Musicians or bands you find OVER-RATED ( not a hate thread )

[Zantera]

Metallica had 3 amazing albums in the 80s (some would even include KEA and self-titled in that run) and even though the albums past that point got more mixed reception (I really like Load) I think they have enough quality in those first handful of albums to keep their career going pretty much no matter what. You have bands and artists with less quality albums that still release albums and tour in their age.

I also don't know if they really qualify as overrated since most people who have mentioned them seem to agree they did put out some amazing stuff - which would explain the popularity. I guess it's weird with bands who are still selling out stadiums despite not really having a noteworthy album in decades. But you can say the same about a bunch of bands like AC/DC or Rolling Stones just to name a couple. I think it's just a generational thing where the quality of the earlier output is so good it transcends one generation and then their kids get into those bands so they keep selling out stadiums even if the more recent output isn't AS good. I remember seeing Maiden when I was 15 back in 2006 and even though the setlist was 80% A Matter of Life and Death (which is their best modern album IMO, but it's still 20 years past their golden age) I was ecstatic even though there were other people there that night who probably saw a much better show in 84 or 86.

[twosuitsluke]

I'd honestly rather listen to St Anger over Hardwired. I was very underwhelmed and it just feels like a band trying too hard, to recapture the sound of a band that just isn't them any more. That's just me.

At least with St Anger they were still taking chances and trying to evolve their sound, even though it was far from a great album.

I will be infinitely more excited at the prospect of a Hetfield solo country album, than I will be at the prospect of a new Metallica album. This is coming from someone who LOVES Metallica as well.

I'm not saying that I want them to call it a day, as I would like to see them live again at least one more time. I just don't want them to put out another Hardwired.

[Herrick]

I'd honestly rather listen to St Anger over Hardwired. I was very underwhelmed and it just feels like a band trying too hard, to recapture the sound of a band that just isn't them any more. That's just me.

At least with St Anger they were still taking chances and trying to evolve their sound, even though it was far from a great album.

I will be infinitely more excited at the prospect of a Hetfield solo country album, than I will be at the prospect of a new Metallica album. This is coming from someone who LOVES Metallica as well.

I'm not saying that I want them to call it a day, as I would like to see them live again at least one more time. I just don't want them to put out another Hardwired.

I'd have to listen to Hardwired again but from what I remember, it didn't really sound like they were trying to recreate an their older style. It reminded me of some kinda mashup between the more straight ahead Black Album songs and whatever style Death Magnetic was. 

[Kotowboy]

What?

If anything it was Death Magnetic that sounded like they were trying WAY too hard to remake Master of Puppets. Their thing at the time was even

" What we have done in 1986 ? "

It even had an instrumental. Albeit not a very good one ( still better than TLITD any day mind )

Whereas Hardwired to Self Destruct ( for me ) sounded so effortless and natural. Side Two even had echoes of Reload.

It sounded like whatever they came up with - they went with it - instead of trying to make every song as fast as they could and shove in 4 riffs per song.

I'd welcome another album as good as HTSD any day over a play-it-as-fast-as-you-can Riff Salad like Death Magnetic.

[KevShmev]

Metallica had 3 amazing albums in the 80s (some would even include KEA and self-titled in that run) and even though the albums past that point got more mixed reception (I really like Load) I think they have enough quality in those first handful of albums to keep their career going pretty much no matter what.

Agreed.  Metallica is similar to U2 in that their creative and artistic peak was obviously the 80's and their early 90's masterpiece, and neither has come close to that level of greatness since, with U2 being far more prolific and having much higher highs, but their brand is so rock solid strong that they can sell tons of tickets on any tour for as long as they feel like doing it.  The number of rock/metal artists who are still active (on any kind of regular basis) and can do that is getting smaller by the year, so hard to feel too bad about their plight.

[DoctorAction]

Amazing how opinions vary.

KEA was an album that sounds great for the day (compare it to Bonded By Blood, Killing Is My Business, The Legacy or Show No Mercy, for example) but I can see how you might say it sounds different from much later eras of production but I don't think it's a fair comparison, for obvious reasons.

RTL is one of my favourite sounding metal records of all time. It's beefy, the guitars sound like someone sawing down giant redwoods. Some of the most unique guitar tone I've ever heard. I've never thought it tinny.

MoP was EQ'd REALLY weirdly, imo. Not tinny to my ears, but lacking any midrange, almost. Never sounds loud, somehow.

AJFA sounds pretty good, apart from the missing bass guitar. Quite aggressive and very dry.

I don't like the sound of the Black album, personally. Clearly a big step into the modern age but sounds odd now, imo. Lots of cymbals and boom. Snare sounds amazing, tho.

Load/Reload sounded great.

The covers sound good for the most part.

St A and DM sound crap for all the reasons everyone has always said.

Hardwired could have sounded great but the mix robs it of metal power, imo. The snare is REALLY loud and unnatural sounding. I don't know if it's triggered but it reminds me a lot of I&W. And the guitars are much too low. The signature aspect of the Metallica sound is dialled right down in the mix. Weird. It's all vocals and repetitive snare hits.

But this really should be in a Metalli-thread.

Other overrated artists - Ozzy. Someone already said it. I don't like Sabbath much but I get and respect it. Ozzy though - his voice is rubbish, image is ridiculous, his music is super dull bar the guitar solos, he seems like a total buffoon. I just don't see what the fuss is about.

[Herrick]

Hardwired could have sounded great but the mix robs it of metal power, imo. The snare is REALLY loud and unnatural sounding. I don't know if it's triggered but it reminds me a lot of I&W. And the guitars are much too low. The signature aspect of the Metallica sound is dialled right down in the mix. Weird. It's all vocals and repetitive snare hits.

Agreed for the most part. The snare is loud but the rest of the drums are just kinda in the background. The guitars could've been louder. Some audible bass would've helped add girth to the overall sound. The bass is stupidly low in this mix. I think I hear Trujillo doing a fill at 4:35 of Atlas Rise but it's like trying to hear those really quiet sounds during a hearing test 

[Stadler]

Metallica had 3 amazing albums in the 80s (some would even include KEA and self-titled in that run) and even though the albums past that point got more mixed reception (I really like Load) I think they have enough quality in those first handful of albums to keep their career going pretty much no matter what. You have bands and artists with less quality albums that still release albums and tour in their age.

I also don't know if they really qualify as overrated since most people who have mentioned them seem to agree they did put out some amazing stuff - which would explain the popularity. I guess it's weird with bands who are still selling out stadiums despite not really having a noteworthy album in decades. But you can say the same about a bunch of bands like AC/DC or Rolling Stones just to name a couple. I think it's just a generational thing where the quality of the earlier output is so good it transcends one generation and then their kids get into those bands so they keep selling out stadiums even if the more recent output isn't AS good. I remember seeing Maiden when I was 15 back in 2006 and even though the setlist was 80% A Matter of Life and Death (which is their best modern album IMO, but it's still 20 years past their golden age) I was ecstatic even though there were other people there that night who probably saw a much better show in 84 or 86.

I don't know why, but I've got sort of a problem with the assumption of what is "quality" with respect to Metallica.   I'm with emtee; the first four (I've only heard bits and pieces of KEA) Metallica albums sound like they were recorded in a tin can over a 9800 baud modem.  The "quality" in my view is from The Black Album through the two Loads.  They got a mature sound, the song-writing improved by leaps and bounds, the lyrical point of view seemed to take on a more personal, more deep aspect, and most importantly, James started to SING, as opposed to roar.   

I've already said that I have to see Metallica; that's a fail in terms of my concert going experience.  But I have seen both AC/DC and The Rolling Stones; I can't speak for every person that has seen them, but for me, neither show was about "the latest album" or "the classic albums".  it's a different experience, especially the Stones.  Kev mentioned U2; they are here too.  It's not about "the latest album"; it's the notion of seeing Bono and The Edge, and wondering what's going to happen next.  Is that spider thing going to move?  Is Bono going to break out in an a cappella Peter Gabriel song?   Iron Maiden is the same; I saw them multiple times back in the day (including as an opening act) and now, they are a must see every tour.  I go not for the setlist, but because I know I'm going to get two hours of solid, well-played metal, with above-average theatrics, and I get an experience that undoubtedly I will be talking about to my friends for months after.   Not every band can tour stadiums, even WITH a hit album; it's a different aninmal altogether (just watch the opening acts at these shows; it's NOT the same as playing your 45 minutes in a club).

[KevShmev]

I saw Metallica once, on the ReLoad tour.  Felt lucky as it was a show where they just happened to play Of Wolf and Man (one of my favorites from TBA) and Bleeding Me.  Enjoyable show, even if was blistering loud (I had no clue what the first song was, as it was so loud and came off as just a blur of noise, and it was an outside show!!), but that was enough.  I am not someone who goes to see a band to check them off a list, but I saw them once and felt like that was enough.

[Kotowboy]

Someone mentioned The Rolling Stones and that is definitely a band I have never enjoyed. I don't think i like a single song of theirs ( Maybe Doom & Gloom ? A recent one - but only cause it reminded

me of The Hives....)

I saw a clip of them live and absolutely nobody in the band looked into it AT ALL. Plus they sounded like a BAD Rolling Stones cover band. They don't make new albums any more

- so yeah that is one band that should definitely retire. It's MAD that The Stones have existed as a band the same length of time that James Hetfield has been alive.

U2 formed in 1976 - which is two years older than I am. It's crazy that a band has existed as a band whilst I was a newborn and still going now i'm 42 years old.



As for U2 - I think their last 2 albums were fantastic. I don't think they've done my " 3 awful albums in a row " requirement for splitting up. Plus they still put out experimental

albums now and again - even if No Line On The Horizon was 90% awful. Even POP was a better album ! But they're still awesome live.

For me - if a band hasn't put out one good album in like ten years - or had 3 crap albums back to back and are sh*t live - they should 100% call it a day.

[Zantera]

I look at it differently, I don't think a band should ever throw in the towel just because they have put out a few albums in a row that's not critically acclaimed or whatever. A band should make music because their heart is in it and we as fans either get enjoyment out of it or we don't, but the band doesn't owe it to us to do X, Y or Z.

However I do think some bands with a weird history are almost being dishonest by carrying on, I'm talking about bands where the members have changed around so much that you might not even have any original member left and they are basically just milking a known band name but what is left is nothing like what once was. Some bands change styles but you look at Metallica for example and you still have 75% of the OG lineup in the band. (Yeah I know Mustaine was before Kirk but Kirk was on Kill Em All)

You wouldn't hear anyone say the same about any other profession, but there always seems to be a bit of entitlement from fans towards bands in the sense that they "owe" the fans something.

[KevShmev]

Yeah, it's a bit painful when bands continue with hardly anyone from the classic era (think Steve Howe's current version of Yes), but older guys need to make money, too, and might as well make it off the brand name, right?

I don't get it when some think a band should retire and use the "what more do they have to prove?" line as the reason why.  U2 is a good example, as I have seen that said about them.  Maybe they still like writing and playing music.  Crazy, right? 

[Zantera]

Yeah, it's a bit painful when bands continue with hardly anyone from the classic era (think Steve Howe's current version of Yes), but older guys need to make money, too, and might as well make it off the brand name, right?

I don't get it when some think a band should retire and use the "what more do they have to prove?" line as the reason why.  U2 is a good example, as I have seen that said about them.  Maybe they still like writing and playing music.  Crazy, right? 

Yeah the "What more do they have to prove?" line kinda gets me too. Would anyone say the same about a guy working at a car dealership or a bank? "You've done this for many years now, maybe its time to resign and do something else?". I think with most of these bands, it's a bunch of people that (hopefully) enjoy playing together and making music together and that's why they stick together. I've seen some interviews with members of Deep Purple and they seem to still really have a fun time together both in the studio and on stage. I saw them maybe a decade ago and it was fun seeing such a classic band live, and the show was good, even if they are way past their last GREAT album. But it goes to show that if they had called it quits in the 90s (or 80s) when they had a few 'meh' albums, me and a bunch of other people would never had the chance to see them.

[Kotowboy]

I don't know why people hold up Master of Puppets as an example of amazing production.

The actual songs maybe - but the guitars on that album have always sounded like a cheap digital amp on the "METAL" setting.

Like - compare a song like To Live Is To Die - which sounds exactly like two guys just jamming in a garage into a tape deck. It's SO thin and weak sounding.

Then put on Sad But True immediately afterwards. The difference is Colossal. SBT is HUGE. It's so thick and beefy and wide sounding.

To me - The Black Album is And Justice For All with all the fat trimmed off the songs and fantastic production.

Don't tell me that " Of Wolf And Man " wouldn't have fit on AJFA.

[KevShmev]

The Black Album sounds fantastic, but imperfect productions can really work sometimes, and Master of Puppets is a good example. There is a special kind of rawness to the sound of that record that is non-existent on every album they have done since.  It is heavy as hell, yet the melodies just shine throughout.  If they re-recorded that now and gave it the exact same sound and production as Death Magnetic or Hardwired, it wouldn't sound nearly as good.

[Enigmachine]

In regards to Master of Puppets' production, it's always worth remembering the context of the time. Back in 1986, having a thrash metal album even as polished as that was basically unheard of at the time. That, alongside probably Reign in Blood's sound, heralded a kind of coming of age moment for the genre. It showed that aggressive music didn't have to wallow in that kind of straightforward underground fuzziness that Venom or Celtic Frost embodied. Maybe it sounds antiquated now, but Fleming Rasmussen's work on that album was pretty revolutionary for the time because while Ride the Lightning certainly has a distinctive energy to its sound, it doesn't match the cleanliness and tightness of its follow-up.

As Kev pointed out too, even though it doesn't sound as polished as The Black Album, it still has its own raw nostalgic charm that's admittedly hard to pinpoint, but newer metal bands that adopt that kind of earthy raw crunch while retaining clarity (such as Horrendous or Power Trip) show that the appeal isn't just from rose tinted glasses. 80s Metallica in general was a very good illustration of how just because metal got heavier, it doesn't mean it couldn't still retain its sophistication. I think Death pretty much did the equivalent for death metal in the 90s too.

One style of production I do not get however is Pantera's (which is also probably my pick here), pushing what were perhaps the signature elements of Metallica's production values at the time (scooped guitar, sonically tight drum sound, distorted bass etc.) and pushing it to earbleeding extremes to the point where the trends that spawned from them basically ruined mainstream metal production (at least within that kind of groove/thrash metal side of things) for a solid decade or so. The whole "aight, let's remove the all mids because we want crunch" approach is basically laughed at nowadays in producer circles from what I can tell and with good reason, it's needlessly abrasive and has aged incredibly poorly.

Other than that, I kinda understand Pantera's influence musically in terms of taking the template of thrash and adding more mid paced grooves and syncopation and bringing that to the big leagues (given that Exhorder had sorta done something similar already), although I will struggle to support any band that openly brands the Confederate / Virginia battle flag and provides a platform for some uhh... questionable talking points with regards to some of Phil's rants, as much as I'd want to separate politics and personalities from the music.

[Zantera]

I actually find it quite rare that the most liked album(s) are also the best sounding ones. Usually the best ones are the best because they have the best music on them, and the better sounding albums usually come after the highpoint of the band's career when they have more recognition/money/experience to get those aspects of the album right.

[Dream Team]

Tastes, right?

Hardwired is my favorite Metallica album. Easily. Killer riffs and quality production. The early albums all sounded like tinty, trebly amateur recordings to me.

RTL is huge sounding. One of the best guitar tones ever.

[Kotowboy]

I agree that Pantera sound dreadful on record.

The guitar tone on Walk sounds SO digital.


EDIT actually I just listened to Walk and the drums are WAY in the back. 

[DoctorAction]

The Black album doesn't work for me now. But I tell you what i do love on it (as well as SBT) - and I don't think it gets enough love - is the opening riffage of Through The Never. Super simple but just perfect.

[Stadler]

Yeah, it's a bit painful when bands continue with hardly anyone from the classic era (think Steve Howe's current version of Yes), but older guys need to make money, too, and might as well make it off the brand name, right?

I don't get it when some think a band should retire and use the "what more do they have to prove?" line as the reason why.  U2 is a good example, as I have seen that said about them.  Maybe they still like writing and playing music.  Crazy, right? 

Yeah the "What more do they have to prove?" line kinda gets me too. Would anyone say the same about a guy working at a car dealership or a bank? "You've done this for many years now, maybe its time to resign and do something else?". I think with most of these bands, it's a bunch of people that (hopefully) enjoy playing together and making music together and that's why they stick together. I've seen some interviews with members of Deep Purple and they seem to still really have a fun time together both in the studio and on stage. I saw them maybe a decade ago and it was fun seeing such a classic band live, and the show was good, even if they are way past their last GREAT album. But it goes to show that if they had called it quits in the 90s (or 80s) when they had a few 'meh' albums, me and a bunch of other people would never had the chance to see them.

I think I'm just agreeing with you here, but there are so many artists say that "this is who I am" that "nothing left to prove" doesn't factor into it.  Can you see Eddie Van Halen - who famously took his guitar into the can with him because he couldn't put it down - is going to stop making/playing music because he "has nothing left to prove"?

I also think that it's not up to us to decide when they've had enough. The Stones.  I get that Kowtowboy isn't impressed, and he's not the only one, but I just went through the Four Flicks DVD set and I think the last thing you can say about Mick Jagger is that he was "phoning it in".   It's who he is.  I don't see them retiring until they literally cannot do it.  McCartney is another one; albums aren't the point with him.  It's being able to play "A Day In The Life" or "Yesterday" for 55,000 more people.  Billy Joel is another one.   He famously said the writing was a task, a craft, in order to enable the live playing and that's what he does now.  Couple shows a month at MSG and from what I've heard, he's still destroying the place.

[TAC]

Regarding old musicians touring and stuff..

What I've realized is these people are musicians. Playing and performing is what they do. It's who they are. I respect that. Sure they're making money, but...Paul Stanley doesn't need money. Alice Cooper doesn't need money. Mick Jagger doesn't need money. But it's just what they do.

[Herrick]

Agree with you guys about these older musicians who keep on playing. It's what they do. David Lee Roth's another one. I'm not a fan but if people still want to pay to see him live, it has no affect on Herrick. If I don't like whoever it is, then I won't go and see them. It's not a problem.

[Kwyjibo]

Should a painter stop painting, an actor stop acting, a writer stop writing just because they reach an age where most people go into retirement? Same goes for musicians. It's not a job, it's a passion, so as long as you feel enjoyment in playing music, you keep on doing it as long as you can. And then it doesn't matter if you're relevant or sell millions of records.

[Kotowboy]

If you're any profession and you're consistently bad at it - you should do something else.

I had a dentist once - and everything he did went bad or fell out. He said I had to have a tooth pulled cause there was nothing he could do.

It didn't hurt so I procrastinated on it for so long that I ended up moving and my new dentist fixed it in one appointment for not much money.

I could have pulled a tooth for nothing.

And I am pretty sure he f---ed up my nerves in that area. Oh well. Dodged a bullet there I guess. .

Anyway - The Rolling Stones are crap and should have quit decades ago.

[Zantera]

I think the key difference being music (like all art) is subjective hence a band being 'bad' isn't something that can be objectively measured. Opeth used to be one of my favorite bands but as they changed styles and went down the retro 70s prog style road, I lost a bit interest with each album. 4 albums later and they're not even in my top10 or so anymore, despite me loving their classic stuff. But you'll find multiple people on this forum who don't care that much for the older stuff and love the new stuff. With the logic of "if they can't put out top tier stuff they should throw in the towel" they should already have quit but there's a lot of people who would hard disagree on that.

[Architeuthis]

Anyway - The Rolling Stones are crap and should have quit decades ago.

I watched a concert they filmed recently called Havana Moon, filmed in Cuba. It was a really good show and the band was at the top of their game sounding better than ever. They had over a half million in attendance and the crowd was having a great time. So I would definitely say the Stones are still relevant.
I'm not a big Stones fan, but I've come to appreciate them a lot more than I used to.  It's kind of like they are the best garage band in the world,  but also successful. 

[Stadler]

If you're any profession and you're consistently bad at it - you should do something else.

I had a dentist once - and everything he did went bad or fell out. He said I had to have a tooth pulled cause there was nothing he could do.

It didn't hurt so I procrastinated on it for so long that I ended up moving and my new dentist fixed it in one appointment for not much money.

I could have pulled a tooth for nothing.

And I am pretty sure he f---ed up my nerves in that area. Oh well. Dodged a bullet there I guess. .

Anyway - The Rolling Stones are crap and should have quit decades ago.

You keep throwing around "bad" and "crap" like it's a math problem, with one answer, and it's not.  You consistently keep calling the Stones "crap" and I've written a lot - even before this line of discussion - about how I watched Four Flicks and the Biggest Bang (their last two current tour DVD packages) and was BLOWN AWAY by how good they sounded and how good they were playing.   It's baffling to me that you believe that the ROLLING FUCKING STONES - the "World's Greatest Band" - ought to just pack it up because you're not into it.   Head scratching.

[WilliamMunny]

If you're any profession and you're consistently bad at it - you should do something else.

I had a dentist once - and everything he did went bad or fell out. He said I had to have a tooth pulled cause there was nothing he could do.

It didn't hurt so I procrastinated on it for so long that I ended up moving and my new dentist fixed it in one appointment for not much money.

I could have pulled a tooth for nothing.

And I am pretty sure he f---ed up my nerves in that area. Oh well. Dodged a bullet there I guess. .

Anyway - The Rolling Stones are crap and should have quit decades ago.

You keep throwing around "bad" and "crap" like it's a math problem, with one answer, and it's not.  You consistently keep calling the Stones "crap" and I've written a lot - even before this line of discussion - about how I watched Four Flicks and the Biggest Bang (their last two current tour DVD packages) and was BLOWN AWAY by how good they sounded and how good they were playing.   It's baffling to me that you believe that the ROLLING FUCKING STONES - the "World's Greatest Band" - ought to just pack it up because you're not into it.   Head scratching.

Lifelong Stones fan here—I can get not liking them (firm believer in 'different strokes'), but as someone who has thoroughly enjoued their late-career output (I even consider 'Bridges to Babylon' a top-tier record), I am beyond happy they've continued to write and record.

They could've gone the 'greatest hits'-tour-till-you-drop route twenty years ago and no one would've blamed them, but they didn't, and their fans have benefited.

Take Billy Joel, for instance. He's gone on record to say he's done writing and recording (long article/interview last year where he went into detail on it), and while I respect his decision, the fan in me is bummed out that his last album (mind you, 'River of Dreams' is a great swan-song) came out when I was eleven. I love Billy, and would be game to hear anything new he has to offer.

[Zantera]

I think also there's a difference between a band being your favorite (or one of them) or you just liking a band. If you're just a normal fan of a band it might be easy to scoff at them and saying they should retire because they're not putting out 5/5 albums, but if they are your favorite band or you feel very passionate about them, even a 3.5/5 album will bring you joy and happiness.

[WilliamMunny]

I think also there's a difference between a band being your favorite (or one of them) or you just liking a band. If you're just a normal fan of a band it might be easy to scoff at them and saying they should retire because they're not putting out 5/5 albums, but if they are your favorite band or you feel very passionate about them, even a 3.5/5 album will bring you joy and happiness.

That's a great point—it's the reason that I've been 'trying' to like each and every new DT release for years. If I'd stumbled upon the band in the last decade, I'm not sure I'd have given some of these most recent releases the same investment of time that I have.

[Stadler]

I think also there's a difference between a band being your favorite (or one of them) or you just liking a band. If you're just a normal fan of a band it might be easy to scoff at them and saying they should retire because they're not putting out 5/5 albums, but if they are your favorite band or you feel very passionate about them, even a 3.5/5 album will bring you joy and happiness.

That's a great point—it's the reason that I've been 'trying' to like each and every new DT release for years. If I'd stumbled upon the band in the last decade, I'm not sure I'd have given some of these most recent releases the same investment of time that I have.

I know I wouldn't.