Dan Lambskin wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:
Personally, I never cared much for Tool or A Perfect Circle. I roll my eyes at Tool fans who think that folks who don't like their music lack musical intelligence, but for some reason or other, I can't get myself to like their music. Quite simple really. I like my music with a faster pace, more riffs, more solos, and well, meaner.
i think that's as close to a rolls eyes icon as we have
to each their own though
Tool is just too moody for my liking. They're great at creating an ambiance for their music, but each time, I'm thinking that's really all they have: atmosphere. Tool is a sound technical band that's worthy of respect, but I also think their technical ability is overestimated. I'd rather listen to music that's just direct in the Anthrax/Slayer/Pantera sense, but again, that's just me.
Snakes Gould wrote:exactly what gf said.
the beatles music isnt as good as people make it out to be. sure they may have been groundbreaking and genre changing and had influence on others, but to me their music is very overrated. i think liking the beatles turned into a fad. it became really cool to love the beatles, thus people began loving them. call me crazy if you want, but i think they're overrated.
I'd say there's a difference between being overrated and being quite popular. The tricky thing is, that line is blurred the more popular the band becomes. Music is the one field that's most sensitive to this, which is why I wasn't exactly joking when I said, "anything not metal is overrated". Any band, any musician with some measure of popularity will be overrated to a certain extent (that goes for metal too
). It's just a given.
As for the Beatles not being as good, let's put some things into context: The UK music scene in the 1950's/1960's was generally, a Merseybeat scene. Naturally Liverpool, in particular, was a big Merseybeat hub (erm, Liverpool is on Merseyside), which tried to piece the influences of the likes of Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison in the States and try to jell them together. It was rather primitive stuff because this was essentially rock 'n roll in its infancy and what's more, the music was catchy, in the commercial sense. Plenty of melody, but basically it was the same recurring beat. The Beatles' early work was a byproduct of Merseybeat and their first few albums were basically happy, upbeat stuff. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 60's that they hit their stride, in that they drifted away from Merseybeat and had a more underground complexion, which coincided well with the overall climate of how it was like to live in the 60's.
That said, I can't deduce that The Beatles are overrated after listening Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Band, and Abbey Road all the way through. The Fab Four were great musicians, aside from Ringo being somewhat of a weak link. Their influence, let alone the quality of their work, might be overstated, but nonetheless, the body of their later work was great, great in their own right. I'd say they're overrated in the sense of most music appreciation publications being very quick to heap Sgt. Pepper's as a top 5 all-time album, let alone the greatest album ever. Their music was great, just not as world-beating as music pundits would like to believe. I don't think they're overrated in the sense that their music was all but hype, however.
On another note, when I was in Vegas recently, I thought the Cirque du Soleil show of Love, based on The Beatles' music was pretty darn good. I happened to grow up in a household of parents who were avid Beatles fans and my pop happened to like the show too.