Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Riordan
yes. i'll even go further and claim that this is the one true OBJECTIVE answer to the question. why? "most overrated" implies a very high rating that is completely unfounded. now who else in pop music is commonly rated as high as "the king"? only the beatles are. don't get me wrong, elvis was a good singer, had charisma. but that's it. "the king of rock'n'roll"? that claim is as hilarious as any alien abduction theory.
|
It gets into the issue of what exactly "overrated" means to begin with. If you ask people to name a musician with great technical prowess on his instrument or a perfect combination of voice and singing technic, I don't think many people would mention Elvis or any of the Beatles. You might find some flashy guitarist who is actually hiding behind a weak technique or lacks innovation and is yet considered a guitar god even by the critics, and that is someone who would be truly overrated. I guess that is where people are going with Kenny G, but again I never really thought of his as a critically acclaimed saxaphonist so much as a guy who makes music that people find very easy to listen to.
Anyways, back to Elvis and the Beatles. They will often get listed on "Greatest" rock and roll artists, songs, albums, etc. lists. To me the word "great" has two meanings, "better than good" and "bigger than large", and when someone is making a "greatest" list, both meanings count. It becomes not about what song you think is best, but what really good song inspired millions of people? Nirvana was neither the first band with their type of sound nor the most talented, but they were the ones who were able to get everyone listening to it. They deserve a degree of acclaim in that regard, just as Elvis does. But to the extent that some people think that Elvis "invented" rock and roll or that Nirvana was creating something unique, that is when they become overrated.