The Beatles Are Overrated
Poppa Jivebones

Renton, WA

#682 Jul 16, 2012
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
They say that Foreigner were Bad Company clones but not to me.
I like Paul Rodgers. A great singer with great songs.
Bad Company are still great. The guitar player from Heart is with them now. Paul rodgers is one of the best voices in Rock in my opinion.Kelly Hansen is awesome too he sounds as good as Lou Gram to me.I like Juke box hero and Dirty white boy.No way clones just two groups that had many hits and good musicians.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#683 Jul 16, 2012
Poppa Jivebones wrote:
<quoted text>I agree the Doors are as popular now as they were 40 years ago.Yes was a great band.I still like the Brian Setzer orchestra and they way he mixes with the big band sound.I like rockabilly. Plant's solo stuff was great. I like Big log and Crazy ship of fools.
Jon Lord of Deep Purple just passed away.

I thought that their comeback album, "Perfect Strangers" was great.

Robert Plant made some great solo albums.

"Fate Of Nations" really impressed me when it first came out.

It was his last great record, in my opinion.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#684 Jul 16, 2012
Poppa Jivebones wrote:
<quoted text>Bad Company are still great. The guitar player from Heart is with them now. Paul rodgers is one of the best voices in Rock in my opinion.Kelly Hansen is awesome too he sounds as good as Lou Gram to me.I like Juke box hero and Dirty white boy.No way clones just two groups that had many hits and good musicians.
I even have Paul Rodgers first solo album, "Cut Loose"

The Firm were a great band and so were The Law.

Bad Company were on Zeppelin's Swan Song label.

Free were a bit older in time but Paul Rodgers was always excellent.
cassus

Hemnes, Norway

#685 Jul 18, 2012
I've always felt that the beatles were overrated as well.
History of the band: They recorded some absolutely horrible albums at first, just absolute assgravy, poppy happy tunes that played well over the radio, that's where they scored a ton of their fans, by doing songs that are the equivalent of the crap you hear on the radio today. They secured droves of fans that way, mostly young girls. Then they figured "hey, let's try to get on the psychedelic bandwagon, yes?" And they did, did some acid and made music approximating the really good psychedelic acts of the time, only they did it really bland so as to not lose their fanbase.

I liken the beatles to shit like Nickelback.. Not even trying to be a douche about this, but Nickelback is the perfect example of a band that pretends to be more than it is. For kids and morons, Nickelback seems like a hard hitting bunch of badasses doing REAL ROCK! WOOOHOOO! etc. Nickelback is absolute garbage, and most people who actually love music knows this. Nickelback went for the safest possible music that would appeal to the lowest common denominator and that would work well on radio/mtv, exactly what the beatles did. Kiss did the same thing, they set out to make a shitload of money, and they did, and their music reflects that fact by being hellishly bland and very suited for a specific market of easily fooled dumbasses..

I'm not saying you're an idiot for liking the beatles, just saying you REALLY should listen to some of the other stuff of the era, the beatles did NOTHING first aside from being the first real proper boy band. That's their contribution, making teen girls crap their pants.

The Beatles = A band that your typical "dad" listened to. Not a band your typical music fan and hippie cared about. Most proper acid tripping hippies listened to far more demanding and challenging music than the beatles. Tripping balls and listening to pop tunes isn't exactly awesome..

Now if you'll excuse me I'm gonna chug some mescalin and listen to Justin Bieber (He's got about as many fans as the beatles had when they were young, and the fans are in about the same age group.)
Charley

Bothell, WA

#686 Jul 18, 2012
cassus wrote:
I've always felt that the beatles were overrated as well.
History of the band: They recorded some absolutely horrible albums at first, just absolute assgravy, poppy happy tunes that played well over the radio, that's where they scored a ton of their fans, by doing songs that are the equivalent of the crap you hear on the radio today. They secured droves of fans that way, mostly young girls. Then they figured "hey, let's try to get on the psychedelic bandwagon, yes?" And they did, did some acid and made music approximating the really good psychedelic acts of the time, only they did it really bland so as to not lose their fanbase.
I liken the beatles to shit like Nickelback.. Not even trying to be a douche about this, but Nickelback is the perfect example of a band that pretends to be more than it is. For kids and morons, Nickelback seems like a hard hitting bunch of badasses doing REAL ROCK! WOOOHOOO! etc. Nickelback is absolute garbage, and most people who actually love music knows this. Nickelback went for the safest possible music that would appeal to the lowest common denominator and that would work well on radio/mtv, exactly what the beatles did. Kiss did the same thing, they set out to make a shitload of money, and they did, and their music reflects that fact by being hellishly bland and very suited for a specific market of easily fooled dumbasses..
I'm not saying you're an idiot for liking the beatles, just saying you REALLY should listen to some of the other stuff of the era, the beatles did NOTHING first aside from being the first real proper boy band. That's their contribution, making teen girls crap their pants.
The Beatles = A band that your typical "dad" listened to. Not a band your typical music fan and hippie cared about. Most proper acid tripping hippies listened to far more demanding and challenging music than the beatles. Tripping balls and listening to pop tunes isn't exactly awesome..
Now if you'll excuse me I'm gonna chug some mescalin and listen to Justin Bieber (He's got about as many fans as the beatles had when they were young, and the fans are in about the same age group.)
You are totally off base and absolutely wrong. The hippies loved the Beatles they were like the sound track for the sixties Peace and love movement. Yes at first the young girls were crazy about them and so were the young men. They are far better than Nickle Back. They have stood the test of time where Nickleback won't 40 years from now.Pink Floyd became the acid band later for the Hippies. Lennon and Mccartney will never be matched whether you like them or not.Enjoy Justin Bieber but make sure you eat plenty of magic mushrooms and drink plenty of Boones Farm wine so you can have an attitude adjustment Dimwit.
zach

Florence, AL

#687 Jul 19, 2012
Sunshine1982 wrote:
The Beatles were unbelievably popular, but does that mean they were the best? You are actually comparing Harrison to Clapton? Wow! Harrison even said in an interview he was not in Clapton's league! How old are you? The last time I checked 27 was an adult. Just because I don't buy into the mythical Beatles tale doesn't mean I don't know music. I like very few Beatles songs. Just because they are super popular doesn't mean I have to like them. Most people like Mcdonalds food I don't. George Martin was extremely important to the beatles according to lennon giving htem a very innovative sound. Listen to any of their solo albums? I suppose silly love songs is genius. Pink Floyd did piper at the gates of dawn the same year as Beatles Pepper. Tangerine Dream ect. Can Harrison compare to jimi hendix? I know music. Do you know who Debussy or ravel are? How many composers hail from europe from the 17th century. Name a muddy waters song that the rolling stones recorded. I know music. You are narrow minded.
I think you both are acting very childish. now listen the beatles were not amazing guitarists like Hendrix or Clapton. and yes george martin was an amazing producer that why he was nic named the fifth beatle. now i have met a lot of people who say that the beatles are overrated and were just a pop band. well the thing is that the beatles are the 2nd most influential people in music ever.(Sorry but Bob Dylan has to be #1) The beatles have been covered by thousands of different bands and artists ranging from def leppard, the dead kennedys, neil diamond, bob dylan, grateful dead, guns n' roses, jimi hendrix, billy joel, elton john, marilyn manson, nirvana, oingo boingo, pearl jam, U2, i can go on for a long time but ill cut that list short. any band with as many musical records as the beatles will be considered great. they have the most covered song of all time (Yesterday), the only group to replace themselves as number #1 twice. i dont want to have to waste anyones time so you can go look up others on the internet. now the one thing i hear the most is that the people that hate the beatles are usually big fans of metal. well if you have heard the song helter skelter, which they probably have many metal groups have covered it, that is the first ever metal song. thats right the beatles of all people have invented metal. they had an enormous influence in psychedelic rock with songs like i am the walrus, lucy in the sky with diamonds. and really anything by john lennon cause that guy liked to get down. when people claim that the beatles are just really popy i can usually assume that they must be refering to "i wanna hold your hand" or "she loves you". while these are good songs, the beatles grew up and so did their music, they began writing more serious music like "fool on the hill" or "elenor rigby" or "strawberry fields forever" (which depicted john lennon's life in an orphanage) or "in my life" which sang of a time before the beatles. they were one of the biggest influences on the hippie generation and one of the most influencial groups towards the vietnam war. they also began the time refered to as the British Invasion where tons of groups and artists flooded american radios. they are briliant song writers as well, most of them (sorry ringo). even after the beatles they were briliant (go listen to imagine by john lennon). it makes it sound a little offensive when tou say they are mcdonalds, but it is sort of true. mcdonalds is huge and well known and a lot of people like it, some dont. but mcdonalds was also a huge influence on fast food sparking hundreds to thousnads of new fast food joints to come up. and mcdonalds was huge in pop culture of america, HUGE (if you didnt get the fat joke that is sad). but anyways i can accept that people do not like the sound of the beatles or maybe even what the spoke for. However, they cannot deny the influence they had on the world. it was a bit long but thanks guys
Bubba

Renton, WA

#688 Jul 19, 2012
zach wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you both are acting very childish. now listen the beatles were not amazing guitarists like Hendrix or Clapton. and yes george martin was an amazing producer that why he was nic named the fifth beatle. now i have met a lot of people who say that the beatles are overrated and were just a pop band. well the thing is that the beatles are the 2nd most influential people in music ever.(Sorry but Bob Dylan has to be #1) The beatles have been covered by thousands of different bands and artists ranging from def leppard, the dead kennedys, neil diamond, bob dylan, grateful dead, guns n' roses, jimi hendrix, billy joel, elton john, marilyn manson, nirvana, oingo boingo, pearl jam, U2, i can go on for a long time but ill cut that list short. any band with as many musical records as the beatles will be considered great. they have the most covered song of all time (Yesterday), the only group to replace themselves as number #1 twice. i dont want to have to waste anyones time so you can go look up others on the internet. now the one thing i hear the most is that the people that hate the beatles are usually big fans of metal. well if you have heard the song helter skelter, which they probably have many metal groups have covered it, that is the first ever metal song. thats right the beatles of all people have invented metal. they had an enormous influence in psychedelic rock with songs like i am the walrus, lucy in the sky with diamonds. and really anything by john lennon cause that guy liked to get down. when people claim that the beatles are just really popy i can usually assume that they must be refering to "i wanna hold your hand" or "she loves you". while these are good songs, the beatles grew up and so did their music, they began writing more serious music like "fool on the hill" or "elenor rigby" or "strawberry fields forever" (which depicted john lennon's life in an orphanage) or "in my life" which sang of a time before the beatles. they were one of the biggest influences on the hippie generation and one of the most influencial groups towards the vietnam war. they also began the time refered to as the British Invasion where tons of groups and artists flooded american radios. they are briliant song writers as well, most of them (sorry ringo). even after the beatles they were briliant (go listen to imagine by john lennon). it makes it sound a little offensive when tou say they are mcdonalds, but it is sort of true. mcdonalds is huge and well known and a lot of people like it, some dont. but mcdonalds was also a huge influence on fast food sparking hundreds to thousnads of new fast food joints to come up. and mcdonalds was huge in pop culture of america, HUGE (if you didnt get the fat joke that is sad). but anyways i can accept that people do not like the sound of the beatles or maybe even what the spoke for. However, they cannot deny the influence they had on the world. it was a bit long but thanks guys
Right on Zach and well stated. You have told it like it is to all the whiners that say the Beatles were overrated.
The Guest

Paramount, CA

#689 Jul 23, 2012
Good evening. Time to go to Youtube.com and listen to the Beatles.
8 of 14 -- the reverb

Houston, TX

#690 Jul 23, 2012
cassus wrote:
I've always felt that the beatles were overrated as well.
History of the band: They recorded some absolutely horrible albums at first, just absolute assgravy, poppy happy tunes that played well over the radio, that's where they scored a ton of their fans, by doing songs that are the equivalent of the crap you hear on the radio today. They secured droves of fans that way, mostly young girls. Then they figured "hey, let's try to get on the psychedelic bandwagon, yes?" And they did, did some acid and made music approximating the really good psychedelic acts of the time, only they did it really bland so as to not lose their fanbase.
I liken the beatles to shit like Nickelback.. Not even trying to be a douche about this, but Nickelback is the perfect example of a band that pretends to be more than it is. For kids and morons, Nickelback seems like a hard hitting bunch of badasses doing REAL ROCK! WOOOHOOO! etc. Nickelback is absolute garbage, and most people who actually love music knows this. Nickelback went for the safest possible music that would appeal to the lowest common denominator and that would work well on radio/mtv, exactly what the beatles did. Kiss did the same thing, they set out to make a shitload of money, and they did, and their music reflects that fact by being hellishly bland and very suited for a specific market of easily fooled dumbasses..
I'm not saying you're an idiot for liking the beatles, just saying you REALLY should listen to some of the other stuff of the era, the beatles did NOTHING first aside from being the first real proper boy band. That's their contribution, making teen girls crap their pants.
The Beatles = A band that your typical "dad" listened to. Not a band your typical music fan and hippie cared about. Most proper acid tripping hippies listened to far more demanding and challenging music than the beatles. Tripping balls and listening to pop tunes isn't exactly awesome..
Now if you'll excuse me I'm gonna chug some mescalin and listen to Justin Bieber (He's got about as many fans as the beatles had when they were young, and the fans are in about the same age group.)
Ok, what you're saying is that you don't like the Beatles, just so that we will understand where you are coming from.
May I copy this entire post that you typed, I it might be more funny after a few hot beers and cold sandwiches.
Can't tell you how glad everyone at Topix is, especially since you came to the Beatle's forum to set everyone straight about the Beatles, can't wait to read your posts on the Dylan,Stones and Elvis forums as well, please keep us posted whenever you feel so inspired to write such a long post as this, better yet, warn us first.
Have a great day and please come back whenever you feel the need to vent about your feelings about anything at all.
Cheers and so forth.
Poppa Jivebones

Bothell, WA

#691 Jul 23, 2012
cassus wrote:
I've always felt that the beatles were overrated as well.
History of the band: They recorded some absolutely horrible albums at first, just absolute assgravy, poppy happy tunes that played well over the radio, that's where they scored a ton of their fans, by doing songs that are the equivalent of the crap you hear on the radio today. They secured droves of fans that way, mostly young girls. Then they figured "hey, let's try to get on the psychedelic bandwagon, yes?" And they did, did some acid and made music approximating the really good psychedelic acts of the time, only they did it really bland so as to not lose their fanbase.
I liken the beatles to shit like Nickelback.. Not even trying to be a douche about this, but Nickelback is the perfect example of a band that pretends to be more than it is. For kids and morons, Nickelback seems like a hard hitting bunch of badasses doing REAL ROCK! WOOOHOOO! etc. Nickelback is absolute garbage, and most people who actually love music knows this. Nickelback went for the safest possible music that would appeal to the lowest common denominator and that would work well on radio/mtv, exactly what the beatles did. Kiss did the same thing, they set out to make a shitload of money, and they did, and their music reflects that fact by being hellishly bland and very suited for a specific market of easily fooled dumbasses..
I'm not saying you're an idiot for liking the beatles, just saying you REALLY should listen to some of the other stuff of the era, the beatles did NOTHING first aside from being the first real proper boy band. That's their contribution, making teen girls crap their pants.
The Beatles = A band that your typical "dad" listened to. Not a band your typical music fan and hippie cared about. Most proper acid tripping hippies listened to far more demanding and challenging music than the beatles. Tripping balls and listening to pop tunes isn't exactly awesome..
Now if you'll excuse me I'm gonna chug some mescalin and listen to Justin Bieber (He's got about as many fans as the beatles had when they were young, and the fans are in about the same age group.)
Hey man you need to take the C and the Us off of your name because you really are an ASS.
George

Franklin, MA

#692 Aug 31, 2012
Greg wrote:
500.000.000 Beatles'fans can't all be wrong.
I am soooooo tired of the "Millions of (fill in the blank) can't be wrong)" cliche. YES, THEY CAN BE WRONG!! Need a good example? Nazi Germany.
The defense rests
George

Franklin, MA

#693 Aug 31, 2012
Anyway, I agree that the Beatles are overrated.
They recorded boring, poppy rock music and people went nuts for it.

They were the boyband of their time. Granted, they were at least writing songs and playing instruments, which means they had more talent than a boyband, but their music was still basic, boring and easy to play.

Frank Zappa had more talent than all 4 of the Beatles combined...THAT was good hippy music.

Joe's Garage (which was one of his most basic albums) was more complex and had more memorable songs than ANY Beatles record.

Sure, the Beatles sill get played on the radio and sell a ton of records, but if popularity meant anything, Dunkin Donuts would be the best coffee, Bud would be the best beer and McDonalds would be the best burgers (which - anyone with a developed palate knows - is NOT true)
Horje

Camano Island, WA

#694 Aug 31, 2012
George wrote:
Anyway, I agree that the Beatles are overrated.
They recorded boring, poppy rock music and people went nuts for it.
They were the boyband of their time. Granted, they were at least writing songs and playing instruments, which means they had more talent than a boyband, but their music was still basic, boring and easy to play.
Frank Zappa had more talent than all 4 of the Beatles combined...THAT was good hippy music.
Joe's Garage (which was one of his most basic albums) was more complex and had more memorable songs than ANY Beatles record.
Sure, the Beatles sill get played on the radio and sell a ton of records, but if popularity meant anything, Dunkin Donuts would be the best coffee, Bud would be the best beer and McDonalds would be the best burgers (which - anyone with a developed palate knows - is NOT true)
Anyway I agree the Beagles are overrated.They are sorted,snoring and eat poppy cock treats and people went nuts for them. They were pups at one time. Granted they were biting socks and playing,which means they had more talent a toy poodle. But they were still snoring and eager to play.Frank Zapata had more lent than 4 Beagles combined....That was dog trippy music.Moe's garage{which was one of his Alumni}was more of a carport and had more memories than any Beagles record.Sure, the Beagles got played and smell a ton of dunkin donuts nd drink coffee.Buds would be the test here and McDougals would be the west burglers{which-anyone with leveled plate knows -is not true}
George

Franklin, MA

#695 Aug 31, 2012
Horje wrote:
<quoted text>Anyway I agree the Beagles are overrated.They are sorted,snoring and eat poppy cock treats and people went nuts for them. They were pups at one time. Granted they were biting socks and playing,which means they had more talent a toy poodle. But they were still snoring and eager to play.Frank Zapata had more lent than 4 Beagles combined....That was dog trippy music.Moe's garage{which was one of his Alumni}was more of a carport and had more memories than any Beagles record.Sure, the Beagles got played and smell a ton of dunkin donuts nd drink coffee.Buds would be the test here and McDougals would be the west burglers{which-anyone with leveled plate knows -is not true}
That was a lot of effort for such a pointless joke.
Best/Worst part is, it doesn't even really show whether you are making fun of my long-winded writing, in disagreement with my point of view, or just on acid and in love with dogs. All of the above perhaps?
Greg

Athens, Greece

#696 Aug 31, 2012
George wrote:
<quoted text>
I am soooooo tired of the "Millions of (fill in the blank) can't be wrong)" cliche. YES, THEY CAN BE WRONG!! Need a good example? Nazi Germany.
The defense rests
Allright, George. I think you are right. Nazi Germany(they regreted it, later)...Has nothing to do with music, anyway I except your comparison. Human beings can be wrong. And you. I have been wrong voting for some politicians, too. In everyday life I have been wrong many times, at work, at home, etc. Even on Topix I have regreted for my behaviour a few times! As far as music is concerned I posted this to show that many people think that the Beatles have produced good music. Do you except that good music can be acknowledged by an average human being? You know, animals are easy when a good tune is heard...A simple woman or man can tell if a song is good or not, or not? On the other hand, I didn't say the Beatles were Gods. If they are overrated, Stones or Dylan are overrated, too. And every single group everybody here says that is great. So, the conclusion is that for a great deal of people the Beatles were very good composers and musicians. On the other hand, there are many people that don't like their music, OK. No problem. But, I don't have the feeling I am wrong when I sat they are good, you know what I mean? Yes, maybe three might be right and not 10...I agree. To my ears, their songs sound well, why we have to apologize for that? If you or anyone thinks Dylan or whatever is better, I respect your/hers/his opinion. I hope that I have made myself clear, have a nice Friday.
George

Franklin, MA

#697 Aug 31, 2012
Greg wrote:
<quoted text>Allright, George. I think you are right. Nazi Germany(they regreted it, later)...Has nothing to do with music, anyway I except your comparison. Human beings can be wrong. And you. I have been wrong voting for some politicians, too. In everyday life I have been wrong many times, at work, at home, etc. Even on Topix I have regreted for my behaviour a few times! As far as music is concerned I posted this to show that many people think that the Beatles have produced good music. Do you except that good music can be acknowledged by an average human being? You know, animals are easy when a good tune is heard...A simple woman or man can tell if a song is good or not, or not? On the other hand, I didn't say the Beatles were Gods. If they are overrated, Stones or Dylan are overrated, too. And every single group everybody here says that is great. So, the conclusion is that for a great deal of people the Beatles were very good composers and musicians. On the other hand, there are many people that don't like their music, OK. No problem. But, I don't have the feeling I am wrong when I sat they are good, you know what I mean? Yes, maybe three might be right and not 10...I agree. To my ears, their songs sound well, why we have to apologize for that? If you or anyone thinks Dylan or whatever is better, I respect your/hers/his opinion. I hope that I have made myself clear, have a nice Friday.
Greg, I think everyone can decide for themselves what is good. You dig the Beatles? That's fine. I personally think they are overrated as hell. I don't hear any major musical skill being shown in their music.
They all had a basic understanding of how to play their instruments, but none of them were great musicians, and none of their songs were great, they were just poppy/catchy.

I think all mainstream music is overrated, because all mainstream music is praised as being "amazing" and the singers/musicians involved make millions of dollars off of simplistic catchy stuff.

You never hear anyone say Frank Zappa or Buddy Rich, or Miles Davis are overrated. That's because they wrote intricate, complex and intense music, yet somehow they take a backseat in popularity to groups like the Beatles, the Stones and Zepplin (who at least had a pretty badass drummer). And even if they rose to the Beatles level of popularity, at least they would have earned their spot as an extremely overrated musician/musical group.

The nazi's were (obviously) an extreme example, but my point still stands, millions of people can be wrong. Millions of people think Dunkin Donuts is the best coffee on earth. Buy coffee beans or grounds in a store, make it at home, if it doesn't taste better than DD's, your taste buds are dead.
Millions of people voted for George W. Bush
Millions of people believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories
Millions of people are racist
etc.

So yeah, I think the hundreds of millions of Beatles fans can be wrong. It's fine that you guys all like them, that's cool, everyone has their own taste. My point is, they aren't Gods (I understand you don't think they are, but many of their fans do), they aren't the best band ever (far from it), they just knew how to write a catchy song.

Just my opinion (I'm long-winded and opinionated, but rest assured, I'm just enjoying a musical debate, not "hating").

Hope you have a good day as well
Horje

Bothell, WA

#698 Aug 31, 2012
George wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a lot of effort for such a pointless joke.
Best/Worst part is, it doesn't even really show whether you are making fun of my long-winded writing, in disagreement with my point of view, or just on acid and in love with dogs. All of the above perhaps?
Yep I disagree so I ate some mushrooms and a few hotdogs.I'm saving the acid for later tonight when the dogs start howling. You can post whatever you want being long winded isn't what I was making a parody of.Yep I like dogs but not Beagles very much.The Beatles were never a boy band . They were once a group of 4 young guys playing gigs for cheap until they got better and made the big time from all their years of hard work in Hamburg and around Liverpool. Overrated no way they paid their dues and became the legends they are because of hard work and determination not because the girks screamed at.Not to mention they all had super talents and charm.
Horje

Bothell, WA

#699 Aug 31, 2012
the girls screamed oops
Greg

Athens, Greece

#700 Aug 31, 2012
George wrote:
<quoted text>
Greg, I think everyone can decide for themselves what is good. You dig the Beatles? That's fine. I personally think they are overrated as hell. I don't hear any major musical skill being shown in their music.
They all had a basic understanding of how to play their instruments, but none of them were great musicians, and none of their songs were great, they were just poppy/catchy.
I think all mainstream music is overrated, because all mainstream music is praised as being "amazing" and the singers/musicians involved make millions of dollars off of simplistic catchy stuff.
You never hear anyone say Frank Zappa or Buddy Rich, or Miles Davis are overrated. That's because they wrote intricate, complex and intense music, yet somehow they take a backseat in popularity to groups like the Beatles, the Stones and Zepplin (who at least had a pretty badass drummer). And even if they rose to the Beatles level of popularity, at least they would have earned their spot as an extremely overrated musician/musical group.
The nazi's were (obviously) an extreme example, but my point still stands, millions of people can be wrong. Millions of people think Dunkin Donuts is the best coffee on earth. Buy coffee beans or grounds in a store, make it at home, if it doesn't taste better than DD's, your taste buds are dead.
Millions of people voted for George W. Bush
Millions of people believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories
Millions of people are racist
etc.
So yeah, I think the hundreds of millions of Beatles fans can be wrong. It's fine that you guys all like them, that's cool, everyone has their own taste. My point is, they aren't Gods (I understand you don't think they are, but many of their fans do), they aren't the best band ever (far from it), they just knew how to write a catchy song.
Just my opinion (I'm long-winded and opinionated, but rest assured, I'm just enjoying a musical debate, not "hating").
Hope you have a good day as well
Thank you, George and forgive my typos. Well, I have to disagree that there was not any musical skill in the Beatles. Paul for instance, is one of the most talented bassists in Rock history. And Ringo as a drummer. George didn't have the opportunity to show more of his talent as a guitarist because of Sir George Martin(But, Martin was responsible for many things they did, on the other hand). Zappa, Rich and Davis that you referred to were geniuses in what they have made. No argue about that. And many more who I would like not to mention because it will take up a lot of space. And maybe I would be unfair to many others. And their songs, were not just "catchy", they had something more at least. Anyway, I don't want to make you change your mind, and I estimate that you made your self understood without being a hater. I can talk about the talents of the Beatles for hours, but that would be such a bore, I am afraid.

“LADYVERO R.N.”

Since: Feb 09

Chihuahua, Mexico

#701 Sep 2, 2012
I love the music of the Beatles and their solo music as well, but I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could listen to Frank Zappa or Captain Beefheart, their so called music sounds like muzak.
I understand that not everyone loves the Beatles, but coming to the Beatle's forum and posting giant posts and venting rants of dislike for the Beatles is a bit useless, why not post the same post on the Barry Manilow or Whitney Houston forums, they are quite over rated are they not ?
I'm not American but the Beatles are very much loved in Mexico, not over rated, but loved.
Insecurity causes one to post anti posts about an artist, if Zappa is so good, why not post about that on the Zappa forum ?
Not hating on Zappa, but playing songs on bicycle spokes is not my idea of good music, but opinions are like ..........

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 The worst idea the Beatles ever had May 26 Declining Popularity 1
News Satellite radio's SiriusXM is debuting Beatles ... May 26 Declining Popularity 2
Poll The Beatles vs Led Zeppelin (Sep '11) May 26 Declining Popularity 102
News 150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) May 15 RICK 12,899
Poll Is Ringo's Nose bigger than Mick Jagger's Lips? (Oct '07) May 10 Atsa Lotsa Teefs 28
Imagine if John Lennon was not "neutralized" by... Apr '17 justicewell 1
Beatles Album Revolver Apr '17 Anonymous 1
More from around the web