Comments on: This Post Is SO Overrated

By: xuxppxxuxyyy

xuxppxxuxyyy — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:43:51 +0000

hello it is test. WinRAR provides the full RAR and ZIP file support, can decompress CAB, GZIP, ACE and other archive formats.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:51:20 +0000

Nice…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:07:43 +0000

Nice

By: James Barker

James Barker — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:25:58 +0000

Hi there,my name is James,i’m 16,i’m a huge fan of rock music,and i also like Nirvana,but can you please tell me what is so fucking great about Nirvana’s Nevermind,i think it’s ok,but you
have to admit it is extremly overrated,it’s way too commercial,punky,over-produced,and there isn’t enough songs on the album,there needs to be at least 18 songs on it.It needs to be far more raw,dirty,hardcore and heavy to satisfy my needs.If you have the answer pleas write back to me at my E-Mail Address,Thank you!!Bye!!!

By: mccleary

mccleary — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:58:25 +0000

It’s very rare cases where an artist manages to do something first and also do it better than most of those who followed after.

Much less true for anyone who rightly considers the single (as opposed to the album) to be the true unit of rock and roll.

Tomorrow Never Knows — Beatles
Pay To Cum — Bad Brains
Israelites — Desmond Dekker
Oh Happy Day — Edwin Hawkins Singers
Bela Lugosi’s Dead — Bauhaus
Smells Like Teen Spirit — Nirvana
etc.

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:01:23 +0000

Here is a record that is far ahead of its time and may or may not ever get the recognition it deserves:

ftp://www.farceswannamo.com/CBO_ZIP/

IIRC, Wriggley’s found at least one track a bit “out there” for his personal tastes. It is good because it sounds unlike any record you have ever heard. One reviewer called in “genreless.”

Do people even listen to “out there” records any more like they did when VU and Bird were around?

By: D.A. Ridgely

D.A. Ridgely — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:03:17 +0000

Because they’re significantly out in front of their audiences, they usually get truly universal acclaim and recognition years after the fact, when their innovations have been assimilated. But at that point, the very originality for which an album earned its renown won’t be nearly as striking when it’s considered ahistorically, as an isolated listening experience. It’s very rare cases where an artist manages to do something first and also do it better than most of those who followed after. Charlie Parker comes to mind, but he doesn’t have a lot of company.

Great point. Even with Bird, most of us today never heard him in his time when his sound was new, so his impact on us is diminished by having already attuned ourselves by listening to later musicians who took from him what they could. The same could be said perhaps even more so about Armstrong. You would have to listen to a lot of what people were listening to before Armstrong and pretend you’d never heard anything afterward to get a sense of the revolution in that trumpet. Of course, the latter is impossible.

BTW, it’s one more sure sign of codgerdom that I’ve never heard more than half of that Top 10 list. [sigh]

By: dan

dan — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:02:47 +0000

“Charlie Parker comes to mind”

Hendrix, perhaps? Maybe VU? Depends how far ahead of the curve they have to be, and more importantly how narrowly we can define what they were doing. If “psychedelic blues-rock electric guitar god” is a suitable genre, I think Hendix fits. But I only say that because I hate Stevie Ray Vaughn.

I also hate the Beatles, but maybe they have to be considered too.

By: joeo

joeo — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:03:18 +0000

In a world where music is either overrated or underrated, these ten artists got exactly what they deserved. By Chuck Klosterman