@U2 Forum

Community Center => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Achtung Andy on December 22, 2009, 12:05:18 PM

Title: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Achtung Andy on December 22, 2009, 12:05:18 PM
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"!

Be interesting to see the results if anyone agrees, as there seems to be a lot Beatles fans on here...

If there's a resounding No vote, i'll keep my opinions on the Beatles to myself in future. Lol!

Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Northern Soul on December 22, 2009, 12:32:58 PM
If you think all they did was write nonsense lyrics you haven't hardly heard any Beatles songs.

Do yourself a favour, and go listen to:
In My Life
A Day In The Life
She's Leaving Home
Eleanor Rigby
For No One

...and that's just for starters.

In addition, many of the sounds you hear in today's music were crafted by The Beatles using innovative techniques, whereas today you can press a button on a keyboard to achieve the same thing.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: ElJayVee on December 22, 2009, 01:57:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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"!

Be interesting to see the results if anyone agrees, as there seems to be a lot Beatles fans on here...

If there's a resounding No vote, i'll keep my opinions on the Beatles to myself in future. Lol!

Bono, anyone? ;)

Seriously, I voted no, they are not overrated.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Miami66 on December 22, 2009, 03:32:36 PM
I love the Beatles especially Sgt. Pepper brilliant album. However I think the Rollingstones are overrated but if the Beatles were still around then I'd probably be saying the same thing  :-\
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: StrongGirl on December 22, 2009, 03:33:50 PM
This poll is an easy one for me - NO,  NO  a thousand times NO! :D
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 22, 2009, 03:34:19 PM
I think there a pretty good/great band, but they are a little overrated.  i just cant easily call them the best ever :-\
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Spaceman on December 22, 2009, 04:39:43 PM
Achtung Andy I am by no means a Beatles fan ok. I actually for the most part feel out of place for not liking the Beatles. But even I can tell you why the Beatles were labelled "ahead of their time". It's because they were. The Beatles changed music forever. And it doesn't take a Beatles fan to work that out. I pressume from your comments you didn't grow up in the 60's? If you'd had I suspect you'd think different. I didn't, but I did at least imagine what it would have been like. And that's when it starts to makes sense.

The Beatles were the first to do many of the things we hear in music today. And they have to be respected for that at least.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 22, 2009, 04:41:30 PM
Overrated FAR FROM IT. They practically single handily changed the musical landscape.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Miami66 on December 22, 2009, 05:41:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Overrated FAR FROM IT. They practically single handily changed the musical landscape.

I agree :)
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: JasontheJedi on December 22, 2009, 05:51:14 PM
No way are they overrated. One of the most impressive things to me is that their career lasted a mere 8 years, depending on when you start counting. Unbelievable.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: theocean on December 22, 2009, 06:10:45 PM
No, just listen to Rain, very hip for its day.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: U2_fan8 [aka U28] on December 22, 2009, 06:48:20 PM
The Beatles were amazing musicians, and I still believe the fact that they made the amount of the music that they did in 8 or so years is a testament to their greatness.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: jackofhearts on December 22, 2009, 08:16:04 PM
The idea that the Beatles are over-rated IS over-rated.  Ridiclious. 
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: u2yooper on December 22, 2009, 08:18:33 PM
No. They are not over-rated.  They are, or were, a turning point in popular music.  There is Before the Beatles and After the Beatles.  I think they led the way for a whole renaissance of music at that time.  Music at that time was so rich and diverse and exciting, and they were at the forefront of that.  No Beatles, no U2.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Discotheque Girl on December 23, 2009, 02:47:08 AM
I don't think Beatles suck,but I don't love them,either.

I think they are overratted,they aren't anything special,IMO.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Bads316 on December 23, 2009, 07:20:35 AM
Nope, 12 amazing albums in about 6 years speaks for itself, all of them different, all of them creative, all of them accessible. Great band, great personalities.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: suitoflights on December 23, 2009, 07:41:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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"!

Be interesting to see the results if anyone agrees, as there seems to be a lot Beatles fans on here...

If there's a resounding No vote, i'll keep my opinions on the Beatles to myself in future. Lol!



I'm with you on this one, but I think we are in the minority. I think they were just average musicians but they did have a knack for writing a catchy pop song. I think there are many better bands, but the Beatles just happened to be the first and in the right place at the right time.

The Stones, the Kinks, the Who and Bowie all superior.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Mr. T on December 23, 2009, 07:52:19 AM
Nope. They're under-rated.

They will always be the greatest band ever.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Bads316 on December 23, 2009, 07:54:43 AM
'' all they did was write nonsense lyrics off their heads'' = "all u2 songs sound the same'' = ''Dylan cant sing'' = ''its just noise'' its a cliche, its BS, its an easy remark for someone to make about something they don't understand - it doesnt make it bad, or wrong - its just not for you.
They've written some great great songs - its not an accident y'know. And I Am The Walrus was a dig at the British Government - LISTEN TO IT. If they weren't so revered you'd probably like them. Ignore everything else and just give the music a chance on its own merits, the songs weren't written with 50 years posterity in mind and neither should they be listened to that way.

If The Beatles first album had come out in 2004 they would be finished by now - keep that in mind.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam on December 23, 2009, 04:53:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No. They are not over-rated.  They are, or were, a turning point in popular music.  There is Before the Beatles and After the Beatles.  I think they led the way for a whole renaissance of music at that time.  Music at that time was so rich and diverse and exciting, and they were at the forefront of that.  No Beatles, no U2.
well that isn't entirely correct it more like No Skip james and Blind billie johnson (and a whole lot of blues singers) No Little Richard, fats domino, Chuck berry No Johnny Cash No Elvis No Beatles No rolling stones, doors, Hendrix, the who, the velvet underground, led zeppelin etc
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 23, 2009, 05:38:27 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again U2 are the band the Beatles could have been. ;D  The Beatles are a bit too poppy for my taste but having listened to most of their remasters this year I would say that their reputation is deserved.  They are pop and cultural icons and were at the forefront of cutting edge sounds in the 60's.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Izzy on December 23, 2009, 05:41:17 PM


[/quote]


I'm with you on this one, but I think we are in the minority. I think they were just average musicians but they did have a knack for writing a catchy pop song. I think there are many better bands, but the Beatles just happened to be the first and in the right place at the right time.

The Stones, the Kinks, the Who and Bowie all superior.
[/quote]

No way, look at how Sgt. Peppers changed the face of rock, how they were the first to come up with an album with a theme, a true LP as opposed to a collection of singles.

Also, what relevance has the Stones had since Exile on Main Street?
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 23, 2009, 05:46:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




I'm with you on this one, but I think we are in the minority. I think they were just average musicians but they did have a knack for writing a catchy pop song. I think there are many better bands, but the Beatles just happened to be the first and in the right place at the right time.

The Stones, the Kinks, the Who and Bowie all superior.
[/quote]

No way, look at how Sgt. Peppers changed the face of rock, how they were the first to come up with an album with a theme, a true LP as opposed to a collection of singles.

Also, what relevance has the Stones had since Exile on Main Street?
[/quote]

Musically, What relevance have the Beatles had since Abbey Road?  Of course in a broader sense the Beatles and the Stones continue to influence popular music today.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Revolver7 on December 23, 2009, 06:48:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Musically, What relevance have the Beatles had since Abbey Road?  Of course in a broader sense the Beatles and the Stones continue to influence popular music today.

They've had an unmeasureable influence since Abbey Road. Even though The Beatles broke up in 1970 (not long after long after Abbey Road) they've continued to shape, effect, and influence countless rock bands of the past 30 years. I could give you a list if you wanted, but that would take so long. They've sold over a billion albums worldwide. Abbey Road has sold 4 million album copies since 1991 alone. I'm a teenager, and almost everyone I know who is my age likes The Beatles

Even if you don't like them, to see their influence, all you have to do is look around at the past 40 years of music
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Revolver7 on December 23, 2009, 06:53:52 PM
And for those who think The Beatles are just pop artists...
Check out these songs:

Revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78

Helter Skelter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rInMQWpGpYg

Everybody's  Got Something to Hide Except For Me and My Monkey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBOUZT_5ODc

The End:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ddZU5Ipqg

Dig A Pony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnRIQhH-evo

I Got A Feeling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6V7Dxxxt7A

And that's just a few
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: nolinehere on December 23, 2009, 08:11:46 PM
A tad overrated, they neither suck or are the greatest ever

Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on December 23, 2009, 08:49:16 PM
The only reason people think the Beatles are too "pop" nowadays is because pop mainstream has fallen over itself trying to imitate what the Beatles did 40 years ago. When Helter Skelter was released it could hardly have been called mainstream, but that one song singlehandedly created hard rock and heavy metal and all subsequent heavier varieties. The Beatles revolutionised rock and roll. There's no other way around it.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Izzy on December 24, 2009, 12:46:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The only reason people think the Beatles are too "pop" nowadays is because pop mainstream has fallen over itself trying to imitate what the Beatles did 40 years ago. When Helter Skelter was released it could hardly have been called mainstream, but that one song singlehandedly created hard rock and heavy metal and all subsequent heavier varieties. The Beatles revolutionised rock and roll. There's no other way around it.

Beach Boys liked it:
 In April 1967, Wilson (who was suffering growing mental problems) was deeply affected by hearing a tape of the Pepper song "A Day in the Life", which McCartney played to him in Los Angeles. Soon after, Smile was abandoned, and Wilson would not return to complete it until 2003. Van Dyke Parks later said, "Brian had a nervous collapse. What broke his heart was Sgt. Pepper."
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: deco20 on December 24, 2009, 01:03:35 AM
Just because they were there first in terms of a "modern rock band" doesnt mean they are the best. I can think of other bands who did reach there first and are better. (The Clash, Velvet Underground, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Television etc.)

BUT

I cannot deny their musical contributions. I mean, without Lennon and Co, there maybe no U2.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 24, 2009, 11:41:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And for those who think The Beatles are just pop artists...
Check out these songs:

Revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78

Helter Skelter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rInMQWpGpYg

Everybody's  Got Something to Hide Except For Me and My Monkey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBOUZT_5ODc

The End:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ddZU5Ipqg

Dig A Pony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnRIQhH-evo

I Got A Feeling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6V7Dxxxt7A

And that's just a few

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 24, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Revolution seems more like Pop...
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: jackofhearts on December 24, 2009, 01:43:39 PM
Anyone who thinks the Beatles are over-rated and pop...seriously?  Are you human?  I think you might belong on that planet that is in Avatar with the blue people...
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Revolver7 on December 24, 2009, 05:23:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: deco20 on December 24, 2009, 07:02:40 PM
Pop basically means Popular. Were the Beatles popular? Hell yeah!

Are U2 popular? Hell YEAH!

Just like U2, The Beatles had their mainstream/alternative moments, though I still dont fancy the Beatles. Their songs always reminded me of what it would be like if Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry were in a band.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 24, 2009, 07:16:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book


The Rolling Stones were an effortless guitar driven rock band.  Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.

The Beatles greatest work is pop and there's no shame in that.  It's when they tried to imitate others that they fell on stoney ground.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Aqua on December 24, 2009, 07:17:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pop basically means Popular. Were the Beatles popular? Hell yeah!

Are U2 popular? Hell YEAH!

Just like U2, The Beatles had their mainstream/alternative moments, though I still dont fancy the Beatles. Their songs always reminded me of what it would be like if Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry were in a band.
:D :D :D
I think they are seen as such legends because the market they lived in was so easy to dominate, particularly with their type of music. I think U2 have had an extremely hard market to work with, not to mention the fact that rock is the lamest thing in the world right now. :) I think the beatles are amazingly good, but I don't think they're any better than U2 to be honest, it's just an illusion caused by popularity caused by the market.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Northern Soul on December 24, 2009, 08:54:34 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

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book


The Rolling Stones were an effortless guitar driven rock band.  Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.

The Beatles greatest work is pop and there's no shame in that.  It's when they tried to imitate others that they fell on stoney ground.

LOL...this is laughable.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 24, 2009, 08:55:46 PM
Well there best work is probably Let it be, Hey jude, I wanna hold your hand, Help...

those are a little more pop-ish
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: deco20 on December 25, 2009, 02:08:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pop basically means Popular. Were the Beatles popular? Hell yeah!

Are U2 popular? Hell YEAH!

Just like U2, The Beatles had their mainstream/alternative moments, though I still dont fancy the Beatles. Their songs always reminded me of what it would be like if Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry were in a band.
:D :D :D
I think they are seen as such legends because the market they lived in was so easy to dominate, particularly with their type of music. I think U2 have had an extremely hard market to work with, not to mention the fact that rock is the lamest thing in the world right now. :) I think the beatles are amazingly good, but I don't think they're any better than U2 to be honest, it's just an illusion caused by popularity caused by the market.

YES! Exactly!

I'm constantly impressed by U2. They have competed, outlasted and conquered many of their contempories and other bands.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 25, 2009, 09:51:30 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book


The Rolling Stones were an effortless guitar driven rock band.  Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.

The Beatles greatest work is pop and there's no shame in that.  It's when they tried to imitate others that they fell on stoney ground.

LOL...this is laughable.


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: JasontheJedi on December 25, 2009, 07:32:27 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book


The Rolling Stones were an effortless guitar driven rock band.  Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.

The Beatles greatest work is pop and there's no shame in that.  It's when they tried to imitate others that they fell on stoney ground.

LOL...this is laughable.


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.

You should be a comedian.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 25, 2009, 07:34:54 PM
those kind of are popish...
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: jackofhearts on December 25, 2009, 07:54:00 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book


The Rolling Stones were an effortless guitar driven rock band.  Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.

The Beatles greatest work is pop and there's no shame in that.  It's when they tried to imitate others that they fell on stoney ground.

LOL...this is laughable.


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.

And all of those songs are works of genius. 
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 25, 2009, 07:55:02 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book


The Rolling Stones were an effortless guitar driven rock band.  Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.

The Beatles greatest work is pop and there's no shame in that.  It's when they tried to imitate others that they fell on stoney ground.

LOL...this is laughable.


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.

And all of those songs are works of genius. 

they are good, but are Pop
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: jackofhearts on December 25, 2009, 09:59:42 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
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

If Revolution, Helter Skelter, Me and My Monkey et al are your examples of The Beatles playing rock I'm not convinced they aren't just pop artists.

There's guitar, bass, drums, and vocals...what is your definition of rock? Listen to guitar and the lyrics on Revolution. Tell me what is "pop" about that

And you're saying Helter Skelter is a pop song? Are you kidding me?

To each our own, I guess. The Beatles are definitely a rock band in my book


The Rolling Stones were an effortless guitar driven rock band.  Helter Skelter is just a forced attempt by Macca to write a rock tune, no doubt influenced by Led Zep.

The Beatles greatest work is pop and there's no shame in that.  It's when they tried to imitate others that they fell on stoney ground.

LOL...this is laughable.


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.

And all of those songs are works of genius. 

they are good, but are Pop

I still fail to see the problem here. 
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: JasontheJedi on December 26, 2009, 07:38:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 26, 2009, 12:40:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 26, 2009, 12:42:08 PM
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.

i never said Pop is bad though, but songs of theirs do sound a little more Popish, compare Eleanor Rigby to rock songs at the time from say..the Rolling Stones
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 26, 2009, 12:55:58 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
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.

i never said Pop is bad though, but songs of theirs do sound a little more Popish, compare Eleanor Rigby to rock songs at the time from say..the Rolling Stones

Exactly.  The most perfect pop song of all 'Knowing Me, Knowing You' is held in equal esteem by me as say 'You Really Got Me'.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: jackofhearts on December 26, 2009, 01:18:03 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
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.

i never said Pop is bad though, but songs of theirs do sound a little more Popish, compare Eleanor Rigby to rock songs at the time from say..the Rolling Stones

Exactly.  The most perfect pop song of all 'Knowing Me, Knowing You' is held in equal esteem by me as say 'You Really Got Me'.

"Eleanor Rigby" isn't exactly a pop song...
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 26, 2009, 01:20:19 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
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.

i never said Pop is bad though, but songs of theirs do sound a little more Popish, compare Eleanor Rigby to rock songs at the time from say..the Rolling Stones

Exactly.  The most perfect pop song of all 'Knowing Me, Knowing You' is held in equal esteem by me as say 'You Really Got Me'.

"Eleanor Rigby" isn't exactly a pop song...

Pop + Chamber music. ;D
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Boom Cha! on December 26, 2009, 03:59:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 26, 2009, 06:52:17 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.

x2
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Aqua on December 26, 2009, 06:53:39 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.
X500.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 26, 2009, 06:56:12 PM
So lets say a guy came up to me and played A Day in the Life, Help, I wanna hold your hand, Let it be, and all you need is love, id say thats pretty good, whos it by and they said it was by the Greatest band of all time, i wouldnt agree, so i dont think there the best, but top 25
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Revolver7 on December 26, 2009, 07:05:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.

If those are all Pop songs, then a lot of the Stones output would be considered Pop as well

She's Like A Rainbow- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jaHhqgQ7rI
Ruby Tuesday- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiuJX0DXRk
Love In Vain- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHe3sMcmPN4
Mother's Little Helper- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cKzJOmVhjs
Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTIBYH3NV_s
Wild Horses- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYTPZks1kR8
You Can't Always Can;t Always Get What You Want- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfJ0_KMiro
I Wanna Be Your Man- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgtjLGjkHwA
Let it Loose- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnSu2Ol1TSM
Let's Spend the Night Together- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFiOdDAVFXs

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head. All those songs are great songs, and I'm a big fan of the Rolling Stones, but I think it's bulls**t to say that "The Beatles were just pop, and the Stones were all rock", or "The Beatles weren't guitar driven, while the Stones were". These two bands weren't "just" anything; they delved into countless different sounds and genres, and both bands have songs that are more pop oriented, and songs that  really rock hard.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Revolver7 on December 26, 2009, 07:07:16 PM
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
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 26, 2009, 07:08:24 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

lmao :D :D :D
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.

If those are all Pop songs, then a lot of the Stones output would be considered Pop as well

She's Like A Rainbow- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jaHhqgQ7rI
Ruby Tuesday- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiuJX0DXRk
Love In Vain- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHe3sMcmPN4
Mother's Little Helper- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cKzJOmVhjs
Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTIBYH3NV_s
Wild Horses- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYTPZks1kR8
You Can't Always Can;t Always Get What You Want- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfJ0_KMiro
I Wanna Be Your Man- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgtjLGjkHwA
Let it Loose- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnSu2Ol1TSM
Let's Spend the Night Together- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFiOdDAVFXs

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head. All those songs are great songs, and I'm a big fan of the Rolling Stones, but I think it's bulls**t to say that "The Beatles were just pop, and the Stones were all rock", or "The Beatles weren't guitar driven, while the Stones were". These two bands weren't "just" anything; they delved into countless different sounds and genres, and both bands have songs that are more pop oriented, and songs that  really rock hard.


I agree RS has put out pop songs (Ruby Tuesday, Wild Horses, You cant always get..)  but there majority is rock
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 26, 2009, 07:22:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Eleanor Rigby
Something
Penny Lane
Let It Be
Strawberry Fields Forever
A Day In The Life
All You Need Is Love
Here Comes The Sun
Can't Buy Me Love
The Long And Winding Road
Nowhere Man
Yesterday
Here, There, Everywhere
Blackbird
She Loves You
Norwegian Wood
Hello, Goodbye
Hey Jude

I could go on.... all Pop songs.

Not so laughable.

If those are all Pop songs, then a lot of the Stones output would be considered Pop as well

She's Like A Rainbow- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jaHhqgQ7rI
Ruby Tuesday- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiuJX0DXRk
Love In Vain- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHe3sMcmPN4
Mother's Little Helper- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cKzJOmVhjs
Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTIBYH3NV_s
Wild Horses- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYTPZks1kR8
You Can't Always Can;t Always Get What You Want- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfJ0_KMiro
I Wanna Be Your Man- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgtjLGjkHwA
Let it Loose- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnSu2Ol1TSM
Let's Spend the Night Together- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFiOdDAVFXs

Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head. All those songs are great songs, and I'm a big fan of the Rolling Stones, but I think it's bulls**t to say that "The Beatles were just pop, and the Stones were all rock", or "The Beatles weren't guitar driven, while the Stones were". These two bands weren't "just" anything; they delved into countless different sounds and genres, and both bands have songs that are more pop oriented, and songs that  really rock hard.

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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on December 26, 2009, 07:32:03 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

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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Izzy 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...
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Revolver7 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 .  
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: JasontheJedi 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Northern Soul 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Joe G (Love You Like Mad Magazine) 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: jackofhearts 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."   
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: shockdocta22 on December 28, 2009, 03:20:12 PM
really? i dont notice a resemblance between the two?
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice 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 :)
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Johnny Amsterdam 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
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Thunder Peel 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Northern Soul 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Domenico of Lovetown 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.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: TheFly 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!
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: NOLA Fly on January 01, 2010, 04:15:15 PM
In a word:  no.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Thehorsefly [whinny!] on January 01, 2010, 05:42:18 PM
 The Beatles most certainly do not suck. I'm a fan of the Beatles personally, and I think that even if you aren't a fan of the Beatles, you should at least recognize and appreciate the tremendous impact that they made. That's undeniable. However, I personally get just a little annoyed when people say that the Beatles are and always will be the best. They certainly are one of the best, but to say that they take the # 1 spot for the rest of eternity is...not really fair. I think that is overratting them.

  In short, The Beatles deserve to be recognized as one of the best bands, but I don't think they are the absolute greatest band of all time. They were brilliant, but ultimately, this as all just opinion anyway. My 2 cents.  ;D  Rambling over.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on February 04, 2011, 01:45:16 PM
I just can't seem to stop listening to The Beatles lately and they are without doubt the greatest band in the history of popular music.  They are still not my favourite band or even second favourites, but the diverse body of work that they created over only an 8 year period means that it is impossible to overrate them.




Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: hartroc on February 04, 2011, 02:34:45 PM
This option should be added to this Poll:

ē Yes (They Suck!)
ē Slightly (But They're Still Good)
ē No (They Were Ahead of Their Time)

-------------------------------------------------

The Beatles changed music forever. The amount of great material they released in their short career is stunning, and personally I love their music. That said, I think they are a bit overrated. I mean, people cite them as the best band ever even if they've never listened to them, simply because everyone else says they are. Their early work was quite mediocre really (Love Me Do, anyone?), and while their lyrics are mostly good, very few have stricken me as particularly poetic or deep. Surprisingly average, considering the hype.

But it wasn't necessarily their songs that gave/give them their reputation; technically, plenty of better songs have been written. It was their experimentation, their innovation, and the overall attitude that they brought to the world of music that made them legends. This makes them a great band, one of the best...But not necessarily great musicians.

I don't think any band should be handed the title of "the greatest" without having the decision thought through, and people tend to simply go with the crowd when it comes to the Beatles.

Anyway, I'm not voting in this poll simply because neither of the options accurately represents my viewpoint.
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: emalvick on February 04, 2011, 03:01:53 PM
I would have answered slightly as well, but they had a right to be.  They were one of the greatest (I think absolutes are too limiting) bands ever, and the key is band.  U2 really arenít all that different, and I know youíll find many people that will make similar arguments for or against them. 

Seeing that this is an old thread, that I donít remember reading before (or I would have probably responded earlier), I find the arguments about Pop vs. Rock and the Beatles vs. Rolling Stones, etc to be humorous.

Pop and Rock are not mutually exclusive genres.  Many pop songs are also rock and many rock songs are also pop.  Part of what made the Beatles (even U2, the Stones, the Who, etc) famous were the fact that they were rock groups who wrote some pop songs that were extremely popular.  Just look at how many hits various rockers have had.  It is usually because their songs are popular.  It isnít a bad thing.

The Beatles were so successful because they wrote so many popular songs, and that is what often puts them at the top of many lists of the greatest ever.  It also follows that writing so many popular songs (and having three accomplished song writers in your band), there are going to be those that are influenced by you.  And when you are the first to do what the Beatles did, that is automatically going to give you a lead on almost everyone that follows. 

Now the reason I think they are slightly over-rated is I donít think they were necessarily the best in many aspects of what they did, but then I am not sure what bands are at least when looking at the whole package.   


Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: AchtungPiano on February 04, 2011, 06:10:02 PM
I love love love the Beatles, but yes, they are a little overrated.

any band besides U2 that is called the greatest band of all time is overrated anyways.  ;)
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on February 04, 2011, 06:25:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I find the arguments about Pop vs. Rock and the Beatles vs. Rolling Stones, etc to be humorous.

I found that quite funny too; in particular, the defensiveness that some people have to The Beatles being labelled a pop band rather than a rock band, as though there is an assumption that pop music is in some way inferior to rock music.

Quote
And when you are the first to do what the Beatles did, that is automatically going to give you a lead on almost everyone that follows.  

The Beatles are in no way regarded as the best single band in the history of popular music because they did it first.  Other artists have had 40 years to better their body of work and yet, no single artist has ever done so.


Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on February 04, 2011, 06:40:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Their early work was quite mediocre really (Love Me Do, anyone?)

I certainly don't think their debut album Please Please Me is mediocre.

Quote
But it wasn't necessarily their songs that gave/give them their reputation; technically, plenty of better songs have been written. It was their experimentation, their innovation, and the overall attitude that they brought to the world of music that made them legends.

No other single artist has ever written technically, plenty of better songs.  The Beatles musical experimentation was always bang up-to-date with the developments in recording technology, that made it possible.

Quote
Anyway, I'm not voting in this poll simply because neither of the options accurately represents my viewpoint.

This is just as well because voting closed on December 29 2009. :D


Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: hartroc on February 04, 2011, 11:56:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Their early work was quite mediocre really (Love Me Do, anyone?)

I certainly don't think their debut album Please Please Me is mediocre.

Quote
But it wasn't necessarily their songs that gave/give them their reputation; technically, plenty of better songs have been written. It was their experimentation, their innovation, and the overall attitude that they brought to the world of music that made them legends.

No other single artist has ever written technically, plenty of better songs.  The Beatles musical experimentation was always bang up-to-date with the developments in recording technology, that made it possible.

Quote
Anyway, I'm not voting in this poll simply because neither of the options accurately represents my viewpoint.

This is just as well because voting closed on December 29 2009. :D




Well, Please Please Me was comparatively mediocre. It didn't represent the band they would become, and much better albums have been made by others (PLEASE don't disagree with this!  :P ). As for the better songs thing...the Beatles' experimentation is what made them, I think I already said that. In my mind, a truly good song sounds fantastic even when stripped down to just an acoustic guitar or piano and vocals. As I said, most of their lyrics never struck me as particularly great (though there are a fair number of exceptions), though their melodies were for the most part, brilliant (once agian, with exceptions  :-\) It was their use of the studio as an instrument and their innovation that made them.

Then again, I really shouldn't be arguing against them, since I can't name a "better" band, per say. I can name plenty I prefer to listen to, but I recognize that that's not the same thing.

 ;)
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Bads316 on February 09, 2011, 08:10:52 AM
12 albums in 6 years, all of them great, all of them innovative, all of them different - overrated? GTFO
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: Tumbling Dice on February 09, 2011, 08:32:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
12 albums in 6 years, all of them great, all of them innovative, all of them different - overrated? GTFO

And never before or since has an artist experimented with their sound alongside just-in-time developments in the recording technology that made the experimentation possible. 8)


 
Title: Re: Are The Beatles Overated?
Post by: TongueInMyEar on February 10, 2011, 08:05:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
12 albums in 6 years, all of them great, all of them innovative, all of them different - overrated? GTFO

I agree. Rubber Soul, White Album, Help, Revolver and Abbey Road are fantastic.