Underrated and Overrated Bands or Preformers...what are yours? (NOPO)

[Z is for Zangie]

List either/or , or even both..and why you think so. My two are The Kinks as underrated...because I love their music, think their musical talent is awesome and they rarely get the love they deserve. Overrated: U2...don't get them, think their music is bland, and think Bono is boring and annoying, and too political in ways I disagree with(LOL)... I have others, but those are the two I feel the strongest about. ( You can also agree or disagree about my two...lol)

download (44).jpg (9.33 KiB) Viewed 729 times

download.jpg (9.48 KiB) Viewed 729 times

[Tarmaque]

I don't have an opinion on The Kinks one way or another, but I agree about U2.

Personally I think The Beatles are overrated, which is not the same thing as saying they aren't good. They were innovative for their time and okay musicians, but a bit too much credit is given to them.

On the other hand, I think Toto is underrated. A lot of people like to hate on Toto, but as for musicianship they're really good. They all started out as session musicians, which requires a high level of competence. I won't say they're among my favorite bands, but I submit they're probably underrated. I think The Police are probably underrated too, although I submit they probably broke up at the right time.

I could go on and on about artists that I like that don't get much credit, while there are plenty of artists who get lots of credit for turning out the same old crap year after year, but I didn't think that's what you were asking.

[Mike]

I’m able to divorce my taste in music from my assessment of the playing/singing/writing skills shown in that music.

Kinks? I can see where many thought they were exciting. They really didn’t excite me. The songwriting? Yeah, lyrically interesting. The playing? Not so much. The melodic inspiration was also lacking, and they were NOT a good live act. By comparison, the Beatles started out as a typical love song band. But they were a very tight live act, they had good harmonies… and starting around Rubber Soul, their writing took off into the stratosphere. So much so that you find a plethora of recordings of their work by artists in other genres from samba to classical to country to jazz. And their innovations in the studio remain relevant today. Who, aside from Van Halen and a few punk acts, has bothered with anything from the Kinks?

U2 is OK, but yeah nothing special. and I remember when Coldplay first came along, and a bunch of people were telling me they were the best band ever. I find them dull.

Toto? Good players yes (and I know a couple of those guys)…. a couple good songs too, but lyrically didn’t have much to say.

[Z is for Zangie]

I’m able to divorce my taste in music from my assessment of the playing/singing/writing skills shown in that music.

Kinks? I can see where many thought they were exciting. They really didn’t excite me. The songwriting? Yeah, lyrically interesting. The playing? Not so much. The melodic inspiration was also lacking, and they were NOT a good live act. By comparison, the Beatles started out as a typical love song band. But they were a very tight live act, they had good harmonies… and starting around Rubber Soul, their writing took off into the stratosphere. So much so that you find a plethora of recordings of their work by artists in other genres from samba to classical to country to jazz. And their innovations in the studio remain relevant today. Who, aside from Van Halen and a few punk acts, has bothered with anything from the Kinks?

U2 is OK, but yeah nothing special. and I remember when Coldplay first came along, and a bunch of people were telling me they were the best band ever. I find them dull.

Toto? Good players yes (and I know a couple of those guys)…. a couple good songs too, but lyrically didn’t have much to say.

I don't get Coldplay either
I kinda like the Kinks, because they were well, kinky...lol..rebels and interesting song topics, I really like Celluloid heros and Father Christmas..and Lola