Greg

ChalkÝda, Greece

#702 Sep 3, 2012
LadyVero wrote:
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 ..........
Very well stated Lady Vero. What I would like to emphasize is that you don't have to live in an English speaking country to love the Beatles. Just like you don't have to be Mexican to like Carlos Santana.
Vfmemsbdn

Geneve, Switzerland

#703 Sep 8, 2012
Logan long

Champaign, IL

#704 Oct 1, 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'm gonna keep it very short. The Beatles are the best band to grace this earth. Them as individuals were not good. But when they come together they were magical. In basically 7 years of commercial fame they produced 26 #1 hit singles. The next closest is Mariah Carey. She has been in the industry for 30 years. That counts for something right? Yes George Martin really helped their sound. But wasn't that his job? I see no validity in saying that it makes a big deal. Also they have like 3 or 4 of the top albums of all time. Even if you don't think you don't like their music or think they are the best band ever you must at least respect how they were different and had a unique sound. I mean I can play anyone a song. And they could guess it was a Beatles song. So just respect that they changed music forever and were very inspirational.
Jerk

Torbay, Canada

#705 Oct 12, 2012
The Beatles suck. It was pop rock for 16 year old girls. Whenever a guy tells me he likes The Beatles I call him a sissy. This is the only comment that matters. My opinion is the best and only opinion.
Steve Martini

Houston, TX

#706 Oct 12, 2012
Jerk wrote:
The Beatles suck. It was pop rock for 16 year old girls. Whenever a guy tells me he likes The Beatles I call him a sissy. This is the only comment that matters. My opinion is the best and only opinion.
Your name is quite fitting.
And yea, you have only expressed an OPINION, not a fact.
Please don't say you listen to Frank Zappa, my OPINION of you could only get worse.
Digby Jones

Everett, WA

#707 Oct 12, 2012
Jerk wrote:
The Beatles suck. It was pop rock for 16 year old girls. Whenever a guy tells me he likes The Beatles I call him a sissy. This is the only comment that matters. My opinion is the best and only opinion.
Yep you are a Jerk alright. You know nothing about music or anything else.Your comment only matters to retards like yourself. Your opinion is as worthless as yourself dumbass.
Daniel

London, UK

#708 Oct 25, 2012
The Beatles produced a handful of interesting songs and that's as far as it goes. Without George Martin, Brian Epstein and a powerful media machine behind them, very few people would have been talking about the Beatles 50 years later.

It's hard to be objective when talking about the Beatles because they are an integral part of popular culture.

But when one analyses their work objectively and critically, its difficult to conclude that they were anything other than a group of average musicians at best who produced good melodies and nice harmonies but rarely if ever pushed the creative envelope.

Essentially, the fab four belong to a bygone era whose only relevance in terms of legacy is to the boy band and formatted retro Brit-pop acts that they spawned.

By the late 1960s, the Beatles simply couldn't keep up with many of their groundbreaking contemporaries like Hendrix, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Pink Floyd and King Crimson.
Digby Jones

Everett, WA

#709 Oct 25, 2012
Rarely pushed the creative envelope? Man Daniel you must be living in a cave for the last 50 years.Greatful Dead were never in the same league as the Beatles niether were Jefferson Airplane.The Beatles were the first to introduce Sitar to pop music the first to use feedback and multi track recording technics.The first to have their music sent out via satellite. Hendrix was in a league all by himself but still his popularity couldn't match the Beatles. Their music will still be played 2o more years from now. If that's what you call average then you need a musical education indeed.
Opinionated

Houston, TX

#710 Oct 26, 2012
Daniel wrote:
The Beatles produced a handful of interesting songs and that's as far as it goes. Without George Martin, Brian Epstein and a powerful media machine behind them, very few people would have been talking about the Beatles 50 years later.
It's hard to be objective when talking about the Beatles because they are an integral part of popular culture.
But when one analyses their work objectively and critically, its difficult to conclude that they were anything other than a group of average musicians at best who produced good melodies and nice harmonies but rarely if ever pushed the creative envelope.
Essentially, the fab four belong to a bygone era whose only relevance in terms of legacy is to the boy band and formatted retro Brit-pop acts that they spawned.
By the late 1960s, the Beatles simply couldn't keep up with many of their groundbreaking contemporaries like Hendrix, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Pink Floyd and King Crimson.
And of course Daniel, all this is just your opinion.
50 years later they are still considered a great group, their music has well stood the test of time, as so for their solo careers.
What you should have stated was the obvious, you don't like the Beatles, ta da.
Daniel

London, UK

#711 Oct 26, 2012
Digby, the trouble with 'fans' like you is that you are unable to take any criticism of your 'heroes' no matter how objective the said criticism may be. It's kind of akin to a mental mental illness.
It's better not to have heroes as an adult, although I did, myself, have musical heroes.....when I was like, 13. Fans obsessing over musical heroes is no basis for objective critique...That's just a hint for you.
Although the Beatles are in no way interesting, their fans were, and still are, an interesting phenomenon as your comment so aptly illustrates.
I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying and irrational as Beatles fans. How dare anyone express an alternative opinion on their faith.
Radio play and popularity does not necessarily equate to artistic merit. Why would you think it would?
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no major technical innovations, it had no creative depth.
So the Beatles were first to use a sitar and feedback....Wow! So what. What's your point?
How about I name numerous other artists who were the 'first' at using other instruments, innovations and techniques?
What does it prove?...Ah, that's right, nothing.
Great argument...Lol. Just the kind of thing I expect from Beatles fans.
Daniel

London, UK

#712 Oct 26, 2012
Opinionated wrote:
<quoted text>And of course Daniel, all this is just your opinion.
50 years later they are still considered a great group, their music has well stood the test of time, as so for their solo careers.
What you should have stated was the obvious, you don't like the Beatles, ta da.
Ah, I offered an educated opinion, yes. You criticise me for that whilst offering an uneducated and subjective opinion yourself...Awkaaay! Nice bit of inconsistent 'logic' there.

They are considered a great group by some and not so by others. Again, it's a subjective opinion that their music has stood the test of time. Myself, and many others, disagree with that evaluation.

For me, and others like me, the Beatles as long ago as 1965 sounded dated. When many of their contemporaries during the late 1960s were consiously moving away from traditional melodies and simple chorus-verese-chorus structures towards elongated jams and suites, the Beatles basically stuck with the format of the rockers and the vocal harmony groups of the 1950s.

I don't like the Beatles and you like the Beatles...Wow!
Daniel

London, UK

#713 Oct 26, 2012
Logan long wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gonna keep it very short. The Beatles are the best band to grace this earth. Them as individuals were not good. But when they come together they were magical. In basically 7 years of commercial fame they produced 26 #1 hit singles. The next closest is Mariah Carey. She has been in the industry for 30 years. That counts for something right? Yes George Martin really helped their sound. But wasn't that his job? I see no validity in saying that it makes a big deal. Also they have like 3 or 4 of the top albums of all time. Even if you don't think you don't like their music or think they are the best band ever you must at least respect how they were different and had a unique sound. I mean I can play anyone a song. And they could guess it was a Beatles song. So just respect that they changed music forever and were very inspirational.
You claim the Beatles are the 'best band to grace this earth'. Now that is a bold statement. Please substantiate that ill-informed opinion.

Again, artistic credibility is not a popularity contest. If it were, then Beethoven's symphonies would have been regarded as rubbish art, since during his lifetime, his work was extremely unpopular.

Great art does not necessarily equate to the amount of units shifted.

Martin embellished the sound of extremely average musicians. Contrary, to your claims, their sound wasn't unique or different but rather, was formatted and unchallenging. Hence, there is no evidence to suggest they changed the course of music at all.

You have been brainwashed.

Many groups and artists are inspirational to many other groups and artists. So why single out the Beatles as being inspirational?
Daniel

London, UK

#714 Oct 26, 2012
Steve Martini wrote:
<quoted text>Your name is quite fitting.
And yea, you have only expressed an OPINION, not a fact.
Please don't say you listen to Frank Zappa, my OPINION of you could only get worse.
The thread title is premised on the opinions of posters'. Some people think the Beatles are overrated and others not so. Both are subjective opinions.
Daniel

London, UK

#715 Oct 26, 2012
Poppa Jivebones wrote:
<quoted text>Hey man you need to take the C and the Us off of your name because you really are an ASS.
Another Ad Hominem attack by a Beatles fan as a substitute for an argument.
Daniel

London, UK

#716 Oct 26, 2012
LadyVero wrote:
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 ..........
Ok, you like the music of the Beatles but you don't argue why you think the Beatles are worthy for special praise. Some people like the Beatles, others don't, but if you don't formulate an argument either way to justify your position, why should I, or anyone else, care?

Saying you think Zappa and Beefheart is muzak, is irrelevant as to whether the Beatles are deemed as being overrated or not. This forum isn't about Zappa or Beefheart but about the Beatles.

Why would people post about their like or dislike of Barry Manilow given this is a forum about the Beatles?....Odd.

So what if the Beatles are loved in Mexico? What relevance is that to whether you think the Beatles are overrated or not?
Digby

Everett, WA

#717 Oct 26, 2012
Daniel wrote:
Digby, the trouble with 'fans' like you is that you are unable to take any criticism of your 'heroes' no matter how objective the said criticism may be. It's kind of akin to a mental mental illness.
It's better not to have heroes as an adult, although I did, myself, have musical heroes.....when I was like, 13. Fans obsessing over musical heroes is no basis for objective critique...That's just a hint for you.
Although the Beatles are in no way interesting, their fans were, and still are, an interesting phenomenon as your comment so aptly illustrates.
I can only name religious fundamentalists as annoying and irrational as Beatles fans. How dare anyone express an alternative opinion on their faith.
Radio play and popularity does not necessarily equate to artistic merit. Why would you think it would?
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no major technical innovations, it had no creative depth.
So the Beatles were first to use a sitar and feedback....Wow! So what. What's your point?
How about I name numerous other artists who were the 'first' at using other instruments, innovations and techniques?
What does it prove?...Ah, that's right, nothing.
Great argument...Lol. Just the kind of thing I expect from Beatles fans.
The one with the mental problem here is you Daniel. The Beatles grew into being a very great group whether you like them or not it doesn't matter one bit.They sold millions of records simply because their music was good end of story.
Daniel

London, UK

#718 Oct 26, 2012
Pete Peterson wrote:
Some claim that the Beatles were overrated. Well they certainly weren't a overnight success story and they had to pay their dues to get as far as they got. They were ahead of their times and they were the first of many British groups to expeirment with multi track recording and they changed the world of popular music forever. Their impact has never been matched and probably never will be.
The notion the Beatles were ahead of their times and changed the course of popular music, is simply not supported by the facts. The Beatles represented a linear continuation, not a radical or innovative shift in the trajectory of rock music. Yes, their impact is substantial to generations of like-minded artists. But so what?
Daniel

London, UK

#719 Oct 26, 2012
Digby wrote:
<quoted text>The one with the mental problem here is you Daniel. The Beatles grew into being a very great group whether you like them or not it doesn't matter one bit.They sold millions of records simply because their music was good end of story.
You've offered nothing by way of a convincing argument to support your case as to why you think they "are a very great group."

They sold millions of records because their music was unchallenging and easy on the ear. That doesn't mean that they were great.
Digby

Everett, WA

#720 Oct 26, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
You've offered nothing by way of a convincing argument to support your case as to why you think they "are a very great group."
They sold millions of records because their music was unchallenging and easy on the ear. That doesn't mean that they were great.
Hey genius has anyone topped the Beatles Yet? George Harrison was an excellant guitar player but in your lame opinion he was just average.You are entitled to your opinion but don't expect many on here to agree with you. Easy on the ear indeed how can you say unchallenging? Very tight three part harmonies and very catchy melody lines and great drumming behind them. Nobody has made a record better than Abbey road.
Daniel

London, UK

#721 Oct 26, 2012
Digby wrote:
<quoted text>Hey genius has anyone topped the Beatles Yet? George Harrison was an excellant guitar player but in your lame opinion he was just average.You are entitled to your opinion but don't expect many on here to agree with you. Easy on the ear indeed how can you say unchallenging? Very tight three part harmonies and very catchy melody lines and great drumming behind them. Nobody has made a record better than Abbey road.
Harrison was a relatively average musician. He was better than many, yes, but he wasn't a virtuoso player.

Esay on the ear, meaning overindulgent sentimental love songs, sickly sweet melodies and predictable unimaginative song structures, is neither a challenging or rewarding experience as far as I'm concerned.

If you like this sort of thing, then fine, but Beatles fans, ought not to make the gigantic leap that this is somehow groundbreaking and innovative, because it isn't. That is a fact.

Actually, I sort of agree with you about Abbey Road, at least in part. If you recall, I didn't completely dismiss everything the Beatles did.'I Want You' is pretty impressive as are elements of the 20 minute montage suite that close the album. McCartney's bass playing is pretty impressive throughout.

I'm not one of these anti-Beatles zealots. But equally, neither will I go along with the mantra that says the Beatles are beyond criticism.

What Beatles fans lack from my experience is a sense of perspective and proportionality. There is such a vast amount of varied music out there that is far more worthy than what was produced by the most overrated group in history.

Only a closed-minded musical Luddite devoid of a sense of music history and knowledge would suggest otherwise.

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
150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) 7 hr Steven Marks 12,813
Flashback | John And Yoko's 1971 Holiday Gift F... 11 hr Antonella Francesca 1
The year after the Beatles met E (Mar '14) 13 hr Little monster 199
John Lennon's 1980 Sunglasses: Still available? (Aug '08) Dec 15 shawnboushie 26
Who was the most talented Beatle in your opinion? (Nov '07) Nov 23 Greg 82
[News] Drake Passes The Beatles With Latest Bil... Nov 20 TheAfroHedgehog 3
Guitarist says McCartney hit 'crazy' high notes... Nov '14 Home By The Sea 3
More from around the web