Controversial opinions about anything

1272829303133»

Comments

  • Posts: 12,521
    I also love Tears for Fears.
  • FoxRox wrote: »
    I also love Tears for Fears.

    They could’ve done one helluva Bond song for the 80s. I’m slightly disappointed we don’t live in that reality.
  • Posts: 15,229
    Here's a controversial musical opinion: Beethoven's 9th has a catchy tune, but is somewhat overrated. And Mozart's lyrical works are vastly superior.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Aha! I always knew you were a man of fine tastes!

    😂 @007ClassicBondFan you are as well, it seems, and @FoxRox !! 😂
  • Posts: 12,521
    peter wrote: »
    Aha! I always knew you were a man of fine tastes!

    😂 @007ClassicBondFan you are as well, it seems, and @FoxRox !! 😂

    Thanks! Depeche Mode stuck out as well on your list as a favorite for me.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited September 17 Posts: 3,800
    Okay, I will end this discussion once and for all.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Look, I'm not going to side with petty Redditors, but do you think to some extent you're not quite being objective here either? A lot of this is your opinion, and I'm not sure you've acknowledged just how many musicians have been inspired by this band or the wider impact they had.

    Not saying you have to like them or not point out what you see as their flaws (as I said I don't think they made a perfect album and have a few too many filler songs, and I like their music). But I'm not sure what online arguments have to do with The Beatles being overrated.

    I'm not being objective, and this is a controversial opinion so that's why I've shared my thoughts in here, I don't care if they've influenced many bands, would that make them the best band ever? No.
    It's not just online arguments, okay, I've also seen some medias and Mainstream articles declaring them as the best, like it's by default, and by online arguments too, that's it, many people were claiming it, even though it's not real, Beatles fans can keep lecturing all day about their greatness, and when someone disagrees, because again, it's a piece of misinformation, as declaring it by default, then that would lead to an argument, not everyone is a Beatles fan and would agree with that statement, it's not just one or few people, this is how the media at large look at them.

    The main point here still stands, it's none the either of you all in here, but what I'm pointing were the endless declarations of The Beatles being hailed as the best, that's all, people treating them like Saints, it's no different to John Lennon being treated as a Saint for his 'Imagine' and Peace signs even though he had a lot of flaws as a human being.

    It's not about what they've done, it's about the way this world look at them above with exaggeration.

    Many people have done great things, but are they being held as the greatest? No, is Cleopatra is seen as the best Ruler of Ancient Egypt? The Best Ruler in History? No, but she's iconic, done many things in her tenure and famous, but none were calling her as the best Ruler.

    I acknowledge The Beatles and their place in Music History, but that doesn't make them the best of all time, and that wouldn't be automatically the means of treating them with Prestige, Honors and such, that the other musicians deserved (I feel sorry for the likes of Memphis Minnie, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, The Carter Family and other musicians who were more worthy of being awarded, yet overlooked because they've failed to become icons or famous), again, I acknowledge The Beatles and their place in Pop Culture, but to hail them as if they're the Einsteins of The Music Industry is just not right.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don't see why some artists being undervalued means The Beatles are overrated. Nor why some people having the opinion that they're the greatest band of all time in itself is wrong.

    If people say The Beatles were the first to do something and they didn't, it's wrong. That's just fact. If they're talking about pioneering specific things and being prominent successful examples of doing so, it's not wrong.

    The Beatles are an important band. I think people can acknowledge that to whatever extent while not being fans of their music.

    Artists being undervalued because they're being compared to The Beatles, every single time, I've seen it all and that's enough for me, and again, those overlooked artists were not given a chance to be discovered and recognize because again, they're overshadowed by The Beatles, that's what I'm pointing about their fame, despite of some pretty talented artists at the time, The Beatles got the fame, and that led to survivorship bias I'm talking about.

    I acknowledge The Beatles and their place in the Pop Culture, much like Andy Warhol, Litchenstein, and etc., But like @DarthDimi said, I'm not the one who would worship them at their altar, I'm not going to declare them as the best, they shouldn't be put in high standard.

    It's fine to talk about pioneering examples, but not to hail them in an exaggerated manner, again, I see that it's none of you in here.

    007HallY wrote: »
    I think you'd be surprised how difficult it is to write a good, catchy pop song that resonates with people. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't call their early stuff flowery or uninteresting. The lyrics for something like Help are surprisingly dark, and She Loves You is quite an odd love song in the sense it's from the perspective of a third party trying to get two people back together.

    I dunno, they're obviously not your thing but they're catchy as all hell. I like them a lot. Many people from the time seemed to as well.

    Yes, I know, but what I'm pointing out here, is compared to the other artists at the time who wrote deep and complex songs, they're not on par with them to have people 'worship' the band, become a fan is okay, to worship them and declare them everywhere is not.

    I acknowledge them as songwriters in their own right, but that doesn't make them the best as media and the world were claiming them to be.

    Their songs were catchy, okay, nice, but I'm not going to shout in the world that they're the greatest band ever and treat them as if they're Saints, because they're not, it's just the over exaggeration of things, again, none of you in this forum were like that, but I'm also sharing my complaints about those people just like the other thread ('Why ??!!...The whinging,moaning,complaining,ranting,letting off steam thread !!') we have in here.

    Let alone I'm seeing Ringo Starr in every list of the 'Greatest Drummers of All Time', I know his capability as a drummer, but is he that great? What only got him there were the fact that he's in the most famous and iconic band, the same for when he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, is he worth it? Is he worthy of induction? When there are many other musicians worthy of Induction than him? It's just an over exaggeration the world is doing.
    007HallY wrote: »
    So none of it had to do with their catchy songs? Granted, screaming fans are annoying and teenage girls can often fall for the superficial aspects of a band, but The Beatles weren't a flash in the pan. Fellow musicians like Bob Dylan praised their early work and certainly their later albums widened their appeal critically and culturally. Their initial fame wasn't irrelevant in their success but The Beatle's reputation (certainly not their current one) doesn't hinge around female teenage fans.

    Yes, they're the most praised at the time, because like @CrabKey said, they had the most advantage compared to the other musicians at the time, despite of their songs not being complex and deep, what got to their status were the Beatlemania, if that thing hadn't happened, they couldn't carved themselves out in the Pop Culture history, now, they have the advantage, they've released more and more songs to assure their place, and overshadow the other acts in every year that they exist (nothing bad about that, but it's just the advantage, they've happened to overshadow several talented acts at the time, some were even more talented than them, but The Beatles got the advantage to do so, and that's the fame, think of the same for Britney Spears or The Spice Girls), now the world hail them as the Kings of Music Industry and all other artists will be compared to them, despite of them, that if we look at their works back then, discover more buried artists in the past (hidden gems), we would see that there are many talented bands at the time and The Beatles were not the only one whom they're calling Musical Geniuses.

    If Bob Dylan were to meet another British Band at the time or to meet several British bands at the time aside from The Beatles, he would've had many options to choose and to praise, but it's only The Beatles who became big, got to meet him in person and praised them, I'm not sure how many bands and acts had he met at the time though.

    I acknowledge The Beatles, they've made catchy and iconic songs, I acknowledge it, they're famous, charismatic and became memorable, but I think, it's just stop promoting them heavily as the best, to the point that they're being treated with Prestige that the other musicians were not getting, they're being specially treated, as if they're a national treasure or some sort of those things. (Really, Ringo Starr in RRHOF?) Okay, I rest my case 😅
  • Posts: 2,026
    @Peter - Exactly! Good music is good music. Sixties child that I am, I love the 80's. Not a lot after. If I like it, I don't care what year it's from. So yeah, on my iPod, I've got Tears for Fears, Gerry and the Pacemakers, Strawberry Alarm Clock, Iron Butterfly, M&M, Neil Young, The Brass Ring, Coldplay, Mandy Moore, Daft Punk, Vanessa Mae, George Michael, Prince and several hundred more.

    Who's the greatest? Whomever I'm listening to at the moment. If someone doesn't like what I like, I don't care. I am not trying to sell them on anything. I simply respect their right to be wrong :) and move on.
Sign In or Register to comment.