I would go withe the Jones Brothers or the Naked Brother band.
They sound like they are trying too hard.
Really overrated band?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I would go withe the Jones Brothers or the Naked Brother band.
They sound like they are trying too hard.
Lonelynight
I couldn't agree more. They need to make a law: Your balls must drop before you are allowed to perform in a band.
The beatles
Lockedge
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
No, they sound like they haven't reached puberty yetBladeOfHeaven
Ya but they try to sound like that they already did.
This has been done extensively.
Topic closed.
...............*crickets*
What? no locked topic? Oh, guess the mods are busy banning people for expressing their honest opinion and using the letter "A" again.
UltimaSlayer94
So has 95% of the threads in OT.
fall out boy i thinksmokingsbad
*gets popcorn and waits for solidsnake35 to show up* >_>
[QUOTE="Lockedge"]The beatles
DrCoCoPiMp
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
The Beatles ARE overrated though. So many people think that without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the music we have today, yet at the same time The Beatles were going about their business, others were doing what the beatles were doing, and making similar strides. There just wasn't one single band making so many at the same time...at least not in Britain/North America, and who wereas highly visible to the public.
People hold Sgt pepper, Revolver and the White Album up to legendary status. I know people who praise the Beatles because they were TOLD to, not because they liked what they heard. It's like they take it as some kind of fact that "The Beatles were the most revolutionary, influential, musically talented band ever", and run with it.
No. They're overrated. They were a great band...each member filled each other's weaknesses in songwriting and whatnt. They all "clicked". But they're overrated.
I can also agree with the Rolling Stones. They had what, 2...3 solid albums, and then trailed off?
The beatles
Lockedge
You win
/thread
Jock strap heroes(gym class heroes lol)
slipknot
i guess avril lavigne, seeing that she has one of the most watched vids on youtube...
[QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]The beatles
Lockedge
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
The Beatles ARE overrated though. So many people think that without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the music we have today, yet at the same time The Beatles were going about their business, others were doing what the beatles were doing, and making similar strides. There just wasn't one single band making so many at the same time...at least not in Britain/North America.
People hold Sgt pepper, Revolver and the White Album up to legendary status. I know people who praise the Beatles because they were TOLD to, not because they liked what they heard. It's like they take it as some kind of fact that "The Beatles were the most revolutionary, influential, musically talented band ever", and run with it.
No. They're overrated. They were a great band...each member filled each other's weaknesses in songwriting and whatnt. They all "clicked". But they're overrated.
I can also agree with the Rolling Stones. They had what, 2...3 solid albums, and then trailed off?
I don't think so. Tell me one band more influential than The Beatles. They are not overrated, this is called TO GOOD TO BE TRUE. why do you think they lasted 8 yrz and made that much quality, even their pop songs were so simple but so great, cant go for centuries with that much talent in each individualz. Anywayz I'm waiting to be called fanboy, just go on with it, but thats how it is.
It really is subjective when discussing "overrated" bands. Personally I think a lot of bands are overrated such as:
- Beatles(never understood why they're considered so musically god-like)
- Radiohead(I find them extremely boring. Creep is the only song I like by them)
- Oasis (Arrogant jerks who make dull music)
- Guns and Roses
- Mars Volta (I'm all for experimental music but this just sounds like noise with lyrics that are failing at trying to be deep and complex)
The Beatles are the most overrated band. They're REALLY REALLY GOOD... but the most overrated.. since you know, they're the number 1 selling band in the world. You can't do that without being overrated.Dethshoot
The fact that lotz opf people think they R overrated means they R underrated :|
It really is subjective when discussing "overrated" bands. Personally I think a lot of bands are overrated such as:
- Beatles(never understood why they're considered so musically god-like)
- Radiohead(I find them extremely boring. Creep is the only song I like by them)
- Oasis (Arrogant jerks who make dull music)
- Guns and Roses
- Mars Volta (I'm all for experimental music but this just sounds like noise with lyrics that are failing at trying to be deep and complex)
LAZZOR
I disagree with everything you just said.
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]The beatles
DrCoCoPiMp
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
The Beatles ARE overrated though. So many people think that without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the music we have today, yet at the same time The Beatles were going about their business, others were doing what the beatles were doing, and making similar strides. There just wasn't one single band making so many at the same time...at least not in Britain/North America.
People hold Sgt pepper, Revolver and the White Album up to legendary status. I know people who praise the Beatles because they were TOLD to, not because they liked what they heard. It's like they take it as some kind of fact that "The Beatles were the most revolutionary, influential, musically talented band ever", and run with it.
No. They're overrated. They were a great band...each member filled each other's weaknesses in songwriting and whatnt. They all "clicked". But they're overrated.
I can also agree with the Rolling Stones. They had what, 2...3 solid albums, and then trailed off?
I don't think so. Tell me one band more influential than The Beatles. They are not overrated, this is called TO GOOD TO BE TRUE. why do you think they lasted 8 yrz and made that much quality, even their pop songs were so simple but so great, cant go for centuries with that much talent in each individualz. Anywayz I'm waiting to be called fanboy, just go on with it, but thats how it is.
I'm at no position to award a band with the "Most Influential" ribbon, and neither is anyone else. Music progresses, and people take from the past what they need to make a new sound. Contextually, most people who start bands in this day and age don't hold the Beatles as a major influence. Instead, it is one of their influencing bands' influence.
Some are quick to say "Ha, if the Beatles were a major influence to those bands, then that new band wouldn't even exist without the Beatles", but that's ridiculous(yet, I hear it a good half-dozen times a week). Does history stop at the Beatles? Where would they be without Smoky Robinson, Chuck berry, Buddy Holly, etc.? Would they have progressed as much as they did without the challenge of The Beach Boys(well, Brian Wilson mainly), ever nipping at their tails?
What about the people who influenced The Beatles' influences? Hank Williams, Elvis, Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, Ray Charles, etc.? If it weren't for them, then the beatles wouldn't be around, right? Or at least, that's the equally absurd counter-argument that I use, which tends to go over people's heads before they clamor on about how Paul McCartney's songwriting started hard rock and metal. *rolls eyes*
What about the Krautrock scene, and people like Silver Apples, Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk who were pioneers of electronic music? Look at that scene today.
Nah, it's ridiculous to say the Beatles are the most influential artist, becauseinfluence often rides on publicity, and as you can tell from today's music, that can be a bad thing. Not to say the Beatles are trite. They're not. It's just while they prospered, Zappa, The Velvet Underground, and many others were doing the same things around the same time the Beatles were(before and after apply), and not getting near the recognition. They weren't as marketable. As poppy(well, some bands were, but not Zappa and VU whom I've listed).
Were the Beatles too good to be true? Nah. They had an incredible chemistry together, which resulted in years of acclaimed music(although when they split, Paul and George were the only ones who did much of anything, aside from John's 2 good songs).
I'm just tired of hearing kids who've never listened to a Beatles record, getting the idea drilled into their heads that the beatles are the best band ever.Any band who can put out a song like 'Yellow Submarine' and (more than) get away with it is good, yes, but not the best ever. There's no such thing.
[QUOTE="Dethshoot"]The Beatles are the most overrated band. They're REALLY REALLY GOOD... but the most overrated.. since you know, they're the number 1 selling band in the world. You can't do that without being overrated.DrCoCoPiMp
The fact that lotz opf people think they R overrated means they R underrated :|
Compare the microscopical amount of people in here who think the Beatles are overrated to the amount of people in the real world who without thought label The Beatles as the best musical act in history.....they're not underrated.
[QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Dethshoot"]The Beatles are the most overrated band. They're REALLY REALLY GOOD... but the most overrated.. since you know, they're the number 1 selling band in the world. You can't do that without being overrated.Lockedge
The fact that lotz opf people think they R overrated means they R underrated :|
Compare the microscopical amount of people in here who think the Beatles are overrated to the amount of people in the real world who without thought label The Beatles as the best musical act in history.....they're not underrated.
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about with music. He has a Neutral Milk Hotel avatar, and anyone who likes them has amazing taste in music in my books.
:P
It really is subjective when discussing "overrated" bands. Personally I think a lot of bands are overrated such as:
- Beatles(never understood why they're considered so musically god-like)
- Radiohead(I find them extremely boring. Creep is the only song I like by them)
- Oasis (Arrogant jerks who make dull music)
- Guns and Roses
- Mars Volta (I'm all for experimental music but this just sounds like noise with lyrics that are failing at trying to be deep and complex)
LAZZOR
i agree with everything in this post, but the mars volta. my vote definitely goes to the beatles, for the same reason stated above.
[QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]The beatles
Lockedge
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
The Beatles ARE overrated though. So many people think that without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the music we have today, yet at the same time The Beatles were going about their business, others were doing what the beatles were doing, and making similar strides. There just wasn't one single band making so many at the same time...at least not in Britain/North America.
People hold Sgt pepper, Revolver and the White Album up to legendary status. I know people who praise the Beatles because they were TOLD to, not because they liked what they heard. It's like they take it as some kind of fact that "The Beatles were the most revolutionary, influential, musically talented band ever", and run with it.
No. They're overrated. They were a great band...each member filled each other's weaknesses in songwriting and whatnt. They all "clicked". But they're overrated.
I can also agree with the Rolling Stones. They had what, 2...3 solid albums, and then trailed off?
I don't think so. Tell me one band more influential than The Beatles. They are not overrated, this is called TO GOOD TO BE TRUE. why do you think they lasted 8 yrz and made that much quality, even their pop songs were so simple but so great, cant go for centuries with that much talent in each individualz. Anywayz I'm waiting to be called fanboy, just go on with it, but thats how it is.
I'm at no position to award a band with the "Most Influential" ribbon, and neither is anyone else. Music progresses, and people take from the past what they need to make a new sound. Contextually, most people who start bands in this day and age don't hold the Beatles as a major influence. Instead, it is one of their influencing bands' influence.
Some are quick to say "Ha, if the Beatles were a major influence to those bands, then that new band wouldn't even exist without the Beatles", but that's ridiculous(yet, I hear it a good half-dozen times a week). Does history stop at the Beatles? Where would they be without Smoky Robinson, Chuck berry, Buddy Holly, etc.? Would they have progressed as much as they did without the challenge of The Beach Boys(well, Brian Wilson mainly), ever nipping at their tails?
What about the people who influenced The Beatles' influences? Hank Williams, Elvis, Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, Ray Charles, etc.? If it weren't for them, then the beatles wouldn't be around, right? Or at least, that's the equally absurd counter-argument that I use, which tends to go over people's heads before they clamor on about how Paul McCartney's songwriting started hard rock and metal. *rolls eyes*
What about the Krautrock scene, and people like Silver Apples, Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk who were pioneers of electronic music? Look at that scene today.
Nah, it's ridiculous to say the Beatles are the most influential artist, becauseinfluence often rides on publicity, and as you can tell from today's music, that can be a bad thing. Not to say the Beatles are trite. They're not. It's just while they prospered, Zappa, The Velvet Underground, and many others were doing the same things around the same time the Beatles were(before and after apply), and not getting near the recognition. They weren't as marketable. As poppy(well, some bands were, but not Zappa and VU whom I've listed).
Were the Beatles too good to be true? Nah. They had an incredible chemistry together, which resulted in years of acclaimed music(although when they split, Paul and George were the only ones who did much of anything, aside from John's 2 good songs).
I'm just tired of hearing kids who've never listened to a Beatles record, getting the idea drilled into their heads that the beatles are the best band ever.Any band who can put out a song like 'Yellow Submarine' and (more than) get away with it is good, yes, but not the best ever. There's no such thing.
Okay, so you are underestimating me and you think I'm a lil kid who listened to 5 songs just because I said what I said? Lol at you buddy. Anyway, it's all about personnal opinion. I never said that nobody influenced the beatles. I never said that they made music by themself. I'm just tellin' you that they were the band that everybody heard of, Therefore the most influential. anywayz ITS ALL ABOUT OPINION, i think it is the best band ever, you can think what you want to think, I'm just tellin ya my 8 cents and you wont change my opinion :) .
Much love
EDIT: Yellow submarine is arguably their worst song
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Dethshoot"]The Beatles are the most overrated band. They're REALLY REALLY GOOD... but the most overrated.. since you know, they're the number 1 selling band in the world. You can't do that without being overrated.Nisstyre_56
The fact that lotz opf people think they R overrated means they R underrated :|
Compare the microscopical amount of people in here who think the Beatles are overrated to the amount of people in the real world who without thought label The Beatles as the best musical act in history.....they're not underrated.
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about with music. He has a Neutral Milk Hotel avatar, and anyone who likes them has amazing taste in music in my books.
:P
You have an awesome sig, by the way. Best song off GYBE's best album(which happens to be my 6th favourite album of all time). :) Nice to know NMH have some exposure around here.
[QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]The beatles
Lockedge
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
The Beatles ARE overrated though. So many people think that without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the music we have today, yet at the same time The Beatles were going about their business, others were doing what the beatles were doing, and making similar strides. There just wasn't one single band making so many at the same time...at least not in Britain/North America.
People hold Sgt pepper, Revolver and the White Album up to legendary status. I know people who praise the Beatles because they were TOLD to, not because they liked what they heard. It's like they take it as some kind of fact that "The Beatles were the most revolutionary, influential, musically talented band ever", and run with it.
No. They're overrated. They were a great band...each member filled each other's weaknesses in songwriting and whatnt. They all "clicked". But they're overrated.
I can also agree with the Rolling Stones. They had what, 2...3 solid albums, and then trailed off?
I don't think so. Tell me one band more influential than The Beatles. They are not overrated, this is called TO GOOD TO BE TRUE. why do you think they lasted 8 yrz and made that much quality, even their pop songs were so simple but so great, cant go for centuries with that much talent in each individualz. Anywayz I'm waiting to be called fanboy, just go on with it, but thats how it is.
I'm at no position to award a band with the "Most Influential" ribbon, and neither is anyone else. Music progresses, and people take from the past what they need to make a new sound. Contextually, most people who start bands in this day and age don't hold the Beatles as a major influence. Instead, it is one of their influencing bands' influence.
Some are quick to say "Ha, if the Beatles were a major influence to those bands, then that new band wouldn't even exist without the Beatles", but that's ridiculous(yet, I hear it a good half-dozen times a week). Does history stop at the Beatles? Where would they be without Smoky Robinson, Chuck berry, Buddy Holly, etc.? Would they have progressed as much as they did without the challenge of The Beach Boys(well, Brian Wilson mainly), ever nipping at their tails?
What about the people who influenced The Beatles' influences? Hank Williams, Elvis, Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, Ray Charles, etc.? If it weren't for them, then the beatles wouldn't be around, right? Or at least, that's the equally absurd counter-argument that I use, which tends to go over people's heads before they clamor on about how Paul McCartney's songwriting started hard rock and metal. *rolls eyes*
What about the Krautrock scene, and people like Silver Apples, Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk who were pioneers of electronic music? Look at that scene today.
Nah, it's ridiculous to say the Beatles are the most influential artist, becauseinfluence often rides on publicity, and as you can tell from today's music, that can be a bad thing. Not to say the Beatles are trite. They're not. It's just while they prospered, Zappa, The Velvet Underground, and many others were doing the same things around the same time the Beatles were(before and after apply), and not getting near the recognition. They weren't as marketable. As poppy(well, some bands were, but not Zappa and VU whom I've listed).
Were the Beatles too good to be true? Nah. They had an incredible chemistry together, which resulted in years of acclaimed music(although when they split, Paul and George were the only ones who did much of anything, aside from John's 2 good songs).
I'm just tired of hearing kids who've never listened to a Beatles record, getting the idea drilled into their heads that the beatles are the best band ever.Any band who can put out a song like 'Yellow Submarine' and (more than) get away with it is good, yes, but not the best ever. There's no such thing.
I agree with your post except the fact that Dylan had a far greater influence on the Beatles than any other musician AND do not underestimate George Harrison's influence in the band. Also, remember that Seargant Pepper's is arguably the most influential album ever put out, and with their following (superior) work, they are arguably the greatest band of all time.
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Dethshoot"]The Beatles are the most overrated band. They're REALLY REALLY GOOD... but the most overrated.. since you know, they're the number 1 selling band in the world. You can't do that without being overrated.Nisstyre_56
The fact that lotz opf people think they R overrated means they R underrated :|
Compare the microscopical amount of people in here who think the Beatles are overrated to the amount of people in the real world who without thought label The Beatles as the best musical act in history.....they're not underrated.
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about with music. He has a Neutral Milk Hotel avatar, and anyone who likes them has amazing taste in music in my books.
:P
How can you judge tastes?
[QUOTE="smokingsbad"]fall out boy i thinkbattlefront23
*gets popcorn and waits for solidsnake35 to show up* >_>
Beat me to it :lol:I have to say Panic! At The Disco though. They have a few decent songs but I dont understand why people hype them. Ohwell, its all subjective to opinion. I know people think Disturbed are over-rated :lol:
How can you judge tastes?
DrCoCoPiMp
I can't, but I can judge how well other people's tastes conform to mine ;)
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Dethshoot"]The Beatles are the most overrated band. They're REALLY REALLY GOOD... but the most overrated.. since you know, they're the number 1 selling band in the world. You can't do that without being overrated.Nisstyre_56
The fact that lotz opf people think they R overrated means they R underrated :|
Compare the microscopical amount of people in here who think the Beatles are overrated to the amount of people in the real world who without thought label The Beatles as the best musical act in history.....they're not underrated.
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about with music. He has a Neutral Milk Hotel avatar, and anyone who likes them has amazing taste in music in my books.
:P
I think he was implying that The Beatles are the greatest thing ever, and that they are only properly rated if everyone agrees that they are the greatest thing ever. Therefore, if anyone thinks that they are not the greatest thing ever, they are therefore underrated.
Dragonforce, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Fall Out Boy, NickelBack just to name a few.honkyjoe
What annoys me about Dragonforce fans is the oft stated "they're really technically amazing" argument. Which is....false, they just play the same solos over and over at 250 bpm.
[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]Dragonforce, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Fall Out Boy, NickelBack just to name a few.Nisstyre_56
What annoys me about Dragonforce fans is the oft stated "they're really technically amazing" argument. Which is....false, they just play the same solos over and over at 250 bpm.
Ya, I hear what your saying. Even if Herman Li or whatever his name is can play extremely fast that doesnt make him a good musician. I saw them at Ozzfest 2 years ago and they were HORRIBLE. Half the Crowd was Lolling at how bad there performance was.
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]The beatles
DrCoCoPiMp
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
The Beatles ARE overrated though. So many people think that without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the music we have today, yet at the same time The Beatles were going about their business, others were doing what the beatles were doing, and making similar strides. There just wasn't one single band making so many at the same time...at least not in Britain/North America.
People hold Sgt pepper, Revolver and the White Album up to legendary status. I know people who praise the Beatles because they were TOLD to, not because they liked what they heard. It's like they take it as some kind of fact that "The Beatles were the most revolutionary, influential, musically talented band ever", and run with it.
No. They're overrated. They were a great band...each member filled each other's weaknesses in songwriting and whatnt. They all "clicked". But they're overrated.
I can also agree with the Rolling Stones. They had what, 2...3 solid albums, and then trailed off?
I don't think so. Tell me one band more influential than The Beatles. They are not overrated, this is called TO GOOD TO BE TRUE. why do you think they lasted 8 yrz and made that much quality, even their pop songs were so simple but so great, cant go for centuries with that much talent in each individualz. Anywayz I'm waiting to be called fanboy, just go on with it, but thats how it is.
I'm at no position to award a band with the "Most Influential" ribbon, and neither is anyone else. Music progresses, and people take from the past what they need to make a new sound. Contextually, most people who start bands in this day and age don't hold the Beatles as a major influence. Instead, it is one of their influencing bands' influence.
Some are quick to say "Ha, if the Beatles were a major influence to those bands, then that new band wouldn't even exist without the Beatles", but that's ridiculous(yet, I hear it a good half-dozen times a week). Does history stop at the Beatles? Where would they be without Smoky Robinson, Chuck berry, Buddy Holly, etc.? Would they have progressed as much as they did without the challenge of The Beach Boys(well, Brian Wilson mainly), ever nipping at their tails?
What about the people who influenced The Beatles' influences? Hank Williams, Elvis, Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, Ray Charles, etc.? If it weren't for them, then the beatles wouldn't be around, right? Or at least, that's the equally absurd counter-argument that I use, which tends to go over people's heads before they clamor on about how Paul McCartney's songwriting started hard rock and metal. *rolls eyes*
What about the Krautrock scene, and people like Silver Apples, Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk who were pioneers of electronic music? Look at that scene today.
Nah, it's ridiculous to say the Beatles are the most influential artist, becauseinfluence often rides on publicity, and as you can tell from today's music, that can be a bad thing. Not to say the Beatles are trite. They're not. It's just while they prospered, Zappa, The Velvet Underground, and many others were doing the same things around the same time the Beatles were(before and after apply), and not getting near the recognition. They weren't as marketable. As poppy(well, some bands were, but not Zappa and VU whom I've listed).
Were the Beatles too good to be true? Nah. They had an incredible chemistry together, which resulted in years of acclaimed music(although when they split, Paul and George were the only ones who did much of anything, aside from John's 2 good songs).
I'm just tired of hearing kids who've never listened to a Beatles record, getting the idea drilled into their heads that the beatles are the best band ever.Any band who can put out a song like 'Yellow Submarine' and (more than) get away with it is good, yes, but not the best ever. There's no such thing.
Okay, so you are underestimating me and you think I'm a lil kid who listened to 5 songs just because I said what I said? Lol at you buddy. Anyway, it's all about personnal opinion. I never said that nobody influenced the beatles. I never said that they made music by themself. I'm just tellin' you that they were the band that everybody heard of, Therefore the most influential. anywayz ITS ALL ABOUT OPINION, i think it is the best band ever, you can think what you want to think, I'm just tellin ya my 8 cents and you wont change my opinion :) .
Much love
EDIT: Yellow submarine is arguably their worst song
Not saying you're a 5 year old kid :S Way to skew my words. Maybe I should be clearer. My point was that from grade 3 music class through grade 12, my teachers drilled the thought of the Beatles being the best modern music act in history into our heads. Kids come back from school indoctrinated with that thought as a fact, even if they've NEVER HEARD A FULL BEATLES ALBUM. Heck, from grade 3-8, ask me what the best band ever was on a test and I'd write The Beatles. Either out of fear of punishment or brainwashing, it's what I would have written. All I knew about the Beatles at that point was Yellow Submarine, Strawberry Fields Forever, Eleanor Rigby and I Want To Hold Your Hand.
I don't know if it's as ingrained everywhere else, but it seems almost like a general consensus that they're the best ever, without mentioning any kind of competition. Any reason other than "Their music was the best".Everyone knew who they were, so even if they were late to the game in terms of new production techniques, or new ways to play music, they'd still be called pioneers because they were the first big band to do it. They innovated, of course, but so many people say "they were the first to do X", "no one did Y before the beatles", "If the Beat;es hadn't done Z, then music wouldn't be the same"...and I've heard a good number of innovations stripped away from other acts and pasted on The Beatles' juggernaut because they were the first really popular band to do such things.
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just saying I've heard all their albums dozens of times over, and I can't agree with those sentiments that they're not overrated. That they're the best band ever.
[QUOTE="Nisstyre_56"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Dethshoot"]The Beatles are the most overrated band. They're REALLY REALLY GOOD... but the most overrated.. since you know, they're the number 1 selling band in the world. You can't do that without being overrated.MrGeezer
The fact that lotz opf people think they R overrated means they R underrated :|
Compare the microscopical amount of people in here who think the Beatles are overrated to the amount of people in the real world who without thought label The Beatles as the best musical act in history.....they're not underrated.
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about with music. He has a Neutral Milk Hotel avatar, and anyone who likes them has amazing taste in music in my books.
:P
I think he was implying that The Beatles are the greatest thing ever, and that they are only properly rated if everyone agrees that they are the greatest thing ever. Therefore, if anyone thinks that they are not the greatest thing ever, they are therefore underrated.
I was more or less saying that because there's an astronomical amount of people who claim the Beatles are the best music act ever, that they're overrated, and that they can't be underrated as a whole due to a microscopic amount who claim the Beatles are overrated.
Basically:
4 people saying The Beatles are overrated does not make the Beatles underrated, because 400 million claim they're the best. Thus, they're more easily considered overrated than underrated by far.
Dragonforce, no competitionstedtfeld
I know the'yre only popular because of Geeetar Hero.
[QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]The beatles
Lockedge
Wrong
The rolling stones are tho
The Beatles ARE overrated though. So many people think that without the Beatles, we wouldn't have the music we have today, yet at the same time The Beatles were going about their business, others were doing what the beatles were doing, and making similar strides. There just wasn't one single band making so many at the same time...at least not in Britain/North America.
People hold Sgt pepper, Revolver and the White Album up to legendary status. I know people who praise the Beatles because they were TOLD to, not because they liked what they heard. It's like they take it as some kind of fact that "The Beatles were the most revolutionary, influential, musically talented band ever", and run with it.
No. They're overrated. They were a great band...each member filled each other's weaknesses in songwriting and whatnt. They all "clicked". But they're overrated.
I can also agree with the Rolling Stones. They had what, 2...3 solid albums, and then trailed off?
I don't think so. Tell me one band more influential than The Beatles. They are not overrated, this is called TO GOOD TO BE TRUE. why do you think they lasted 8 yrz and made that much quality, even their pop songs were so simple but so great, cant go for centuries with that much talent in each individualz. Anywayz I'm waiting to be called fanboy, just go on with it, but thats how it is.
I'm at no position to award a band with the "Most Influential" ribbon, and neither is anyone else. Music progresses, and people take from the past what they need to make a new sound. Contextually, most people who start bands in this day and age don't hold the Beatles as a major influence. Instead, it is one of their influencing bands' influence.
Some are quick to say "Ha, if the Beatles were a major influence to those bands, then that new band wouldn't even exist without the Beatles", but that's ridiculous(yet, I hear it a good half-dozen times a week). Does history stop at the Beatles? Where would they be without Smoky Robinson, Chuck berry, Buddy Holly, etc.? Would they have progressed as much as they did without the challenge of The Beach Boys(well, Brian Wilson mainly), ever nipping at their tails?
What about the people who influenced The Beatles' influences? Hank Williams, Elvis, Muddy Waters, T-Bone Walker, Ray Charles, etc.? If it weren't for them, then the beatles wouldn't be around, right? Or at least, that's the equally absurd counter-argument that I use, which tends to go over people's heads before they clamor on about how Paul McCartney's songwriting started hard rock and metal. *rolls eyes*
What about the Krautrock scene, and people like Silver Apples, Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk who were pioneers of electronic music? Look at that scene today.
Nah, it's ridiculous to say the Beatles are the most influential artist, becauseinfluence often rides on publicity, and as you can tell from today's music, that can be a bad thing. Not to say the Beatles are trite. They're not. It's just while they prospered, Zappa, The Velvet Underground, and many others were doing the same things around the same time the Beatles were(before and after apply), and not getting near the recognition. They weren't as marketable. As poppy(well, some bands were, but not Zappa and VU whom I've listed).
Were the Beatles too good to be true? Nah. They had an incredible chemistry together, which resulted in years of acclaimed music(although when they split, Paul and George were the only ones who did much of anything, aside from John's 2 good songs).
I'm just tired of hearing kids who've never listened to a Beatles record, getting the idea drilled into their heads that the beatles are the best band ever.Any band who can put out a song like 'Yellow Submarine' and (more than) get away with it is good, yes, but not the best ever. There's no such thing.
Okay, so you are underestimating me and you think I'm a lil kid who listened to 5 songs just because I said what I said? Lol at you buddy. Anyway, it's all about personnal opinion. I never said that nobody influenced the beatles. I never said that they made music by themself. I'm just tellin' you that they were the band that everybody heard of, Therefore the most influential. anywayz ITS ALL ABOUT OPINION, i think it is the best band ever, you can think what you want to think, I'm just tellin ya my 8 cents and you wont change my opinion :) .
Much love
EDIT: Yellow submarine is arguably their worst song
Not saying you're a 5 year old kid :S Way to skew my words. Maybe I should be clearer. My point was that from grade 3 music class through grade 12, my teachers drilled the thought of the Beatles being the best modern music act in history into our heads. Kids come back from school indoctrinated with that thought as a fact, even if they've NEVER HEARD A FULL BEATLES ALBUM. Heck, from grade 3-8, ask me what the best band ever was on a test and I'd write The Beatles. Either out of fear of punishment or brainwashing, it's what I would have written. All I knew about the Beatles at that point was Yellow Submarine, Strawberry Fields Forever, Eleanor Rigby and I Want To Hold Your Hand.
I don't know if it's as ingrained everywhere else, but it seems almost like a general consensus that they're the best ever, without mentioning any kind of competition. Any reason other than "Their music was the best".Everyone knew who they were, so even if they were late to the game in terms of new production techniques, or new ways to play music, they'd still be called pioneers because they were the first big band to do it. They innovated, of course, but so many people say "they were the first to do X", "no one did Y before the beatles", "If the Beat;es hadn't done Z, then music wouldn't be the same"...and I've heard a good number of innovations stripped away from other acts and pasted on The Beatles' juggernaut because they were the first really popular band to do such things.
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just saying I've heard all their albums dozens of times over, and I can't agree with those sentiments that they're not overrated. That they're the best band ever.
No such brainwashing in mah hood . So, lets say you wouldnt have lived so much brainwashing, would you think the same 2day?
[QUOTE="stedtfeld"]Dragonforce, no competitionGrandMasta69
I know the'yre only popular because of Geeetar Hero.
Its supposed to be They're, The apostrophe takes the place of the would be "A". Actually I knew many people who liked Dragonforce before Guitar Hero :|
[QUOTE="GrandMasta69"][QUOTE="stedtfeld"]Dragonforce, no competitionhonkyjoe
I know the'yre only popular because of Geeetar Hero.
Its supposed to be They're, The apostrophe takes the place of the would be "A". Actually I knew many people who liked Dragonforce before Guitar Hero :|
lol do you like fixin my mistakes or sumthin? haha lighten up kid. and no...no you didnt know anyone who like d dragon force beofre guitar hero.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment