|
|
Post by Mogly on Dec 5, 2006 11:14:23 GMT -5
imo it's gotta be the Rolling Stones. they do have some great albums but they lost it in the early 70's and have recorded very few good songs ever since.
Radiohead is also a bit overrated. sure they made 2 classic albums, KID A and Amnesiac were good but thye're last album was shit
|
|
|
|
Post by mattmightsay on Dec 6, 2006 0:31:22 GMT -5
Radiohead - the michine album or watever which is in the top 10 albums, is shit. just shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterplan200 on Dec 6, 2006 1:11:27 GMT -5
Radiohead - the michine album or watever which is in the top 10 albums, is shit. just shit. Ok Computer? Scratch another for Radiohead |
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Dec 6, 2006 2:14:57 GMT -5
i would have to say the rolling stones. they are the musical equivalent of nicholas cage. they have massive amounts of fans, but their bad work outweighs the good (and great).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 5:01:38 GMT -5
I wasn't around in the 70s so to me The Rolling Stones, Led Zep & Pink Floyd are all over-rated. Dunno what songs they sing anyway. I watched Live8 and Pink Floyd bored the pants off me, plus I've got one of their albums and I only listened to a few songs 'til I turned it off. I like the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Idol on Dec 6, 2006 5:14:34 GMT -5
^^^^ LOL
I don't think The Rolling Stones are overrated coz they're usually judged by their 60's and 70's output, nobody mentions their last 25 years or so...
Not on the list, but I'd say The Velvet Underground...I love 2 of their records but c'mon! critics love them sooo much it's ridiculous...
Oh, and I hope nobody dares to mention the fab four! or I'll call you a moron for as long as I'm a member of this forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Dec 6, 2006 5:38:25 GMT -5
I wasn't around in the 70s so to me The Rolling Stones, Led Zep & Pink Floyd are all over-rated. so that means lennon and elvis are overrated too?  |
|
|
|
Post by Idol on Dec 6, 2006 5:43:21 GMT -5
I wasn't around in the 70s so to me The Rolling Stones, Led Zep & Pink Floyd are all over-rated. so that means lennon and elvis are overrated too? Actually, I do believe Elvis is overrated (musically speaking only) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 6:22:41 GMT -5
so that means lennon and elvis are overrated too? Actually, I do believe Elvis is overrated (musically speaking only) elvis is totaly overated, he had a twat for a manager, which never helps |
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Dec 6, 2006 6:56:58 GMT -5
Actually, I do believe Elvis is overrated (musically speaking only) elvis is totaly overated, he had a twat for a manager, which never helps lmao at you two how the fuck does havin a twat for a manager (which he wasnt :  make you overated? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 7:22:20 GMT -5
elvis is totaly overated, he had a twat for a manager, which never helps lmao at you two how the fuck does havin a twat for a manager (which he wasnt : make you overated? cos he spent his time makeing shit films instead of music, which means he is overated as is output is patchy at best |
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Dec 6, 2006 7:36:05 GMT -5
lmao at you two how the fuck does havin a twat for a manager (which he wasnt : make you overated? cos he spent his time makeing shit films instead of music, which means he is overated as is output is patchy at best so changing the face of music and bringing rock and roll to the masses doesnt count for anything? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 7:42:08 GMT -5
cos he spent his time makeing shit films instead of music, which means he is overated as is output is patchy at best so changing the face of music and bringing rock and roll to the masses doesnt count for anything? it does, he is hugely influential, but it doesn’t stop him being overrated, there were other people making that type of music at the same time, if he didn't exist rock and roll would have still be brought to the masses. You have to admit his output is patchy and that he spent to much time making shit films |
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Dec 6, 2006 7:55:03 GMT -5
yeah course he had some shit films
it just boggles me how anyone can call him overated. just because some of his work wasn't as good as his other stuff, you cant say he's overated. listen to how stupid you sound ross.
if your goin on your theory, everyone is overrated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 7:57:55 GMT -5
yeah course he had some shit films it just boggles me how anyone can call him overated. just because some of his work wasn't as good as his other stuff, you cant say he's overated. listen to how stupid you sound ross. if your goin on your theory, everyone is overrated. no i just don't like elvis, i don't like his voice. its not just some of his stuff was not as good as his other stuff its that fact that some of it is just shit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 8:06:10 GMT -5
i voted for rolling stones btw  |
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Dec 6, 2006 8:07:17 GMT -5
yeah course he had some shit films it just boggles me how anyone can call him overated. just because some of his work wasn't as good as his other stuff, you cant say he's overated. listen to how stupid you sound ross. if your goin on your theory, everyone is overrated. no i just don't like elvis, i don't like his voice. .........? im not a big fan of the beatles. have never listened to any of their albums more than 5 times, only listen to the odd track. im a stones man myself. but to called them overated because 'i just don't like them, i hate lennons voice' is total shite. even though im not a fan i still recognise them as the biggest and most influential band of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by brumoscardo on Dec 6, 2006 10:28:18 GMT -5
That'll be Radiohead. Can't tell the difference between rubbish and their discography.
|
|
|
|
Post by warren on Dec 6, 2006 12:47:05 GMT -5
Without even checking the list I'd say U2
|
|
|
|
Post by feckarse on Dec 6, 2006 14:10:20 GMT -5
Oasis.
With the exception of Standing on the Shoulder of Giants, they haven't done anything meaningful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poshbird05 on Dec 6, 2006 14:20:42 GMT -5
it does, he is hugely influential, but it doesn’t stop him being overrated, there were other people making that type of music at the same time, if he didn't exist rock and roll would have still be brought to the masses. I don't think that's true because all the other people doing that at the time were black, and maybe people don't like to admit it, but the mainstream, whites, didn't listen to black blues and rock n' roll till Elvis came around and made it o.k. for whites to like that kind of music. If it wasn't for Elvis there would be no Buddy Holley or Big Bopper, and sure maybe rock would have made it to the mainstream eventually, but there's no way it would be the same as it is today if it wasn't for Elvis. |
|
|
|
Post by Superguiller. on Dec 12, 2006 19:54:50 GMT -5
I think U2 are the most overrated band in the list.
They have like 10 good songs and One as a cracker. The rest of their work I can't have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggy on Dec 13, 2006 8:11:03 GMT -5
after reading the thread title I immediately thought of U2
shitband, all cause of their shit-singer and the missing 2nd guitarist
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2006 14:08:42 GMT -5
Queen and the Stones are easily matched.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy Davey ツ on Dec 16, 2006 19:57:46 GMT -5
hey, Elvis is the King of Rock and Roll! Only him and Lennon are better than Liam! ;D
and led zeppelin are fucking great. they have the best rock song ever. jimmy page is a god
I voted RHCP
|
|
make you overated?
"]http://tenbobrevolution.blogspot.com
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5