View Full Version : The Beatles: Overrated?
Dragonfly
08-02-2007, 21:52
When Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones were arrested in February 1967 for drug possession following a tip-off by The News Of The World, the tabloid rumour mill went into overdrive.
Salacious stories abounded, one of which, involving Marianne Faithfull and a Mars bar, endures to this day despite being nothing more than the product of some unscrupulous hack's dirty mind.
One detail which went unreported at the time and which took many years to emerge was that the police waited patiently for George Harrison and his then wife Pattie Boyd to leave the premises before embarking on the raid.
Why the special treatment? Well, George was a Beatle, wasn't he? Then, as now, The Beatles enjoyed untouchable status, a sort of diplomatic immunity not afforded to any other entertainer and certainly no other pop group.
It's my belief that this rose-tinted view of the Fab Four has coloured judgement of their music as well as their behaviour for the best part of 45 years. Don't get me wrong. I couldn't make a case for them being bad even if I wanted to.
The quality of their work and enduring legacy is undeniable. However, I do take issue with the conventional wisdom which states that their output is beyond criticism and their influence without peer.
Rather than the unsurpassed geniuses of legend, I would suggest they were songwriters of above average talent whose gift for incorporating disparate styles into their work combined with some outrageous good luck; principally in chancing upon George Martin as producer but also in terms of their timing.
As the highest profile band in an era of rapid musical evolution, they rode the crest of the wave, and in so doing gave the illusion of leading rather than following it, which, more often than not, they were.
As Lloyd Grossman might say, let's look at the evidence. As is well documented, The Beatles started out as a rock and roll covers band with fledgling songwriting ambitions. Much is made of the fact that they supposedly made authorship of original songs the norm but this isn't true.
With the notable exception of Elvis Presley, many of their major influences, from Buddy Holly to Chuck Berry to Jerry Lee Lewis, wrote their own material. And just as The Beatles were tinkering with their earliest compositions, a young man named Bob Dylan was doing the same thing in New York.
The difference was that while The Fabs were rhyming "Love, love me do" with "you know I love you", Dylan was ripping up the lyrical rulebook and embarking on an odyssey of inventive wordplay, surreal imagery, and biting social commentary. This approach was the first of many influences The Beatles absorbed after their first flush of success.
That they did so with such skill isn't a criticism. The lyrical sophistication of a song like 1965's Norwegian Wood marks a seismic leap from the relative banality of what they were doing just two years previously and is testament to their ability to identify and appropriate new ideas but not, crucially, their originality.
They repeated the trick many times. American bands like The Doors, The Grateful Dead, and The Jefferson Airplane, along with their English counterparts such as Pink Floyd, were laying the template for psychedelia before John, Paul, George, and Ringo turned their collective hand to it.
Similarly, The Band (formerly Dylan's backing group) and The Rolling Stones, habitually cast as following The Beatles' lead throughout the 1960s, had paved the way for the stripped-down, back to basics, post-psychedelic era a good year before the Fab Four recorded the self-explanatory Get Back in 1969 (it wasn't released until 1970).
In fact, The Beatles weren't always successful at this. Jimi Hendrix's explosion on the scene in 1966/67 was arguably the biggest single shot in the arm popular music has ever received. He turned the game on its head, marking the line between pop and rock which remains unchanged to this day, yet The Beatles stab at a response, Helter Skelter from The White Album, counts as one of their rare failures.
To reiterate what I said at the beginning, I don't for a minute think The Beatles are unworthy of considerable acclaim. That they were responsible for some of the greatest moments in the history of popular music is beyond question. Furthermore, as figureheads of that singularly potent decade, the 1960s, they thoroughly deserve their place in history.
I'm not saying they should be condemned. I'm just saying that, like George Harrison 40 years ago, they shouldn't be exempt from questioning either.
Sauce (http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/music/features/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=2867094)
I just think it's a "I think American bands are better" article. I'm not going to argue with the fact that they were influenced by many bands, and their music wasn't original, but being influenced doesn't necessarily mean you're not as good as those who influenced you.
And I completely disagree with the comment about Helter Skelter being a "failure".
To be fair though, I do think The Beatles are grossly overrated, but I'm not going to deny that they have written some excellent music. The songs are catchy and memorable, but they don't just do it for me as much as bands like Radiohead and Oasis (yes I know they're heavily inspired by The Beatles, but I think they took it to another level....a higher one). However, maybe it's not fair to compare a band form 40 years ago with modern music.
No they most definitely aren't overrated, especially when you consider the hype around some of the bands of our generation.
greenegg
08-02-2007, 22:12
No matter how much praise people heap onto the Beatles they will not be over rated. Best Band Ever. Arctic Monkeys are farking over rated.
Chuck Morris
08-02-2007, 22:18
Definately not overrated, The Beatles where and still are awesome!
Oh, and sauce is spelt source dude ;) :tongue:
Dragonfly
08-02-2007, 22:20
Oh, and sauce is spelt source dude ;) :tongue:
It was meant to be a joke. :erm:
Greenegg - don't be knocking Arctic Monkeys.
Arctic Monkeys can fuck off. Beatles will never be over-rated, this is from the MSN Music Editor.
Original?
09-02-2007, 01:27
Just because other bands are far more over-rated doesn't make these not over-rated. they are, but only marginable.
Yes, a classic case of band being overrated due to their influence.
Though they still piss all over Oasis.
Yes, a classic case of band being overrated due to their influence
If they had so much influence how can they be overrated?
Nirvana were probably the most influential band of the 90s, do you think they're the best band of the 90s? I can't deny that The Beatles were one of the most important rock bands in history, but that doesn't mean that they made as good music as everyone says.
Have to agree James Hurley and Joey. The Beatles were in a right time in the right place appearing with a banal sound that appealed to the teenyboppers everywhere, despite of the fact there were other bands that were more groundbreaking. The music was overrated yet The Bealtles paved way for the British invasion.
da beetles r teh suck. stones owns.
Original?
09-02-2007, 13:04
Nirvana were probably the most influential band of the 90s, do you think they're the best band of the 90s? I can't deny that The Beatles were one of the most important rock bands in history, but that doesn't mean that they made as good music as everyone says.
If you discount their negative influence Nirvana had very little influence, mainly because they're utter bollocks, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were so much better it's a crime they didn't have the same influence. Nirvana were one of the worst things to happen to music...
Nirvana were probably the most influential band of the 90s, do you think they're the best band of the 90s? I can't deny that The Beatles were one of the most important rock bands in history, but that doesn't mean that they made as good music as everyone says.
Nirvana had nowhere near as much influence as the Beatles did. The Beatles were just the best at what they did.
No way they are overrated. I've heard more of such cries, mostly unfunded.
If you discount their negative influence Nirvana had very little influence, mainly because they're utter bollocks, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were so much better it's a crime they didn't have the same influence. Nirvana were one of the worst things to happen to music...
Negative influence is still influence, which backs up my point, influence does not automatically make a band better. Besides, it's not as if The Beatles didn't have negative influence, find 100 shitty bands and I'd bet 85 of them would say The Beatles influenced them.
Nirvana had nowhere near as much influence as the Beatles did. The Beatles were just the best at what they did.
I didn't say they did, but considering you asked "If they had so much influence how can they be overrated?" I was just pointing out an example of a massively influential band who were overrated.
The Beatles are probably the band that has influenced pop music more than any other group. That's why it's pretty hard for me to say they are overrated.
Simply put The Beatles are the most important band ever, maybe not the best in my opinion, but still the one with the significance.
The Stones are underrated compared to The Beatles though.
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 15:22
Have to agree James Hurley and Joey. The Beatles were in a right time in the right place appearing with a banal sound that appealed to the teenyboppers everywhere, despite of the fact there were other bands that were more groundbreaking. The music was overrated yet The Bealtles paved way for the British invasion.
Yeah, that would show why they have stood the test of time, as all true greats do.
I didn't say they did, but considering you asked "If they had so much influence how can they be overrated?" I was just pointing out an example of a massively influential band who were overrated.
Nirvana started the grunge scene, but how long did that last? Not long at all. The Beatles are still looked at as innovators of the entire genre, whereas Nirvana was more of a subgenre. I wouldn't say they're quite the same. And I wasn't aware anyone but 14 year olds rated Nirvana anyway.
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 15:28
The Beatles are probably the band that has influenced pop music more than any other group. That's why it's pretty hard for me to say they are overrated.
Simply put The Beatles are the most important band ever, maybe not the best in my opinion, but still the one with the significance.
The Stones are underrated compared to The Beatles though.
I would say "The Smiths" are the most influential band of all time.
I would say "The Smiths" are the most influential band of all time.
The Beatles didn't influence The Smiths then?
greenegg
09-02-2007, 16:39
Most English bands from the early 90s and right through said that The Stone Roses influenced them. If only the Second Coming didn't take so bastard long and Brown and Squire were not so stubborn I believe we would have had a band of longevity and Genius, which we did have but I mean on a much grander scale.
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 16:46
The Beatles didn't influence The Smiths then?
Not really. They were quite the opposite of the Beatles. It was believed back then that you would get no where by writing "depressing" and wildly intelligent lyrics and also that bands had to be colourful and happy go lucky in their demeanour.
The Smiths actually paved the way for bands like the Stone Roses, Radiohead, Oasis etc etc. They totally changed the face of British music and allowed for the music to be the most important facet, not the image (although as with most popular bands they were accepted and their image became cool) and not that all music had to be upbeat.
As I say there are probably more bands about today that would not be here thanks to The Smiths not The Beatles.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Yep, the Smiths is a pile of pretentious bollocks. If you think they have had more influence in music than the Beatles you are deluded.
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 17:26
Yep, the Smiths is a pile of pretentious bollocks. If you think they have had more influence in music than the Beatles you are deluded.
Care to back that up or do you just like throwing in random statements?
Well you haven't backed up anything you've said. However, my comments would explain why the Beatles are so much more famous than the Smiths?
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 17:29
Well you haven't backed up anything you've said. However, my comments would explain why the Beatles are so much more famous than the Smiths?
Fame and influence are two totally different things.
I would say they can be linked in some cases, excluding now mainstream music. But yes, I don't see any mention of the Smiths influencing anyone anywhere, apart from your posts.
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 17:45
I would say they can be linked in some cases, excluding now mainstream music. But yes, I don't see any mention of the Smiths influencing anyone anywhere, apart from your posts.
Look harder would be my advice.
Well, strangely enough I cannot! I looked all over Wikipedia and none of the bands you mentioned list the Smiths as an influence apart from Radiohead. Well, that's 1 band. Maybe you can help me find some more?
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 17:51
Small clue to get you started. Johnny Marr.
Somebody who has done shit all?
Dr. Bob Kelso
09-02-2007, 17:56
Somebody who has done shit all?
That comment right there tells me I am wasting my time and so I will not bother to continue.
Yes, because he has done fuck all really. You're making him out to be some guitar god or something.
greenegg
09-02-2007, 18:45
Marr was as important to the Smiths as Mozza and together it was a thing of beauty. Again though another case of two stubborn egos being selfish and depriving us of great music. :crymore:
nath_scfc
09-02-2007, 19:07
No matter how much praise people heap onto the Beatles they will not be over rated. Best Band Ever. Arctic Monkeys are farking over rated.
You had too much of that scrumpy lad? Give me The Jam, The Smiths, The Rolling Stones, The Clash or The Specials instead any day of the week.
greenegg
09-02-2007, 19:29
You had too much of that scrumpy lad? Give me The Jam, The Smiths, The Rolling Stones, The Clash or The Specials instead any day of the week.
The Jam are class as are the Clash and the Specials. Never been overly keen on the Rolling Stones I can take it or leave it but The Smiths are so close to the Beatles it's obscene. My two favourite bands ever followed by The Stone Roses. After these three I have a list of about 15 that changes frequently. This is my opinion and there fore is not wrong. :cool:
nath_scfc
12-02-2007, 12:15
The Jam are class as are the Clash and the Specials. Never been overly keen on the Rolling Stones I can take it or leave it but The Smiths are so close to the Beatles it's obscene. My two favourite bands ever followed by The Stone Roses. After these three I have a list of about 15 that changes frequently. This is my opinion and there fore is not wrong. :cool:
Believe me... you're wrong.
Not on your opinion, just generally.
:happy:
You had too much of that scrumpy lad? Give me The Jam, The Smiths, The Rolling Stones, The Clash or The Specials instead any day of the week.
Rolling Stones and The Specials? :mellow:
Nath you completely lost it ;)
Tinkerbell
13-02-2007, 17:18
The Beatles overrated No Fudging Way.
nath_scfc
13-02-2007, 17:55
Rolling Stones and The Specials? :mellow:
Nath you completely lost it ;)
What you been feeding me Bazzer? :erm:
Nah, I just enjoy there music more. My Dad's been hammering my ears with it since i was a nipper!
Original?
13-02-2007, 18:15
The Beatles are great, but as has been proved by this thread they have a somewhat untouchable status, dare question their complete and utter domination over all other music at your peril.
Bah, not really, I think Iron Maiden are a better band with better music personally, and I prefer them, but the Beatles had insane influence. When people say The Smiths had more influence, or anywhere near as much, you tend to think WTF. I respect the Beatles not just because the music is good (albeit not great) but also the supreme influence they had.
Dragonfly
13-02-2007, 19:16
The Smiths were voted most influential of all time by the NME a few years back - http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2002/04/1712.cfm.
# 1. The Smiths
# 2. The Beatles
# 3. Stone Roses
# 4. David Bowie
# 5. Sex Pistols
# 6. Oasis
# 7. Radiohead
# 8. Paul Weller/The Jam
# 9. U2
# 10. Public Enemy
Original?
13-02-2007, 20:35
Ha, NME, ha.
G33K I see your point, they were insanely influential... but there does seem to be a popular conception that the Beatles are something beyond a band, they're treated like demi-gods by a number of people. According to such dogma you must not say anything that does not label them the greatest musical band to have ever graced us.
For the record I really like them.
Definitely Maybe
13-02-2007, 21:56
I can listen to the Beatles, but they just don't do it for me in the same way the Rolling Stones, The Jam, Oasis, and The Stone Roses do.
In terms of influence and contribution to music then they piss all over all of the above. However I'm not one to judge music by lyrics, structure, production, or anything like that. Either something clicks in my head and I enjoy it, or I don't. As I say, I do like the Beatles, but I enjoy the above more.
So I dunno. In my opinion they are overrated, but thats based on my own personal preference. In terms of contribution and importance then they aren't. But you very rarely find anyone who loves both the Beatles and the Stones, and I'm more of a Stones man anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...7/beatles.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/08_august/17/beatles.shtml)
A new documentary featuring never-heard-before fragments of conversation, along with interviews and rare footage of The Beatles in the studio, will form the centrepiece of a season of programming as BBC Two and BBC Four join forces for Beatles Week.
The joint season, celebrating the Fab Four's enduring legacy and continuing influence, begins on BBC Two on Saturday 5 September 2009.
Kicking off an evening of programming on BBC Two on 5 September, The Beatles On Record offers a concise history of The Beatles in the studio and sits alongside other highlights including the first TV showing of The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit, the Maysles brothers' film charting the Fab Four's arrival in America in 1964.
BBC Four's programming includes Storyville's extraordinary story of how The Beatles' music may have contributed towards the collapse of the USSR; a documentary on the making of The Beatles' First U.S. Visit; and a new compilation of archive footage featuring an eclectic range of artists who have covered Beatles songs over the decades.
In 1962 an unknown group from Liverpool entered Abbey Road Studios to record their debut single. During the next eight years they created what is arguably regarded as the greatest collection of studio recordings of the 20th century.
The Beatles On Record, directed by Bob Smeaton, charts The Beatles' extraordinary journey from Please Please Me to Abbey Road and reflects on how they developed as musicians, matured as songwriters and created a body of work that sounds as fresh in 2009 as the time it was recorded.
Narrated entirely by John, Paul, George, Ringo and their producer Sir George Martin, the documentary features more than 60 classic songs, rare footage and photos from The Beatles' archives and never-heard-before out-takes of studio chat from the Abbey Road recording sessions.
This is followed on the same evening on BBC Two by The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit.
It is 1964, Beatlemania is beginning in America and from airport to hotel to TV studio, the pioneering Maysles brothers are at The Beatles' shoulders on their first US visit. This is the inside story of the two remarkable weeks when Beatlemania first ignited in America.
BBC Two will also be reshowing Timewatch: Beatlemania, the inside story of the rise and fall of Beatlemania. By 1966 the Beatles had played more than 1,400 gigs, toured the world four times and sold the equivalent of 200 million records. At the height of their popularity, and without warning, they pulled the plug and never toured again.
There's also another chance to see the action adventure spoof Help!, directed by Richard Lester.
The season continues with a week of programming on BBC Four from Sunday 6 September.
Storyville: How The Beatles Rocked The Kremlin tells the extraordinary unknown story of how The Beatles' music may have contributed to the collapse of the USSR.
In August 1962 director Leslie Woodhead made a two-minute film in Liverpool's Cavern Club with a raw and unrecorded group of rockers – The Beatles. He arranged their first live TV appearances on a local show in Manchester and then watched as the Fab Four phenomenon swept the world.
Twenty five years later, while making films in Russia, Woodhead became aware of how – even though they were never able to play in the Soviet Union – The Beatles legend had soaked into the lives of a generation of youngsters.
This film meets the Soviet Beatles generation and hears stories about how the Fab Four changed their lives.
Other programming throughout the week on BBC Four includes Sings Beatles, a new compilation of archive footage featuring a diverse range of artists – from Sandie Shaw to Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Carpenters to Candy Flip – who have covered Beatles songs over the years.
Plus there's an opportunity to see Filming The Beatles' First U.S. Visit: Albert Maysles, which takes viewers behind the scenes with the legendary documentary director of The Beatles: The First U.S. Visit that screens on BBC Two on 5 September.
George Entwistle, Controller, Knowledge Commissioning, says: "This is a chance for viewers to enjoy some rare footage and fascinating insights into the career of the greatest pop group of all time.
"Through BBC Two and BBC Four's close working relationship we will be inviting our audience to join us on a rich and colourful journey across two TV channels, through new and archive content, shown in just one week in September."http://www.toontastic.net/board/style_emoticons/default/omgwank.gif
Awesome.
If I had BBC 2 and 4 :faceplm:
I wish I had a spare £200 for this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Beatles_Stereo_Box_Set.jpg/489px-Beatles_Stereo_Box_Set.jpg
EDIT - I'm not sure if I'd consider the Beatles over or underrated tbh. On one hand you've got the die hard Beatles fans who will argue with you for hours about how they're the best band ever, then you've got those who think it's "cool" to dislike them and not even acknowledge what they did for music. I personally love them, but the hardcore fans can grate a tad.
Not as bad as Dylan fans though, who I also enjoy, but Christ..
Dragonfly
18-08-2009, 22:46
I think I saw it for £150 on Amazon or Play.
Anyway, I'll be watching the Beatles documentary. I'm also planning on buying the Anthology box set. I'm a fan, but I don't think they're the best of all time.
EDIT: Actually, £169.98.
Just think how much that would be worth when Paul and Ringo are dead.
Just think how much that would be worth when Paul and Ringo are dead.
I was thinking that. Though I'm not sure how limited it'll be, so maybe not that much.
It is part of the reason I'm going to try my hardest not to buy it though, because I'd probably not open it and store it away, like a nonce.
Actually going back and reading the bitterness in the original article. Especially about Hendrix exploding onto the scene. On I Feel Fine The Beatles I think were the first band to use "feedback" and put it onto a record. Something of which Hendrix was known for, but what he first picked up from The Beatles.
That post was just to grate on Dan btw. :tongue:
CRISSGRAN
01-09-2009, 15:38
I not a huge fan of the Beatles, some of their songs are catchy, but not overly my cup of tea. I'm much more a fan of The Who and the Stones who have had certainly had as much success and credit probs The Who more than the Rolling Stones even though the Stones deserve much more credit than they get.
When you have got this on I will tell you the answer is no.
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (Remastered) 2009
http://i29.tinypic.com/2irwxfr.jpg
http://www.toontastic.net/board/style_emoticons/default/omgwank.gif
CRISSGRAN
13-09-2009, 11:46
It looks like a gay pride parade marching through the Chelsea Flower show.
AgentZero
16-09-2009, 02:15
i suggest you guys youtube John Safrans Beatles conspiracy...its a good laugh.
In order for me to chime in, i love some of their songs (I am the Walrus) but most of it doesnt click with me and i dont personally see them as the best band ever to grace these fair earth.
FlagHippo
22-02-2010, 21:36
I can listen to the Beatles, but they just don't do it for me in the same way the Rolling Stones, The Jam, Oasis, and The Stone Roses do.
In terms of influence and contribution to music then they piss all over all of the above. However I'm not one to judge music by lyrics, structure, production, or anything like that. Either something clicks in my head and I enjoy it, or I don't. As I say, I do like the Beatles, but I enjoy the above more.
So I dunno. In my opinion they are overrated, but thats based on my own personal preference. In terms of contribution and importance then they aren't. But you very rarely find anyone who loves both the Beatles and the Stones, and I'm more of a Stones man anyway.
Spot on mate, I agree. :cool:
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.