5 bands that shouldnt be given as much credit as they do

[Shogun]

dude, Justice for all was better metal than anything maiden put out during their entire career. There is not a single iron maiden song that compares to One. Alone. And, really.. I'm going to need examples of maiden's apparent virtuosity because the first half of almost every Metallica song on Justice required more musicianship than any maiden song I can think of. By all means, post examples but... Maiden < Metallica.


and, regarding musical abilities... how many guiltar players did maiden need again?

 

[Harry Dresden]

The problem with the term "overrated" is that the word itself is overrated and it's thrown around much to often as a negetive connotation. Overrated doesn't have to mean bad, something can be overrated and still very good.

As far as the beatles are concerned, I don't think it's possible for a band to be that big and NOT be overrated. At least as far as their music is concerned, some of it is indeed fluff. Realistically they should be respected more for paving the way and being an influence on so many bands that followed them. If the beatles weren't there in that time though, someone else would have stepped in and filled that void, and would be on the top of the pedestal today.

yea DINO,DESI & BILLY....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The problem with the term "overrated" is that the word itself is overrated and it's thrown around much to often as a negetive connotation. Overrated doesn't have to mean bad, something can be overrated and still very good.

As far as the beatles are concerned, I don't think it's possible for a band to be that big and NOT be overrated. At least as far as their music is concerned, some of it is indeed fluff. Realistically they should be respected more for paving the way and being an influence on so many bands that followed them. If the beatles weren't there in that time though, someone else would have stepped in and filled that void, and would be on the top of the pedestal today.

And if they were NOT there.. .music would not be the same today.. .someone else would have been the popular lead at the time.... but nobody else was the Beatles, could have been the same musical impact as the Beatles, or would have really been as important as the Beatles are to us now...

When you have that much music, there is always going to be so called "fluff"... however.. much of the "fluff" of the Beatles was still ingenious in it's day.. and some of that "fluff" has even made it into our culture in many ways and many places... You hear Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da intro-ing for nostalgic TV shows... Yellow Submarine is taught to grade schoolers... Revolution#9 is still thought of continually for it's avant garde influence

Other bands would give almost anything to have the "fluff" of the Beatles as their best musical efforts

The other bands with some of the "fluff".......

Songs the Beatles Didn't Do

 

[Dis]

woa.. hold up the fucking truth trolly a moment...


One would have to be Metallica... They were a face.. ones that 16 year old boys got into because of the beat, the gnashed vocals that they could mimic, and the guttural feel to the music.. meanwhile you have metal greats such as Iron Maiden who don't get the limelight, but were infinitely more talented and complex and actually brought depth and changes to metal in their time...

Iron Maiden would have been nothing more than another british band had Metallica not made heavy metal a household word. MORE talented? my ass. I'll stack iron maiden tunes against metallica (pre-black) all day long if your criteria is technicality, complexness and depth. Hell, the ONLY thing maiden really had was the vocals of bruce doling out textbook history lyrics. Maiden has MAYBE three popular songs from their entire cataloge.. Metallica had at LEAST that many on each pre-black album. Shit, Burton era Metallica especially kicks the shit out of maiden. You want to talk about IMAGE being SOLD to TEENAGERS, eh Eddie?

I am a pretty decent fan of Cliffy era Metallica.... but Cliffy don't hold a candle to Steve... and I am not paralleling popularity (which Metallica had) with talent.... James, Lars, etc really are not that great and never were... I'd put Steve Harris and Bruce as 2 of the best in metal ever...

And Maiden had good stuff out before Metallica even formed...

Yes.. Eddie was a great marketing tool for the album covers.. no doubt.... but unfortunately, they get more credit for that than their musical and lyrical prowess....

I've listened to them both and seen 'em both.. and Metallica does not even come close in depth, talent, or performance... now I can listen to a Cliffy era argument, though I may not agree... but everything post-Cliffy has been worthy of the dumpster.. even the lest popular Iron Maiden albums have been worthwhile, if not popular sellers

Everything except ...And Justice For All, you mean. That was THE last good album Metallica put out.

 

[Kalam]

I see you don't know anything about music either.

I bet you think Eminem is da bomb.

Quit wasting space with posts like that, dipshit. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I "don't know anything."

 

[Kalam]

Kalam.....your saying that the Beatles are overrated,because you dont like them,never mind what they accomplished in the 60s.....then you ask..."what were those contributions?".....if you dont know about the subject matter,maybe you should not comment.....GOOGLE the Beatles effect on Rock music and you will get hundreds of pages to go and learn something.....

I wanted to hear your opinion. What contributions did they make that make them so unique and talented?

also performed by a few NON-surfers.... they lived the Beach life style Kalam....John Fogerty was not raised in the Bayou,yet his music makes you think he may have been.....

I wouldn't care about the Beach Boys' origins if I enjoyed their music. I just don't... it doesn't do anything for me. CCR, on the other hand, made music that I think is good. We simply have different opinions.

 

[Kalam]

you think the Beatles and The Beach Boys are overrated?......

Yep.

Wow..thats says alot more about you than it does them. I would be the last to critisize or suggest that you are not human but probably some friggin creature from the outer space sent here to destroy all of mankind so I won't.

Yeah, I've heard it all before. From what I understand, there's a special ring of hell for those who dare blaspheme the almighty Beatles.

 

[Meister]

Kalam.....your saying that the Beatles are overrated,because you dont like them,never mind what they accomplished in the 60s.....then you ask..."what were those contributions?".....if you dont know about the subject matter,maybe you should not comment.....GOOGLE the Beatles effect on Rock music and you will get hundreds of pages to go and learn something.....

I wanted to hear your opinion. What contributions did they make that make them so unique and talented?

also performed by a few NON-surfers.... they lived the Beach life style Kalam....John Fogerty was not raised in the Bayou,yet his music makes you think he may have been.....

I wouldn't care about the Beach Boys' origins if I enjoyed their music. I just don't... it doesn't do anything for me. CCR, on the other hand, made music that I think is good. We simply have different opinions.

Just because you don't like the groups doesn't mean that they don't deserve the credit. The Beach Boys influenced a whole genre of music, as did the Beatles. If you had said the Cowsills, or the Monkee's, or the Partridge Family...you wouldn't have caught any flack on this thread.

 

[elvis]

Wings, U2, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, Sting,

 

[Kalam]

Just because you don't like the groups doesn't mean that they don't deserve the credit. The Beach Boys influenced a whole genre of music, as did the Beatles. If you had said the Cowsills, or the Monkee's, or the Partridge Family...you wouldn't have caught any flack on this thread.

They get more credit than they deserve. That was my point. Yeah, they had a few catchy songs. Yeah, their style was innovative (the Beatles' style, at least.) However, people tend to idolize their positive contributions and ignore all of the horrible crap they put out.

I disagree about the Beach Boys. They were Chuck Berry with less guitar, harmonized vocals, and a lot more bubblegum.

 

[Xenophon]

Quit wasting space with posts like that, dipshit.

Go back to jew baiting you limp dicked moron.

It's clear you don't know shit about music.

 

[Harry Dresden]

woa.. hold up the fucking truth trolly a moment...


One would have to be Metallica... They were a face.. ones that 16 year old boys got into because of the beat, the gnashed vocals that they could mimic, and the guttural feel to the music.. meanwhile you have metal greats such as Iron Maiden who don't get the limelight, but were infinitely more talented and complex and actually brought depth and changes to metal in their time...

Iron Maiden would have been nothing more than another british band had Metallica not made heavy metal a household word. MORE talented? my ass. I'll stack iron maiden tunes against metallica (pre-black) all day long if your criteria is technicality, complexness and depth. Hell, the ONLY thing maiden really had was the vocals of bruce doling out textbook history lyrics. Maiden has MAYBE three popular songs from their entire cataloge.. Metallica had at LEAST that many on each pre-black album. Shit, Burton era Metallica especially kicks the shit out of maiden. You want to talk about IMAGE being SOLD to TEENAGERS, eh Eddie?

I am a pretty decent fan of Cliffy era Metallica.... but Cliffy don't hold a candle to Steve... and I am not paralleling popularity (which Metallica had) with talent.... James, Lars, etc really are not that great and never were... I'd put Steve Harris and Bruce as 2 of the best in metal ever...

And Maiden had good stuff out before Metallica even formed...

Yes.. Eddie was a great marketing tool for the album covers.. no doubt.... but unfortunately, they get more credit for that than their musical and lyrical prowess....

I've listened to them both and seen 'em both.. and Metallica does not even come close in depth, talent, or performance... now I can listen to a Cliffy era argument, though I may not agree... but everything post-Cliffy has been worthy of the dumpster.. even the lest popular Iron Maiden albums have been worthwhile, if not popular sellers

well like that commentator said on the "History Of Metal"......

Metallica did not invent Metal,is not the best Metal band,but they sure took that sound and ran with it......hey its what the guy said......he was just sayin....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Kalam.....your saying that the Beatles are overrated,because you dont like them,never mind what they accomplished in the 60s.....then you ask..."what were those contributions?".....if you dont know about the subject matter,maybe you should not comment.....GOOGLE the Beatles effect on Rock music and you will get hundreds of pages to go and learn something.....

I wanted to hear your opinion. What contributions did they make that make them so unique and talented?

also performed by a few NON-surfers.... they lived the Beach life style Kalam....John Fogerty was not raised in the Bayou,yet his music makes you think he may have been.....

I wouldn't care about the Beach Boys' origins if I enjoyed their music. I just don't... it doesn't do anything for me. CCR, on the other hand, made music that I think is good. We simply have different opinions.

my thing Kalam is that you are saying a group is overrated because I DONT LIKE THEIR MUSIC.....your the one that says the Beatles are overrated......so why dont you tell us WHY?.....Since the Beatles are considered by a great majority to be NOT overrated.....i would be interested Kalam,to hear why you feel that they are......and please dont say i dont like their music.......what about what they did do you feel is BS or just overrated....

 

[DiamondDave]

dude, Justice for all was better metal than anything maiden put out during their entire career. There is not a single iron maiden song that compares to One. Alone. And, really.. I'm going to need examples of maiden's apparent virtuosity because the first half of almost every Metallica song on Justice required more musicianship than any maiden song I can think of. By all means, post examples but... Maiden < Metallica.


and, regarding musical abilities... how many guiltar players did maiden need again?

And Justice could not even touch Number of the Beast or Powerslave or Piece of Mind... in their wildest dreams

Metallica even Credits Iron Maiden for influence

And Justice is like a bus load of retards on their way to Chuck E Cheese's

 

[Dr Grump]

Iron Maiden kick Metallica's arse. No question. Metallica are Ok at best. In fact, their early stuff is shit (IMO of course). I think they got better as they got older...

 

[Xenophon]

You can't claim a band is 'over rated' simply because you don't like what they do.

The beatles own the top spot as even to this day their music is in the top ten in current sales, and is remarkable in it's diversity.

I find it laughable anyone would claim them 'over rated' (the same goes for U2, who owned the charts for decades) and some of the other bands and albums mentioned.

For example, LZ's Stairway to heaven may be the most played out, yet anytime a survey of the top 1,000 rock songs is made it wins. LZ IV was more then that one song, that album is a good as anything else they ever did.

I'm not a huge fan of hip hop yet you have to recognize the impact of bands like Public Enemy had on music tatses ans styles, the way I recognize older music and it's impact, whether i personally like it or not.

Taste is not the only measure of ratings.

 

[manifold]

5. metallica
4. ac/dc
3. guns n' roses
2. u2
1. pink floyd

and there is much more where that came from.

I agree with all except AC/DC. Not because I think they're ef'n great or anything, I just don't think they're given a material amount of unneccesary "credit."

The other four absolutely, and I too put Pink Floyd at the top. I'd probably add the Doors and The Grateful Dead.

 

[Wolf]

The problem with the term "overrated" is that the word itself is overrated and it's thrown around much to often as a negetive connotation. Overrated doesn't have to mean bad, something can be overrated and still very good.

As far as the beatles are concerned, I don't think it's possible for a band to be that big and NOT be overrated. At least as far as their music is concerned, some of it is indeed fluff. Realistically they should be respected more for paving the way and being an influence on so many bands that followed them. If the beatles weren't there in that time though, someone else would have stepped in and filled that void, and would be on the top of the pedestal today.

I dont think most infuencial or band that changed musical history is a pedestal that one steps on.. that is earned.. the beatles, like them or not, overated or not, were very diverse, popular and made some great tunes that influenced artists to this day.. (yeah they have some songs that.. well.. suck....) that Pedestal is not something that is given.. only a few bands that made it big can really make a claim at that pedestal and i dont see it as if they didnt someone else would have.. perhaps someone else could have.. and there are/were other bands at that time that were great also.. but just cause someone did something like the beatles did, does not means that others would have done the same thing in thier absence.. IMO..

 

[manifold]

You can't claim a band is 'over rated' simply because you don't like what they do.

Can you send me a copy of the rule book? I wasn't aware of this restriction and who knows what else.

 

[Xenophon]

You can't claim a band is 'over rated' simply because you don't like what they do.

Can you send me a copy of the rule book? I wasn't aware of this restriction and who knows what else.

We can save postage as I just quoted it for you.

You could of course send me yours that explains why some of the greatest bands in history are 'over rated' to you.