Why Are Some Musicians So Consistently And Thoroughly Overrated?

Question

I mean what's the deal here? Is no one else hearing what I'm hearing?

It should be obvious to Any Human with ears that...

Eddie Vedder is an atrocious excuse for a Vocalist

Keith Moon was a sloppy Drummer and wholly incapable of playing the same type of intricate Time Signatures used by greats like John Bonham and Neal Peart

Tommy Lee is way better at flying through the air and making videos with Barbie than He is at Drumming

Pete Townsend couldn't reproduce 1/4th of Jimmy Page's riffs if His life depended on it.

There is no way on God's Green Earth that John Entwistle's Bass Lines are more Complex than Geddy Lee's. How do I know this? I have ears.

With the possible exception of George Harrison none of the Beatles were better than average Musicians.

There are about 5,000 Rock Guitarists with more skill than Kurt Cobain.

All these facts seem glaringly obvious to Me

Yet You constantly hear that all these People are the "Best" and the "Greatest" Musicians, this boggles Me to no end.

Why?

Answer 1

I like the thought put into this, but what it all comes down to is popularity. People like popular people and think that because they're legendary or whatever, it makes them "the best". I strongly disagree with most opinions, but that's just me. I respect everyone for what they like.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Some people just follow the crowd and claim certain things. I know what you're saying with Kurt Cobain (and everyone else, but i'll just point at him). He's supposedly one of the greatest guitar players alive? Yeah..right. I think people just have lots of respect for the musicians and therefore feel the need to say that they're the best.

Answer 2

Darth, I think you fail to see the point of some of the bands.  Good musicianship is not always the point, and almost never is.  Most, if not all, of those bands you mentioned weren't trying to be the most technical, intricate band ever..  And I'd love to know what qualifies as "musical skill".  A 3 minute solo?  a 9 minute song?  Well then yeah, those bands suck according to that.  Dream Theater are apparently one of the most skilled bands out now, yet I hear more people that respect them then actually enjoy their songs.  Musical skill doesn't always equal appeal.  And since I mentioned the appeal factor, some bands appeal to other crowds.

Answer 3

Hi Darth,

From my perspective, and this came to mind when you mentioned the Beatles particularly, it has to do with instinct over a amazing musicianship as a prerequisite. It's the same reason that I say Joey Santiago is one of the unsung heroes of the guitar. He wasn't flashy at all, but he was always doing the right thing within the songs for the music that they were making, and ened up being incredibly influential. In their case (the Beatles) they may not have been the best technical band, but they constructed amazing songs. You had quite possibly the best songwriting team in the history of rock and roll. For me, it's about how it hits my ears over the sheer talent of the players. I think that people get confused though and mistake making great noise and being a more talented player. This isn't to knock great players, of course, although I see that I'm probably sounding that way. I'm just talking from the other point of view.

*************

Thank you Darth. It's a really great question. I agree, you've made it fun again with a couple great questions over the last couple days. Actually the bar has gone back up a bit in general it feels.

Answer 4

I'm not an expert on the technicalities of music but after listening since the early 60's to ALL types of music I know what I think is good or bad and that's all that matters to me!

There are many reasons why I like a particular artist besides just the music.

Answer 5

I think there are a lot of people who confuse "favorites" with "greatest"... like they can't seem to accept that just because they like the music made by a certain musician that another person could have more skill even if they make a different sort of music. They want to believe their favorite is the best, and they aren't willing to listen to those who tell them otherwise.

Here, I like this better: People *feel* something with their favorite (sorry for overusing that word) that they maybe don't get out of another who is more technically skilled, so for people who have no concept of what it takes to play a specific instrument or sing, they can only measure the greatness of  an artist through the emotions they go through when listening. Just an idea...

Answer 6

Dude, exactly my thinking

it really makes my blood boil when i see these so called "Top 10 guitarist ever" and you see the same mediocre guitarists such as Kurt Kaboom and The Edge (all he uses the delay effect way too much)

Pete Townsend is good you cannot say he is **** but noway does he belong near the top of the list each bloody time.

Paul McCartney is always at the top of list for bassists, why? all he ever did was follow the same note to what Harrison played, wow my sister could of done that.

Kurt - useless piece of **** on a guitar, same old power chords same sloppy half assed solos.

A good musician to me, has a vast knowledge of musical theory.  Its clear that these musicians probably know what a Ionian and a aeolian mode is since its basic of the basics of music

Answer 7

Sorry to dissapoint you bud..no rant.

Too tired..and whats the point?  Of course half your comments lead me to believe you have extreme tinitis from those explosions over in the Gulf...........

But I concede points like Eddie Cheddar sucking hard.

BUT..if you ar edepraved enough to somehow think THIS is better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-JD5AdCp...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1h6DWrRX...

than THIS.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVl39LBZG...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfDE-ZvfO...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lf10U0yZ...

if this doesn't set the record straight..what more can I say?

I respect your opinions on many things... but I think your fanhood has impinged your ear drums in this instance.

PS... I have to disagree with you on moon also..... mMAYBE he was not guite as good as Bonham or Peart..but that is a really tough call to make, as pointed out by MULTIPLE answers on here.  Is he my favorite drummer?  No..... but he could sure wail on his kit with the best of them.

Answer 8

Another man's noise is another man's music

Answer 9

You could say that anyone is overated, it's about personal preference.

I think people just say 'oh they're overated' when they're fed up of hearing someone being raved about 24/7, because they don't personally like the music. People get sick of hearing about the same things all the time, too.

I mean, most of the bands who everyone hypes up on YA (The Beatles, Led Zep, Nirvana) are very talented, they deserve recognition. They might not be too everyone's taste, and you might think, 'well i don't get the fuss about such a band'. But what you can't dispute is their talent. Even if you don't like the sound, you have to respect they have talent.

Personally i hate Pavarotti, and i was sick of hearing about him when he died, but i know he was really gifted with his voice so he deserved the hype.

Answer 10

It's all a matter of opinion. What you like, another person hates.  

Answer 11

Everything to be said, has been said.

The only statement I would respectfully disagree with is:

"With the possible exception of George Harrison none of the Beatles were better than average Musicians."

Possible exception? George Harrison was well above average. Superior to many guitar players out there....

True he was no Clapton, but he never tried to be. He's known for the Sitar and Slide, two great instruments. Just my personal opinion, but if we're gonna c**p on The Beatles, we should leave The Quiet One out of it.

Answer 12

"With the possible exception of George Harrison none of the Beatles were better than average Musicians"

songwriting is part of being a musician.

eddie vedder just has one of those voice, you either like it or you dont.

i'm cool with everything else you said. you exagerate a bit here and there though. that is, assuming you mean someone says, for instance, list the best bass players and several will always list entwistle the root note wonder. these people dont belong on those types of lists as individual musicians, but their bands are still worth listening to.

Darth- go answer my question about the shaggs

Answer 13

I believe you are forgetting the heart and soul element which is so important in popular music. It's not JUST technical precision.

The Beatles, for example. Maybe John Lennon and Paul McCartney aren't super-technical Steve Vai types, but they have heart and soul. Warmth. Creativity. Charm. Humor. And they ARE good musicians. They can play their instruments well.

By the way, your argument would be more engaging if you weren't so condescending. 'Pete Townshend is inferior. This is not Opinion, this is My Fact!' High horse alert...

EDIT: I didn't directly quote you, now did I? I paraphrased. AND you did say he was inferior to Jimmy Page.

Answer 14

i agree. with popularity comes mediocrity.  

Answer 15

IMHO:  Rolling Stones ( any album after Tattoo you)

Answer 16

i do agree that people do overreact about many nusicians, but then again, if it's someone that they can admire...

i suppose people that cant do something think that someone that can is the 'greatest' of all time, when there are so many greater than they are. thats mainly why i like freddie Mercury. i think that his voice is amazing, but when i found out that Queens drummer, roger taylor, actually had a higher vocal range than Freddie, i really didn't want to accept it. i mean, its not that people just admire musicians for their skill at something, its most likely them altogether. Thier skill, lyrics, life, what they 'did' for music, etc. etc. etc. but they've got to admit that there are many people better than their favourite. maybe it's loyalty. i know deep, deep down inside that there ae better bands than Queen (i suppose...) but i definitely DO NOT like admitting it. yeah, i love Queen, and Freddie, and not just for his music, but thats not to say that he's the *best* ever, though i wish it was true. People should get over themselves, and swalow thier pride. Like who you like, but don't claim things that you know aren't true.

=]

Answer 17

Well for the Who people you mentioned, I find it to be the novelty of their style more so than the music. true, moon was by no means a musical genius, he went in and pounded on the drums. the fact that it was some how done in time amazes me, though his style influences many to this day and therefor his legacy stands. Same thing with Pete, the style was all him (plus he plays amazing rhythm, outstanding acoustic). Eric Clapton agree with you Darth, he said the Beatles were mediocre at best, of course excluding Harrison.

Vedder? Why would I even try and defend him.....

and the Cobain. I think he was different in a way that he gave those kids out playing in the garage a little bit of hope. They didnt think there was any hope for them till this guy from Seattle steps up and all of sudden is playing to huge crowds. he was kinda like an icon to them, though no, his guitar playing was absolutely nothing special.

EDIT: lol, apparently some people were disappointed that I didn't rant and actually kept my answer cool and to the point.

EDIT 2: Sorry, but my answer made it seem like I don't respect Townshend. As far as your point goes (and Im a guitarist) yes, Page is fa superior in terms of writing and just the pure intricacy of his style. Pete is far more comfortable strumming out one of the fastest procession of chords you've ever heard on the ol' acoustic. In my mind, he played to highlight the rest of his band. He's an amazing guitarist who differs drastically from others in his genre

EDIT 3: Thanks a lot darth, this question just keeps requiring more edit and edit (this'll be the last so i dont take up the freakin page). I just wanted to say that, while the quality of the musicianship is important, there's also something I've always called the "fun factor". Think about the Clash and the Ramones (I like the Clash better, but that's beside the point). As far as actual musicianship goes, I don't either were overly great. But I just find them so much fun to listen to, it's all in the style.

Answer 18

i'll work through each of your complaints individually

i like some of pearl jam's early work, but that's because eddie's songwriting peak was there...listening to him sing the lyrics isn't as nice

i am of the opinion that keith moon is one of the very best ever, but it's a matter of opinion on him...you call him sloppy, many people call it having an awkward style

tommy lee has no talent...sorry all fans of his

i am a big townshend fan but i agree that he doesn't hold a candle to jimmy page

i have never gotten into rush myself but i do respect all of them as musicians, they are all very talented...however, i don't see how entwistle isn't one of the very best in history, but imo it almost doesn't matter anyway because the who and rush are tough bands to compare in any circumstance...comparing members of the who to zeppelin is a lot easier

as for the beatles...were they all average musicians, except for harrison? yes...were mccartney and lennon average singers? i think they were well above that

and even though i'm a huge nirvana fan, kurt cobain really isn't a very skilled guitarist...he did fine for the work his band was doing, but it was simple for sure

as for your argument on the whole, obviously everyone won't see music the same way you do darth, and i think that's especially true because of the fact that you play...i find that people who play an instrument and people who don't(like me) see music very differently

Answer 19

I guess it has to do with Popularity and maybe Generational Gaps.

...and also Ignorance LOL.

I am shocked, sometimes, to see who people put as Great, but it's their opinion and what can you do ?

EDIT --

I have to agree with Sabes about Keith Moon.

But, if you don't like him - No problem - everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My Musical Observation of Moon -- and Friends of Mine who are Educated in Drums -- arrives at this conclusion (of mine)

He was a total "character" and when seeing him on Film --

Yes!! - it looks like he is Flailing His Arms like an Orangutan -- in a Very Non-Technical Manner - LOL.

That's what made him so Unique - With all of the unnecessary

"movement" - he still made it to the Drum Heads.

His greatness is in his Unconventionalness IMO

He created his Own Time Signature and I dare any other Drummer to "imitate" his work, intentionally.

There is a great clip of Daltry at a Mixing Board, showing how Keith would play as "simple" a beat, as possible --  where Other Drummers would "FILL" --

But,  "bury" his Extraordinarily Complex "Paradiddles," during a part, that did not require a Fill. LOL !!!

Daltry was both Giddy & Mesmerized listening to the old Recordings.

He is NOT my Favorite Drummer --

But, I put him in the Class of "Keith Moon" drumming.

-- of only which He was capable of belonging to.

Just my Opinion.

EDIT 2 --

"Cold Roses" also makes a Sound Point about George Harrison.

He played what he was Required to Play.

On his own, he can be Masterful, but it is not his Style to be "FLASHY".

He deserves a LOT more credit than he received.

I also think He had much more Mastery of he SITAR, than Brian Jones.

.

Answer 20

Hey Darth

I understand perfectly what you mean.

I guess that happens because musical taste is such a subjective thing.

There are different reasons why a band or song appeals to us.

It can be the vibe, the looks, the lyrics, our personal emotional situation...social pressure...the media.... the list could go on an on.

I agree with most of the ones you mentioned. I would add Ozzy Osbourne ( fugly and horrid singer to me) but I know you won't agree cause you love Sabbath ( and I love them as long as they are Ozz-free)...

that is just to prove the music is something so personal and we can't tell anyone who is right and who is wrong.

Answer 21

WOW  I

The Beatles is who i think is overated sometimes i think people are brain washed!!!!! i respect the beatles but i can`t stand the fact that some of the fans act like you have commeted a crime if you don`t like them, it "boggles" me!!! and besides they were a pop band a lot of their music sounds like jingles.

I love Blues,with heart and soul

I love Rock n Roll

I Think The x Rolling Stone Mick Taylor was a guitar god(although i do like ron wood`s personility lol)

I think AC/DC plays some awsome blues riff`s(A Great band)!!

I like Led Zeppilen they have some good songs but can`t say i like all the music.

I know this might not answer your question but i thought i would let you know how people just have their own taste in music , what sounds good to others might not sound good to you and same with me what sounds good to me might not sound good to others.  

I think what makes a band GREAT is  Attitude, Performace,Good song writing,and the music has to sound good.

I have always thought Mick Jagger is the best front man ever

because of his performance.

I Also think the Lead singer of Queen was one of the best singers  and  front men of all time.

But to me what makes a band overrated is some people think what everybody thinks is cool is what they should like

maybe they just go with what everybody elce likes :P

Answer 22

It's perception and I don't know if that is necessarily wrong.  I don't like many of the artists you listed and I know Tommy Lee is a simplistic drummer but I still like him anyways because he just fits with Motley Crue.

Not everyone has musical training so they won't hear what perhaps a musically trained person will.  That doesn't maket them wrong it just makes the music unique to them.  I have no issue with personal likes and dislikes.

Answer 23

I completely agree. Especially with Kurt and Nirvana. I actually kinda like Nirvana but in my opinion there's nothing special about them. I think they're as big as they are now because of Kurt's death which was sad. I also don't understand how Nirvana is considered Classic Rock.  

Answer 24

Well not everybody likes the same thing

I like The Rolling Stones and i think they are the greatest

but im sure a lot of people think they are overrated.

I think the beatles are overrated and Aerosmith

i did like aerosmith but after the 80`s they went down.

im also a fan of the who but i don`t think they overrated

Answer 25

like everyone else, i see what you mean but sometimes being the "best" doesn't mean having the most skill. For example, Neal Peart could kill Ringo Starr in a drumming contest but I can still argue that he is the best drummer for a band because he does his job as the drummer without showing off. However for someone who likes a lot of percussion in their music, they would still prefer Neal Peart.

Answer 26

Bro...once again you bring the painful truth to the masses....touche' !

I absolutely agree with every point you made....as a musician myself, it amazes me how musicians/bands who are popular get labeled as "greatest musician" ever. What they actually ARE is fantastic songwriters and lyricists.

I find that some of the most TALENTED musicians/bands end up being very obscure to the masses because they are sooo brilliant that most minds can't even comprehend their abilities

Just my observation

Answer 27

listen bro i know what you mean and i agree with you on every point you made.i guess the main reason maybe is that different people has different opinions so i guess musicians may get overratted.its just natural but you should listen to the musicians you really like.

Answer 28

To be appealing, it's not always necessary to be a flash or hot shot virtuoso as you seem to suggest in your question.

And personally I disagree with most of what you say...no need to elaborate here, as anyone who knows me is aware that I'm not a Nirvana fan, etc. But there is a lot more to music than the ability to rip up and down a fretboard.

So to rate a band based on sheer technical ability alone is in my opinion, wrong. To refer to a band as "overrated" because they lack, or may not display the same technical prowess as another band is also wrong.

But then this all boils down to a matter of personal opinion I suppose.

*Edit -  I would have to agree with a couple other people here regarding Keith Moon. His style was very unique/unorthodox, and trying to compare him to any conventional rock drummer would be futile. If you look closely, you'll notice that Keith did not employ a hi-hat as a part of his kit/set up. For those that don't know, the hi-hat consists of two cymbals that are mounted on a stand one on top of the other and clashed together using a pedal at the base of the stand. 99.9% of all rock drummers use one...but not Keith. He relied solely on his crash, and ride cymbals to obtain his accents and ride pattern. I would really like to have seen Neil Peart, John Bonham, Carmine Appice, Chester Thompson, Billy Cobham, Alphonse Mouzon, Ginger Baker, John Hiseman, or a dozen other great rock / jazz drummers achieve this without a hi-hat.

I doubt very much they'd be able to do this convincingly, or in the same manner that Mr. Moon was capable of.

If they could have...then I'm sure they would have...but they didn't now did they?

Keith was in a class all by himself.

*Edit - Ya know it's funny how some people seem to have a negative impression regarding certain bands or artists they don't fully understand. And rather than admit this, they chose to say things like "oh they aren't any good", or "so and so could run circles around that person" etc etc. Then, more often than not, after somebody exposes these people to that particular artists music, they seem to change their minds and say things like "wow, I never noticed that before...those guys really are good...thanks"!

- example...Jean Luc Ponty..."oh I never really cared much for his music at all."

Then a day later, after this person has been recommended a few of songs, he's doing cartwheels over how great his music is! Lol

Answer 29

I understand what your saying. Anyone who has a musically trained ear can definitely pick out the talented genius to the average(or poor) wannabes. Unfortunately a lot of people don't have this so they go with what is popular.

I never thought Eddie Veder was a good vocalist but no one has ever said Bob Dylan was a good vocalist either. I know you really can't compare the two, but it's what is behind the vocals that count.