Fist of all the indescribable mr. Sting. Is enough a good song and only few discographic works with the Police to make this person a great musician? I don't think so. He is absolute moderate and stagnant for many years.
Second is Oasis. Has anybody understand why this escort of picturesques has made such sensation the last decade? Personally , no!
And mr. Lenny Kravitz. Fortunately the last years has disappeared from the limelight.
U2 they are only a good commercial arena-concert group and nothing else. And for music only a good debut album ( but Desire is one of my favorite arrangements). Neal Young is probably the most overrated guitarist ever. The puppet-show man Marilyn Manson, Eagles, Rage Against The Machine, the singers of sleep Radiohead. Also Moby, Yes, Nirvana a lot of groups from the British punk scene and finally in my opinion the most overrated group Sex Pistols. i hate them!

The Beatles. They're the average 60's pop band. I don't get all the fuss...

And two others that i forgot : the ludicrous Motley Crue (i read that they will support Stones in Europe, Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!) and Phill Collins.

Mick - "I've been playing the same 10 songs for the last 20 years" - Taylor.

Salvadore Dali...he sucks!!!

queen and U2....freddies to camp ..and bono thinks his god....your just a singer bono...a good one mind you ....sunday bloody sunday is sooo cool

The Who and Prince - While both have put out some good stuff, it's usually 1 or 2 good songs per album and the rest is crap. Exception - Who's Next. Also, live the Who is a true wonder - on record ? - maybe otherwise.

I agree with Reptile. While the Beatles have a few songs I like and think are pretty good I never saw what the fuss was about either.

come on ...prince is very talented.....i am not sure i like all his stuff...but he is very good...the who...lol.....they had it going for a bit???

Again t2t, I like both Prince and the Who. But I would recommend sticking to the Greatest Hits, not individual albums as with the Stones. "Who By Numbers" is no "Sticky Fingers". And "Happy Jack" ain't "Happy".

Elmo....i like the who....whos next ...but i would have to agree........as far as the best of...how about Floyd????....they have some sick albums!!...Dark side??

Heart - talentless, with the only thing going for them was that 2 sisters were in the band.

By the way, Reptile and tumblingdice, as for the Beatles, you had to have been there when they burst on to the scene. There was nothing like it. Maybe you both are too young to have been a part of it. In today's world, their music probably does seem tame, but back then it was groundbreaking.

Floyd is much better with some herbal remedy. I thought you were probably from the NYC area when you said you were going to Radio City. If I hit the lottery, I'll see you there.

Braves - Yankees World Series this year? May be Mets-Yankees.

Reptile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles. They're the average 60's pop band. I
> don't get all the fuss...


I presume you are gidding ?

__________________________

Maybe you want to know what group I think is overrated ?

PINK FLOYD

I'm a fan from the day they started, I stopped after the released Meddle.
Till that time they where Pink Floyd.

After that they become POP, MONEY and SALES.

Although I like MONEY.



__________________________

Sting (as opposed to the Police), Rush, Yes, the Moody Blues, Heart, Journey...all dreadful. Terrible.

Pink Floyd, though, is awful on such a huge and enduring scale as to be in their own wretched class.

So NOT rock'n'roll.

you're all wrong

the answer is short and sweet

QUEEN

what a pile of pompous horse shit!

Maybe Roger Waters but not Pink Floyd.

Fleetwood Mac
Journey
U2
Emerson Lake and Palmer
Styx
REO Speedwagon
Phil Collins
The Ramones
The Tragically Hip
Mariah Carey
99% of all rap artists

Hope you not mean Fleetwood Mac with Peter Green ?

__________________________

tumblingdice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with Reptile. While the Beatles have a few
> songs I like and think are pretty good I never saw
> what the fuss was about either.


you and Reptile need some rock'n'roll history lessons......the Beatles impact and influence on the pop world at the time was undeniably HUGE........they literally shook up the world....just as Elvis had done in the 50's..........and there's a reason that thousands of bands followed their lead......the music

Thanks,

Leonard.

__________________________

Beatles!
Uniformed mushroomhaired well-behaved mother-in-laws-favourites, children's songs, childish voices, no rock substance.

I've gotta go with Floyd.

Runner up? The Clash. I'm not saying they were bad - quite the opposite - but for every great Clash song or album there seem to be two that are just kind of mediocre. That said, when they were great, they were pretty damn untouchable. But overall, just way too uneven to warrant all the praise they get, in my opinion.

Led Zeppelin, the singer is awful and were way too self indulgent with the solo's I mean 30 min dazed and confused, and moby dick, thats just wanking in my book. It is too bad because Page wrote some great riffs that I love but so much of the time they just went too far and made a good song boring.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-26 20:28 by Ket.

toto

nirvana
oasis

I think the Beatles were/are overated. But that shouldn't diminish what they established. They invented pop music. The overate simply kept the Stones in their shadow. One overated one underated.

Now this will realy get some annoyed. Although I like studying Dylan's lyrics, I think he must be the king of overate.



Sorry about the spelling mistakes. I'm drunk.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-26 20:45 by jagger50.

Queen,The Grateful Dead,Kiss.

Eric Clapton, Bon Jovi, Bruce Springteen

Springsteen, a complete poseur who can't play a worthwhile note on that old Tele that's just a prop, but I give him this: he can "sing" lyrics while coughing better than most

Gun's n Roses