Most overrated rock artists of all time?

I love the Beatles myself, but I admit that they are overrated along with the Stones, Zeppelin, and the Doors. That does not diminish my respect for their achievements on any level though.

I agree with you Starman, but Tatoo'd Lady is allowed to express her opinion, after all it is one of the most subjective debates we can have about any band.

Early Beatles were pop driven short simple songs, from Rubber Soul on they were Giants in their field and one has to acknowledge their impact even if you don't like them that much.

Tattoo'd Lady said:

she is definitely in the big leagues because of her large fan base and being named as a big influence by many artists. Add that to her great lyrics and her superb music and i don't get how she doesn't qualify for these so called "big leagues"

Click to expand...

I've got Joni somewhere in this thread of overrated artists. I find her vocal theatrics really annoying.

Lord Grendel said:

Early Beatles were pop driven short simple songs....

Click to expand...

Yes, but they were still truly excellent.

Lord Grendel said:

I love the Beatles myself, but I admit that they are overrated along with the Stones, Zeppelin, and the Doors. That does not diminish my respect for their achievements on any level though.

I agree with you Starman, but Tatoo'd Lady is allowed to express her opinion, after all it is one of the most subjective debates we can have about any band.

Early Beatles were pop driven short simple songs, from Rubber Soul on they were Giants in their field and one has to acknowledge their impact even if you don't like them that much.

Click to expand...

I understand and of course fully agree that everyone is welcome to their opinion. But for pete's snake, state it as such. JMO, IMO, whatever. Just to state in grandiose fashion that they were "simple and boring" outside the context of personal opinion is a bit ludicrous. Too many incredible important people felt otherwise. Even if I was not one of them.

They were TREMENDOUSLY important to the history and development of rock n roll. That being whether I think they were any good or not.

My apologies if it seemed like I was stating "you are not allowed to state that" or whatever. I was just too hard hit over me noggin with the "that's bs" hammer to let it go. I probably should have, my apologies.

We owe such a debt to groups like the Beatles. Man, the RIGOROUS professional schedule those lads followed and adhered to. It would blow anyone's mind to know that hours that those guys put into gigging in Germany and the UK. Just insane.

i understand their importance in recording but thats simply because they had access to the best recording technology of their time, had a number of artists from the early 60's have that chance then i believe they would have made the same progressions that the beatles displayed.

and yeah foxhound, i could see where one would really dislike her vocals, it took me awhile to get used to them but after that short bump i couldn't get enough of her

and who says anything about me being a woman?

why should i have to say JMO or IMO when its pretty obvious that this is an incredibly subjective musical discussion? i don't get that

Tattoo'd Lady said:

why should i have to say JMO or IMO when its pretty obvious that this is an incredibly subjective musical discussion? i don't get that

Click to expand...

uh, because it is JUST YOUR OPINION and NOT fact.

also, you are on SERIOUS drugs if you think the Beatles "had access to the best recording equipment". More nonsense. They were two track pieces of junk to start with and the Abby Road Studio's philosophy with respect to obtaining cutting edge gear was conservative at best.

The truth is it was the Beatles attitudes themselves that most greatly affected recording technique and quality. They themselves were continually pushing the engineering envelope and trying new techniques.

Please, back up what you state with facts and not just opinion or you could just use the little aforementioned JMO trick.

so are you saying that a musical visionary like Frank Zappa in 66 wouldn't have pushed the envelope if there had been no beatles?

CP/M User said:

I thought The Rollin' Stones were responsible for Grunge music! But yeah, The Beatles is compulsory listening - cause everything circles around the Beatles! (including Pet Sounds! )

Click to expand...

Actually Neil Young really helped/started the grunge movement.

Tattoo'd Lady said:

so are you saying that a musical visionary like Frank Zappa in 66 wouldn't have pushed the envelope if there had been no beatles?

Click to expand...

Is that what I said? Hmmm...<immitation of FZ> "No foolin'..."


I happen to be a HUGE FZ fan. Frank and the Beatles had about as much in common as east does with west. HOWEVER, we must not forget that both east and west are critically important directions on a VERY large map relatively speaking. In fact, in both cases, several members of the Beatles, as well as Frank Zappa himself, were in fact of musical genius proportion. This being despite either of our musical taste buds.

starman said:

Is that what I said? Hmmm...<immitation of FZ> "No foolin'..."


I happen to be a HUGE FZ fan. Frank and the Beatles had about as much in common as east does with west. HOWEVER, we must not forget that both east and west are critically important directions on a VERY large map relatively speaking. In fact, in both cases, several members of the Beatles, as well as Frank Zappa himself, were in fact of musical genius proportion. This being despite either of our musical taste buds.

Click to expand...

i never implied you weren't a zappa fan. im just saying that zappa was already on track doing very innovative things at the time and IMO i believe he would have very soon do the things that the beatles have, the beatles just got to these advancements first, not that they were so groundbreaking that no one else would have ever done it. i believe that detail is very important.

for the record im mainly talking about later day beatles, i generally have no problem with early beatles, and i think their first few albums are pretty good. after that i think they receive far too much praise for the things they when did many artists at the same time were on the same track and the music they made is nowhere near deserving all of the praise and hype they've received over the last 40 years