Overrated?

Started by The Grey Fox8 pages

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

So what? Being influenced by people who came before does not mean that you are making the same music as they did.

The Sex Pistols sound notably different to any band that came before them in enough ways to be considered new. That's there to be heard, you don't need history lessons. Listen to the bands that came before and then listen to The Sex Pistols.

You are taking what your dad says as factual, when for all we know, he's just bitter that he didn't make it.

No, they're considered garage rock because of how they sound. I'm not basing this on words and not having heard the music. They sound completely different to punk rock music. They were raw and energetic, but that doesn't make punk rock. The Hives are raw and energetic, for example. They are a more accurate descendant of Iggy & The Stooges than The Sex Pistols.

Listen to these bands, it's all these to be heard.

They weren't a punk band because they didn't have everything that makes a punk band. A pancake isn't a pancake if it just has most of the ingredients, it needs to have them all.

-AC [/B]

Haha, taking shots at my dad, smooth move. Of course, he wasn't actually in a band pre-Sex Pistols, and he ranks the Pistols as one of his favourite bands. So there goes your assumptions of things I never claimed were true, stupid assumptions that had no basis or merit.

So you've heard every single garage rock band who were around the same as the Pistols were starting to get noticed? I thoroughly doubt it, to be honest. You're just doing what you did in the debate with Gideon about Schon and Van Halen: You actually don't know much at all about the music the other person is putting down against your concrete opinions. You're not familiar with the amounts of generally unknown bands I'm talking about, so again, are assuming, and sadly, assumptions are not a basis for a firm argument.

Not saying they're punk band, why can't you understand that? When did I say The Stooges were a punk band? I said they were Proto-punk, yes, because they very clearly are. But what I said was when you compare their lifestyle to the sex pistols' lifestyles, they were very, very similar. 'Punk', like all main genres, also has a following lifestyle to go with it, and The Stooges' lifestyle fits perfectly into what that Punk lifestyle would become. Rebellious, doing things to shock people, not giving a shit about anything, etc.

Also,

Originally posted by Strangelove
Although I would like to point out something here; you argue that the Beatles aren't musically influential because bands were inspired by them but not influenced by them. And then you turn around and say that the recording techniques of music aren't relevant because the "average joe" doesn't know about them. Well, we weren't talking about average joes, were we? We were talking about influence on other musicians. And the Beatles developed/discovered many recording techniques (e.g. auto double-tracking, tape loops, backwards vocal/guitar, flanging, use of the Moog synthesizer, etc.) that hadn't been heard of before, and because of their popularity, it allowed those techniques to become mainstream and as a result, bands starting using them.

So to discount recording techniques because the "average joe" doesn't know about them is quite ridiculous when we were talking about a band's influence on other musicians.


bring this up to the next page after you quite blatantly ignored Strangelove's post.

Linkin Park
Limp Bizkit
Beatles
Nirvana

Gazette..

Incubus

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Haha, taking shots at my dad, smooth move. Of course, he wasn't actually in a band pre-Sex Pistols, and he ranks the Pistols as one of his favourite bands. So there goes your assumptions of things I never claimed were true, stupid assumptions that had no basis or merit.

I said "For all we know.", it's not something I said was fact. If he wasn't in a band, what makes his opinion equal to all those people who support my argument that were around at the time?

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
So you've heard every single garage rock band who were around the same as the Pistols were starting to get noticed? I thoroughly doubt it, to be honest. You're just doing what you did in the debate with Gideon about Schon and Van Halen: You actually don't know much at all about the music the other person is putting down against your concrete opinions. You're not familiar with the amounts of generally unknown bands I'm talking about, so again, are assuming, and sadly, assumptions are not a basis for a firm argument.

Then show me stuff by all these bands you are supposedly aware of, and we'll see.

You don't have anything besides "The Sex Pistols' music wasn't 100% original so they're not the first punk rock band.". They were, but their music was influenced by a movement or sound that came before in creating something new.

That said, I don't need to have heard every band before The Sex Pistols. The fact of the matter is, people have, somewhere, somehow. I've studied and listened to enough music to know what The Sex Pistols are and what they did. You're trying to prove a negative, which doesn't work.

Still, if you have proof, then show it. Garage rock influenced The Sex Pistols, yes, big deal. So what? The Sex Pistols brought something to the table that hadn't been brought, and it created the most incendiary kind of punk, the real kind.

If you have anything that counters this, please present it. All the garage rock bands I have heard do not sound like The Sex Pistols, and I have heard a LOT. So if you have proof that counters it, present it and I'll concede my point.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Not saying they're punk band, why can't you understand that? When did I say The Stooges were a punk band? I said they were Proto-punk, yes, because they very clearly are. But what I said was when you compare their lifestyle to the sex pistols' lifestyles, they were very, very similar. 'Punk', like all main genres, also has a following lifestyle to go with it, and The Stooges' lifestyle fits perfectly into what that Punk lifestyle would become. Rebellious, doing things to shock people, not giving a shit about anything, etc.

Yeah, but that's aimless disobedience, rockstar attitude. Real punk rock was a reaction to a current state in the United Kingdom. That's why The Sex Pistols are considered the first, because nobody else was doing or saying what they were, about what they were.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Also,
bring this up to the next page after you quite blatantly ignored Strangelove's post.

I didn't see it.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Although I would like to point out something here; you argue that the Beatles aren't musically influential because bands were inspired by them but not influenced by them. And then you turn around and say that the recording techniques of music aren't relevant because the "average joe" doesn't know about them. Well, we weren't talking about average joes, were we?

Yes, we were. Welcome to the thread entitled "Overrated.", in which we state which bands we feel are overrated and why. The main reason The Beatles are so overrated is because they are rated much higher than they deserve to be, in our opinion. It's more so from fans than musicians, and in general their reputation has come from a general consensus that they are an untouchable, unquestionable force in music.

Not from musicians saying "They influenced the way I write my music.".

In that case, they may have influence musicians to write music the way they did because they liked it. The Beatles did not alter, change nor innovate musical evolution.

Originally posted by Strangelove
We were talking about influence on other musicians. And the Beatles developed/discovered many recording techniques (e.g. auto double-tracking, tape loops, backwards vocal/guitar, flanging, use of the Moog synthesizer, etc.) that hadn't been heard of before, and because of their popularity, it allowed those techniques to become mainstream and as a result, bands starting using them.

Then they were influential to recording techniques and studio arrangements/recording. This does not afford them the oft credited accolade of best musicians/band/albums ever.

Originally posted by Strangelove
So to discount recording techniques because the "average joe" doesn't know about them is quite ridiculous when we were talking about a band's influence on other musicians.

Keep up, please.

We're discussing their music. Their music does not warrant the praise they got. That's why they're considered overrated, because many people feel they were a very good band that made very good music, and that's it.

The amount of "official" rating they get Vs the above, is what we're saying. What you don't understand is the way they recorded is not something that the average joe thinks about, and it's the average joe or non-musician that we're talking about. The writers in magazine offices all over the world are not usually out there making albums while they're rating The Beatles as having three of the best five albums ever, they're not rating them as such based on "They did innovative things with recordings.".

Most people who praise The Beatles as much as they do, do not do so based on areas you are arguing for.

Thus, they are mentioned in this thread.

It's not the chaos theory, nor rocket science.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not the chaos theory, nor rocket science.

-AC

Both are overrated.

anything i dont like is overrated.

It doesn't work li...oh wait, John Lennon signature, one sec.

*Opens thread door, throws all logic and sense out.*

That's not going to be useful, I feel.

-AC

Rise Against

Am I the only person here who thinks that Michael Jackson is very overrated? I'm talking, of course, about the "Thriller" era Michael and not the "pedo-insane" Michael of now.

Originally posted by Impediment
Am I the only person here who thinks that Michael Jackson is very overrated? I'm talking, of course, about the "Thriller" era Michael and not the "pedo-insane" Michael of now.

Probably overrated, yeah.

Originally posted by Impediment
Am I the only person here who thinks that Michael Jackson is very overrated? I'm talking, of course, about the "Thriller" era Michael and not the "pedo-insane" Michael of now.

What a retarded comment. Since when was the man a paedophile or insane? Seriously, what a stupid comment.

On topic, I don't consider him overrated at all. I think he deserves all the rating his best music gets.

-AC

I agree with AC in this instance.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Since when was the man a paedophile or insane?
-AC

10...20 years or so?

Go on...

He got acquitted of all charges, multiple times, after finding out there was no evidence strong enough to convict him. Add to that the dubious claims of parents; withdrawing from court after Jackson had paid them money.

People say this makes him look guilty, but I've always maintained it just made the parents look like liars. If someone abused my kid and I thought they did it, no amount of millions could shut me up, unless that's what I did it for.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Go on...

He got acquitted of all charges, multiple times, after finding out there was no evidence strong enough to convict him. Add to that the dubious claims of parents; withdrawing from court after Jackson had paid them money.

People say this makes him look guilty, but I've always maintained it just made the parents look like liars. If someone abused my kid and I thought they did it, no amount of millions could shut me up, unless that's what I did it for.

-AC

It was really just a joke. Though, his acquittal has obviously nobearing on his sanity..or sexual preferences. I actually agree with you that Michael Jackson doesn't seem to me like he is a pedophile...but he might be...he certainly behaves in a fashion that is odd to me.

Yes, so his behavior is odd at worst.

I fail to see why this would make the man a paedophile. The fact is, kids still found their way to his house despite rumours, false, in my opinion, of paedophilia. So quite obviously, his attitude toward kids or rumoured unhealthy attraction to them didn't dissuade the parents.

There's too much to suggest he did nothing than to suggest the man's a paedophile.

But whatever, that's vastly off topic.

-AC

I maintain that the activities, disciplines, and beliefs that men and women indulge in, no matter how despicable, can't be a reflection of their talent in music, anyways.

Jackson's alleged pedophilia has yet to be proven, he was acquitted of the charges as AC said. And even if he were, that isn't a reflection upon his talents or lack thereof as a musician and performer.

I liked some of his music and firmly believe he has a very pleasant voice.

You didn't mention Neal Schon, what the f*ck is this?

I'm joking of course.

-AC

Give it five minutes. 😄

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What a retarded comment. Since when was the man a paedophile or insane? Seriously, what a stupid comment.

On topic, I don't consider him overrated at all. I think he deserves all the rating his best music gets.

-AC

Oh, AC, your couth tact never ceases to amuse me. That's probably why I adore you so much. The latter comment about MJ was, I hope you realize, a joke. Get it? "Ha ha ha". Right?

In all honesty, I feel that MJ, while he is a VERY talented artist, is very over hyped and, well, overrated.

I do have a question:

Considering all of the media coverage, excluding the pedo charges, we have seen of MJ over the years (i.e. dangling a baby out of a window), can you honestly say that the man is, in fact, not sane?