Your list of classic over-rated musical performers

[huedell]

I'm sick to death of it, it's not a sin to not enjoy it.

It's not a sin...but this thread transformed exactly into what I said
it would i.e. "I don't like this." ... "I don't like that."

And that's not a sin either---it's just that I find it a misleading
thread subject.

Instead of "Your list of overrated musical performers"
it shoulda been "Your list of bands you don't like that are popular---
but then again why don't you take a jab at bands you don't like that
aren't that popular too while you're at it."

Now whole musical GENRES are being called into question
(Motown)

[huedell]

Thats what Mike is saying, who has a mass appeal, but you don't understand why. They are famous for something other than their music.

BTW---what singer/band DOESN'T have an image or some other gimmick
(i.e. something OTHER than their music that's made them famous)
to go along with their music?

The short answer to that question is "None."

[theantiquetiger]

something OTHER than their music that's made them famous


The short answer to that question is "None."

That is not true. Madonna would have to fall into this category.

She got famous for her "Like A Virgin" dance on the award show, kissing a black Jesus, a sex book, and other "shock" methods.

Her music is not bad, but nothing really noteworthy in her music to make her a "superstar".

[huedell]

That is not true. Madonna would have to fall into this category.

She got famous for her "Like A Virgin" dance on the award show, kissing a black Jesus, a sex book, and other "shock" methods.

Her music is not bad, but nothing really noteworthy in her music to make her a "superstar".

I'm not sure if I worded my post wrong...or if you read it wrong...

My question is...who....out of anyone that is a "superstar" (band or musician)
HASN'T got a gimmick or an image or whatever you're referring to.

The answer: "None"

[theantiquetiger]

OK, so what Mike is trying to say is what superstar would not be a superstar if they had no gimmick?

You are saying there are no superstars that don't have a gimmick.

[huedell]

OK, so what Mike is trying to say is what superstar would not be a superstar if they had no gimmick?

I don't know if that is "exactly" what Mike's saying...could be...

Either way it's a big part of it....so okay.

You are saying there are no superstars that don't have a gimmick.

Sure.

[ctc]

>where is the "rule" that rock music has to be something other than simple---or repetitive---- or otherwise "unimpressive" technically

There is no rule. I personally like a LOT of stuff that's really, REALLY bad. But I don't kid myself about it. The problem with the bands I mentioned (and why I consider them overrated) is that they didn't add anything to music as a whole, they didn't have a great deal of technical expertise, and their writing was pretty mediocre; but I've been beaten over the head with how brilliant they are. U2 is my preferred example 'cos for a long time you COULDN'T criticize them without being shouted down by a chorus of rabid fans. Even the professional critics couldn't get enough of them.

And the worse part of that is it negates debate. I'm very much aware that "good" is in the kind of the beholder. By debating "good" we learn; we gain insight into another person's perspective. But the rampant hype that comes with any musical movement often takes the place of any real insight from the participants. U2 was great because everyone SAID they were. It seemed like you couldn't debate that point because nobody who supported it could articulate why. "I dunno; I just like them." Or "'cos they're DEEP." Which on further questioning would often amount to "just 'cos."

>Instead of "Your list of overrated musical performers" it shoulda been "Your list of bands you don't like that are popular---

Which is kinda what it's gonna be any way you present it. A lot of folks don't know themselves why they like or dislike something so it's all gonna be feeling and conjecture. A lot of times the music people like has nothing to do with the music itself, it's all part of a certain time in their lives and is associated with certain feelings, events, or marketing. Unless you're a musician yourself it seems like most people have a helluva time separating all that stuff.

So if your friends all like U2, and the tv is telling you U2 is brilliant, and you're happy with your life, chances are cognitive dissonnance will fill in the rest and U2 becomes brilliant.

*sigh*

Don C.

[thunderbolt]

Elton John. blehhh bleh bleh. Right up there with Billy Joel and Phil Collins for me.

[MIB41]

U2 is a lesser version of KISS with a stilted social message. Their chords are repetitious and they hyper-market their concerts the way KISS does...as a spectacle. But I can look at KISS and admire them because they have never sold themselves as anything other than what they are - entertainers. When they have been asked to take a position on political or social events, they are quick to say, "Why would anyone care? We're entertainers. Want an opinion? Call Oprah." I like that. Straight to the point. They sell product and consistantly stay on message - 'We're here to entertain you.' U2 on the other hand is the 700 club in simulated leather with shades -"Look at me! Aren't I cool? Come pay my bloated ticket price and we'll hold hands and talk about world hunger while we rock." Gag me. U2 is no different from Barabra Streisand - Bloated, pretentious, and full of self importance. This idea that musicians should be sold as serious poets who sit around and drink wine while they watch CNN and fret about the end of the world is ridiculous. Perhaps we'll see Bono holding a concert to help bail out GM? Give me a break.

[Mikey]

Whitney Houston .......

For some reason she suddenly became pop-royalty a few years ago.

Why ?

I have no idea.

Same with all the other music "divas"

[Adam West]

Does Liza Minelli count?

I can't for the life of me figure out why people flock to her concerts. Sure she is the daughter of Judy Garland but I have never heard a song of hers that I liked.

[huedell]

So if your friends all like U2, and the tv is telling you U2 is brilliant,
and you're happy with your life, chances are cognitive dissonnance will fill in
the rest and U2 becomes brilliant.

I'm not even a U2 fan--- and I think they are OK.

If someone says they are "brilliant"...
I say "great"----you get off on them
---that's cool----I repect that.

And if Bono wants to raise awareness, I think that a freakin' noble effort---
who are YOU to tell him he can't do it because he's a rock star?

I'm sure regarding a simillar outspoken rock star he'd say "Live and let live"--
-and that's advice good enough to follow yourself.

The example Bono sets for U2 fans that DON'T whine about him having
an opinion----is another thing I respect.

Do I embrace Bono's opinion or U2's music? No--- I don't have to.
And none of that bothers me one bit.

[Mikey]

The other week on Graham Norton he has Robin Williams as a guest ...

Williams was talking about going to a U2 concert in Scotland .....

He said Bono put his hands over his head and started clapping on stage ....

Bono yelled, "everytime I clap a child dies in Africa"

Some drunken Scotsman then yelled, "THEM STOP CLAPPING !!!"

Williams said it was a true story

[huedell]

The other week on Graham Norton he has Robin Williams as a guest ...

Williams was talking about going to a U2 concert in Scotland .....

He said Bono put his hands over his head and started clapping on stage ....

Bono yelled, "everytime I clap a child dies in Africa"

Some drunken Scotsman then yelled, "THEM STOP CLAPPING !!!"

Williams said it was a true story

That story was either "really confusing" or "over my head"---
choose either one.

EDIT: I get it now.

And it is funny

(at first I thought that Bono was onstage with Norton and Williams
while Williams was telling the story!)

[Mikey]

Oopps,
I made a typo.

the response was -- THEN STOP CLAPPING !!!