Music Banter - Most overrated bands ever?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Thread Graveyard (https://www.musicbanter.com/thread-graveyard/)

- - Most overrated bands ever? (https://www.musicbanter.com/thread-graveyard/23282-most-overrated-bands-ever.html)

Popularity and being overrated go hand in hand. By that reasoning, The Beatles are the most overrated band. I love my Beatles though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by annapurna (Post 689048)

Popularity and being overrated go hand in hand. By that reasoning, The Beatles are the most overrated band. I love my Beatles though.

no!!!!! no they don't at all. overrating something is when you are recognizing something that is bad as good. for example, the jonas brothers are obviously a very popular band, a lot of people like them but does that make them good? no! not at all. On metacritic their album, lines vines and trying times, got a 62, which is ok, from the critics and a 2/ 10 from the users. No one over the age 14 or with half a brain actually thinks they are good. they are popular but not overrated. (well maybe overratted in the 14 year old girl category)

by saying the beatles are overrated, you are saying that the beatles are bad music, which is not true by any sense of the imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavanherk (Post 688778)

Beatles. I mean come on, playing 3 years in club residencies 2 out of every 3 nights pretty much forces a band into the limelight, bringing with it forced inspiration and corny crowd pleasing bubble gum skiffle. They were well practiced, and therefore hit the scene as a tight-knit show, but that's it.

It's my opinion, so don't get radical on me.

Everyone frowns when I tell them I don't listen to the Beatles, I don't play any of their songs, I don't know the lyrics etc. It's because the music simply doesn't please me. The Beatles are the most overrated band, ESPECIALLY after 1970 in their individual musical careers...

i think that the beatles are not your taste, but not overrated. they were a damn good band, made a lot of very interesting music ?(especially during thier drug years) and changed the face of both british and american rock and roll music, they progressed the style A LOT. that is may more than you can say for 99% of the other bands out there.

No. Overrating something is...overly rating it. Meaning you rate it higher than it deserves. A good band can be overrated simply they're rated as better then they are. This isn't a hard concept to grasp people.

well it depends on the degree to which you are saying something is overrated...

for example:

Quote:

I am a Beatles fan. Their songs are good. I also feel they are given too much credit. They weren't that good. Their were and are better bands. They became successful mostly do to the gimmick. Screaming and shaking their bums. They had a knack for writing hit songs so the success kept growing. Good for them. They deserve recognition for that, but people act like they changed music forever. They didn't. They helped to change the way people make recordings. Thanks to them artists now take a very long time to produce a record. Thanks guys. They didn't change modern composition at all. They were just a pop group that had lots of hits. Stephan Foster has more. Way more. Where's his star on the walk of fame. Oh yeah not a cute young person. That definitely means he wasn't as talented as John Lennon.

i can't say i disagree with that, there have been a lot better, but even the better ones were not as influential as they were, thats my only point

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack (Post 689075)

Agreed.

Refer here for example.

http://www.musicbanter.com/rock-n-ro...s-beatles.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by AwwSugar (Post 689014)

Not a lot of people like My Chemical Romance, what are you talking about?

Plenty of people like My Chemical Romance, as mind-boggling of a concept as that may be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElephantSack (Post 689156)

Plenty of people like My Chemical Romance, as mind-boggling of a concept as that may be.

They aren't overrated, though. Like... you can't put the Beatles and MCR next to each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lieasleep (Post 689081)

well it depends on the degree to which you are saying something is overrated...

for example:

i can't say i disagree with that, there have been a lot better, but even the better ones were not as influential as they were, thats my only point

I would say that there are bands that were more influental than The Beatles, such as The Velvet Underground.

Bah.

VU's influence is heavily overstated at times, they're certainly not more infuencial than The Beatles.

King Crimson broke just as much ground in the 60s and 70s as VU did if not more, and they're just as influencial.

But VU has influenced more hip (aka horrible) music so people tend to put a lot of emphasis on that.

I'm with Sleepy Jack -- I didn't say I disliked the Beatles, I just mentioned that I am not into them the way I've been lead to believe I SHOULD be into them, thus I coin them as overrated, for this and the other reasons I previously pointed out.

On that note, I agree that KISS is also quite overrated. Sorry, Weezer.

And I love Green Day, but I think they are also overrated. There is a lot of incredible punk out there, but Green Day has been washed, dried, pressed, folded, wrapped in plastic and displayed in most monuments to consumerism, so their popularity is 100 fold over the less "sold out" non-"cashcows."