact-based.

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Hercules wrote: micky wrote: god I love these threads...  perhaps the next one should have a definition of overrated. not to pick on Hercules.. but the man does beg for it. Personally I think he loves the attention.. he is a neo fan you know. I don't like Fripp's guitar style at all... holy sh*t!!!!!   There you go.. King Crimson thus is OVERRATED!!  hah... I really don't care two hoots if you or others don't agree with me. I long since stopped worrying about opinions because it's all just a matter of taste. When someone factually disagrees with one of my papers: that's what I worry about. Hercules, I'm fine with your opinion and your indifference to others, but you can't really then go and call someone "a tasteless dog turd" when their tastes differ for yours, theirs are equally valid.

Some opinions have more worth and are more worthy of respect than others in my opinion. Everyone has opinions, but informed opinions are worth more than others. Tastes are equally valid, for instance some people eat dog turds, not kidding, whereas I would turn my nose up at that. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I do believe that opinions can transcend our biases and be rooted in the objective.

As for if someone disagrees with a paper, as long as one doesn't try to defend one's work out of egotism despite the evidence against it, that's great. I think that our opinions should always be open to change based on evidence.

If Hercules, as a mathematician, were to claim that Euler was a total idiot, a dog-turd could produce better equations, and is a highly overrated buffoon, well I'm sure that peers of his would object. It wouldn't be good enough just to say, well that's my opinion, you have to respect that.

I, like others, would prefer that one doesn't phrase subjective opinions which are merely based on personal taste as objectively true. If one is to claim that King Crimson is poor at composition, while extolling the virtues and genius of IQ (pun intended), then don't be surprised if someone calls your judgment into question. If one were in music class studying composition, then I expect that the teacher's would expect you to back up your claims, and not just say, well it's all about taste. No, one can discuss composition in a knowledgeable manner -- especially if one is well trained in it.

Furthermore, from personal perspective, if one doesn't care at all if others agree with you or want to actually discuss the merits of one's ideas, I'm not sure what the point is in posting. I think that all beliefs and opinions should be up for scrutiny, by others and by ourselves.

I like to extend this idea to more general notions of truth seeking and in examining our opinions and notions.

"In science it is no crime to be wrong, unless you are (inappropriately) laying claim to truth. What matters is that science as a whole is a self-correcting mechanism in which both new and old notions are constantly under scrutiny. In other words, the edifice of scientific knowledge consists simply of a body of observations and ideas that have (so far) proven resistant to attack, and that are thus accepted as working hypotheses about nature" (Ian Tattersall).

Logan wrote:   That is how many use overrated. I'm not defining this for you, nor disagreeing with you, Ivan, as I know that you know what it means, and I agree with your attitude. Overrated means assessed or valued to highly by others (can refer to one person or many people). I think there's a place to use such a term in a rational and reasonably objective manner. For instance, someone claims that the Beatles was THE most important influence on developing raga due to him teaching Ravi Shankar how to really play the sitar. Of course that's factually inaccurate, but also I would say that that person has overrated the Beatles influence on the development of Raga. I have come across some similar very questionable claims on significance by individuals about many things that is borne by ignorance where I would counterclaim that they have overrated something based on their premises and conclusion which they present as objective reasoning and fact-based.

^ I don't get the Hank reference, is that a Hanks' Adventures in Spanish reference? Hank Hill? Or urban slang?

^^ Precisely, Ivan.

Being a bit egotistical bringing this up, but I did a topic provocatively entitled something like "Are the Beatles Overrated?" some years ago, which was intended to explore notions of overratedness, and to me to make a case for the word not being bad per se, but rather abused. I scoured the web for examples where people made truth claims about the Beatles which were either false or lacked validity and objectivity. It was a struggle to get my points and intentions across.