Is he right?

Beatles is overrated
Presley is overrated
Prince is underrated
David Bowie is just right rated
U2 is kinda overrated but they were never rated that high in the first place just really popular

Yes, just for include AT, otherwise known as the 'look at me I have refined music taste according to the Internet' artist

>Falling for the "overrated/underrated" dichotomy

>Beatles
lolno

>Elvis Presley
definitely yes

>Prince
no

>Bowie
no

>U2
also no

Also, no for all those 90's bands. Pavement might be slightly overrated, but no way are they THE most overrated band of the 90s.

Why "overrated" is a useless critique

Overrated means, just like the words says, that something is rated, or valued, higher than it deserves. Deserves, huh? This should throw up a flag right away, because how are you supposed to measure how much praise something deserves? To do this, you would have to objectively quantify how good an artist or a piece of art is, which is already impossible. You can argue that there are many qualities that could be quantified objectively, but it still falls apart because everyone values these qualities differently. Someone might agree with Schenkerian analysis that harmony is the most important thing in music, while someone else will definitely argue that innovation is.

You can't measure how 'good' a piece of art or an artist is, and as such it's impossible to measure how much praise it deserves, and how highly it deserves to be valued. Therefore it's idiotic to use a phrase such as "They are overrated". You are still free to say something like "I believe the critics overrated the historical importance of X", because not only are you specifying which aspect you think has been overrated, but you're also specifying who you think is overrating it, and that there's no objectivism at play here - you're simply stating that it is your subjective evaluation that differs from that of someone else's.

What you're actually saying when you use a term like "X are overrated" is really nothing other than "Others like X more than I do".

/thread

>why even talk about music guys it is subjective and nothing we say about it means anything
everything is subjective you pseudo-intellectual twat

This guy intentionally listens to the most bland emotionless rock acts so he can act like he "gets" something that everyone else doesn't

Any beatles album is better than the entire discographies of TVU or tim buckley

>bland
>emotionless
>>>>TVU

>Any beatles album is better than the entire discographies of TVU or tim buckley
White Light/White Heat is better than anything the Beatles ever did

Pretty sure that's their entire gimmick

the beatles have never come close to tvu's first two albums

your either an idiot or just trolling

Yeah because they were so far ahead

Outside of the cool apathetic artsy persona, TVU have nothing

The Beatles were miles ahead in terms of songwriting

Elvis is probably underrated at this point but the rest are all definitely varying degrees of overrated (with U2 being the most overrated inherently in that anyone thinks they're not the worst band that's ever existed)

VU had a better aesthetic and were way cooler. This being pop music that means they're better

why isnt mj on it?

He hates michael with passion, probably because mj fulfilled his lifelong dream of molesting children.

I'd swap out Beatles for Michael Jackson but otherwise yes.

Nice original thought!

No. Scaruffi's has shit taste and his opinions are shit.

Is this from that Italian kid diddling fuck?