Most overrated artist?

No they do not have any points to back themselves up as the "Greatest band ever.".

There are reasons you may think they are, but no matter how many people think it, it's never any closer to being a true claim.

Britney Spears caters to the musical preference of the masses, it means absolutely nothing. The Beatles were a great band, and that's all they were, in my opinion. There were great bands before, there have been great bands since, and in my opinion; Better bands before and since.

You disagree, so do many, but that essentially means nothing.

They have a lot of record sales, the innovated a few things, so what? They get credit they don't deserve, and the influence thing is just an estimation. Massively influential? Sure. How influential is that? Nobody knows, but people like to think it applies to EVERY music fan and EVERY band.

They are overrated.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No they do not have any points to back themselves up as the "Greatest band ever.".

There are reasons you may think they are, but no matter how many people think it, it's never any closer to being a true claim.

Britney Spears caters to the musical preference of the masses, it means absolutely nothing. The Beatles were a great band, and that's all they were, in my opinion. There were great bands before, there have been great bands since, and in my opinion; Better bands before and since.

You disagree, so do many, but that essentially means nothing.

They have a lot of record sales, the innovated a few things, so what? They get credit they don't deserve, and the influence thing is just an estimation. Massively influential? Sure. How influential is that? Nobody knows, but people like to think it applies to EVERY music fan and EVERY band.

They are overrated.

-AC

Good point/counter. And I say no. 😬

If you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims despite the ones I've already refuted, then why continue to chime in?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims despite the ones I've already refuted, then why continue to chime in?

-AC

Because it's fun, and you always carry a good conversation/debate, unlike your earlier years when you would explode and call someone an idiot. 😛 😉

And, I might add AC, because you my refute my claims, and I acknowledge a good point made on your behalf doesn't always mean you're still correct.

If I say Paris is the capital is the capitol of France. And you say Paris is NOT the capitol of Japan, Russia, Canada, Mexico, everything but France, we're both still right. That's how this topic goes, that's all.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Because it's fun, and you always carry a good conversation/debate, unlike your earlier years when you would explode and call someone an idiot. 😛 😉

Yes, and you don't carry on a good conversation/debate, hence my point.

Originally posted by BobbyD
And, I might add AC, because you my refute my claims, and I acknowledge a good point made on your behalf doesn't always mean you're still correct.

It's not a fact that they are overrated, but a lot more evidence points to it than to the opposite or otherwise.

Originally posted by BobbyD
If I say Paris is the capital is the capitol of France. And you say Paris is NOT the capitol of Japan, Russia, Canada, Mexico, everything but France, we're both still right. That's how this topic goes, that's all.

Possibly the least sensible comment ever.

-AC

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
I honestly don't see how you came to that conclusion. Care to elaborate?

Oh yeah, does this mean that you meant 'musically' overrated when you created this thread? Since , from what I'm gathering it SEEMS like you are saying you can't 'overate' the ammount of influence a band had/has.

Influence is one of the aspects by which a band could be rated, and consequently, overrated. You don't apply a rating to the influence; you judge it, and rate the band accordingly.

The thread was about the overall package, which could include influence as part of the rating process.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Yes, but it's very difficult to NOT say that a band is great when you like them. That being said, I know they are the MOST liked band in the history of pop/rock, perhaps still today even.

That state of affairs hasn't endured, though. There was a clear swell of mass ejaculation in the 90s, though it now seems canonical.

Stained, ozzy osbourne, metallica, Tool, Elvis, Cant forget the most overatted band ever...KISS

I'm going to have to say Metallica.

AC/DC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, and you don't carry on a good conversation/debate, hence my point.
-AC

Because I know how sensitive/volatile you are, silly. You're passionate about what you believe, and so am I. 🙂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Possibly the least sensible comment ever.

-AC

No, it was not. That's just how people debate in circles, particularly you and me when we're on opposite ends of a topic. 😉

I tend to believe you don't carry on decent debate because you can't, in many cases, but that's me.

-AC

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Stained, ozzy osbourne, metallica, Tool, Elvis, Cant forget the most overatted band ever...KISS

Thank you! KISS is horribly overrated, it makes me sick.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I tend to believe you don't carry on decent debate because you can't, in many cases, but that's me.

-AC

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. 😉

To compare again britney spears with the beatles is plain ridiculous.

And difficult better bands before the beatles, they were the first iconic band of pop/rock. John said it about elvis once, but now, i say it about the beatles: before nobody did nothing, the beatles did everything.

But im waiting for first time that centauri could post a reasonable argument about why the beatles were the best and more influential band ever and why , for example, jimi hendrix was the best and more influential guitar player ever.

Plus: Hendrix was crazy about the beatles and about john and paul.Specially with the album sargent pepper's. He did his own version of the song.

Originally posted by bakerboy
but now, i say it about the beatles: before nobody did nothing, the beatles did everything.

I'll wait for a reasonable argument for that slice of retardation first.

-AC

I mean, reasonable arguments. Foolish insults arent in this stuff.

The exact John's words were: before elvis, there was nothing. He did everything.

Now , i said about bands: before the beatles, there was nothing. They did everything.

Originally posted by bakerboy
To compare again britney spears with the beatles is plain ridiculous.

Indeed. It's a poor example. Now, I understand the point he (AC) was trying to illustrate.

But, comparing the 2 just doesn't work/go. No one claims Britney Spears to be the greatest at anything. That's the difference.

But, again I understand his point. ...just because you're popular, doesn't make you the greatest. It's hard to refute no doubt. I can't say, nor do I suppose, Britney Spears 10, 20, 30 years from now will still be getting converts.

Conversely, that's why there are Beatles fans everywhere you turn. They still get converts daily from every age, race, country over the globe. ...almost cultish.

I wasn't comparing that aspect of the two, just how you can't judge catering to the masses.

For some reason people assume everyone loved The Beatles. My grandfather and my aunt have seen them live, they were around during the peak, and they said that the time period is often misinterpreted by people who weren't even there.

There are lots of fans of The Beatles, big deal, it means nothing, Bob.

What do you say to this?: "before the beatles, there was nothing. They did everything.".

That's overrating.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What do you say to this?: "before the beatles, there was nothing. They did everything.".

-AC

It's a bold statement, and as much as I wish it WERE true. It is false.