benedict

<small></small>Although it was a general statement about band "x" and a principle that sales don't automatically equate to lasting critical acclaim: sometimes yes; sometimes no.

fallow

Where I live, Dashboard is admired across generations. I know of 45 year old parents who borrow their children's DC cds and listen to them. DC is quite the hype in my neighborhood...I don't know maybe we're isolated from any sort of taste or civilization (just kidding).

I rarely hear of anyone picking on Dashboard Confessional...aside from myself and a couple other people.

DodgingCars

They've been picked on a bit on this forum... and I've seen them picked on in different magazine and internet sites.

gilbertr76

To each his own, but to say Tool is repetitive, droning, shows no imagination is completely laughable. While I do understand why everyone won't love a band like Tool, your remarks leave me baffled. Tool is about as innovative as a band can possibly be.

BTW, not that I'm offended because I like too, but putting them ahead of or even in the same league as Tool is hilarious.

krankins2

For my money, I would never waste it on the beatles or dave matthews band. Plenty will disagree with the beatles choice, but I find them so lame. The only good song they have is helter skelter, and Motley Crue's version blows their's away.

atlantamoi

I have no problem with people not digging the Beatles. I often think it's people born post 1980 and have no idea what they really did. But to say anything Motley Crue did is better than the Beatles is hilarious.

MJKTool

What he was saying is hilarious. Just the fact that someone could say Tool has no imagination is someone not worth arguing it over with.

...and Im still lost to what this means

Gdrlv

If you mean that Maynard's got "weak" vocal cords and is a poor singer, I'm sorry but you're flat out wrong. The guy's pipes are stronger than anyone else playing hard music today.

If you mean "weak" as in "now every heavy band whines about their poor, pathetic, terrible childhood and how sensitive and broken they are," well, you've got a point perhaps. Tool does the "woe is me and my unfortunate hyper-successful life" schtick better and more poetically than Korn, Staind, etc., but they (along with Korn) arguably started the trend, which (in my opinion) has strangled every last bit of the life remaining in the heavy music genre.

I guess I do agree that Tool is overrated, but I still like 'em for the most part. However, I also think that Lateralus was one of the most boring and overrated records to come out last year. Aenema and Opiate are both great discs though, and Undertow isn't too bad either.

Mordred

I saw Cobain play in Dallas in what his 10th to last show in the states. It was my first concert and I had a great time.

I've now been to many concerts and I can honestly say that the Nirvana concert was the worst I've ever been to in terms of the bands performance. I love the band's music, I just can't figure out why people would pay to see them live, if that was representative. The lyrics were for the most part unintelligable and Curt and Krist's playing (along with Pat Smear) just wasn't that great.

Mordred

Rypro 525

i just heard dc for the first time last night on mtv. what is the big deal about them. they just sound like that accustic rock thats been out for a while, our lady peace, train, bbmac. i just dont see why dc gets alot of credit and the others dont.

Turd Ferguson

U2 was a great bad until their post-"Achtung Baby" era. Since then, their music has consistantly sucked, and Bono's ego has inflated beyond the size of Jupiter (who the hell is this jackass to tell us to forgive third world debt?).

Also, Dave Matthews' lockjawed vocals over endless instrumental noodling has become quite tiresome in the last few years.

krankins2

Well I wasn't born post 1980 - it was 1978 which is close... I thought this was about an individual opinion. Motley Crue is fun in your face rock and roll, which for my time is what I want. Not some poppy "i want to hold you hand" BS like the beatles spit out. Yes, I realize for their time they were wild and exciting, but I think the music is dated and the songs that make up their #1's cd would be laughable if they were a band coming up today. I only hope this younger generation will forget about the beatles so everyone can stop kissing their arses.

Not meant to encite a riot, but the beatles are just one of those things everyone claims to love because it's the cool retro thing to do.

Let me translate"

"penny lane, penny lane ..... pretty lame, pretty lame"

B.A.

I am not saying any of the following are not good musicians or are not talented, i just think they are all overrated in one respect or another

The Rolling Stones - are highly overrated, besides some decent stuff in the Sixties, what have they done that is lasting and influential? absolutely nothing - I just don't get it I guess

Bob Dylan - I don't get him either, maybe give him a chance with his earlier work, but every time I turn around his balls are getting licked by every critic coast to coast and he sounds just horrible, I don't understand it

DMB - there rabid following dumbfounds me, but to everyone his own I guess

Radiohead - see Bob Dylan, also I am gigantic Pink Floyd fan (particularly the stuff before Roger Waters left) and understand how people can like concept albums and everything, I just don't understand the praise and the following of their last few albums...

...but people say the same thing to me about Pink Floyd - who have influenced, imo, several bands over the years due to their ever-evolving sound throughout their first fifteen years (though they haven't done anything special in almost twenty years), concept albums, synth/computer audio samples, rhythms and beats, guitar playing, etc., etc.

Creed is not overrated because I don't think they were ever highly rated in the first place, they just stink up the radio, which is getting worse and worse everyday.

I won't touch the Beatles, Elvis or Nirvana, but I will say that the best musician to come out of Nirvana was Dave Grohl (and yes, I know he wasn't an original member or anything and that Cobain was almost the sole-driving influence behind the band and its music, etc., but if Cobain hadn't died and Nirvana somehow managed to stay together, which they wouldn't have, Grohl's influence would have grown somehow or another, he is just too good of a musician, imo)

Yancey

Motley Crue = Timeless
The Beatles = Dated

Is that right?

B.A.

just for discussionary purposes, what about bands/groups that haven't been discussed much, such as: the Ramones, the Replacements, the Pixies, Uncle Tupelo (and its more popular offspring Wilco), the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Blondie, the Doors, Red Hot Chili Peppers,Black Flag, Minor Threat/ Fugazi, NWA, Public Enemy, etc.?

Yancey

For the Replacements, Pixies, Husker Du, UT, Black Flag, Fugazi, etc., that whole independent rock canon -- sure, the music probably is overrated to an extent. But this is by design -- by critics harping about them repeatedly, maybe people will listen and some of these discs will actually sell. Plus, their importance in creating the framework for independent music is undeniable (thinking Gregg Ginn here).

B.A.

yeah, Yancey are right in regards to Ginn and SST, because if it wasn't for him and his label we wouldn't have Husker Du, Sonic Youth and even Dinosaur Jr. Great Label for the decade

Andalusia

So you're complaining that the Stones haven't done anything good since the 60's? Well, when you consider the all the classics they recorded in the 60's and early 70's, who cares what they did afterwards? I think the Stones really dropped off after "Exile" (with a good album here or there), but that doesn't really matter, because albums like "Beggars Banquet", "Let it Bleed", "Between the Buttons", "Aftermath", and "Sticky Fingers" are truly classics. "Some decent stuff in the 60's" you say? You, sir, are hard to please.

And as for Bob Dylan, it's all about the songwriting. IMO, the greatest songwriter bar-none. If you really don't understand what the fuss is about him, check out "Bringing it all Back Home", "Highway 61 Revisited", "Blonde on Blonde", and "Blood on the Tracks". If (and only if) after you've heard these albums, and you still don't like Dylan, well, that's fine. He's not everybody's cuppa tea. But don't say you don't get Dylan till you've heard these records.

Jason

"Home Sweet Home" is better than "Revolution #9"



I guess I'm going to have to give this TOOL thing some more attention...

B.A.

I know I am very hard to please, I am sometimes very picky with music, but I will try to give Dylan's earlier work a chance sometime in my life, I just don't think I am ready to attempt such a feat (if it really is as great as people say) yet. As with the Stones, maybe sometime I will give them a chance, but they are probably at the bottom of my list, no offence intended towards fans of Bob and the Stones. I respect your opinions because you show taste and don't ask me why the hell I don't like Creed (because they are what is wrong with rock and the radio).

Andalusia

Say.... why don't you like Creed? Oh that's right, 'cause they are absolutely horrible. I absolutely agree with you when you say they stink up the radio. Fortunately, I try not to listen to the radio at all (though sometimes, it's forced upon me).

But yeah, you should at the very least give Dylan and the Stones a chance. You may not like either of them, but at least you'll have listened to their stuff, which is more than I can say about a lot of people who bash music.

krankins2

Here's a few for ya to discuss...

Garth Brooks
Bruce Springsteen

Not a real fan of either, a few songs here and there. But these guys have sold a lot of records, and having lived in New Jersey for 2 years you would think Bruce was God... I never was turned onto that.

Bass God

Yes...yes they are.

Bass God

Yes they are. Listen to Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St.

Bass God

Yes, Hawking is talented. And he also did drugs at one point. As for Cobain, he was also talented. btw Hole was a good band. Listen to Live Through This