Hmmm..... wrote:
I've seen the Beatles on the list multiple times. Can someone explain their logic on it?
In terms of instrument play and overall musicality, the Beatles weren't very good in the beginning, but they got better overtime. Ringo went from a neighbor garage band level to decent at best. Harrison became a very good guitar play, not great, but very good. Lennon and McCarthy were never more than good musicians; however, they were very good on vocals with great song writering and arrangement, etc. A band is the sum of it's parts, except for song writing, they weren't great individuals, but a very good band. I would not call them overrated, unless you are referring to them as the greatest of all-time, which they weren't. There are bands like Earth Wind & Fire, Led Zeppelin and the Dobbie Brothers for example who were better in terms of what musicians might classify as great, but ultimately it is record sales, concerts, awards and the public's opinion that determine greatness. You can't have millions and millions of people from different time periods, different age groups and other demographics say you are great and not at the very least, be great. By all objective measures, they were a great band, but in terms of the greatest of all-time, I would say no, but I wouldn't call them overrated.
People mentioned Jimmy Buffet, I agree they were definitely an overrated band, they simply weren't very good at all. Buffet had a formula that worked and they never attempted to change or get better.