Most overrated artist

ballysmate

In another thread, Pinno put forward Whitney Houston as the most overrated artist of the 80s. He has a point.
But there must be many artists out there that you see or hear and you think, "Why them? I just don't get it!"

So lets have 'em.
They don't have to be from the 80s, it can be any era.

Mine would be the talentless gurner from Stoke on Trent. Take a bow Robbie Williams.

capt_slog

Ballysmate wrote:

In another thread, Pinno put forward Whitney Houston as the most overrated artist of the 80s. He has a point.
But there must be many artists out there that you see or hear and you think, "Why them? I just don't get it!"

So lets have 'em.
They don't have to be from the 80s, it can be any era.

Mine would be the talentless gurner from Stoke on Trent. Take a bow Robbie Williams.

For me, that's most of them.

But I'll add...

Duffy.
Adele.

orraloon

Hmm, already deflecting from 'most overrated' into 'I don't like / get'...

Instance, R Williams. Not my thing at all, but ticks boxes for lots, partic females of a certain age, and can undoubtedly get a crowd going. Example, the televised performance outside Buck House I think it was a few years back for whatever celebration it was of Betty still being alive. The crowd atmosphere shot up immediately.

Instance, Adele. She has a manner and stage presence that links with the crowd. I went to see her last year and thought was a great show. Her song topics might be somewhat similar and downbeat, but she admits that's where she gets inspiration.

Regard Coldplay. A media line that they are boring. Then Elbow FFS are held up as some masters of music. (Admission, don't get Elbow at all). Coldplay shows, been to 2, are full of energy and visual / sonic effects, and the music ain't too bad either.

Would say that have to respect talent where exists despite such music not being to one's liking. Whereas, overrated artistes don't have that essential talent. Mega sales internationally must signify a degree of talent? Unless of course one is backed by vested interests in the music industry and relentlessly and shamelessly plugged.

Which is a long way round to saying - Mariah Carey.

sloppyschleckonds

I'll go for Banksy, Picasso will be turning in his grave

andcp

orraloon wrote:

Which is a long way round to saying - Mariah Carey.

Agree, I'll never forgive her for slaughtering "Without You"....

At the risk of isolating myself, I 'don't get' (or didn't get) David Bowie - he just completely passed me by and I grew up in his era. I do like some Bowie songs (ironically the one I like most wasn't sung by him) but I just think he is/was completely overrated.

Can I also chuck in U2, The Stranglers, Boomtown Rats and the Black Eyed Peas as overrated?

briantrumpet

I'm another 'I don't get Adele' person. Mostly because I don't like the actual sound of her voice (it grates), and there are too many, er, cheap vocal mannerisms that I find really annoying. I don't care if she's a really lovely person - so's my mother, but I wouldn't want to listen to her sing just because she's nice. I don't think Sinatra was 'nice', but there's been no-one like him in his prime.

Rigga

Jamiroquai. Always amazed me how he made so much money from his god awful music.

sungod

imho would be better to go for "artist that is not overrated"

then we can end the thread

laurentian

Michael Jackson for me . . . a real triumph of style/marketing over substance - hundreds were as good

Garry H

Madonna - singing in your bra and knickers isn't particularly ground-breaking.

Wheelspinner

Most Over-rated meaning over-popular?

Gotta be Garth Brooks, given his record sales to talent ratio.

homers_double

Any of the recent ones that say "ting" in their songs

smoggysteve

Wheelspinner wrote:

Most Over-rated meaning over-popular?

Gotta be Garth Brooks, given his record sales to talent ratio.

Yeah. And he seriously winds me up on Football Focus

shortfall

As above. Michael Jackson, Madonna, One Direction (in fact almost any manufactured girl/boy band) Katie Perry, Britney, Liam Gallagher, Beyonce. Some of the above are responsible for some decent tunes, or at least singing them with the help of autotune and a good engineer, but their mega success is beyond me.

Rigga

Oh yeah and Robbie f*#king Williams!! :evil:

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

The beatles, a couple of decent songs but average musicians/vocalists and only so famous because of the 1000s of screaming teenage girls they attracted.

Garry H

xdoc wrote:

The beatles, a couple of decent songs but average musicians/vocalists and only so famous because of the 1000s of screaming teenage girls they attracted.

Agreed. I felt all alone until you said it

Same goes for Bowie, just don't get it.

smoggysteve

Garry H wrote:

xdoc wrote:

The beatles, a couple of decent songs but average musicians/vocalists and only so famous because of the 1000s of screaming teenage girls they attracted.

Agreed. I felt all alone until you said it

Same goes for Bowie, just don't get it.

Just because you "don't get it" does not mean they were overrated. They inspired so many other artists and their music is still played today. If you walk into an art gallery and don't find a certain picture or sculpture to your tastes does that make the artist rubbish? They speak to others and the fact they sold so many records and are still listened to means chances are you are wrong and the millions are not.

mrfpb

Led Zeppelin. Filled stadiums with their barely adjusted blues rip-offs and produced the most self indulgent movie/live album of all time.

Loads of bands did more creative stuff with the blues blueprint than they did - Deep Purple, Cream, AC/DC, Rolling Stones. I seriously would sooner put a Status Quo album on than a Zeppelin one.

mr_goo

ArtIsts of visual nature:
Tracey Emin.
Banksy
Jeff Koons
Jackson Pollock
Helen Marten
Duncan Campbell
....and practically all Turner Prize winners. I'll exclude Grayson Perry as his work is good.

Artists of musical nature:-
Adele
Tw4t I Am (ex of Black Eyed Ps )
Frank Sinatra
Rod Stewart
Emile Sande
All (C) rap singers
Sting ( can anyone actually understand what he's singing? ..more like tuneful mumbling)
Biffy Clyro

Garry H

SmoggySteve wrote:

Garry H wrote:

xdoc wrote:

The beatles, a couple of decent songs but average musicians/vocalists and only so famous because of the 1000s of screaming teenage girls they attracted.

Agreed. I felt all alone until you said it

Same goes for Bowie, just don't get it.

Just because you "don't get it" does not mean they were overrated. They inspired so many other artists and their music is still played today. If you walk into an art gallery and don't find a certain picture or sculpture to your tastes does that make the artist rubbish? They speak to others and the fact they sold so many records and are still listened to means chances are you are wrong and the millions are not.

Nah, it's just seen as uncool Not to adore Bowie, or the Beatles.

seanoconn

You're mostly idiots. Although hopefully Robbie Williams latest effort 'I am wonderful' sung in with his usual ridiculous American twang, will signal the end of his bloated career.

smoggysteve

Garry H wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Garry H wrote:

xdoc wrote:

The beatles, a couple of decent songs but average musicians/vocalists and only so famous because of the 1000s of screaming teenage girls they attracted.

Agreed. I felt all alone until you said it

Same goes for Bowie, just don't get it.

Just because you "don't get it" does not mean they were overrated. They inspired so many other artists and their music is still played today. If you walk into an art gallery and don't find a certain picture or sculpture to your tastes does that make the artist rubbish? They speak to others and the fact they sold so many records and are still listened to means chances are you are wrong and the millions are not.

Nah, it's just seen as uncool Not to adore Bowie, or the Beatles.

Im a child of the 70's. It was seen as pretty uncool to listen to your parents music. But I still listened to the stuff my dad had like the beatles, Pink Floyd, The Who etc. Bowie was not someone I ever liked but I can still appreciate that he was a big artist and if he was just overhyped he wouldn't have continued to sell album after album for so long. You can be over hyped by the media for a short period of time before the novelty wears off but the staying power of Bowie and The Beatles across so many generations far out weighs hype.

mr_goo

Garry H wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

Garry H wrote:

xdoc wrote:

The beatles, a couple of decent songs but average musicians/vocalists and only so famous because of the 1000s of screaming teenage girls they attracted.

Agreed. I felt all alone until you said it

Same goes for Bowie, just don't get it.

Just because you "don't get it" does not mean they were overrated. They inspired so many other artists and their music is still played today. If you walk into an art gallery and don't find a certain picture or sculpture to your tastes does that make the artist rubbish? They speak to others and the fact they sold so many records and are still listened to means chances are you are wrong and the millions are not.

Nah, it's just seen as uncool Not to adore Bowie, or the Beatles.

I agree whole heartedly about The Beatles I just have never got why they're so revered. Maybe one needs to have lived through the musical transgressions of 40s/50s/60s to appreciate what they're about.

As for Bowie I think it was more to do with fashion and and continually changing image, that appealed to his followers. What has puzzled me is that since his death Planet Rock have taken to playing him on a daily basis. Whilst still living I don't even recall hearing any of his tracks on the station. Which begs this question.

David Bowie Pop Star or Rock Star ?

mrfpb

The Beatles and Bowie were really creative artists compared to most of their peers, there is stuff by both I wouldn't give time to (The White Album springs to mind) but I think they do stand out from the crowd, Sinatra was a ground breaking artist, he invented a new way of singing that his generation and the next copied.

Sting started well and ran out of ideas. But the Police and the first few solo albums are works to be proud of.

Most artists run out of ideas eventually, or fail to remodel themselves for the next generation. Adele seemed to hit that problem with her second album.

mr_goo

mrfpb wrote:

The Beatles and Bowie were really creative artists compared to most of their peers, there is stuff by both I wouldn't give time to (The White Album springs to mind) but I think they do stand out from the crowd, Sinatra was a ground breaking artist, he invented a new way of singing that his generation and the next copied.

Sting started well and ran out of ideas. But the Police and the first few solo albums are works to be proud of.

Most artists run out of ideas eventually, or fail to remodel themselves for the next generation. Adele seemed to hit that problem with her second album.

Just proves that art, music and literature are subjective topics.

shortfall

Mr Goo wrote:

ArtIsts of visual nature:
Tracey Emin.
Banksy
Jeff Koons
Jackson Pollock
Helen Marten
Duncan Campbell
....and practically all Turner Prize winners. I'll exclude Grayson Perry as his work is good.

Artists of musical nature:-
Adele
Tw4t I Am (ex of Black Eyed Ps )
Frank Sinatra
Rod Stewart
Emile Sande
All (C) rap singers
Sting ( can anyone actually understand what he's singing? ..more like tuneful mumbling)
Biffy Clyro

Can't agree with you about Sting and particularly Sinatra. To be considered great in any field be it sport, entertainment or politics etc then what sets you apart is longevity. There are lots of people who are brilliant for a short time frame but who ultimately don't stand the test of time. Both Sting and Sinatra sold millions of records across many decades and Sinatra is up there with Elvis and a select few others as one of the outstanding artists/performers of the 20th Century. If you don't like him that's fine but he didn't rely on hype, stunts or visual gimmickry like say Michael Jackson, he just sang the American songbook brilliantly and was one of the coolest dudes ever to walk the earth. Sting vies with Bono for most pretentious and annoying singer but set that aside and his body of work is impressive.

team47b

Mr Goo wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

The Beatles and Bowie were really creative artists compared to most of their peers, there is stuff by both I wouldn't give time to (The White Album springs to mind) but I think they do stand out from the crowd, Sinatra was a ground breaking artist, he invented a new way of singing that his generation and the next copied.

Sting started well and ran out of ideas. But the Police and the first few solo albums are works to be proud of.

Most artists run out of ideas eventually, or fail to remodel themselves for the next generation. Adele seemed to hit that problem with her second album.

Just proves that art, music and literature are subjective topics.

Art is not subjective, as to the artist it is objective or non objective, only your opinion of art is subjective and as such is a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

mamba80

Mick Jagger, as Bally asked for artist not band.

BelgianBeerGeek

Some have been covered, and I disagree with others (it's an opinion, I guess)
Here's mine...Florence and the Machine. Mumford and Sons. Adele. Duffy.
Manet. And Monet. :P

Garry H

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Some have been covered, and I disagree with others (it's an opinion, I guess)
Here's mine...Florence and the Machine. Mumford and Sons. Adele. Duffy.
Manet. And Monet. :P

Was Duffy ever overrated? Thought she was just pure shite.