chocolate1 said:

HuMpThAnG said:

Badu too

And Mary J. Blige.


** It has been no secret on the Org over the years that her voice is a sort of great distress for me.

She sounds like that old lady in church whom everyone is afraid to tell that she can't sing...
She sweats, waves her arms, jumps up and down, and people swore she SANG.
Nope. She sweated, jumped and down, and waved her arms. The tone was off, but the performance was good.
She was very lucky to find that market who could identify with her "life sucks because of every man" lyrics... But she CANNOT. SING.


My

[Edited 6/22/14 14:55pm]

I'm with you here. With the exception of a few songs the thought of me even listening to

a full cd from her is terrifying. I would need to overdose on a bottle of Excedrin to absorb

the hollering and screaming or what most of her fans call singing with emotion.

As for Lauryn Hill, I wouldn't call her overrated but whatever magic she had on

Miseducation she lost. I definitely wasn't crazy about the Fugees.

I JUST Can't get into Neil Young.. his voice, just annoys me, A LOT.. and The Greatful Dead. I also agree on Dylan.. more into his "songs" then him, same can be said for Kris Kristofferson. And then there is this band Mumford and Sons, who Never fail to make an appearance on my Pandora stations, as many times I hit the thumbs down button.. lol.

Just off the top of my head

Mary J. Blige

Nelly(probably the worst rapper of all time imo)

PDiddy

Eminem(Daffy quack quack)

Beyonce(although talented)

The System(a few good singles but terrible albums)

Queen

Michael Jackson

Bruce Springsteen

Talking Heads

Eminem

Kylie Minogue

Jimi Hendrix

Tupac

Bread

Bee Gees

Black Eyed Peas

Coldplay

Smelvis Presley

Some of the names mentioned so far, bring tears to my eyes.

I mean Madonna, Beatles, Mariah and Michael Jackson, come on, those people are talented and had long careers because a lot of people loved their music and they were and still are high quality.


Meanwhile what so great about these people?

Kanye West (Since 2007)

Jay Z (Never liked his shit much, one or two good songs, rest just shit)

All shithoppers and singers of rap trend songs (Ie Dougie, John Wall, Do it like Bernie, Stanky legg etc)

Bruno Mars

Lil Kim/ Nicki Minaj - responsible for dumbing down shithop/sexy r and b further

Chris Brown

Beyonce

Rhianna

Nelly Furtado

All Disney Pop

Britney/Carters/Simpson girls etc

Idol/Xfactor type singers

Florida

Lil Wayne or whatever these guys call themselves

Generally any rap song made after 1997.

Definitely Sheryl Crow...I am so mean to her...LOL...But I just don't feel she deserves all those Grammys and I think her voice is mediocre...I don't know why she rubs me the wrong way....

Moonbeam said:

SeventeenDayze said:

I'm gonna say Aliyah as well. Her voice was thin but her production team was smart enough to drown her out with Timbaland's unique late 90s/early 00s sound.

I think Aaliyah knew how to use her voice very well. The thought of how Beyonce would treat a song like "I Care 4 U" makes me queasy.

She was supposed to play Sparkle, before she died, and when I heard her sing Donny Hathaway's track song "Giving Up Is Hard To Do", I was convinced that she can really sing.

Justin Timberlake- When the media is pushing you as the second coming of MJ and you can't at least dance 1/100th as good as the guy, you're overrated. It's not his fault but that doesn't change the fact that considering him to be anywhere near the astronomical level of MJ talent-wise displays just how low the bar has been lowered for music today.

Kanye West- Still a good rapper and even better producer but he's not some untouchable genius many tout him as.

AC/DC- They just suck.

The Beatles- Still an excellent band that has had a humongous impact on music that still is prominent today but they are not untouchable. Granted, there's more music of their's I haven't heard than that I have but a good amount of what I have doesn't exactly make me want to hear everything else they have to offer.

Lady Gaga- All flash no substance; pop filler wrapped up in an attention grabbing package.

Beyonce- If you're to drink the Kool Aid her stans brew up, you'd think that she was better than Aretha Franklin, Chaka Khan, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey combined when at best, she's Whitney Houston-lite. She's a good singer and obviously beautiful woman but its the latter that has gotten her where she is today, that and her marketing team...

Elvis- Nuff said.

[Edited 6/23/14 11:21am]

Adorecream said:

Some of the names mentioned so far, bring tears to my eyes.

I mean Madonna, Beatles, Mariah and Michael Jackson, come on, those people are talented and had long careers because a lot of people loved their music and they were and still are high quality.


Meanwhile what so great about these people?

Kanye West (Since 2007)

Jay Z (Never liked his shit much, one or two good songs, rest just shit)

All shithoppers and singers of rap trend songs (Ie Dougie, John Wall, Do it like Bernie, Stanky legg etc)

Bruno Mars

Lil Kim/ Nicki Minaj - responsible for dumbing down shithop/sexy r and b further

Chris Brown

Beyonce

Rhianna

Nelly Furtado

All Disney Pop

Britney/Carters/Simpson girls etc

Idol/Xfactor type singers

Florida

Lil Wayne or whatever these guys call themselves

Generally any rap song made after 1997.

I'm pretty sure nobody was even singing their praises for them to qualify as overrated.

Moonbeam said:

Yeah, John Legend is a total snooze. But really, who is rating him that highly?

That's what I am trying to figure out as well They are acting like his latest ballad is the holy grail of music right about now. I mean, I give him credit for being able to play an instrument, write music and for the ability to sing decently. However, when did it become the exception and not a rule for someone to have that and to be in the music industry? I think he became and remains popular because he knew how to do certain collaborations that made him relevant in the hip-hop community (re: Kanye West, Ludacris, etc.)

sovembol said:

I JUST Can't get into Neil Young.. his voice, just annoys me, A LOT.. and The Greatful Dead. I also agree on Dylan.. more into his "songs" then him, same can be said for Kris Kristofferson. And then there is this band Mumford and Sons, who Never fail to make an appearance on my Pandora stations, as many times I hit the thumbs down button.. lol.

Ha! The awful thumbs down that doesn't work, LOL! Yeah I remember about two years ago, I finally sat down and listened to Mumford and Sons and was struggling to see what the big deal was. They sounded like coffee shop hipsters.

Hudson said:

Queen

Michael Jackson

Bruce Springsteen

Talking Heads

Eminem

Kylie Minogue

Jimi Hendrix

Tupac

Bread

Bee Gees

Black Eyed Peas

Coldplay

Smelvis Presley

Before I saw the Black Eyed Peas perform at the Super Bowl a few years ago, I thought my dislike for them was perhaps due to me not being "cool". Afterwards, I felt like I was way ahead of the curve!

I'm really puzzled by Jimi Hendrix being mentioned here What's overrated about him, in your opinion?

Hudson said:

Queen

Michael Jackson

Bruce Springsteen

Talking Heads

Eminem

Kylie Minogue

Jimi Hendrix

Tupac

Bread

Bee Gees

Black Eyed Peas

Coldplay

Smelvis Presley

Whoa... I'm not familiar with work from everyone on your list, but: Michael Jackson, Tupac, Bee Gees?... Man, I have to object counselor!

1. Michael Jackson - very good voice, both singing and sound effects (at least through the 90s), excellent dancer, all around showman

2. Tupac - nearly unparalleled voice presence and passion for what he was trying to convey (even if it was sometimes wrong or insane or both)

3. Bee Gees - I'm not sure their sound is duplicable (word?!) They had such a string of great hits in the 70s and 80s that had such an original sound

Well, I don't like their music so I put them up there. There all good vocalists except Kylie, Chris Martin and Peas.

MotownSubdivision said:

Justin Timberlake- When the media is pushing you as the second coming of MJ and you can't at least dance 1/100th as good as the guy, you're overrated. It's not his fault but that doesn't change the fact that considering him to be anywhere near the astronomical level of MJ talent-wise displays just how low the bar has been lowered for music today.

Kanye West- Still a good rapper and even better producer but he's not some untouchable genius many tout him as.

AC/DC- They just suck.

The Beatles- Still an excellent band that has had a humongous impact on music that still is prominent today but they are not untouchable. Granted, there's more music of their's I haven't heard than that I have but a good amount of what I have doesn't exactly make me want to hear everything else they have to offer.

Lady Gaga- All flash no substance; pop filler wrapped up in an attention grabbing package.

Beyonce- If you're to drink the Kool Aid her stans brew up, you'd think that she was better than Aretha Franklin, Chaka Khan, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey combined when at best, she's Whitney Houston-lite. She's a good singer and obviously beautiful woman but its the latter that has gotten her where she is today, that and her marketing team...

Elvis- Nuff said.

[Edited 6/23/14 11:21am]

1. For the life of me I can't understand the Beatles craze. I have not listened to nearly as much of their music as is possibly warranted, but nothing I hear makes me want to. I have heard several of their songs and I hear a catchy song of theirs every once in a while, but other than that, I'm utterly puzzled by the phenomenon. Overated in my eyes,,,

2. I can kind of see the Elvis craze due to how different he was to every other act (presented to the majority music fan) at the time. He had the swag and could really, really work the females into a frenzy. I wouldn't say overated...

pdiddy2011 said:

Hudson said:

Queen

Michael Jackson

Bruce Springsteen

Talking Heads

Eminem

Kylie Minogue

Jimi Hendrix

Tupac

Bread

Bee Gees

Black Eyed Peas

Coldplay

Smelvis Presley

Whoa... I'm not familiar with work from everyone on your list, but: Michael Jackson, Tupac, Bee Gees?... Man, I have to object counselor!

1. Michael Jackson - very good voice, both singing and sound effects (at least through the 90s), excellent dancer, all around showman

2. Tupac - nearly unparalleled voice presence and passion for what he was trying to convey (even if it was sometimes wrong or insane or both)

3. Bee Gees - I'm not sure their sound is duplicable (word?!) They had such a string of great hits in the 70s and 80s that had such an original sound

Don't forget to add that Tupac was a lyric genius (not nursery rhyme BS like Kanye)....it's gonna be a while before Kendrick Lamar is out of Tupac's shadows.

pdiddy2011 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Justin Timberlake- When the media is pushing you as the second coming of MJ and you can't at least dance 1/100th as good as the guy, you're overrated. It's not his fault but that doesn't change the fact that considering him to be anywhere near the astronomical level of MJ talent-wise displays just how low the bar has been lowered for music today.

Kanye West- Still a good rapper and even better producer but he's not some untouchable genius many tout him as.

AC/DC- They just suck.

The Beatles- Still an excellent band that has had a humongous impact on music that still is prominent today but they are not untouchable. Granted, there's more music of their's I haven't heard than that I have but a good amount of what I have doesn't exactly make me want to hear everything else they have to offer.

Lady Gaga- All flash no substance; pop filler wrapped up in an attention grabbing package.

Beyonce- If you're to drink the Kool Aid her stans brew up, you'd think that she was better than Aretha Franklin, Chaka Khan, Whitney Houston, and Mariah Carey combined when at best, she's Whitney Houston-lite. She's a good singer and obviously beautiful woman but its the latter that has gotten her where she is today, that and her marketing team...

Elvis- Nuff said.

[Edited 6/23/14 11:21am]

1. For the life of me I can't understand the Beatles craze. I have not listened to nearly as much of their music as is possibly warranted, but nothing I hear makes me want to. I have heard several of their songs and I hear a catchy song of theirs every once in a while, but other than that, I'm utterly puzzled by the phenomenon. Overated in my eyes,,,

2. I can kind of see the Elvis craze due to how different he was to every other act (presented to the majority music fan) at the time. He had the swag and could really, really work the females into a frenzy. I wouldn't say overated...

Elvis is a bit controversial. If you wanna know how I feel abot him, go back to the thread about Justin Timberlake being a phony

I like the Beatles but I think they had A LOT of filler on their albums. But, one thing I can appreciate about them is how they kept pushing boundaries and changed their sound, look, etc. along the way.

Beatles Bashers, take note

1. Given the context of the times they were in, the Beatles were amazing musicians and performers for these reasons.

.

2. They wrote some of the most original and catchy pop songs of all time like "I wanna hold your hand", "She Loves you", "Help" etc

.

3. They then changed to some of the greatest experimental music of all time as evinced by everyone of their albums Rubber Soul onwards.

.

4. Lennon and McCartney were amazing song writers and their music was copied and pilfered by nearly everyone in the 60s and beyond. Only Dylan and the Stones offered any real competition, and the Beatles out stripped them by miles.

.

5. Incredibly successful solo careers followed for all of them (Even Ringo).

.

6. They reduced teenagers and muscial buffs to hysterics.

.

7. Their music is instantly memorable where ever you go.

.

8. They have sold close to a billion records.

.

9. No one and I mean no one has rivalled their chart record in the past 50 years, in one week of 1964, 5 Beatles songs filled the 5 top spots on the Hot 100 Singles chart.

.

10. They could sing and play their asses off.

.

11. They are just great full stop.

.

12. Few people on earth outside the 3rd world and the mentally incapable have not heard of the Beatles, even Michael Jackson is not as well known.

.

13. Their songs and riffs have made a fortune for many advertisers, disc jockeys, club owners and musical performers

Even putting them in the league of Lady Gaga, Nicki Minaj or Lil Wayne or Justin Bieber is sacrilege.

.

14. "I wanna hold your hand" from January 1964 is still the biggest selling rock and roll song in history, apparently close to 30 million copies of the single sold in its initial release period.

.

15. Many still regard "Sargeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" as the greatest album of all time, along with Revolver and the White Album.

.

16. They reinvented themselves many times, but mostly the seamless transistion from pop to psychedelic in the mid 60s, George Harrison probably inspired the whole hippy/Psychedelic movement (Although many others will dispute this with Brian Jones, Hendrix, San Fran sound, Byrds, Dylan etc)

.

17. Their 1962 - 1965 output nailed out the template for catchy 3 minute pop songs everywhere.

.

18. They were and still are cool.

[Edited 6/23/14 15:44pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

Adorecream said:

Some of the names mentioned so far, bring tears to my eyes.

I mean Madonna, Beatles, Mariah and Michael Jackson, come on, those people are talented and had long careers because a lot of people loved their music and they were and still are high quality.


Meanwhile what so great about these people?

Kanye West (Since 2007)

Jay Z (Never liked his shit much, one or two good songs, rest just shit)

All shithoppers and singers of rap trend songs (Ie Dougie, John Wall, Do it like Bernie, Stanky legg etc)

Bruno Mars

Lil Kim/ Nicki Minaj - responsible for dumbing down shithop/sexy r and b further

Chris Brown

Beyonce

Rhianna

Nelly Furtado

All Disney Pop

Britney/Carters/Simpson girls etc

Idol/Xfactor type singers

Florida

Lil Wayne or whatever these guys call themselves

Generally any rap song made after 1997.

I'm pretty sure nobody was even singing their praises for them to qualify as overrated.

I'd say that applies to most of that list! They each have their fans, but most seem to have at least as many detractors, with the exception of maybe Kayne and Jay Z. Otherwise, I'd agree with just about the entire list.

In my mind, the term "overrated" brings to mind sacred cows that are nearly universally acclaimed.

[Edited 6/23/14 16:44pm]

Adorecream said:

Beatles Bashers, take note

1. Given the context of the times they were in, the Beatles were amazing musicians and performers for these reasons.

For as much praise as The Beatles get, I don't often see their musicianship lauded that much. It's more their songwriting and "innovation" that gets people worked up.

2. They wrote some of the most original and catchy pop songs of all time like "I wanna hold your hand", "She Loves you", "Help" etc

All of those songs make me want to scratch my eyeballs out. Their chirpy chipmunk "cute" vocals and play-play musical backing irritate me to no end! Plus, they hardly seem that original in comparison to some of their other work.

3. They then changed to some of the greatest experimental music of all time as evinced by everyone of their albums Rubber Soul onwards.

Greatest how? I've heard three of those albums (Rubber Soul, Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road), and while there are a few experimental tracks on them, they are by and large pop/rock records. Let's not pretend they are The Velvet Underground here.

.

4. Lennon and McCartney were amazing song writers and their music was copied and pilfered by nearly everyone in the 60s and beyond. Only Dylan and the Stones offered any real competition, and the Beatles out stripped them by miles.

Their songwriting does seem to be their strongest calling card, as evidenced by the number of covers and imitators. Still, I've yet to hear any version of a Beatles track (cover or otherwise) that has particularly appealed to me.

5. Incredibly successful solo careers followed for all of them (Even Ringo).

Success does not mean that they cannot be overrated, in my view.

6. They reduced teenagers and muscial buffs to hysterics.

This is true, but it doesn't make their music any more appealing.

7. Their music is instantly memorable where ever you go.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Their music is certainly played a lot and hence eventually becomes recognizable, but without that play, I'd be hard-pressed to differentiate The Beatles a number of other 60s pop acts like Gerry and the Pacemakers or Herman's Hermits.

8. They have sold close to a billion records.

Again, success does not preclude them (or anyone) from being overrated in my book. Their sales simply mean they were popular. That they still sell well is more impressive, as it indicates a more lasting impact. That is something I wouldn't deny - that they had a massive impact on popular culture.

9. No one and I mean no one has rivalled their chart record in the past 50 years, in one week of 1964, 5 Beatles songs filled the 5 top spots on the Hot 100 Singles chart.

That feat, while impressive, is somewhat subject to the music business at the time. And again, commercial success does not mean that they aren't overrated. Katy Perry and Rihanna are breaking records too, aren't they?

10. They could sing and play their asses off.

Part of my immense disdain for them stems from their voices. That cutesy singing and hamfisted attempts at anthemizing lame melodies makes me want to send a drill through my ears. I'd like their music far more if they had other vocalists. And again, I don't hear any great musicianship in their music.

12. Few people on earth outside the 3rd world and the mentally incapable have not heard of the Beatles, even Michael Jackson is not as well known.

Yes, they are a widespread pox on humanity.

13. Their songs and riffs have made a fortune for many advertisers, disc jockeys, club owners and musical performers

Even putting them in the league of Lady Gaga, Nicki Minaj or Lil Wayne or Justin Bieber is sacrilege.

In the sense that they are quite bankable, those other artists (well, Gaga and Bieber) certainly belong in the conversation as modern counterparts. In my book, Bieber's music is not too dissimilar from the early Beatles hits. "Baby, baby, baby ooh" wouldn't sound that out of place on "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You", really.

14. "I wanna hold your hand" from January 1964 is still the biggest selling rock and roll song in history, apparently close to 30 million copies of the single sold in its initial release period.

That doesn't make me hate it any less!

15. Many still regard "Sargeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" as the greatest album of all time, along with Revolver and the White Album.

Of the three Beatles albums I've heard, Sgt. Peppers was the worst. At least Revolver and Abbey Road aren't trying to construct some bloated concept that falls apart.

16. They reinvented themselves many times, but mostly the seamless transistion from pop to psychedelic in the mid 60s, George Harrison probably inspired the whole hippy/Psychedelic movement (Although many others will dispute this with Brian Jones, Hendrix, San Fran sound, Byrds, Dylan etc)

Sure, they were shapeshifters. But they get too much credit for "inventing" genres and styles, when they borrowed their fair share as well. This isn't a knock on them - everyone has influences. However, the overblown notion that before The Beatles, there wasn't X or Y genre/style is a large part of why they are overrated, in my book.

17. Their 1962 - 1965 output nailed out the template for catchy 3 minute pop songs everywhere.

There were plenty of catchy 3 minute pop songs before then.

18. They were and still are cool.

That's a subjective assessment that I don't share.

I'd be foolish to deny The Beatles impact, and it's great that people get a lot of joy out of their music, but there is no "objective" barometer that makes music good or bad. Part of why I find The Beatles to be the most overrated act ever (though far from the worst) is that so many people seem to espouse the belief that there is some universal truth to their greatness and that those who don't share that belief have something wrong with them.

[Edited 6/23/14 17:07pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

Referencing #4, are serious when you say The Beatles had no competition outside of Dylan and The Stones at a time when Motown was an unstoppable force in the music industry?

I would be serious if I said it--well, I wouldn't include the Stones in the conversation. I have never been able to get into the Motown sound as a whole. Motown just doesn't work for me. I don't hate everything, but the vast majority of tracks coming out from Hitsville leave me lukewarm. Competent, but not compelling.

I understand that others feel that way about my obsessions.

However, since the Beatles' "core discography" (by a count on Wikipedia) amounts to "217 songs and approximately 10 hours of music" it would be pretty easy to listen to all of it (and it's ridiculously easy to find without having to buy it). It's not like trying to catch up with Johnny Cash (I've got over a hundred hours of him on my laptop, and it's nearly all official). Or, for that matter, Motown.

Moonbeam said:

Adorecream said:

Beatles Bashers, take note

1. Given the context of the times they were in, the Beatles were amazing musicians and performers for these reasons.

For as much praise as The Beatles get, I don't often see their musicianship lauded that much. It's more their songwriting and "innovation" that gets people worked up.

There were plenty of catchy 3 minute pop songs before then.

18. They were and still are cool.

That's a subjective assessment that I don't share.

I'd be foolish to deny The Beatles impact, and it's great that people get a lot of joy out of their music, but there is no "objective" barometer that makes music good or bad. Part of why I find The Beatles to be the most overrated act ever (though far from the worst) is that so many people seem to espouse the belief that there is some universal truth to their greatness and that those who don't share that belief have something wrong with them.

[Edited 6/23/14 17:07pm]

very good points

EddieC said:

I get the points about Motown, they were outstanding songs and artists that defined a generation. But Motown was at least 10 major acts and 50 or so more minor ones. The greater names like Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, Diana Ross and the Supremes, 4 tops, Jackson 5 etc all only have 10 or 30 (In the case of Wonder who went on to bigger and better things) hits each and Motown had a lot of artists that only had 1 or 2 smashes, then either languished (Mary Wells, David Ruffin) or went to another label and had greater success there (Gladys Knight and Isleys). Also Motown served up a lot of rubbish songs too like Darling Baby by the Elegants and Greetings from Uncle sam, along with some lacklustre filler albums by their artists. I also felt that the Gordy may have nutured their artists, but also exploited and controlled them with bad results. Many died due to problems associated with stress of being a Motown act alongside violence and substance abuse issues.

.

I mean the Beatles became rich of their success, McCartney is very wealthy, so is Ringo, most Motown has beens died in Poverty or in straightened circumstances as they got paid little and blew what they had on crap like cars, drugs and unpaid taxbills. The Beatles were at least bright enough to have a few less financial hassles (It wasn't all true, didn't Apple go bankrupt, and why did Paul sell Northern Songs to MJ?" But still the 2 Beatles who died, one was shot by a deranged lunatic, the other died at his mansion and Macca is thriving even after superbitch Mills cleaned him out.

.
But with the Beatles, its the same group of 4 guys who were around for 8 golden years, making a stream of melodic and very inventive pop and rock music.

.

Maybe I am wearing Pink glasses and the fact I have a bias towards white rock and roll over Black rap and soul music I rate them highly, but nearly everyone I know and every kid I went to school with was in tune to their genius.

.

I also think its very harsh to say the Beatles are overrated when you have them compared to fluff acts like Justin Bieber, Britney, Black eyed peas, Rhianna, who to me are not even approaching the astral plane of the Beatles.

[Edited 6/23/14 20:14pm]

Adorecream said:

I also think its very harsh to say the Beatles are overrated when you have them compared to fluff acts like Justin Bieber, Britney, Black eyed peas, Rhianna, who to me are not even approaching the astral plane of the Beatles.

[Edited 6/23/14 20:14pm]

Is their early material not similar to those pop acts except for the fact that the played on those songs? The subject matter seems just as peurile. Sure, they evolved and changed throughout the years whereas the others have more or less continued along the same youth-friendly path, and I don't think anyone would say the entirety of their careers are similar, but at their origins, The Beatles were a glorified boy band. Hence all of the teenage hysteria, etc.

The Beatles are overrated because they are just about unanimously revered as the greatest musical act ever, and they are generally given far too much credit for inventing genres and styles.

MotownSubdivision said:

EddieC said:

I would be serious if I said it--well, I wouldn't include the Stones in the conversation. I have never been able to get into the Motown sound as a whole. Motown just doesn't work for me. I don't hate everything, but the vast majority of tracks coming out from Hitsville leave me lukewarm. Competent, but not compelling.

I understand that others feel that way about my obsessions.

However, since the Beatles' "core discography" (by a count on Wikipedia) amounts to "217 songs and approximately 10 hours of music" it would be pretty easy to listen to all of it (and it's ridiculously easy to find without having to buy it). It's not like trying to catch up with Johnny Cash (I've got over a hundred hours of him on my laptop, and it's nearly all official). Or, for that matter, Motown.

Personal preference aside, Motown was a major player of the 1960s music scene and to disregard it as such is flat out wrong on countless levels.

Actually, I mistakenly left out part of why I feel that way--Motown was not a single act, but a community of writers, producers, musicians, performers. It's not really the same to compare what that community did to what was done by largely self-contained bands (or individuals) working with relatively little outside contribution. Just due to the numbers of people involved in creating the "canons" of the Beatles or Dylan or the Stones compared to that of Motown--it just doesn't make sense to make the comparison. At least in my mind.

I didn't mean to suggest in any way that Motown wasn't a major player in the 60's music scene or to disregard it as such. Obviously it was, and many incredibly talented people were involved in making it so. I'm just not sure how relevant it is in a discussion of whether or not individual singers or acts are overrated, since Motown was a different type of critter all together.

EddieC said:

MotownSubdivision said:

EddieC said: Personal preference aside, Motown was a major player of the 1960s music scene and to disregard it as such is flat out wrong on countless levels.

Actually, I mistakenly left out part of why I feel that way--Motown was not a single act, but a community of writers, producers, musicians, performers. It's not really the same to compare what that community did to what was done by largely self-contained bands (or individuals) working with relatively little outside contribution. Just due to the numbers of people involved in creating the "canons" of the Beatles or Dylan or the Stones compared to that of Motown--it just doesn't make sense to make the comparison. At least in my mind.

I didn't mean to suggest in any way that Motown wasn't a major player in the 60's music scene or to disregard it as such. Obviously it was, and many incredibly talented people were involved in making it so. I'm just not sure how relevant it is in a discussion of whether or not individual singers or acts are overrated, since Motown was a different type of critter all together.

I thought you were talking about overall but from an individual acts perspective, it's only fair that Motown not be included although they were still The Beatles' competition.

Adorecream said:

I get the points about Motown, they were outstanding songs and artists that defined a generation. But Motown was at least 10 major acts and 50 or so more minor ones. The greater names like Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, Diana Ross and the Supremes, 4 tops, Jackson 5 etc all only have 10 or 30 (In the case of Wonder who went on to bigger and better things) hits each and Motown had a lot of artists that only had 1 or 2 smashes, then either languished (Mary Wells, David Ruffin) or went to another label and had greater success there (Gladys Knight and Isleys). Also Motown served up a lot of rubbish songs too like Darling Baby by the Elegants and Greetings from Uncle sam, along with some lacklustre filler albums by their artists. I also felt that the Gordy may have nutured their artists, but also exploited and controlled them with bad results. Many died due to problems associated with stress of being a Motown act alongside violence and substance abuse issues.

.

I mean the Beatles became rich of their success, McCartney is very wealthy, so is Ringo, most Motown has beens died in Poverty or in straightened circumstances as they got paid little and blew what they had on crap like cars, drugs and unpaid taxbills. The Beatles were at least bright enough to have a few less financial hassles (It wasn't all true, didn't Apple go bankrupt, and why did Paul sell Northern Songs to MJ?" But still the 2 Beatles who died, one was shot by a deranged lunatic, the other died at his mansion and Macca is thriving even after superbitch Mills cleaned him out.

.
But with the Beatles, its the same group of 4 guys who were around for 8 golden years, making a stream of melodic and very inventive pop and rock music.

.

Maybe I am wearing Pink glasses and the fact I have a bias towards white rock and roll over Black rap and soul music I rate them highly, but nearly everyone I know and every kid I went to school with was in tune to their genius.

.

I also think its very harsh to say the Beatles are overrated when you have them compared to fluff acts like Justin Bieber, Britney, Black eyed peas, Rhianna, who to me are not even approaching the astral plane of the Beatles.

[Edited 6/23/14 20:14pm]

The aftermath of the Motown stars and that of The Beatles isn't really relevant when discussing them as competition.

Also, I thought MJ eclipsed The Beatles back in the 80s as far as worldwide notoriety is concerned?

Lauryn Hill