Bands that were huge but never should have been that popular

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: mchammer187
don't see how so many people can say U2

U2's old stuff was amazing

by that logic Metallica should be there as well

To each their own, everyone has their own favs. I'm with the guys who think they are overrated and believe in their own hype.

 

[Red Dawn]

The Beatles are in the same category as Elvis and Chuck Berry when it comes to being influential. U2's early music was also cutting edge at the time and really spoke of social issues. At the time they were considered an Indie type of group. Fortunately back then radio stations weren't under the monopolistic thumb of Clear Channel so they were able to get a lot of airplay and the fucktards in charge of the Record Companies weren't dictating what was popular and what isn't like they do today which has really retarded creativity.

The U2 lyrics everybody makes fun of is just the last line of that song which follows the same formula a lot of other artists use. Granted it doesn't even come close to some of their great songs but it's not a terrible song. There are few artists that are able to stay relevant even if they become more of a pop group and it seems U2 has taken that route. I think we prefer our musical heroes to burn out rather than to fade away or become pop.

 

[Gibson486]

WTF???? The Beatles???? What are you people smoking? I really have no idea where to begin....

 

[Kadarin]

U2 is utter dreck now, but some of their older stuff is fantastic.

To the person that said Britney Spears: The OP is asking about "bands", not about performers who pretend to sing.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: MiataNC

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Why the hell would you say the Beatles? They are one of the greatest bands in history...

So was Whitesnake. For all of the wrong reasons.

Anyone who does not understand the importance and impact of the Beatles, does not know a damn thing about music.

You don't have to like them, but only a fool on a hill would discount them.

So what exactly was their influence. Provide a linear progression from one bad to another, stating changes on songs that occured, showing how it branched out into the broader category of "music" which encompasses everything being done in those days, including branches into rock/heavy/metal, and other forms.

Those that elevate boy bands to demigod status, claiming they had monumental impact on all of music, do not know what they think they know.

Besides, it's an opinion, there's no need to insult people.

Here's just the tip of the iceberg.
Beatles Influence

I love the Beatles though I understand they're not for everyone. I think their influence is undeniable.. I really am not going to take the time to give you direct influences because frankly that request is kind of obtuse.

To call them a boy band is really half true. They *were* the first 'boy band' and they were marketed as such.. however the difference is that they were also amazing songwriters and pioneers. Harrison and Lennon are undeniably a wealth of creative genius. They wrote so many songs and licks it's unreal. There are very few musicians blessed with that kind of ability.. regardless of yours or my opinion of them as a group.

And yes, insulting someone over a subjective opinion is a fools game.. but his message is valid; it's almost impossible not to recognize their influence on modern music.

I didn't see one thing there that was "revolutionary" or had much of an impact on things that wasn't already being done elsewhere. It was pop rock, pure and simple.

There are far more talented writer/singer/performers out there.

I don't see the influence. As far as googling it, wow, I am going to go to fanbois to get objective opinion...great.

I respect your opinion about the Beatles LK, but how can you read through that wiki page I pasted and say none of those things had an impact on music? Use of feedback, artificial double tracking, close miking, etc..

And yes, it was pop rock.. but with brilliant arrangements and lyrics. To compare that to something like a modern boy band is pretty much unbelievable in my opinion.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: MiataNC

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Why the hell would you say the Beatles? They are one of the greatest bands in history...

So was Whitesnake. For all of the wrong reasons.

Anyone who does not understand the importance and impact of the Beatles, does not know a damn thing about music.

You don't have to like them, but only a fool on a hill would discount them.

So what exactly was their influence. Provide a linear progression from one bad to another, stating changes on songs that occured, showing how it branched out into the broader category of "music" which encompasses everything being done in those days, including branches into rock/heavy/metal, and other forms.

Those that elevate boy bands to demigod status, claiming they had monumental impact on all of music, do not know what they think they know.

Besides, it's an opinion, there's no need to insult people.

Here's just the tip of the iceberg.
Beatles Influence

I love the Beatles though I understand they're not for everyone. I think their influence is undeniable.. I really am not going to take the time to give you direct influences because frankly that request is kind of obtuse.

To call them a boy band is really half true. They *were* the first 'boy band' and they were marketed as such.. however the difference is that they were also amazing songwriters and pioneers. Harrison and Lennon are undeniably a wealth of creative genius. They wrote so many songs and licks it's unreal. There are very few musicians blessed with that kind of ability.. regardless of yours or my opinion of them as a group.

And yes, insulting someone over a subjective opinion is a fools game.. but his message is valid; it's almost impossible not to recognize their influence on modern music.

I didn't see one thing there that was "revolutionary" or had much of an impact on things that wasn't already being done elsewhere. It was pop rock, pure and simple.

There are far more talented writer/singer/performers out there.

I don't see the influence. As far as googling it, wow, I am going to go to fanbois to get objective opinion...great.

Yes, they were a pop band (do you even know what a pop band is, or do you label a pop band as nsync?), but they were among the most important. What other band during that time incorporated Schubert into their music?

 

[Jmman]

Spice girls........

 

[daveshel]

Lynard Skynard and Nirvana are the standouts from this list.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Platypus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: MiataNC

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Why the hell would you say the Beatles? They are one of the greatest bands in history...

So was Whitesnake. For all of the wrong reasons.

Anyone who does not understand the importance and impact of the Beatles, does not know a damn thing about music.

You don't have to like them, but only a fool on a hill would discount them.

So what exactly was their influence. Provide a linear progression from one bad to another, stating changes on songs that occured, showing how it branched out into the broader category of "music" which encompasses everything being done in those days, including branches into rock/heavy/metal, and other forms.

Those that elevate boy bands to demigod status, claiming they had monumental impact on all of music, do not know what they think they know.

Besides, it's an opinion, there's no need to insult people.

Here's just the tip of the iceberg.
Beatles Influence

I love the Beatles though I understand they're not for everyone. I think their influence is undeniable.. I really am not going to take the time to give you direct influences because frankly that request is kind of obtuse.

To call them a boy band is really half true. They *were* the first 'boy band' and they were marketed as such.. however the difference is that they were also amazing songwriters and pioneers. Harrison and Lennon are undeniably a wealth of creative genius. They wrote so many songs and licks it's unreal. There are very few musicians blessed with that kind of ability.. regardless of yours or my opinion of them as a group.

And yes, insulting someone over a subjective opinion is a fools game.. but his message is valid; it's almost impossible not to recognize their influence on modern music.

I didn't see one thing there that was "revolutionary" or had much of an impact on things that wasn't already being done elsewhere. It was pop rock, pure and simple.

There are far more talented writer/singer/performers out there.

I don't see the influence. As far as googling it, wow, I am going to go to fanbois to get objective opinion...great.

I respect your opinion about the Beatles LK, but how can you read through that wiki page I pasted and say none of those things had an impact on music? Use of feedback, artificial double tracking, close miking, etc..

And yes, it was pop rock.. but with brilliant arrangements and lyrics. To compare that to something like a modern boy band is pretty much unbelievable in my opinion.

Many of the things were "beatles first" not "music first" events. Others were "beatles first" only because they were popular and had access to it, not that they were innovating it.

There's a huge difference between driving change and being given change.

I would agree that they are distinct from many modern day boybands because they actually created their own music. However, there are still far more influential people who were far more talented. It seems to me that people elevate the beatles far too highly.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Meh, you're just hating on the Beatles because it's the hip way to appear non-conformist. Your opinion is duly noted and fully ignored.

Yeah, that's it. It can't be that I truly do not like their music despite being exposed to it as a kid and then giving it another shot this past year, culminating seeing "Love" in vegas with my wife. Both of us came out thinking we didn't like the music much and didn't see why so many people liked it. If anything, it's parents wishing for a bygone age and kids assuming their demigod elevation by wistful parents.

Really now, the only way you can truly counter me is to dismiss me as a lemming? Great way to win an argument.

No, I fully believe that you truly do not like their music for your own reasons, but it's silly to say they didn't do anything revolutionary just because you don't like it.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Meh, you're just hating on the Beatles because it's the hip way to appear non-conformist. Your opinion is duly noted and fully ignored.

Yeah, that's it. It can't be that I truly do not like their music despite being exposed to it as a kid and then giving it another shot this past year, culminating seeing "Love" in vegas with my wife. Both of us came out thinking we didn't like the music much and didn't see why so many people liked it. If anything, it's parents wishing for a bygone age and kids assuming their demigod elevation by wistful parents.

Really now, the only way you can truly counter me is to dismiss me as a lemming? Great way to win an argument.

Like Platypus said though, your and his opinion of the music or group really isn't the point. No one's saying you have to like their music, he's just simply stating that they were huge and have been extremely influential to many, many bands.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Gibson486
Yes, they were a pop band (do you even know what a pop band is, or do you label a pop band as nsync?), but they were among the most important. What other band during that time incorporated Schubert into their music?

So incorporating Schubert into music is revolutionary? Sorry, but I don't see it.

If somebody were to tell me that they influenced pop music, then fine, they influenced pop music. However, people seem to say that their influence was much broader, which I disagree with.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

I'm not a huge fan of the beatles either. Sure they have some nice shit but they have some crappy shit too. I just wanted to use shit twice in a sentence. Being revolutionary or influential doesn't entitle you to popularity. Tesla wasn't too "popular" and I'd say he's pretty influential.

 

[Xonoahbin]

LegendKiller, I just have to say that I truly believe you're insane. If the Beatles weren't revolutionary, which band ever was? They were geniuses.. I'm 17 and I recognize that they were probably one of the greatest bands ever. To each his own, but I have no idea how you can remotely contend that they weren't anything special.

That being said, I might have to agree with Nirvana on here. I like their music, but I don't really think they were better than any other bands at the time. Boy bands are definitely there.

By the way, Legend, You say you got a real solution.. well, you know, we don't love to see the plan.

 

[desy]

Music aside
They were talked about everywhere in print, TV news, PTA meetings
Their phenomenom was infused into every segment of society. Even people who NEVER listened to their music were weighing in on how it was affecting societal norms.

No my friend there was nothing bigger than the Beatles

 

[KeithTalent]

I like Nirvana but their popularity was just a "right time, right place" thing in my opinion.

KT

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I like Nirvana but their popularity was just a "right time, right place" thing in my opinion.

KT

Yeah I'd have to admit that also. They're one of my favorite bands, and while I think Cobain was an excellent songwriter they were just in the right spot at the right time. If they had started as a band in the new millenium now and had just released Nevermind last year, for instance, I don't think it would have made much of an impact at all.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Xonoahbin
LegendKiller, I just have to say that I truly believe you're insane. If the Beatles weren't revolutionary, which band ever was? They were geniuses.. I'm 17 and I recognize that they were probably one of the greatest bands ever. To each his own, but I have no idea how you can remotely contend that they weren't anything special.


By the way, Legend, You say you got a real solution.. well, you know, we don't love to see the plan.

Geniuses? Hardly.

What are you talking about with a "real solution"?

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: desy
Music aside
They were talked about everywhere in print, TV news, PTA meetings
Their phenomenom was infused into every segment of society. Even people who NEVER listened to their music were weighing in on how it was affecting societal norms.

No my friend there was nothing bigger than the Beatles

I think that's the point of this thread. There's no denying the Beatles weren't huge back in the day.

But take a second listen to their music, and then listen to some of their contemporaries (such as
The Dave Clark 5), and tell me how they were so musically superior to deserve basically ALL of the
adulation that was given them.

I'm not saying the Beatles were bad... just that they weren't (and still aren't) deserving up being held up
as musical deities.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Xonoahbin
LegendKiller, I just have to say that I truly believe you're insane. If the Beatles weren't revolutionary, which band ever was? They were geniuses.. I'm 17 and I recognize that they were probably one of the greatest bands ever. To each his own, but I have no idea how you can remotely contend that they weren't anything special.


By the way, Legend, You say you got a real solution.. well, you know, we don't love to see the plan.

Geniuses? Hardly.

What a quandary, take the experts word on it or some Internet knuckleheads word.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: clamum

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Meh, you're just hating on the Beatles because it's the hip way to appear non-conformist. Your opinion is duly noted and fully ignored.

Yeah, that's it. It can't be that I truly do not like their music despite being exposed to it as a kid and then giving it another shot this past year, culminating seeing "Love" in vegas with my wife. Both of us came out thinking we didn't like the music much and didn't see why so many people liked it. If anything, it's parents wishing for a bygone age and kids assuming their demigod elevation by wistful parents.

Really now, the only way you can truly counter me is to dismiss me as a lemming? Great way to win an argument.

Like Platypus said though, your and his opinion of the music or group really isn't the point. No one's saying you have to like their music, he's just simply stating that they were huge and have been extremely influential to many, many bands.

I suppose the easiest way to prove that is to start looking up interviews of bands where they're asked who influenced them. I know I've seen them listed a lot.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Xonoahbin
LegendKiller, I just have to say that I truly believe you're insane. If the Beatles weren't revolutionary, which band ever was? They were geniuses.. I'm 17 and I recognize that they were probably one of the greatest bands ever. To each his own, but I have no idea how you can remotely contend that they weren't anything special.


By the way, Legend, You say you got a real solution.. well, you know, we don't love to see the plan.

Geniuses? Hardly.

What a quandary, take the experts word on it or some Internet knuckleheads word.

"experts"? This isn't a formula, it's an art. People appreciate it at different levels. I wouldn't pay tens of thousands for a picasso, but people pay millions. Art "experts" claim it's worth it, I don't think so.

People try to refute me when it comes down to something much more "real", finance, but I don't see you jumping in calling them "knuckleheads" and I am closer to an "expert" in a real topic.

Perhaps you should step back and realize the smoke your blowing.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
U2
REM

:|

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[schneiderguy]

tool