NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to say pink floyd, man they are annoying.

Yours ?

Pink Floyd is a good choice, but I really, really fucking hate the Eagles.

Pink Floyd is a good choice, but I really, really fucking hate the Eagles.

I agree. I don't think the Eagles are nearly as good as people consider them.

Nirvana.

It's a tie between Pink Floyd and the Eagles for me.

The Beach Boys. I can't stand it.

N Sync

N Sync
Someone rated them highly? I must have missed that.

As far as the Eagles and Pink Floyd, I have an appreciation for both - but perhaps they do get a little more credit than they deserve. Still, in my opinon not as over rated as others.

Van Halen, received more accolade than I thought they deserved though, and I think that Dave Mathews is touted as being a little more of a musical genius than he really is - to me his music comes off as pretentious pseudo new-age crap.

Someone rated them highly? I must have missed that.

As far as the Eagles and Pink Floyd, I have an appreciation for both - but perhaps they do get a little more credit than they deserve. Still, in my opinon not as over rated as others.

Van Halen, received more accolade than I thought they deserved though, and I think that Dave Mathews is touted as being a little more of a musical genius than he really is - to me his music comes off as pretentious pseudo new-age crap.

I agree and i HATE the eagles and pink floyd, utter crap.

The Libertines.

I agree and i HATE the eagles and pink floyd, utter crap.
*shoots*

Do not marr the name of the Floyd ::serious face::

I've been told that Pink Floyd are a brilliant band if you don't listen to the music but listen to the lyrics.

Can't see it myself - good bands and music make the music and lyrics gel.

You want to write good lyrics and shit music - be a poet.

Pink Floyd gets my vote.

I've been told that Pink Floyd are a brilliant band if you don't listen to the music but listen to the lyrics.

Can't see it myself - good bands and music make the music and lyrics gel.

You want to write good lyrics and shit music - be a poet.

Pink Floyd gets my vote.
Wow, I don't think Pink Floyd isn't nearly as bad as they're coming off here. I mean, lyrical genius is, for a lot of music - and perhaps the best modern music, an essential part of the experience. Think Bob Dylan here. Also, the thing with Pink Floyd, is the innovation and struggle to create art in music - I mean, I don't think they're the best band by any means... but they surely aren't the MOST over rated either.

In all honesty, the most overrated band is most likely Led Zeppelin, not because their music isn't good, but because there is no way that any band could possibly live up to the hype that a lot of people give Led Zeppelin. They're great, and possibly the best band ever, but even they aren't as good as a lot of people make them out to be.

Wow, I don't think Pink Floyd isn't nearly as bad as they're coming off here. I mean, lyrical genius is, for a lot of music - and perhaps the best modern music, an essential part of the experience. Think Bob Dylan here. Also, the thing with Pink Floyd, is the innovation and struggle to create art in music - I mean, I don't think they're the best band by any means... but they surely aren't the MOST over rated either.

Lyrical genius my ass. Read the lyrics to "Money". It is one of the most cliched and trite songs in history. Hell, the O'Jays wrote a ten time better song when they made "For the Love of Money."

Barrett was good, but Waters was a douche.

In all honesty, the most overrated band is most likely Led Zeppelin, not because their music isn't good, but because there is no way that any band could possibly live up to the hype that a lot of people give Led Zeppelin. They're great, and possibly the best band ever, but even they aren't as good as a lot of people make them out to be.

I would make an argument for ZOSO and "Stairway to Heaven" being the most overrated album and song respectively, but I don't think Led Zeppelin is the most overrated band.

I would make an argument for ZOSO and "Stairway to Heaven" being the most overrated album and song respectively, but I don't think Led Zeppelin is the most overrated band.

I don't think anyone could disagree that "Stairway to Heaven" is the most overrated song ever.

Lyrical genius my ass. Read the lyrics to "Money". It is one of the most cliched and trite songs in history. Hell, the O'Jays wrote a ten time better song when they made "For the Love of Money."

Barrett was good, but Waters was a douche.
While every one of their songs may not have been a lyrical masterpiece - a lot of them were. Money wasn't meant to be stunning in that sense at all. Theres more to it than that - my statement was in response to a previous post disclaiming the value of lyrics in songwriting - really, you should read more before you post.

Nirvana.
An excellent pick. May I also add the Beatles. What the hell was revolution number 9 about anyway?

In all honesty, the most overrated band is most likely Led Zeppelin, not because their music isn't good, but because there is no way that any band could possibly live up to the hype that a lot of people give Led Zeppelin. They're great, and possibly the best band ever, but even they aren't as good as a lot of people make them out to be.
That I can agree with - but to that end, why not make the same statement about the Beatles?

gotta be Nirvana, The Libertines or The Beatles

That I can agree with - but to that end, why not make the same statement about the Beatles?

The Beatles would be another excellent example of impossible hype. Or Michael Jackson.

Still, to me, the over-rated bands are the ones that get the bold independant 'art' reviews. Thats why my vote is still on DMB, not that they don't have some songs that are decent, but I still think they get FAR more credit than they deserve. At least the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Zep, and even the Eagles were influential in changing the face of music - DMB might be innovative, but I still don't think they have the same influential effect that the afforementioned bands did and still do have on the more respected end of the music industry.

While every one of their songs may not have been a lyrical masterpiece - a lot of them were. Money wasn't meant to be stunning in that sense at all. Theres more to it than that - my statement was in response to a previous post disclaiming the value of lyrics in songwriting - really, you should read more before you post.

Sorry about that, I get riled when I hear someone talk about Pink Floyd's songwriting being good, and you just happened to be the individual I quoted.

The Beatles would be another excellent example of impossible hype. Or Michael Jackson.
The only reason I won't give these artists the title though - is that I think to a large extent they do deserve a lot of the accolade handed to them. Even if its not deserved on such a scale. It is impossible hype - but then, if you look at the accomplishments of these artists, at least a little of it is deserved - at least moreso than some others.

abba r THE most over-rated band ever in my opinion. they r shit :confused: :confused: :confused: :gundge:

Sorry about that, I get riled when I hear someone talk about Pink Floyd's songwriting being good, and you just happened to be the individual I quoted.
Its ok, it simply breaks down to different taste and values in songwriting. Difference of opinon is always going to pose a formidable border when arguing the merrits of musical intention and integrity.

I disagree with Pink Floyd.

If you don't understand their music, that doesn't mean they are over rated. How many songs of theirs have you guys actually heard? Most likely just the occasional extremely edited version of The Wall or Money on the radio.

Pink Floyd is not about being the best band ever. They are what a real band is supposed to be - an outlet of emotion and an expression of one's self.

I think Green Day is over rated. They are awesome, but nothing near as good as say Tom Petty and the Heart Breakers, Bob Seger, Aqueduct, Shinedown, or any of the classic rock n roll bands - you know, jazz/ rock/ country/ blues/ funk fusion.

For me it must be The Hives...suposed to be the next superband, but when I listned to them i went BAH! Crappy music.

If one looks internationally, any big band during the hippietime nowdays have a hype that they never can live up to.

That I can agree with - but to that end, why not make the same statement about the Beatles?

Because the Beatles revolutionized both pop and rock music, were incredible popular while also being the most experimental band of their day, made seven incredible albums (with four of them being probably in the top 10 of all time) in a period of six years.

EDIT: And Led Zeppelin can't claim that distinction.

abba r THE most over-rated band ever in my opinion. they r shit :confused: :confused: :confused: :gundge:

R they? Y r they shit? Bcuz u can't spell?

... The Libertines ...

Thanks.

I can't describe how I cannot listen to them.

I disagree with Pink Floyd.

If you don't understand their music, that doesn't mean they are over rated. How many songs of theirs have you guys actually heard? Most likely just the occasional extremely edited version of The Wall or Money on the radio.

Pink Floyd is not about being the best band ever. They are what a real band is supposed to be - an outlet of emotion and an expression of one's self.

I think Green Day is over rated. They are awesome, but nothing near as good as say Tom Petty and the Heart Breakers, Bob Seger, Aqueduct, Shinedown, or any of the classic rock n roll bands - you know, jazz/ rock/ country/ blues/ funk fusion.
Now THATS a good example of a truly over rated band in my opinon. What did they really bring to the table except the over-commercialization of an ideal? They took the term 'punk' and made it a brand marketable image to be bought and sold to the masses. Not that they don't have some degree of musical capability, and they do have some good lyrics - but its what they represent in the music industry that leaves a filthy taste in my mouth. Then again, Led Zep did finally sell out to those damn Caddy commercials... nothing is sacred.

Green Day actually did what people accuse the Sex Pistols of doing. Yet, Green Day never gets railed on for this! The Pistols take all the piss for something they never did. Something for a story their horrible manager made up just to screw John Lydon.

Green Day does have good songs, but really, they're extremely over-rated and commercialized.

Kings of Leon

Because the Beatles revolutionized both pop and rock music, were incredible popular while also being the most experimental band of their day, made seven incredible albums (with four of them being probably in the top 10 of all time) in a period of six years.

EDIT: And Led Zeppelin can't claim that distinction.
You reaaaaally need to read more before you post. You've totally taken that quote out of context. Read the original post by Sdaeriji... I'm not disclaiming the astounding feats of the Beatles - I'm agreeing with Sdaeriji on the concept of a band not being able to live up to their own god-like hype. They are an amazing and very accomplished band - but are they really that good?

On a side note: Elvis is another artist who fits into this categorical reference.

Thanks.

I can't describe how I cannot listen to them.
i dont mind a couple of their songs, but the rest is crap

they arent these great musical saviours like some of the music press has liked to make out

You just really have to look at the charts. They're basically all over-rated. Only occasionally do you find true talent in popular music and that has become a very rare occurence.

Finally, someone else agrees with me that Green Day has no soul and is basically just a cookie cutter punk band that did nothing special except happen upon the critics good sides.

If you say so

Finally, someone else agrees with me that Green Day has no soul and is basically just a cookie cutter punk band that did nothing special except happen upon the critics good sides.

Cookie Cutter's 50% correct. They were an actual underground band back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but they went pop as soon as they signed to a major label. They actually sold out.

You reaaaaally need to read more before you post. You've totally taken that quote out of context. Read the original post by Sdaeriji... I'm not disclaiming the astounding feats of the Beatles - I'm agreeing with Sdaeriji on the concept of a band not being able to live up to their own god-like hype. They are an amazing and very accomplished band - but are they really that good?

On a side note: Elvis is another artist who fits into this categorical reference.

I read your post, and I was responding why you couldn't lump the Beatles into that category. I think the Beatles more than deserve the hype they receive and I posted why. That is why I added the edit.

Busted were pretty overrated, particularly by children and childrens programming, mainly due to the lack of obscenity

Now THATS a good example of a truly over rated band in my opinon. What did they really bring to the table except the over-commercialization of an ideal? They took the term 'punk' and made it a brand marketable image to be bought and sold to the masses. Not that they don't have some degree of musical capability, and they do have some good lyrics - but its what they represent in the music industry that leaves a filthy taste in my mouth. Then again, Led Zep did finally sell out to those damn Caddy commercials... nothing is sacred.

That's not really true. If you listen to Green Day's first albums, the ones before Dookie, they had essentially the same sound as they do now. They were never truly 'punk', and they've never really tried to make the claim that they were punk. The fact that their music was so easily commercialized just shows that they had an easily marketable sound to begin with. They've never really changed their sound to make money, though. You're looking for bands like Sugar Ray, who completely changed their sound in order to make it big.

Green Day are their own brand of music, and that brand isn't everyone's favourite kind and therefo a said to be overrated.

Finally, someone else agrees with me that Green Day has no soul and is basically just a cookie cutter punk band that did nothing special except happen upon the critics good sides.

Do not-teenaged people actually enjoy the new album? I searched high and low and the only people who do like it, upon being asked "Why?" give the answer "They are the greatest, dude" (or something to that extent).

Let me add Iron Maiden to the list. They are what they are, only because of a few albums, which were really quite mediocre (I'm a metal/rock fanatic though, I may not be objective on this one).

Do not-teenaged people actually enjoy the new album? I searched high and low and the only people who do like it, upon being asked "Why?" give the answer "They are the greatest, dude" (or something to that extent).

Let me add Iron Maiden to the list. They are what they are, only because of a few albums, which were really quite mediocre (I'm a metal/rock fanatic though, I may not be objective on this one).

Dance of death wasn't exactly their best album.
Their quality varies.

I read your post, and I was responding why you couldn't lump the Beatles into that category. I think the Beatles more than deserve the hype they receive and I posted why. That is why I added the edit.
The only problem I have with that philosophy, though you are entitled to think it, is that some critics still talk of the beatles as if they were the pinnacle of musical genius. They may have accomplished an amazing amount in their time, and paved a road for a plethora of new ground in the music industry... but they aren't the height of musical perfection that some would have you beleive. Music is an evolutionary art from, constantly changing - improving on one end of the spectrum while degrading on the other. A lot of people would like you and I to beleive that on the top of this pile (and for the present example) the beatles would sit as gods overlooking the throngs of lessers. I just think, that even though they're great, they aren't as good as all the hype surrounding them. Great - yes, musical gods - no.

I searched high and low and the only people who do like it, upon being asked "Why?" give the answer "They are the greatest, dude" (or something to that extent).

I once had a conversation with a guy where I simply asked him why he thought Green Day were the best band ever. The debate went on for days and he never actually came up with a reason, just resorted to attacks saying the music I listened to was a load of depressing noise about suicide. Was really quite amusing asking him what talent they possesed and watching him 'subtly' change subject.

I am not saying Green Day is bad, I am saying they are to me another punk pop band like Good Charlotte.
No offense if you like them or anything.

I like obscure bands the most.
-Millencollin
-Aqueduct
-THE MNGMNT
-Scapegoat Wax
-POD

Only really overrated by those who got into them early As their music progressed and they became a fad they were just said to be amazing by anyone who heard about them even if they hadn't heard their music.

The most over rated band are the beatles. everyone raves about them , but they're rubbish. tony christie and tom jones, the way forward.

The only problem I have with that philosophy, though you are entitled to think it, is that some critics still talk of the beatles as if they were the pinnacle of musical genius. They may have accomplished an amazing amount in their time, and paved a road for a plethora of new ground in the music industry... but they aren't the height of musical perfection that some would have you beleive. Music is an evolutionary art from, constantly changing - improving on one end of the spectrum while degrading on the other. A lot of people would like you and I to beleive that on the top of this pile (and for the present example) the beatles would sit as gods overlooking the throngs of lessers. I just think, that even though they're great, they aren't as good as all the hype surrounding them. Great - yes, musical gods - no.

Well, I would suppose that if they were normally judged as the pinnacle of musical development, I would say that they would be overrated. But if they were defined as the most dynamic modern band I would agree.

By your definition, yes they would be overrated, but I hardly think that too many critics or fans would call them the greatest musicians of all time.

N Sync

Only like one of there songs, so I'd have to agree. I like one of the guys' younger brother that sings though, Aaron Carter guy. My boyfriend has the same first and middle anitials (?) as AC's first and last name :D

I personally think this thread is pointless.

No single person likes the exact same styles and bands as anyone else.
I think that popular bands are overrated for being just that - popular.
Just listen to what you like, not what the hype likes.
Music is not politics. It is expression.

Good point

Overrated Poet: Walt Whitman
Who wants to read someone's diary? It doesn't rhyme! If I want to read real poetry I'll reach for Keats, Frost, Dickinson, Yeats, Wordsworth, etc.

Now... Whitman showed he could create poems that rhymed AND were deep (like the other great poets) .. knowing he had this power, why would he go for the deep verse that doesn't rhyme and sounds like crap?

Frost wrote Mending Wall and a few other legendary long poems that do not necessarily rhyme; yet his stuff made sense. I read Leaves of Grass and it makes no sense whatsoever.. sounds like he's talking in his sleep or something with a bunch of gibberish.

So one day I will publish my diary.

;)

band: Rage Against the Machine (sorry, I hate their politics... and am not too fond of the spastic music. that guy shouts too much.. sounds like a punk)

That's not really true. If you listen to Green Day's first albums, the ones before Dookie, they had essentially the same sound as they do now. They were never truly 'punk', and they've never really tried to make the claim that they were punk. The fact that their music was so easily commercialized just shows that they had an easily marketable sound to begin with. They've never really changed their sound to make money, though. You're looking for bands like Sugar Ray, who completely changed their sound in order to make it big.
You're spot on using Sugar Ray as an example for that. It doesn't change the fact that I think Green Day is over rated - but since all of this is dependant on opinion anyway - it really doesnt matter. Its not like theres a technical definition for over rating musical talent or contribution.

I just don't see what Green Day has done (other than having a marketable image and sound) to earn them the kind of respect that they seem to share with artists like Bruce Springsteen or Van Morrison, who have done so much more for music.

Hell, for that matter, lets keep it as fair as possible, compare Green Day to Bad Religion... both of them have trademark sounds, and both of them came about at the same time... but Bad Religion is far more respected in smaller circles for never having gone corporate and standing behind their moral values. Green Day has yet to contribute anything close to what Bad Religion gives as far as lyrical content, energy, or realism on stage or in the studio.

Its not that I don't think Green Day has some talent, I just think that even in their own genre there are bands far more worthy of the fame they enjoy, and for better reasons.

Then again, it was Bad Religions choice to build their own label and avoid having to sell themselves as an image, rather than by sound and word of mouth... so perhaps being an under rated band has done more good for them than harm. Its all too relative and subjective to truly define I suppose.

I personally think this thread is pointless.

No single person likes the exact same styles and bands as anyone else.
I think that popular bands are overrated for being just that - popular.
Just listen to what you like, not what the hype likes.
Music is not politics. It is expression.

Here Here, actually :D Some people may like the same styles as you do, so the 'musical band threads' are more of a way to get to know each other, I guess. I'm weird somedays.

You're spot on using Sugar Ray as an example for that. It doesn't change the fact that I think Green Day is over rated - but since all of this is dependant on opinion anyway - it really doesnt matter. Its not like theres a technical definition for over rating musical talent or contribution. I just don't see what Green Day has done (other than having a marketable image and sound) to earn them the kind of respect that they seem to share with artists like Bruce Springsteen or Van Morrison, who have done so much more for music. Hell, for that matter, lets keep it as fair as possible, compare Green Day to Bad Religion... both of them have trademark sounds, and both of them came about at the same time... but Bad Religion is far more respected for never having gone corporate and standing behind their moral values. Green Day has yet to contribute anything close to what Bad Religion gives as far as lyrical content, energy, or realism on stage or in the studio. Its not that I don't think Green Day has some talent, I just think that even in their own genre there are bands far more worthy of the fame they enjoy, and for better reasons. Then again, it was Bad Religions choice to build their own label and avoid having to sell themselves as an image, rather than by sound and word of mouth... so perhaps being an under rated band has done more good for them than harm. Its all too relative and subjective to truly define I suppose.

Oh, I wasn't arguing that they're overrated. Green Day is overrated. I disagree that they were sellouts, because they've never really changed their sound.

I personally think this thread is pointless.

No single person likes the exact same styles and bands as anyone else.
I think that popular bands are overrated for being just that - popular.
Just listen to what you like, not what the hype likes.
Music is not politics. It is expression.

There is a great deal more intelligent discussion on music threads.

the grateful dead

music that requires acid to appreciate cant be all that good.

Limp Bizkit clearly.

Hmm. Difficult to say. I'm inclined to break it down slightly by saying that the most overrated band is probably Nirvana. This isn't to say that Nirvana isn't great, or that its sound wasn't revolutionary, but if you look at what they accomplished outside of slaying hair metal and Kurt Cobain killing himself, they had a single masterpiece album in Nevermind and a few other good ones, but aside from that one, no album of theirs really jumps out at you. In Utero was really muddy, most of their other albums no better, and some slightly worse, than any of the other albums coming out of grunge in those days.

The most overrated musician is unquestionably Eddie Van Halen. I keep hearing nothing but how this guy was the heir apparent to Jimmi Hendrix, but really, is that true? No one takes anything Van Halen did seriously, their work doesn't even compare with other hair bands of the time like Guns n' Roses, to say nothing of real metal bands like Metallica, and his riffs were really all about going really fast-fingered on the guitar, at the expense of actual melody and music. Not only is EVH outclassed by real guitar gods like Hendrix, Clapton, Page, and Beck, but he's even outclassed by people who aren't usually mentioned in the same book as him, like Slash and Tom Morello.

Eddie Van Halen is an incredibly gifted musician: one of the most talented/capable rock guitarists in the world, a classical pianist, etc.

Pink Floyd is a good choice, but I really, really f______g hate the Eagles.

Jeez. Me too. And my boyfriend just keeps going on and on about them :P

Oh, I wasn't arguing that they're overrated. Green Day is overrated. I disagree that they were sellouts, because they've never really changed their sound.
In that respect you do have a point, and I give you that - I was hasty in stating otherwise. Also, like I said (and as was mentioned in another persons post) being under rated often does more for a band than being over rated. Pearl Jam is another band like Bad Religion that ducked the spotlight in an attempt to maintain dignity in their work. I respect them immensely for doing so, as do I most bands that do this. Its no secret that signing to big labels where producers control the music to a sterile state has been the downfall of many great bands... sure they make more money, but the cost (in my opinion) is greater than the pay out. Reputation and integrity used to be worth something, thankfully there are still some bands out there maintaining this aspect of music.

In todays world of mass marketing, I shudder to think what we may be losing for these kind of ideals. Would we have even heard of artists like Bob Dylan or Lou Reed? I can't see people that unmarketable being signed today... how many artists with this kind of potential are slipping through the cracks?

ya know what i seriously hate? people cadigorize green day a sell outs. yet, look at the ramones, the clash and pistols. they were ALL on major lables. yet people dont call them sell outs nearly as much as gd. as much as i love gd, they are over rated. but someone said they dont put out energy. since when? and billie joe has a record company himself, gd is partialy on it, for their vynl stuff, adeline

Rolling Stones


MAKE SOME FECKING NEW MUSIC!

Not only is EVH outclassed by real guitar gods like Hendrix, Clapton, Page, and Beck, but he's even outclassed by people who aren't usually mentioned in the same book as him, like Slash and Tom Morello.
You missed Mark Knopffler ;)

I tend to agree though, he was great... but not as good as he was pumped up to be.

I leave out Busted and other manufactured/pretending to be genuine articles.
It has to be The Beatles if one takes a historical perspective. The Stones were/are possibly also overated but at least it's only basic rock n' roll, and doesn't carry with it the sort of affected reverence from people who never moved on in this ephemeral genre. (not that any music, be it so called classical or pop is other than ephemera). Most overated solo artist has to be ELVIS PRESLEY he really was shit! And has provided a cretinous icon for greasy, tacky low forehead types to worship as a second Jesus.

Only like one of there songs, so I'd have to agree. I like one of the guys' younger brother that sings though, Aaron Carter guy. My boyfriend has the same first and middle anitials (?) as AC's first and last name :D

I can't believe I actually know this, but Aaron Carter's brother was Backstreet Boys, not *NSYNC. Two of the guys of *NSYNC have actually gone and made their own albums, which have been fairly successful. This, by no means, gives credit to their talents as musicians...

Limp Bizkit clearly.

A band has to be rated highly in order to be overrated. I don't think any real fans of music consider them any good anymore.

interpol.

good music, but not the gods they're made out to be.

Eddie Van Halen is an incredibly gifted musician: one of the most talented/capable rock guitarists in the world, a classical pianist, etc.


Agreed!

Anyway, what I wanted to say:

You can't say that Pink Floyd, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones are overrated or make bad music, because you aren't able to put them in their own time. Saying they are bad is like saying "The Seven Samurai" is something overrated and has bad stunts, details, etc. The only people who can actually make a useful reply in this thread would be those of the second and third age. Those who heard the Rolling Stones as th first people who'd ever hear them. Only they can compare bands of now to bands of then. Talk to someone aged fourty, whether he listen to Greenday, POD, dEUS or Soulfly today, only he knows what effect those band trully had.

no bodies said metallica yet? - k then METALLICA
and has bon jovi only got like one mention ??? com'on - bon jovi sucks balls

i'm also in the i hate the eagles club -

Oh yeah, you're really "gifted" when your parents force you to start playing instruments at age 3.

*is directed at Eddie Van Halen*

I can see Pink Floyd and maybe even Led-Zeppelin (I still love those bands) and I totally respect your thought of music. We're talking about overrating not bashing the band on one or two songs (ex: The Beatles). Yes they may have been overrated at times but if you think of the long run at what they did? George Harrison: First professional musician to hold a concert for charity, Paul McCartney: Created Yesterday, the single most covered song of all time (yet he was the most overrated Beatle). The Beatles also gave teenagers more freedoms then we know today, haircuts, basic rights, etc. But just because you don't like the band doesn't make them overrated? Right? I'm not mad, just pointing something out.

Little known facts about the Beatles though:
NONE of them knew how to read music (Paul later taught himself though.) George Martin had to describe the sounds to them for Yellow Submarine (which is an overrated song)
John, George, and Paul picked up their first guitar at around 12 and starting playing it like they've always known how to
First musicians to use backwards recording and tracking
First musicians to have a political stance (mainly John)
Created Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, facts about the album:
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is number one on the charts in the United States for 19 weeks.
Album of the Year: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Best Contemporary Album: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Best Album Cover: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Best Engineered Record, Non-Classical: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

They also were the first modern musicians to have long hair, they "gave" kids the right to have long hair to (before that it was VERY frowned apon)

Sorry for stealing the thread, I just felt like saying that before you say they're overrated :rolleyes: ;) :p

ya know what i seriously hate? people cadigorize green day a sell outs. yet, look at the ramones, the clash and pistols. they were ALL on major lables. yet people dont call them sell outs nearly as much as gd. as much as i love gd, they are over rated. but someone said they dont put out energy. since when? and billie joe has a record company himself, gd is partialy on it, for their vynl stuff, adeline
Its not that signing to a major label is always a bad thing... just where artists have no control. This is not always the case, but some very good examples are John Cougar, or do I mean John Cougar Mellencamp, or do I mean John Mellencamp...

Big labels are heartless when they try to establish new artists and make money quickly. Some artists are already established enough to have that control in place and stick with it... other artists are perverted and screwed with until they dont even sound like themselves anymore. Still other artists see what the big labels and producers are swinging, and jump on for the ride. Its not always about changing your image - its just about allowing a label to make a mockery out of what you have to offer by making you a billboard to sell things with... but I'm sure businesses like Pepsi and Mac really care about the music industry and only offer commercial slots to increase band awareness... or is that a bi-product of some sort...

As far as artists being screwed by labels, Neil Young is another good example. After 'Harvest' in 1972, Warner Brothers tried to force Neil to make five essentially duplicated albums (to capitalize on the success of the first). His music suffered, at their hands, until finally due to the poor sales they dropped him. I think he moved on to Epic (not sure which label it was) where he re-gained full artistic control, and that year released the smash hit 'Keep on Rockin in the Free World' to spite the WB. It took him a long time to recover from the bad press that he had under WB, but his albums after leaving them were the best he ever made.

I know a lot of people aren't fans of his music, but it still makes a pretty valid case for the problems with big labels and the control they have over some artists. In the case of Green Day, the reason they have no respect, is that they took that sound, said 'hey, that worked... lets make some more' and ran with it. There is a complete void of musical progression in their music and lyrics. But they do have a big label to bakc them up and clean up their sound just right so it sounds good enough to slap onto MTV and sell it to the masses of million dollar marketing industry pop-punk wannabe's.

Oh yeah, you're really "gifted" when your parents force you to start playing instruments at age 3.

*is directed at Eddie Van Halen*

I'm sure he's listening to you, too.

snip

They still don't live up to their own hype. Musically, they were gifted, but they weren't outstanding, and their music wasn't as revolutionary as their image was.

They still don't live up to their own hype. Musically, they were gifted, but they weren't outstanding, and their music wasn't as revolutionary as their image was.

Good point Sdaeriji, but with what you're saying, wouldn't everyone be overrated if someone speaks good of them? I mean, basically no one can live up to their hype. Music not being revolutionary? I don't get what you're trying to say.

They still don't live up to their own hype. Musically, they were gifted, but they weren't outstanding, and their music wasn't as revolutionary as their image was.
*nods*

I need to learn how to make points without rambling on for half an hour... teach me Obi Wan! :D

-snip-

EXACTLY! Look, the Pistols signed to a major label, but they got kicked off because the board of directors couldn't control the band. They signed to another label, and got kicked off just five days later for the same reason. Then, they signed to Virgin, which was a much more lenient label (and Richard Branson thought highly of the band). Virgin actually allowed them to do what they wanted.

The Ramones signed to a major label, but their content was hardly anything that needed to be controlled. Same goes for The Clash, but remember that The Clash did sell out in the 1980's, with their bullshit "Joe Strummer is missing" hoax and the billboards. And the postcards! The Clash on fucking London postcards!!

Lasc, you will be the ninth person up for my Special Award. You've earned it, damnit!

Good point Sdaeriji, but with what you're saying, wouldn't everyone be overrated if someone speaks good of them? I mean, basically no one can live up to their hype. Music not being revolutionary? I don't get what you're trying to say.

No, it's the fact that so many people hold the Beatles up as the pinnacle of musical evolution when their music doesn't hold that true. No one is saying that the Beatles weren't amazing; it's just that they can't possibly be as good as people say they are because so many people hold them so highly.

EXACTLY! Look, the Pistols signed to a major label, but they got kicked off because the board of directors couldn't control the band. They signed to another label, and got kicked off just five days later for the same reason. Then, they signed to Virgin, which was a much more lenient label (and Richard Branson thought highly of the band). Virgin actually allowed them to do what they wanted.

The Ramones signed to a major label, but their content was hardly anything that needed to be controlled. Same goes for The Clash, but remember that The Clash did sell out in the 1980's, with their bullshit "Joe Strummer is missing" hoax and the billboards. And the postcards! The Clash on fucking London postcards!!

Lasc, you will be the ninth person up for my Special Award. You've earned it, damnit!
Thank you for further proving my point. And I look forward to my award! :D

New bands - The Darkness, flogging molly and The white stripes

Old bands - Lynyrd Skynyrd (also longest band name without a vowell) and T Rex

I might get some abuse for this but oh well

no bodies said metallica yet? - k then METALLICA


This may be offtopic, since the whole thread has shifted a little, but "Master of Puppets" is universally recognised as the opus magnum of thrash metal.

They still don't live up to their own hype. Musically, they were gifted, but they weren't outstanding, and their music wasn't as revolutionary as their image was.

I think that their music was just as revolutionary as their image. Music completely changed from 1962-63 to 1970, and The Beatles were by far the most compelling band of those years.

I find the Stooges a lot more compelling than the Beatles.

opus magnum of thrash metal.

:p

That phrase cracked me up.

I find the Stooges a lot more compelling than the Beatles.

The music industry certainly didn't.

I think that their music was just as revolutionary as their image. Music completely changed from 1962-63 to 1970, and The Beatles were by far the most compelling band of those years.
Why not the people they were influenced by? They didn't just pull that sound out of the air - genius application, but not god like.

No, it's the fact that so many people hold the Beatles up as the pinnacle of musical evolution when their music doesn't hold that true. No one is saying that the Beatles weren't amazing; it's just that they can't possibly be as good as people say they are because so many people hold them so highly.

Yes, but don't you think that they hold them so highly for a reason? They covered basically every genre of music, rock and roll, love, mellow, psychedellic (sp), and pop (Rubber Soul) They never once went back on a previous sound and only once did they re-release their albums, but that was because their new manager forced it and basically did it without their knowing.

But let's stop this petty argument and declare the Beatles slightly-overrated.

Why not the people they were influenced by? They didn't just pull that sound out of the air - genius application, but not god like.

I was going to say that but it slipped my mind. If you think about it, you can trace roughly over half the modern day music to the Beatles. They headed the British invasion which included the Rolling Stones which influenced more people.

The music industry certainly didn't.

That's because the music industry is full of morons. Sadistic ones, at that.

Nirvana.

That's because the music industry is full of morons. Sadistic ones, at that.

They are morons, wasn't it the first record companies who said to The Silver Beetles "[Their sound is off, they'll never catch on]" look what happend?

Nirvana.

the whole genre of music was over rated

Why not the people they were influenced by? They didn't just pull that sound out of the air - genius application, but not god like.

I'm not going to say they reinvented music. They did borrow a lot of sounds, but nobody in history combined so many sounds, improved on so many styles, and gained so much success in doing so.

And if you look at nearly every popular rock/pop band of the last three decades you will find that they were influenced by the Beatles.

I was going to say that but it slipped my mind. If you think about it, you can trace roughly over half the modern day music to the Beatles. They headed the British invasion which included the Rolling Stones which influenced more people.
Ok, and since the Beatles attribute so much of their fame to influence from other musical giants such as Bob Dylan, Buddy Holly and yes... even Elvis... does that mean that the aforementioned artists are even better than the Beatles for having influence on the most influential band? (a point which is extremely subjective anyway)

The point is, yes - they are amazing, and yes, they were monumentally influential... but they are still surrounded by a non-human level of hype. They do deserve it to some extent, but not to the extent they enjoy. I still wouldn't call them the most over rated band, but in some respects I still beleive that they are over rated.

Ok, and since the Beatles attribute so much of their fame to influence from other musical giants such as Bob Dylan, Buddy Holly and yes... even Elvis... does that mean that the aforementioned artists are even better than the Beatles for having influence on the most influential band? (a point which is extremely subjective anyway)

The point is, yes - they are amazing, and yes, they were monumentally influential... but they are still surrounded by a non-human level of hype. They do deserve it to some extent, but not to the extent they enjoy. I still wouldn't call them the most over rated band, but in some respects I still beleive that they are over rated.'

Elvis was John and Paul's influencer until they met (64? 65?) then they didn't like him at all. Buddy Holly had no influence on them. Bob Dylan only had influence on them by being the first person to introduce them to marijuana.

U2. We should lynch bono

Bob Geldof

U2. We should lynch bono

Bono's a self-righteous dork.

U2. We should lynch bono

God I hate U2.

'

Elvis was John and Paul's influencer until they met (64? 65?) then they didn't like him at all. Buddy Holly had no influence on them. Bob Dylan only had influence on them by being the first person to introduce them to marijuana.
You're kidding right? Have you ever read any of the Bio's? Paul was obsessed with the style of Buddy, and modelled his early writing style after his music. Later he bought most of the rights to the Cricket's songs, and even now he sponsors a 'Buddy Holly' week in honor of him!!

Bob Dylan is acknowledged as teaching the beatles about more than marijuana - he also intorduced them to folk music and taught them about lyrical devices.

Elvis was the first person to incorporate several styles of music that came from very different backgrounds - this concept became the backbone of the Beatles mixed style! They took his example and did it to an even further extent. To deny the contributions of these artists (among several others) is absurd.

U2 gets too much credit for things they didn't start. "The Edge's" guitar style, for instance. He got it from combining the styles of Steve Jones and Keith Levene. The fucking media makes it like he invented it! Fucking bullshit!!

U2 gets too much credit for things they didn't start. "The Edge's" guitar style, for instance. He got it from combining the styles of Steve Jones and Keith Levene. The fucking media makes it like he invented it! Fucking bullshit!!

I never knew "The Edge" had his own guitar style....

Evanessence, God how I loathe Evanessence!
Metallica as well, Apocalyptica, four cello group that play Metallica, performs Metallica's music much better and much more beautifully.

I never knew "The Edge" had his own guitar style....
his name pisses me off, it justs screams the fact that he's up his own arse

God I hate U2.

UNO DOS TRES CATORCE!!!!!1111111oneoneoneoneone

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11worst

read^ if you haven't already

I never knew "The Edge" had his own guitar style....

He really doesn't. That's what I'm saying.

his name pisses me off, it justs screams the fact that he's up his own arse

How arrogant is it that Paul Hewson named himself Bono Vox, "good voice" in Latin?

He really doesn't. That's what I'm saying.

No, I understand. I just never knew people even considered there to be a "The Edge" way of playing the guitar. When I think of the greatest guitarists, he doesn't even come to mind.

How arrogant is it that Paul Hewson named himself Bono Vox, "good voice" in Latin?

I didn't know that! Now I hate them even more

You're kidding right? Have you ever read any of the Bio's? Paul was obsessed with the style of Buddy, and modelled his early writing style after his music. Later he bought most of the rights to the Cricket's songs, and even now he sponsors a 'Buddy Holly' week in honor of him!!

Bob Dylan is acknowledged as teaching the beatles about more than marijuana - he also intorduced them to folk music and taught them about lyrical devices.

Elvis was the first person to incorporate several styles of music that came from very different backgrounds - this concept became the backbone of the Beatles mixed style! They took his example and did it to an even further extent. To deny the contributions of these artists (among several others) is absurd.

Oh yes, damnit, it's been awhile since I read The Love You Make, sorry Lasc. But remember, John later denied he idoled Elvis is his later years. But Bob Dylan's main contribution was introducing them to marijuana. You can see this change quite suddendly from Please Please me to Rubber Soul.

What he did to label himself was extremely arrogant and obnoxious.

Same goes for The Edge.

No, I understand. I just never knew people even considered there to be a "The Edge" way of playing the guitar. When I think of the greatest guitarists, he doesn't even come to mind.

No REAL guitarists would ie Santana, Brian May, Casey Chaos (even with a shit name like that) and others which I can't be bothered to name

Shit even Dan Hawkins (Darkness) is much better than that piece of scum

No REAL guitarists would ie Santana, Brian May, Casey Chaos (even with a shit name like that) and others which I can't be bothered to name

Shit even Dan Hawkins (Darkness) is much better than that piece of scum

Jimi Hendrix? I watched a video of him doing Purple Haze and he was playing it with his tongue.

Oh yes, damnit, it's been awhile since I read The Love You Make, sorry Lasc. But remember, John later denied he idoled Elvis is his later years. But Bob Dylan's main contribution was introducing them to marijuana. You can see this change quite suddendly from Please Please me to Rubber Soul.
Still, whether John denied it or not (and yes, he did - but it was in an effort to disassociate himself from the shady image that was developing around Elvis at the time. John was an amazing person, but even he can't bs me into beleiving that Elvis had no influence on him whatsoever. There were big changes in most of there albums over the years as you say though - in fact I'd say the biggest due to drugs was after meeting a certain doctor named Robert - Revolver was a very complete and violent departure from their previous styles for almost exclusively that reason, and it was released directly after Rubber Soul... quick changes to be sure. ;)

Anyting RAP or Insain Clown Possie :sniper:

No REAL guitarists would ie Santana, Brian May, Casey Chaos (even with a shit name like that) and others which I can't be bothered to name

Shit even Dan Hawkins (Darkness) is much better than that piece of scum
Oooo the great guitarists... why does everyone always forget Ry Cooder and Mark Knoppfler (sp)?

Jimi Hendrix? I watched a video of him doing Purple Haze and he was playing it with his tongue.
I prefer guitarists who are technically good. Hendrix was a showman and a damn good one but I don't think he is as good as say Slash at playing the guitar

Oooo the great guitarists... why does everyone always forget Ry Cooder and Mark Knoppfler (sp)?

Forgive my ignorance but who?

Knoppfler is about as good as ringo playing the drums or sid vicious playing the bass

Holy bejesus... Oscar Lopez too, that guy cooks.

I prefer a guitarist who genuinely loves playing his instrument. Steve Jones comes to mind before anybody else. And he's extremely good at it.

Whether it's the Sex Pistols, the Professionals, Fire & Gasoline, The Neurotic Outsiders, or his solo and freelance work, he's outstanding.

Still, whether John denied it or not (and yes, he did - but it was in an effort to disassociate himself from the shady image that was developing around Elvis at the time. John was an amazing person, but even he can't bs me into beleiving that Elvis had no influence on him whatsoever. There were big changes in most of there albums over the years as you say though - in fact I'd say the biggest due to drugs was after meeting a certain doctor named Robert - Revolver was a very complete and violent departure from their previous styles for almost exclusively that reason, and it was released directly after Rubber Soul... quick changes to be sure. ;)

Yes... But the greatest change was either between Please Please Me/Help and Rubber Soul/Revolver, remember though, Nowhere Man was the first Beatle song not mentioning a girl or love, and also Sgt Pepper's/MMT and White Album.. I mean, how can one band produce 17 uniquely different songs, each with its own style, from rock to reggae, to folk and c&w, but each one a work of musical art?

Forgive my ignorance but who?

Knoppfler is about as good as ringo playing the drums or sid vicious playing the bass
Knoppfler is a master of both slow hand and changes chords smoother than anyone on earth. He can play with speed - but his most acclaimed songs are the ones where he just slowly racks up the notes.

Ry Cooder is a slide guitarist, he mostly made instrumental music in the sixties and seventies. Pretty amazing - just try not to listen to him sing... ow.

Jimmy Page.

Jimmy Page.

I heard he was a sloppy ass guitar player. But hell, who am I to say? :p

I'd put Jonesy right up there with Jimmy Page. However, I don't know how good Page is without rehearsing, so I really can't say for sure.

Steve rarely rehearses.

Yes... But the greatest change was either between Please Please Me/Help and Rubber Soul/Revolver, remember though, Nowhere Man was the first Beatle song not mentioning a girl or love, and also Sgt Pepper's/MMT and White Album.. I mean, how can one band produce 17 uniquely different songs, each with its own style, from rock to reggae, to folk and c&w, but each one a work of musical art?
Well, I'll certainly never discout the importance of their music historically. They really are amazing - and I've never, nor will I ever say otherwise... I just feel that in some circles (read: critic publications) they are referenced as if gods of modern music, in some cases put on a pedestal so high that they seem to an unrivalled band by which to measure all others - which I have to disagree with.

Glitziness, I MUST agree with you!!!! I don't see what the big deal and all the fuss is/was about....they were a crappy band that didn't add anyhing to society and the world. I'm sorry that Mr. Cobain was in pain and took his life, yes, that is a tragedy, but musically....they SUCKED! All I heard was noise and junk when I heard them.

when I think of great guitarists, I think of shredding masters. John Petrucci, Jason Becker, Steve Vai and Joe Satriani are amazing.

http://johnpetrucci.com/mp3s/John_Petrucci_Dream_Theater_AsIAm.mp3
a great example of a shredding master, John Petrucci.

A good shred still doesn't beat a kick-ass riff.

Good Charllotte!

who do you consider to have a kick ass riff?

Any guitarist who's not pompous enough to be just a shredmeister.

Petrucci is much more diverse than that. Dream Theater's "Take The Time" has an awesome riff.

who do you consider to have a kick ass riff?
talking rifs then its gotta be slash for me

I hate Slash. He really isn't all he's cracked up to be

One listen to either 'Wild Theme', 'Sultans of Swing' or 'Brothers in Arms' and I'm sure that at least no one will be able to discount what Mark Knoppfler brings. Its not always about being able to play the most notes per second. If that was the case, The Rach III would be the greatest piece ever written for pianists. Despite the fact that it's a tonal masterpiece, it still hasn't got what simpler selections such as the first Movement of 'Moonlight Sonata' have. Sometimes its just about being clean. (Not to discount the Rach mind you - it blows my mind, but both are equally impressive to me)

Well, I'll certainly never discout the importance of their music historically. They really are amazing - and I've never, nor will I ever say otherwise... I just feel that in some circles (read: critic publications) they are referenced as if gods of modern music, in some cases put on a pedestal so high that they seem to an unrivalled band by which to measure all others - which I have to disagree with.

Yes, I think the critics made it overrated, but if you ignore them, they are great.

the most highly overrated band ever....oasis without a doubt. They were supposed to match the frickin beatles, but instead they have amounted to as much as a fart in the breeze

the most highly overrated band ever....oasis without a doubt. They were supposed to match the frickin beatles, but instead they have amounted to as much as a fart in the breeze

That doesn't really count, though, because they themselves were the ones that were creating most of the hype. They were only really supposed to match the Beatles in their own minds.

That doesn't really count, though, because they themselves were the ones that were creating most of the hype. They were only really supposed to match the Beatles in their own minds.
Instead, Liam Gallagher pukes all over an audience here in Vancouver - and then tells the crowd to go fuck themselves... It really makes you wonder with good publicity like that how they didn't get as big as the Beatles. A real honey-doodle, as Ned would say.

What is this I hear about Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd??

Obviously, LZ and Floyd haters are classless asses who are still idolizing ashlee simpson. Zeppelin and Floyd were possibly the two most amazing rock bands of all time. (next to the beatles)
Listen to these songs at www.singingfish.com and you'll understand me:
Stairway to Heaven \
The Battle of Evermore -- Led Zeppelin :headbang:
Immigrant Song /
Shine On You Crazy Diamond \
Wish You Were Here -- Pink Floyd :headbang:
The Wall (concept album) /

Also, props to Van Halen (Get Up was unbelievable!)

What is this I hear about Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd??

Obviously, LZ and Floyd haters are classless asses who are still idolizing ashlee simpson. Zeppelin and Floyd were possibly the two most amazing rock bands of all time. (next to the beatles)
Listen to these songs at www.singingfish.com and you'll understand me:
Stairway to Heaven \
The Battle of Evermore -- Led Zeppelin :headbang:
Immigrant Song /
Shine On You Crazy Diamond \
Wish You Were Here -- Pink Floyd :headbang:
The Wall (concept album) /

Also, props to Van Halen (Get Up was unbelievable!)

Quiet down. I've sneezed more coherent thoughts than that.

I forgot to answer the Q

I would have to say most rap today is overrated
(save Eminem and Tupac and a few others i cant name right now)

Also, i believe that the recent Green Day CD is overrated, compared to their past works.

Metallica? Tupac? Green Day?

Maroon 5

My god they SUCK. :headbang:
HOW THE HELL CAN ANYBODY STAND LISTENING TO THEM??? :confused:


sry 'bout caps

Maroon 5

My god they SUCK. :headbang:
HOW THE HELL CAN ANYBODY STAND LISTENING TO THEM??? :confused:


sry 'bout caps
agreed

one word: NIRVANA. :mp5:

dood nirvana rules...anyway...Yonnie

Instead, Liam Gallagher pukes all over an audience here in Vancouver - and then tells the crowd to go fuck themselves... It really makes you wonder with good publicity like that how they didn't get as big as the Beatles. A real honey-doodle, as Ned would say.

Hahaha. When "The Beatles" were in Hamburg, Germany (I say "The Beatles" because they weren't them, they had Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best with 'em) John was going crazy and actually said "Seig Heil you Mother fucking nazis seig hail!!" and the Germans already yelling with enthusiasm went even more crazy.

dood nirvana rules...
they were a good band, but not as good as many people like to make out

Creed.

Led Zepplin, and in a not so close second is the Eagles.

i think anyone who doesnt like pink floyd or led zepplin should be shot. because of there spot in the history of rock n roll. hell with out them you wouldnt have your rap crap or your new "hardcore". bullshit that you have today, that isnt even hardcore. the eagles i think is a popular vote much like floyd and zepplin because people are basing there views off of what other people already stated. damn sheep. i would have to say most over rated band of all time. nirvana. because cobain was a sellout and tryed to hard with his lyrics. number 2 would be umm... and metallica. because there nothing but over rated rock stars, so actually id put them at number one. there million heirs yet they still charge there fans 70 buck for nose blled sections and complain when there beloved fans down load there music.
number 3 slipknot because if you need 3 drummers 3 guitarists a 2 singers a bassist and a tuntableist and a clown. you are talentless. and have too many POSERS fallow there music and need to stop because there a crappy band and over rated. 3 and 4 bob marly and phil collins because bob is a mall trendy R.I.P. and phil just sucks with out jenesis. what arms thrown up

i would have to say most over rated band of all time. nirvana. because cobain was a sellout and tryed to hard with his lyrics.

Nirvana sold out with Nevermind, and redeemed themselves with In Utero.

tupac is a good answer - didnt he only release 2 CDs while alive? - and people worship him

I'd have to say that, even though they are the two bands I like most, Led Zeppelin and Ozzy/Sabbath are two very overated bands. I'd say they are great...but not to the extent that some of their fanatics say they are.
How arrogant is it that Paul Hewson named himself Bono Vox, "good voice" in Latin?
As I recall from the little Latin I know, it isn't even correct Latin...I am pretty sure it should be Vox Bono [Though I thought good was Bona or Boni]

I think anyone who doesnt like Pink Floyd or Led Zepplin should be shot, because of their spot in the history of Rock 'n' Roll. Hell, without them you wouldn't have your Rap crap or your new "Hardcore" bullshit that you have today, that isnt even 'hardcore'. The Eagles, I think, is a popular vote, much like Floyd and Zepplin because people are basing their views off of what other people already stated. Damn sheep. I would have to say that the most overrated band of all time is Nirvana, because Cobain was a sellout and tried too hard with his lyrics. Number 2 would be, umm... Metallica, because they're nothing but over-rated rock stars, so actually I'd put them at number one. There are a million heirs, yet they still charge their fans 70 bucks for nose bleed sections and complain when their beloved fans download there music. Number 3 is Slipknot, because if you need 3 drummers, 3 guitarists, 2 singers, a bassist, a tuntableist, and a clown, you are talentless. And, they have too many POSERS following their music, and need to stop, because they're a crappy band and are over-rated. Four and 5: Bob Marly and Phil Collins, because Bob is mall-trendy (R.I.P.)[/B] and Phil just sucks without genesis. (stupid final comment deleted)

Stay in school, and learn how to spell. You've just been *owned* by Potaria.

http://www.the-gateway.net/fun/teh-suck.jpg

Every last one of 'em.

As I recall from the little Latin I know, it isn't even correct Latin...I am pretty sure it should be Vox Bono [Though I thought good was Bona or Boni]

Indeed. It is shitty, butchered Latin, but it's the intent that is astoundingly arrogant.

Stay in school, and learn how to spell. You've just been *owned* by Potaria.


The best part is you didn't even really touch upon the atrocious grammar.

i think anyone who doesnt like pink floyd or led zepplin should be shot. because of there spot in the history of rock n roll. hell with out them you wouldnt have your rap crap or your new "hardcore". bullshit that you have today, that isnt even hardcore. the eagles i think is a popular vote much like floyd and zepplin because people are basing there views off of what other people already stated. damn sheep. i would have to say most over rated band of all time. nirvana. because cobain was a sellout and tryed to hard with his lyrics. number 2 would be umm... and metallica. because there nothing but over rated rock stars, so actually id put them at number one. there million heirs yet they still charge there fans 70 buck for nose blled sections and complain when there beloved fans down load there music.
number 3 slipknot because if you need 3 drummers 3 guitarists a 2 singers a bassist and a tuntableist and a clown. you are talentless. and have too many POSERS fallow there music and need to stop because there a crappy band and over rated. 3 and 4 bob marly and phil collins because bob is a mall trendy R.I.P. and phil just sucks with out jenesis. what arms thrown up

WT holy F?

alright - that post had bad grammar -

back on topic - 50cent

PInk Floyd rules Nirvana Suck Its my opinion and its right why because its mine!!!!!!!!

The best part is you didn't even really touch upon the atrocious grammar.

You can't be serious. The touch-ups are in bold.

You can't be serious. The touch-ups are in bold.

Yeah, and there are still many, many errors still there.

Yeah, and there are still many, many errors still there.

I do notice that, but I wasn't going to take a whole thirty minutes to restructure the entire post.

I do notice that, but I wasn't going to take a whole thirty minutes to restructure the entire post.

Right, and that's what I am saying. That despite all the corrections you made, there are still just as many that still need to be made. The post was that godawful.

just shutup about it

Right, and that's what I am saying. That despite all the corrections you made, there are still just as many that still need to be made. The post was that godawful.

Tell me about it! Kanabia and I were engaged in a chat on MSN, while we were both listening to Indie 103.1. I read that post and decided to make some choice corrections, and that alone to fifteen minutes. Restructuring the damn thing would've killed me!

just shutup about it

No.

Tell me about it! Kanabia and I were engaged in a chat on MSN, while we were both listening to Indie 103.1. I read that post and decided to make some choice corrections, and that alone to fifteen minutes. Restructuring the damn thing would've killed me!

Indeed.

At any rate, the kid completely missed the point that a lot of people were trying to make about bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin being overrated. The point being that calling such a legendary band like those two overrated is in no way saying they aren't amazing, it's just acknowledging that people build up such a reputation for them that even they cannot live up to.

gotta be Nirvana, The Libertines or The Beatles


You're an idiot for putting the libertines and the beatles in the same sentence. You clearly know nothing about music.

The most over-rated band would have to be the eagles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inebri-Nation
just shutup about it



No.

-yes - dont hijack a thread just to make fun of someones grammar

the song "santeria" by sublime is overrated on its own - people only know that song and havent heard of other songs even from the same CD - overall they are very underrated

alright - that post had bad grammar -

back on topic - 50cent

Surely not 50?!? I say D12.

Well, recently, I would say Staind. Their first major label release, Dysfunction, was an excellent disc, and had they stayed on that track, they could well have evolved into the most dominant and influential band in the 10-15 years.

But instead, they chose to capitalize on the success of a crappy live release single and sell out, becoming the watered-down, repetetive, retread, overly accoustic, whiny pieces of crap you hear today...how they haven't dissapeared yet is beyond me.

But I digress...

All time, I would definetly say Guns n Roses. Slash is a great guitar player, but honestly, this band does absolutely nothing for me.

*Is also a member of the "I Hate The Eagles" Club*

Guns N Roses.

Foo Fighters (So cheesy it's cringeworthy. The only half decent song they have done is Everlong, all the rest is horrible)

Keane: I just don't see the point. Bland.

Dido: Reserved for the coffee tables of the middle class who buy CD's because they are the in thing, and the lyrics are supposedly meaningful to their bland lives.

Travis: Hearing 'why does it always rain on me' or 'driftwood' so many times, coming across as living off the backs of just those two songs being played over and over has made me hate them. In the Dido category.

Kate Melua: 'I'm the closest thing to crazy, I have ever....' The only song I have heard from her in the year and a half she has been around. The only song I have ever seen her play. Always with an acoustic guitar that she can barely play.
Coffee table fodder for those who enjoy watching Newsnight review rather than Newsnight itself.

Greatful Dead

Ill agree with most of those, but if anyone says U2 ill hunt them down, rip their entrails out and make them watch as i eat them... :P

when I think of great guitarists, I think of shredding masters. John Petrucci, Jason Becker, Steve Vai and Joe Satriani are amazing.

http://johnpetrucci.com/mp3s/John_Petrucci_Dream_Theater_AsIAm.mp3
a great example of a shredding master, John Petrucci.

Your music taste has my stamp of approval. Now there are some truly talented people.