Are the Beatles over-rated?

[drat01]

 

http://www.cybermidi.com/news/index.php/practical-midi/announcements/an-amazing-list-of-beatle-firsts

That whole article is a complete hoot!

First band to use pigs in a recording (seriously!)… First band to use a Mellotron (made in Brum btw) in a recording (untrue - Graham Bond)… "The Fab Four were the first ban where you can hear more than one singer!"…

Thanks for sharing, better than your usual material I must admit

 

The point was not me endorsing the article but an example of the list of the things that people use when faced with what is a pretty silly argument.

 

Even with your, IMO OTT, hatred of the Beatles you cannot dispute that they were very much the most influential band that there has been. You may not agree with the influence or with the type of music etc but surely you cannot deny that they hold a very high if not highest place in the list of influencers of what we can call modern music. The stats back that up, the quotes from people in the industry back that up, the longevity of their appeal backs that up.

The Beatles were a "package" also, not just the 4 members of the band but also people like epstien and martin and whole host of others. They took certain things to totally different levels from where they were previously, again something that you cannot argue against.

 

I appreciate you do not like their music and that is fine, but there does seem to be a lot of lack of recognition for what they did and when

 

If nowt else it's given me an excuse to sort out a decent Beatles playlist for the long flight tomorrow :-)

Edited November 15, 2013 by drat01

[Wainy316]

I've only ever just thought of this but 'The Beatles'?  what a terrible and unimaginative name for a band.   Carry on.

[PaulC]

I don't think anybody can say they are over-rated. I'd think we'd have to be around in the 60's to really appreciate them. They are loved by Americans young and old. I had an American girlfriend for 7 years and everytime she came over the first thing she wanted to do was go to Liverpool and go on the magical mystery tour. When the Beatles were around their wasn't the diversity of music there is today.

 

With technology now you cant compare the music to what we hear today, but they had a unique simplistic style and with the exception of Ringo they were all good musicians. I think they were better collectively than individually. I didn't like Wings or the Mcartney stuff but Lennon wrote some classics like Imagine.. Their music has stood the test of time.

[bickster]

The stats back that up

I would be absolutely delighted to see the "stats" on this

[Xann]

With respect anyone saying Ringo was a poor drummer is talking rubbish

 

I'll take that as a compliment from the master

 

He's not shit, just limited.

 

And "she said she said" is a master class of drumming

 

Your sights are set way too low.

 

If you're bored of an evening have a listen to the Shadows drummer, Brian Bennett.

 

the BBC Radiophonic Workshop had been doing it and they even released records produced by none other than George Martin before the Beatles had cut their first record.

 

Aye, Varese and the Concrete bunch were hardly mainstream, but the Radiophonic Workshop got into living rooms everywhere.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Xann

[bickster]

I've only ever just thought of this but 'The Beatles'?  what a terrible and unimaginative name for a band.   Carry on.

So bad the bloke that came up with it left to be an artist in Germany

[drat01]

[The_Rev]

I liked John Lennon's famous quote about Ringo. Best drummer in the world? He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles.

Edited November 15, 2013 by The_Rev

[AVFCforever1991]

[MakemineVanilla]

 

they introduced sampling to the mainstream, first use of feedback on a recording...

Here we go again more utter nonsense.

Did the Beatles invent time travel too?

 

 

Poet Philip Larkin even suggests that they might even have invented sexual intercourse but he is definitely ambiguous about it.

 

Sexual intercourse began

In nineteen sixty-three

(which was rather late for me) -

Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban

And the Beatles' first LP.

Edited November 15, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[tonyh29]

 

I've only ever just thought of this but 'The Beatles'?  what a terrible and unimaginative name for a band.   Carry on.

So bad the bloke that came up with it left to be an artist in Germany

 

 

if you mean Sutcliffe , his suggestion was  "The Beatals"   so pedant time again , he didn't come up with the name  

[hogso]

No, I think they are rated exactly as they should be

[tonyh29]

Might be one for Bicks...

 

http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/

 

Interesting if true, must be hard for some people to come to the realisation that the people they idolise are just humans and have flaws like everyone else.

 

Good music though...

 

well on the basis that some of his facts are clearly false  , it doesn't necessarily give his other facts much credence 

 

that web site is basically a poor mans rehash of Albert Goldman's book

[StefanAVFC]

Stefan is right in a fashion. The Beatles were certainly one of the first exponents of sampling on tracks that were in the mainstream. And many people did follow on from their success on certain tracks

And they did that through the expertise of George Martin who's contribution Stefan referred to as irrelevant to those sound effects.

George Martin was very much involved in the creative process of Beatle song writing and many if not all the most notable sound effects unique to that time were created by Martin and his engineers.

As stated before people who haven't already read Martin's book on the making of Sergeant Pepper should take the time to read it as it discloses just how important his role was in making music by the Beatles so experimental and unique to it's time.

Do you deliberately ignore what is written to cause arguments?

I didn't say his contribution was irrelevant. I bloody even said that without him they wouldn't have been the band that they were. You're taking comments completely out of context, which is understandable to an extent but then even when you've had the context clearly explained, you're flogging with the same whip.

Im on my phone so I can't repost what I said and I can't be bothered to write it out again but look back at my previous posts because you obviously haven't read them properly.

So in the future, kindly refer from putting words in my mouth. That would be grand.

Edited November 15, 2013 by StefanAVFC

[bickster]

I've only ever just thought of this but 'The Beatles'?  what a terrible and unimaginative name for a band.   Carry on.

So bad the bloke that came up with it left to be an artist in Germany

 

if you mean Sutcliffe , his suggestion was  "The Beatals"   so pedant time again , he didn't come up with the name

It was the first time the B word in any shape or form entered the title of said over-rated band. No Stu - No Beatles

On a completely different note I've even seen Epstein credited in a few places for "sending them to Germany to learn their craft", naturally its yet another piece of Beatlenonsense. He hadn't even heard of them then, that was the bands first manager, the man who drank out on his title of the "Beatles First Manager" for decades afterwards, the completely obnoxious drunken dick that was Allan Williams. Which of course tells you that Brian Epstein didn't in fact "discover" the Beatles at all. And trust me I've heard the stories a thousand times with the slurring in different places each time.

[MakemineVanilla]

The next question.

 

Did the Beatles ever produce a perfect single?

 

Personally I would rate things like the Kinks' Waterloo Sunset as perfect and Ike and Tina Turner's River Deep Mountain High.

 

Which Beatles' single do you think reached that level of perfection?

[tonyh29]

 

 

 

I've only ever just thought of this but 'The Beatles'?  what a terrible and unimaginative name for a band.   Carry on.

So bad the bloke that came up with it left to be an artist in Germany

 

 

if you mean Sutcliffe , his suggestion was  "The Beatals"   so pedant time again , he didn't come up with the name

 

It was the first time the B word in any shape or form entered the title of said over-rated band. No Stu - No Beatles

On a completely different note I've even seen Epstein credited in a few places for "sending them to Germany to learn their craft", naturally its yet another piece of Beatlenonsense. He hadn't even heard of them then, that was the bands first manager, the man who drank out on his title of the "Beatles First Manager" for decades afterwards, the completely obnoxious drunken dick that was Allan Williams. Which of course tells you that Brian Epstein didn't in fact "discover" the Beatles at all. And trust me I've heard the stories a thousand times with the slurring in different places each time.

 

 

Close but no buffalo .. they were called the Black Jacks when they first started out   

[bickster]

THE B word not a word with B as its first letter.

[PaulC]

The question of perfect single is very subjective. They produced many more great singles than Ike and Tina Turner and the Kinks did to be fair.

[bickster]

I appreciate you do not like their music and that is fine, but there does seem to be a lot of lack of recognition for what they did and when

I prefer to think of it as an appreciation of what they actually didn't do first and and who actually did it before them.