Spot on ! Most people are just stating a successful band they don't like. In reality the worst bands ever are ones you have never heard of, because they are so shit they never got any air time or a recording contract.

Still, to join in with the game. . .

I think Nirvana, Oasis, U2, Beatles are all hyped way beyond their actual talent.
(Bitter and Twisted, Fri 31 Dec 2010, 1:35, 2 replies)

P.S And all Radiohead albums after OK Computer. I mean, come on ? It ain't avant garde and arty. Its just fucking drivel.
(Bitter and Twisted, Fri 31 Dec 2010, 1:41, closed)

Thing is,
it's hard to completely dismiss bands like the ones you name - although I pretty much agree with you - without at least acknowledging their influence.

Nirvana and the Beatles for sure have had a massive influence on music, and it's probably safe to say at least one or two bands the you DO like wouldn't be what they are if they hadn't been exposed to the earlier ones music.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Fri 31 Dec 2010, 8:34, closed)

Let me explain it this way . . .

A graph, on the x axis "Talent". On the y axis "Fame".

We can expect a line going upwards so as talent increases then so does fame.

Bands who are above the line have fame out of proportion to their talent.

Bands like those I name are all very talented, however their position on the y axis is far far too high.

If the Beatles had never exisited but came along now how famous would they be ? Would Sgt Peppers still be called the greatest album ever ?
(Bitter and Twisted, Fri 31 Dec 2010, 19:01, closed)