because they don't like the music.thavoice;1510664 wrote:Well, the reason they probably think they are overrated is because they didnt think they are/were worth the hype that people give to them.
No, that is an opinion as wellLaley23;1510713 wrote:Calling them overrated (moreso the Beatles) is ignorant and wrong.
They are both opinion based but I do agree that calling a band overrated is taking a shot at their musical standing. It usually warrants further discussion unless you're on the OC and want to be a unique snowflake by calling a wildly popular and influential band overrated.Laley23;1510713 wrote:Not liking the music and calling them overrated is not the same.
Not liking their music is opinion based. Calling them overrated (moreso the Beatles) is ignorant and wrong. Both bands are extremely innovative and important to the advancement of music. That is not opinion. They were the first to do stuff that changed music, and if you ask musicians/bands today most of them will say the Beatles influenced them. If not, the band who did was influenced by the Beatles.
That's a tough one. AIC probably has a few more hits than Nirvana. I'd call them even with Nirvana but a better group I'm not sure.dlazz;1510741 wrote:
Nirvana only gets the hype because they had a lead singer die at the peak of their success. Alice in Chains is a better "90's band" imo, but nobody gives them two looks because their lead singer died after their popularity subsided.
So the songs I listened to on the White album were pop songs? Popular rock exists and you certainly can't deny that the Beatles made rock songs. And if they revolutionized music.....and happened to play rock music, wouldn't that suggest that they were in some part influential to rock music? (I'm not going to say revolutionary because - agreed - they weren't to rock).dlazz;1510741 wrote:I label The Beatles as overrated because everyone huffs and puffs about how they revolutionized Rock & Roll. Did they revolutionize music? Probably, but I don't feel that revolutionized rock music specifically. However, they definitely did give pop music a great blueprint to work by.
Did you see a bunch of teen girls screaming and being stupid over the latest rock album? What about Bieber?
Nirvana only gets the hype because they had a lead singer die at the peak of their success. Alice in Chains is a better "90's band" imo, but nobody gives them two looks because their lead singer died after their popularity subsided.
I feel that the big push people give bands is due to the age of people who actively write and discuss these things. I'm sure I offended two age groups by calling out Nirvana and the Beatles: those who were born between 1950-1970, and those born between 1985-1995. Everyone else probably has no opinion on the matter.
Again, this is my opinion but I'll sit here and wait patiently for everyone to tell me how wrong I am because they said so.
The White Album didn't come out until 1968, well after the "rock and roll" sound was established. Example: 'Satisfaction' by the Stones was released in 1965Mohican00;1510752 wrote:So the songs I listened to on the White album were pop songs?
See, I would consider 5 grunge bands as very meaningful to the direction music took in the 90s.dlazz;1510741 wrote: Nirvana only gets the hype because they had a lead singer die at the peak of their success. Alice in Chains is a better "90's band" imo, but nobody gives them two looks because their lead singer died after their popularity subsided.
Not quite the same level but still good- Stone Temple Pilots. Wasn't Smashing Pumpkins a few years later onto the Grunge scene? Pumpkins are grunge arnt they?Laley23;1510784 wrote:See, I would consider 5 grunge bands as very meaningful to the direction music took in the 90s.
AIC, Green River, Soundgarden, Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
Nirvana probably had the biggest influence of them all, because they were the most successful and popular (Pearl Jam has an argument though). The whole grunge scene is what was influential, so to say any of those bands is overrated is what I consider to be wrong. But, I guess that depends on what we are rating them on. To be one of a few bands to change a style, I just dont see how that is overrated.
Yeah, but Pearl Jam did and still does hate mainstream and commercialism lol. They kind of take themselves out of the role.gut;1510792 wrote:I think Pearl Jam has a little more than just "an argument". "Ten" and "Vs." outsold Nirvana's 3 albums. And maybe just my circle, but Pearl Jam was a much bigger deal than Nirvana, at least it was played a hell of a lot more (probably because Nirvana was depressing as hell)
Plus, when I hear a lot of music in the later 90's/early 00's I heard a lot more Pearl Jam and Eddie Vedder (and maybe to a lesser extent, STP, probably because they had a similar sound to PJ). Many of those groups probably weren't very good, but just talking influence of PJ.
Cobain considered them sellouts, correct?Laley23;1510799 wrote:Yeah, but Pearl Jam did and still does hate mainstream and commercialism lol. They kind of take themselves out of the role.
I'd take out Green River since it is a derivative and add Mudhoney or the Pixes.Laley23;1510784 wrote:See, I would consider 5 grunge bands as very meaningful to the direction music took in the 90s.
AIC, Green River, Soundgarden, Nirvana and Pearl Jam.
I'm a huge fan of NIN but do they belong on a grunge list? Isn't "Industrial metal" it's own category?Sonofanump;1510841 wrote:I think Pearl Jam is more overrated than Nirvana. I'd go:
1) Alice in Chains
2) Nine Inch Nails
3) Nirvana
4) Smashing Pumpkins
5) Soundgarden
6) Pearl Jam
7) Our Lady Peace
8) Stone Temple Pilots
9) Pixes
10) Live