Who is more overrated?

[Squirrel]

Was youlooping rock riff videos and both bands showed up and i had a feeling to make this poll

[jts98z28]

idk why but i hate beatles

[BigAls87Z28]

Neither?
Rolling Stones is my personal pick over the two. They have been around for half a century.
Beatles made some cool revolutionary music back then, but fell apart. Neither overrated.

[Blacdout96]

I think the beatles are overrated. As Al said, the Rolling Stones are still around, the beatles hada falling out decades ago. The beatles made a couple memorable songs, but as far as longevity of their fame, it's extended too far, should of died out 20 years ago.

[transmaro93]

I dissagree, im a fan of neither. i actually really dislike both bands music (aside from maybe a handful of beatles songs) but the beatles really changed the sound of rock music. If you really listen to the music they wrote back in those days. Its amazing. The stones are so overrated. I mean its a matter of opinion i guess but the stones dont have one song thats worth anything out of the ones that iv heard. McJagger sucks... and keith richards is one of the most overrated guitarists ever... ever

[Slow-V6]

The Beatles changed the world of music! Just like Elvis did in the 50's the beatles did in the 60's! If that is being overrated then I dont know what your smoking!

Since I am 29 I wasnt alive when they were a group. The only thing I could compare it to was Nirvana back in the early 90's! I remember how big they were and still are to this day! It has been 19 years since Smells like teen spirt came out and it still has its own sound to it and still gets me going when I hear it!

[Squirrel]

The Beatles changed the world of music! Just like Elvis did in the 50's the beatles did in the 60's! If that is being overrated then I dont know what your smoking!

Since I am 29 I wasnt alive when they were a group. The only thing I could compare it to was Nirvana back in the early 90's! I remember how big they were and still are to this day! It has been 19 years since Smells like teen spirt came out and it still has its own sound to it and still gets me going when I hear it!

eh... nirvana, another band that gets wayyyy too much credit... but "the changing the music world" can be looked at in both ways, as in what if the beatles didnt come about, and a band much more epic than them did, and music will be in a much better position

[Knipps]

(flame suit on) Can we say Nirvana instead?

[BonzoHansen]

In 1967, there was no more epic than Sgt Peppers. It was a game changer like you've never seen in your lifetime. Or mine.

The Beatles changed music and the music business. They proved pop/rock artists could really expand and explore music in ways people in the music business could not previously fathom. There was just a thread on the guy from type 0 negative. He listed the Beatles as a big influence. Dave Mustaine does too. Lots of musicians in many genres do. The Beatles' influence on popular music is undeniable and immeasurable.

The Stones fall in line with Zep, Hendrix, The Who and Sabbath, among others, whose influence is huge but is a rung down the scale form the Beatles. The Stones, especially in the Brian Jones years, really were quite innovative and really had a large influence over music. Many of these bands also changed direction form record to record. They didn't ride the waves, they made the waves. Eventually all the great bands exhausted their creative powers, but some of them make waves that impact generations of popular music.

Music goes through cycles, each generation wants 'their own' music. Nirvana and Pearl Jam (damn, 10 was a monster record) represented a departure from the hair metal/glam rock scene that grew old.

Yeah, you can't confuse your personal feelings with the impact either had. I don't like rap, but I recognize acts like Run DMC and the sugar hill gang were innovators and influential.

[thor117]

for me its not that i hate the beatles, but more that i hate the hippie hipsters who listen to them now. to me they've given the beatles a bad name. that and all the popularity they've had in the past year or two with beatles rockband and all when i don't find any interest in their music or worthy of their own video game

[Knipps]

thor have you any idea who listened to the Beatles in the 60s? Dude, just stop talking now :rofl:

[thor117]

i know who listened to them then, but i hate the new generation of them that listen to them now. the little fruits just piss me off.

[BonzoHansen]

i know who listened to them then, but i hate the new generation of them that listen to them now. the little fruits just piss me off.

You're stupid is showing, highlighted both by your observations and your choice of words. So guys like Dave Mustaine and Ozzy Osbourne are hippies? Ozzy is a big Beatles fan too. Huh. Well, if they are hippies, so am I.

[Knipps]

You're stupid is showing, highlighted both by your observations and your choice of words. So guys like Dave Mustaine and Ozzy Osbourne are hippies? Ozzy is a big Beatles fan too. Huh. Well, if they are hippies, so am I.

Your stupid is showing :D

[NastyEllEssWon]

Sabbath owns em all.



but to show credit where credit is due, id have to say the Stones are way overrated. im not a fan of them and dont really dig their music. The Beatles on the other hand not only helped shape music back then but they've had a lingering effect over the last 40. If you took the Beatles solo projects you'd still have a pretty impressive lineup of songs. The Beatles are the first original SuperGroup they just did it backwards :D

[Frosty]

I despise both but the Stones get my vote, complete garbage.

[LS1Hawk]

Of the two, I had to pick the Stones as overrated. They were one of the British acts to ride the coattails of The Beatles to get their initial fame. However, both groups music has stood the test of time, which is how an artist is truly measured.

The Beatles' impact on music is undeniable. They changed the whole scope. However, I truly believe if the music didn't die that day, Buddy Holly would have done it first. You could see the progression of his music and songwriting was going in that direction. John Lennon also was a big Buddy Holly fan.

In 1967, there was no more epic than Sgt Peppers. It was a game changer like you've never seen in your lifetime. Or mine.

Agreed. The only album I think that comes close was The Zombies' "Odessey and Oracle" released in 1968. That album could have had a major impact, but it didn't have a chance to gain any traction as the band broke up before it was released.

[BigAls87Z28]

Are you all bloody serious? Stones overrated?
Stones brought you Rock and Roll as you see it today. It transformed blues music sung here in the US, and they cranked it with thier own British twist.
Without the Stones, and the Who IMO a lesser extent just due to longevity, you dont have Led, you dont have Metalica, you dont have the White Stripes or Jet.
I think claiming the Beatles as a inspiration is a cop out. Nothing Dave Mustane has ever writen or played would come near anything that sounded like a Beatles song.
Beatles might have "inspired" him, but the Rolling Stones layed the tracks down for the road he followed, as with everyone else that considers themselves part of the Rock and Roll world.
Beatles have thier own world, and they deserve thier fame.

Nirvana and Pearl Jam are innovators just in the same way teh Beatles and the Stones were. But they will never ever live up to either of those two bands.
Lots of men went to the moon, but everyone remembers the first one.

[LTb1ow]

I despise both but the Stones get my vote, complete garbage.

This. And nirvana sucks.

[MonmouthCtyAntz]

Out of the two definately the rolling stones....

[MonmouthCtyAntz]

This. And nirvana sucks.

Your crazy, they still would have been big if Cobain didnt kill himself. Grohl was a great drummer and then ended up starting foo fighters as a singer no less...alot of talent there...the media just played them out.

[91chevywt]

Both bands have a tremendous amount of music talent. Forget about who "rocks hardest" or all that other BS. If you look at pure composition ability, the beatles and rolling stones are/were outstanding. The fact that they were able to use their composition abilities in mainstream rock and roll, and be successful is nothing short of astounding.

If you compare their ability to record VS the doctored up metal/rock and roll/pop music of the current decade..there is almost no comparison. It seems like most people are concerned with playing the loudest, fastest possible with no true direction. Most bands today sound great recorded..then you see them live and they can't even keep time! I'd hardly call it music at all...but people buy it up!

[Slow-V6]

Nirvana and Pearl Jam are innovators just in the same way teh Beatles and the Stones were. But they will never ever live up to either of those two bands.
Lots of men went to the moon, but everyone remembers the first one.


I believe Nirvana lived up to the hype of the beatles and stones! Smells like teen spirit is in every top 5 rock catagory there is just about!


Your right about how you remember the 1st one and it was the Beatles not the Stones!! The stones are a great band but I dont get those (oh my God this song is amazing) feelings when I listen to any stones album. I get those feelings to songs like Stairway to Heaven, Revolution, Smells like teen spirit...

John Lennon was the Man. He even said that it was sad that to the younger kids that the Beatles were more important to them then God or Religon!

Your crazy, they still would have been big if Cobain didnt kill himself. Grohl was a great drummer and then ended up starting foo fighters as a singer no less...alot of talent there...the media just played them out.

They were the biggest band in the world when Kurt killed himself! I was in 8th grade when they found his body and they Had a teacher meeting and our teacher told us after the meeting that the lead singer of Nirvana was found dead in his house. Thats how big the band was. I went to a Catholic grade school in Stratford NJ. My mom said it reminded her of John Lennons death in 1980!


The 1st Foo Fighters CD Dave Grohl didnt even have a band when he recorded it! He played all the instruments and sang. He is a serious talent. I watched the one Foo Fighters show in England when Jimmy Paige and John paul Jones of Zepplin jamed out some Zepplin songs with the Foo Fighters. Dave Grohl played the drums and the usual Drummer for the Foo Fighters sang. They did Rock n Roll and a whole lot of love.

[WildBillyT]

Beatles are overrated in the same sense that the '69 ZL-1 is.

Chew on that.


(And yes, I mean it in both "ways".)

[LTb1ow]

Nirvana still sucks.

[91chevywt]

Nirvana still sucks.

Oh yeah? How is your music career working out?

[LTb1ow]

Stellar being as I am not in the music career.

Nirvana, still sucks.

[BonzoHansen]

Oh yeah? How is your music career working out?...don't fall for the trolling.



One has to be able to separate what they feel about an artist's music with the impact the artist had on music in order to have constructive input in this conversation. I can't stand Madonna, but she had a huge effect on the business and multiple generations of artists after her. I acknowledge that regardless of my personal thoughts on her music.

Beatles - mega-impact
Stones - big impact

Neither are overrated in that regards. Nirvana had a sizable impact on music, just like the Clash and Ramones did. They were leaders of new generations/eras of pop music.

[WildBillyT]

...don't fall for the trolling.



One has to be able to separate what they feel about an artist's music with the impact the artist had on music in order to have constructive input in this conversation. I can't stand Madonna, but she had a huge effect on the business and multiple generations of artists after her. I acknowledge that regardless of my personal thoughts on her music.

Beatles - mega-impact
Stones - big impact

Neither are overrated in that regards. Nirvana had a sizable impact on music, just like the Clash and Ramones did. They were leaders of new generations/eras of pop music.

Yup. Plus newer generations are even further from the influential time period.

We ran a media study at work when Micheal Jackson died. It was about artists' influence in music. The college kid who made the list of influential artists left Elvis off the list. And that's Presley, not Costello. :shock:

[91chevywt]

Well when we talk about "overrated" are we talking about impact on music? Or musical theory/composition? Is the New York Philharmonic orchestra overrated because they have had no real impact on music?

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe you don't like Beatles, Rolling Stones, or Nirvana's music, and can say that you don't like their music, but you can't deny that they have/had tremendous musical talent. That's what gave them the power to influence the path of music. They may have had the apperance and style to influence the masses, but they all possesed incredible musical talent and the ability to write music that people wanted to hear.

[LTb1ow]

Well when we talk about "overrated" are we talking about impact on music? Or musical theory/composition? Is the New York Philharmonic orchestra overrated because they have had no real impact on music?

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe you don't like Beatles, Rolling Stones, or Nirvana's music, and can say that you don't like their music, but you can't deny that they have/had tremendous musical talent. That's what gave them the power to influence the path of music. They may have had the apperance and style to influence the masses, but they all possesed incredible musical talent and the ability to write music that people wanted to hear.

See, I agree with your first paragraph...

Most of the music I listen too is much more advanced in theory, playing, and composition versus the crap that will influence the path of popular music... but yet, stupid ass repetitive verses and crappy tunes on a loop machine will cause a greater "change" in people's tastes?

The general public is by nature dumb, so bah. I will stick with my judgment, nirvana... and grunge kill me.

[greenformula92]

idk why but i hate beatles

i hate both :rofl:

[bubba428]

as far as I'm concerned. The Beatles did have a huge influence on music at the time, but I think people give them too much credit. They we're all that great. Sabbath and Deep Purple did more for the "rock" genre than the beatles. Uriah Heep too. Nirvana ****ing BLOWS!!!! I blame them for emo kids. You wanna listen to grunge, listen to Alice in Chains

[WildBillyT]

as far as I'm concerned. The Beatles did have a huge influence on music at the time, but I think people give them too much credit. They we're all that great. Sabbath and Deep Purple did more for the "rock" genre than the beatles. Uriah Heep too. Nirvana ****ing BLOWS!!!! I blame them for emo kids. You wanna listen to grunge, listen to Alice in Chains

Let me preface this by saying I am not a Beatles fan. But drag pretty much anybody off the street and ask them to name 3 Beatles songs and chances are they can. Ask them if they've even heard of Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Heep and you will get some people but nowhere near as many. Ask some recording artists who their influences are and you'll probably get more Beatles than anybody else, as well. I do not think their playing or writing is anywhere near as good as other bands, but their overall impact can't be denied. Like them or not, the Beatles had a massive influence on the music industry.

Beatles, Stones, Madonna, Dylan, Queen, Hendrix, Bowie, Chuck Berry, etc- the list goes on. There's a bunch that are very influential, but at the top of the list is always the Beatles.

[BonzoHansen]

as far as I'm concerned. The Beatles did have a huge influence on music at the time, but I think people give them too much credit. They we're all that great. Sabbath and Deep Purple did more for the "rock" genre than the beatles. Uriah Heep too. Nirvana ****ing BLOWS!!!! I blame them for emo kids. You wanna listen to grunge, listen to Alice in Chains

I'm a pretty big DP fan, have a pile of cds, seen them a number of times. You're wrong, but DP is very underappreciated. Uriah Heep? Please. The younger guys here have at least heard of the Beatles, the stones and purple but probably never heard of heep. The Sabs have a much bigger influence than DP, and again Ozzy has oft mentioned his love for the Beatles and the other Sabs too. Might explain why a lot of Sabs material is not 3 chord speed thrashing and is actually interesting – just listen to the record Sabotage. A lot of fans fail to realize most successful musicians have far wider tastes in music than their own fans.

In reality, to underestimate the impact of the Beatles shows a lack understanding of music history. Before them there were really no albums, just singles. Artists were not allowed to be too creative – they had to do what the record companies deemed commercially viable. They did nothing to foster artist creative growth. Artists were disposable. Record companies didn’t even care about production values, which is why a lot of older stuff sounds bad. The Beatles success led to artists being allowed to better expand their musical creativity in a way that did not exist pre-Beatles. That in turn allowed the Zeppelin, Sabbath, Hendrix and the rest to expand on the ideas and in turn influence later generations. But it started with the Beatles. You can’t give them too much credit IMO.

Gee, it sounds like the music industry is dropping back to pre-Beatles ways. Singles, poor production values, no artist growth support.

Grunge is just rock with a goofy title to differentiate it from 'hair metal'. They just stripped off all the LA glam and got more or less ‘back to basics’, just like the punk movement in the late 70s-early 80s. I'm seeing AIC this weekend.

[LS1Hawk]

Gee, it sounds like the music industry is dropping back to pre-Beatles ways. Singles, poor production values, no artist growth support.

You are dead on with this statement.