Top 3 Most Overrated Artists contest in R&R.

I nominate
#1 KISS (What is R&R hall of fame after all?)
#2 Jonn Bon Jovi (actually can share same spot with Kiss)
#3 Rolling Stones (mostly they just don't make sense and hardly ever I can note of anyone being any good there)

The Rolling Stones? Are you drunk?
Rolling Stones??? Just goes to show there's never going to be consensus regarding anything aesthetically subjective.
Bojack, I usually prefer to be stoned over any trips or alcohole.
Anyone who understands music would tell same about this band.
No bright side anywhere except marketting and certainly overmarketting their glamour.
Terrible vocal(s) blended with primitive music chaotically blended onto the whole band on most of albums. Sticky Fingers is OK at most as an exception.
Ti-i-i-ime is on my side -- Yes it-i-is!
And finally, after all It's my dislike of the artist that I think shouldn't be that high of a rating.
Oh, you are actually serious! I am not a churchgoing man, but I will pray for you, as anyone who speaks poorly about The Rolling Stones is certainly troubled and not of sound musical taste. Fellow Audiogoners, may we all bow our heads at this time and say a prayer for Czarivey.
No doubt about it.
R&R wouldn't be the same without The Stones.
David Bowie
Elvis Presley
Phil Collins
Agree on 1 and 2. But Stones are all-time top 3 in pop after Beatles and Dylan.
Czarivey, The Stones are a rock band and what one would now call a garage rock band. Rock is not necessarily supposed to be sophisticated or technically difficult and rock singers do not have opera quality voices. It's about getting those primal juices flowing, getting yer ya-yas out.

That said, there are probably lots of people who like rock but not the Stones. Everybody has different tastes. I love early to 70s Stones but I do think it's time for them, along with a lot of other classic rockers, to hang it up before they become pathetic.
Bruce Springsteen.
Exile on Main Street is one of the best rock records of all time. Maybe like too 5.
I enjoy quality of musicias and don't care what style of music it is. Can't say anythng even simiar to Velvet Underground, The Band, The Who, Led Zeppelin -- they're just great.
Facts described here about RS speak for themselves.
None argues that RS are primitive and terrible musicians and yet, they're very popular and reached R&R hall of fame.
All of these facts are the facts of them being way way overrated. Math can make sophisticated arguments simpler especially to the question "Why Rolling Stones?" ..
See, you have to be cool to understand cool.
The Rolling Stones are cool.
Czarivey? Not so much...
Since I used to shop at the Colony in NYC years ago, I
learned one thing- People who SELL records are not the
people who MAKE records. They think they are, but they're
not. Forgetting, the RR Hall of Fame, which has become a
sham, it's not about whether or not you like a particular
artist. It's the impact they had on the music scene. I
really don't know what lasting effect Bon Jovi had, but as
to Kiss and the Stones... well, if you have to ask, you
can't afford it. Sleep well.
I should kick myself for even weighing in on these never to be resolved contests over who's good/who's bad. That said, to say that Keith Richards, Ron Woods, and Mick Taylor are "bad musicians" makes me wonder what standards are being applied here. These guys show up on pretty much everyone's "greatest ever" lists, Keith in particular. The thing I respect about the Stone's guitar work is that they eschew flashy "guitar god" pyrotechnics. Instead, they use two guitars to weave a bobbing and weaving rhythmic background that is musically greater than the single elements. If you can read music, check out the way their songs are put together and you'll see what I mean. You had groups like Clapton, Baker, and Bruce who were towering individual greats engaged in alpha male musical battles for dominance and many people respect that kind of group as an example of greatness. The Stones are the antithesis of that kind of musicianship imo. For them, it's a tribal musical thing, a sum greater than the parts.

Ah ... the Stones' haters. Well, It's Sunday and my birthday, no less, so let's make some noise and stir the pot up a bit. The R&R Hall of Fame matters about as much as the Grammies do. So, forgetting about this year's inductees, why would you even throw the Stones under the bus, when there are at least 4 other previous years' inductees that could be seriously questioned. For starters ... Doors, Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers, Ramones, and Rush.

Listen to 'Let it Bleed' or 'Exile', then let's chat.

This and that given, explained, presented. I agree they're cool, have few good songs, another this and that further down the road -- agree!
But I still still feel that they're overrated.
I love the Stones (up through "Sticky Fingers"--I don't get the hoopla about "Exile"). They have created some great sounds and deserve to be recognized as one of the best rock bands ever. They might be past their prime but if you look at their youthful accomplishments they are not overrated.
Re Stones, I'm actually a big fan of A Bigger Bang, their last studio album, especially the big time tracks Rough Justice and Let Me Down Slow.
I would like to know who the people who feel that the stones and springsteen don't belong in the ROCK AND ROLL hall of fame feel should be there. You are taking issue with two of the most influential live and recorded artists of all time.
I'll make the argument for The Stones and acknowledge the argument against them.

Rock music is simple, primitive, reductionist, sexualized, and aggressive right-brain music. It requires a back beat and a compelling lead guitarist who understands the anarchic role of a guitar in that formula. And it requires nothing else - indeed adding more (eg, harmony) dilutes the product.

The Stones are masters at the art. They make very simple music that many (including me) find compelling.

Note: While technical proficiency has very little to do with this, The Velvet Underground is a curious choice to hold against The Stones on this front. Keith is an outstanding rhythm player, Charlie Watts is a fine drummer and Ron Woods is a monster lead player. By comparison, The Velvet Underground is hardly head turning. Lou Reed and Mo Tucker aren't exactly virtuoso players.

The argument against The Stones is the argument against pure rock n roll. It's simple, primitive, reductionist, sexualized, and aggressive right-brain music. Some people find that vulgar.

No argument from me.

BTW, I'd argue that Exile is revered because it is fantastically right-brain. It's stumbling, drunken blues run amok and IMHO might be as perfect an execution of that aesthetic as has ever been tracked.
Sorry, that should have read: Ronnie WOOD is a monster lead player.
Always thought Ronnie Wood was more of a force to be reckoned with when he was with Stewart & The Faces. Never thought he was as good as Mick Taylor was in the Stones. Wood fit in better with the Stones' image but he was never in the same class as Taylor as far as his gtr playing. This is all based on memory as I haven't listened to the Stones in DECADES!;)
Czarivey: Your grammar and taste are very questionable. Let's forget about all the great (and timeless) songs for a moment. Let's talk "musicianship", since you're chosen to attack the RS on that level. Watts and Wyman are one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock history. Keith is second only to Chuck Berry as a masterful licks player. Mick Taylor is one of the finest guitarists I've ever heard. As for Woody, I named my son after him. Jagger is not a great singer...really? They say you can't argue taste. In this case I'll make an exception.
Lindisfarne, as you may know, the site has technical problems and amateur crew supporting it. As I was typing some letters did go wrong or didn't go to the screen at all no matter how many times i tried to type them. We ain't talkin'bout gramma here dood after all.
If you haven't heard better guitarist than Mick Taylor, Good 4U, coz I did and plenT and not only rokk. Can any of them match the skill of Jimi or FZ I'd highly highly doubt it.
After all they're all celebrities so let them b and let me b 2
U R also free to specify any other band or performer you think is ovegreated instead of accusing me atcacking Drolling stones.
Excuse my wrong spelling dorn.
While I can agree with your first two picks, Kiss and John Bon Jovi (despite his millions of fans, mostly women), including the Stones in a list of most "overrated" is just wrong. Yes, the Stones of the last twenty years or so are not the same as the Stones of the 60's and 70's but, even at their worst, they are better than the majority of what's out there today. Look, the Stones have been phoning it in for the last several years but you can expect a backlash by calling them overrated. Just put Elvis in there next time and see what happens.
I would swap the Stones for Metallica unless you are 13 years old.
Just want to point out that being very good and being over or under rated are not mutually exclusive.

Springsteen probably tops my list. I went to college in JErsey in his heyday and acclimated quite a bit, but I find a lot of his music just flat out boring and whiny. I do like some of his stuff though. SO still good, but overrated, except in his home turf in Jersey I suppose.

Kiss is seldom held in high regard musically, so I doubt they are overrated, but nothing special overall, though they were trend setters, FBOFW.

The Stones...other than not being a fan of Mick Jagger's vocals when performing live, I think they deserve the accolades they receive. Mick is part of that formula though, so I would only judge him on those terms. It doesn't really matter how he stacks up vocally against others, though he can hold his own with most pure blues singers, I suppose.

Most underrated/overlooked these days is probably The Kinks.

Your point re: early Ron Wood vs late Ron Wood is noted, but I disagree. I think the guy has continued to improve throughout his career and his most recent solo recording (I Feel Like Playing) is my favorite. I do acknowledge that I am in the minority on this one, so it's more "One man's meat...." than worth debating.

I won't go the overrated route for the same reason - One man's meat...
Lindisfarne----Did you REALLY name your son after Ronnie Wood? If so, what does he think about that? What is his age now? I hope he gets it.
My main man was born with a boner. He gets it. He loves it.

David Bowie...Overrated? That's just crazytalk! Listen to "Ziggy Stardust," "Hunky Dory," and "Aladdin Sane," and then resubmit your comment-if you can. David Bowie...Seriously??
How can you all be calling the Stones and Bowie overrated when there are terrible next generation bands like "Fall Out Boy" and "Maroon 5" selling millions of units. These bands have no style; they are formula bands that the record labels sell to the iPod users. Now IMHO, I would call these lame "R&R" bands overrated.

Kiss, Bowie, the Stones readily admit that they were influenced by the great blues artists and early R&R'rs and they have the talent to develop their own unique style. They'll be listened to for years to come.
Let's throw another hat in the ring of shame. I was watching a documentary last night about the rise and fall of the Clash. This is another band that a lot of critics fawn over. One of them said "The greatest three bands; The Beatles, the Stones, and the Clash." Personally, I think London Calling is a pretty great album. However, taking their career in sum, I've never been a smitten as some are. Mainly because I just never got sucked into the "anti-virtuoso" "everyman is a rock star of you've got the right persona" ethos of the punk era.
1 - Metallica
2 - Guns & Roses
3 - Green Day
MEtallica is underrated if anything.

Listen to a few of the various classical renditions of their tunes like the ones by Apcalyptica perhaps to gain a better appreciation of the craftmenship that actually does go into their work, like it or not.

I like Green Day overall. Probably the best rock group these days that is still fairly popular and talented overall. Their albums are not always consistent but many great tunes.

A solid core of talent in both acts.

Guns & Roses is what they is, which is fine by me.

These are all acts/recordings that require a good sound system that can be cranked effectively to enjoy.

Many systems, even those that might be "high end" otherwise, might run out of gas quickly with either your typical MEtallica or Green Day recording. They are loud but still very good for what they are!!!!!!

Along with large scale classical works and big band, many a MEtallica and Green Day recording are perhaps among the toughest to get to sound good in a home system, but when they do, and you like this kind of rocks!!!!

This kind of music and recording is much easier to tackle with portable devices and headphones for most, which is probably why that is how most people listen to this stuff.

Will anyone remember The Clash in another ten years or so?

I'll buy them as overrated, though definitely influencial. I much prefer The Cure and The Church overall.
If G&R get rid of Axel Rose, they'll be very descent indeed taken into consideration skillful Slash.

Metallica stepped into era of the tasteless, plain and 'rectangular'(imho) southern rock and did things different with presence of talent, skills, workmanship and shows.

Not knowing that RS crowd is sooo defensive towards their beloved maestros Keith Richard, Mick Jagger, Ronnie Wood, Mick Taylor, I can only imagine how southern rock crowd would be defensive towards Alman Brothers, Boston, Aerosmith, Kansas etc!

06-29-14: Kb54
I would like to know who the people who feel that the stones and springsteen don't belong in the ROCK AND ROLL hall of fame feel should be there. You are taking issue with two of the most influential live and recorded artists of all time.
So where those imbeciles and heretics should be including me?
1.- Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan (head to head)

2.- Bruce Springsteen
Dylan, maybe overrated. Mostly because so many including myself tend to hold him in highest regard over many years, not because he does not deserve it.
No mention of The Grateful Dead yet?

I'd hold them in higher regard overall if they spent more time innovating like with Terrapin Station and less time doodling mindlessly while someone left the mike on.

As it is I do respect them and like a lot of their stuff, but yeah, maybe overrated from my perspective.

Jerry Garcia did also design some nice ties though!

On teh flip side, New Riders of the Purple Sage and The Outlaws are underrated. :^)

For the record, I wasn't being defensive when I pointed out that Keith Richards, Charlie, Watts and Ron Wood all display far more technical skill than their counterparts in The Velvet Underground, which you cited as a more skilled group of musicians in your original post.

Of the Velvets, only John Cale can reasonably be deemed as technically proficient relative to their RS counterpart. None of Sterling Morrison, Lou Reed, and Mo Tucker ever demonstrated much technical skill, probably because it was not remotely important for them to do so, given the music that they wanted to play.

You can certainly prefer the Velvet's songwriting (if that's your cup of tea) vis a vis The Stones. For better or worse (maybe better and worse), the VU really abstracted the rock n roll rhythmic conceit into something very different and spawned a major branch of rock music that included Brian Eno, David Byrne, and many prog rock luminaries. No question that they were creative and innovative, but it would be very tough to make a case for their playing.

In the end, I think much of the response here was anything but defensive, it was simply an attempt to address the misinformation in your original post regarding the technical skills of The RS as instrumentalists.

Incidentally, none of this means that The Rolling Stones are/are not underrated. In my view, that's just a function of personal taste.
The Beatles.
i submit that to qualify as overrated, you have to be a real critic's pet, which would exclude some of the aforementioned nominees (bonjovi, kiss, etc.). my own candidates:
u2--as seth rogen immortally opined with respect to steely dan (who i quite like), they gargle my balls. noone who trumpets his own sincerity should wear sunglasses indoors
eric clapton--much beloved on these pages, but nothing he's done since layla has grabbed me. and layla was all the way back in '70
tom waits--seems like a lovely guy, but the appeal of the hipster-growl thing completely escapes me. his numerous records earn hyperbolic critical praise, tho i don't know anyone who actually listems to 'em
Lindisfarne, great reply, thank you, I mistakenly thought you named the boy Ronnie! This thread is amusing, predictable, and funny. Paul Simon said it, one mans ceiling is another mans floor. Where's the beef I say? There is no accounting for taste, and I could write a sociology paper on the responses to the initial posting. If I were a sociologist. I'm not.
In what way are the Dead over rated?
So someone doesn't like the Stones and someone doesn't like the Beatles. So what? History has already judged them to be great.
Let's see...

1. Bloaty and the Hooterfish
2. Anything with Gene Simmons
3. Anything with David Lee Roth (Post VH)
4. Anything with Axl Rose (Post Appetite for Destruction)
5. Anything with Scott Weiland (Post STP)
6. Anything involving Nude Pictures of Yoko Ono
Martykl, in my comment about being defensive I thought it's clearly visible that you're not on this picture being defensive, but rather informative and argumentative. It's totally different.
Many people believe certain artists are overrated for certain reasons, but bottom line is that practically any popular artist including R&R artist is somewhat overrated and not as good as one actually is.
"In what way are the Dead over rated? "

Probably not really, at least in terms of studio recordings.

I've just never been a fan of their live performances for the most part. Reckoning is good though. Saw them live once in 1981 after looking forward to it quite a bt, it was a huge disappointment and I was bored to death actually. It was a free concert though, so maybe we got what we payed for.
Given Loomis' observation that (to paraphrase) - in order to be overrated, you've got to be highly rated - I found this. It's just one rating of rock bands, but a fun one that someone went to a fair bit of trouble to cook up. So, for your consideration:
("In what way are the Dead over rated? "

Probably not really, at least in terms of studio recordings.

I've just never been a fan of their live performances for the most part. Reckoning is good though. Saw them live once in 1981 after looking forward to it quite a bt, it was a huge disappointment and I was bored to death actually. It was a free concert though, so maybe we got what we payed for.)

I have been one who always felt their live concert far exceed their albums......but then again I enjoy jazz, bluegrass, blues, Americanna and improvising......I can understand one being bored with drums and space, since at times they were less than attention grabbing for me, too.

Get "One from the Vault" on sounds great and offers the listener a good idea of what it was all about on a good night.

On a bad night......the hype of a live show was over-rated....but there never has been a band that toured as much as the Dead. Sure they had some "less than", tours, years or shows......but an off night of the Dead beats an on night of work anytime!!!!! And, for that matter.....most live concerts in general.