So the ROLLING STONES are over-rated...huh?! The STONES just finished up a 2 year Tour. Grossed $$500 million dollars at the gate and played to 1.5 million fans! ...and they're all in their 60's except Ronnie Wood. A 45 year recording and performing career! ! ! The Highest Tour $$gross$$ in music history! Let's hear all the lame bands that are better then the STONES! All their careers have lasted about 45 minutes and they play for and earn pennies. They couldn't follow Mick around the stage for 10 minutes...and they would be winded! Couldn't carry Keith's guitar or play a riff that was memorable. Who are all these great bands that really matter? Their guitars and drums will be collecting dust and they'll be Walmart greeter's when they're in their 50's. Go figure. Don In a message dated 11/25/2007 6:07:50 P.M. Central Standard Time, audities-owner@smoe.org writes: This looks more like "Bands that personally piss me off and get too much press ink." Are Bruce, the Stones, Tom Waits or Elvis Presley really "overrated in the same way as The Killer and Lily Allen? Just what do you mean by "overrated"? Ron Katcher wrote: Dave Matthews ----- Original Message ----- From: "AssociationWorks" To: Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: 25 over-rated bands or artists > Rolling Stones **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)