Of all the bands people keep bringing up here, the Stones is the one popular choice that I truly agree with.

The fact that comments like this crop up every single time anytime someone says something negative about the Beatles is exactly why I consider them overrated.

Good Charlotte is over-rated.
& I got tired of hearing them a long time ago.

but honestly, i thought the same thing for a long time, an then i really listened to their music and gained at least a respect and appreciation for music. i mean do you really think the music world would be the way it is if it wasn't for them?

i agree about good charlotte, especially their new stuff

Well, I have really listened to their music and I find it to be overrated. I'm not saying I think that they suck or that they are not influential, I'm simply saying they are not as good as the hype would have you believe. That's the definition of overrated.

Good Charlotte, on the other hand, completely suck ass but I would never describe them as overrated. Why? Because I don't hear a lot of people claiming that they are some amazing band. In fact, they only thing I ever hear about them is how much they suck.

well you and i just have a different definitions of what overrated is. i mean we agree that good charlotte sucks ass but i consider them overrated because they are popular and have produced "hits."

i truly believe the beatles are the turning point in the rock world. they might not be as good as A LOT of the music that has come out after them but, on the other hand, would that music have come out if it wasn't for the beatles? we can never be sure of that. but how can one of the, if not the, most influential bands in history be overrated? if you don't like them, or they are not your taste, then that is a different matter entirely, but at least show this band some respect.

Again, what you're saying here is exactly why I find them overrated. People going around making claims like "the Beatles are the most influential band in history" are setting up a level of hype that the Beatles can't possibly live up to.

As I said before, I'm not saying I dislike them, I'm saying that they are not as good their reputation would have you believe. The fact that so many people seem to feel that it is a requirement that everyone bow down and worship them and show them some extreme level of respect not given to other bands is an example of why I think they are overrated.

The first four Beatles albums are essentially bubblegum pop. What Janszoon is saying is correct. when people say overrated, fans automatically get pissy and turn things into arguments. Overrated does'nt mean hated or disliked. It means that they have got more credit than they deserve. They WERE influential, of that there is no doubt but they were not the only group experimenting with sound and recording technique in the 60's.

The thing is, most of the other bands who were the real pioneers of those techniques and innovations forgot to bring one thing along: the fcking songs! The Beatles are really one of the only, very few bands of the 60s to delve into unusual experimentation and come out with a hell load of memorable songs that anybody really wants to listen to.

As for 'bubblegum', then yeah, the first TWO albums tinkered round the border of bubblegum-ism, especially with the girlband covers and whatnot. Hard Day's Night and With The Beatles, however, were not. Both records exhibited considerably more depth than the first two piles of plop, without being that exceptional either. But they were not bubblegum pop, not at all. They were pure beat music and rock'n'roll.

re:
 

Well, you're correct, they had a lot of great songs, but the buzz around them doesn't live up to the reality -- in my opinion at least. Especially with the Doors and Pink Floyd.