The Definition of Overrated

[shoombabi]

Obviously this section has turned into the "[X] band is over/under -rated" forum, and it's kind of sad that the people throwing these terms around really have no idea what they mean.

Overrated implies that their contribution to music does not warrant the attention that they receive. Someone like Britney Spears is overrated: She did not progress music in any capacity, she did not cover a wide range of genres, and she is strictly a product of marketability.

But here we have people saying Slash is overrated, the Beatles are overrated, Nirvana is overrated... If you honestly believe it, please come up with a valid argument. But even the people that start these threads initiate the conversation with "Sure they were pioneers of the time but their music sucks."

THE FACT THAT THEY WERE PIONEERS IS -WHY- THEY'RE RATED SO HIGHLY. It's not being overrated to be recognized as starting the rock and roll movement as we know it in an entire country. It's not overrated to bring sound effects and distinct play styles to the forefront of music that are still being used. It's not overrated to be a transitional band between two incredibly influential genres of music.

I agree, compared to other people in the genre, the three aforementioned people/groups of people may not play with the finesse, talent, technical prowess, or versatility as people that came later. The point is that they were the influence. They were what made it possible so that other people could surpass them.

Overrated is not a term to be used so lightly and flung around like it has no meaning. To say that because a band does not play in a manner you like makes them overrated is just ignorant. Do some research for how the industry and the musicians evolved as a result of these people and groups before you start posting things like that.

Talent is a very subjective thing. Historical footprints are not.

[tombrady]

Nirvana didn't REALLY do anything you said :(

Nor did Slash :(

People saying the Beatles are overrated is absurd though...I agree with that. If you deny the influence they had you're insane.

[topperharley]

But you can say that the Beatles' music is overrated without denying their influence. The two are not one and the same. There are high school kids that wet their undies over every note of every Beatles song but do not understand or care about their infuence on music back when their parents were in high school. There are some truly great Beatles songs, from a purely musical standpoint. But you don't record that much music without there being a whole lot of crap as well.

[Rev0lver]

it really depends on your definition of "overrated". i personally see it as a band/person whom lacks a good amount of musical knowledge and/or very rarely plays anything that expresses musical knowledge. and, of course, is all over the radio and tv.

i never denied their influence, but the beatles and nirvana fit this definition. slash though? im not sure. i personally think he's pretty good.

in other words, influential or not, i believe their popularity should fit the quality of the music, and if it doesn't by a decently large margin, they are overrated.

[sushi111]

Nirvana is only overrated if you havent heard all of In Utero.

Seriously one of the best albums ever assembeled.

[King_Nuthin]

To me "overrated" means precisely what the two words imply - that the widespread public opinion of someone or something is higher than it should be. I think a lot of great things can be overrated when they are declared the "greatest" thing - non musical examples would be Michael Jordan and Muhamad Ali - they were damn great at their sports but the widespread opinion that they were the "greatest of all time" with little or no debate to me makes them overrated.

I think The Beatles are overrated. Not because they sucked, on the contrary they were great. But their musical influence is wildly overstated. They no doubt influenced many, many bands over multiple generations. But it is often cited as fact that they "influenced every band that followed" and I disagree. There are a lot of bands that took their major influences from bands that pre-date the Beatles or contemporaries of the Beatles that were considered "rivals" at the time.

I think Slash is overrated. Not because he sucks, but because he is the de facto face of guitar for Guns 'n' Roses which has a lot more to do with his slick image than the reality of which G'n'R guitarist was actually writing the bulk of the songs. When Slash made a new band with his fellow ex-G'n'Rers everyone went crazy but if you ask me they haven't come anywhere close to replicating what G'n'R did.

Is Britney even rated? I think most people think she sucks. I don't think anybody ever thought she was "talented". She sells a lot of albums but critics always ripped them apart. So I don't think she is "overrated" but she isn't "underrated" either.

[Wangsandsuch]

To me "overrated" means precisely what the two words imply - that the widespread public opinion of someone or something is higher than it should be. I think a lot of great things can be overrated when they are declared the "greatest" thing - non musical examples would be Michael Jordan and Muhamad Ali - they were damn great at their sports but the widespread opinion that they were the "greatest of all time" with little or no debate to me makes them overrated.

I think The Beatles are overrated. Not because they sucked, on the contrary they were great. But their musical influence is wildly overstated. They no doubt influenced many, many bands over multiple generations. But it is often cited as fact that they "influenced every band that followed" and I disagree. There are a lot of bands that took their major influences from bands that pre-date the Beatles or contemporaries of the Beatles that were considered "rivals" at the time.

I think Slash is overrated. Not because he sucks, but because he is the de facto face of guitar for Guns 'n' Roses which has a lot more to do with his slick image than the reality of which G'n'R guitarist was actually writing the bulk of the songs. When Slash made a new band with his fellow ex-G'n'Rers everyone went crazy but if you ask me they haven't come anywhere close to replicating what G'n'R did.

Is Britney even rated? I think most people think she sucks. I don't think anybody ever thought she was "talented". She sells a lot of albums but critics always ripped them apart. So I don't think she is "overrated" but she isn't "underrated" either.

Finally someone who actually was able to backup their argument.

[battle_axe_of_doom]

in utero blows

[polishdog90]

Nirvana didn't REALLY do anything you said :(

Nor did Slash :(

People saying the Beatles are overrated is absurd though...I agree with that. If you deny the influence they had you're insane.

Nirvana popularized the grunge movement.

Slash brought blues back into metal.

I would say both of those qualify as things to make them rated highly.

[HPLabonte]

in utero blows

took the words right off of my fingertips

[Wangsandsuch]

Nirvana popularized the grunge movement.

Slash brought blues back into metal.

I would say both of those qualify as things to make them rated highly.

True story.

[Incoment Troll]

True story.
True story

[shoombabi]

To me "overrated" means precisely what the two words imply - that the widespread public opinion of someone or something is higher than it should be. I think a lot of great things can be overrated when they are declared the "greatest" thing - non musical examples would be Michael Jordan and Muhamad Ali - they were damn great at their sports but the widespread opinion that they were the "greatest of all time" with little or no debate to me makes them overrated.

I think The Beatles are overrated. Not because they sucked, on the contrary they were great. But their musical influence is wildly overstated. They no doubt influenced many, many bands over multiple generations. But it is often cited as fact that they "influenced every band that followed" and I disagree. There are a lot of bands that took their major influences from bands that pre-date the Beatles or contemporaries of the Beatles that were considered "rivals" at the time.

I think Slash is overrated. Not because he sucks, but because he is the de facto face of guitar for Guns 'n' Roses which has a lot more to do with his slick image than the reality of which G'n'R guitarist was actually writing the bulk of the songs. When Slash made a new band with his fellow ex-G'n'Rers everyone went crazy but if you ask me they haven't come anywhere close to replicating what G'n'R did.

Is Britney even rated? I think most people think she sucks. I don't think anybody ever thought she was "talented". She sells a lot of albums but critics always ripped them apart. So I don't think she is "overrated" but she isn't "underrated" either.

While I disagree with you on some of your points, I must applaud you for giving a valid, supported argument. If only more internet debates could function like this :)

Anyway, why I disagree with you:
Granted there are many facets of music that are subjectively viewed, but the objective parts (records sold, number of fans, sold out concerts, and other concrete things) are what define bands as "the greatest ___." You used sports as an example for things that could be overrated, but I would like to argue that given concrete statistics, using a fair measurement to compare everyone, someone has to emerge as "the greatest." You can't have a scale that says X > Y > Z > X > ad infinitum. If people suggest that the greatest is greater than the greatest (which is, of course, impossible), -that- would be overrated. But you seem to suggest that you can't be rated highly without it constituting as an overrating, even if the facts back it up.

Also, just because a band like the Beatles may not have had a -direct- influence on people does not mean that everyone's music wasn't somehow influenced by it. If you want to get really abstract, the Beatles helped define a genre, of which there are critics and followers, and those are the people that branch out and allow new entries into the world of music to succeed. So while the new people may not have ever even heard of the Beatles, a lot of people that have are already predetermining your success.

Like I said, that was very abstract, but I think it's a fairly safe argument that they -did- influence just about every band that came after them. At least in the genre, if not all of music.

And watch it with the Britney bashing. We don't need another emo kid crying on YouTube because of a conversation on the RB forums.

[lithiumkc]

'overrated' is probably one of my least favorite words. And it screams musical naivete in cases like 'BEATLES ARE OVERRATED' and others. I laughed when i first saw that topic and then proceeded to annihilate the original statement along with pretty much anybody else who isn't musically ******ed. I believe it has everything to do with innovation, which basically describes the Beatles altogether.

Anyways, I make a point of never calling a band overrated, because the majority of the time that phrase spawns from a personal opinion of the band. 'I dont like the music.. my taste in music is superior to others and thus this band is overrated'. No. You don't like a band, you don't like a band. In no way does that detract from their impact on the music industry or their musical skill.

Overrated is overused.