What's the most successful, least talented band?

[Blue Tile Fever]

I'm taking all things into account - playing, singing, songwriting, lyrics...

The first i thought of was Korn. Terrible songs, laughable lyrics, awful vocals, and two guys who can't play guitar. I guess the drummer and bassist were decent though :dunno

[Ampegasaur]

I'm taking all things into account - playing, singing, songwriting, lyrics...

The first i thought of was Korn. Terrible songs, laughable lyrics, awful vocals, and two guys who can't play guitar. I guess the drummer and bassist were decent though :dunno

Korn is awful, but only have 1 primary guitarist now, and have for close to.10 years now. For me, without question, The Beatles. Not a troll, just hate the guitar tones, dreadful playing, and whiny voices. If you don't agree, just the way it is for me. Most overrated band ever. I think they must have made the deal with the devil. Close 2nd is Dream Theater. Super gifted players, with 0 song writing skills. Unlistenable for me.

[joey3f]

The first i thought of was Korn. Terrible songs, laughable lyrics, awful vocals, and two guys who can't play guitar. I guess the drummer and bassist were decent though :dunno

Gosh.

"you'll suck my d1ck and f***ing like it" has to be one of the best written and delivered lines ever.

And the riffs... Oh the riffs.

Each to their own.

But, let's all have another pointless argument.

[turbolx5oh]

The Beastie Boys. Terrible, just terrible!

[sws1]

Korn is awful, but only have 1 primary guitarist now, and have for close to.10 years now. For me, without question, The Beatles. Not a troll, just hate the guitar tones, dreadful playing, and whiny voices. If you don't agree, just the way it is for me. Most overrated band ever. I think they must have made the deal with the devil. Close 2nd is Dream Theater. Super gifted players, with 0 song writing skills. Unlistenable for me.


This is a joke, right? I can't tell. You didn't put the smiley at the end.

[Ampegasaur]

This is a joke, right? I can't tell. You didn't put the smiley at the end.

I was very clear it is not. Cannot stand them. At all. Horrible.

[ZosoRush]

Most contemporary music.

"Cock rock" per se

[taez555]

Taking a quick look at the biggest selling albums of all time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

I can't help but think AC/DC.

Don't get me wrong, great band, amazing songs, great sound, tight band.... but when you get right down to it they're basically a 3 chord rock band with simple lyrics about sex, drugs and R&R. They really fit the bill of success vs talent.

Oh... and the Spice Girls. :-)

[crzyfngers]

kiss

[loudboy]

kiss

/thread

[cbguy]

For me, without question, The Beatles. Not a troll, just hate the guitar tones, dreadful playing, and whiny voices. If you don't agree, just the way it is for me. Most overrated band ever. I think they must have made the deal with the devil.

This is a joke, right? I can't tell. You didn't put the smiley at the end.

I was very clear it is not. Cannot stand them. At all. Horrible.

Keep in mind that Apegasaur is the TGPer who, according to a post in another thread, has a special "death metal" voicing on his Dumble amp. Not saying that's bad; just trying to put the comments in their proper context.

Regarding this thread, whatever happened to our superstar band "Complete"?

[Snap]

Most Texas country bands I hear now all pander to the lowest common denominator of the audience (i.e. the trashiest of white trash). Terrible lyrics and vocals, backed by the same old four chords and tele twang leads.

The thing that sucks too is that most of these guys make tons of money, and have tour buses and awesome gear (normally all this without any major label contract).

[jwny72]

Korn and Limp Bizkit are among the worst. Nickleback are up there too. Oasis come to mind as well.

[doctorx]

Most Texas country bands I hear now all pander to the lowest common denominator of the audience (i.e. the trashiest of white trash). Terrible lyrics and vocals, backed by the same old four chords and tele twang leads.

The thing that sucks too is that most of these guys make tons of money, and have tour buses and awesome gear (normally all this without any major label contract).

Funny I was thinking this week about that. I've tried out the country station lately because I'm sick of the classic rock stations and the lite rock stations are unlistenable.

Are all country songs these days about drinking beer, driving trucks, going back to the woods, God, guns, and dumb barefoot country girls?

[pickaguitar]

Nick nack paddy whack give a dog a bone f yea! I love Korn's first album. I think their sub bass tone is impressive in the mix

[Bankston]

Taking a quick look at the biggest selling albums of all time...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

I can't help but think AC/DC.

Don't get me wrong, great band, amazing songs, great sound, tight band.... but when you get right down to it they're basically a 3 chord rock band with simple lyrics about sex, drugs and R&R. They really fit the bill of success vs talent.

Oh... and the Spice Girls. :-)

Wow. Lumping AC/DC in with the Spice Girls . . .

In the case of AC/DC, Simple does not equal lack of talent.

[aynirar27]

did someone really put ac/dc and spice girls in the same post? This forum was just designed to bring out all the jaded TGPers haha. The guy who mentioned dream theater made me think of a funny quote i heard about them. They are "like a guy with a huge penis but doesn't know how to f**k" pretty true i think

[germs]

Captain Beefheart. final answer.

i'm among those that "don't get" him. and i've tried over the years, figuring maybe i just needed a little more exposure as i got older and my horizons had broadened...nope. just a strange man yodeling over prog rock. people PRAISE his vocal "range" and "ability" as being extraordinary? i don't get it.

[whaiyun]

Blink 182? haha.
Fun music but the guitar is horrendously simple. The drumming on the other hand. Dang.

[Bankston]

kiss

My first thought, as well, at least when it comes to the original line-up.

The lineup with Kulick and Carr was an upgrade in talent.

[FannedFretFan]

A picture, thousand words, blah, blah, blah...


http://blogs.ou.edu/webcomm/files/2010/10/kiss_1.jpg

Motley Crue comes to mind, too.

[Scott Auld]

"I'm sick and tired of people saying that we put out 11 albums that sound exactly the same. In fact, we've put out 12 albums that sound exactly the same.” - Angus Young

[loudboy]

"I'm sick and tired of people saying that we put out 11 albums that sound exactly the same. In fact, we've put out 12 albums that sound exactly the same.” - Angus Young

You sure that's not a Donald Fagen quote? <ducking>

[Dr. Tweedbucket]

Korn is awful, but only have 1 primary guitarist now, and have for close to.10 years now. For me, without question, The Beatles.


Saying the Beatles is talentless is pretty bold, but I guess everyone has their own opinion. :messedup It's kind of like saying NASA is just a bunch of backyard mechanics or Woodstock was just a little picnic. :)

[V-Type]

Shit storm thread OP.
But Ill play.
Kiss
Motley Crue
Poison
Breaking Benjamin
Nickelback
Kid Rock
I could think of quite a few others.
Dont get me wrong I still like a lot of the above bands work but its obvious they arent all virtuosos.

[FannedFretFan]

Shit storm thread OP.
But Ill play.
Kiss
Motley Crue
Poison
Breaking Benjamin
Nickelback
Kid Rock
I could think of quite a few others.
Dont get me wrong I still like a lot of the above bands work but its obvious they arent all virtuosos.

re: Breaking Benjamin

They definitely do not belong on this list.

Ben really isn't bad, and - while I am good friends w/ Aaron - I can objectively say that he can play really, really well. The guy can shred, but plays very soulful when not doing the BB stuff. (But I guess he is actually no longer IN B.B., sooo...)

[mr tom]

[QUOTE=taez555;11287388]I can't help but think AC/DC.

Don't get me wrong, great band, amazing songs, great sound, tight band.... but when you get right down to it they're basically a 3 chord rock band with simple lyrics about sex, drugs and R&R. They really fit the bill of success vs talent./QUOTE]

This is incomprehensible to me. Your argument demands that we accept that talent is not involved in producing

- amazing songs
- great band
- great sound(s)
- tight playing

I can't agree. Michaelangelo may have been a genius, but not everyone needs to (re)paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling to achieve said status.

[Beng2040]

Nickelback, if only for their lyrics. It's like snuff music. Horrible, just freaking horrible.

[Wagster]

Texas country bands? Do you mean Nashville country band? Most Texas country is raw and soulful.

[hudpucker]

Great trolling thread here.

ayup.

[Blanket Jackson]

Captain Beefheart. final answer.

i'm among those that "don't get" him. and i've tried over the years, figuring maybe i just needed a little more exposure as i got older and my horizons had broadened...nope. just a strange man yodeling over prog rock. people PRAISE his vocal "range" and "ability" as being extraordinary? i don't get it.
Funny, I see Beefheart as up there with Tom Waits and Nick Cave as one of my all time fave singers. I see him as the missing link between Howlin' Wolf and Yes.

I have no idea why Panda Bear gets any props at all.

[stevel]

I can not believe you guys didn't mention the Sex Pistols. :messedup

Steve

[somecafone]

The Black Eyed Peas

[Ampegasaur]

Keep in mind that Apegasaur is the TGPer who, according to a post in another thread, has a special "death metal" voicing on his Dumble amp. Not saying that's bad; just trying to put the comments in their proper context.

Regarding this thread, whatever happened to our superstar band "Complete"?

This is true, but I am very fond of classic rock, blues, Jazz, bluegrass, along with other styles of music. This is my opinion. Just because I play like a style you don't does not make my opinion less valid. To say it puts in a proper context is not a good point.

[Bassomatic]

/thread

Yup.

[Bassomatic]

Captain Beefheart was successful in terms of cultural impact, but according to sales? Nope.

[Ampegasaur]

Saying the Beatles is talentless is pretty bold, but I guess everyone has their own opinion. :messedup It's kind of like saying NASA is just a bunch of backyard mechanics or Woodstock was just a little picnic. :)

No not the same at all. I still feel there was a deal made at the crossroads signed in blood hidden away in a vault to make them famous. I love classic rock, have never understood the fascination or appeal of these guys. Never will.

[claudel]

This thread needs an arms-folded-standing-in-the-back-of-the-room smiley...

[Halowords]

Creed? David Cross makes a good case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ctTiP7GfSI

-Cheers

[HerrRentz]

Funny I was thinking this week about that. I've tried out the country station lately because I'm sick of the classic rock stations and the lite rock stations are unlistenable.

Are all country songs these days about drinking beer, driving trucks, going back to the woods, God, guns, and dumb barefoot country girls?

You forgot about cheating wives, cheating husbands, getting drunk, and trains.

But yes, country music is usually about one of these themes. If not, it's probably pop music with a steel guitar.

[gillman royce]

The Monkees, Kiss, U2 and Oasis. On another note, feeling that one has to explain The Beatles & their impact is like having to explain why you need air. I wonder if Ampegaraus was a teen when that whole era happened or came late to the scene, as it were - it would explain a lot.

[EricPeterson]

Epic troll potential thread.

[A-Bone]

Epic troll potential thread.

Agreed.

[Ampegasaur]

The Monkees, Kiss, U2 and Oasis. On another note, feeling that one has to explain The Beatles & their impact is like having to explain why you need air. I wonder if Ampegaraus was a teen when that whole era happened or came late to the scene, as it were - it would explain a lot.

I am not in my 60s, so no. I AM in my 40s however, and do understand their impact, and know the story, Ed Sullivan etc.....That said I still feel the same. No need to assume someone just does not understand, or needs an education, or has not listened. Don't be incredulous someone does not appreciate the same bands as you or feel they are overrated. I will not be offended when you don't like mine.

[ggwwbb]

You forgot about cheating wives, cheating husbands, getting drunk, and trains.

And tractors.....the guys at work were listening to country the other day and I swear to God I heard no less than 4 songs about f'ing tractors in less than an hour! Seriously?!?!?

My 2 cents would be:
Kid Rock
Nickleback
Creed
Korn
most modern rock heard on the radio today.....

[John Hurtt]

Korn is awful, but only have 1 primary guitarist now, and have for close to.10 years now. For me, without question, The Beatles. Not a troll, just hate the guitar tones, dreadful playing, and whiny voices. If you don't agree, just the way it is for me. Most overrated band ever. I think they must have made the deal with the devil. Close 2nd is Dream Theater. Super gifted players, with 0 song writing skills. Unlistenable for me.

You know...everyone is entitled to an opinion and threads like these are usually a trainwreck...

But I just have to scratch my head on picking the Beatles...I don't care if you hate them...how can you not give them huge props for their songwriting...it's stood up to this day....

[Beat Up G]

Being successful in making music people actually like (love) to listen to requires talent.

Maybe it's simple chords or notes, but the groove, or the message, or the energy, whatever is there.

I'm one of those freaks who doesn't get Bob Dylan. My brothers love the man as millions have--so I can't dispute it.

Capt Beefheart successful in the mainstream? Creed were sucessful for a few years...

[bjjp2]

I love 'em to death but I'd have to say The Ramones.

[Ruraltom]

Creed? David Cross makes a good case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ctTiP7GfSI

-Cheers


:beer

[dhdfoster]

Strange perspectives here. The thread title says "least talented". I just don't see how a lot of these things are really all that relevant to having a lack of telent. Bad guitar tones and whiney voices from the Beatles? What about their enormous songwriting talent. Even Kiss, as little as I like them, are quite talented entertainers, promoters and marketers. I don't own a CD by him, but I can't deny Kid Rock is a very talented guy. Whether you care for the subject matter or not, there are a lot of talented singers, players and songwriters in country and western.

[Ampegasaur]

You know...everyone is entitled to an opinion and threads like these are usually a trainwreck...

But I just have to scratch my head on picking the Beatles...I don't care if you hate them...how can you not give them huge props for their songwriting...it's stood up to this day....

Never said I hated them, just feel they are overrated, and their guitar tones, and playing skills do not not appeal to me at all. I respect them, just like some other bands that are not my thing. I liked While my guitar Gently weeps, but because of Eric, and Blackbird is a cool song. George's solos, and tone make me cringe. One of those things that I wish I could get the appeal, and get into it, just can't. Zeppelin is more my thing for classic rock.

[John Hurtt]

Never said I hated them, just feel they are overrated, and their guitar tones, and playing skills do not not appeal to me at all. I respect them, just like some other bands that are not my thing. I liked While my guitar Gently weeps, but because of Eric, and Blackbird is a cool song. George's solos, and tone make me cringe. One of those things that I wish I could get the appeal, and get into it, just can't. Zeppelin is more my thing for classic rock.

The Beatles and Zeppelin have absolutely nothing in common. If nothing else, you at least have to kick Zep down a few notches if only because most of their better material was stolen from earlier bands.

Like I said, everyone has an opinion and I respect your right to have one...I just can't imagine how you could name them in the context of this thread.

It would be different if the thread was "bands tons of people love and respect but I don't like and think are overrated"...

[paranoid70]

With regards to the Beatles, they are so immensely popular and influential, it's obvious that some folks would say they are over rated. I don't think they are over-rated, but I do understand why some would say that. Lack of talent though? I just don't see where that is coming from at all.

[John Hurtt]

I guess I should throw something in here, since I disagreed with someone. I'm not going to point out a particular artist, but I would have to nominate some Christian worship artists who pull scripture out of the bible and set it to recycled U2 riffs...

Let me add their are some immensely talented Christian artists...but if you can't say something without directly pulling lyrics from another source....

[TD_Madden]

You forgot about cheating wives, cheating husbands, getting drunk, and trains.

But yes, country music is usually about one of these themes. If not, it's probably pop music with a steel guitar.

and Mama...don't forget Mama!

[fjblair]

I was very clear it is not. Cannot stand them. At all. Horrible.

You don't have to like them but saying the Beatles are the most untalented successful band ever is the most absurd statement I have ever read on the internet.

[Keasley]

I love 'em to death but I'd have to say The Ramones.

Except that they weren't that successful. Influential? Famous? Sure. Timeless. Yeah, they'll probably still be known and listened to 100 years from now. But those guys never really made any money, didn't sell alot of records, and eventually had to sit and watch other bands make millions with their combination of buzz-saw power chords and classic early 60s pop hooks. And now that all the bands from their era are getting back together and making money from reunions, and TV commercials -- and now that Blitzkrieg Bop is played in every North American sporting event -- all the original Ramones (except TommY) are dead. Yeah, I'm calling a big-fat wrong on this one...

Me, I say Jimmy Buffett. This guy is insanely popular, packing in 10s of thousands of people every night. But he's a mediocre singer and songwriter, his music is dull and unoriginal, and he hasn't had a hit in 30 years. He has a damn cult following that not only pays big bucks for his concerts, they eat at his restaurants, buy tons of merch, etc. I think his popularity to talent ratio is unsurpassed -- at least outside the 15 minutes of fame teenybopper set.

[TD_Madden]

You don't have to like them but saying the Beatles are the most untalented successful band ever is the most absurd statement I have ever read on the internet.

I don't listen to them much any more, but I still remember being 10 years old and hearing the IWTHYH 45 for the first time at my buddy's house.

We were speechless and stared at the slipcover picture.

[Ampegasaur]

You don't have to like them but saying the Beatles are the most untalented successful band ever is the most absurd statement I have ever read on the internet.

I think Paul was the by far the most talented, Ringo, come on.....George, pretty much the same. John, and many will disagree I am sure, the most overrated by a long shot. I will concede paul has is talented, the rest of the guys, not so much.

[Charlie_Pace]

I'm taking all things into account - playing, singing, songwriting, lyrics...

The first i thought of was Korn. Terrible songs, laughable lyrics, awful vocals, and two guys who can't play guitar. I guess the drummer and bassist were decent though :dunno

Korn, really? They created a genre of music that was HUGE in the late 90's. PHAIL. To me, there is no such thing as a "terrible" successful band. They are successful for a reason. I.E. I don't listen to the Jonas Brothers, but I can't lie that they're good. Just my .02. Different strokes.

[Charlie_Pace]

Waitttttttttt a minute. You guys are going to call out The Beatles? Do you guys have any riffs that guitar players will play till the end of time? This is madness!

[Ampegasaur]

Opinion given in a post.

TGP: You can't say that! That is a wrong opinion. You just don't understand, if only you were educated on this, or saw the Ed Sullivan broadcast you would know. How is this possible? Oh the humanity!!

Me : still feel the same way. Like what you like, and share your opinion. It is just an opinion on the internet.

[tsar nicholas]

Blink 182? haha.
Fun music but the guitar is horrendously simple. The drumming on the other hand. Dang.

^ Yeah, Barker is a monster -- I've always ignored Blink, but when I heard his metal-funk remix of the Soulja Boy song, I was like "Whoa! That's *who?*"

[Beat Up G]

Except that they weren't that successful. Influential? Famous? Sure. Timeless. Yeah, they'll probably still be known and listened to 100 years from now. But those guys never really made any money, didn't sell alot of records, and eventually had to sit and watch other bands make millions with their combination of buzz-saw power chords and classic early 60s pop hooks. And now that all the bands from their era are getting back together and making money from reunions, and TV commercials -- and now that Blitzkrieg Bop is played in every North American sporting event -- all the original Ramones (except TommY) are dead. Yeah, I'm calling a big-fat wrong on this one...


How could they not have made lots of money? The rockumentary "Raw" saw them playing packed arenas. It's a stretch to say they weren't sucessful, if not Uber-

More to your point, to be as oft emulated and regarded as legendary IS the sucess, IMO.

[tsar nicholas]

^ I quote this all the time, but in a well-known interview with "Spin," Dee Dee said : "If I make $35,000, I consider that a pretty good year."

That coming from someone living in NYC.

[Cuthbert]

Limp Bizkit
Creed
Nickelback

As someone who works behind the scenes at severla country shows I have come to the conclusion that it is completely designed from beginning to end to take as much money out of the fans' pockets as possible, from teams of professional songwriters at "songwriting camps" to focus groups right to the meet and greets. In the end though a good song is a good song.

[chucke99]

Sorry, but every band that has been successful is made up of talented musicians, singers, and songwriters. That's looking at it objectively.

Now, subjectively, you many not like certain bands or their music (there are plenty I don't like) but that's a different question.

[Tonedef]

I find it funny that we all list bands as "horrible" when apparently they appeal to the masses in terms of album sales and concert tickets sold. So the argument is, if everyone likes them then ergo they must suck? It just goes to show sometimes we take ourselves too seriously as "musicians" and forget about the fun aspect of being a fan.
My 2 cents, save it or spend it.

[The Last Rebel]

Sorry, but every band that has been successful is made up of talented musicians, singers, and songwriters. That's looking at it objectively.

Now, subjectively, you many not like certain bands or their music (there are plenty I don't like) but that's a different question.

Not necessarily. There isn't an ounce of talent whatsoever in Limp Bizkit and yet they're extremely popular. None of them can write songs, Fred Durst's lyrics are almost impressively juvenile, Wes Borland couldn't write a catchy riff to save his life and to top it all off Durst should win an award for worst rapper ever.

[RichieD]

Opinion given in a post.

TGP: You can't say that! That is a wrong opinion. You just don't understand, if only you were educated on this.

Me : still feel the same way. Like what you like, and share your opinion. It is just an opinion on the internet.

My opinion is that your opinion sucks!

[Ampegasaur]

My opinion is that your opinion sucks!

We have a winner!!!

That's just, like, your opinion man. - Jeff Lebowski

[frennis]

Poison...picture a less talented Motley Crue. Excruciatingly lame combination of horrible singing, playing, and songwriting, and performing, mixed in with every rock cliche in the book thrown in for good measure.
I bet they had a blast though...

[Tuco]

Keep in mind that Apegasaur is the TGPer who, according to a post in another thread, has a special "death metal" voicing on his Dumble amp. Not saying that's bad; just trying to put the comments in their proper context.

Thank you for the context. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it.

[hellbender]

Limp Bizkit
Creed
Nickelback

As someone who works behind the scenes at severla country shows I have come to the conclusion that it is completely designed from beginning to end to take as much money out of the fans' pockets as possible, from teams of professional songwriters at "songwriting camps" to focus groups right to the meet and greets. In the end though a good song is a good song.

better add taylor swift and a whole bunch of other country favorites to your list.

[The Last Rebel]

Thank you for the context. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it.

Well it certainly tells me that you think people who are into metal don't know anything about good music. You're wrong about that, by the way.

[Tuco]

Well it certainly tells me that you think people who are into metal don't know anything about good music. You're wrong about that, by the way.

Not what I was saying. I was referencing the fact that a) he's saying that he owns a Dumble, and b) that he's got a custom "death metal" voicing on said holy grail amp. Not buying it or his opinion.

[jerrycampbell]

Saying the Beatles is talentless is pretty bold, but I guess everyone has their own opinion. :messedup It's kind of like saying NASA is just a bunch of backyard mechanics or Woodstock was just a little picnic. :)
Not bold. Just weak. I mean, there goes your integrity right out the window. To be clear, I NEVER WANT TO HEAR THE BEATLES AGAIN. But to not recognize the talent behind Happiness Is A Warm Gun, A Day In The Life, etc. is immaturity.

[Ampegasaur]

Not what I was saying. I was referencing the fact that a) he's saying that he owns a Dumble, and b) that he's got a custom "death metal" voicing on said holy grail amp. Not buying it or his opinion.

It is not an actual Dumble, if you would have read on, it was made by Quinn, a preamp, and it IS voiced for DM on the OD side. Most folks here that talk about Dumble, own a clone, or inspired by. All that was in another thread, along with an album recently recorded with said Dumble voiced DM preamp. Jump to a wrong conclusion much? In celebration of your Dumble remarks here you go....:banana:banana:banana:banana:banana

[Sun Creature]

A lot of these bands mentioned are pretty talented....In the way they market themselves.

[hahavishnu]

U2. when you have been playing the bass for six weeks you could get the bass players gig with U2.throw in a coupla hours pedal prog study and you can have the guitar players gig too

[Tuco]

It is not an actual Dumble . . . <snip>

That's a shame.

[gregsguitars]

K*SS........

[Tuco]

U2. when you have been playing the bass for six weeks you could get the bass players gig with U2.throw in a coupla hours pedal prog study and you can have the guitar players gig too

And why is it that you not doing these things and earning mega-millions? Hmmm?

[hahavishnu]

And why is it that you not doing these things and earning mega-millions? Hmmm?

i'm too busy talkin' crap on the internet

[AmplifiedParts]

Limp Bizkit

[zep41]

Opinion given in a post.

TGP: You can't say that! That is a wrong opinion. You just don't understand, if only you were educated on this, or saw the Ed Sullivan broadcast you would know. How is this possible? Oh the humanity!!

Me : still feel the same way. Like what you like, and share your opinion. It is just an opinion on the internet.

Except you didn't give an opinion, dude. You said the Beatles are a non-talented band. Whether you like them or not is your opinion. Whether they are TALENTED or not is fact. Clearly the Beatles are extremely talented. Anyone with even a tenth of a brain can admit they are extremely talented. I may despise rap music --- but I can surely admit when I see a talented rapper.

The opinion that you hold (which of course you are entitled to) that the Beatles are overrated and that you dont think their music is very good is an absolute non-issue. You stated something that is very much WRONG when you said the Beatles aren't that talented.

[Ampegasaur]

Except you didn't give an opinion, dude. You said the Beatles are a non-talented band. Whether you like them or not is your opinion. Whether they are TALENTED or not is fact. Clearly the Beatles are extremely talented. Anyone with even a tenth of a brain can admit they are extremely talented. I may despise rap music --- but I can surely admit when I see a talented rapper.

The opinion that you hold (which of course you are entitled to) that the Beatles are overrated and that you dont think their music is very good is an absolute non-issue. You stated something that is very much WRONG when you said the Beatles aren't that talented.

I think Paul is somewhat talented, the rest not so much. They are not what I consider talented as muscians, and do not care for most of their songs, which also would involve talent, so yea, lack of talent included.

[GaryE]

Like them or not,most of us can only dream of having an impact like the Beatles . Nearly 50 years on and they STILL influence millions of musicians. I seriously doubt any other pop band will ever have that kind of impact on popular music, so I am going to have to disagree with those who say they aren't really talented...

[EricPeterson]

Seriously, it is not "people" saying the beatles are not talented, it is a single person saying it.

[zep41]

I think Paul is somewhat talented, the rest not so much. They are not what I consider talented as muscians, and do not care for most of their songs, which also would involve talent, so yea, lack of talent included.

Again ----- you are very wrong.

There is no such thing as an opinion on whether someone is talented at something or not. They either are or are not. The Beatles are/were extremely talented. On a 1-10 scale of talent, 10 being the best, they were a 10 at talent. You can't argue that.

[Larry Esposito]

I'm going with KISS or Posion...marketing and business talents aside.

Most all Punk bands...but I guess that was part of the point of the music.

Just about every "artist" my 14 yr old daughter likes.

[Ampegasaur]

Again ----- you are very wrong.

There is no such thing as an opinion on whether someone is talented at something or not. They either are or are not. The Beatles are/were extremely talented. On a 1-10 scale of talent, 10 being the best, they were a 10 at talent. You can't argue that.

It is not an argument. I don't find them talented, sorry if you think otherwise. Ringo is/was not a very good drummer, George was not a great guitar player, neither was John. The only one with any talent was/is Paul. You guys like their pop songs, and how they helped change the culture of your era. Cream, now there was talent, people could play in key, bend to pitch, and had skill on their instruments. I never have understood The Beatles, or their popularity, but that is why not everyone enjoys the same music, or has the same views.

[A-Bone]

It is not an argument. I don't find them talented, sorry if you think otherwise. Ringo is/was not a very good drummer, George was not a great guitar player, neither was John. The only one with any talent was/is Paul. You guys like their pop songs, and how they helped change the culture of your era. Cream, now there was talent, people could play in key, bend to pitch, and had skill on their instruments. I never have understood The Beatles, or their popularity, but that is why not everyone enjoys the same music, or has the same views.

It seems to me that there is a world of difference between admitting that someone is talented and defining them as a "great musician". The collective Beatles had a hell of a knack for writing songs, and for harmonizing, and for trying a multitude of styles and forms successfully. These are all true regardless of personal affection or lack thereof.

Also, near as I can tell, John, George, and Paul could all play in key and bend to pitch (and could in each case play multiple instruments). And Ringo is really a pretty solid (and somewhat unique) drummer for those that pay attention to what he was actually doing.

[John Hurtt]

Again ----- you are very wrong.

There is no such thing as an opinion on whether someone is talented at something or not. They either are or are not. The Beatles are/were extremely talented. On a 1-10 scale of talent, 10 being the best, they were a 10 at talent. You can't argue that.

Agreed, his musical taste makes him dislike the Beatles...not their talent or his perceived lack of it.

[John Hurtt]

It is not an argument. I don't find them talented, sorry if you think otherwise. Ringo is/was not a very good drummer, George was not a great guitar player, neither was John. The only one with any talent was/is Paul. You guys like their pop songs, and how they helped change the culture of your era. Cream, now there was talent, people could play in key, bend to pitch, and had skill on their instruments. I never have understood The Beatles, or their popularity, but that is why not everyone enjoys the same music, or has the same views.

Writing songs that have stood the test of time is a talent....not just whether George could play arpeggios at the speed you find acceptable. I guess I'm at a loss here, I just cannot see your side of this.

[PVH5150]

Any rapper who attempts to play guitar.

Here's lookin at you, Lil Wayne.

[GaryE]

John gets a pass in my books for actually playing that little Rickenbacker 325 short scale guitar in tune- I certainly never could!

[Ampegasaur]

Writing songs that have stood the test of time is a talent....not just whether George could play arpeggios at the speed you find acceptable. I guess I'm at a loss here, I just cannot see your side of this.

I guess not, the songs have not stood the test of time for me. I don't see the musicianship. If I don't care for their songwriting skills, don't see good musicianship, why would I view them as talented? I view them, and always will view them as, lucky, nothing more. Arpeggios? I don't expect everyone to be Holdsworth, Beck or Paganini that is ludicrous. I just don't see the talent, and view them as overrated, why get so bent out of shape about it? You like them, great!! I don't, and my opinion.

[Hunterdog]

It is not an argument. I don't find them talented, sorry if you think otherwise. Ringo is/was not a very good drummer, George was not a great guitar player, neither was John. The only one with any talent was/is Paul. You guys like their pop songs, and how they helped change the culture of your era. Cream, now there was talent, people could play in key, bend to pitch, and had skill on their instruments. I never have understood The Beatles, or their popularity, but that is why not everyone enjoys the same music, or has the same views.


Now Sir, you have went too far, demeaning Ringo ! LOL.....

I think there couldn't have been another drummer as perfectly suited for the Beatles than Ringo, with his quirky style and goofy songs.

if you don't like the Beatles, fine by me, but leave poor Ringo alone !

[I'm pretty ambivelent about 70% of their output, myself -but what do you expect from someone who heard Zappa before any memorable Beatles song ?]

Just kidding, sort of.

[The Last Rebel]

Any rapper who attempts to play guitar.

Here's lookin at you, Lil Wayne.

I dunno, P.O.S. is pretty good at both. Agreed on Lil Wayne though, he's as bad at guitar as he is at rapping.

[MrTAteMyBalls]

U2. when you have been playing the bass for six weeks you could get the bass players gig with U2.throw in a coupla hours pedal prog study and you can have the guitar players gig too


false on both accounts, but thanks for playing.

[JWatkinson]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but, Status Quo.

[Ampegasaur]

Now Sir, you have went too far, demeaning Ringo ! LOL.....

I think there couldn't have been another drummer as perfectly suited for the Beatles than Ringo, with his quirky style and goofy songs.

if you don't like the Beatles, fine by me, but leave poor Ringo alone !

[I'm pretty ambivelent about 70% of their output, myself -but what do you expect from someone who heard Zappa before any memorable Beatles song ?]

Just kidding, sort of.

I don't agree with this statement - Pete Best

.....Had to do it.

[Wagster]

Your ears can't hear what they don't hear. I guess not, the songs have not stood the test of time for me. I don't see the musicianship. If I don't care for their songwriting skills, don't see good musicianship, why would I view them as talented? I view them, and always will view them as, lucky, nothing more. Arpeggios? I don't expect everyone to be Holdsworth, Beck or Paganini that is ludicrous. I just don't see the talent, and view them as overrated, why get so bent out of shape about it? You like them, great!! I don't, and my opinion.

[A-Bone]

false on both accounts, but thanks for playing.

Yeah. The thing with U2 is that anything beyond cursory attention to their discography and performance reveals a truly exceptional, all time great band. As always, it is not about some external measurement of technical instrumental prowess, it is about the sum total of their combined ability to make music -- and the music they have made for just over 30 years. On this front, U2 belongs to truly elite company.

[Hunterdog]

I don't agree with this statement - Pete Best

.....Had to do it.

LOL, KNEW it was coming.....[wait for it, wait for it....]

It just hit me,.....I think if I have to hear "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" one more time, I may have to hit the person who played it with a hammer.......

I'll spare him for his contribution to " Tomorrow Never Knows", although I'm betting that's mostly Lennon.

[Sun Creature]

I like quite a few of their songs but The Strokes. Especially on their earlier stuff. I think what catipulated them to fame was the attitude and the look. Even though they turned out to trust fund kids.

[boldaslove1977]

can't believe this has gone 8 pages without a mention of....



wait for it....







wait for it....








nirvana. yes... even with dave grohl. and i had the CDs back in the day. but i look back at them... and i can't believe they were as big as they were. i know some would consider that blasphemy... but it's just my two cents.

[Sun Creature]

can't believe this has gone 8 pages without a mention of....



wait for it....







wait for it....








nirvana. yes... even with dave grohl. and i had the CDs back in the day. but i look back at them... and i can't believe they were as big as they were. i know some would consider that blasphemy... but it's just my two cents.

Helped bring rock music back to the meat and potatoes formula, which is what the old timers love about the Beatles.

[John Hurtt]

I guess not, the songs have not stood the test of time for me. I don't see the musicianship. If I don't care for their songwriting skills, don't see good musicianship, why would I view them as talented? I view them, and always will view them as, lucky, nothing more. Arpeggios? I don't expect everyone to be Holdsworth, Beck or Paganini that is ludicrous. I just don't see the talent, and view them as overrated, why get so bent out of shape about it? You like them, great!! I don't, and my opinion.

:beer I'm not bent out of shape at all. I'm just trying to understand your point since by all intents and purposes makes no sense. I'll drop out now, I see that we'll just have to disagree on this. Have a great day!

[Stevil]

http://www.brainwashaudio.com/images/troll.jpg

[Hunterdog]

can't believe this has gone 8 pages without a mention of....



wait for it....







wait for it....








nirvana. yes... even with dave grohl. and i had the CDs back in the day. but i look back at them... and i can't believe they were as big as they were. i know some would consider that blasphemy... but it's just my two cents.

Heh heh, it's all a matter of taste, as Ampegasaur was saying before everyone got interweb-aggro on him. I love Bleach, thought it was a great return to old school punk/rock in the midst of the Warrants and Poisons of the world. Loved PJ, AIC, and Soundgarden for the same reason.

Played a few videos of Sleepytime Gorilla Museum for the wifey the other night, and her first comment was " How the F did these guys get a record deal?"....

Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, for the most part.

[Cody]

Ooops, wrong room - I was looking for that place where musicians hang out.

:messedup

[The Last Rebel]

Ooops, wrong room - I was looking for that place where musicians hang out.

:messedup
We don't have any of those here.

[Hunterdog]

Ooops, wrong room - I was looking for that place where musicians hang out.

:messedup


I think it was the legendary John Cage who said.....


"Art is nothing until you put a frame around it, then it is up to the viewer to decide if it's art to them.....or not"

Slagging on other musicians for not liking what you like is rather pointless, wouldn't you say ?

Given that, here's another "target"....I LOVE Acid Mothers Temple........and Raphael Sadiq

[sfarnell]

U2. when you have been playing the bass for six weeks you could get the bass players gig with U2.throw in a coupla hours pedal prog study and you can have the guitar players gig too

+1 Bono has a decent voice but the effects are overwhelming and there's not much talent behind it IMO.

[A-Bone]

Oh, brother.

[Hunterdog]

+1 Bono has a decent voice but the effects are overwhelming and there's not much talent behind it IMO.


Seems like I've read an interview with Mr. Edge that was along the lines of "we wanted to fire the bass player and especially the drummer for a long while in the beginning".......Not sure if it's accurate or not.............

[Langun]

The Edge might not be the best guitar player, but he is one great musician!

[A-Bone]

Seems like I've read an interview with Mr. Edge that was along the lines of "we wanted to fire the bass player and especially the drummer for a long while in the beginning".......Not sure if it's accurate or not.............

That doesn't sound like something Edge would say (unless it was meant as a joke). They were all learning to play when they started the band.

[SteveO]

You asked for it....

















cG6fRHzVpNU&feature=fvwrel

[hahavishnu]

false on both accounts, but thanks for playing.


least talented band?

been to a U2 gig lately?

when the roadie is testing Mr Edges rig he runs through the entire U2 catalog with all the FX in place ...you would swear its the mr edge playing the parts

i am sure the same roadie stood in for the mr edge when he was sick

bum bum bum bum same note every bar on the bass.....least talented most successful band? i'll stick

[Langun]

least talented band?

been to a U2 gig lately?

when the roadie is testing Mr Edges rig he runs through the entire U2 catalog with all the FX in place ...you would swear its the mr edge playing the parts

i am sure the same roadie stood in for the mr edge when he was sick

bum bum bum bum same note every bar on the bass.....least talented most successful band? i'll stick

I doubt the roadie made the songs.

[Hunterdog]

That doesn't sound like something Edge would say (unless it was meant as a joke). They were all learning to play when they started the band.


Possibly.....Pretty sure I read something along those lines in a giant coffee table book ............Seems like the first problem arose when trying to play with a click track...........My memory could be sketchy [especially that night, when I was reduced to attempting to read a U2 coffee table book for entertainment/avoidace of the too-well-heeled crowd I was unfortunately mixed with], but I'm pretty sure Mr. Edge had an opinion on the early days and the roles in the band. And it seemed incompetence was an issue.

[Ampegasaur]

:beer I'm not bent out of shape at all. I'm just trying to understand your point since by all intents and purposes makes no sense. I'll drop out now, I see that we'll just have to disagree on this. Have a great day!

Cheers amigo. I harbor no ill will. I have rather strange tastes in music, my wife hates most of it. I would rather we had the Beatles for.folks to enjoy, than no Beatles. I have lots of friends who love them, and sing their praises.

[A-Bone]

Possibly.....Pretty sure I read something along those lines in a giant coffee table book ............Seems like the first problem arose when trying to play with a click track...........My memory could be sketchy [especially that night, when I was reduced to attempting to read a U2 coffee table book for entertainment/avoidace of the too-well-heeled crowd I was unfortunately mixed with], but I'm pretty sure Mr. Edge had an opinion on the early days and the roles in the band. And it seemed incompetence was an issue.

As recounted in the U2 By U2 book Larry definitely had trouble with the click track when they first used it, but as I recall it was the producer that suggested replacing him, rather than his band mates.

[Shiny McShine]

Poison achieved success despite not being all that clever.

Neil Young - I love him and what he does but even he says "I'm a genius with no talent." This alone makes him remarkably entertaining and important to me.

John Mellencamp never struck me as having a profound musical/lyrical gift yet he has hung on for quite some time. I'm amazed that he was even able to make more than a couple of albums because he seems to always be running out of stuff to say by the 2nd verse in his songs.

[Hunterdog]

As recounted in the U2 By U2 book Larry definitely had trouble with the click track when they first used it, but as I recall it was the producer that suggested replacing him, rather than his band mates.


Don't pretty much all drummers ?

[A-Bone]

Don't pretty much all drummers ?

:beer

[sfarnell]

Oh, brother.

That's ok. Odds are that you'd think that one of my favorite bands of all time has no talent:

Grateful Dead

To each his own.

[Hunterdog]

:beer



Yep.

$1200 later, and I could have played those darn beats.

[A-Bone]

That's ok. Odds are that you'd think that one of my favorite bands of all time has no talent:

Grateful Dead

To each his own.

I have a hard time imagining anyone honestly suggesting that the Grateful Dead had no talent, and I had only limited exposure to them.

[Sun Creature]

Well they aren't successful as they are influential but The Velvet Underground is one of those least talented bands but none the less, influenced so many.

[A-Bone]

Well they aren't successful as they are influential but The Velvet Underground is one of those least talented bands but none the less, influenced so many.

Again, least talented in what sense? They left an astounding body of songs behind.

[aynirar27]

I think some people here agree that the Beatles were talentless too
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org

[BadAssBill]

The Beastie Boys. Terrible, just terrible!

The Beasties have an instrumental CD that is simply amazing...not a lyric on it. It's really well done. When I listen to it...I'm not sure if I want to rob a bank or make a porno.

[Ampegasaur]

I think some people here agree that the Beatles were talentless too
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org

Zing.

[Hunterdog]

Zing.


wow..


At first i thought it was a joke, then I realized it wasn't...........


Then I realized it was............

Some Jedi Mind Tricks, there.............

[hawkeye17]

The Ramones

[dhdfoster]

Egads, some of the talent being dismiised here is just sad. The Beastie Boys, Velvet Undergound, U2? How myopic.

I know this forum suffers from guitarcentricity, but jeez....

[A-Bone]

Egads, some of the talent being dismiised here is just sad. The Beastie Boys, Velvet Undergound, U2? How myopic.

I know this forum suffers from guitarcentricity, but jeez....

You are not wrong, there.

[Wolf_Daddy]

Nickelback

[rob2001]

Bad idea for a thread.....unless bickering was desired.

[A-Bone]

Bad idea for a thread.....unless bickering was desired.

One can only imagine that bickering was the goal.

[scr@tchy]

It would help if we said which department we thought they were missing the talent in. This is just a vent thread anyways, so...

talented in so many ways they are, but to me they can't write a song to save their lives, ladies and daisies, I give you: Phish


For reference, I think Bill Withers writes great songs. Or did.

EDIT: Where I type "Phish" you could also put "Dave Mathews". I actually feel better now.

[gopherbroke]

KISS is the first thing I thought as well.

[Ephi82]

what a stupid thread...........Velvet Underground

[Bob Pollock]

Jackyl
Kiss
Nirvana
U2.........

[dancehall]

I guess not, the songs have not stood the test of time for me. I don't see the musicianship. If I don't care for their songwriting skills, don't see good musicianship, why would I view them as talented? I view them, and always will view them as, lucky, nothing more. Arpeggios? I don't expect everyone to be Holdsworth, Beck or Paganini that is ludicrous. I just don't see the talent, and view them as overrated, why get so bent out of shape about it? You like them, great!! I don't, and my opinion.

C'mon man. Don't act like you don't want to argue about it. Nobody with a brain posts that the Beatles are the least talented successful band and doesn't expect a good ol' internet tussle.

[Ampegasaur]

C'mon man. Don't act like you don't want to argue about it. Nobody with a brain posts that the Beatles are the least talented successful band and doesn't expect a good ol' internet tussle.

TGP, people getting major butthurt, on other gear forums I post on, I would only get agreements. It's all relative to the people involved, and was just my opinion.

[bjjp2]

I guess not, the songs have not stood the test of time for me. I don't see the musicianship. If I don't care for their songwriting skills, don't see good musicianship, why would I view them as talented? I view them, and always will view them as, lucky, nothing more. Arpeggios? I don't expect everyone to be Holdsworth, Beck or Paganini that is ludicrous. I just don't see the talent, and view them as overrated, why get so bent out of shape about it? You like them, great!! I don't, and my opinion.

You're entitled to not care for the music.

You're entitled to your opinion abut their lack of "musicianship" and "songwriting skills" too, but recognize that your opinion puts you in a minority of like .001% of the human race. (I would think that would make you think twice about whether you're not getting it because you're not giving it a fair evaluation).

[notnac]

Kiss

[Ampegasaur]

You're entitled to not care for the music.

You're entitled to your opinion abut their lack of "musicianship" and "songwriting skills" too, but recognize that your opinion puts you in a minority of like .001% of the human race. (I would think that would make you think twice about whether you're not getting it because you're not giving it a fair evaluation).

Depends on the crowd, .001%, that is pretty ridiculous. I have heard the Beatles all my life, very familiar with their work. Still feel the same. one of those bands I always wanted to like, just bleh.

[flea]

I thought you were talking about one I was in until I noticed successful added in there!

[NewarkWilder]

Kiss was certainly the first to come to mind. But then I remembered Insane Clown Posse :messedup

[dhdfoster]

Korn is awful, but only have 1 primary guitarist now, and have for close to.10 years now. For me, without question, The Beatles. Not a troll, just hate the guitar tones, dreadful playing, and whiny voices. If you don't agree, just the way it is for me. Most overrated band ever. I think they must have made the deal with the devil. Close 2nd is Dream Theater. Super gifted players, with 0 song writing skills. Unlistenable for me.

What's the difference between "super gifted" and talented?

[Ampegasaur]

What's the difference between "super gifted" and talented?

Dream Theater. Ba Dum Bum.

[dhdfoster]

Dream Theater. Ba Dum Bum.

Alrighty then. Gotcha.

[Kenny D]

Tone is in the gear.

Just thought I'd toss that out there.

[Put on ground, light fuse, get away.]

[scr@tchy]

This one is weird. Justin Timberlake. Because he is too talented to be that successful. Meaning he should be writing better music, which of course would take him straight off the charts.

[Rockledge]

Kiss. Kiss was to the 70s what the Archies were to the 60s.
You know a band is bad when they are so bad they need to dress up in scarey clown suits to get noticed.

Honorable mention goes to Velvet Underground.

[NewarkWilder]

This one is weird. Justin Timberlake. Because he is too talented to be that successful. Meaning he should be writing better music, which of course would take him straight off the charts.

Looks like he's way more into acting these days, has a couple pretty decent looking movies on the horizon. He's somebody I wrote off initially but have been amazed to discover how talented he really is. He could be the next MJ if he had the songs to back up the talent.. I guess his stuff hasn't been truly bad but certainly no Can't stop till you get enough or Smooth Criminal etc. He's still got D*ck in a box tho ;)

[gmann]

Kiss

This is the 1st thing that came to mind. I don't begrudge them their success tho.

[fierce_carrot]

I lived in Boston during the late 70's and saw the rise of "punk" here in America. Boston also was the center of amazing music taking place in the northeast at that same time.

The least talented band I ever saw, hands down.

The Ramones.

these guys were PATHETIC when compared to others who actually could play music.

[lhallam]

.....
<edit>
these guys were PATHETIC when compared to others who actually could play music.

It seems some folks on here are a bit confused as to what the word talent actually means.

Whether a person likes a band or not is wa-a-a-aay different than saying they have no talent.

For example a guy mentioned "Dream Theater". While not my favorite band, to say they don't have talent is ridiculous.

Same goes for "The Beatles", you may not like them but to say they don't have talent is more of a statement on what you know about musicianship than anything else.

[guzman]

Most overrated band? The Beatles or the Rolling Stones.

[fierce_carrot]

It seems some folks on here are a bit confused as to what the word talent actually means.

Whether a person likes a band or not is wa-a-a-aay different than saying they have no talent.

For example a guy mentioned "Dream Theater". While not my favorite band, to say they don't have talent is ridiculous.

Same goes for "The Beatles", you may not like them but to say they don't have talent is more of a statement on what you know about musicianship than anything else.


I saw the Ramones more than once, and TALENT is not what they had. A local radio station in Boston had a concert where each ticket was something like 95 cents because that was their location on the FM dial.

There were at least 5 bands there, the Ramones amongst them. Two others I remember were Piper (guitarists were Billy Squier & Bruce Kulick) and The Baby's (Jonathan Cain went on to a solo career and a stint with Bad English, other members went on to play with the likes of Rod Stewart and Elton John)

This thread isn't about what you like or don't like, it's about talent and watching the Ramones up against musicians who could actually play their instruments was stark to say the least.

[scr@tchy]

I saw the Ramones more than once, and TALENT is not what they had. A local radio station in Boston had a concert where each ticket was something like 95 cents because that was their location on the FM dial.

There were at least 5 bands there, the Ramones amongst them. Two others I remember were Piper (guitarists were Billy Squier & Bruce Kulick) and The Baby's (Jonathan Cain went on to a solo career and a stint with Bad English, other members went on to play with the likes of Rod Stewart and Elton John)

This thread isn't about what you like or don't like, it's about talent and watching the Ramones up against musicians who could actually play their instruments was stark to say the least.

Right, we are talking Achilles heals here. Obviously all these bands mentioned here were talented in some way(s), the Ramones maybe could write much better music than a lot of the guys you mentioned but the trade off is their technique was severely limited in comparison.

Someone mentioned earlier that 'there are no opinions concerning talent' which just isn't true at all, talent is just as subjective as songsmithing. I didn't really get those guys arguing Ampegasaur's opinion of the Beatles, as it is simply his opinion. I know it is hard for some to understand when the band is so iconic and considered as music's royalty but if someone says they don't like something you just can't argue that they do or must. Coming from listening to mostly RnB, funk, and blues, I had a hard time getting used to their singing voices early on myself. The side note is that because I listened to the blues I had no problem with their guitar solos or tones.

[Bassomatic]

I lived in Boston during the late 70's and saw the rise of "punk" here in America. Boston also was the center of amazing music taking place in the northeast at that same time.

Over downtown NYC at the same time?

[Bassomatic]

I was very clear it is not. Cannot stand them. At all. Horrible.

I think some music just about transcends the "subjective" angle, and is as close to objectively good as is imaginable. Bach, Stravinsky, and The Beatles come to mind.

P.S. - 300 bpm is just 150 bpm being counted incorrectly.:banana

[jtm622]

Talent??? Hey, we're talking about "show biz" here - where "style" easily wins out over "substance" in the end; and IMO, too much talent can sometimes be a liability to achieving commercial success...

H.L. Mencken summed it up fairly nicely: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public..."

:)

[fusion58]

What's the most successful, least talented band?

Just fill in the blank with the name of any successful pop or rock group that's come down the pike since the early 90s...


:hide

[joeyfivecents]

King Of Leon

[Ampegasaur]

I think some music just about transcends the "subjective" angle, and is as close to objectively good as is imaginable. Bach, Stravinsky, and The Beatles come to mind.

P.S. - 300 bpm is just 150 bpm being counted incorrectly.:banana

Actually no it isn't for the music I play. It was also a joke from a previous thread. I have a special metronome for practice, because a regular one does not go high enough, not even close. The Beatles are not in the same league as Bach and Stravinsky, not a fair comparison there, apples and oranges.

[A-Bone]

The Beatles are not in the same league as Bach and Stravinsky, not a fair comparison there, apples and oranges.

Or maybe they are in the same league. I suppose it depends on the league in question. Also the time horizon for all of these acts is such that we are still too close to The Beatles and will never get to know how they will stack up in broader music history (meaning over centuries).

Stravinsky is slightly older, and seems to be holding up well in his (admittedly) narrow pool of reference in a broader public sense. Bach has had hundreds of years of cementing a reputation. Time will indeed tell if The Fab Four can continue to occupy their lofty perch in terms of esteem within the popular music vernacular.

[dhdfoster]

Most overrated band? The Beatles or the Rolling Stones.

No, not most overrated. Most successful with the least "talent".

[frankencat]

/thread

Agreed. Although Gene can actually play a pretty decent bass.

[frankencat]

I saw the Ramones more than once, and TALENT is not what they had. A local radio station in Boston had a concert where each ticket was something like 95 cents because that was their location on the FM dial.

There were at least 5 bands there, the Ramones amongst them. Two others I remember were Piper (guitarists were Billy Squier & Bruce Kulick) and The Baby's (Jonathan Cain went on to a solo career and a stint with Bad English, other members went on to play with the likes of Rod Stewart and Elton John)

This thread isn't about what you like or don't like, it's about talent and watching the Ramones up against musicians who could actually play their instruments was stark to say the least.

If you ever spent 5 minutes in CBGB's during this period you would know that talent is not a major part of the success equation, lol. God I loved the 80's....what I remember anyway.... ;)

[A-Bone]

Are people here using "talent" and "technical proficiency" interchangeably? Maybe that is part of my bafflement with the proffered suggestions.

[Tuberoast]

talent doesn't always = technical prowess, and ironically the world feels that they are talented because they make an emotional connection. I think the ability to make a genuine emotional connection IS a talent

[Flinto2002]

I have a special metronome for practice, because a regular one does not go high enough, not even close.

Is that like Nigel Tufnel's volume knob?

[Ampegasaur]

Is that like Nigel Tufnel's volume knob?

Exactly. It goes to 411. :beer

[fierce_carrot]

Over downtown NYC at the same time?


Everybody who played in NYC played in Boston quite regularly

[FeloniousBishop]

Are people here using "talent" and "technical proficiency" interchangeably? Maybe that is part of my bafflement with the proffered suggestions.

For the most part it seems people are equating their not liking a band with that band having no talent.

[A-Bone]

For the most part it seems people are equating their not liking a band with that band having no talent.

Touche.

[JTM100]

No matter how good you are, there is always going to be someone that doesnt like what you do.

[DWB1960]

No matter how good you are, there is always going to be someone that doesnt like what you do.

Jenna Jameson excluded from this.

[Pally]

Yes, I don't like Nickelback, but they really can play their instruments, and have decent vocal harmony.

Kiss wrote some great songs.

AC/DC: nobody does what they do better.

The Monkees had sweet vocals, and Nesmith especially was noted as a songwriter.

Usually talent rises. You might not like what a successful act does, but it's successful for a reason.

[TNJ]

I'm sure I wont be the first to say them, but...NICKLEBACK.

S.
j

[dhdfoster]

I'm sure I wont be the first to say them, but...NICKLEBACK.

S.
j

I can't stand this band, but how can anyone assess their talent unless you've worked closely with them. They may be great players that only play what's needed for the recording. They write HIT SONGS and have for years. I don't like his voice, but he can obviously sing. For all we know, he may be a monster on the guitar. I think they are awful, but who am I to say they have no talent?

[Fred Farkus]

The Shaggs

[A-Bone]

The Shaggs

Arguably the greatest American rock band (see thread).

[Bob Longo]

Ampegasaur-
Please, please let me the one on the internet to change your mind!!! C'mon, man, the Beatles rocked!:banana
Only kidding, like what you like, it makes the world go round.
(I love the Beatles)

But, even you have to admit Biz Markie has to rank with the worst of the worst.
"Youuuu. You got what I need! But you say your just a friend!""

[Dillow4092]

I really want to say Van Halen, but they had talent just sucky songs. So I'll say KISS.. yep that's my vote.

[CRBMoA]

R.E.M.? :rotflmao

[Rockledge]

Most overrated band? The Beatles or the Rolling Stones.
You are of course aware that both of these bands recorded a great deal of their material well before multitracking became common place, and therefore recorded live in the studio.
The Beatles early stuff was amazing, the tightness and accurate timing, and great vocal harmonies. The fact those guys could play those songs so note for note perfect and get that good of tuning and timing at a time before electronic tuners and quantization is in itself quite a creative accomplishment.
As for the Stones, granted Mick Jagger is a performer, not a vocalist, Keith Richards claim to fame on guitar is not in technical skill but in clever creativity, and they have a rhythm section that gets little recognition, but Brian Jones, the brains behind the Stones, was a creative genius who could play mulitiple instruments.

[Rockledge]

It seems some folks on here are a bit confused as to what the word talent actually means.

Whether a person likes a band or not is wa-a-a-aay different than saying they have no talent.

For example a guy mentioned "Dream Theater". While not my favorite band, to say they don't have talent is ridiculous.

Same goes for "The Beatles", you may not like them but to say they don't have talent is more of a statement on what you know about musicianship than anything else.


Exactly right. I am not a Dream Theater fan, I just don't care for their overall sound or their vocals.
But damn, those guys are amazingly gifted. Some of the most complex music I have ever heard. I cannot imagine being able to memorize even one of their songs, let alone multiple albums full of it, and going out and performing it. You would have to have memory skills far above what is normal to be able to do that.

[Rockledge]

Actually no it isn't for the music I play. It was also a joke from a previous thread. I have a special metronome for practice, because a regular one does not go high enough, not even close. The Beatles are not in the same league as Bach and Stravinsky, not a fair comparison there, apples and oranges.

I disagree, They are in the same league for the same reason Stephen Foster is in the same league.
They are in the same league because 1) they were the folk heroes of their time, just as the classical artists were and
2) they wrote memorable melodies that people will be huming for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years if mankind makes it that far.

The Beatles had a talent that people other than professional songwriters never discuss.
They had a talent for writing timeless melodies along with the knowledge to make sure that some of their songs did not date themselves.
There is no doubt in my mind that they learned this, as well as a lot of other things, from Mr Martin.
A basic teaching among songwriters is that you do not write lyrics that date themselves.
Blackbird, for example, is a song that could be sung 200 years from now and still be relevent.
In 200 years, people will still likely be familiar with Beatles melodies as well as parts of Beethovens 5th synphony or Musorgskys Pictures at an Exhibition. They might not know who wrote it, but the melodies and words will survive.
Just like Camptown Ladies.


Look at how many people know the melody to "bicycle built for two" but have no idea who wrote it. Or for that matter, when.

Actually, it might be argued that the popular classical artists are not in the same league as the Beatles, because chances are more people on this planet right now, when randomly asked on the street to hum a melody, would hum Michelle than some classical piece. And that very well will likely be the case, as I say, 200 years from now.
Imagine a bust of Paul Mcartney sitting atop a hologram of a piano in 100 years.

[aynirar27]

Maybe this can help Ampegasaur appreciate the beatles

http://youtu.be/6y8Kgr3lJ2k

[aynirar27]

How about Bob Dylan? Talented poet absolutely, but Musician? He probably could have "sang" those lyrics over any chord progression to the same affect.

[Sobbincat]

The Who

[nickthenail]

**Turns and runs screaming from thread** **Door slam!**

[aynirar27]

**Turns and runs screaming from thread** **Door slam!**

C'mon in, the water's fiiiine

[Paleolith54]

Creed? David Cross makes a good case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ctTiP7GfSI

-Cheers

No he doesn't. He makes no case at all. He simply shows that he's another second-rater who adopts a position of superiority that he hasn't earned, berates people who've done him no harm and who are at least as deep as he is, and can't get out a ten-word sentence without including "****in'" 5 times. Where a low-brow like that gets off deriding others for much of anything is beyond me.

It does seem appropriate, though, to include him in a thread about talentless performers, so you got that part right.

[EricPeterson]

How about Bob Dylan? Talented poet absolutely, but Musician? He probably could have "sang" those lyrics over any chord progression to the same affect.

Dylan was a very capable guitarist, and IMO a excellent song writer, I like his voice but would admit it is not "classically" good.

[phillygtr]

I'm sure someone has mentioned them already but my vote is for The Black-eyed Peas. I cannot take them seriously. Total joke band to me. People talk about Will.i.am (I feel ridiculous even typing that) as if he were some kind of genius. I don't get it.

[guitars4me]

The Wiggles

[aynirar27]

The Wiggles

we know where you live
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/4267/4group.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/718/4group.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[jtm622]

Just a thought... The Beatles started it all - No Beatles = No Yardbirds = No Cream = No Hendrix = etc., etc., etc.

Seriously, now - The Beatles = the most successful but the least talented???

Well, if the Beatles had written songs like those written by "Sky Saxon and the Seeds" or "Blackie Lawless & Wasp" instead of coming up with the masterpieces on Sgt. Pepper and Revolver, we would likely all be discussing whether the tone was "in" the different accordions and ukes played by Lawrence Welk and Arthur Godfrey ... or rather, if it was indeed "in their fingers"...

Music would have followed a totally different and horrendous path...

:)

[tonejunky]

If you don't like and/or appreciate "Something", I don't want to hear you play the guitar. I'm also pretty sure that Lennon was a great lyricist.

Cobain's songwriting and Grohl's drumming exempt Nirvana.

Phish? You've got to be kidding me.

Dylan actually had the capability of singing more traditionally, and very much in-tune. Check out "Lay Lady, Lay".


The Who? Who do you think you are?

[scr@tchy]

Cinderella

http://www.rockpedia.co/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cinderella5.jpg

[Rockledge]

Cinderella

http://www.rockpedia.co/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cinderella5.jpg

This would be hilarious if not for the fact that it was the whole mid 70s and on metal/hairband/image more than music spinal tap mindset that help dig rocks grave.
I wish rock had just ceased to exist rather than go on as a parody of itself.

[scr@tchy]

This would be hilarious if not for the fact that it was the whole mid 70s and on metal/hairband/image more than music spinal tap mindset that help dig rocks grave.
I wish rock had just ceased to exist rather than go on as a parody of itself.

"You don't know what you got until it's gone."

[Rockledge]

Just a thought... The Beatles started it all - No Beatles = No Yardbirds = No Cream = No Hendrix = etc., etc., etc.

Seriously, now - The Beatles = the most successful but the least talented???

Well, if the Beatles had written songs like those written by "Sky Saxon and the Seeds" or "Blackie Lawless & Wasp" instead of coming up with the masterpieces on Sgt. Pepper and Revolver, we would likely all be discussing whether the tone was "in" the different accordions and ukes played by Lawrence Welk and Arthur Godfrey ... or rather, if it was indeed "in their fingers"...

Music would have followed a totally different and horrendous path...

:)


Not to take anything away from the Beatles ( I am one of many who has been defending them) but without them thoe bands would likely all have still made it big.
Those bands were comprised of musicians who were out doing it at the same time the Beatles were, they all cut their teeth in the same area of the world, the same club scene, and on the same type of music.
They were all big fans of the Blues and Country and Western, combined with a little bit of their own cultural heritage called "Skittle" , whatever the hell that is.
The Beatles were the band that had the luck of the draw, and management that knew how to give them just the right image to be mass marketable.
I am well old enough to remember the music scene before the Beatles and as they were happening. They didn't change it, it was already changing, they just know how to surf well enough to ride the wave better than everyone else.

Also consider that even though most rock era bands were made up of guys that just loved the music and were not chasing fame or money, the record labels were chasing money, even the small ones.
The music industry was at that time looking for things that were new and fresh. Anything as talented as bands like Cream that were doing something as outragious and different as they were would have put dollar signs in music industry moguls and those with dreams of being moguls.
Think of all the likely bands that could have been the Beatles that never even got heard of. Their absence didn't stop the Beatles or Cream from happening.

[revgsmall]

Being the most talented and least successful band in the world...I've no clue....

[v-verb]

kiss

Kiss - and I used to love them when I was a kid -but man they SUCK!!!

[Bassomatic]

^ I quote this all the time, but in a well-known interview with "Spin," Dee Dee said : "If I make $35,000, I consider that a pretty good year."

That coming from someone living in NYC.

Yeah. I remember hanging at Zig Zag bar and grill on 23rd st one night in about '89 when Johnny was there and he kept kind of posing with his new Acura which was parked out front, and thinking it was kind of sad and a bit lame.

[Bassomatic]

Your ears can't hear what they don't hear.

/thread

[Bassomatic]

Helped bring rock music back to the meat and potatoes formula, which is what the old timers love about the Beatles.

I'd guess I'm an "old timer", even though I was born the year the lads invaded the U.S.

And that is *not* what I love about The Beatles.

Not sure it makes a lick of sense, actually, as the band was constantly pushing boundaries both technological and musical. Nothing "meat and potatoes" about it, unless the meat was an unerring sense of harmony and melody and hooks, hooks, hooks with a psychedelically tinged sense of lyrical expansiveness.

[Dillow4092]

Cinderella

http://www.rockpedia.co/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/cinderella5.jpg


Jeeezzzz, this is too funny. The drummer looks like a $2.00 hooker/drag queen. I can see this picture hanging up in some prison cell though...

[Rockledge]

I lived in Boston during the late 70's and saw the rise of "punk" here in America. Boston also was the center of amazing music taking place in the northeast at that same time.

The least talented band I ever saw, hands down.

The Ramones.

these guys were PATHETIC when compared to others who actually could play music.




There seems to be a current fad of liking the underdog, and considering those without talent to be the underdog, and as such, they are therefore talented at being an underdog and expressing it.
I cannot believe the fad following Velvet Underground has now. Amazing, considering they were virtually ignored by the music appreciating public when they recorded.
There was just so very much fantastic music coming from extremely capable singers and musicians and highly creative songwriters that bands that couldn't compete were ignored.
Now they are lifted up as posessing some kind of secret society of genius.
Even if all that drivel could be described as "creative", all the creativity in the world is useless if the creator lacks the skills to be able to express it. Imagine the Sistine Chapel ceiling covered with stick figures.

[DC1]

Saw the title, and thought...

"Oh man, this thread is going to be crack cocaine to musicians who have not hit the big time..." :drown

"Oh they can't play their instruments! Oh they write crap, oh they can't sing..."



:waiting


So, go write something. Notes and words are free...


:wave



dc

[Scooter Burbank]

There seems to be a current fad of liking the underdog, and considering those without talent to be the underdog, and as such, they are therefore talented at being an underdog and expressing it.
I cannot believe the fad following Velvet Underground has now. Amazing, considering they were virtually ignored by the music appreciating public when they recorded.
There was just so very much fantastic music coming from extremely capable singers and musicians and highly creative songwriters that bands that couldn't compete were ignored.
Now they are lifted up as posessing some kind of secret society of genius.
Even if all that drivel could be described as "creative", all the creativity in the world is useless if the creator lacks the skills to be able to express it. Imagine the Sistine Chapel ceiling covered with stick figures.

Is this some kind of super stealth satire here that I'm missing? 'Cause really? To be brief, this fad of which you speak has been going on undeterred for at least 30 years or so. There is nothing secret or mystical about the Velvet Underground. They were simply a great band that wrote great songs who happened not to be popular while they were doing their thing. It is not a particularly uncommon phenomenon for a band/artist/author/philosopher to gain attention and/or notoriety sometime after the point at which they were kicking as an entity. If this is an attempt by you to do some hip-culture explicating, I'll grant you that, yes, it probably further venerates them in the eyes of some that the band was relatively unpopular while they were around.

Let me guess: You're not much for modern art.

[TopDog]

kings of leon

[fast ricky love]

Limp Bizkit, KORN, etc goes w/o saying.

For me it would have to be the NYDolls. No musical ability, just a bunch of poseurs.

[bobbyatomic]

I think it's the word "overated" people are getting confused about. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's overated, it means you don't like it, you can add any reason you like to that, technical ability, lyric writing, whatever, doesn't matter. If a band is widely considered to be the best, then they're the best, thats the way subjectivity works, you can't prove these things with science, if thats the way the majority feels then that's the way it is. If you feel _______ are overated because everybody holds them in high reguard and you don't, it isn't because you have superior taste in music, it's because you're arrogant.

That being said, U2 are absolute shite!

[Cymbaline]

The Kaiser Chiefs. Saw them at the ACL festival here in Austin, and holy crap they were terrible.

[jerrycampbell]

The Ramones and Velvet Underground bashing is so lame. So Johnny and Lou couldn't play like EVH. It's about the great songs. And if you don't recognise good songs, I can't help you there. In fact, no one has mentioned VH here, but I will. Perfect example of accomplished musicians creating crap music (post DLR). Uh, Feels So Good, anybody?

[scr@tchy]

Justin Timberlake is underrated. Great singer, good actor and comedic actor. His writing with Andy Samberg is heads and shoulders over the music that made him a star in my opinion.

[Rotten]

Has someone already mentioned Coldplay. I saw them on TV and I could not believe how bland they were. The songs sounded like they simply came up with chord progressions, stuck on a bunch of delay, and sung what ever note fit the 1, 3, or 5 of the chord they were playing. I can't believe my wife likes them!!

[smcgov]

I will go with Coldplay....I'm tired of his miserable puss and whinny songs.. Phish also comes to mind the next good song they write will be the first

[lhallam]

I saw the Ramones more than once, and TALENT is not what they had. A local radio station in Boston had a concert where each ticket was something like 95 cents because that was their location on the FM dial.

There were at least 5 bands there, the Ramones amongst them. Two others I remember were Piper (guitarists were Billy Squier & Bruce Kulick) and The Baby's (Jonathan Cain went on to a solo career and a stint with Bad English, other members went on to play with the likes of Rod Stewart and Elton John)

This thread isn't about what you like or don't like, it's about talent and watching the Ramones up against musicians who could actually play their instruments was stark to say the least.


Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you on the term talent.

Personally, I never listened to The Ramones enough to decide whether they had talent or not. At the time they were big, I had graduated college wth a major in classical gtr and was more into music with counterpoint, breaks, sections and tight arrangements.

Constant 1/8 note whanking still bores me.

[A-Bone]

Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you on the term talent.

Personally, I never listened to The Ramones enough to decide whether they had talent or not. At the time they were big, I had graduated college wth a major in classical gtr and was more into music with counterpoint, breaks, sections and tight arrangements.

Constant 1/8 note whanking still bores me.

The Ramones can be accused of many things, but wanking is not really among them.

[Rockledge]

The Ramones and Velvet Underground bashing is so lame. So Johnny and Lou couldn't play like EVH. It's about the great songs. And if you don't recognise good songs, I can't help you there. In fact, no one has mentioned VH here, but I will. Perfect example of accomplished musicians creating crap music (post DLR). Uh, Feels So Good, anybody?

I notice that whenever someone cannot support a point of view with facts, they accuse the debate opponent of "bashing"
Pointing out the fact that a particular "artists" is just simply not all that particularly gifted is not bashing, it is making an observation, nothing more and nothing left.
As I said, being artistic is of no consequence iv the "artist" cannot accurately depict his "art".
I could imagine all kind of creative things to carve into stone, and try to do it and end up with some hacked up looking mess. It wouldn't be art, and would in no way compete with the statue of David.

And citing musicians who are technically skilled but artistically bankrupt is a bad example, because they are not being hailed as gifted above their abilities either.
Guys spewing drivel on poorly set up guitars they have terrible technique playing and who cannot sing well is hardly art, and pointing out the fact is hardly "bashing".
I suspect fans if such " artists" are more often than not those who wish to be considered as artists themselves but lack abilities. Those with dreams and aspirations far beyond their skills.

[jpftribe]

A flock of Seagulls

[jerrycampbell]

I notice that whenever someone cannot support a point of view with facts, they accuse the debate opponent of "bashing"
Pointing out the fact that a particular "artists" is just simply not all that particularly gifted is not bashing, it is making an observation, nothing more and nothing left.
As I said, being artistic is of no consequence iv the "artist" cannot accurately depict his "art".
I could imagine all kind of creative things to carve into stone, and try to do it and end up with some hacked up looking mess. It wouldn't be art, and would in no way compete with the statue of David.

And citing musicians who are technically skilled but artistically bankrupt is a bad example, because they are not being hailed as gifted above their abilities either.
Guys spewing drivel on poorly set up guitars they have terrible technique playing and who cannot sing well is hardly art, and pointing out the fact is hardly "bashing".
I suspect fans if such " artists" are more often than not those who wish to be considered as artists themselves but lack abilities. Those with dreams and aspirations far beyond their skills.
All good points, Rockledge.
The Ramones had ample skill to translate their songs onto tape, and live (I've seen them). Musicians often confuse simplicity with lack of skill, and flashy playing with talent. The Velvet Underground, too, recorded good versions of great songs- All Tomorrow's Parties, Pale Blue Eyes, etc. There's nothing 'hipster' about my love for these bands.

[j2b4o]

The answer is easy. They are one of the most famous in the world and have very little "talent".


U2 for the win

[scr@tchy]

The answer is easy. They are one of the most famous in the world and have very little "talent".


U2 for the win

Talent comes in many forms though. Bono is a talented singer. The Edge's talent is to take his basic skills and frame them in an interesting way to the benefit of the composition. I find his choice in nicknames to be utterly bereft of talent. He is a shave gel?

The Ramones song-craft is great, though they would have had to practice if they found the need to write something on par with a violin concerto or a jazz piece as their technical talents were only developed so far.

Some get lucky, I think Johnny Rotten got lucky, and then saw why and took it as high as he could in PIL. Recognizing something that may be considered sub-par as being marketable happened a lot in earlier days of music. Louis Armstrong took a ruined voice and made gold with it, and his personality. Later Tom Waits did the same thing, but at a time when the main stream was becoming less accepting of imperfections.

Michael Bolton tried what Joe Cocker got away with, but he just didn't have the personality that Joe had.

There are kind of examples of this in the guitar community too, The Edge, Neil Young's solo style,... but in the case of these, they could simply practice and build their skills where singers are sometimes left to work with what they have.

It goes the other way too, amazing technical skills but no talent in framing them. This gets even more subjective of course. I mentioned Timberlake earlier, I would add Christina Aguilera IMHO. Yngwie's soloing has changed a lot from when he was with Alcatraz and on Rising Force, for the worse in my opinion and thus to me, not being put to good use composition-ally.

What would the technical talent of Yngwie sound like mixed with the song writing talent of Tom Petty? Could the two exist together? Is that Bluegrass?

[Tom Gilroy]

Yngwie's soloing has changed a lot from when he was with Alcatraz and on Rising Force, for the worse in my opinion and thus to me, not being put to good use composition-ally.

What would the technical talent of Yngwie sound like mixed with the song writing talent of Tom Petty? Could the two exist together? Is that Bluegrass?

I think Yngwie gets a lot of flak he doesn't really deserve. A large portion of his audience are the people that only buy his music because he's technically skilled and fast guitar player. His phrasing, composition, tone, etc aren't what they're interested in. They just want full-on shred.

I can't blame him for recognising his audience and giving them what they want.

[AnchorHoy]

Or maybe they are in the same league. I suppose it depends on the league in question. Also the time horizon for all of these acts is such that we are still too close to The Beatles and will never get to know how they will stack up in broader music history (meaning over centuries).

Stravinsky is slightly older, and seems to be holding up well in his (admittedly) narrow pool of reference in a broader public sense. Bach has had hundreds of years of cementing a reputation. Time will indeed tell if The Fab Four can continue to occupy their lofty perch in terms of esteem within the popular music vernacular.

They'll do just fine

3Z2vU8M6CYI&feature=player_embedded

[lhallam]

The Ramones can be accused of many things, but wanking is not really among them.


I went to YouTube and checked some stuff out.

I stand corrected, he's not always playing the same 1/8 note rhythm.

I can hear some talent. There is melody in the vocals, some actual chord changes, sections, and breaks. They can keep a steady beat and actually spent some time arranging. The songs do not sound all the same although the timbre does.

My original post had nothing to do with The Ramones and I didn't want to get caught up in it. My original point to point out that talent and taste are two different things.

[coralreefer]

I'm late to the dance...scanned Beatles dribble...I must have missed the day of class when we went over how the Beatles weren't influential and successful...or else I'm just snorting something...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/airplane%20lloyd%20bridges%20high.JPG

[Rockledge]

I think it's the word "overated" people are getting confused about. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's overated, it means you don't like it, you can add any reason you like to that, technical ability, lyric writing, whatever, doesn't matter. If a band is widely considered to be the best, then they're the best, thats the way subjectivity works, you can't prove these things with science, if thats the way the majority feels then that's the way it is. If you feel _______ are overated because everybody holds them in high reguard and you don't, it isn't because you have superior taste in music, it's because you're arrogant.

That being said, U2 are absolute shite!

I am not much of a U2 fan but I think they are telented enough to be what the music industry needs them to be to generate revenue. They are competent enough musically to do the rather light pop music they do and to perform it.
I always thought they needed a lead guitarist, if they had one they might have sounded like a rock band.
But shite? Nah, can't go with that. There is some talent there. At least Bono can sing.
Also, they seemed to be able to get their sound down on record too, which many bands are not very good at.

[rickkkyrich]

Nickelback, Kiss and most Pop stuff....

[thedroid]

Grateful Dead.

[Rockledge]

All good points, Rockledge.
The Ramones had ample skill to translate their songs onto tape, and live (I've seen them). Musicians often confuse simplicity with lack of skill, and flashy playing with talent. The Velvet Underground, too, recorded good versions of great songs- All Tomorrow's Parties, Pale Blue Eyes, etc. There's nothing 'hipster' about my love for these bands.

Man I gotta tell you, the VERY worst album I have heard from the rock era is Velvet Underground and Nico. Man, the guitars are either not intonated right or whoever is playing them has poor fretting technique. Everything about it was uninspired drivel and on top of that was very poorly recorded.
Like I say, even if it was a bit artistic it would have been wasted, because all of the artistic creativity on the planet is pointess to someone who hasn't the skills to represent and express it.
And nothing is more a parody of itself than someone with rudimentary music skills attempting to be avant garde'.
The Ramones are a little better, at least they were well recorded and knew how to tune their instruments. And they weren't trying to create a mystique of somehow being brooding artists, they didn't do what they did under any pretense.
But still, they didn't exactly skyrocket up the charts for a reason.

[HoboMan]

They'll do just fine

3Z2vU8M6CYI&feature=player_embedded

Holy Crap, that was funny!

[SteveGaines]

"KID ROCK"..I would imagine Ronnie Van Zant turned over in his grave when he was chosen to induct SKYNYRD in the RRHOF.

[A-Bone]

I'm late to the dance...scanned Beatles dribble...I must have missed the day of class when we went over how the Beatles weren't influential and successful...or else I'm just snorting something...

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/airplane%20lloyd%20bridges%20high.JPG

Man I gotta tell you, the VERY worst album I have heard from the rock era is Velvet Underground and Nico. Man, the guitars are either not intonated right or whoever is playing them has poor fretting technique. Everything about it was uninspired drivel and on top of that was very poorly recorded.
Like I say, even if it was a bit artistic it would have been wasted, because all of the artistic creativity on the planet is pointess to someone who hasn't the skills to represent and express it.
And nothing is more a parody of itself than someone with rudimentary music skills attempting to be avant garde'.
The Ramones are a little better, at least they were well recorded and knew how to tune their instruments. And they weren't trying to create a mystique of somehow being brooding artists, they didn't do what they did under any pretense.
But still, they didn't exactly skyrocket up the charts for a reason.

Looks like you both picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

[PVH5150]

To all you people mentioning KISS.....

:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm