Oh yeah? How is your music career working out?

Stellar being as I am not in the music career.

Nirvana, still sucks.

...don't fall for the trolling.



One has to be able to separate what they feel about an artist's music with the impact the artist had on music in order to have constructive input in this conversation. I can't stand Madonna, but she had a huge effect on the business and multiple generations of artists after her. I acknowledge that regardless of my personal thoughts on her music.

Beatles - mega-impact
Stones - big impact

Neither are overrated in that regards. Nirvana had a sizable impact on music, just like the Clash and Ramones did. They were leaders of new generations/eras of pop music.

Yup. Plus newer generations are even further from the influential time period.

We ran a media study at work when Micheal Jackson died. It was about artists' influence in music. The college kid who made the list of influential artists left Elvis off the list. And that's Presley, not Costello. :shock:

Well when we talk about "overrated" are we talking about impact on music? Or musical theory/composition? Is the New York Philharmonic orchestra overrated because they have had no real impact on music?

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe you don't like Beatles, Rolling Stones, or Nirvana's music, and can say that you don't like their music, but you can't deny that they have/had tremendous musical talent. That's what gave them the power to influence the path of music. They may have had the apperance and style to influence the masses, but they all possesed incredible musical talent and the ability to write music that people wanted to hear.

See, I agree with your first paragraph...

Most of the music I listen too is much more advanced in theory, playing, and composition versus the crap that will influence the path of popular music... but yet, stupid ass repetitive verses and crappy tunes on a loop machine will cause a greater "change" in people's tastes?

The general public is by nature dumb, so bah. I will stick with my judgment, nirvana... and grunge kill me.

i hate both :rofl:

as far as I'm concerned. The Beatles did have a huge influence on music at the time, but I think people give them too much credit. They we're all that great. Sabbath and Deep Purple did more for the "rock" genre than the beatles. Uriah Heep too. Nirvana ****ing BLOWS!!!! I blame them for emo kids. You wanna listen to grunge, listen to Alice in Chains

Let me preface this by saying I am not a Beatles fan. But drag pretty much anybody off the street and ask them to name 3 Beatles songs and chances are they can. Ask them if they've even heard of Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Heep and you will get some people but nowhere near as many. Ask some recording artists who their influences are and you'll probably get more Beatles than anybody else, as well. I do not think their playing or writing is anywhere near as good as other bands, but their overall impact can't be denied. Like them or not, the Beatles had a massive influence on the music industry.

Beatles, Stones, Madonna, Dylan, Queen, Hendrix, Bowie, Chuck Berry, etc- the list goes on. There's a bunch that are very influential, but at the top of the list is always the Beatles.

I'm a pretty big DP fan, have a pile of cds, seen them a number of times. You're wrong, but DP is very underappreciated. Uriah Heep? Please. The younger guys here have at least heard of the Beatles, the stones and purple but probably never heard of heep. The Sabs have a much bigger influence than DP, and again Ozzy has oft mentioned his love for the Beatles and the other Sabs too. Might explain why a lot of Sabs material is not 3 chord speed thrashing and is actually interesting – just listen to the record Sabotage. A lot of fans fail to realize most successful musicians have far wider tastes in music than their own fans.

In reality, to underestimate the impact of the Beatles shows a lack understanding of music history. Before them there were really no albums, just singles. Artists were not allowed to be too creative – they had to do what the record companies deemed commercially viable. They did nothing to foster artist creative growth. Artists were disposable. Record companies didn’t even care about production values, which is why a lot of older stuff sounds bad. The Beatles success led to artists being allowed to better expand their musical creativity in a way that did not exist pre-Beatles. That in turn allowed the Zeppelin, Sabbath, Hendrix and the rest to expand on the ideas and in turn influence later generations. But it started with the Beatles. You can’t give them too much credit IMO.

Gee, it sounds like the music industry is dropping back to pre-Beatles ways. Singles, poor production values, no artist growth support.

Grunge is just rock with a goofy title to differentiate it from 'hair metal'. They just stripped off all the LA glam and got more or less ‘back to basics’, just like the punk movement in the late 70s-early 80s. I'm seeing AIC this weekend.

You are dead on with this statement.