Treu, but I consider that 60's sound to be a dark period in music, I don't listen to Clutch anymore, nor much any modern musc. About the only modern music I listen to is Depeche Mode. Beyond that, I listen to older genres. I'm not so arrogant to say the Beatles didn't contribute to music and it's changes to different sounds, but the sound that the Beatles had just isn't a sound I appreciate. I've more or less reverted to listening to Jazz, 40's swing/big band, and a few other musics. I'm not making any insults to Beatles, I'm just expressing my opinion. Just because you and a few others don't accept that someone can find them uninteresting, that makes it okay to jump me with 'HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?' questions.

Yeah, and you know who first thought of strumming a string instrument? No? Me neither, but I think their music was probably abysmal by today's standards. Do you think you'd like them because they introduced strumming and The Beatles used strumming?

It's not like the Beatles are the only influence for modern music ever. The Beatles were influenced quiet a bit by The Beach Boys.

Simpson, I can't believe I clicked your link. Anytime I go to TVtropes. I never leave. :cryvaultboy:

TV Tropes claims another victim! Muahahaha!

Definitely justin baby-ier.

I have four tabs of it open now because of you :verymad:

I agree 100% -Oh and all those bands/singers that Nickelodeon and the Disney channel try to make famous. Enough already

At no point did I say they were the only factor of modern music. Of course that's not true. And if you go back and read my first post, you can see quite clearly that I said I don't like them much myself, I only listen to a few songs, and I don't make a habit of it. My point is, just because you don't like a band doesn't mean they are overrated - and that's what people in this thread are saying.

Well given that how people rate bands is itself subjective, I think we've got to imagine that there's an invisible "in your opinion" at the end of the topic title and invisible "in my opinion"s at the end of each post.

You can't void somebody's view that a band is overrated by other people based on the fact that different people have different opinions. Yes, people do have different opinions. And I think that people overrate The Beatles. The subjectivity doesn't stop at the initial rating.

In fact given that I think we can safely conclude that this thread is utterly pointless.

Yes, it is all subjective, I'm well aware of that. I just wish people would back up what they are saying. Colonel Martyr has to an extent, but others in this thread have just named an artist (who will almost certainly have more talent than themselves) and denounced them out right without supporting their argument.

How are Muse overrated? Sure their latest album isn't the best (though still better than most bands and has some great songs) but musics like Citizen Erased and Plug in Baby are amazing :drool:

I do udnerstand why Green Day are overrated, even though I like their albums, especially their Dookie stuff . Basket Case for exemple is an awesome song and I do consider it punk (maybe not their latest stuff though).

I don't understand the reasosn behind Metallica, AC DC or The Beatles being overrated but whatever.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Linkin Park though...personally I like them, again, especially their old albums but I've seen them being considered extremely overrated.

I honestly don't waste my time with the whole overrated or popular issue. If I like them, I listen. If I don't, I don't listen.

I don't really care for the beatles but I enjoyed helter skelter.I love the doors, Jefferson airplane, pink Floyd, led Zeppelin, the Andrew sisters, Marilyn Manson, and others. Call them what you want but i don't really care.

[Insert music you like here]

They are not overrated! How dare you!

*gasp* but they are an indie band! They can't possibly be overrated!!!!!

I don't think Metallica are that good personally. I don't find the band mates bar Lars overrated.


I don't see how Lars is considered some amazing drummer. All he has is the above average drumming speed, he just plays oversimplied beats quickly :shrug:

Not saying he's a bad drummer, he's just a drummer.

Lady Gaga

Hannah Montana.

Well, I've never cared for the Beatles, it's just I feel like the amount of people who 'like' the Beatles just to fit in with the music hipsters might play in on the devalued effect. But Lady Gaga, I don't find her anymore talented than Madonna or Brittany Spears, or any other popstar that rides on sixuality and eccentrics to sell their music. Justin Beiber, well, maybe at 20, you just find teen music 'for the runts'. I won't lie though, since I am out of touch with modern music, I learned who Beiber was last year rather embarassingly. I kept hearing that 'baby' song he sings on tv, and when I turned to see who that 'chick' was, it was Justin Beiber, that would have been really embarassing had I asked someone about it :cryvaultboy:

(On an offnote, your name reminds me of a forumer from another site I havent been to in years xD)

There is no such thing as "poor taste" in music. Music is purely an art form that is meant to appeal to a wide variety of people. This isn't like the gaming industry where a game can actually be poorly made; it's something that is completely aesthetic, and therefore cannot possibly svck (The only way it really could is if the artists do not know how to play the instruments). Opinions will differ, obviously, but I can't stand it when people bash on each others' musical "tastes" as if they think they have some kind of higher understanding of what good music entails. <_<

Black Eyed Peas, Lady Gaga, (insert most any new band/singer of the past decade here, maybe even the past 15 years. Be sure to include most rap/hip hop "artists").

As for Metallica, they lost a lot of fans with Load and Reload. Even their Black album wasn't all that great. I was so disappointed with it after the thrash fest that was And Justice For All. The Black album is somehow celebrated for it's excellent production quality (compared to Justice where apparently they forgot to add bass tracks), but they lost their edge by then and it sounded watered down and too radio friendly. Master Of Puppets and And Justice For All are my favorite Metallica albums (I even have Justice on vinyl - 2 records). They were never really thrash which is my favorite metal genre, but they were metal gods in the 80s.




Led Zeppelin. Pretty much the best of the best. Old Black Sabbath are good too.

:rolleyes:

I would have to concur that things like Hendrix and especially the Beatles are overrated. However, I do not think either of them are bad. I can definitely understand why people like them, what I take issue with is the sort of canonization effect that exists wherein a response as to who the "gods" of rock (in this particular example) are is automatically furnished by reference to one of these idols. This attitude seems to push any consideration for other less known but equally valid artists to the side. There is of course the opposite effect in which people will automatically react negatively to the popular icons of the past; "that annoying hippy sound" as we've heard of in this very thread. I find that both the fetishization and anti-fetishization of musical icons tends to be a sign of a listener who is lazy and uneducated. For example, citing Revolution 9 as "ahead of its time" ignores both the fact that 1) the music hasn't come to represent any prevailing artistic trends in the time intervening between its release and now, if anything it is frequently looked upon as an object of derision (which is also fairly ignorant) and 2) The Beatles did not invent nor revolutionize this sort of avant-garde early electronic tape music pastiche, but were merely drawing on influences such as Karlheinz Stockhausen (depicted on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's, but the average Beatles fan still won't care). What the Beatles did was indeed cutting within the context of rock/pop music, but so many people never care to look beyond that context.

As though there IS ""truth/lies/ when it comes to music. Listening and liking ANY music is all PURELY OPINION. So, yeah, when it comes to music, it's all subjective.



Why do people need to "back up" their opinions? It's an opinion. It's a like or a dislike. Do we NEED a reason to like or dislike something? No, we don't. Sometimes a person just likes or dislikes something just because they like or don't like it. Why do we need to delve in-depth over why we don't like something? I don't like the Beatles because their music is old. I don't care what they may or may not have done for the Genre. Personally, I'd be fine if they never existed and all that was around is 20's and 30's music. The Big Band Era would be more then enough for me. Happy? It's silly though that you expect people to defend their opinions on an online forum on an opinion thread. Ever hear the saying, opinions are like *******, everyone has one? Also, it's not an "Argument", it's an "opinion". An argument is when people debate things. From what I've noticed, this thread wasn't meant to debate anything, just to state what bands you think are over-rated, OR, as others have pointed out "Who you think svcks and gets to much attention"