Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) It appears it is a competition for you as you are rating the works of the Who, the Beatles, the Stones and Led Zeppelin. In so doing, you are saying the music of the Who, the Beatles and the Stones is "overrated", especially when compared to the music of Led Zeppelin. No, their "overrated" to me simply because there are not enough great tunes in each of their catalouges to hold them in that high of a place....Boy, do you have ADD????? Seriously...... You need to READ more , and less jibber jabber- I basically mentioned that more than a few times. So you can make it into a competition or whatever you wanna twist the words into. Anyway you look at it, their music does not measure up to their individual stature. Keep posting if you like- I validated my point and honest opinion (even if it doesn't meet your requirements or taste) more than enough. Edited November 23, 2011 by Rock Historian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 No, their "overrated" to me simply because there are not enough great tunes in their catalouge to hold them in that high of a place....Boy, do you have ADD????? You are still applying a "rating" to their works. It is also your opinion that "there are not enough great tunes in their catalouge to hold them in that high of a place". I listen to music for the enjoyment it brings me, not to try to figure out who is better than who, which is also only a matter of opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 You are still applying a "rating" to their works. It is also your opinion that "there are not enough great tunes in their catalouge to hold them in that high of a place". I listen to music for the enjoyment it brings me, not to try to figure out who is better than who, which is also only a matter of opinion. ... You also gotta have the last word, even if it means repeating yourself over and over again. -like beatin a dead horse. How old are you??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 You also gotta have the last word, even if it means repeating yourself over and over again. -like beatin a dead horse. How old are you??? I'm just expressing my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I'm just expressing my opinion. So am I , buddy. Even if it clashes yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 So am I , buddy. Even if it clashes yours. I thought you said you weren't rating music? That's what I disagreed with you on, in addition to the fact that the Beatles were never a "boy band". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I don't recalll ever once saying that Im "rating" a band...that's your words. Im sorry for that. You didn't answer my question Jahfin. ADD???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I don't recalll ever once saying that Im "rating" a band...that's your words. Im sorry for that. You didn't answer my question Jahfin. ADD???? You said the Beatles, the Who and the Stones were "overrated". Your words: Three bands that come to mind that are just a tad overated: The Stones, The Who, The Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 You said the Beatles, the Who and the Stones were "overrated". Your words: ADD Jaf ????? I'm waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 ADD Jaf ????? I'm waiting How about an explanation of how saying an artist is "overrated" isn't rating them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 How about an explanation of how saying an artist is "overrated" isn't rating them? I asked first. And I owe you nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) World Cafe: Mick Jagger And Keith Richards On 'Some Girls' Edited November 23, 2011 by Jahfin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Stones Near Decision on 50th Anniversary Shows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Bobby Keys made the most sense about their "centralizing" shows, letting the people come to them to see gigs. I would think that would be the best way for them to tour now, if they ever do again. I also hope Bill Wyman rejoins them for this last go around if it happens too. Edited November 23, 2011 by dazedcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The Stones are a great band, but they were not creative enough, they didn't invent anything, unlike The Beatles, Queen or Led Zeppelin. According to me the Stones didn't take enough risks. I think Led Zep and Queen are the only two bands, whose unknown songs are as good as the most famous ones, that's why they are my favourite bands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Historian Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The Stones are a great band, but they were not creative enough, they didn't invent anything, unlike The Beatles, Queen or Led Zeppelin. According to me the Stones didn't take enough risks. I think Led Zep and Queen are the only two bands, whose unknown songs are as good as the most famous ones, that's why they are my favourite bands. I totally agree... I admire your taste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I totally agree... I admire your taste Thanks!I admire yours too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 You are still applying a "rating" to their works. It is also your opinion that "there are not enough great tunes in their catalouge to hold them in that high of a place". I listen to music for the enjoyment it brings me, not to try to figure out who is better than who, which is also only a matter of opinion. It means that, according to you, Mozart isn't better than Lady Gaga, and that it' just a matter of opinion.......... Strange way of thinking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 It means that, according to you, Mozart isn't better than Lady Gaga, and that it' just a matter of opinion.......... Those are your words, not mine. I just don't see the point in assigning a meaningless number to something that is art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well by my math the Stones were banging away at pop music trends long before Zeppelin or Queen ever formed as working bands. They paved the road don't you think? Other bands did too, but as this is a Stones thread we'll keep the focus on the Rolling Stones here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Those are your words, not mine. I just don't see the point in assigning a meaningless number to something that is art. Yes, these are my words, but they show that your theory, according to which everything is a matter of opinion, and that it's impossible to say objectively if an artist is better than another, is a theory which isn not valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well by my math the Stones were banging away at pop music trends long before Zeppelin or Queen ever formed as working bands. They paved the road don't you think? Other bands did too, but as this is a Stones thread we'll keep the focus on the Rolling Stones here. The Stones were not a pop band, moreover Led Zep and Queen could have existed even if the Stones hadn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazedcat Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Popular music trends. Zep and Queen existing without other bands coming before them is opinion, one which I don't agree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenguitar Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Popular music trends. Zep and Queen existing without other bands coming before them is opinion, one which I don't agree with. Queen couldn't have existed without the Beatles, granted.But the Stones didn't influence them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Yes, these are my words, but they show that your theory, according to which everything is a matter of opinion, and that it's impossible to say objectively if an artist is better than another, is a theory which isn not valid. "Isn't not valid"? All I'm doing is expressing an opinion about how I feel about the ranking of art, in this case, music. I feel it's futile to do so. I'm not espousing a "theory", just an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.