Hype Backlash in Music

Besides it's been around too long.

The Big 4 of British Invasion are The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, and The Kinks.

To be honest, I wasn't even aware it was a "Big Four", hence why I thought the fourth was Zeppelin for whatever reason (I was always under the impression it was the Big Three, but I must confess that I never really paid too much attention to The Kinks so that might just be why!)

But yeah, either way, I find Zeppelin grossly overrated. The Stones... much less so, but I think they're overrated too - to a point, anyways. If you need some perspective here, it's fairly simple: I had really gotten into The Beatles and The Who (especially The Who) and when I heard there were more bands of that era that were a big part of that British Invasion thing, I got so giddy and did a nosedive into their respective discographies. I came out... well, underwhelmed. After spending so much time heavily admiring the composition genius of Pete Townshend and the entirety of the Fab Four, it absolutely depressed me that their contemporaries were so... dull by comparison.

Now, I'm not trying to knock Led Zeppelin or The Rolling Stones here; on the contrary, I respect what they did a great deal and at least for the Stones I've grown to appreciate parts of their discography a lot more, but I just can't find it in me to put them on a pedestal as high as The Beatles or The Who. Sorry

Another thing about Zeppelin:

The folk-based material has aged a lot better than the hard rock material. Anyone agree?

Honestly, I'd say both have aged pretty well, especially considering that even among modern day teenagers they're still a relatively popular band. If something can last that long without being popularly replaced, I'd say that's a sure sign of how much it's actually aged.

Another variation: Many albums considered great only have the first half worth listening to. It's probably a relic of another era. Hotel California is an example that immediately comes to mind.

I'd disagree, considering some of the so-called great albums I have (Low by David Bowie, Hounds of Love by Kate Bush, or Histoire de Melody Nelson by Serge Gainsbourg).

It helps that those albums are musically distinct, both in terms of its parts in the case of the first two, or the conceptual narrative (and relatively short) story that is Histoire de Melody Nelson.

edited 27th May '14 5:28:20 PM by Quag15

Of course, some have aged better.

Since people like to pick Eagles a lot I'll also mention The Joshua Tree as another album that only the first half is worth listening to.

I don't remember where I read this, but allegedly the producer or studio engineer let his girlfriend decide on the track order for The Joshua Tree. And she just arranged the songs from her favorite to least favorite.

I know this thread is old but I find I personally think that Arcade Fire aren't as amazing as people say they are. I listened to a few songs by them, and while not finding them bad, I didn't think they were that amazing.

I also find that with the exception of a few songs, I don't care much for Death Metal. It doesn't seem all that great to me. I prefer Alternative Metal, Groove Metal, Experimental Metal.

edited 24th May '17 1:41:42 PM by pointless233

Arcade Fire is a mixed bag for me. On one hand, Funeral is a 10/10 album. On the other hand, everything else they've made is meh.

Khemmis. Fucking Khemmis. Yeah, they're solid traditional doom metal. They are not a bad band by any means. That being said, the hype behind Hunted would lead you to believe that they were the second coming of Black Sabbath and Thin Lizzy combined. I liked that album a fair bit, but it was not Album of the Year material by any means.

Everyone hypes up Sturgill Simpson as one of the best alt-country acts of The New '10s.

I've heard a lot of his stuff. A lot of it is either horribly derivative, or so utterly contrived and cerebral that I have no idea what it's even about. Can anyone tell me what the flying fuck THIS song is about?!?

I just find everything of his so far to be either too unoriginal, or too far off the deep end for anyone to find even remotely accessible.

I'm just not going to say anything besides state the fact that I don't want to say anything... :

More directly apropos, I'm going to second the Pavement thing, but more specifically state that I'm not sure I get the appeal of Stephen Malkmus as a songwriter. Granted, I haven't dived deep into their material, but so much of what I have heard is either merely solid or kind of dull. Sonic Youth were just much more exciting songwriters; hell, early Bügsküll got compared to Pavement constantly, and Sean Byrne is so much more compelling even at his tamest.

edited 22nd May '17 6:56:35 PM by JHM

say whatever you want about sturgill, his cover of in utero is incredible

I don't get why Captain Beefheart is praised so much. I don't get it. Apart from a few songs, I don't care for his music. It's too disjointed. Also, his personality makes it hard to like him

Also, I personally find Radiohead to be slightly overrated. They have some really awesome stuff, but I'm not into them. To me, The Bends is better than OK Computer. OK Computer, despite having some really good songs, didn't really live up to the hype , imo.

edited 28th May '17 6:30:23 AM by pointless233

My hype backlash thing is that I've never seen the reason for all the Rush hype. Maybe it's just because I heard some of their 80s stuff first and I was expecting something different, maybe it's Geddy Lee's voice (which I don't mind now but it was super surprising to me then), I don't know. I respect them (as I respect all trios and prog bands), but eh. The music has just never grabbed me. I'd like to hear 2112 at some point though. I think my dad has it somewhere.

I tried listening to Kid A and rapidly lost interest. For one, Thom Yorke's voice is incredibly whiny.

edited 28th May '17 11:21:41 AM by PhysicalStamina

Honestly for all the praise people have done for The Bends, I found it almost as bad as Pablo Honey. I mainly stick to Kid A and In Rainbows cause those have the most experimentation while still feeling cohesive.

Also, A Moon Shaped Pool kicks ass, so call that a reverse hype backlash.

Probably has to be Gatecreeper,like HOLY SHIT this was beeing hyped as one of the best death metal bands of all time and what we got instead was avarege OSDM worship at best.

Bump.

Personally, I never got into Lupe Fiasco all that much. He has some good songs and he's a nice lyricist, bit I feel his fanbase tend to hype him up a little too much. For example, Mural is a good song but it's not the greatest song ever. I feel that it ran for too long. It should have five 5 minutes, not 8 minutes.

Aye. I listened to DROGAS Light and found it insufferable. He has some good stuff - mainly his guest verses on Kanye West tracks and stuff on Tetsuo & Youth - but a majority of his discography is shitty attempts at poppy conscious hip hop.

I'd say only Lazers is really poppy

I don't get why AC/DC is so popular. Brian Johnson sounds like Gilbert Gottfried.

AC/DC are the Migos of classic rock. Their songs are bad and boujee simple and catchy and that's why they had/have so many fans.

And that was forced on him by the label.

edited 2nd Jul '17 4:47:34 AM by PhysicalStamina