Most overrated bands ever?

[Seltzer]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

I'm sorry but if you hate the Beatles and every single bit of their influence you probably are an extremely narrow-minded person that listens to shit or you're just a metal fan and are therefore ignorant and shouldn't be taken seriously to begin with.

I love the Beatles... But in all seriousness, you'd be surprised how many open-minded metalheads there are. To be honest, it's just as easy for me to imagine a funk, punk, classical, hip-hop or jazz fan who doesn't like the Beatles compared to a metalhead. Well, maybe not as easy for the jazz fan but you get my point.


As for metalheads... most of them can fit in several categories. Before reading this, understand that you can be open-minded in music, yet still listen to a narrow range of music. It just depends on how much you prefer your favourite genre, your upbringing, how much time you put aside to listen to music in your life etc. For example, I haven't heard a folk/ambient rapper from Greenland, but even though I don't listen to it, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be open-minded enough to like it.

1.) They are open enough to appreciate metal which is an extreme form of music (some metal anyway), and this open-mindedness leads them to having open music tastes, or at least being quite open-minded in general.

2.) They were open enough to appreciate metal, but somewhere along the way they got so into it that they don't listen to much else and the developed the elitist attitude that more accessible music (mainstream) sucks, making them close-minded.

3.) They were tormented as kids or have some dark side which they seek to satisfy by listening to metal. In this case they won't listen to much else but metal, but they probably won't hate other music. They'll be indifferent. Maybe in another life (or the same life), they would have discovered other dark music to satisfy them before metal... Nick Cave, Joy Division, Tom Waits etc.

4.) They listened to nu-metal as kids because angry music was a novelty - it was cool. Gradually they would have discovered other angry/aggressive metal (say thrash) and delved into that. Given their aging by then, and expansion of taste, they will be less stupid and probably more open-minded than they were but still only listen to metal. But if you ask them whether they like the Beatles, they'll say they won't, because they were too rebellious as kids to like them when they heard them and haven't heard them since. But if they heard an album by them again, they might actually like them given the lower level of stubborness.


There are some more categories, but they're irrelevant for now. My point is, there's a good chance that even the close-minded version of metalhead (number 2) likes the Beatles due to earlier experience before he started to listen to metal. He may now be so engrossed within metal that he doesn't listen to them anymore... but he could still hold a place in his heart for them. So don't assume the black metal fan or the guy in the Maiden shirt doesn't like the Beatles, even if he doesn't talk about them.

[sleepy jack]

You're the only metal fan i've interacted with who hasn't said "The Beatles are shit" or something along those lines.

[Seltzer]

Originally Posted by Crowquill

You're the only metal fan i've interacted with who hasn't said "The Beatles are shit" or something along those lines.

Fair enough. And Jackhammer too.

[lucylamppost]

The Beatles
their ratio of good to bad songs isn't too high percentage wise, they lacked the soul, style, and grit of The Rolling Stones, the were very formulated when writing their songs

If the Beatles played Wood stock would there performance been more noted on music terms (not on hype) Santana, the Who, Sly and Family Stone, ****, even CSNY or The Beatles?

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by lucylamppost

The Beatles
their ratio of good to bad songs isn't too high percentage wise, they lacked the soul, style, and grit of The Rolling Stones, the were very formulated when writing their songs

I think I love this person

Originally Posted by lucylamppost

Sly and Family Stone

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by lucylamppost

The Beatles
their ratio of good to bad songs isn't too high percentage wise, they lacked the soul, style, and grit of The Rolling Stones, the were very formulated when writing their songs

If the Beatles played Wood stock would there performance been more noted on music terms (not on hype) Santana, the Who, Sly and Family Stone, ****, even CSNY or The Beatles?

That's not being fair to the Beatles really, they weren't a live show band and personally I wouldn't have wanted to the Beatles to be anything like the Rolling Stones. I don't understand the comparison between the two. Also how were the Beatles formulated when writing their songs? And since you're comparing them to the Stones how does that same thing not apply to the Stones?

[lucylamppost]

Don’t get me wrong the Beatles wrote some of the greatest songs ever, songs that will be good 50,100, 500 years from now. The Beatles changed the way music is recorded by being the first band to use the studio as an instrument. That all being said, I'm sick of the utter and total blind hype that critics, writers, musicians, and just about everyone else gives them. They were a horrible live band (when they actually did play, which was never or on top of roofs), I truly believe to be a great band you have to be good live or at the very least put on a good show.

But I see their first few albums were nothing but bubble gum pop songs, t hey didn't utilize George Harrison enough throughout their careers, they had a robotic drummer

And the stones are still together :P


also I know the whole Beatles vs Rolling stones argument has been done way to much

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by lucylamppost

Don’t get me wrong the Beatles wrote some of the greatest songs ever, songs that will be good 50,100, 500 years from now. The Beatles changed the way music is recorded by being the first band to use the studio as an instrument. That all being said, I'm sick of the utter and total blind hype that critics, writers, musicians, and just about everyone else gives them. They were a horrible live band (when they actually did play, which was never or on top of roofs), I truly believe to be a great band you have to be good live or at the very least put on a good show.

That's fair enough, but at least they pulled out instead of plaguing the world with tons of terrible tours featuring old men well past their prime unlike some bands.

But I see their first few albums were nothing but bubble gum pop songs, t hey didn't utilize George Harrison enough throughout their careers, they had a robotic drummer

George Harrison is my favorite Beatle so I can't argue that.

And the stones are still together :P

Have they honestly put anything out worth hearing recently though?

[lucylamppost]

That is true the rolling stones are not very hot anymore and have not put out anything good lately . Mick Jagger is actually quite scary.

[sleepy jack]

Precisely, I still need to listen to a Rolling Stones in its entirety =x