i dont think metallica or led zep are overrated because i like them and i think they're both pretty damn good. i think the most overrated bands are nirvana, the ramones, and black sabbath. i get how sabbath influenced a lot of good bands but to call them the best is something i don't understand.

here's another one: The Doors

now that's definitely an overrated band for me

The *** Pistols, Rush, The Smashing Pumpkins, Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam, Sonic Youth, Tom Petty, Tool, U2.

You make a good point but I would say this, if there's a band more than 20 years old and we're sitting around debating on whether or not they're over rated, chances are they're not if we're still talking about them. I generally apply the term over rated to newer bands who have not had a chance to establish any longevity...

We're still talking about Motley Crue, aren't we? I don't see how longevity makes music better/worse, or more important.

See if this makes sense...

Awhile back, I saw an Andy Warhol exhibit downtown and for the first time, I had a chance to really look at his work in depth. While he was/is a celebrated artist, the reality is that a large body of his printed work can easily be duplicated with Photoshop today. What took him hours, possibly days back in the 60's, any graphic artist can now do in about 5 minutes. Does this mean Andy Warhol is overrated as an artist? Of course not... Maybe the impact of his work is lost on younger generations because there are filters in Photoshop that emulate his style, but back when he was doing it, there were no computers and he was the only one doing it.

The point I'm trying to make is that maybe by modern standards you could say Motley Crue (or many of the other bands discussed here) may no longer be as relevant as they once were, but I don't think that those of you who weren't "musically conscious" when some of these bands were at their peaks are really qualified to refer to them as overrated. Personally, I don't care for the Beatles one bit, but it's ridiculous to call them overrated. They were all excellent musicians and they did things that 1) Nobody else was doing at the time, 2) Influenced COUNTLESS other bands 3) are still a topic of discussion even today (some 40 years later). My personal belief is that whether or not you like someones music, if you can make those 3 claims about them that I just made about the Beatles, overrated is the wrong word.

*counters with left hook*
To me what makes a band great is timelssnes. Will they sound dated and cliche in 40 years, or fresh and modern, no matter how many time they've been copied? Led Zeppelin sounds dated and cliche. The Beatles and King Crimson do not. Hence Led Zeppelin is overrated. Also, considering the massive amount of teenage boys that follow Led Zeppelin, I'd say that it's certainly possible to judge something you weren't around for.

I suppose it could be argued that SOME Zep sounds dated but that's equally true of The Beatles... I think that timelessness is definitely a good litmus test as to the overall quality of a band but if that's where all the weight is placed... I guess 98% of the bands out there are overrated according to your frame of reference... In that case, it might be easier to discuss who ISN'T overrated...

As for teenagers... I just assume not trust their judgment on ANYTHING

Christ dood, Tool??? U2??? U2 enjoys both longevity and most of their music has progressed right along with the times. Tool??? They play so much **** in 7/8 time and make it digestible to the masses... Something NOBODY does. There's nothing dated or cliche' about their sound either. Unless of course those words are synonyms for unique.

I dislike U2 because they're all amateur musicians who can't write a decent/riff/song/lyric to save their life. And Bono has the worst ****ing voice ever. It's really not very hard to write catchy 7/8 songs. Excuse me, but what Beatles album post-Revolver sounds dated? Besides Let It be obviously. Yah, I'd say most bands that are hailed as classic are overated. Not 98%, but a pretty big percentage.