Overrated Legends

[John Slayne 4,154]

Close this thread, people actually think vocals are what makes artists iconic and legendary  please, there are millions of fantastic vocalists out there...

And I don't understand why are people saying Beyoncé, I agree she is overrated but she's not a legend yet.

Edit: Underrated legends - Marilyn Manson and Edith Piaf

[blackstar 11,512]

Metallica.

All of their songs sounds just the same like wtf.

[drinkmytears 2,332]

12 hours ago, Assarrai said:

The woman can actually SING + dance (bonus), and she has some dope songs, rare you find this combination in the industry at this time. 

Reminder: some of y'all Stan for Britney, a woman who barely has any talent yet made it this far, talk about "overrated" 

Well, Britney isn't overrated because people don't praise her. She is always scrutinized.

Beyonce could put out something really mediocre...7/11 rings a bell, and its praised. It doesnt mean Beyoncé isn't good, just sometimes she isn't worthy of all the hype she gets.

[swooning 447]

On 12/4/2016 at 9:11 PM, Artpoop said:

I made sure to go through this whole thread to make sure no one had already defended against this and no one had so 

VOCAAALLSS 

Also, he did the majority of his songwring on his own and I think saying it's mediocre is giving way too little credit considering how large his discography is. 

NOT OVERATED AT ALL. 

Im only like 75% bitter but you're entitled to have your opinions. I just love Bowie so much. 

Unlike a certain someone who this certain fansite is dedicated to... and I think a lot of people here need to get off their high horse in terms of their snobbery, my goodness.

[StrawberryBlond 15,065]

I actually made a thread like this not all that long ago but I'm always open to another one since talking about over-ratedness is one of my favourite things to do! But before I start, I think a lot of you have misunderstood this thread. Being a music legend is about so much more than vocals, instrumental ability, performance skills and being the first to make a new style. The most important things to me are...THE SONGS. A good voice doesn't mean much to me unless you're singing good songs with it. Same for playing an instrument, dancing and suchlike. Unless it involves a good song, it won't appeal to me. It despairs me to see so many of you writing endless stuff about how so-and-so worked their ass off or how they were the first to do something or how their vocals were unmatched and that's why they're not overrated. Such a typical reply to someone disagreeing with you. For most of us, we view over-ratedness through the songs, not much else. I don't care what you've achieved, if you aren't making these achievements with good music, I think your legendary status is somewhat un-earned.

So, with that in mind...

The Beatles

Madonna

Beyonce

Radiohead

Mariah Carey

Bjork

 

And some artists who aren't legends yet but likely will be one day who I also find overrated...

Taylor Swift

Adele

Rihanna

Kendrick Lamar

 

There's many more names but I omit them because I haven't heard enough of their music to truly judge them and/or base their over-ratedness more on their personality than anything.

17 hours ago, Matangi said:

OKAY IM FINNA SAY IT SO YALL SHOOK ASS BITCHES BETTER BE READY...

If there was a female pop star who has been the leading vocalist in the best selling female group of all time, has arguably the best dance skills and one of the absolute best voices, been critically acclaimed throughout her entire career, been nominated for the most grammys of any female artist,  and have been fully relevant (i dont mean making music, but central to the conversation of pop music) for nearly two decades and was a PRETTY WHITE WOMAN-- all of you hunties would be wetting yourself, and not just the ones who recognize beyonces significance both within and outside of the colored community

I am so tired of this assumption being made any time a white person doesn't kiss the feet of a black person. Newsflash: being liked is not an entitlement, certainly not an entitlement that you get based on race. We wouldn't dare say that a talented person is spoken badly about because they're white, so why should it be the first conclusion we reach when it's a talented black person being spoken badly about? Not every white person is racist, not every white person has an agenda to push. Does it not occur to you that we can just dislike an artist because we simply don't like their music? I notice that you actually didn't mention anything about her music quality in this and funnily enough, that's the area in which I think her over-ratedness lies. If she actually put out above-average albums consistently, I'd like her a whole lot more.

[GloZell Green 11,723]

7 hours ago, jojuun said:

But we live in a world where you can get a #1 album with 50k sales these days. It's not that hard anymore. Also, her label gave an entire interview to Billboard on how they got her that #1 with the Unbreakable album. It was a strategically planned #1 in a slow week so they'd knew they'd be able to solidify it. She opened with 109,000 copies sold in the first week. For her first record in 8 years. That's honestly not amazing when your team spent a year planning how they'd get you a #1 with that. Someone like Madonna opened with 121,000 the same year, despite releasing consistently unlike Janet and despite Madonna's album leaking 6 months in advance. But sales are dead anyway and they're both not massive streaming forces so let's take a look at the tours...

There's just no comparing them. Madonna has consistent successes tour-wise. Janet doesn't. She has a long history of cancelling and she's notorious for lip-synching her way through a show. Sure, she's the better rhythmic dancer, even though Madonna's classically trained. And Madonna isn't the world's greatest vocalist and neither is Janet. So how come Madonna literally drove in millions more? Can do stadiums when Janet stays doing smaller scale shows? Even when Madonna was head-to-head with Janet in the nineties? Because Madonna is consistent in always delivering to the crowd while at the same time being an incredibly diverse artist. No album is the same. Her shows are immaculate and always bring something new to the table. Unlike Janet, who's spending months in rehearsal trying emulate the original Rhythm Nation choreography. Madonna never does the original choreo to anything (unless it's brand new), heck, she barely does the original song, she's always re-arranging old songs. Madonna's entire focus is always on going forward, Janet has barely evolved for the general public. That's truly the key to modern-day icons. Either your impact is so big you changed an entire genre (The Beatles, Michael Jackson) or you need to be smart enough to be diverse, to continuously evolve (David Bowie, Madonna) without confusing the general audience (Gaga).

Where did this whole "she's not as good as Madonna" argument come from. I wasn't comparing them  A friendly reminder that Madonna had the GRAMMYs, Jonathon Ross, The Today Show, Howard Stern during the first week or within a month before its release. I believe she did something with Grindr as well. Janet started well with GMA and Ellen but the album promotion took a halt because of her label (that she later departed from) which resulted in lackluster sales. And for the touring; clearly, as I said before, the labels fault of promotion directly affects projects that are connected to the work. It was cancelled because of an economic crisis later. And as for the Unbreakable Tour, a simple Google search would tell you that her pregnancy/attempt to get pregnant was the reason as to why she took a break  I don't understand the point of tour choreo argument either, recreating choreography that was originally made for a song doesn't devalue ones performance in any way  And I believe that I already said that she was blacklisted because of the Super Bowl, and between that and her label/promotion problems, I don't know if you're expecting her to sky rocket up or something. So yeah, maybe this whole "she's not as good as Madonna so she's not iconic" approach won't get us anywhere.

[xeynuraf 191]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I actually made a thread like this not all that long ago but I'm always open to another one since talking about over-ratedness is one of my favourite things to do! But before I start, I think a lot of you have misunderstood this thread. Being a music legend is about so much more than vocals, instrumental ability, performance skills and being the first to make a new style. The most important things to me are...THE SONGS. A good voice doesn't mean much to me unless you're singing good songs with it. Same for playing an instrument, dancing and suchlike. Unless it involves a good song, it won't appeal to me. It despairs me to see so many of you writing endless stuff about how so-and-so worked their ass off or how they were the first to do something or how their vocals were unmatched and that's why they're not overrated. Such a typical reply to someone disagreeing with you. For most of us, we view over-ratedness through the songs, not much else. I don't care what you've achieved, if you aren't making these achievements with good music, I think your legendary status is somewhat un-earned.

So, with that in mind...

The Beatles

Madonna

Beyonce

Radiohead

Mariah Carey

Bjork

 

And some artists who aren't legends yet but likely will be one day who I also find overrated...

Taylor Swift

Adele

Rihanna

Kendrick Lamar

 

There's many more names but I omit them because I haven't heard enough of their music to truly judge them and/or base their over-ratedness more on their personality than anything.

I am so tired of this assumption being made any time a white person doesn't kiss the feet of a black person. Newsflash: being liked is not an entitlement, certainly not an entitlement that you get based on race. We wouldn't dare say that a talented person is spoken badly about because they're white, so why should it be the first conclusion we reach when it's a talented black person being spoken badly about? Not ever

So they are not overrated if their "songs" or their music is good. Ok so this music artist are legendary because they make noises? All sang *songs* that have been timeless. 

Whatever. All i get from this comment and thread is that "if i don't like their music they are overrated"  forget their acomplishments. if you don't like their music they are overrated. Got it.

[xeynuraf 191]

Can we change the OP tittle to -what legendary artist you don't like?- that is practically what everyone is answering. Is a waste of time to explain someone's worth when all this children remember is from britney on and asume that to be a legend you have to be an opera singer.

I probably lost some brain cells just reading mediocracy.

[Economy 51,282]

3 hours ago, John Slayne said:

Close this thread, people actually think vocals are what makes artists iconic and legendary  please, there are millions of fantastic vocalists out there...

And I don't understand why are people saying Beyoncé, I agree she is overrated but she's not a legend yet.

Edit: Underrated legends - Marilyn Manson and Edith Piaf

Vocals are the only thing Lady Gaga is considerably above average in comparison to her comtemporaries

 

Of course this fan base will convince themselves that thats the holy grail of all music performance  

[John Slayne 4,154]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

Vocals are the only thing Lady Gaga is considerably above average in comparison to her comtemporaries

Her iconique music videos and fashion and activism and visible impact say hi...  I still believe Gaga has a chance to become a legend. 

[Economy 51,282]

9 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Her iconique music videos and fashion and activism and visible impact say hi...  I still believe Gaga has a chance to become a legend. 

True, my bad  

 

Shes also extremely versatile

 

But her dancing and music writing skills are average at best id say

 

Ive yet to hear a song that blows me away that she wrote all by herself... or for her to dance like Britney used to or like JLO or Beyonce still do

 

in those aspects shes average at best

[AlexanderMagno 10,746]

People are legends for a reason. Maybe they are not the best, but they surely had something in their lives that made them great.

 

If you want me to answer: Tony Bennett. He is a legend because he outlived every major jazz star and had a rollercoaster of a life, with lots of ups and lots of downs. He witnessed every change in music and has survived. However, I find him pretty average as a singer, has no unique feature and his ordinary albums still get every Grammy.

 

But again, you don't need to have amazing pipes like Gaga or Jennifer Hudson to be a fairly rated legend. In fact, the best music artists in the world are not the greatest vocalists. But their voices are unique, their music truly special. And again this thread just shows how fans are as obsessed with good vocals as Gaga is, when there's so much more to music. Gaga could be considered a legend only for using a meat dress, and it would be fair.

[PopBitch 1,218]

3 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

. The most important things to me are...THE SONGS. A good voice doesn't mean much to me unless you're singing good songs with it. Same for playing an instrument, dancing and suchlike. Unless it involves a good song, it won't appeal to me.

For most of us, we view over-ratedness through the songs, not much else. I don't care what you've achieved, if you aren't making these achievements with good music, I think your legendary status is somewhat un-earned.

So, with that in mind...

The Beatles

 

The Beatles have been written for decades about their incredible rise but also about their SONGS, their MUSIC, and covered by just about every artist.  There are books on the inner-workings in the studio writing many of their albums, even a book on their actual music.  You have Cirque du Soleil that has been going for what, a decade now, with Beatles music.  It's amazing their music still lives on in 2016.

The music is what has lasted this long, the Lennon/McCartney songwriting duo and solo in The Beatles, George Harrison.   They were such melodic songwriters.  Okay, Ringo's songs, not really, but he only got an occasional song on the albums anyway.

I love this scene in Boyhood.  Ethan actually did this for his daughter with a letter about the meaning to him.  I love this movie.

 

Someone asked on Reddit how to explain to friends why The Beatles are considered so important.

Someone answered:

"The Beatles went through different periods or eras in their own life and work that were all influential.

At the beginning of their career, they had Beatlemania. While boy bands had been popular before this, they exploded in a way that no one had before. They pioneered the British Invasion of pop music that the Rolling Stones and the Who and tons of other bands followed. So just their pop success and insane fandom was influential. The rise of media and the rise of the Beatles matched each other and showed what the power of a band/television/radio could be.

After this, they got tired of the fame element. The screaming girls at their concerts became so numerous and loud that the music couldn't even be heard. They were on a constant schedule of press and promotions and touring, but they were tired. So in an unprecedented event, the Beatles performed their last public concert at Candlestick Park and retired from touring forever to focus on albums and production. This was unbelievable, especially for a band who became popular due to public appearances and concerts. So the Beatles also pioneered a path of more energy and focus being applied in the studio, which no pop group had really done either.

In the studio, their production methods and techniques were state of the art and highly experimental. Many of the technological things they came up with or first part on tape are still being used today. The Beatles are credited with the first modern concept album, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Any concept album you've heard after this is a direct result of this album alone.

A few more specific examples of how they influenced musicians around them: Helter Skelter is considered a proto-metal song, and was described by McCartney as the hardest song ever. Pete Townshend of the Who thought that was a load of crap, so he wrote I Can See For Miles to try and best Helter Skelter, (EDIT: Helter Skelter was a reaction to I Can See For Miles, I blew it. But Helter is still proto-metal.)

The Beach Boys' album Pet Sounds was briefly considered to be one of the greatest ever until the Beatles decided to top it with Sgt. Pepper. Brian Wilson, the main creative force of the Beach Boys, said he wept openly when he heard Sgt. Pepper, knowing they had just created something incredible and important. The Beatles were important because they challenged and raised up the scenes around them.

Coupled with the in-house songwriting (and quality, meaningful songwriting too!) and the adaptation with culture and different genres, they did so much to advance pop/rock/psychedelic music in their time. They produced 12 full albums and transitioned from boy band to revolutionary artists in a mere 6 and a half years. Imagine a band releasing their first album in August 2010 and being so universally beloved and having that much effect on the music industry by today in 2016. That's what the Beatles did, and we're still talking about them 50+ years later.

Edit: added specific examples of the Beatles' contemporary influence

tl;dr The Beatles pioneered mass media recognition, recording techniques, songwriting, focus on album oriented works, the British Invasion, and inspired and challenged the artists around them in an incredibly short amount of time.

permalink

embed

[–]PlaceboJesus 11 points  9 months ago 

They knew how to write a hit song in mere minutes. John and Paul wrote a hit song during a few drinks in a pub for Paul's future brother in law. Probably on a napkin.

Despite this, they were constantly reinventing their sound. Many groups, even those with longevity, have a consistent sound, but the Beatles have Help, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road, just to name a few, and they were amazingly different from each other.
Their band evolved more in the time they were together than the Rolling Stones or Aerosmith have over 40 or 50 so years.

They were all very competent musicians, and while some people say they were over rated, I think they may not know what they're supposed to be listening for, or they're listening with ears accustomed to all the derivative sounds inspired by the Beatles; to young ears, they may sound like everybody else, but that's only because everyone else adapted what they started.
Paul was a pretty innovative bassist, he never just "dialed it in". Try listening just to his parts, or George's."

LADY GAGA IN AN INTERVIEW IN 2009:

"Speaking about her love for the 60s legends, Gaga told The Daily Star: "I don't know if anyone knows this about me but when I wrote 'The Fame' I listened to The Beatles' 'Abbey Road' obsessively.

“I had it on repeat for probably about six months. It's so incredibly brilliant - an innate sense of joy - they really had that down. It's full of joy with a hat of tips to the melancholy."

GAGA COVERING THE BEATLES

 

[PopBitch 1,218]

2 hours ago, xeynuraf said:

So they are not overrated if their "songs" or their music is good. Ok so this music artist are legendary because they make noises? All sang *songs* that have been timeless. 

Whatever. All i get from this comment and thread is that "if i don't like their music they are overrated"  forget their acomplishments. if you don't like their music they are overrated. Got it.

Bingo.

 

[Rock Jock 993]

beyonce is overrated af