Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Overrated Music Acts
Comments
-
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, fact0 -
All Saints.
I find it ridiculous they get their own day.7 -
You haven’t a clue!i_b_b_o_r_g said:My reason for thinking the Beatles are overrated is because I personally can't see how they stand out as better musically than other bands of the same era -
The Who
The Animals
The Kinks
The Stones
The Small Faces
and even The Moody Blues.
It's okay saying that the Beatles were just more successful, but imo, that don't make them a better band, and that's the point o this thread. I think.....2 -
Pointless commenting of music genres I don't like or have no interest in... so from my perspective, first to come to mind....
Mastadon - just really don't get this band.... can't understand the love-in about them
Megadeth - like the rawness of the first several albums, after that... meh
The Smiths - predominantly god-awful torridness. A few tunes, just can't understand their god-like status
0 -
pure shores is an absolute banging anthem.North Lower Neil said:All Saints.
I find it ridiculous they get their own day.0 -
whoosh?kentaddick said:
pure shores is an absolute banging anthem.North Lower Neil said:All Saints.
I find it ridiculous they get their own day.0 -
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, fact1 -
Was a good joke, but pure shores is also a bangersnowinberlin said:
whoosh?kentaddick said:
pure shores is an absolute banging anthem.North Lower Neil said:All Saints.
I find it ridiculous they get their own day.0 -
How many times did you see them live mate?SoundAsa£ said:
You haven’t a clue!i_b_b_o_r_g said:My reason for thinking the Beatles are overrated is because I personally can't see how they stand out as better musically than other bands of the same era -
The Who
The Animals
The Kinks
The Stones
The Small Faces
and even The Moody Blues.
It's okay saying that the Beatles were just more successful, but imo, that don't make them a better band, and that's the point o this thread. I think.....0 -
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, fact0 - Sponsored links:
-
What part of the thread don’t you understand? He said it himself, it’s personal taste. I personally think they’re not all that. Weak voice, weak songs, a bit dull, they not a bad band As such, but I think they’re overrated. I personally think a lot of it is people trying to be cool, they’re in to the ‘Manchester indie scene’ aren’t they.... zzzzzz. But that’s just my personal opinion.snowinberlin said:
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, factThere’s people on here who have said The Beatles. I mean, how much higher regard Are they held in? You going to ask them the same? A stone rose album came out second top in a poll once. How many time’s has a Beatles album came out top of a poll?. But certain people on here don’t like them. Thus, they think they’re over rated. It really is that simple.1 -
just because you add to the stupidity doesn't give it more credence, I think most of the beatles comments are in jest so you've shown yourself up a little, you could save yourself by giving some foundation to your argumentMillwallFan said:
What part of the thread don’t you understand? He said it himself, it’s personal taste. I personally think they’re not all that. Weak voice, weak songs, a bit dull, they not a bad band As such, but I think they’re overrated. I personally think a lot of it is people trying to be cool, they’re in to the ‘Manchester indie scene’ aren’t they.... zzzzzz. But that’s just my personal opinion.snowinberlin said:
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, factThere’s people on here who have said The Beatles. I mean, how much higher regard Are they held in? You going to ask them the same? A stone rose album came out second top in a poll once. How many time’s has a Beatles album came out top of a poll?. But certain people on here don’t like them. Thus, they think they’re over rated. It really is that simple.1 -
My life. The irony of you calling someone stupid.snowinberlin said:
just because you add to the stupidity doesn't give it more credence, I think most of the beatles comments are in jest so you've shown yourself up a little, you could save yourself by giving some foundation to your argumentMillwallFan said:
What part of the thread don’t you understand? He said it himself, it’s personal taste. I personally think they’re not all that. Weak voice, weak songs, a bit dull, they not a bad band As such, but I think they’re overrated. I personally think a lot of it is people trying to be cool, they’re in to the ‘Manchester indie scene’ aren’t they.... zzzzzz. But that’s just my personal opinion.snowinberlin said:
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, factThere’s people on here who have said The Beatles. I mean, how much higher regard Are they held in? You going to ask them the same? A stone rose album came out second top in a poll once. How many time’s has a Beatles album came out top of a poll?. But certain people on here don’t like them. Thus, they think they’re over rated. It really is that simple.Anyway, think this thread is getting taken far too seriously now. Thought it was a lighthearted one about personal opinions. Obviously not. It’s getting a bit boring now, like most of the ‘Manchester indie scene’.You crack on though.0 -
P.s. read again some of the earlier Beatles comments and maybe explain how they was said in jest.0
-
Couldn't agree more, great tune (Never Ever is decent too) and I made myself laugh.kentaddick said:
Was a good joke, but pure shores is also a bangersnowinberlin said:
whoosh?kentaddick said:
pure shores is an absolute banging anthem.North Lower Neil said:All Saints.
I find it ridiculous they get their own day.0 -
Mine weren't said in jest, I do think the Beatles were overrated. Surely, only bands that are "rated" and have had a certain amount of success can be considered as overrated, otherwise they're doing as expected or underrated.snowinberlin said:
just because you add to the stupidity doesn't give it more credence, I think most of the beatles comments are in jest so you've shown yourself up a little, you could save yourself by giving some foundation to your argumentMillwallFan said:
What part of the thread don’t you understand? He said it himself, it’s personal taste. I personally think they’re not all that. Weak voice, weak songs, a bit dull, they not a bad band As such, but I think they’re overrated. I personally think a lot of it is people trying to be cool, they’re in to the ‘Manchester indie scene’ aren’t they.... zzzzzz. But that’s just my personal opinion.snowinberlin said:
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, factThere’s people on here who have said The Beatles. I mean, how much higher regard Are they held in? You going to ask them the same? A stone rose album came out second top in a poll once. How many time’s has a Beatles album came out top of a poll?. But certain people on here don’t like them. Thus, they think they’re over rated. It really is that simple.
But all said and done, I think we've all agreed that it is down to personal opinion..1 -
exactly mate. Spot on. This fella has over complicated a very simple thread. And he thinks I’m the stupid one because I don’t ‘comprehend’ it.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Mine weren't said in jest, I do think the Beatles were overrated. Surely, only bands that are "rated" and have had a certain amount of success can be considered as overrated, otherwise they're doing as expected or underrated.snowinberlin said:
just because you add to the stupidity doesn't give it more credence, I think most of the beatles comments are in jest so you've shown yourself up a little, you could save yourself by giving some foundation to your argumentMillwallFan said:
What part of the thread don’t you understand? He said it himself, it’s personal taste. I personally think they’re not all that. Weak voice, weak songs, a bit dull, they not a bad band As such, but I think they’re overrated. I personally think a lot of it is people trying to be cool, they’re in to the ‘Manchester indie scene’ aren’t they.... zzzzzz. But that’s just my personal opinion.snowinberlin said:
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, factThere’s people on here who have said The Beatles. I mean, how much higher regard Are they held in? You going to ask them the same? A stone rose album came out second top in a poll once. How many time’s has a Beatles album came out top of a poll?. But certain people on here don’t like them. Thus, they think they’re over rated. It really is that simple.
But all said and done, I think we've all agreed that it is down to personal opinion..0 -
Why stupid? why the personal digs?MillwallFan said:
exactly mate. Spot on. This fella has over complicated a very simple thread. And he thinks I’m the stupid one because I don’t ‘comprehend’ it.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Mine weren't said in jest, I do think the Beatles were overrated. Surely, only bands that are "rated" and have had a certain amount of success can be considered as overrated, otherwise they're doing as expected or underrated.snowinberlin said:
just because you add to the stupidity doesn't give it more credence, I think most of the beatles comments are in jest so you've shown yourself up a little, you could save yourself by giving some foundation to your argumentMillwallFan said:
What part of the thread don’t you understand? He said it himself, it’s personal taste. I personally think they’re not all that. Weak voice, weak songs, a bit dull, they not a bad band As such, but I think they’re overrated. I personally think a lot of it is people trying to be cool, they’re in to the ‘Manchester indie scene’ aren’t they.... zzzzzz. But that’s just my personal opinion.snowinberlin said:
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, factThere’s people on here who have said The Beatles. I mean, how much higher regard Are they held in? You going to ask them the same? A stone rose album came out second top in a poll once. How many time’s has a Beatles album came out top of a poll?. But certain people on here don’t like them. Thus, they think they’re over rated. It really is that simple.
But all said and done, I think we've all agreed that it is down to personal opinion..
If I wanted to start a thread about who is your favourite band and who don't you like I would have done. I didn't.
The difference is you can make an argument about whether a band or musician is overrated weighing up what they have acheived or contributed to the music scene v in what regard they are mostly held by critics and people generally and that would be be based mostly on fact and little on personal opinion.
You said the Stone Roses because you just don't like them, so it only became about personal taste because you turned the debate that way0 -
Now this is getting weird. I didn’t start with ‘stupid’ comments, you did. Read back over the comments. It was you who started with that sort talk and made it personal. Anyway, I like the music threads on here but this is getting a bit weird now. Have a good day.snowinberlin said:
Why stupid? why the personal digs?MillwallFan said:
exactly mate. Spot on. This fella has over complicated a very simple thread. And he thinks I’m the stupid one because I don’t ‘comprehend’ it.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Mine weren't said in jest, I do think the Beatles were overrated. Surely, only bands that are "rated" and have had a certain amount of success can be considered as overrated, otherwise they're doing as expected or underrated.snowinberlin said:
just because you add to the stupidity doesn't give it more credence, I think most of the beatles comments are in jest so you've shown yourself up a little, you could save yourself by giving some foundation to your argumentMillwallFan said:
What part of the thread don’t you understand? He said it himself, it’s personal taste. I personally think they’re not all that. Weak voice, weak songs, a bit dull, they not a bad band As such, but I think they’re overrated. I personally think a lot of it is people trying to be cool, they’re in to the ‘Manchester indie scene’ aren’t they.... zzzzzz. But that’s just my personal opinion.snowinberlin said:
i'm a little lost, a band held in high regard justifiably is overrated just because of that reason? Can you expand on why you think they are not deserving?MillwallFan said:
Exactly why I think they’re over rated.snowinberlin said:
No it's your lack of comprehensionMillwallFan said:
Surely you’ve just contradicted yourself in that post?snowinberlin said:
This is an example of personal taste.MillwallFan said:Stone Roses. Just dull and massively over rated.The Smiths. See above.
Stone Roses were a big part, pioneers if you like of the Manchester / Indie scene, their breakthrough album is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, they have inspired many other bands, to say overrated is plain stupid. ditto Smiths
To say they were pioneers is not one persons opinion it is a widely held belief, their album came 2nd greatest of all time, not opinion, factThere’s people on here who have said The Beatles. I mean, how much higher regard Are they held in? You going to ask them the same? A stone rose album came out second top in a poll once. How many time’s has a Beatles album came out top of a poll?. But certain people on here don’t like them. Thus, they think they’re over rated. It really is that simple.
But all said and done, I think we've all agreed that it is down to personal opinion..
If I wanted to start a thread about who is your favourite band and who don't you like I would have done. I didn't.
The difference is you can make an argument about whether a band or musician is overrated weighing up what they have acheived or contributed to the music scene v in what regard they are mostly held by critics and people generally and that would be be based mostly on fact and little on personal opinion.
You said the Stone Roses because you just don't like them, so it only became about personal taste because you turned the debate that way0 -
- Sponsored links:
-
Seems a bit of an exaggeration. Most successful maybe.1
-
Ridiculous. Should've been Bieber.1
-
Florence & The Machine1
-
Beyoncé and Taylor 'nervous nether regions‘ Swift.
Both average ‘singers’ at best!1 -
What makes you say Beyonce is an average singer? I personally think she's one of the greatest vocalists alive: her range is massive; her timbre is distinctive and can be either powerful or introspective depending on the demands of the song; her intonation is great; and she's got a wonderful sense of emotion. But I'd like to understand what's off-putting, because I'm not saying this as a self-professed fan or anything - just that she is an all-time great, though not one I go out of my way to listen to.Stuart_the_Red said:Beyoncé and Taylor 'nervous nether regions‘ Swift.
Both average ‘singers’ at best!
1 -
Miles Davis
The Selecter
Aerosmith
0 -
As for an overrated artist - Michael Buble. Nice voice, don't get me wrong, and probably a nice fella. But he saw the niche for his undoubted talent in the modern day pretty early on, and has become massively successful by monopolising the easy listening jazz-adjacent market with some tasteful arrangements (that he didn't write) of songs (that, again, he didn't write). There are much better performers out there.1
-
Am with you on Taylor Swift. My daughter is obsessed with her and as I'm taking her to see her at Wembley in August, I watched the Eras tour on Disney + with her. Whilst she's far from crap, writes her own songs and is a decent musician, I really don't get what the big fuss is about.Stuart_the_Red said:Beyoncé and Taylor 'nervous nether regions‘ Swift.
Both average ‘singers’ at best!0 -
Before I saw him live I'd have said easily Prince
Did not get the high regard he was held in by so many artists I liked
I knew the hits same as most of us but his presence, even more so for someone below average height was colossal on stage. He was an incredible singer live and his guitar playing blew me away. At one point he did a solo for what seemed like 5 minutes but I was told after it was the best part of half an hour, a fair chunk of that with his back to the crowd!
1
