Really overrated band?

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][QUOTE="Lockedge"]

The beatles

tccavey2

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.

Bob Dylan goes without saying. It's just assumed. Some automatically toss Elvis into that group, but I'm not so 100% sure he's a "gimme" huge influence. But anyway, I'm getting off track.

George was as important as anyone else in The Beatles. They all together were complete. Apart, they were...well, not to hot. Paul's versatility kept his career going. John had 2 or 3 good songs and the rest were generic or simply decent. George put out a number of solid albums and IMHO he was probably the only Beatles member post-split to really musically progress.

Sgt pepper was quite influential, I won't say it wasn't. Without Briaan Wilson nipping at their heels, though, I'm not so sure they would have been so experimental. They were constantly one upping each other. If not for Mike Love, SMILE would have been released prior to Sgt. pepper and who knows what would have happened in the music world? The Beatles were great because they made an excellent songwriting team, they had a great producer, and they had great competition.

I personally think Rubber Soul was The Beatles' best album, but that's just me.

And yes, it IS arguable that they're the best band of all time. :) Which is why I love music. It's impossible for a band to be the best, so some people have to strive to simply be better, and that's when great music comes out.

[QUOTE="tccavey2"][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.

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.

Bob Dylan goes without saying. It's just assumed. Some automatically toss Elvis into that group, but I'm not so 100% sure he's a "gimme" huge influence. But anyway, I'm getting off track.

George was as important as anyone else in The Beatles. They all together were complete. Apart, they were...well, not to hot. Paul's versatility kept his career going. John had 2 or 3 good songs and the rest were generic or simply decent. George put out a number of solid albums and IMHO he was probably the only Beatles member post-split to really musically progress.

Sgt pepper was quite influential, I won't say it wasn't. Without Briaan Wilson nipping at their heels, though, I'm not so sure they would have been so experimental. They were constantly one upping each other. If not for Mike Love, SMILE would have been released prior to Sgt. pepper and who knows what would have happened in the music world? The Beatles were great because they made an excellent songwriting team, they had a great producer, and they had great competition.

I personally think Rubber Soul was The Beatles' best album, but that's just me.

And yes, it IS arguable that they're the best band of all time. :) Which is why I love music. It's impossible for a band to be the best, so some people have to strive to simply be better, and that's when great music comes out.

Wilson wouldnt done what he did without the beatles in the first place IMO

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"][QUOTE="GrandMasta69"]

[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 :|

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.

1. By your maturity level I can tell I am older than you
2. You dont like me correcting your grammer and spelling? better me than all of OT because there are some major English Nazi's besides me
3. If No One liked Dragonforce before Guitar Hero 3 than how did they sell enough records to go to Ozzfest and tour the world numerous times?

And without both of them we never would have had The Flaming Lips as they are now. So that makes The Beach Boys and The Beatles worthwhile, even if I don't like them all that much.

Edit: Of course Frank Zappa and Lou Reed have had just as much impact on later artists.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="DrCoCoPiMp"][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.

No such brainwashing in mah hood . So, lets say you wouldnt have lived so much brainwashing, would you think the same 2day?

I'd probably think the same. It was only the peer pressure kind of thing that annoyed me. I don't like or dislike a band because of the popular opinion of them, I like or dislike them because of their music. I was only exposed to four Beatles songs in elementary, all of which are fairly mediocre except forEleanor Rigby whichhas one of the better intros in rock music. I was tired of hearing people tell me that the Beatles are good, and wanted to know why, so I did marathon listens. It never really clicked with me.

As time has passed, and I've revisited the albums, I've been able to hear things I didn't before, and hear the progression in their music as their career went on, but while I find their songwriting to be pretty great on paper, their sound never resonated with me. It's kind of like how whenever someone covers The Rolling Stones, the song is instantly 10x better. Except pretty much all beatles covers suck crap :P

Nah. I think the Beatles are an important, influential band that possessed great songwriting skills(not to be confused with lyrical prowess, because...well, they only had occasional gems here and there in that category). I just don't think they made the best music, or were the most important, most infuential band ever like hordes and hordes of others do,especially those in music press.

Thus I feel they're overrated.

[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="tccavey2"][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.

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.

Bob Dylan goes without saying. It's just assumed. Some automatically toss Elvis into that group, but I'm not so 100% sure he's a "gimme" huge influence. But anyway, I'm getting off track.

George was as important as anyone else in The Beatles. They all together were complete. Apart, they were...well, not to hot. Paul's versatility kept his career going. John had 2 or 3 good songs and the rest were generic or simply decent. George put out a number of solid albums and IMHO he was probably the only Beatles member post-split to really musically progress.

Sgt pepper was quite influential, I won't say it wasn't. Without Briaan Wilson nipping at their heels, though, I'm not so sure they would have been so experimental. They were constantly one upping each other. If not for Mike Love, SMILE would have been released prior to Sgt. pepper and who knows what would have happened in the music world? The Beatles were great because they made an excellent songwriting team, they had a great producer, and they had great competition.

I personally think Rubber Soul was The Beatles' best album, but that's just me.

And yes, it IS arguable that they're the best band of all time. :) Which is why I love music. It's impossible for a band to be the best, so some people have to strive to simply be better, and that's when great music comes out.

Wilson wouldnt done what he did without the beatles in the first place IMO

Exactly. Without Brian Wilson, the Beatles woudn't have been as moved to experiment and progress. Without the Beatles, Brian Wilson wouldn't have been as compelled to experiment and progress. Neither would have been as good without each other. That's the whole point. It's all contextual.

[QUOTE="Nisstyre_56"]

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]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.

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.

They get drunk appearntly. Either way, I still think they speed up the tracks. As for overrated. I donno

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"][QUOTE="Nisstyre_56"]

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]Dragonforce, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Fall Out Boy, NickelBack just to name a few.Ravirr

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.

They get drunk appearntly. Either way, I still think they speed up the tracks. As for overrated. I donno

Is it me or do all their songs say "so far away"?

[QUOTE="Ravirr"][QUOTE="honkyjoe"][QUOTE="Nisstyre_56"]

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]Dragonforce, Disturbed, Linkin Park, Fall Out Boy, NickelBack just to name a few.Dethshoot

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.

They get drunk appearntly. Either way, I still think they speed up the tracks. As for overrated. I donno

Is it me or do all their songs say "so far away"?

I think you might be onto something there :D

Amazing... I don't think anyone has said Hannah Montana. :?scorch-62

1) She's not a band

2) She's not overrated.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]Amazing... I don't think anyone has said Hannah Montana. :?Dethshoot

1) She's not a band

2) She's not overrated.

1) Last time I checked, she had band.

2) Ewww...

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]Amazing... I don't think anyone has said Hannah Montana. :?Dethshoot

1) She's not a band

2) She's not overrated.

She's only overrated if you ask 10-14 year old girls/effeminate males.

Edit: I would hope most sane people are disgusted by her popularity.

[QUOTE="Dethshoot"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]Amazing... I don't think anyone has said Hannah Montana. :?scorch-62

1) She's not a band

2) She's not overrated.

1) Last time I checked, she had band.

2) Ewww...

That doesn't mean I think she's good. I think she's bad. The overall consensus is that she's bad; therefor, she's not overrated :|

EDIT: Also having a studio band doesn't make you a band. That's like saying Britney Spears is a band because she has back ups :|

Every bandNecroKvltMuffin

Amen to that. :P

the stones early work was soo influential , imo i dont like the bettles but u cant argue their influences, so how can they be overrated, metallica isnt overrated either, they created thrash and their first 3 cd's are all quality songs.

Nirvana is soo overrated, they had nothing but teen spirit that sucked, but everyone thinks their soo great

not as ovverated, but the greatful dead.. their songs.. i cant find what makes them good... soo blah.

i agree somewhat with tool. not with GNR... roses voice was great and slash is a great guitar player, altho they had only like 4 good songs - jungle, sweet child, november rain, paradise city and a couple good covers, theyre skill is good

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

Nirvana is soo overrated, they had nothing but teen spirit that sucked, but everyone thinks their soo great

nimatoad2000

I agree with this, especially. I could go on for ages about my dislike for Nirvana.

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.GodLovesDead

But Hot Buttered PopCorn was such a good song. :(

metallica isnt overrated either, they created thrash and their first 3 cd's are all quality songs.

nimatoad2000

You're....joking.....right? Metallica *helped* create the genre, maybe, they didn't single handedly create it like so many people are led to believe. What about Slayer? or Anthrax?

The media and mainstream music journalism has drilled it into people's heads that Metallica single handedly created a genre of music.

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

GodLovesDead

I agree with all EXCEPT Opeth and somewhat Tool. You should go see Opeth live, they're amazing. But if the reason you think they're overrated is because they aren't "true" metal or because a lot of people like them...then, you're wrong.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

Nisstyre_56

I agree with all EXCEPT Opeth and somewhat Tool. You should go see Opeth live, they're amazing. But if the reason you think they're overrated is because they aren't "true" metal or because a lot of people like them...then, you're wrong.

Opeth is just a fad, give it time and they'll go away rather quickly. They are probably the epitome of overrated metal.

Opeth is just a fad, give it time and they'll go away rather quickly. They are probably the epitome of overrated metal.

GodLovesDead

They don't play just metal though, they also play Jazz and Progressive Rock. Of which I am a huge fan of...

[QUOTE="Nisstyre_56"]

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]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.

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.

That sounds interesting, got any link? I would like to see that.

[QUOTE="Nisstyre_56"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

GodLovesDead

I agree with all EXCEPT Opeth and somewhat Tool. You should go see Opeth live, they're amazing. But if the reason you think they're overrated is because they aren't "true" metal or because a lot of people like them...then, you're wrong.

Opeth is just a fad, give it time and they'll go away rather quickly. They are probably the epitome of overrated metal.

They're progressive, so this statement is invalid.

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

GodLovesDead

Why Led Zeppelin? :(

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

Lonelynight

Why Led Zeppelin? :(

Seriously.. wtf?

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

Nisstyre_56

I agree with all EXCEPT Opeth and somewhat Tool. You should go see Opeth live, they're amazing. But if the reason you think they're overrated is because they aren't "true" metal or because a lot of people like them...then, you're wrong.

I find Opeth overrated because their music is boring to me. It's too long especially with what they do with it. Seems to be pointless meandering to me.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="Nisstyre_56"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

Dethshoot

I agree with all EXCEPT Opeth and somewhat Tool. You should go see Opeth live, they're amazing. But if the reason you think they're overrated is because they aren't "true" metal or because a lot of people like them...then, you're wrong.

Opeth is just a fad, give it time and they'll go away rather quickly. They are probably the epitome of overrated metal.

They're progressive, so this statement is invalid.

They are progressive. Progressive metal. As much as I'd love to disclude them from metal, they are commonly considered a metal band.

[QUOTE="GrandMasta69"][QUOTE="honkyjoe"][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.

1. By your maturity level I can tell I am older than you
2. You dont like me correcting your grammer and spelling? better me than all of OT because there are some major English Nazi's besides me
3. If No One liked Dragonforce before Guitar Hero 3 than how did they sell enough records to go to Ozzfest and tour the world numerous times?

1.) maturity? rite...

2.) hmmm ur sig says 1991 so im guessing that that's wen u were born.so that makes me older.

3.) anyone who likes Dragonforce...well wow...u must tell other people that ur "different" and stuff.

4.) i dont care about my grammar. i graduated from school recently. im done with grammar until i go back to college so thanks for ur help...but...no thanks.

4.) i dont care about my grammar. i graduated from school recently. im done with grammar until i go back to college so thanks for ur help...but...no thanks.

GrandMasta69

I don't think you're ready for college...

The Beatles and Nirvana. I like both bands but neither of them are as good as some people say.

The Beatles and Nirvana. I like both bands but neither of them are as good as some people say.

CreepingDeath_

They are to them... ;)

[QUOTE="CreepingDeath_"]

The Beatles and Nirvana. I like both bands but neither of them are as good as some people say.

soren008

They are to them... ;)

What I mean is, I don't believe they are "music gods". Good musicians, but not gods.

[QUOTE="GrandMasta69"]

4.) i dont care about my grammar. i graduated from school recently. im done with grammar until i go back to college so thanks for ur help...but...no thanks.

CreepingDeath_

I don't think you're ready for college...

The Beatles and Nirvana. I like both bands but neither of them are as good as some people say.

I dont think he finished High School.. I think he meant 5th grade.

[QUOTE="soren008"][QUOTE="CreepingDeath_"]

The Beatles and Nirvana. I like both bands but neither of them are as good as some people say.

CreepingDeath_

They are to them... ;)

What I mean is, I don't believe they are "music gods". Good musicians, but not gods.

Again, they are to them ... ;)

[QUOTE="CreepingDeath_"][QUOTE="GrandMasta69"]

4.) i dont care about my grammar. i graduated from school recently. im done with grammar until i go back to college so thanks for ur help...but...no thanks.

Dethshoot

I don't think you're ready for college...

The Beatles and Nirvana. I like both bands but neither of them are as good as some people say.

I dont think he finished High School.. I think he meant 5th grade.

Ahh. That explains it.

Maroon-5

Gorillaz

U2 . Absolutely cant stand anything they have ever done.

Pearl Jam . See above.

AC/DC . Hey i can yell stupid lyrics into a mic while sounding like i have laryngitis.

(insert wannabe indie euro me too band here ). Did we really need another one?

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
Jonas Brothers
The Beatles
Slipknot
Distrubed
*instert all other emo rock bands into this list*

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

Opeth, The Beatles, Lamb of God, Children of Bodom, Metallica, Slipknot, Korn, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Fall Out Boy, Radiohead, The Cure, Tool, Linkin Park (lol), Disturbed, Dragonforce, and uh... Aphex Twin.

EDIT: Oh god, how could I forget Nirvana?

Lonelynight

Why Led Zeppelin? :(

Jimmy Page is perhaps the most overrated guitarist ever. The fact that they "borrowed" a lot of their material doesn't help them either.