1)U2 (#15) - realistically U2 aren't that good. ok yeh theyve been around forever but they havent made anything that special

2)Radiohead (#18) - i really like Radiohead, but they're not top 20 material

3)Outkast (#54) - haha need i say more. I dont understand this site's obsession with Outkast. They give the word 'Shithouse' a new meaning

4)Bob Dylan (#3) - Wrote great songs just can't sing them very well

5) Missy Misdemeanour Elliot (#87) - what.......the.......hell

9) Elvis Presley
15) U2
17) Nirvana
18) Radiohead
2053) Los del Río

5. Led Zeppelin
30. Doors (or at least Jim)
48. Madonna (she has 2 or 3 good songs, though)
80. Frank Zappa/Mothers
91. Eagles
97. Grateful Dead

17) Nirvana
18) Radiohead
38) Beck
81) Black Sabbath
87) Missy Misdemeanor Elliott

6. Bruce Springsteen
7. Prince
8. The Who
12. R.E.M.
17. Nirvana

1. U2
2. Nirvana
3. Bruce Springsteen
4. The Who
5. The Kinks

They all sound too average to be good.

1. Jimmy Hendrix
2. The Clash
3. Radiohead
4. Bob Marley & The Wailers
5. Public Enemy

Most of the top artists are tragically overrated ! The only one that is underrated is Steely Dan. They should be in the top 5 unquestionably if you arepurely talking about songwriting and musical genius. Most of the overblown top 60 are average to say the least and their success is founded on style over content, image rather than ability. How can the Police be higher than Steely Dan ?

This thread is dangerous! I'm going to refrain.

1. U2 (15)
2. Blur (46)
3. Oasis (53)
4. Eminem (71)
5. Franz Ferdinand (101)

1)Pavement
2)Tom Waits (me want cookie!)
3)Rage Against the Machine
4)Eminem
5)the Cure/New Order/Depeche Mode (U2 are Godhead copared to these pansies)
*Van Halen

1. Bob Dylan
2. Tom Waits
3. Bruce Springsteen
4. Bjork
5. hip-hop music in general

I agree on the hip hop thang.

this thread makes me want to punch several people.


1. by default- hip hop in general (not all)

2. Rolling Stones (number 2 in the ranking )
3. The Who
4. The Clash
5. Nirvana

The hip-hop that you find on critics lists are picked mostly because of paranoid critics who don't know much about hip-hop, but feel they have to represent it with
names that are on the top of their minds. So don't be surprised that some hip-hop artists collect points easily on this site. I see this list as proof that the majority of critics are useless.

ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS?!?

Hip-hop is easily the most creative music of the past 20 years!

Dr. Dre and Outkast's fusion of funk and rap are genius. The gangsta lyrics are the best representation of nihilist poetry.

Obviously, you all don't understand it.

1.Oasis
2.Bjork
3.Madonna
4.Radiohead
5.Britpop (any)

nirvana! are you serious! i'm going to go against you all and call bleach the most under rated album of all time.

hip hop also rules. calling the whole genre over rated? ummm... well each to their own. i'm pretty satisfied with the positions of outkast etc.

i'm hesitant to call these artists over rated/crap. they're probably good, it's more likely that i'm just missing something.

tom waits - i need to get used to his voice before i like him. not on the priority list, however.
the strokes - i own their albums, i've listened to them over and over, and i still just don't get it.
the white stripes - i guess it's just not my thing
the verve - i never even thought bittersweet symphony was that great...
dire straits - sultans of swing is a brilliant song. but that's all i've ever liked about them.
REM - always found them kinda boring...
led zepplin - their music has always been unlistenable to me, except maybe stairway

yes, that's 7, i know. does it matter?

Why do lists look like this:
U2
The Clash
Elvis Costello
Bob Marley
Prince
David Bowie
Sex Pistols

If you really love music, how can you not find it insulting when critics neglect the whole picture.
I would like to know what is your reaction when seeing these names bunched up constantly without getting to see a wide range of music legends. The results on this site reflect the paranoid thoughts of a critic.
Critics insult music by calling it "safe", but they themselves play it safe by fearing to give credit to something that others might think is uncool, manufactured, or resembles elevator music.

fake list but just an example of hip-hop misrepresented:
100 Important Songs of The Last Quarter Century
68. Hey Ya - Outkast
47. Push It - Salt n Pepa
19. Crazy - Gnarls Barkley
9. Fight The Power - Public Enemy

Some of these are good songs but why mention some hip-hop when you're not gonna look at its whole picture + why give them as much credit when not being judged next to music of previous decades, because if critics do list them with real classics/great songs, then that just shows how uneven they are.

I think this is just a really hateful thread that is a pointless exercise in spewing out whatever bile you might have about particular artists for no good reason. Really, what's the point of bashing music artists that obviously lots of other people like? How about having something constructive or worthwhile to say?

My favorite part about this thread, though, is how some people give their opinions like they're facts, as if somehow because it's what they think and believe, that automatically makes it true. Even most music critics don't come across as that egotistic.

This thread has become a disaster. Instead of playful banter discussing artists who we believe might be a tad overrated, it has become a hate exercise for thos who are anti-Hip Hop and generally anti-Black music.
Thos has occured in prvious threads and it is simply unbelievable. Firstly, I have researched music from the last 10 years in trying to provide an overall sense of where it is right now - what genres/Artists hold the most influence and how they've developed. Despite its recent stagnant position Hip-Hop clearly leads the way in terms of influence, innovation and quality over the past decade. Dance probably comes next and rock after that. 100% Of the time I have encountered anti_hip Hop or dance opinions they have usually come from Rock fans and particularly white bread rock fans or metal fans> This is not to accuse or lump into a category but there has always been a suspicion of artists that don@t contain a guitar or drums> From now on those who have a single minded view on such matters should refrain from posting> This benefits nobody who loves music and such one sideness will gain you no respect from music lovers>

Please let me know if it seemed like I was against hip-hop & what did I say? I grew up listening to mostly hip-hop & believe that it easily dominated the 90s, so I defend it & feel it's underrated, but just in its time. How could it be a negative thing that I actually care that critics expand their tastes.
I don't care if a critic has different tastes than me, but when I see most lists looking the same & narrow, it makes me wonder if its these kind of critics that mostly make lists, and that's why it seems to me that the results on this site are uneven.

oh and speaking of ego, speaking of gaining no respect... from me anyway, if anyone cares.

reading through everyone's posts... first 7 are ok. the steely dan comment was a bit silly, but whatever, we all have our favourites. The next few are fine. then comes the hip hop comment, meh, no big deal. I can't stand the vast majority of jazz to be quite honest. When this thread really started to bug me was when Jorgito posted some crap about critics being paranoid. to Jorgito: "how would you know?" certainly doesn't sound like fact to me. sounds more like opinion. but hey, it's ok to form theories. There is quite possibly an element of truth in what you say.

I mostly agree with weezy. i don't think hip hop is the most creative music of the past 20 years, but hey, it might be. either that or electronic music i think. That last comment about people not understanding music might have been a little insulting. although it's probably true, it's not exactly necessary.

I couldn't even understand Jorgito's next comment but i'm sure whatever it was wasn't worth understanding anyway. Again, you talk as if it's fact. it's not. it's an educated guess, and a bad one at that. there are probably some critics out there who don't do their job well, but i guarentee the vast majority do. what's the point in blaming them anyway, it doesn't change anything.

rocky. why bother? really. read through, it's not that bad... except maybe Jorgito. But who cares? find something constructive/worthwhile? i can't see how this topic is any less constructive or worthwhile than other topics. besides, i find it somewhat interesting. And as for egostatic, unfortunately, i think the whole world has too big an ego, not just music critics. Luckily, you'll find the true pro's in most industries aren't insecure and don't have ego's.

Gizmo, it's subtle, but you're accusing alot of people of alot of things. although you present your post slightly better than Jorgito, it's pretty much the same thing. it's not fact. you're guessing too. analysed music for the past 10 years? what, you mean just like everyone who enjoys music?

Jorgito, thanks for trying to explain yourself. there is nothing wrong with caring about how well music critics do their job. what i don't like is how you're so militant about it. relax man.

Argh... next time someone says something stupid, can we just ignore it instead of jumping at the opportunity to insult them? what is this? some kind of competition? it looks like some people want it to be... speaking of competitions. let's see who's the most over-rated so far. i'm calculating this by number of times they have been mentioned:

Nirvana = 5
Radiohead = 5
U2 = 4
Tom waits = 3

+ lots on 2 mentions.

The Rolling Stones (2), the ARE good but not that good
Led Zeppelin (5), not particularly good at all
The Who (8), see the above
Pink Floyd (21), shite
Public Enemy (29), worse than the above

Bruce Springsteen
U2
The Doors
Beastie Boys
John Lennon (solo)
Madonna
Sonic Youth
The Police
Guns 'n' Roses
Patti Smith

All at least 20 places too high. (200 in the case of The Doors)

The Beatles
Yes they are the greatest singles artist easily
But in my opinion aren't much chop and overrated as an albums artist - too much mediocre filler on some of their albums...

1. The Rolling Stones (#2)

Enough top notch tunes to fill a compact disc, for sure - but in my experience, Rolling Stones LPs that are worth listening to top-to-tail are a rare breed.

2. Prince (#7)

Purple Rain is a Hell of an album, and I can get on board with chunks of Sign "O" The Times and Around The World In A Day, but the majority of his canon leaves me cold.

3. Marvin Gaye (#14)

I do enjoy the two "on" albums, but nowhere near enough to get him anywhere near my Top Twenty. In all fairness, I've yet to hear Here, My Dear, and would dearly like to.

4. Stevie Wonder (#20)

I love Innervisions, my first Wonder album, and after getting it I promptly went out and purchased Talking Book, Music Of My Mind and Songs In The Key Of Life - all in the same day. None of them moved me in the same way Innervisions did, although I did enjoy them. Currently filed under "disappointing".

5. The Byrds (#2

I have about five albums by The Byrds. I enjoy the work of The Byrds. I would never in my wildest dreams expect to see them listed as one of the thirty finest musical acts of all time.

All of you who list Prince are officially OFF of my Christmas list.

I'm with twister on everything other than Stevie Wonder. Maybe he shoulda started with Music of my Mind and made his way to Innervisions! So what's overrated? The last decade of music.

You're probably right, Jonmark. Plus there's a good chance I'd have been more into the albums had I collected them one at a time, as opposed to en masse.

Still, they're not going anywhere. Plenty of time for them to click with me. :)

1. Talking Heads #26 – Loved by critics (disproportionately so IMHO).

2. Roxy Music #41– 41 just seems way too high, but maybe I'm missing something.

3. U2 #15 – I see why they are massively popular as a bombastic rock band, but will people really still be listening to them in fifty years?

4. Bruce Springsteen #6 – The top ten should be reserved for more innovative performers.

5. R.E.M. #12 – Started jangly, ended ponderous. (I'm glad they are ahead of U2, but should not be ahead of VU, or about 20 others).

I agree with Loophole and twister. Not any of the others though. Radiohead and Nirvana? :/

I do really like Stevie Wonder though Twister, I think you should give him one more chance. How can one not like "I Believe", "Superstition", "As", "Pastime Paradise", Maybe Baby", etc?

anybody who thinks prince is overrated doesnt know what he/she is talking about...the guy is a genius...he is the musician's musician...

12. Sex Pistols-Influential, sure. But there just isn't much here that makes me go "Alright!". Much rather hear the Clash, the Ramones or even Green Day.

23. Madonna-I'm becoming more fond of Maddie's music as time goes on but still nowhere near enough to consider her a "Top 25 alltime" artist.

31. The Smiths-Like a tune here and there but if I owned a good anthology I think it's all I'll need. Let the flaming begin


49. Radiohead-Again, like a handful of tunes but I find most of OK COMPUTER, their supposed magnum opus, insufferable and hookless. Ditto HAIL and THE BENDS.

58. Missy Misdemeanor Elliott- Not a hip-hop basher but she doesn't register in my Top 100, let alone my Top 50. If I think of memorable hip-hop, I'm thinking Public Enemy, L.L., Jurassic 5, or Run DMC.

70. T. Rex- A good tune here and there but I think they get more credit than is due songwise. Inventing a genre doesn't mean it has lasting value.

77. Pixies-I completely fail to understand what excites their fans so much about these guys. It doesn't matter that bands I like name these guys as influences either.

92. Massive Attack-Most of their stuff induces yawns.

And I'll second the guy who said Steely Dan is COMPLETELY underrated. They easily fall in my Top 50 artists...probably Top 25.

Massive Attack is great chill music though

I like Massive Attack but never really gotten into Portishead. I like how people called Beth's voice the greatest voice in alternative rock and Massive Attack topped them when they added Liz Frasier to their lineup. The Smiths have written some terrific songs. But not all of them were that great. Even the Queen is Dead had a couple of stinkers. I also agree that the Clash should be ahead of the Sex Pistols. Both s/t and London Calling for that matter.

I'll second The Beatles (#1). The only album I listen to is Rubber Soul, because I get a bit tired of them after a couple songs most of the time. They were a great singles band, but so was Elvis Presley (#9, who's also overrated in my opinion).

Also Prince (#7). He has some really cool stuff, but only when he comes alive.

and Nirvana (#18), who weren't around long enough to merit them being higher than Elvis Costello, Radiohead, Stevie Wonder, The Smiths, Public Enemy, MILES DAVIS, The Kinks, okay, I could keep going but I'll stop.


But how about one we can all agree on:

Kanye West (#137). That means the only hip-hop groups ahead of him are the Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, OutKast, Eminem, Missy Elliot, Run DMC and Grandmaster Flash. This comes from not being able to flow worth beans and being incredibly uncreative in your samples (another 70s soul song...throw it on).

Here's a list of hip-hop groups/artists that should be ahead of Kanye West (and Eminem and Missy Elliot for that matter): The Roots, A Tribe Called Quest, The Fugees, Talib Kweli, Common, Wu-Tang Clan, Ghostface Killah (solo), Clipse, The Coup, De La Soul, Dizzee Rascal, Eric B. & Rakim, Jay-Z, Jurassic 5, Mobb Deep, Anything MF Doom related, Nas, Notorious B.I.G., People Under the Stairs

1. Sex Pistols - why oh why?
2. Bob Dylan
3. talking heads
4. public enemy - have only placed them this low since i don't know them better
5. lou reed

9. Elvis Presley
21. Pink Floyd
24. Van Morrison
30. The Doors
42. Roxy Music