Anyone else a big rolling stone fan? Best wishes to Charlie Watts, one of the longest serving members.

Charlie Watts died of ligma this is so sad, no sugondese person deserves this

even frenchies should appreciate the rolling stones...

extremely overrated band in my opinion

lol you're joking, thats rly funny, hahahHAHAHAHA

The Rolling Stones are my most streamed artist. Right before Frank Zappa.

They just have a massive amount of great songs.

Not everyone can get as old as the Queen.

I'm not joking the Rolling Stones are overrated

said nobody ever, except you

Said tons of people.

Are they trash? No. But any band as revered as they are is overrated.

In terms of sheer talent, not impact on music, or culture, etc. someone like Charlie Watts has nothing on someone like Neil Peart or John Bonham.

Edited 8/27/2021 15:41:29

so beatles are over-rated too?

Yes.

Watch Charlie Watts play the drums.

Now watch Neil Peart play the drums. Please tell me Charlie Watts is the more talented drummer with a straight face.

Is the Rolling Stones more influential than Rush? Absolutely. Does that make their members the most talented, or better than those of less renowned bands? No.

Charlie Watts was a good drummer, there are others though who frankly perform magic with drumsticks by comparison.

Edited 8/27/2021 15:46:07

so in my RIP Charlie Watts post you would rather argue that rolling stones is over rated and charlie watts isnt as good as neil whoever

the definition of ratings, is it is subjective/comparative. when you're the best, there is no over-rating, because you can't rate the best. rolling stones were the best in their time and there is little arguing that lol. sure, you may not like their music, or you may enjoy another band more, but widespread opinion would be rolling stones is one of the greatest.

Every band you can think of will have people calling it overrated. You don't need to agree with those statements, but you're the one that got butthurt over it.

Not to mention you're contradicting yourself and failing to form anything resembling a coherent argument.

> the definition of ratings, is it is subjective/comparative

> when you're the best, there is no over-rating, because you can't rate the best.

Ratings are subjective, yet you supposedly also can't rate the best. If ratings are subjective, so is the concept of being 'the best'.

Edited 8/27/2021 15:49:33

i dont say charlie watts is best drummer ever. but he was one of the longest participating members in the band, and i think that speaks a lot !!

you cant over-rate something that is the best in its category. that makes 0 sense

If ratings are subjective there isn't a best in a category. Or do you not actually agree with the things you yourself say?

And, yes, you can overrate the best.

If you have me try two things and I say one is a million times better than the other, it might be the better of the two, but I can still overrate it by exaggerating the extent of its superiority.

Both your statements are wrong.


You can't claim there isn't a best, and also claim a specific thing is the best. And yes, you can, irrefutably overrate the best by exaggerating the extent of their superiority.

I'm not even trying to shit on the rolling stones, they're fine, but this:

"said nobody ever, except you"

Just keep stupid shit like this to yourself.

A quick google search for "Rolling Stones" overrated, returns 177,000 results, it's a frankly fairly popular stance.

For Bands like the Beatles and Stones to not be overrated, they'd need to be so far better than everyone else that everyone else was trash, and everyone else isn't trash.

Your "Neil Whatever" comment shows this frankly, you don't even recognize the name of the deceased drummer of Rush, who is widely rated as a top 5 drummer of all time, and is usually put in the top 3 alongside John Bonham of Led Zeppelin, and Keith Moon of The Who.

Edited 8/27/2021 16:11:25

TL;DR

but I agree with my chum Nauzykins

okay let me try to explain.

ratings can only be done when there is something to scale them to. this makes them subjective. we only know what is the best because its what we seen. maybe i shouldnt have used that word. either way, ratings are comparative.

how. do. you. over. rate. something. that. is. the. best.

rolling stones is widely acclaimed one of the greatest rock band (atleast of its time) that is fact. so if a 10 is rated a 10, how is it over rated? rolling stones is a 10. greatest of all time. it is not possible to rate over-rate it because it is already rated the highest possible. hope that makes sense. there is no going past 10. if you rated them a 9, that would be under-valued. right?

now if what you're saying is rolling stones is bad music and shouldnt be critically acclaimed, that is just silly. there are critics for a reason! ofc you may like other music more but there rly is no arguing that rolling stones is over-rated unless you have a personal taste that interferes with your bias.

also nauz i dont need to keep stupid shit like that to myself, you need to be less toxic. THIS IS A REST IN PEACE CHARLIE WATTS THREAD AND YOURE DISSING THE DEAD. fuck off dude!

don't come in my threads and tell me what i can or cant say, i didnt know you were a warzone moderator, or my dad. okay... jeez