Most Overrated Band of All Time?

The Beatles.

They're really not that great musically, I can play 99% of their songs with the greatest of ease... and could've wrote most, as they are so incredibly simple. ... but they were, somehow, the biggest thing ever. Beetlemania was just too much for this band.... as they really aren't deserving of that much recognition. That, and their first two cd's were blatantly ripping off Buddy Holly as well... and that just annoys me.. haha.

not to be overly critical. . . but both

oops. . . a little too late. this is in response to hammersmith


[Edited on Jan 16, 2004 by DiamondGeezer]

Have you heard their newest album yet?

later than the argument?

You really can't judge the Beatles by their early albums. They weren't the same band by the end of their career.

A lot of their credibility, I think, comes from the subtlety in their lyrics, which was unprecedented, their focus of the album as the medium for art instead of the individual song, and also their innovations such as the use of odd instruments such as chellos or a zitar. No, no band could really be as great as the Beatles are made out to be, but you can't deny that they do have quite possibly the most far reaching influence of any band in history.

No, I'm referring to the argument.

Yeah, i didn't care for that one
Maybe I'll give it another listen tonight.

[Edited on Jan 16, 2004 by DiamondGeezer]

I think it's just really a huge step forward for them, and for all of punk as well, because it's an album that doesn't try to rest on being hard or loud. Certainly there are points where it gets hard, but the emphasis seems to be on maintaining subtelty and creating variation in rhythms and styles, something which punk as a whole seems to shy away from.

Plus, I think there are few lyrics as great as "It's time to harvest the crusts in your eyes" (That's from 13 songs, though, not the argument).

you're not sellin me on the eye crust

Eh, to each his own.

This is sort of true, but only in the sense that people who don't know anything about them still respect them greatly. The opposite argument can be made as well, that they are also the more underratted band ever, since most people really don't understand how good they were, and everyone who likes to pretend that they know anything about music like to rip on the Beatles.


Sure, a bunch of their stuff was simple. Who cares? Does anyone really think ELO and Yes are better than Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan? And to say that they weren't origional... who is? It's not like Buddy Holly played anything he didn't steal from black people (don't get me wrong, I LOVE Buddy) but there are maybe 5 bands that were formed after 1970 that weren't ripping of the Beatles in some way.

We don't even have to go in to their later stuff, just take early early pop mush, like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." Simple, repetitive, and ultra-pop. Yet still, in all the music ever written, there might be one song in 50,000 that even comes close to it.

I definately have to agree with the argument that they could be the most underrated band, because I think there are far too many people who only like them because they think they have to and fail to understand the importance of their music.

That =/= underrated.
that (does) = underappreciated.

big difference.

Sometimes I stammer
Mix up my grandma
You get what the meanings are

Yeah, it does tell more of how much people appreciate their controbutions to music than to how underrated they are, but those two things are linked.

Because their signifigance is underappreciated, thousands upon thousands of of stupid people get to say things like "I know the Beatles were great, but for my money The Dave Matthews Band is the greatest group ever."

its already been said but...the dead.


-oz

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but Come ON!!! If you could've written most of those songs what are you doing here talkin about it. To write songs so simple and melodic (and short) is not an easy thing. The melodic and harmonic interaction in "Your Mother Should Know" for instance is really amazing and actually not all that simple. But besides their writing, what they did in the studio with George Martin (along with a few other artists like Brian Wilson) completely redefined modern recording. There's hardly anything I've ever done in the process of making a record that can't be traced back to what they did how they approached the process.

So while there's no reason why you should like them if you don't, I think they were masterful at what they did and they changed the world of popular music.

Sorry for the long rant, but I just had to represent here.

As far as the ACTUAL topic goes, ...of ALL Time is difficult for me cause everyone has their moment, but I'd say Michael Jackson post Thriller is pretty crappy. Also, some new artists particularly Avril Lavigne and Michelle Branch are shite, but I don't know if they're highly rated enough to be overrated in the first place.

I'm shutting up now *and the crowd cheered*.



[Edited on Jan 16, 2004 by AdamElectric]

It's already been done, hence why I'm not doing it. And I'm failing to see how writing songs that are short, simple, and melodic is the greatest thing ever. In fact, those are 3 things that I don't look for in my music. Melodic I don't mind.. but simple is not good, and short is debatable (at best).

And what they did with recording has nothing to do with their music, so I fail to see why you bring that up.


They're overrated... everyone and their mom loves the Beatles.. even though they really aren't that good.

KISS




[Edited on Jan 16, 2004 by nocturnized]

You say you avoid these qualities in your music, but that doesn't make them bad. Modern day melodic, simple, short songs are crap, that's almost always true, at least as far as mainstream music goes. But to put together a clever pop song, however simple it is, is not that easy. To create a catchy melody may seem easy, but try it. Seriously, try it. I've tried it, nothing comes out well. Now most bands today tend to either A) have their catchy melodies written for them (boy bands) or B) steal them from someone else (i.e. Papa Roach, whose first single was literally a Green Day rhythm guitar riff with an Iron Maiden riff placed over it). But to create your own songs, make them simple and catchy, that's not as easy as it sounds.

new kids on the block

I get sick of this minimalist "philip glass" alterna - pop stuff.

I think it functions along the same lines as the corporate produced music in that it's vapid and simple yet has a beat so the potential for mass appeal is there.

oh, and no hard feelings, I just couldn't resist taking the cheap shot.

so the basis of your arguement for why the beatles are so overrated is 'their songs are simple, and easy to play'

sooo, Yngwie Malmsteen has to be the greatest ever, because his songs are REALLY hard top play, eh?

I disagree. Yes, they are simple, but there's also a certain amount of variation to their music which at least requires thought and planning. They are somewhat experimental, even if that experimental nature doesn't include complexity.

Also, I see no potential for mass appeal, because I think we would have seen that in the underground already if it were true. There are some underground bands that attract the attention of half-assed music fans who know nothing about music, such as The Get Up Kids (nothing against them, I think they're great, but they attract some very stupid fans sometimes). I see none of this with Modest Mouse. I have not met a single person who is a Modest Mouse fan whose musical tastest don't lean towards the unknown and deeply underground music.

Oh, and no offense was taken. I find it hard to take offense if the jab is clever, unless the person is a huge ass.

For my part I'd have to say the Rolling Stones, but Radiohead is right up there too.