My View Of Overrated Albums/Bands

What do these things have in common?


Well, if you read the thread title, you'll probably make the conclusion that people have called each of these "overrated." People (kids, mostly) today dismiss this album and other popular albums/bands (Van Halen, Zeppelin, The Beatles, Metallica, etc.) as being overrated and not as good as people say they are.

However, people only think in the present tense and compare to the bands today. They think that the dual guitar assault is pretty normal and that Priest and Lizzy were just another two guitar band. They think Hendrix and Van Halen are given to much credit. Metallica isn't as cool or extreme as Slipknot (don't laugh. I've actually heard this).

What people don't realize is that these bands today have drawn soooooooooo much influence from music's Golden Age that they really don't see a difference in the bands of this year and yesteryear (but we do, right?). Kids don't realize that without Pink Floyd, there would be no Tool, Mastodon, or The Mars Volta. Without Judas Priest and Thin Lizzy, we might not have the dual guitar attacks of Head and Munky (Korn), Morton and Alder (Lamb of God), Thomson and Root (Slipknot), or, heck, even Hetfield and Hammett of Metallica.

If not for Eddie Van Halen, we probably wouldn't have Rhoads (RIP), Lynch, Vai, Gilbert, Satriani, Petrucci, Friedman, Hammett, or any other guitarist that plays really fast (I know Toho could care less). No one was during what Eddie was doing at the time (same goes for Hendrix). Once he did it everyone did it. Overrated? Hardly.

I can't count how many bands were inspired by Metallica, and yet I heard kids say Metallica was nothing special. HELLOO! They added speed and progression, and overall intensity that hadn't been seen before (unless you listend to Venom or Diamond Head, but not to the degree of intesity that Meallica and Megadeth brought).

My point (yes, there was a point somewhere in there, I think) is that people today undervalue the past because bands today sound so similar to the bands of the 70's and 80's. They don't realize how inventive and important Priest, Eddie, and Floyd were to today's music.



Well, there's my rant for the next six months. Thought?

Yes, kids suck. I know.

The bottom one's Pink Floyd, right?

Schbopo wrote:

The bottom one's Pink Floyd, right?

Yeah, it's Floyd.


I know I was pretty much preaching to the choir in my post, but I think it need to be said.

Reminds me of when some kid tried to tell me that Jay-Z's backing band was better than Queen.

Stender wrote:

Reminds me of when some kind tried to tell me that Jay-Z's backing band was better than Queen.

Kill him.

Schbopo wrote:

Stender wrote:

Reminds me of when some kind tried to tell me that Jay-Z's backing band was better than Queen.

Kill him.

So violent shboob....

I recognize the Judas Priest and Van Halen images, but who is in the third photo?

stevegarveyfan wrote:

I recognize the Judas Priest and Van Halen images, but who is in the third photo?

Pink Floyd

pink floyd may not be overrated, but i still think that they suck.

xyz wrote:

What do these things have in common?


Well, if you read the thread title, you'll probably make the conclusion that people have called each of these "overrated." People (kids, mostly) today dismiss this album and other popular albums/bands (Van Halen, Zeppelin, The Beatles, Metallica, etc.) as being overrated and not as good as people say they are.

However, people only think in the present tense and compare to the bands today. They think that the dual guitar assault is pretty normal and that Priest and Lizzy were just another two guitar band. They think Hendrix and Van Halen are given to much credit. Metallica isn't as cool or extreme as Slipknot (don't laugh. I've actually heard this).

What people don't realize is that these bands today have drawn soooooooooo much influence from music's Golden Age that they really don't see a difference in the bands of this year and yesteryear (but we do, right?). Kids don't realize that without Pink Floyd, there would be no Tool, Mastodon, or The Mars Volta. Without Judas Priest and Thin Lizzy, we might not have the dual guitar attacks of Head and Munky (Korn), Morton and Alder (Lamb of God), Thomson and Root (Slipknot), or, heck, even Hetfield and Hammett of Metallica.

If not for Eddie Van Halen, we probably wouldn't have Rhoads (RIP), Lynch, Vai, Gilbert, Satriani, Petrucci, Friedman, Hammett, or any other guitarist that plays really fast (I know Toho could care less). No one was during what Eddie was doing at the time (same goes for Hendrix). Once he did it everyone did it. Overrated? Hardly.

I can't count how many bands were inspired by Metallica, and yet I heard kids say Metallica was nothing special. HELLOO! They added speed and progression, and overall intensity that hadn't been seen before (unless you listend to Venom or Diamond Head, but not to the degree of intesity that Meallica and Megadeth brought).

My point (yes, there was a point somewhere in there, I think) is that people today undervalue the past because bands today sound so similar to the bands of the 70's and 80's. They don't realize how inventive and important Priest, Eddie, and Floyd were to today's music.



Well, there's my rant for the next six months. Thought?

I realize that EVH made certain techniques popular, ie. tapping, but Steve Hackett of Genesis was doing this in 1971 on "The Musical Box" & "The Return Of The Giant Hogweed". And as far as Hendrix is concerned, certain things he did like play with his teeth or behind his head he got from Buddy Guy. Once again, I realize he made it popular but...

When a person gets older, the world gets bigger and (usually) they learn more about history, not just music but in all aspects of life. Musically, your tastes begin to vary and you are open to more bands and styles. That's when you begin to realize that there are so many bands from back even before you were born that have something to offer anyone who is willing to open up to different musical styles. Plus when you get older you stop trying to be cool and you realize that music, all music, is there to be enjoyed and the more you enjoy, the more richer you are for it.

At least, thats what Ive learned from being a rocker for 34 or 35 years. There's nothing wrong with liking newer bands but to close one's mind to various styles of music and to limit yourself to one style really paints yourself into a corner, so to speak. I know, back in the mid to late 80's I completely turned my back on the rock I grew up to and all I wanted to hear was THRASH and DEATH metal. Period. Looking back, I was so narrow minded, I missed out on so much good music. My gosh, we live in such a big world with so much good music out there. Enjoy it while ya can.

XYZ, you are only 19 years old and to see you show that kind of appreciation for the "old school" and the forefathers of rock and metal shows me that you are way ahead of the curve and you, my friend, will be the richer for it.

I've always said the 70's were the starting point of the genre movement, to me the 60's were the experimenting era and the 70's molded hard rock/metal into what it is today.
I am a product of the 70's and it was IMO the best decade for music ever. I know kids today basically have no clue as to what hard rock/metal is because they have been infussed with hip hip, rap, cuntry, or the latest trend.
This country has fallen back in leading the todays youth in the metal movement.

Even today I am finding so many underground metal bands from the 70's that I even had no clue about. It's no different today as it was back then underground is underground. It's the mainstream public that is clueless.

Wargod50

NP: Hospital Of Death - Beer, Bitches, Blood

I think this thread is overrated.

Kids nowdays!

Wargod50