The Beatles. Beyond overrated. Manufactured Silly pop musicians that acted silly. The Stones never acted silly or sang silly songs. When the Beatles got sick of themselves and tried to be serious and tried to make rock songs everyone got sick of them, especially the band itself.

Another reason they are overrated is that they almost never performed live........if you are gonna be a rock band you gotta perform live, instead the Beatles stayed hidden within the safety of a studio where everything they made was a "masterpiece". What a load of shit.

Oh, another thing, they broke up 36 years ago.

Milo, NYC
You can bleed on me

Maybe you should know the reason why they nerver played live again.

__________________________

LOGIE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aerosmith.
>
> They are absolute garbage.


Hey they were great till they figured out how much $ they can earn from horrible power ballads! I saw them at their worst drugged out stage in 1983 and even then they rocked my ass off. Def Leppard did much the same thing as their 1st 3 lps are amazingly hard rock and then they got all pussified on me and began to suck worse w/each album! Pete Willis,Steve Clark,RIP(yes); Phil Collen;Vivian Campbell (UGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!).

KISS

Motley Crue

Kansas

Styx

Alice Cooper

ELO

From 60-66, The Beatles played as many LIVE shows as anyone else! Equipment issues and screaming girls made playing virtually worthless as they couldn't be heard! By the time crowds began to liston to the bands instead of screaming their heads off, they were done. They were the 1st band to play all their instruments and write their own songs, not exactly describing a typical pop or boy band which has it all done for them or are strickly hype. Anyone that doesn't think The Beatles were a ROCK band of great stature sadly delusional. You don't have to like them to appreciate what they did.

I'm with ya on the Eagles, sure they can sing, harmonize so that's great, and they're that California Soft Rock sh#t that doesn't do diddly-jack for me, too soft, no edge, no soul. . but they can harmonize. Why was Linda Ronstadt so popular in the early-mid 70's?. . . she basically had the Eagles (before they were Eagles) as her backup singers. . . .they're just not my cup of tea. Hotel California is pretty good. . .


I'm a man of wealth and taste. . . . .

Thank you..i mean every now and then an Eagles song aint so bad, but when I hear people say that they are a "favorite band" I want to vomit. Id rather hear "bad" music than mediocre music of the Eagles, its just too safe, too calculated, too...top 40 crap.

Midnight Toker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KISS
>
> Motley Crue
>
> Kansas
>
> Styx
>
> Alice Cooper
>
> ELO



Alice Cooper ??? what wrong with that ?


__________________________

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 21:46 by Beelyboy.

Someone mentioned Alice Cooper....
He is a bit like Rod Stewart, meaning that he never really did anything good after 1975. But the stuff he did before that, should be remembered, because it was freakin' awsome.

Don't say that to my daughter.

__________________________

What do you mean Nico?
Is your daughter's name Alice, or does she like "new" Alice Cooper? ...or does she hate 70s Alice Cooper?
Or what is about Celine Dion? Or does she like 70s Alice Dion?

Milo Yammbag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles. Beyond overrated. Manufactured Silly
> pop musicians that acted silly.

how can you be 'manufactured' when you write your own material? manufactured to me is American idol or boy band garbage. the Stones 2nd single was a Beatles song. If the beatles were manufactured, then by definition a band they wrote for would also be. An equally absurd assertion

The Stones' image was very 'manufactured' by Andrew oldham - just as consciously (if not more so) than the Beatles was


The Stones never
> acted silly


???? ????



> or sang silly songs.

!!!!!


When the Beatles
> got sick of themselves and tried to be serious and
> tried to make rock songs everyone got sick of
> them,

yeah, everyone got so sick of them that two of the last 3 albums they recorded (the White Album and Abbey Road) ended up being the biggest selling albums they ever made. Both of which sold far more than any Stones record.


especially the band itself.
>
> Another reason they are overrated is that they
> almost never performed live........if you are
> gonna be a rock band you gotta perform live,

you ever heard of a city called Hamburg? Seriously, thats such a crock of crap that its laughable. As said above, the Beatles played and toured constantly for most of their career. they only stopped touring in 1966 because no one could bloody hear them and it became pointless (the Stones barely toured for 3 years after that time too)

> instead the Beatles stayed hidden within the
> safety of a studio where everything they made was
> a "masterpiece". What a load of shit.

the Stones actually went for longer periods without touring a couple of times than the Beatles ever did. (1982-89, 1990-94)


> Oh, another thing, they broke up 36 years ago.

exactly. Which makes the obsession that so many Stones fans have in 2006 in feeling the need to compare and contrast the two look even more ridiculous

Good post Gazza! And a good example of "silly", it's a real laugh!

Theres plenty of examples of the Stones (Mick especially) "acting silly" that you could mention (the 'have you seen your mother baby' video for one, Mick as a drag act in 'Bent', some appalling lapses in fashion taste in the mid 70s, wearing a dress at Hyde Park etc)

Not that it matters. I like the fact that they're not so uptight that they dont give a shit if they occasionally do something silly

....or THE most silly thing by a Stone: "Running Out Of Luck".
I remember finally finding the video, when I was in the airforce (we HAVE to do one year off that sh*t), and I found a room with a video-machine, and watched it, even though I wasn't allowed to be there. It was the most miserable TV-evening I've had, and I had tried to make an occasion of it, with popcorn.
It's the most silly thing I can think of, by a Stone.

Comeback Suzanne is also really silly, but it's a laugh, instead of irritating.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you mean Nico?
> Is your daughter's name Alice, or does she like
> "new" Alice Cooper? ...or does she hate 70s Alice
> Cooper?
> Or what is about Celine Dion? Or does she like 70s
> Alice Dion?


Sorry Erik, I had to Quote the message, you where in between the post, it's Celine.

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-02-27 03:50 by NICOS.

ROOL is indeed silly but the best thing in it by far is the scene where Mick is stranded in the arsehole of nowhere, doesnt speak the local language and identifies himself to the bewildered locals by digging a Stones album out of the rack in a record store and dancing around to "Brown sugar" looking like a complete idiot in the process

(If I remember right, the album he pulls out is 'Through the past darkly' - which doesnt even INCLUDE "Brown sugar.." )

Mick obviously knew he'd look incredibly silly in that scene where he basically parodies himself but didnt give a shit. A good example of his ability to laugh at his own public image.

Thanks Gaza for your statement.

Although I believe the reason that they stoped playing live, is because of the Fuzz of Lennons quote that they are more popular the JC, and all the threats in that time.



__________________________

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-05 21:44 by Beelyboy.

Hey Dr. Pete

Tell all the Blues players......Muddy, Howlin Wolf,etc, Chuck Berry, The Everly Brothers, (should I go on?) that The Beatles were the first to write and perform their own songs.

They are overrated. Live Playing? They could have hit the road in 69 and be heard.

They were a pop band.
They broke up 36 years ago
2 of them are dead.
They are overrated.

PS: Did you see the Stones announced shows for Australia in 2006? Do you think John Lennon's fingernails are still growing?

Milo, NYC
Listening to the same old tunes

Most overrated:

Nirvana
U2
Oasis

Most underrated:
Kiss
The Who
Alice Cooper

Most overrated:

Nirvana
U2
Oasis
Springsteen

Most underrated:
Kiss
The Who
Alice Cooper

This will start a war but... i think the stones of the LAST ten years or so are overrated. Now before you go on to criticize me, let me explain. I am not that big of a fan of any of their albums from voodoo-abb. There are a few songs here or there that are good, (voodoo-love is strong, brand new car, Bridges-saint of me, forty licks-dont stop, abb-back of my hand), but overall i think they pale compared to what they used to be. I think the whole reason that the media cares when the stones tour and when they release an album is because they are the rolling stones.
Now dont get me wrong, if i didnt like the stones, i wouldnt be here. I just havent cared for alot of their latter day material. Ok attack away.

No attack from me. The Stones are in a league of their own, and have been for a a very long time, I think the reason is because of their songs and performing the songs as a live band.

Stones shows have been a spectacle since 1972. Their strength has always been that they are a peforming band. I have yet to meet someone who has not left a Stones show wide -eyed. We all know the buzz of energy that is created in the stadium, arena or concert hall BEFORE the band even hits the stage. They could play a show with a setlist made up of Track # 7 on each of their albums and it would still be great. What band can do that? Has there ever been a band that could do that? Will there ever be a band that could do that? No.

I feel that a good argument could be made, in terms of overrated, by comparing tours e.g.(The 72 Tour was much better than the overrated No Security Tour, etc) and the same goes for the albums......but think of the standard THEY set. If you assess their studio albums through the course of their career and judge them against each other (which we all love to do....and is also the toughest standard to judge by) you will find that the vast majority of their songs are very good and their albums have been consistantly good, with a few weak ones here and there.

I personally find Between The Buttons, Goats Head, Black and Blue, Emotional Rescue, Dirty Work and Bridges to be weaker as ALBUMS when compared to some of their others, but even within those albums that I feel are not up to "Stones Standard" there are usually a few good/great songs. I also factor in the time frame they were produced. It is impossible to compare "Buttons" to "Dirty Work", etc, because they are not the same people per say, their musical palate changes, yet somehow remains familiar.......and that go for "A Bigger Bang".
Without a doubt "A Bigger Bang" is their best album in years, possibly since "Tattoo".

They earned their spot at the top of the pile a long time ago, because of their music and their live shows. Maybe they have been able to coast on their reputation from time to time, but the fact is that some where in the world, right now, they are getting ready to hit the stage and put their ass on the line.....either rise up and play good or fall apart onstage for all to see. There is no other true band out there of their status doing that night after night.

Milo, NYC
The Hand of Fate

Happy Jack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This will start a war but...

sure they did not earn their "best r'n'r band in the world" label in the last 20 years and on their studio efforts

still i think, as milo, that their league is a little bit outta space and time because of them being basically a unique live act

last night i was at a Lou Reed concert in a theatre here in florence. Though a little mess and unnerving at the beginning (it seems they needed 20mins of the show to sound check) the show was very good (even if a 1h 30mins show) and he performed with a good band songs from the 80's and 90's, completely skipping the early 70's and velvet hits (a part from Sweet Jane as encore and street hassle)

It was very good and ragged so i went back to those records with curiosity only to find out how crappy they were. Lou Reed in the late '70's and '80's was really bad, worse than the worst stones compared to each own pitch moment.

That does not make Reed an overrated artist

I think new "rock and roll" bands as strokes, franz ferdinand, artic monkeys are pretty much overrated and hyped by promo men.
The model is Oasis, imo, the most overrated band of the last 20 years

Theif in the Night Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Queen,The Grateful Dead,Kiss.


the grateful dead knew how to mix up a set list! every show was different - that's why so many people followed them everywhere. plus, they toured every year, all year - they loved to play. they really can't be compared with any band. they also saved me from late '80s music after the stones "broke up" in '85.

U2,NIrvana,Pearl Jam and REM

I think the real attitude of Beatles haters is that of

"Ho ho ho I am REAL Stones fan because I hate Beatles, that poppy band"

I bet that those who say that, own their whole discography.

To mention Springsteen here is bull. It's possible to not LIKE Springsteen (I guess), but he surely ain't underrated. The official released stuff of Bruce, is just a slice of what he's capable of. Very few artists has as many unreleased gems as him. His concerts (especially in the 70s and 80s) was allready legendary, when he walked off-stage.