Jump to content

Are the Beatles over-rated?


ender4

Recommended Posts

Hey Jude is just about the worst thing in the world ever.  Watching Paul McCartney take a deep breath, contort his face then launch into that "Naaaaaa, naaaaaaaaaa, na na na na" nonsense is enough to make me want to go on a gun totin' rampage.

 

I quite like "Eleanor Rigby" though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think their music is a bit over rated. I mean, I like some of their songs, some I like a lot, but many of them are kind of "meh" to me. But that's just my taste. Beatles as a band was/is the biggest band there ever was. Sure, one can ask the question if they'd been that big if they broke through 20 years later and maybe they wouldn't. But the fact is that they did it then, with competition, and no one else came near then and haven't come near since either. And even if they haven't influenced every band on the planet, they're most likely the band that has influenced the most. All respect to them. And I think their best songs are quite timeless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long long list from Drat quoting lots of people influenced by the Beatles (which i won't quote).

 

As far as i can tell, it basically boils down to only Oasis from the last 20 years.

 

and a couple of people who admired John Lennon as a person rather than The Beatles music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so, I don't mind their early stuff but I prefer the later stuff, the early stuff was a bit teeny bop but was still catchy and good, their are a few bands I prefer to the beatles but I don't think their overrated, by no means the best band ever as some people think but still a great album band, you can't compare boy bands of today to the beatles because the beatles was not a boy band in the sense like westlife etc etc were, bands back in the 60s and 70s had genuine talent and made huge statements

If your into boy bands then yes take that are great but you can't compare them even slightly to the beatles, beatles have a much bigger fanbase aswell, take that were big but only to a certain group of people, the beatles music is liked by all kinds of people that are into all types of music, a lot of bands are talented including take that but theirs bands then theirs bands, p.s you are joking aint you? Surely you are

What about Take That as a better comparision?

They write their own songs, you have to admit they have talent, they probably had as many fans as the Beatles worldwide, and sold multiple millions across the world, and have been around for a long time (20 years?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

picked up the stereo remastered boxset (14 albums, the black one) for £30 in a market in Beijing, quite possibly the greatest bargain ive ever bought, they also have the lennon one for £30 but that's a cube and I couldn't fit it in my case :(

 

skimming over the posts in this thread interesting that I haven't seen anyone mention elvis, possibly the 1 artist that is often suggested as being bigger / more influential than the beatles and yet at a guess most of us (certainly personally) Id guess hardly any of us listen to, mooney might know better if he is overrated or if its a yank thing or if his influence just isn't as well publicised, but I don't often sit and listen to bands and think this is great they sound just like elvis...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every band out their are overrated by someone, I aint gonna argue with someone who reckons the beatles are the greatest and I aint gonna argue with someone who thinks the stones are the greatest, I rate sabbath,zep,stones,the who, purple mk2, the doors just off the top of my head as better than the beatles but as many people have said you can't dismiss what they done to music and the world at the time, you will be hard pressed to find a musician who does not appreciate what they done

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular music evolves in increments of the acceptable.

 

Artists who manage to make a new form acceptable to mainstream culture move the evolution of popular music forward.

 

So artists like Lonnie Donegan and Elvis enjoy their place in the pantheon for doing so.

 

Artists like Jerry Lee Lewis were just too far ahead of that curve and were barred from entering the country: their acceptance had to wait.

 

Elvis was a white man who sang like a black man and his acceptability enabled black music to enter mainstream public taste and imagination.

 

Black rock'n roll artists were just not quite acceptable to the British or American public, even into the 1960's. Look at the charts of the time and see all those brilliant records by black artists which were rejected and the abysmal covers by white artists which topped the charts.

 

The Beatles were the perfect combination of acceptability and progressiveness which totally revolutionised the popular music industry, both here and in America.

 

Their adoration in America (the land of rock 'n roll) and the commercial success led to a revolution in the music industry, which was that the artist suddenly became the creative auteur and which put them at the centre of creativity. This is the biggest thing which the Beatles contributed to popular music and which every band now owes a debt to.

 

Up until then the big artists were mostly singing other people's songs with a few mainstream exceptions like Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry (CB never had a British top-ten hit until 1964).

 

So in my view people have to forget how the Beatles sound (good, bad or indifferent) and follow the arc of the evolution of pop music from the early 1960s to the progressive rock of the 1970s and beyond, and acknowledge that without that shift from Brill building hits to artists having their own creative vision, the cornucopia of diversity which is the modern popular music scene would almost certainly not exist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like some elvis stuff but I aint what you call a fan, I like some early blues like muddy waters and howling wolf but I to struggle with 50s rock n roll, zeppelin were an incredible band, wish I was around at the time but what I read is that they were enourmous, especially in the states where I even think they became bigger than the beatles, when I think about it zep were probaly the best rock n roll band closely followed by the stones, my fav band along with the sabs so I'm gonna say that but I just can't see anyone who had the whole package like zep did, sabbath had the albums but not the live shows and the who had the live shows but not enough first class albums, purple when on the top of their game were probaly best live band along with zep but they were also up and down, like I said I think the stones were very close,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Can't be impartial about The Beatles; it was my era as a youth; so would just suggest that their importance cannot be overstated.

Rugeley Villa's point about other musos appreciating them is a great post IMO. Check out the buddy Rich version of 'Norwegian Wood' or if you like bass playing at it's best try the Victor Wooten version of the same number. Also the Jeff Beck version of 'Day in The Life'; these are incredibly strong numbers and I just can't see the stuff of the last 20 years being covered in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not slating the beatles as musicians because they were clearly talented but it goes to show you don't have to have amazing musicians to have a great band, harrison was no ritchie blackmore and ringo was no bonham but as a band they had chemistry and a feel, I think the lyrics were the main force behind the band, great lyrics which make you think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â