Most overrated artist?

Originally posted by bakerboy
First of all, my claim about the beatles, based on a sentence that john lennon did about elvis, its a little over the top, but true in the meaning.

In meaning? As in...there was nothing before them, they did everything? Nope, still QUITE wrong.

Originally posted by bakerboy
In mean, tell me some great band before the beatles. And im talking a iconic band, a band who mixed pop, rock and other music styles, a band that get the people crazy, a band who did the first video-clip, etc. And im not talking about roy and the peacemakers and things like that. Im talking about great bands.

First off, you can't ask me to name "Great bands.", then say "...who did this.", because you just named stuff that The Beatles admittedly did, and that's stupid. I can name you bands before them who I believe were great, amazing bands who made music I love, which is what matters at the end of the day.

I've been over this a hundred times with you. Making the first video clip has absolutely nothing to do with music, neither does "making the people crazy". Girls screamed for them at airports, and it wasn't because they thought A Day in the Life was a great song, it was because they thought The Beatles were hot, much like the Backstreet Boys and Justin Timberlake. Hence why they're sometimes hailed as the first real boyBAND.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The stones come after the beatles, queen the same, the who the same, pink floyd the same, zeppeling the same, and a long etc. Im not saying that there arent any music before the beatles. Im talking that they were the first great band

Frank Zappa came before them and influenced them in ways that THEY get the most praise for, besides their music, as if it were their own idea. The two biggest claims laid on The Beatles, besides making great music (Which isn't as focused on as their non-musical accomplishments, half the time.) was the creation of the concept album and the production techniques used in making it. This is false, as both came from Zappa. The Beatles greatest moment, arguably, came directly from the inspiration of someone else. So let's not act like they had no inspiration and came up with everything alone.

They were not the first great band to me, they might have been to you, but not to me.

Originally posted by bakerboy
and they open the run for many and many other bands, and they were influential in many ways in others bands and other generations, and they were the first in tons of things. And the people reconigzed it. Hendrix, dylan, the stones, queen, the who, pink floyd, led zeppelin, bowie, the doors , and many more.

I never denied they were influential, I proposed that their influence is grossly over-estimated.

Being the "first" to do things doesn't matter, and isn't really that much of an accolade. Doing things in a different way after a million people have done the same thing is a bigger challenge, and there are lots of bands doing that today.

Every time you bring up The Beatles, you reference sales, fans and video clips. All essentially mean nothing, because it boils down to their music, and that's entirely subjective. Personally? I like their music a lot, but there are many who do not.

If you wanna place factual accolades on them, do so, but don't act like them being the first to make videos means they made the greatest music. Don't act like being one of the most accessible bands ever means you made great music, and don't act like girls screaming at an airport means you made great music.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The beatles did it first, and the others followed them.

So what? Everyone else did music videos after The Beatles, right. Point?

I will willingly sit and watch the music video to Grace by Jeff Buckley and say "The Beatles did videos first.", but if you're gonna tell ME they make better music, as if it's fact because of something unrelated, I'll laugh in your face.

The problem with you and many fans of The Beatles is you either do not give the credit properly allocated, or you assume that if we aren't fellating the CD hole, we don't like them.

I give them full credit for doing what they did first, being an influential band and in my opinion, making great music. I'm not gonna give them any more credit because they do not deserve such.

-AC

on the basis of what ive just heard today its Arcade Fire
i thought i was listening to an Echo and the Bunnymen track until the deejay informed it was Arcade Fire

and as much as im loving the White Stripes new single its like Rick Rubins Def Jam circa 1986 guitar stabs vs Zep

single of the year though

The sentiments and context in and around this post confuse me.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The sentiments and context in and around this post confuse me.

The person that posted it irritates me, generally.

Nik og Jay.
Only small girls likes them.

Lil Wayne

Originally posted by Tengu
Lil Wayne

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In meaning? As in...there was nothing before them, they did everything? Nope, still QUITE wrong.

Tell me name of pop/rock bands who did so many things before the beatles.

First off, you can't ask me to name "Great bands.", then say "...who did this.", because you just named stuff that The Beatles admittedly did, and that's stupid. I can name you bands before them who I believe were great, amazing bands who made music I love, which is what matters at the end of the day.

Well, same stuff that always. IF they did all those things at first, his quality and his legend is clearly not overrated. Its deserved.

I've been over this a hundred times with you. Making the first video clip has absolutely nothing to do with music, neither does "making the people crazy". Girls screamed for them at airports, and it wasn't because they thought A Day in the Life was a great song, it was because they thought The Beatles were hot, much like the Backstreet Boys and Justin Timberlake. Hence why they're sometimes hailed as the first real boyBAND.

Well, if you dont think that the videoclip was important to the music, enough with you. But i think that it was a very important step for the music, some way to mix the music with images and show something new and open new possibilities in music. I think that it is very important. The making the people crazy was at the first part of their career, not very important, true. The important thing is that they are so loved, so influential, so versioned, and those things 37 years before their split as a group.

Frank Zappa came before them and influenced them in ways that THEY get the most praise for, besides their music, as if it were their own idea. The two biggest claims laid on The Beatles, besides making great music (Which isn't as focused on as their non-musical accomplishments, half the time.) was the creation of the concept album and the production techniques used in making it. This is false, as both came from Zappa. The Beatles greatest moment, arguably, came directly from the inspiration of someone else. So let's not act like they had no inspiration and came up with everything alone.

Cleary, you dont know too much about the beatles career, the sargent peppers album frank zappa albums. First: they werent influented in any way by zappa. At the beggining of his career, they were influented by people like elvis, chuck berry, carl perkins or buddy holly. At the mid and end of their career, their major inluentce was Dylan.

Now the zappa thing. Right, zappa did the first conceptual album. But not at the level of sargent peppers. In sargent, all the things were conected eacht to other in a way never seen before, not even the zappa's album. Sargent peppers was like a story about a imaginary band and every song was conected to the other. PLus, the production values, the style of the cover, etc, was never seen before. Zappa did it before, but it was only a try, a proof, not so developed as sargent peppers.

They were not the first great band to me, they might have been to you, but not to me.

Well, tell me about great pop/rock bands before the beatles, if you know so many as you claims.

I never denied they were influential, I proposed that their influence is grossly over-estimated.

Nope, their influentce its fair for me.

Being the "first" to do things doesn't matter, and isn't really that much of an accolade. Doing things in a different way after a million people have done the same thing is a bigger challenge, and there are lots of bands doing that today.

The beatles did so many things in a different way never seen before. I mean: video clip, conceptual album at so high level, mixing several styles of music, reversing a song, indian influentces in pop music, etc.

Every time you bring up The Beatles, you reference sales, fans and video clips. All essentially mean nothing, because it boils down to their music, and that's entirely subjective. Personally? I like their music a lot, but there are many who do not. Ok, fair enough. Agree with that. But i didnt only posted about sales, fans and videoclips.

If you wanna place factual accolades on them, do so, but don't act like them being the first to make videos means they made the greatest music. Don't act like being one of the most accessible bands ever means you made great music, and don't act like girls screaming at an airport means you made great music.
Nope, they were a great band because they did great music in so many ways and they did several things that nobody did before.

So what? Everyone else did music videos after The Beatles, right. Point?

They did it at first. They were original and innovative. Enough point.

I will willingly sit and watch the music video to Grace by Jeff Buckley and say "The Beatles did videos first.", but if you're gonna tell ME they make better music, as if it's fact because of something unrelated, I'll laugh in your face.

I didnt say that they did great music because they did the first videoplip.

The problem with you and many fans of The Beatles is you either do not give the credit properly allocated, or you assume that if we aren't fellating the CD hole, we don't like them.

Nope, my problem is that you use ridiculous claims to proove that they werent as great as their legend says, not a valid proof of something. And that you dont know very well their career because you are only refering to the first part of his career.

I give them full credit for doing what they did first, being an influential band and in my opinion, making great music. I'm not gonna give them any more credit because they do not deserve such.

Ok, fair enough. I give them more credit in so many things that i posted before.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
The person that posted it irritates me, generally.

You refering to moi or VVD?

Oasis are totally overated - same old derivative shit for nigh on 13 years

Originally posted by bakerboy
Tell me name of pop/rock bands who did so many things before the beatles.

Who said anything about pop/rock? You said they did everything and before them there was nothing.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, same stuff that always. IF they did all those things at first, his quality and his legend is clearly not overrated. Its deserved.

How? His music is rated based on things that do not have anything to do with actual music. Therefore, he's overrated.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, if you dont think that the videoclip was important to the music, enough with you. But i think that it was a very important step for the music, some way to mix the music with images and show something new and open new possibilities in music. I think that it is very important. The making the people crazy was at the first part of their career, not very important, true. The important thing is that they are so loved, so influential, so versioned, and those things 37 years before their split as a group.

It wasn't important to the music. They didn't make better music because they could add video, and to suggest otherwise is dumb.

It was an innovative act, I give them their credit, but we're not discussing culturally pioneering, we're discussing music. Of which music videos play no part in.

You can only estimate how much they were loved and even then, only estimate that it was about their music, which I think we can see by the screaming girls faces, it wasn't. You can only estimate their influence, and you choose to OVERestimate it.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Cleary, you dont know too much about the beatles career, the sargent peppers album frank zappa albums. First: they werent influented in any way by zappa. At the beggining of his career, they were influented by people like elvis, chuck berry, carl perkins or buddy holly. At the mid and end of their career, their major inluentce was Dylan.

Frank Zappa's production on that album influenced them in the making of production on Sgt. Pepper's, fact. Frank Zappa doing a concept album influenced them to do so, fact. Proof?

http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/sgt-pepper/biography/its-influence

A quote from that passage:

"In fact, the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out pre-dated Sergeant Pepper and is considered by others to be the first concept album – a sneering farce about rock music and America as a whole. Paul McCartney has said it influenced Sgt Pepper considerably.".

So take yourself home and learn more about The Beatles, kid.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Well, tell me about great pop/rock bands before the beatles, if you know so many as you claims.

Who said pop/rock? Now you're changing your all-encompassing claims to pop/rock? It's irrelevant whether they came before or after, you view them as the first great BAND, I do not. There are musicians and bands in general that I like more that came before, and after.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Nope, their influentce its fair for me.

Yes, to you. A man who never shows up here unless he catches the scent of someone not making love to the record sleeve of The White Album.

Originally posted by bakerboy
The beatles did so many things in a different way never seen before. I mean: video clip, conceptual album at so high level, mixing several styles of music, reversing a song, indian influentces in pop music, etc.

Video clip; irrelevant. Conceptual album at "so high level"? What does that even mean? You somehow think that because it's them, they miraculously did it better? They just made it more popular cos they were more famous. Backmasking? Big deal.

Originally posted by bakerboy
They did it at first. They were original and innovative. Enough point.

If we're discussing videos, yes. We're not.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I didnt say that they did great music because they did the first videoplip.

Then why are you bringing it up? This is a music discussion.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Nope, my problem is that you use ridiculous claims to proove that they werent as great as their legend says, not a valid proof of something. And that you dont know very well their career because you are only refering to the first part of his career.

Every moment you claim someone doesn't know about The Beatles, I'm just gonna do this:

"First: they werent influented in any way by zappa.".

"Paul McCartney has said it influenced Sgt Pepper considerably.".

Ok?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who said anything about pop/rock? You said they did everything and before them there was nothing.

Who said anything about pop/rock music??? I did it in my first or second post. ovioulsy, we are talking about pop/rock music, we are talking about the beatles. Do you want to compare the beatles with some soul or jazz band? We are talking about the pop/rock music.

How? His music is rated based on things that do not have anything to do with actual music. Therefore, he's overrated.

Your point???

It wasn't important to the music. They didn't make better music because they could add video, and to suggest otherwise is dumb.

As i said before, the video clip was important to music because it was a way to mix music with images and it was new and creative way of make music. I didnt say with the video, they could do better music.

It was an innovative act, I give them their credit, but we're not discussing culturally pioneering, we're discussing music. Of which music videos play no part in.

We are talking many and many things here. The funny thing is that you jump from one thing to another thing when you want. Good music? The beatles did gold music.

You can only estimate how much they were loved and even then, only estimate that it was about their music, which I think we can see by the screaming girls faces, it wasn't. You can only estimate their influence, and you choose to OVERestimate it.

I dont overstimate it. You are understimate it witouth any valid reason. As i said before, the best proof about it is the majority of groups and solo artists that reconigzed the beatles influence.

Frank Zappa's production on that album influenced them in the making of production on Sgt. Pepper's, fact. Frank Zappa doing a concept album influenced them to do so, fact. Proof?

http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/sgt-pepper/biography/its-influence

A quote from that passage:

"In fact, the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out pre-dated Sergeant Pepper and is considered by others to be the first concept album ? a sneering farce about rock music and America as a whole. [b]Paul McCartney has said it influenced Sgt Pepper considerably.".

So take yourself home and learn more about The Beatles, kid.

Are you an idiot or maybe a blind guy? Some understanding problem? Because i said that ZAPPA WASNT INFLUENTIAL IN THE BEATLES MUSIC IN GENERAL TERMS. that its because i was refering to elvis, perkins, dylan, etc. yes, he did some kind of conceptual album (not in the level that the beatles did), as the who or the beach boys did before, so yes, its reasonable. His album , as the who's album or the beach boy's album, was influential in sargent peppers. A reference. But, in anyway, good google search, dude.

Who said pop/rock? Now you're changing your all-encompassing claims to pop/rock? It's irrelevant whether they came before or after, you view them as the first great BAND, I do not. There are musicians and bands in general that I like more that came before, and after.

Again, i said the pop/rock music in my first or second post of this discussion. If we are talking about elvis or about chuck berry,and the things that they did first , we couldnt talk about charlie parker or about irving berling or about cole porter. ITs about rock and pop music. But again, tell me which pop or rock band are you talking about that came before the beatles.

Yes, to you. A man who never shows up here unless he catches the scent of someone not making love to the record sleeve of The White Album.

Hahaha, this one is very good. I dont want to be like you and waste all my time here in this forum taking part in all the threads. I only go and take part in the threads that i really interested, and when i have some free time. And go and read my story post before to post those stupid claimings, i did take part in some and some posts beasides the beatles.

Video clip; irrelevant. Conceptual album at "so high level"? What does that even mean? You somehow think that because it's them, they miraculously did it better? They just made it more popular cos they were more famous. Backmasking? Big deal.

Irrelevant for you. A real conceptual album in all the ways, the ones from zappa or the who were only proofs not as developed as sargent peppers. And dont go in that stupid way again. The sargent peppers album is tons better than the freak out or the who album. Pet sounds by the beach boys is close , but peppers is still better in all the levels. Im not talking about fame , im talking about quality.

If we're discussing videos, yes. We're not.

We are discussion the thing that you want in the moment that you want. Don be silly.

Then why are you bringing it up? This is a music discussion.

What are you talking about? Im talking about music.

Every moment you claim someone doesn't know about The Beatles, I'm just gonna do this:

"First: they werent influented in any way by zappa.".

"Paul McCartney has said it influenced Sgt Pepper considerably.".

Ok?

Ok, wise guy. But now, search again and tell me when i said that the album sargent peppers wasnt influencied by the zappa's album? I said that in general terms, the beatles music wasnt influencied by zappas, but not in this particular album.
-AC [/B]

Dude....quote smarter. DO IT!!

I'm a pretty big Beatles fan myself, but even I can admit they are indeed overrated. Fascinating, yes, creative, absolutely, geniuses, sometimes...

Amazing singer-songwriters, mediocre musicians. Great band, great music.

But still overrated, especially by the so-called music critics.

Bakerboy, this is the last time I will go through your quote and pick out your parts. Please arrange it better.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Who said anything about pop/rock music??? I did it in my first or second post. ovioulsy, we are talking about pop/rock music, we are talking about the beatles. Do you want to compare the beatles with some soul or jazz band? We are talking about the pop/rock music.

I prefer The Beach Boys over The Beatles, personally. I think their music is much better, so seeing as that's what's being discussed, video clips mean nothing.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Your point???

That you're overrating his music based on things that do not affect music, you idiot.

Originally posted by bakerboy
As i said before, the video clip was important to music because it was a way to mix music with images and it was new and creative way of make music. I didnt say with the video, they could do better music.

It was an additional way to PROMOTE music, it had nothing to do with how good anyone's music is. So therefore, when judging The Beatles on THEIR MUSIC ALONE, which is what you should be doing, video clips are irrelevant.

Originally posted by bakerboy
We are talking many and many things here. The funny thing is that you jump from one thing to another thing when you want. Good music? The beatles did gold music.

No, YOU are talking about many things. I have only ever been discussing their music. You are the one who comes out of nowhere and always mentioned "THEY DID VIDEOS! THEY HAD FANS!". You can never stick to their music.

They did good music? Yes, in my opinion. In your opinion. How good? That's subjective. You say best ever, I say nowhere near.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I dont overstimate it. You are understimate it witouth any valid reason. As i said before, the best proof about it is the majority of groups and solo artists that reconigzed the beatles influence.

Is that the best you have? "I don't overestimate, you UNDERestimate."? I do not underestimate their influence, they are one of the most influential bands ever, but the fact that this is often overly estimated is what I have an issue with. I give them as much credit as they deserve. Just because the only side you hear is "We were influenced.", doesn't mean there was not an equal side that were not.

Besides, we're just discussing music, and that's all opinion. They aren't the greatest band ever, musically, because they did stuff that isn't to do with quality of music. Most culturally pioneering? That's an argument I might agree with, but it's not the one we're having.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Are you an idiot or maybe a blind guy? Some understanding problem? Because i said that ZAPPA WASNT INFLUENTIAL IN THE BEATLES MUSIC IN GENERAL TERMS. that its because i was refering to elvis, perkins, dylan, etc. yes, he did some kind of conceptual album (not in the level that the beatles did), as the who or the beach boys did before, so yes, its reasonable. His album , as the who's album or the beach boy's album, was influential in sargent peppers. A reference. But, in anyway, good google search, dude.

You said: "First: they werent influented in any way by zappa.".

Now you are changing it to "I only meant generally.". Their greatest work was influenced, HEAVILY, by Zappa. It's most innovative qualities came from his album. Fact.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Again, i said the pop/rock music in my first or second post of this discussion. If we are talking about elvis or about chuck berry,and the things that they did first , we couldnt talk about charlie parker or about irving berling or about cole porter. ITs about rock and pop music. But again, tell me which pop or rock band are you talking about that came before the beatles.

Like I said, The Beach Boys were formed in 1960, same as The Beatles were, technically. I prefer them. The Beatles doing things that have nothing to do with music makes no difference, I personally think Pet Sounds is a better album than anything The Beatles have done. It doesn't matter what production they stole, or what ideas they STOLE, it's a matter of music.

Originally posted by bakerboy
Irrelevant for you. A real conceptual album in all the ways, the ones from zappa or the who were only proofs not as developed as sargent peppers. And dont go in that stupid way again. The sargent peppers album is tons better than the freak out or the who album. Pet sounds by the beach boys is close , but peppers is still better in all the levels. Im not talking about fame , im talking about quality.

Explain to me why you feel you have the right to claim the previous concept albums were not as developed as Sgt. Pepper's. I believe you don't have any reason, and are just saying it because it's The Beatles, and you know that you have absolutely nothing else to say, because The Beatles did those things after Zappa did them, and better.

If it wasn't for Zappa, Sgt. Pepper's may not even exist.

Quality is subjective. Better to YOU isn't better to me. You are biased.

Originally posted by bakerboy
We are discussion the thing that you want in the moment that you want. Don be silly.

We're discussing music. Always have. YOU are the one who simply cannot just discuss The Beatles' music, because you know that there's not really much to go by besides subjective preference.

Originally posted by bakerboy
What are you talking about? Im talking about music.

You're talking about videos and fans, and other bs.

If we're discussing music and ONLY music, then you are entitled to think they are the best ever, but it's your opinion. I call them overrated because their MUSIC is rated because of things that make no difference to the music. If you want to call them the most culturally pioneering band, I might agree, cos it involves more than JUST music. Musically? They're overrated.

Originally posted by bakerboy
I said that in general terms, the beatles music wasnt influencied by zappas, but not in this particular album.

No you didn't. You said:

"First: they werent influented in any way by zappa.". Never do you mention a time, you mention that THEY (The Beatles.) weren't (Were not.), influenced by Zappa in ANY WAY (No way did they influence him.). That is what you said.

Paul McCartney proves you wrong.

Next time quote properly or I'm not gonna bother replying.

-AC

Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson and so on..

Regards, Yvonne

Coldplay.

I think Kiss is a pretty overrated band and Pearl Jam.

Whoa, amazing that people actually consider the Beatles to be the best band ever. Everyone knows the Eagles is the greatest band ever!!!!! HOTEL CALIFORNIA ALL THE WAY!!!

Eminem, 50 Cent, and the the winner of Most Overrated, Fall Out Boy.

Originally posted by Clone
Pearl Jam.