The Beatles Are Overrated

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#21 Aug 3, 2009
West Archer wrote:
<quoted text>
Time will tell, my friend. When people see past the commercial aspect of music, and take rock music seriously, then The Beatles will float down the drain they came from. Trout Mask Replica out- weighs anything the Fab 4 tried to do. I understand your bias as you do not find Beefheart to be relatively good (considering if you have ever listened to TMR). I am not bias. I was a Beatles fan until last year when I finally accepted how overrated they are. Point is, there is better music out there folks. Stop listening to what these "professional" critics say because really, what qualifies a rock critic (or any critic for that matter)? Rock music is really not that old.
<quoted text>
Yeah; on the radio. That's perfect for where The Beatles belong. Of course they've sold a lot: their music is easy to listen to, accessible from virtually anywhere in the world, and everyone has been brainwashed into thinking they are the greatest band that ever existed. That's fine and dandy for them. However, some people look for a challenge in their music-something that isn't conventional; which is essentially what rock music should be. Which is why I draw back to my first statement; The Beatles belong on the airwaves because they are a pop group who wrote little ditties. Nothing more, nothing less.
My tastes are not just the Beatles, but the Beatles have been my favorite for 25 years, and I have yet to find any other group of musicians that I like better.
Not saying there are not other great musicians, Pink Floyd,David Gray,Mazzy Star,Janis,the Doors,Hendrix,Ramones,Creedanc e Clearwater Revival to say just a few, are also some of my vast favorites, not to mention blues,reggae,country etc, but we each are entitled to our own opinions.
But as I said, the Beatles are not a product, they have produced many wonderful songs that will last forever.
Greg

Heraklion, Greece

#22 Aug 3, 2009
You made your own conclusions Mr. I didn't say that. I said I got tired, because it has no point explaining why are the greatest to those who don't agree. Beatles don't need to be offended; If you don't agree, that's fine; It's your opinion and it is respected by me. However, allow me to have a different opinion. And please, don't put words in my mouth I never uttered. Or better, I never posted.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#23 Aug 3, 2009
West Archer wrote:
Exactly. You're tired of defending the band; I get it. I would be frustrated having to argue for a petty band as well. Of course, I'm not sure how anyone can be right or wrong on something so subjective.
Fact: Beatles are overrated. This is being looked at logically. For them to deserve credit for their merits, they would have to have a universal appreciation from everyone existing. That will never happen considering the growing minority of people who think they are dubious at best. Thus, they are overrated by default. You cannot argue through this.
Opinion: Their music is "okay"...nothing close to a masterpiece by any means.
At the end of the day, it boils down to how I look at it. You can enjoy your music for all I care. I'm here, however, to show you that your little band is overrated.
To you, they are over-rated, but to real Beatlefans, they are not, this argument can go around in circles, but what's the point.
You posting here has changed no one at all, we still beleive they are the greatest ever, their music speaks for itself, but to each their own.
You have the freedom to keep posting you're opinion all you wish, but it won't change anything.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#24 Aug 3, 2009
Greg wrote:
You made your own conclusions Mr. I didn't say that. I said I got tired, because it has no point explaining why are the greatest to those who don't agree. Beatles don't need to be offended; If you don't agree, that's fine; It's your opinion and it is respected by me. However, allow me to have a different opinion. And please, don't put words in my mouth I never uttered. Or better, I never posted.
Funny how those who don't like the Beatles, feel they have to come to the Beatles forum and tell the fans how much they don't like them, with that same type of thinking, maybe I should go tell Madonna fans how much I don't like her, lol.
Btw, how can we be hippies, when we are barely 40-ish, lol.
West Archer

Houston, TX

#25 Aug 3, 2009
I understand. However, I came in the defense of the OT when he was ridiculed and mocked. Please consider that if someone doesn't like The Beatles, they are not trolls (even if they do not sound intelligible).

I placed my logic around Mr. Greg's logic which was in point used to highlight the contradictory evaluation of this whole argument. You cannot define subjectivity (well you can lol), therefore you cannot say that The Beatles are/are not overrated.

I respect your decision and opinions, however, I do not agree with anyone here. Also, on behalf of the OT, I doubt anyone here has any knowledge of rock music since your evaluations and arguments have solely been based on condensed musical horizons. With all due respect awc,(and everyone else), I suggest you expand your rock education, because right now you're at the elementary level. With "Pink Floyd,David Gray,Mazzy Star,Janis,the Doors,Hendrix,Ramones,Creedanc e Clearwater Revival" under your belt, it is not clear if you actually have listened to any other form of rock music other than provided on the Rolling Stone list of greatest albums/bands of all time.
West Archer

Houston, TX

#26 Aug 3, 2009
awc wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how those who don't like the Beatles, feel they have to come to the Beatles forum and tell the fans how much they don't like them, with that same type of thinking, maybe I should go tell Madonna fans how much I don't like her, lol.
Btw, how can we be hippies, when we are barely 40-ish, lol.
Actually, I was forwarded this thread by a friend. This was my first post on topix.com ever. Plus, to actually uphold your opinions, you should feel no problem about being challenged to an argument about something you care about so much like an atheist questioning a Christian.

It's surprising that you guys are barely 40, considering most of your arguments are solely based on the fact that The Beatles changed the 60s (from reading your other threads); so how does this make you genuine witnesses of the decade if you were barely a little child? Hmm...

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#27 Aug 3, 2009
West Archer wrote:
I understand. However, I came in the defense of the OT when he was ridiculed and mocked. Please consider that if someone doesn't like The Beatles, they are not trolls (even if they do not sound intelligible).
I placed my logic around Mr. Greg's logic which was in point used to highlight the contradictory evaluation of this whole argument. You cannot define subjectivity (well you can lol), therefore you cannot say that The Beatles are/are not overrated.
I respect your decision and opinions, however, I do not agree with anyone here. Also, on behalf of the OT, I doubt anyone here has any knowledge of rock music since your evaluations and arguments have solely been based on condensed musical horizons. With all due respect awc,(and everyone else), I suggest you expand your rock education, because right now you're at the elementary level. With "Pink Floyd,David Gray,Mazzy Star,Janis,the Doors,Hendrix,Ramones,Creedanc e Clearwater Revival" under your belt, it is not clear if you actually have listened to any other form of rock music other than provided on the Rolling Stone list of greatest albums/bands of all time.
Someone who doesn't like the Beatles re not trolls, but someone who attacks others for liking them is.
I have listened to many other groups and formed my own opinion, I can't list every group I like, not enough time, and there are other types of music other than rock, country and blues gave birth to rock.
As far as Rolling Stone magazine, it actually stinks as a magazine, it might have been involved with rock in the 60's, but faded shortly there after.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#28 Aug 3, 2009
West Archer wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I was forwarded this thread by a friend. This was my first post on topix.com ever. Plus, to actually uphold your opinions, you should feel no problem about being challenged to an argument about something you care about so much like an atheist questioning a Christian.
It's surprising that you guys are barely 40, considering most of your arguments are solely based on the fact that The Beatles changed the 60s (from reading your other threads); so how does this make you genuine witnesses of the decade if you were barely a little child? Hmm...
It's not the 60's or living there that has anything to do with this, it's about loving the music of the Beatles.
You have put forth that challenge and I feel I have made my point, I love their music.

As far as the Athiest/Christian challenge, Topix is not the forum for that, the Athiest's forum is not the place to have you're own opinion, at least here we just disagree, they rip you into pieces there , lol.

"Music is timeless." and "Opinions are opinions".
Greg

Athens, Greece

#29 Aug 3, 2009
I doubt anyone here has any knowledge of rock music

You are underrating us now, lol. I don't to sound arrogant, but I think I have better than yours. And I know what I'm saying. OK, I'm saying "I", "I", but you forced me. It's a delicate thing man's pride you see, Sir.
Greg

Athens, Greece

#30 Aug 3, 2009
I don't to sound arrogant

I don't want to sound(to be) arrogant, sorry.
Greg

Athens, Greece

#31 Aug 3, 2009
As far as Rolling Stone magazine, it actually stinks as a magazine, it might have been involved with rock in the 60's, but faded shortly there after.

So true my friend, it has become a "Cosmopolitan" or "Vanity Fair". No relation with its old issues(of the sixties and early seventies).
Greg

Athens, Greece

#32 Aug 3, 2009
awc wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how those who don't like the Beatles, feel they have to come to the Beatles forum and tell the fans how much they don't like them, with that same type of thinking, maybe I should go tell Madonna fans how much I don't like her, lol.
Btw, how can we be hippies, when we are barely 40-ish, lol.
Barely mature, lol. However, this view has no practicality in it, at all. It's like saying that a driver who likes old cars, doesn't have a good mastery over them than the one who drove them the time they were out in the market.
Jack Zippy

Seattle, WA

#33 Aug 3, 2009
West Archer wrote:
<quoted text>
Time will tell, my friend. When people see past the commercial aspect of music, and take rock music seriously, then The Beatles will float down the drain they came from. Trout Mask Replica out- weighs anything the Fab 4 tried to do. I understand your bias as you do not find Beefheart to be relatively good (considering if you have ever listened to TMR). I am not bias. I was a Beatles fan until last year when I finally accepted how overrated they are. Point is, there is better music out there folks. Stop listening to what these "professional" critics say because really, what qualifies a rock critic (or any critic for that matter)? Rock music is really not that old.
<quoted text>
Yeah; on the radio. That's perfect for where The Beatles belong. Of course they've sold a lot: their music is easy to listen to, accessible from virtually anywhere in the world, and everyone has been brainwashed into thinking they are the greatest band that ever existed. That's fine and dandy for them. However, some people look for a challenge in their music-something that isn't conventional; which is essentially what rock music should be. Which is why I draw back to my first statement; The Beatles belong on the airwaves because they are a pop group who wrote little ditties. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am sure glad I've been brainwashed by the best.I think I got brainwashed again when George Harrisons last album came out too In fact i know I got brainwashed it says so on the CD.Of course the Beatles music belongs on the Radio on television too.They can't be overrated because they paid their dues and Like Greg said millions of fans can't be wrong.By the way I could never be brainwashed into liking Rap.
Jack Zippy

Seattle, WA

#34 Aug 3, 2009
I have been around for 56 years I think I know a thing or two about music i LISTEN TO Many styles I am a good critic If i do say so.If you want to challenge me go ahead I'm ready.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#35 Aug 3, 2009
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>Barely mature, lol. However, this view has no practicality in it, at all. It's like saying that a driver who likes old cars, doesn't have a good mastery over them than the one who drove them the time they were out in the market.
Funny, I do love old 1950's and 1960's cars, today's cars lack style.
Being 42, I have heard all types of music from country,rap,new-age,classical, blues and of course rock, that far from makes me an expert, but I know what I like and what I don't.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#36 Aug 3, 2009
Jack Zippy wrote:
I have been around for 56 years I think I know a thing or two about music i LISTEN TO Many styles I am a good critic If i do say so.If you want to challenge me go ahead I'm ready.
I would rather be called a Hippie rather than a Yuppie, lol.
West Archer

Houston, TX

#37 Aug 3, 2009
awc wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who doesn't like the Beatles re not trolls, but someone who attacks others for liking them is.
I have listened to many other groups and formed my own opinion, I can't list every group I like, not enough time, and there are other types of music other than rock, country and blues gave birth to rock.
As far as Rolling Stone magazine, it actually stinks as a magazine, it might have been involved with rock in the 60's, but faded shortly there after.
Well, I would hardly call the OT a troll (likewise, his later reply was quite lending himself to that position).

My statement about your taste was weak, but I am convinced that most people on these boards listen solely to that magazine and the radio: your list is no exception, but this is nothing to fight about considering we have both agreed to respect opinionated matters.

As far as I'm concerned, we both share the same fervency for music. That is not disputed. I am rash for the sake of bettering my intelligence and appreciating music on all forms. Honestly, I was a Beatles fan a year ago. Abbey Road was my favorite album (particularly the second side helped sway this over the others) followed shortly by The White Album, and Sgt. Pepper. Of course, due to my inclination to understand the history of rock music, I determined to find something more than (not better than, mind you) The Beatles.[Un]fortunately, I found music that was better than, IMO.

I do not want to sound pretentious or overtly open, but I find it necessary to post my favorite albums of all time: here are my top 16

1) Rock Bottom; Robert Wyatt (Virgin, 1974)
2) Trout Mask Replica; Captain Beefheart (Straight, 1969)
3) Velvet Underground & Nico; Velvet Underground (Verve, 1967)
4) Faust I; Faust (Virgin, 1971)
5) Hosianna Mantra; Popol Vuh (Pilz, 1973)
6) Geek the Girl; Lisa Germano (4AD, 1994)
7) Doors; The Doors (Elektra, 1967)
8) What’s Going On?; Marvin Gaye (Tamla, 1971)
9) White Light/White Heat; Velvet Underground (Verve, 1967)
10) Modern Dance; Pere Ubu (Blank, 1978)
11) Twin Infinitives; Royal Trux (Drag City, 1990)
12) Desert Shore; Nico (Reprise, 1971)
13) Blonde on Blonde; Bob Dylan (CBS, 1966)
14) Third; Soft Machine (CBS, 1970)
15) Parable of the Arable Land; Red Crayola (International Artist, 1967)
16) Lorca; Tim Buckley (Elektra, 1970)

Yes, as you can see, I am particularly fond of some critically acclaimed albums. Thus, I denote that a critic can't be wrong/right-we simply can have the same tastes. Roughly a year ago, The Beatles would have taken at least 3 of the top 10 followed by other albums by generic bands popularized by the media (i.e. The Clash, The Who, Jethro Tull, Zeppelin, etc.) This is when I realized that marketing is very essential to the existence to most of these bands. That is not to say that I can't enjoy music that is overtly funded, but those fall far and in-between in regards to my eclectic tastes.

West Archer

Houston, TX

#38 Aug 3, 2009
Greg wrote:
I doubt anyone here has any knowledge of rock music
You are underrating us now, lol. I don't to sound arrogant, but I think I have better than yours. And I know what I'm saying. OK, I'm saying "I", "I", but you forced me. It's a delicate thing man's pride you see, Sir.
I'm sure you have a sense of knowledge, and I apologize for my rudeness, but I am convinced that everyone is naive about music (even myself). One cannot read history of music without picking up the author's bias/bigotry, therefore I am particularly careful about whom I trust. One can base their observation first-hand, but that is faulty to memory and nostalgia.
West Archer

Houston, TX

#40 Aug 3, 2009
Jack Zippy wrote:
I have been around for 56 years I think I know a thing or two about music i LISTEN TO Many styles I am a good critic If i do say so.If you want to challenge me go ahead I'm ready.
Alright, let's lay out the ground rules.

There are only two things objective in life:
1) Logic
2) God (if God does exist, He knows everything and what is right/wrong & good/bad)

So your argument, if I read this right, is that The Beatles are the best, or you are a good critic? Please provide logical evidence saying so.

awc

“Pepperland”

Since: Dec 06

Pepperland

#41 Aug 3, 2009
West Archer wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I would hardly call the OT a troll (likewise, his later reply was quite lending himself to that position).
My statement about your taste was weak, but I am convinced that most people on these boards listen solely to that magazine and the radio: your list is no exception, but this is nothing to fight about considering we have both agreed to respect opinionated matters.
As far as I'm concerned, we both share the same fervency for music. That is not disputed. I am rash for the sake of bettering my intelligence and appreciating music on all forms. Honestly, I was a Beatles fan a year ago. Abbey Road was my favorite album (particularly the second side helped sway this over the others) followed shortly by The White Album, and Sgt. Pepper. Of course, due to my inclination to understand the history of rock music, I determined to find something more than (not better than, mind you) The Beatles.[Un]fortunately, I found music that was better than, IMO.
I do not want to sound pretentious or overtly open, but I find it necessary to post my favorite albums of all time: here are my top 16
1) Rock Bottom; Robert Wyatt (Virgin, 1974)
2) Trout Mask Replica; Captain Beefheart (Straight, 1969)
3) Velvet Underground & Nico; Velvet Underground (Verve, 1967)
4) Faust I; Faust (Virgin, 1971)
5) Hosianna Mantra; Popol Vuh (Pilz, 1973)
6) Geek the Girl; Lisa Germano (4AD, 1994)
7) Doors; The Doors (Elektra, 1967)
8) What’s Going On?; Marvin Gaye (Tamla, 1971)
9) White Light/White Heat; Velvet Underground (Verve, 1967)
10) Modern Dance; Pere Ubu (Blank, 1978)
11) Twin Infinitives; Royal Trux (Drag City, 1990)
12) Desert Shore; Nico (Reprise, 1971)
13) Blonde on Blonde; Bob Dylan (CBS, 1966)
14) Third; Soft Machine (CBS, 1970)
15) Parable of the Arable Land; Red Crayola (International Artist, 1967)
16) Lorca; Tim Buckley (Elektra, 1970)
Yes, as you can see, I am particularly fond of some critically acclaimed albums. Thus, I denote that a critic can't be wrong/right-we simply can have the same tastes. Roughly a year ago, The Beatles would have taken at least 3 of the top 10 followed by other albums by generic bands popularized by the media (i.e. The Clash, The Who, Jethro Tull, Zeppelin, etc.) This is when I realized that marketing is very essential to the existence to most of these bands. That is not to say that I can't enjoy music that is overtly funded, but those fall far and in-between in regards to my eclectic tastes.
As far as Sunshine, he came in attacking the poster's love for the Beatles, but he doesn't really matter, lol.
As far as the radio, I don't listen to it or read rock mags, way past that, I prefer to choose what I listen to.
You have a nice list,Doors,Dylan and Marvin gaye are all artists I love, the Velvet is cool too, nothing like a little Lou Reed.
I have to admit that many of the others listed I have never heard, not knocking them, but I've never come in contact with their music.
I love early Ozzy solo and a bit of Sabbath, the Cult,the Cramps,and as I said earlier Mazzy Star (a very underground band), even a bit of Oingo Boingo (early years), early Metallica,Mason Ruffner (blues/rock artist), Robert Cray etc.
There are hundreds more, but can't think of all of them right now.
We can just agree to disagree about the Beatles, it's more better that way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Beatles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tupelo's Rae Sremmurd holds No. 1 song in natio... Dec 8 Better living 22
News George Harrison: Rock's Best-Kept Secret Nov 27 TeeMee 1
One of the Best Nov 24 Greg 3
For your eyes only (Feb '15) Nov 22 Little monster 54
John Lennon's 1980 Sunglasses: Still available? (Aug '08) Nov 13 Dr Clayton OBoogie 27
Number nine, number nine. Nov '16 Little monster 2
News Rihanna Ties Michael Jackson On The List Of Car... (May '16) Oct '16 Disgusting Jacko 3
More from around the web