Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
Nope, The Beatles deserve all their praise. Elvis does too. I would say Clapton is a bit overrated, not by much though. He is an incredibly gifted and important guitarist and Cream were awesome.
My problem with The Stones in comparison is that they are about as talented as any local band you could find within a 10 mile radius. But their praise mostly comes from writing fun and catchy music. Which personally I prefer a lot of other bands in that field anyway. Including the aforementioned Guns n Roses and AC/DC. I respect them more for their influence than their actual music.
|
The stones gift was to play soulful music with actual soul. Anyone can experiment. Its hard to do music from all regions and influences and make them sound like legitimate songs.
Every time I hear the Beatles cover Motown I think "oh lord, Karoke is revenge for WWII" The Beatles wee talented but they couldn't feel the music and John Lennon was just about the most soulless writer out there. Its not bad music it just don't hit you somewhere deeper and his solo work was even worse which leads me to believe someone in the Beatles was pulling the weight (I suspect Harrison.)
You can say what you want about the stones but I've heard Cherry O Baby and I've heard a Beatles sung covered by reggae singers and the authenticity behind the former was head and shoulders above the latter.
People don't wake up overrated and their no where near teh Beatles of Zeppelin or even the Who. The stones have earned everything they have, i wish people would see that you can't charge $400 for a ticket because you go lucky. Their untouchable live, and they can scorch every other band playing out there.