Poll

Are The Beatles Overated?

Yes (They Suck!)
6 (17.1%)
No (They Were Ahead Of Their Time)
29 (82.9%)

Total Members Voted: 32

Voting closed: December 29, 2009, 12:05:18 PM

Author Topic: Are The Beatles Overated?  (Read 13914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Izzy

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 964
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #60 on: December 26, 2009, 07:48:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.


No doubt; especially since the White Album recording sessions started almost a year before Led Zeppelin's debut came out

I rather think that Paul McCartney was aware of the changing musical trends going on around him and the heavier rock sounds of the newly formed Led Zeppelin and others and attempted to incorporate that into the Beatles sound when they composed The Beatles album.

I thought the song was the Beatles attempt at rocking harder than the who...

Revolver7

  • Guest
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #61 on: December 26, 2009, 07:49:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you have an inferiority complex with The Beatles or something.  Sure the Stones made some pop songs, rhythm & Blues, psychedelic songs, even raggae, disco and funk infused songs.  But generally speaking the Stones made better rock songs and the Beatles made better pop songs like the ones I listed above.  I've said it before and so I'll say it again I don't regard 'rock' as being superior to 'pop'.  If you wish to label the Beatles a rock band and their best songs rock songs then you can.  I consider most of what I believe to be the Beatles best songs as pop songs.  On the other hand I think of 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', for example, as a rock song.

Of course not. You and I just have different points of view that clash with each other. You started this thread; when you did that, you opened the door to both sides of the spectrum.

You're missing the point of my posts, and if you reread them, you'd realize I'm not arguing for or against The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. What I'm arguing is how Pop is defined and how Rock is defined, and how you lump  these two diverse bands (perhaps two of the most musically diverse rock bands that have ever existed) into such large, encompassing, and vast labels. You present the issue as black and white, while I present it as gray.

It ultimately comes down to personal preference and personal taste. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you. I've been perfectly civilized and open-minded in my posts. When you start a post with a topic, you should be prepared to defend your topic, and have a normal conversation about it, without bringing "inferiority complexes" and other bulls**t like that into it

That's all I have to say .  
« Last Edit: December 26, 2009, 07:51:46 PM by Revolver7 »

Offline JasontheJedi

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,103
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #62 on: December 26, 2009, 07:54:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know some people that claim The Beatles as the greatest yet never listen to their music.  ???

I'd say they're overrated in the sense that they're just the "go-to" band when asked who the greatest band is.

I don't think they're the best, but I do realize what they've done for music in general.

I know people that claim they're overrated, yet have never even listened to their music.

There's a reason they're the "go to" band.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we on the same page on what's "pop"? How can you say A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, Eleanor Rigby are pop?

To me, it's putting most of their songs on the same page as Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus, etc, which is extremely disrespectful and unbelievably ignorant. Sorry.

Why do you consider the label 'Pop' is inferior to 'Rock'?

I, for one, am on the same page as Shockdocta and think most Beatles songs sound popish.

Here's the definition of pop music from Wikipedia (I know, always accurate):

Musicologists often identify the following characteristics as typical of the pop music genre:[2][3][4][6]

    * a focus on the individual song or singles, rather than on extended works or albums
    * an aim of appealing to a general audience, rather than to a particular sub-culture or ideology
    * an emphasis on craftsmanship rather than formal "artistic" qualities
    * an emphasis on recording, production, and technology, over live performance
    * a tendency to reflect existing trends rather than progressive developments


This sounds a lot like anybody from American Idol, Chris Brown, boy bands, Black Eyed Peas (embarassed U2 chose them to open...Fergie lip-synched for goodness sake. Pathetic!). That is why I feel the label "pop"  is inferior to rock.

The Beatles progressed. They wrote full albums, with every song being brilliant. They were great musicians together and individually (okay, Ringo is questionable).

I think we're going around in circles because of the definition of pop. Sure the Beatles have some catchy songs, I'm not denying that. But that doesn't automatically make them a pop band or their songs pop.

Whether people want to believe it, there's a reason almost every band you hear says their influenced by the Beatles and why the Beatles are still popular today. If you don't like their music, fine.

But they are not overrated.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22,131
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #63 on: December 26, 2009, 07:57:04 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you have an inferiority complex with The Beatles or something.  Sure the Stones made some pop songs, rhythm & Blues, psychedelic songs, even raggae, disco and funk infused songs.  But generally speaking the Stones made better rock songs and the Beatles made better pop songs like the ones I listed above.  I've said it before and so I'll say it again I don't regard 'rock' as being superior to 'pop'.  If you wish to label the Beatles a rock band and their best songs rock songs then you can.  I consider most of what I believe to be the Beatles best songs as pop songs.  On the other hand I think of 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', for example, as a rock song.

Of course not. You and I just have different points of view that clash with each other. You started this thread; when you did that, you opened the door to both sides of the spectrum.

You're missing the point of my posts, and if you reread them, you'd realize I'm not arguing for or against The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. What I'm arguing is how Pop is defined and how Rock is defined, and how you lump  these two diverse bands (perhaps two of the most musically diverse rock bands that have ever existed) into such a large and vast labels. You present the issue as black and white, while I present it as gray.

It ultimately comes down to personal preference and personal taste. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you. I've been perfectly civilized and open-minded in my posts. When you start a post with a topic, you should be prepared to defend your topic, and have a normal conversation about it, without bringing "inferiority complexes" and other bulls**t like that into it

That's all I have to say .  

I have my own perception of pop and rock or any other form of music and you will not be defining it for me.

Offline Northern Soul

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,185
  • I'm not coming down...
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2009, 10:23:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you have an inferiority complex with The Beatles or something.  Sure the Stones made some pop songs, rhythm & Blues, psychedelic songs, even raggae, disco and funk infused songs.  But generally speaking the Stones made better rock songs and the Beatles made better pop songs like the ones I listed above.  I've said it before and so I'll say it again I don't regard 'rock' as being superior to 'pop'.  If you wish to label the Beatles a rock band and their best songs rock songs then you can.  I consider most of what I believe to be the Beatles best songs as pop songs.  On the other hand I think of 'Jumpin' Jack Flash', for example, as a rock song.

Of course not. You and I just have different points of view that clash with each other. You started this thread; when you did that, you opened the door to both sides of the spectrum.

You're missing the point of my posts, and if you reread them, you'd realize I'm not arguing for or against The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. What I'm arguing is how Pop is defined and how Rock is defined, and how you lump  these two diverse bands (perhaps two of the most musically diverse rock bands that have ever existed) into such a large and vast labels. You present the issue as black and white, while I present it as gray.

It ultimately comes down to personal preference and personal taste. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you. I've been perfectly civilized and open-minded in my posts. When you start a post with a topic, you should be prepared to defend your topic, and have a normal conversation about it, without bringing "inferiority complexes" and other bulls**t like that into it

That's all I have to say .  

I have my own perception of pop and rock or any other form of music and you will not be defining it for me.

Well, fine, but to argue your own definition of something vs someone else's is somewhat pointless.

Offline Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine)

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,777
  • 2 souls 2 cool 2 B in the realm of certainty
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2009, 01:23:25 PM »
This is a difficult topic for me. I've said before that it's ludicrous to deny the influence of the Beatles on music and culture.  They used the studio as an instrument in a way that many people have tried to replicate, and Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were genius songwriters. That being said, I can name 20 bands/artists off the top of my head whom I would rather listen to. In addition, my opinion is that the Beatles sacrificed a good portion of their career concentrating on crafting albums and not developing a thorough live legacy. Does that make them overrated? Hard to say. They have written tons of classic songs, but they also wrote a lot of nonsensical clunkers too.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2009, 01:27:52 PM by Joe G (Believes in Father Christmas) »

Offline jackofhearts

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 659
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2009, 03:19:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.


No doubt; especially since the White Album recording sessions started almost a year before Led Zeppelin's debut came out

"Helter Skelter" was actually written after he heard The Who's "I Can See For Miles."   

shockdocta22

  • Guest
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2009, 03:20:12 PM »
really? i dont notice a resemblance between the two?

Offline Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople]

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,426
  • too much is not enough
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #68 on: December 28, 2009, 09:38:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.


No doubt; especially since the White Album recording sessions started almost a year before Led Zeppelin's debut came out

"Helter Skelter" was actually written after he heard The Who's "I Can See For Miles."   

Actually, it was written after he read a review of that song calling it the heaviest thing The Who had recorded. McCartney was like, let me try to see how heavy I can record.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22,131
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #69 on: December 29, 2009, 04:56:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.


No doubt; especially since the White Album recording sessions started almost a year before Led Zeppelin's debut came out

"Helter Skelter" was actually written after he heard The Who's "I Can See For Miles."   

Actually, it was written after he read a review of that song calling it the heaviest thing The Who had recorded. McCartney was like, let me try to see how heavy I can record.


He should have stuck with the melodious pop songs :)

Offline Johnny Amsterdam

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2009, 06:10:28 PM »
Penny Lane was one of the first songs I remember liking when I was three years old

Offline Thunder Peel

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,549
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #71 on: December 30, 2009, 08:26:28 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is a difficult topic for me. I've said before that it's ludicrous to deny the influence of the Beatles on music and culture.  They used the studio as an instrument in a way that many people have tried to replicate, and Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were genius songwriters. That being said, I can name 20 bands/artists off the top of my head whom I would rather listen to. In addition, my opinion is that the Beatles sacrificed a good portion of their career concentrating on crafting albums and not developing a thorough live legacy. Does that make them overrated? Hard to say. They have written tons of classic songs, but they also wrote a lot of nonsensical clunkers too.

This is a great way of summing up how I feel as well. I definitely respect them for what they accomplished and their career was certainly incredible and their influence can't be denied. However, there are many other artists that I find more compelling and more interesting. I like The Beatles but I'm not crazy about them; there are more bands and artists that hold my interest. It's just personal preference.

Offline Northern Soul

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,185
  • I'm not coming down...
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #72 on: December 30, 2009, 09:23:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is a difficult topic for me. I've said before that it's ludicrous to deny the influence of the Beatles on music and culture.  They used the studio as an instrument in a way that many people have tried to replicate, and Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were genius songwriters. That being said, I can name 20 bands/artists off the top of my head whom I would rather listen to. In addition, my opinion is that the Beatles sacrificed a good portion of their career concentrating on crafting albums and not developing a thorough live legacy. Does that make them overrated? Hard to say. They have written tons of classic songs, but they also wrote a lot of nonsensical clunkers too.

This is a great way of summing up how I feel as well. I definitely respect them for what they accomplished and their career was certainly incredible and their influence can't be denied. However, there are many other artists that I find more compelling and more interesting. I like The Beatles but I'm not crazy about them; there are more bands and artists that hold my interest. It's just personal preference.

The fact that you respect them and their influence on music is something that any music fan should be able to comprehend.  You don't have to love them, but you should respect them for what they've done.

Offline Domenico of Lovetown

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,883
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #73 on: December 30, 2009, 01:49:03 PM »
No - they are among the founding fathers.  We might not love all parts of the catalog, but when they are ON they are ON.

Offline TheFly

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 440
Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
« Reply #74 on: December 31, 2009, 06:44:49 AM »
Achtungandy quote:

Quote
I have just chipped in with my opinion on the Beatles appreciation thread   (personally i just don't get it, i think they are the most overated band ever!) Come on, all they did was write nonsense lyrics off their heads and they get labelled "ahead of their time" and "geniuses"!

Someone else who thinks the same!

It's only mid-'60s - about the time of Day Tripper, Paperback Writer, and Rubber Soul - onwards when i think the Beatles got great, but it doesn't cancel out the rubbish that went before it. So many of those early songs are nursery rhyme lyrics and melodies. It's a shame because some of the music (take away lyrics and melodies) was really very good. Bob Dylan was a far superior lyricist, and there were other bands and singers so much better at creating a song than early Beatles.

I started a thread in similarity a while back and everyone got quite annoyed. It seems the Beatles are considered saintly and should be defended at every turn. We are allowed to criticize them!