The Poojer Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 i am creeping up on 50 and i don't know that i could answer question #3 Your response is appropriate and fair. What I will say in response is that the original question goes back to the notion of over or under rated. It would be hard to argue that the Beatles are under-rated as arguably history has put them in the status of the most well rated group of musicians to ever play rock and roll. There are also other obvious points about the group such as they were fabulously successful from a popularity standpoint, they were clearly famous and they were a huge commercial success. To me they are over-rated simply because of their success and popularity. I think many people "like" them without even a thought as to why. Given their huge body of work it is easy for anyone to pick a few songs that are appealing to them. I am generally not a fan of the Beatles but even I have a few songs by them that I do enjoy. At the risk of arguing against myself, it is to their credit that they continue to stand the test of time. One could argue that others at the height of their popularity matched the success of the Beatles from a popularity and commercial standpoint. None have sustained that success in the same way. Interestingly, I also think much of the Beatles success over time is they managed to stay relatively free of the excesses and demons that often torment others who were or are great. Some of that was a gift of the age in which their popularity rose. Today people live to see the famous fall and can't wait to expose every act of stupidity or excess on the internet. No doubt that the Beatles as a group had challenges but they were not under the same microscope that exists today. Finally, if you really want to understand the over-rated aspect ask 5 people under the age of 30 three questions: 1) Do you really like the Beatles (inevitably the answer is yes) 2) Why? (you'll get something close to "just because") 3) Tell me the titles of two of their best songs that never made it into the billboard charts (you'll get a blank stare) The final point just exposes the fact that as time moves forward the Beatles popularity is more a function of historical momentum than a true appreciation for the work. btw - thanks for starting this thread - it is one of the best ones that has been on the board in a long time. It is nice to see serious exchange of thought once and a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 ill throw out one: Overrated: Eagles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 30, 2013 Author Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) Funny how you can reply to Tom's post about the Beatles asking for specifics as to why the Beatles suck and all you come up with for JT is because Ian Anderson plays a flute and flute does not belong in rock and roll. Well by that narrow criteria you've just contradicted your love for the Beatles seeing they used the flute in a few of their song. Oh and your beloved Stones incorporated a flute in their songs too. you have a valid point, but i did further my explanation in a later post in regards to the excesses of Tull having no room in rock and roll: let's face it, i called it "one man's insober list" and not "definitive." rock and roll music was born out of boredom and desperation out of the disenfranchised seeking a voice to define themselves. it's a democratizing and finger in the air art form that most anyone can attempt if they have a garage, guitar, amp (note: i didn't write flute.) and free time on their hands. this is my definition of what rock and roll is, an unsettling clamor of chords and lyrics to make us feel heard and/or young and relevant. there's no room for Jethro Tull excesses, and those that i believe deserve in filling out the next 9 spots. jw and, it was Jay, who provided this quote, with which I distinctly agreed with in being accurate in regards to my thought process. i couldn't have written it any better than as it was said in the movie "Almost Famous." "Did you know that "The Letter" by The Box Tops was a minute and 58 seconds long? Means nothing. Nil. But it takes them less than two minutes to accomplish what Jethro Tull takes hours to not accomplish! (pulls Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick from the shelf) You see this? This is fatuous, pseudo blubber! You know...which is fine, but...to foist it off as art -- Or The Doors? Jim Morrison? He's a drunken buffoon posing a poet. Aw. Give me the Guess Who. Come on. They got the courage to be drunken buffoons, which makes them poetic!" my apologies if i didn't explain myself entirely, but the flute was not the only thing, it was merely an example of the excesses of a band who's only redeemable quality, in my opinion, played an important role in inspiring the alternative, punk short two-minute crash and clamor sound that was made in taking the "Prog" out of rock, and putting the focus back on melody and rebellious message. jw Edited May 30, 2013 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 it's funny, on Stern today, Stern and Jim Bruer were having a discussion about whether the Beatles had a sh**ty song...they couldn't come up with one, granted they are both huge Beatles fan, as am I. "Revolution 9" wasted over 8 minutes of the White Album, in my opinion. When I put the album on my iPod, I did not include that song. That's the only one I can actually consider "sh**ty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 "Revolution 9" wasted over 8 minutes of the White Album, in my opinion. When I put the album on my iPod, I did not include that song. That's the only one I can actually consider "sh**ty." word ill throw out one: Overrated: Eagles word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 ill throw out one: Overrated: Eagles see, this is what is so subjective about musical preferences. i generally like (and almost always appreciate) technically difficult and complex music performed masterfully. eagles 3 and 4 chord songs are decidedly none of these things. yet i like and enjoy many of their songs. i'll bet lots of people who listen to them feel them same way. does that make them over rated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 30, 2013 Author Share Posted May 30, 2013 everything up to and including Eagles' Hotel California i consider to be very good. many good influences there, including Lowell George's involvement. in various regards, the Eagles enjoyed a corral of some of best song-writers of their era. ... beyond Hotel California, and particularly the solo projects, things tailed off very quickly. the lyrics were wrong to a certain degree: "once they checked out, they should've left." jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 30, 2013 Author Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) But once again Tom thinks they're overrated because the were revered just as you said and he just doesn't like their music. That's why these thread evolve into musical pissing matches which become stupid. I like what I like, you like what you like and !@#$ off if you don't like what I like and I have no problem !@#$ing off because I don't like what you like. but you're the one bent on trying to make this a pissing match. i warned people from the beginning i was going to step on some toes. heck, even if i went with the easy pickings of Beiber, Culture Club and Toto as being over-rated, there would always be someone here going ... but, but, no! these are not personal attacks, merely opinions. again, why so serious? The final point just exposes the fact that as time moves forward the Beatles popularity is more a function of historical momentum than a true appreciation for the work. that's true. it's a matter of perspective. at the time the Beatles were breaking up, i was just getting into music. and that music was country and western as my father had a large collection of Hank Williams and Johnny Cash albums. it was a good way to start. ... that said, i was among the rebels without a clue in the late 70s and 80s trying to convince myself that the Beatles and Led Zepplin and the Stones sucked only because it was the chic thing to say. i'm still a little leery about the Beatles in some ways in part because of their "stardom," and have difficulty appreciating what they meant to an entire generation of young fans and beyond. but i've done a complete 180 on Zepplin and the Stones. wow, they made some powerful music. jw Edited May 30, 2013 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 But once again Tom thinks they're overrated because the were revered just as you said and he just doesn't like their music. That's why these thread evolve into musical pissing matches which become stupid. I like what I like, you like what you like and !@#$ off if you don't like what I like and I have no problem !@#$ing off because I don't like what you like. How does that even need to be stated? I thought it was completely obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobesBLO13 Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Overrated : Metallica, nirvana Underrated: Jewel, Natalie Maines, cheap trick I understand the feeling on Metallica given their 90s releases. But listen to Master of Puppets it's an hour of perfection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I understand the feeling on Metallica given their 90s releases. But listen to Master of Puppets it's an hour of perfection. Lots of bands record one great album. Metallica makes one good one in 30 years? Overrated. Kirk Hammett is just another speed demon with no feel. Ulrich is the only true talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 it's funny, on Stern today, Stern and Jim Bruer were having a discussion about whether the Beatles had a sh**ty song...they couldn't come up with one, granted they are both huge Beatles fan, as am I. Revolution 9, as already stated Michelle I am the Walrus I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Revolution 9, as already stated Michelle I am the Walrus I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of. Killing me. I Am the Walrus is one of the best and Michelle isn't far behind. Just the musicianship, alone, in those two songs is phenomenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Killing me. I Am the Walrus is one of the best and Michelle isn't far behind. Just the musicianship, alone, in those two songs is phenomenal. I think Michelle is the prequel to Ebony and Ivory............I am the Walrus is beyond stupid. Two more that suck balls are Octopus's Garden and Yellow Submarine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I think Michelle is the prequel to Ebony and Ivory............I am the Walrus is beyond stupid. As wrong as they may be, you are entitled to your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I do like The Beatles and think most of their songs are great, but those 5 definitely suck. But, I'm a Springsteen fanatic and can name 5 of his that suck, too. One really odd thing is that almost every band that I can't stand has at least one song that I love. One example is Styx - I cannot stand them, but I love Lorelei with a passion, as well as Borrowed Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) I do like The Beatles and think most of their songs are great, but those 5 definitely suck. But, I'm a Springsteen fanatic and can name 5 of his that suck, too. One really odd thing is that almost every band that I can't stand has at least one song that I love. One example is Styx - I cannot stand them, but I love Lorelei with a passion, as well as Borrowed Time. what, no love for Mr. Roboto? ... jw but i do agree with your sentiment. i'm comfortable enough with my fandom to acknowledge there may even be one or two 'Mats songs i don't care for. ... but shhhhh, let's keep that between me and you. Edited May 31, 2013 by john wawrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Like Schultz, I know nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobesBLO13 Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Lots of bands record one great album. Metallica makes one good one in 30 years? Overrated. Kirk Hammett is just another speed demon with no feel. Ulrich is the only true talent. I thought you were serious until your Lars Ulrich comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Two more that suck balls are Octopus's Garden and Yellow Submarine. Giving Ringo anything to do other than drum was a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts