Three things you think are overrated.

[Front bottom]

Steamer said:

I know where you are coming from, they certainly have a 'sound'.. and it is a bit samey..

However - just give this clip a quick view... an (Argentinian) audience on a scale that looks like Live Aid and the stage is HUGE!

For a few old dudes shambelling around on stage and a drummer that looks like a guy from my local pub.. you can't say that crowd think they are overated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_GFN3a0yj0

Sorry, not feeling that. The crowd love them, as do crowd's that inexplicably go to see Robbie bloody Williams, but I can't see what's so good about either.

[Europa1]

SCEtoAUX said:

Life

Hmmmm, speaking as someone with a terminal illness, might I suggest you reconsider.

Edited by Europa1 on Wednesday 23 October 19:40

[Front bottom]

Europa1 said:

SCEtoAUX said:

Life

Hmmmm, speaking as someone with a terminal illness, might I suggest you reconsider.

Edited by Europa1 on Wednesday 23 October 19:40

I've seen that a couple of times in this thread. Some very dark thinkers here.

[Cantaloupe]

Front bottom said:

I haven't. All the tracks I've heard from them sound very similar in tempo and structure. They have a huge cult following, but I've never understood why.

Good point, they are really formulaic and lumpen, they make Status Quo sound inventive and musically innovative.

[psi310398]

Cantaloupe said:

Good point, they are really formulaic and lumpen, they make Status Quo sound inventive and musically innovative.

I had to scroll up to see to whom you were referring. I thought for a moment it was the Beatles - which would have had some posters here getting all gammony (as apparently they are the literal heirs to JS Bach or something, which TBF nobody has claimed about AC/DC ).

[paulguitar]

psi310398 said:

I had to scroll up to see to whom you were referring. I thought for a moment it was the Beatles - which would have had some posters here getting all gammony (as apparently they are the literal heirs to JS Bach or something

You've (inadvertently) put it quite well there actually. From perhaps 1965 onwards, they were very much successors to the great earlier composers in terms of experimentation and pursuing new ideas musically.

Given your tone, I have a sneaking suspicion that appreciating this might be over a little your head though!

[psi310398]

paulguitar said:

You've (inadvertently) put it quite well there actually. From perhaps 1965 onwards, they were very much successors to the great earlier composers in terms of experimentation and pursuing new ideas musically.

Given your tone, I have a sneaking suspicion that appreciating this might be over a little your head though!

I think you overstate the case for the Beatles massively. They knocked up some moderately pleasant ditties, some of which, but not the bulk, have stood the test of time.

[Front bottom]

paulguitar said:

psi310398 said:

I had to scroll up to see to whom you were referring. I thought for a moment it was the Beatles - which would have had some posters here getting all gammony (as apparently they are the literal heirs to JS Bach or something

You've (inadvertently) put it quite well there actually. From perhaps 1965 onwards, they were very much successors to the great earlier composers in terms of experimentation and pursuing new ideas musically.

Given your tone, I have a sneaking suspicion that appreciating this might be over a little your head though!

I good friend of mine loves to trot out the 'Beatles are overrated/first boyband' etc. I asked him which album he had listened to to arrive at that conclusion.

It turned out that he hasn't heard any of them.

Next!

[paulguitar]

psi310398 said:

I think you overstate the case for the Beatles massively. They knocked up some moderately pleasant ditties, some of which, but not the bulk, have stood the test of time.

This ignorance on display here is truly staggering.

[psi310398]

paulguitar said:

This ignorance on display here is truly staggering.

I think you mean the arrogance.

People are allowed different views, especially on matters of taste.

[paulguitar]

psi310398 said:

paulguitar said:

This ignorance on display here is truly staggering.

I think you mean the arrogance.

People are allowed different views, especially on matters of taste.

I think you have misunderstood the (my) thread, it's about things considered overrated. So, as was said a bit further up, it would be fine for you to say you did not like Beatles music, that would merely suggest you likely have poor musical taste.

Considering the Beatles overrated, though, is just so ridiculous as to be laughable.

[psi310398]

paulguitar said:

I think you have misunderstood the (my) thread, it's about things considered overrated. So, as was said a bit further up, it would be fine for you to say you did not like Beatles music, that would merely suggest you likely have poor musical taste.

Considering the Beatles overrated, though, is just so ridiculous as to be laughable.

Might it not be that your uncritical adulation of them is itself an object lesson in the subject matter of the thread?

[paulguitar]

psi310398 said:

Might it not be that your uncritical adulation of them is itself an object lesson in the subject matter of the thread?

Nope.

I am actually not a Beatles obsessive, I'd not be able to name all of their songs but I perform some of their material in my shows and can appreciate the great writing due to that. I would also happily admit that not all of their songs were classics, and a handful were pretty bad, Yellow submarine, for example. So it is not 'uncritical adulation'.

Overall though, the body of work they left behind them in only 7 years is astonishingly, almost impossibly high quality, and the best of it can genuinely be considered alongside any music ever written.