Over-Rated Music Artists

[SteveHFC]

Bruno Mars
Adele
Nicki Minaj
Jessie J
Chipmunk
Justin Biebler
LMFAO

[Ritchie]

Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa
Lady GaGa

[--------]

Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. :greengrin

[Barney McGrew]

Nirvana
The Libertines

[.Sean.]

Coldplay
Snow Patrol



****ing hate 'em both with a passion.

[bod]

The 10:04's

[seanraff07]

Muse

And basically all 'mainstream music'.

[Cocaine&Caviar]

Nirvana
The Libertines

No chance

[Calvin]

Coldplay
Snow Patrol



****ing hate 'em both with a passion.

Coldplay's first two albums were good, before he got up himself - give them a proper lesson. I hate Snow Patrol though, although I warmed to them slightly when they were giving the task of extending their set when it looked like Blur were gonna be pulling out - Gary Lightbody did well and had good banter.


Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr. :greengrin

A good band, not to my personal tastes, but so astronomically overrated it really gets on my nerves.


Muse

See them live, you'll revise your opinion!

[.Sean.]

Muse

And basically all 'mainstream music'.
:agree:

Never understood the hype.



I'll add Bloc Party too - Pish music and their frontman is a ****.

[seanraff07]

:agree:

Never understood the hype.



I'll add Bloc Party too - Pish music and their frontman is a ****.

Yes, stuck-up posh twats.

Too many of these Indie bands nowadays are too fake and want to look as Indie as they possibly can in how they dress etc, just puts me off.

The Drums being a prime example.

[MountcastleHibs]

Muse (and I've seen them live)
U2
Coldplay
Snow Patrol
Bloc Party
Adele
Kaiser Chiefs
Glasvegas (and I used to be a fan)
Foo Fighters
Arctic Monkeys (love their first two albums, but their last two are really bad)

I could probably list more, but there's too many artists nowadays that imo are over hyped. I don't tend to like the mainstream and popular acts.

[Steve-O]

Yes, stuck-up posh twats.

Too many of these Indie bands nowadays are too fake and want to look as Indie as they possibly can in how they dress etc, just puts me off.

The Drums being a prime example.

Bloc Party are about 10 times the band of the one in your avatar.

[easty]

Bloc Party are about 10 times the band of the one in your avatar.

At the least.:agree:

[easty]

Bruno Mars
Adele
Nicki Minaj
Jessie J
Chipmunk
Justin Biebler
LMFAO

I wouldnt have Adele in there. Maybe take her out and throw in David Guetta and the Black Eyed Peas.

[marinello59]

Muse

And basically all 'mainstream music'.

What's that got to do with anything? It's all just pop music. Girls Aloud are as relevant as your favourite obscure ''proper'' band. At the end of the day it comes down to personal taste.

[Marabou Stork]

Arctic Monkeys (love their first two albums, but their last two are really bad)


This is one of the wrongest things I've ever read on here. The first two albums were insipid rock-by-numbers. The musicianship and overall sound of the last two Arctic Monkeys albums have been far superior to the first two IMO.

Also, The Beatles are monumentally overrated.

[Marabou Stork]

And in the OP, I can't see anybody other than possibly the admittedly dire Adele who is held in any esteem by people with taste. They're all popular, but that's a big difference to being highly rated for me.

[Betty Boop]

Beady Eye ! :blah:

[James70]

To all those who say the Beatles are overrated, all I can say is you were obviously not around when they were at their peak. They were the pioneers and forerunners of all the bands this country has produced and whilst their music may not seem outstanding to some nowadays, at the time they were the group that all other bands looked up to and they were the ones breaking through the boundaries of music as it was in the sixties.

Their live performances were limited by two factors, firstly by loads of screaming women making it difficult to hear the music and secondly by the limitations of the sound equipment in those days. It was not really until the 70s that much better amplifiers were available.

You only have to look at the number of other artists who have recorded their own versions of Lennon and McCartney compositions to realise how influential they were.

[ArabHibee]

To all those who say the Beatles are overrated, all I can say is you were obviously not around when they were at their peak. They were the pioneers and forerunners of all the bands this country has produced and whilst their music may not seem outstanding to some nowadays, at the time they were the group that all other bands looked up to and they were the ones breaking through the boundaries of music as it was in the sixties.

Their live performances were limited by two factors, firstly by loads of screaming women making it difficult to hear the music and secondly by the limitations of the sound equipment in those days. It was not really until the 70s that much better amplifiers were available. You only have to look at the number of other artists who have recorded their own versions of Lennon and McCartney compositions to realise how influential they were.
:top marks: You can tell who the young-uns are on this thread. :greengrin:

[MountcastleHibs]

To all those who say the Beatles are overrated, all I can say is you were obviously not around when they were at their peak. They were the pioneers and forerunners of all the bands this country has produced and whilst their music may not seem outstanding to some nowadays, at the time they were the group that all other bands looked up to and they were the ones breaking through the boundaries of music as it was in the sixties.

Their live performances were limited by two factors, firstly by loads of screaming women making it difficult to hear the music and secondly by the limitations of the sound equipment in those days. It was not really until the 70s that much better amplifiers were available.

You only have to look at the number of other artists who have recorded their own versions of Lennon and McCartney compositions to realise how influential they were.

As one of the young ones on here, I am a huge fan of the Beatles. I find it crazy people are suggesting they are over rated. They're the pioneers of modern music, have a huge back catalogue, despite only being around for ten years, and still influence artists heavily today. Their legacy is going to live on longer than ANY of the artists mentioned in this thread.To say they are over rated is frankly ridiculous imo.

But what do I know? I made a comment about the Arctic Monkeys, and apparently it's the most wrong thing ever seen on these forums.

As for the Beady Eye suggestion, how can a band that doesn't get all that much mainstream media attention, has released one album and generally hasn't been around all that long, regardless of the 'they're just Oasis with Noel' argument, be over rated?

And I'll throw in Chemical Brothers, David Guetta, Daft Punk and the Prodigy. What's the point in going to see them live? You'd be better just sticking their CD's in a CD player yourself. That's all they do.

[seanraff07]

Bloc Party are about 10 times the band of the one in your avatar.


At the least.:agree:

Opinions eh. Not a fan of Bloc Party at all and love The Enemy's music.

Obviously you's view it differently.


What's that got to do with anything? It's all just pop music. Girls Aloud are as relevant as your favourite obscure ''proper'' band. At the end of the day it comes down to personal taste.

I just think mainstream music in general is over-rated.

They receive credit where it isn't worthy, take Will.I.Am for example, look how successful he has become with the Black Eyed Peas etc although just about anyone could sing, have their voice edited and sound better than him.

And a large amount of mainstream acts don't even write their own music.

[seanraff07]

As one of the young ones on here, I am a huge fan of the Beatles. I find it crazy people are suggesting they are over rated. They're the pioneers of modern music, have a huge back catalogue, despite only being around for ten years, and still influence artists heavily today. To say they are over rated is frankly ridiculous imo.

But what do I know? I made a comment about the Arctic Monkeys, and apparently it's the most wrong thing ever seen on these forums.

Totally agree with what you said about AM, loved the first album just going for it, almost sounded a little like The Libertines but their not everyones cup of tea. Really liked the 2nd one but the 3rd album was totally different, a lot darker and I just don't think it suits them. Haven't even bothered to listen to their recent album after I listened to one track 'Brick-by-Brick'.

[Storar]

Bruno Mars
Adele
Nicki Minaj
Jessie J
Chipmunk
Justin Biebler
LMFAO

Don't think its fair to call these people over rated artists, they're just the latest chart rubbish thats popular at the moment and will be forgotten about next year.

Not going to be a popular on here but I think Oasis are massively over-rated. Two fantastic albums to start with and a few really good songs peppered about over the following years but they get lost in between all the rest of the boring, repetitive guff that they keep churning out. Same as Beady Eye, luckily they have a ready made fanbase who will follow them no matter what but they wont make themselves many new fans as they're just not that good.

The majority of The Beatles songs are just glorified nursery rhymes.

[Hillsidehibby]

Muse (and I've seen them live)
U2
Coldplay
Snow Patrol
Bloc Party
Adele
Kaiser Chiefs
Glasvegas (and I used to be a fan)
Foo Fighters
Arctic Monkeys (love their first two albums, but their last two are really bad)

I could probably list more, but there's too many artists nowadays that imo are over hyped. I don't tend to like the mainstream and popular acts.


Any band that has consistently released top selling albums since 1981 cannot be over rated.

In my opinion of course

[easty]

As one of the young ones on here, I am a huge fan of the Beatles. I find it crazy people are suggesting they are over rated. They're the pioneers of modern music, have a huge back catalogue, despite only being around for ten years, and still influence artists heavily today. Their legacy is going to live on longer than ANY of the artists mentioned in this thread.To say they are over rated is frankly ridiculous imo.

But what do I know? I made a comment about the Arctic Monkeys, and apparently it's the most wrong thing ever seen on these forums.

As for the Beady Eye suggestion, how can a band that doesn't get all that much mainstream media attention, has released one album and generally hasn't been around all that long, regardless of the 'they're just Oasis with Noel' argument, be over rated?

And I'll throw in Chemical Brothers, David Guetta, Daft Punk and the Prodigy. What's the point in going to see them live? You'd be better just sticking their CD's in a CD player yourself. That's all they do.

Would disagree with The Prodigy being in there. I've seen them a few times, it's nothing like listening to thier cd, and thats clearly not what they do.

Voodoo People at TITP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af4GQLsFA5U&feature=related)

Drums....guitar....2 singers.....how can you group that with David Guetta sitting on his own behind a glorified laptop?

[James70]

Don't think its fair to call these people over rated artists, they're just the latest chart rubbish thats popular at the moment and will be forgotten about next year.

Not going to be a popular on here but I think Oasis are massively over-rated. Two fantastic albums to start with and a few really good songs peppered about over the following years but they get lost in between all the rest of the boring, repetitive guff that they keep churning out. Same as Beady Eye, luckily they have a ready made fanbase who will follow them no matter what but they wont make themselves many new fans as they're just not that good.

The majority of The Beatles songs are just glorified nursery rhymes.



Absolute rubbish!!

[pacorosssco]

As one of the young ones on here, I am a huge fan of the Beatles. I find it crazy people are suggesting they are over rated. They're the pioneers of modern music, have a huge back catalogue, despite only being around for ten years, and still influence artists heavily today. Their legacy is going to live on longer than ANY of the artists mentioned in this thread.To say they are over rated is frankly ridiculous imo.

But what do I know? I made a comment about the Arctic Monkeys, and apparently it's the most wrong thing ever seen on these forums.

As for the Beady Eye suggestion, how can a band that doesn't get all that much mainstream media attention, has released one album and generally hasn't been around all that long, regardless of the 'they're just Oasis with Noel' argument, be over rated?

And I'll throw in Chemical Brothers, David Guetta, Daft Punk and the Prodigy. What's the point in going to see them live? You'd be better just sticking their CD's in a CD player yourself. That's all they do.

Have to disagree here. Ive seen all of the above in bold live and all are great experiences. Daft Punk especially . I challenge you to watch the below link in its entirety and come back and say what is the point in going to see Daft Punk Live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3PNbp1pl1U

similarly the chemicals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxZmRYbaAvg

All bands have in modern times pushed musical boundaries

The Chemical brothers at the corn exchange in 2004 was superb.

Thats the beuty of music though it divides opinions.

[pacorosssco]

Muse (and I've seen them live)
U2
Coldplay
Snow Patrol
Bloc Party
Adele
Kaiser Chiefs
Glasvegas (and I used to be a fan)
Foo Fighters
Arctic Monkeys (love their first two albums, but their last two are really bad)

I could probably list more, but there's too many artists nowadays that imo are over hyped. I don't tend to like the mainstream and popular acts.

I honestly think that Glasvegas are PISH never seen anything to enjoy

[Calvin]

To all those who say the Beatles are overrated, all I can say is you were obviously not around when they were at their peak. They were the pioneers and forerunners of all the bands this country has produced and whilst their music may not seem outstanding to some nowadays, at the time they were the group that all other bands looked up to and they were the ones breaking through the boundaries of music as it was in the sixties.

Their live performances were limited by two factors, firstly by loads of screaming women making it difficult to hear the music and secondly by the limitations of the sound equipment in those days. It was not really until the 70s that much better amplifiers were available.

You only have to look at the number of other artists who have recorded their own versions of Lennon and McCartney compositions to realise how influential they were.

I appreciate that they were game changers in the world of music and we have a lot to thank them for; but that doesn't affect the massive exaggeration of their quality. So often I hear them quoted as the best band ever and although they were good and had a lot of good tracks, the hysteria surrounding them makes them over-rated for me. They were innovative, but their albums were just not as good as many make out.

It's like saying an Apple Macintosh is the best bit of technology ever made. Sure, it set us up for where we are today but now we've moved on and better has come.

[MountcastleHibs]

Would disagree with The Prodigy being in there. I've seen them a few times, it's nothing like listening to thier cd, and thats clearly not what they do.

Voodoo People at TITP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af4GQLsFA5U&feature=related)

Drums....guitar....2 singers.....how can you group that with David Guetta sitting on his own behind a glorified laptop?

I do apolgise for putting them in the same bracket as Guetta. I never realised they had a band on stage with them. Having listened to a few of their songs, it just seems like the music is produced by pressing some buttons. How wrong I was.

[Sylar]

I appreciate that they were game changers in the world of music and we have a lot to thank them for; but that doesn't affect the massive exaggeration of their quality. So often I hear them quoted as the best band ever and although they were good and had a lot of good tracks, the hysteria surrounding them makes them over-rated for me. They were innovative, but their albums were just not as good as many make out.

It's like saying an Apple Macintosh is the best bit of technology ever made. Sure, it set us up for where we are today but now we've moved on and better has come.

That's how I view them - collectively, they had some good songs, and created a style and technique which altered many conventions used before they arrived (i.e., they pretty much created basic chord combinations to establish "pop" music). As musicians though, none of them are/were particularly brilliant.

I'm astounded to read so many people putting Muse into this thread - they're by far and away one of the most collectively talented group of modern musicians and their music is incredibly diverse. I was a bit underwhelmed by their newer material (and live touring of it), but they're easily one of the best bands I've had the pleasure to see play live.

It's amazing reading some of the other entries as well - I don't profess to be a fan of Adele or Lady Gaga for example, but most folks would realise that the former has a cracking voice and the latter has written some very accomplished pieces of music (which have both succeeded as the pop/dance songs they're performed as; as well as being widely adapted as rock or classical covers - any music which can be adapted as such is a success).

It's all about opinions though I guess - no doubt people would frown at my choices:

Red Hot Chili Peppers, U2 (my most hated band), Radiohead, Kings of Leon, The Glee Cast (karaoke at it's best), Paolo Nutini and Rihanna to name a few.

[supershotmo]

Gary Glitter.

Never been the same without New Kids on the Block.

[PeeJay]

The majority of The Beatles songs are just glorified nursery rhymes.

Out of interest, which Beatles songs do you think are not 'glorified nursery rhymes', if any?

[Marabou Stork]

But what do I know? I made a comment about the Arctic Monkeys, and apparently it's the most wrong thing ever seen on these forums.



:greengrin

'Twas merely hyperbole old chap.

[GhostofBolivar]

To all those who say the Beatles are overrated, all I can say is you were obviously not around when they were at their peak. They were the pioneers and forerunners of all the bands this country has produced and whilst their music may not seem outstanding to some nowadays, at the time they were the group that all other bands looked up to and they were the ones breaking through the boundaries of music as it was in the sixties.

All the bands this country has produced? Every single one?

Saying stuff like that just proves the point of anyone who says they're overrated.

I always thought Sunshine of Your Love and Purple Haze sounded pretty effin good and they were recorded in the sixties. Love Me Do? Not so much. And I Am The Walrus is simply terrible.


You only have to look at the number of other artists who have recorded their own versions of Lennon and McCartney compositions to realise how influential they were.

And that doesn't mean anything in this day in age. Look at all the people who've covered Rihanna, (http://www.covermesongs.com/tag/rihanna) for instance; YouTube's full of Cee-Lo Green covers; (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cee+lo+green+cover&aq=f) And everyone and their uncle covered Born This Way (http://www.covermesongs.com/2011/02/presenting-the-five-best-born-this-way-covers-so-far.html) within minutes of it being released.

Hell, it didn't even mean anything back when Mr Tambourine Man wasn't famous for being a Bob Dylan song.

[Hibrandenburg]

This thread could potentially even outrun the calendar thread.

[Hibrandenburg]

Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson,

[Barney McGrew]

No chance

Every chance :wink:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/events/overrated/shortlist.shtml

[marinello59]

This thread could potentially even outrun the calendar thread.

You may well be right. Musical snobbery is just so addictive. :greengrin

[Sylar]

Every chance :wink:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/events/overrated/shortlist.shtml

I feel somewhat vindicated to see Radiohead and U2 in that list :greengrin

Nirvana and The Smiths are also a very good shout :agree:

[SRHibs]

Queen.

[James70]

All the bands this country has produced? Every single one?

Saying stuff like that just proves the point of anyone who says they're overrated.

I always thought Sunshine of Your Love and Purple Haze sounded pretty effin good and they were recorded in the sixties. Love Me Do? Not so much. And I Am The Walrus is simply terrible.



And that doesn't mean anything in this day in age. Look at all the people who've covered Rihanna, (http://www.covermesongs.com/tag/rihanna) for instance; YouTube's full of Cee-Lo Green covers; (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cee+lo+green+cover&aq=f) And everyone and their uncle covered Born This Way (http://www.covermesongs.com/2011/02/presenting-the-five-best-born-this-way-covers-so-far.html) within minutes of it being released.

Hell, it didn't even mean anything back when Mr Tambourine Man wasn't famous for being a Bob Dylan song.

As I have already stated you had to grow up with the Beatles to really appreciate what they did for the music industry. If you are 31 years old then you weren't even born until 10 years after the Beatles split up!

Before the Beatles came along the music charts were pretty mundane and the majority of material was written by professional song writers in Tin Pan Alley. The whole music scene was stagnant, similar I suppose to what it was like in the 70s before Punk and New Wave came along.

Yes, there were other great acts such as Elvis but few bands of any note other than the skiffle groups which influenced the Beatles.

I am not a huge Beatles fan myself but to say they are over rated is totally ridiculous. They shaped and influenced a whole generation and their music shows little sign of aging. I doubt if any other band will ever produce such an extensive or varied catalogue of material over a 10 year period or have such a worldwide effect as the Beatles had.

[easty]

As I have already stated you had to grow up with the Beatles to really appreciate what they did for the music industry. If you are 31 years old then you weren't even born until 10 years after the Beatles split up!

Before the Beatles came along the music charts were pretty mundane and the majority of material was written by professional song writers in Tin Pan Alley. The whole music scene was stagnant, similar I suppose to what it was like in the 70s before Punk and New Wave came along.

Yes, there were other great acts such as Elvis but few bands of any note other than the skiffle groups which influenced the Beatles.

I am not a huge Beatles fan myself but to say they are over rated is totally ridiculous. They shaped and influenced a whole generation and their music shows little sign of aging. I doubt if any other band will ever produce such an extensive or varied catalogue of material over a 10 year period or have such a worldwide effect as the Beatles had.

None of thier videos were in 3D though, so they obviously weren't that great. :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Don't think its fair to call these people over rated artists, they're just the latest chart rubbish thats popular at the moment and will be forgotten about next year.

Not going to be a popular on here but I think Oasis are massively over-rated. Two fantastic albums to start with and a few really good songs peppered about over the following years but they get lost in between all the rest of the boring, repetitive guff that they keep churning out. Same as Beady Eye, luckily they have a ready made fanbase who will follow them no matter what but they wont make themselves many new fans as they're just not that good.

The majority of The Beatles songs are just glorified nursery rhymes.

Although in fairness nursery rhymes are probably under-rated. Classic songs that have appealed to generation after generation after generation :agree: :greengrin

Agree about Oasis - the first album was an absolutely massive breath of fresh air when it appeared. It's hard to remember how stagnant British guitar-based music was in the period following Madchester, Suede's brief impact notwithstanding.
Far superior to the second album as well, though the second managed to achieve that elusive 'soundtrack for a period' status.
The rest of their stuff has been patchy though and sometimes cringeworthy - less a homage to the Beatles than slavish mimicking of riffs and chord progressions.

[Biff Tannen]

The 10:04's

haha! Maybe if we had made it! twaaat!:rolleyes:

[.Sean.]

How you guys doing Paul? Any word on the single? Been listening to it on the Myspace, liking it.

[Sodje_18]

Can't believe it's taken this long for somebody to mention Kanye West :rolleyes: Complete bellend and he auto tunes everything.

[Jim44]

Van Morrison

[Haymaker]

Oasis
U2
RHCP
The Libertines/Pete Doherty.

[Hank Schrader]

Oasis.

[Biff Tannen]

How you guys doing Paul? Any word on the single? Been listening to it on the Myspace, liking it.

Good Sean, just plugging away!!Cheers man, finish a recording with Tony Doogan next week so will let you hear them as soon as we get them. Hope all is well

[Biff Tannen]

I appreciate that they were game changers in the world of music and we have a lot to thank them for; but that doesn't affect the massive exaggeration of their quality. So often I hear them quoted as the best band ever and although they were good and had a lot of good tracks, the hysteria surrounding them makes them over-rated for me. They were innovative, but their albums were just not as good as many make out.

It's like saying an Apple Macintosh is the best bit of technology ever made. Sure, it set us up for where we are today but now we've moved on and better has come.

Disagree. Best band ever.:not worth

[Wembley67]

How the heck can Van Morrison, Oasis and U2 be listed..some people popping in a couple of hornets I reckon :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Oasis
U2
RHCP
The Libertines/Pete Doherty.

Just heard on Five Live, that he has been jailed for six months for possession. Don't really see the point of sending the guy to jail, treatment would be more beneficial IMO.

[Hillsidehibby]

How the heck can Van Morrison, Oasis and U2 be listed..some people popping in a couple of hornets I reckon :greengrin

See these pesky youngsters............:greengrin

I read yesterday that Lady Gaga made £60M last year. Jesus wept.:confused:

[easty]

See these pesky youngsters............:greengrin

I read yesterday that Lady Gaga made £60M last year. Jesus wept.:confused:

Is that the name of one of her songs?

[Storar]

Just heard on Five Live, that he has been jailed for six months for possession. Don't really see the point of sending the guy to jail, treatment would be more beneficial IMO.

He's been in jail, had numerous warnings and fines and has been sent to rehab more times that even he can remember. Once again he's broken the law and a prison sentence is the only sensible outcome in my opinion.

[Geo_1875]

Beyonce. She wasn't the best singer or the best looking in Destiny's Child imho. But she was the lightest skinned. Go figure!!!

[Hibby70]

Has to be Nirvana for me. I actually have just about everything they have released and 95% of it is absolute garbage. I decent album (2 if you include the MTV unplugged one).

If you listen to the live stuff (excluding said unplugged) they sound terrible.

Used to be a fan when I was younger but must have just been an image thing.

So for me its them or Bon Jovi (who I've always hated with a passion).

[James70]

So called 80s soft rock has never really grabbed me so all artists who fall into this category, Bon Jovi for me too!

At the risk of upsetting a few people I would also put the Sex Pistols into the overrated category. Apart from being anti establishment and being seen as the spearhead of the Punk revolution I don't think they could be classified as great musicians though their live performaces were very interesting I'm sure! They certainly shook the cobwebs off the music industry in the late 70s.

[Saorsa]

Just heard on Five Live, that he has been jailed for six months for possession. Don't really see the point of sending the guy to jail, treatment would be more beneficial IMO.I do, I think he should just be left there too, it'll save sending him back again later when he re-offends.

[matty_f]

Agree about Oasis - first two albums were outstanding, but they went on a fairly rapid downward trajectory after them.

Also overrated IMHO are (in no particular order):
Paul Weller
Manic Street Preachers
The Libertines
The Killers
The Foo Fighters

[Calvin]

Agree about Oasis - first two albums were outstanding, but they went on a fairly rapid downward trajectory after them.

Also overrated IMHO are (in no particular order):
Paul Weller
Manic Street Preachers
The Libertines
The Killers
The Foo Fighters

Strongly agree with everything you say with the exceptions of the Libertines, who I think are correctly rated as a great modern band based on music and lyrics, and of the Manics who I think are underrated if anything - I barely meet a person who talks them up, despite them being a very good group! (IMO of course)

[bod]

haha! Maybe if we had made it! twaaat!:rolleyes:

nae guest list for me then :boo hoo:

[Thegreenside]

Totally agree with what you said about AM, loved the first album just going for it, almost sounded a little like The Libertines but their not everyones cup of tea. Really liked the 2nd one but the 3rd album was totally different, a lot darker and I just don't think it suits them. Haven't even bothered to listen to their recent album after I listened to one track 'Brick-by-Brick'.

brick by brick was only really a song for matt helders have a blast of "library pictures" cant wait for a heavier album:agree:

[Thegreenside]

1. oasis
2. kanye west
3. BRUNO MARS
4. arcade fire
5. coldplay
6. jason mraz
7. BRUNO MARS

[Steve-O]

Just heard on Five Live, that he has been jailed for six months for possession. Don't really see the point of sending the guy to jail, treatment would be more beneficial IMO.

If the UK prison system is anything like here, then he may be able to get that treatment inside :agree:

As for this thread, some people talk a load of PISH! :greengrin

[Jim44]

See these pesky youngsters............:greengrin

I read yesterday that Lady Gaga made £60M last year. Jesus wept.:confused:

Thanks for the compliment. :greengrin I quite liked a couple of the very early Them numbers then it was all downhill from there.

[Betty Boop]

If the UK prison system is anything like here, then he may be able to get that treatment inside :agree:

As for this thread, some people talk a load of PISH! :greengrin

I just thought that at a time, when the Tories are talking about overcrowded prisons and reducing sentences for lesser crimes, it seems pointless to jail folk for possession. Anyway I'm not sure if you would get treatment on a six month sentence ? Our attitude to drug use is all over the place IMO.