The Beatles Are Overrated
Digby

Bothell, WA

#722 Oct 26, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Harrison is one of the best at playing slide guitar. Mccartney is an excellant bass guitar player. the music today is total crap compared to the 60's and 70's. The Beatles opened the door for many others to follow. I can't compare Hendrix to Harrison because both had very different styles and both were guitar masters.Clapton and Harrison are two of the best British guitar players.Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck are great also but in a different league.The only ones who say the Beatles were overrated are people like you Daniel who can't appreciate the hard work and determination the Beatles had to go all the way to the top.

“MAXIMUM SEX-AND-ROCK-AND -ROLL!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#723 Oct 26, 2012
I LOVE The Beatles yes for their own music, but moreso because they influenced The Who, The Moody Blues, King Crimson, Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer (especially 'Works, Vol. I, the greatest album ever made), and Renaissance ("A Song For All Sesaons" begins on the very 'E' that "A Day In The Life" ends).
Opinionated

Houston, TX

#724 Oct 26, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Well Daniel, you must have liked something about them, you came to the Beatle's forum and posted didn't yah ?
You don't have to like them, it is your right to do so.
Admit it or not, they have millions of people who love them, not because they they tried to appeal to the masses, it's because their music is great.
Agree or disagree, it again is your right.
Bubba

Seattle, WA

#725 Oct 26, 2012
Vallin wrote:
I LOVE The Beatles yes for their own music, but moreso because they influenced The Who, The Moody Blues, King Crimson, Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer (especially 'Works, Vol. I, the greatest album ever made), and Renaissance ("A Song For All Sesaons" begins on the very 'E' that "A Day In The Life" ends).
That's right Vallin after the Beatles all the other British groups copied their hair style and they all were influenced by the Beatles.Badfinger was another good group that the Beatles took under their wing.Straight Up was a pretty good record.
Opinionated

Houston, TX

#726 Oct 26, 2012
Digby wrote:
<quoted text>Harrison is one of the best at playing slide guitar. Mccartney is an excellant bass guitar player. the music today is total crap compared to the 60's and 70's. The Beatles opened the door for many others to follow. I can't compare Hendrix to Harrison because both had very different styles and both were guitar masters.Clapton and Harrison are two of the best British guitar players.Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck are great also but in a different league.The only ones who say the Beatles were overrated are people like you Daniel who can't appreciate the hard work and determination the Beatles had to go all the way to the top.
Daniel comes to the forum to set us fans right, he feels that he must reply every pro Beatle's post, but with every comment he goes nowhere, just proving what we already know, he doesn't like the Beatles and thinks we should all abandon our tastes and follow him, sorry Daniel, they are not over-rated and they do not suck.
You may feel that way and it's ok, but your so-called plan to convince anyone that your opinion is correct has not done what you wanted it to, better luck next time.
Daniel

London, UK

#727 Oct 27, 2012
Digby wrote:
<quoted text>Harrison is one of the best at playing slide guitar. Mccartney is an excellant bass guitar player. the music today is total crap compared to the 60's and 70's. The Beatles opened the door for many others to follow. I can't compare Hendrix to Harrison because both had very different styles and both were guitar masters.Clapton and Harrison are two of the best British guitar players.Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck are great also but in a different league.The only ones who say the Beatles were overrated are people like you Daniel who can't appreciate the hard work and determination the Beatles had to go all the way to the top.
So Beatles opened the door for others. What if they did? So have a multitude of other musicians. Why do you think that's relevant to the premise of the thread?

Beatles fans lack a sense of perspective because they refuse to acknowledge that their heroes are flawed, have a limited view of what constitutes acceptable boundaries of rock music and are simply unaware of the multitude of artists who have contributed to the development and diversity of the genre.

The argument that the Beatles were in anyway innovators within that historical context, is belied by the facts and illustrates their fans' lack of knowledge as regards the true extent of the diversity of artists and genres that embrace rock music, many of whom fall outside of the radio-friendly format condusive to popular culture that the Beatles slot into.

Many of these artists often get overlooked by mainstream critics, largely as a result of their lack of commercial viability. But that doesn't mean their work has less artistic integrity and therefore is any less valid than the music of the Beatles.

On the contrary, historically, the vast majority of non-commercial music is far more creative, innovative, imaginative and accomplished than anything produced by the Beatles.
Daniel

London, UK

#728 Oct 27, 2012
Opinionated wrote:
<quoted text>Daniel comes to the forum to set us fans right, he feels that he must reply every pro Beatle's post, but with every comment he goes nowhere, just proving what we already know, he doesn't like the Beatles and thinks we should all abandon our tastes and follow him, sorry Daniel, they are not over-rated and they do not suck.
You may feel that way and it's ok, but your so-called plan to convince anyone that your opinion is correct has not done what you wanted it to, better luck next time.
Your Beatles obsessions have clearly affected your comprehension. I've repeatedly said I appreciate some of the Beatles work and alluded to the fact that their lightweight pop, simple chorus-verse-chorus song structure and childlike vaudeville ditties have their place.

That place is firmly entrenched in the 1950s and 1960s. The Beatles are an anachronism from a bygone age and their music was dated as if from another universe as far back as 1965.

All rational and objective music fans are able to recognise this. But nobody has ever accused Beatles fans of being in anyway rational or objective, so we'll have to agree to disagree about the so-called merits of the not so fab four.
Daniel

London, UK

#729 Oct 27, 2012
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>That's right Vallin after the Beatles all the other British groups copied their hair style and they all were influenced by the Beatles.Badfinger was another good group that the Beatles took under their wing.Straight Up was a pretty good record.
So what if many equally uninspiring and unimaginative bands copied their style? That just means the Merseybeat sound is, in and of itself, unoriginal, uninspiring and unimaginative.
Daniel

London, UK

#730 Oct 27, 2012
Opinionated wrote:
<quoted text>Well Daniel, you must have liked something about them, you came to the Beatle's forum and posted didn't yah ?
You don't have to like them, it is your right to do so.
Admit it or not, they have millions of people who love them, not because they they tried to appeal to the masses, it's because their music is great.
Agree or disagree, it again is your right.
Comprehension really isn't your forte is it fella? For the third time, I have already said, I like some of their work. Unlike you, I am not unconditionally blind to them as though they are somehow Gods. In other words, I'm able to discern and be somewhat philosophical about them.

In the context of the historical richness and diversity the music world has had to offer, the music of the Beatles by comparison, can not in any objective analysis be regarded as great. You simply have to either be tone deaf to think that on the one hand, or alternatively have all your critical faculties removed, on the other.
Opinionated

Houston, TX

#731 Oct 27, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Beatles obsessions have clearly affected your comprehension. I've repeatedly said I appreciate some of the Beatles work and alluded to the fact that their lightweight pop, simple chorus-verse-chorus song structure and childlike vaudeville ditties have their place.
That place is firmly entrenched in the 1950s and 1960s. The Beatles are an anachronism from a bygone age and their music was dated as if from another universe as far back as 1965.
All rational and objective music fans are able to recognise this. But nobody has ever accused Beatles fans of being in anyway rational or objective, so we'll have to agree to disagree about the so-called merits of the not so fab four.
If my love for the Beatles is an obsession then that makes your hatred for them an obsession as well.
And as stated many times before, your opinion is not fact, merely an opinion.
And as you said, we will have to disagree.
Opinionated

Houston, TX

#732 Oct 27, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
Comprehension really isn't your forte is it fella? For the third time, I have already said, I like some of their work. Unlike you, I am not unconditionally blind to them as though they are somehow Gods. In other words, I'm able to discern and be somewhat philosophical about them.
In the context of the historical richness and diversity the music world has had to offer, the music of the Beatles by comparison, can not in any objective analysis be regarded as great. You simply have to either be tone deaf to think that on the one hand, or alternatively have all your critical faculties removed, on the other.
When in doubt, why not insult, eh.
You like some of their work, great.
I'm not mad at you for not liking them as much as I, you are entitled to your own musical tastes.
In the same breath that I like the Beatles, I also like Pink Floyd,The Doors,The Black Crowes and quite a few more.
Daniel

London, UK

#733 Oct 27, 2012
Opinionated wrote:
<quoted text>If my love for the Beatles is an obsession then that makes your hatred for them an obsession as well.
And as stated many times before, your opinion is not fact, merely an opinion.
And as you said, we will have to disagree.
But I don't hate them, dude. I just think they're overrated.
Daniel

London, UK

#734 Oct 27, 2012
Opinionated wrote:
You like some of their work, great.
You claimed in your previous post that I hated them. You're confused, dude.
Opinionated

Houston, TX

#735 Oct 27, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
But I don't hate them, dude. I just think they're overrated.
Fair enough.
Opinionated

Houston, TX

#736 Oct 27, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
We will just say that you like some of their music but not all, which is not at all uncommon, I like a lot of other groups, but not everything they have recorded.
For instance, I pretty much love everything Pink Floyd, but don't care much for Waters solo.
As far as the Beatles, in my opinion, Revolver was the best album, Mystery Tour would be my second choice.
Daniel

London, UK

#737 Oct 27, 2012
Opinionated wrote:
<quoted text>We will just say that you like some of their music but not all, which is not at all uncommon, I like a lot of other groups, but not everything they have recorded.
For instance, I pretty much love everything Pink Floyd, but don't care much for Waters solo.
As far as the Beatles, in my opinion, Revolver was the best album, Mystery Tour would be my second choice.
It's funny you mentioned Mystery Tour, which as far as the critics are concerned, is not widely regarded as one of their best. But I agree with you in your estimation of that album. Underrated by their standards, in my view.

When I was younger I was a real fan of the Beatles mainly through my Uncle. But as I got older and I started to explore what I regarded as more interesting avant-garde, experimental and psychedelic-based music - Faust, Can, Robert Wyatt, Red Crayola etc - I increasingly began to regard the Beatles as somewhat of an outdated anachronism.

Personally, these days, I can only listen to Paperback Writer, I Want You, Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, and at a push, the closing 20 minute suite on Abbey Road.

If I had been a teenager in the 60s, I would have most definetely been a Stones man.
Allan ex Opinionated

Houston, TX

#738 Oct 27, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny you mentioned Mystery Tour, which as far as the critics are concerned, is not widely regarded as one of their best. But I agree with you in your estimation of that album. Underrated by their standards, in my view.
When I was younger I was a real fan of the Beatles mainly through my Uncle. But as I got older and I started to explore what I regarded as more interesting avant-garde, experimental and psychedelic-based music - Faust, Can, Robert Wyatt, Red Crayola etc - I increasingly began to regard the Beatles as somewhat of an outdated anachronism.
Personally, these days, I can only listen to Paperback Writer, I Want You, Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, and at a push, the closing 20 minute suite on Abbey Road.
If I had been a teenager in the 60s, I would have most definetely been a Stones man.
With the new cleaned up version of the Mystery Tour dvd, the videos look amazing, especially the I Am The Walrus part, what a leap technology has made.
Mystery Tour is not really a complete album, it's pieced together with recent singles and e.p.'s, but to me, it works better than Sgt. Pepper.
As far as the Stones, they did produce quite a bit of great songs, they even re-invented themselves in the 1970's.
Which is why I like the Stones,Beatles and Dylan, all three re-invented themselves a few times.
David Gilmour played a great set at the 2002 Robert Wyatt Meltdown concert.
I'll have to give a listen to Faust and Red Crayola.
Rabinowitz

Camano Island, WA

#739 Oct 28, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
So Beatles opened the door for others. What if they did? So have a multitude of other musicians. Why do you think that's relevant to the premise of the thread?
Beatles fans lack a sense of perspective because they refuse to acknowledge that their heroes are flawed, have a limited view of what constitutes acceptable boundaries of rock music and are simply unaware of the multitude of artists who have contributed to the development and diversity of the genre.
The argument that the Beatles were in anyway innovators within that historical context, is belied by the facts and illustrates their fans' lack of knowledge as regards the true extent of the diversity of artists and genres that embrace rock music, many of whom fall outside of the radio-friendly format condusive to popular culture that the Beatles slot into.
Many of these artists often get overlooked by mainstream critics, largely as a result of their lack of commercial viability. But that doesn't mean their work has less artistic integrity and therefore is any less valid than the music of the Beatles.
On the contrary, historically, the vast majority of non-commercial music is far more creative, innovative, imaginative and accomplished than anything produced by the Beatles.
If you knew anything about diversity then you would know The Beatles were a very diverse band.They could play rock,country,polkas,blues,soft balads,or heavy rockers like Helter skelter. Again you fail to prove your point. Also they played MoTOWN.

“LADYVERO R.N.”

Since: Feb 09

Chihuahua, Mexico

#740 Oct 28, 2012
Daniel wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Danny, you came in the middle of a conversation and are clueless at to what's going on.
Go back and read the previous comments and enlighten yourself.
And so what if someone from London likes or dislikes the Beatles,is irrelevant in itself.
As far as my opinion or your opinion, who cares Danny ?

“LADYVERO R.N.”

Since: Feb 09

Chihuahua, Mexico

#741 Oct 28, 2012
Allan ex Opinionated wrote:
<quoted text>With the new cleaned up version of the Mystery Tour dvd, the videos look amazing, especially the I Am The Walrus part, what a leap technology has made.
Mystery Tour is not really a complete album, it's pieced together with recent singles and e.p.'s, but to me, it works better than Sgt. Pepper.
As far as the Stones, they did produce quite a bit of great songs, they even re-invented themselves in the 1970's.
Which is why I like the Stones,Beatles and Dylan, all three re-invented themselves a few times.
David Gilmour played a great set at the 2002 Robert Wyatt Meltdown concert.
I'll have to give a listen to Faust and Red Crayola.
I love the remastered dvd, on the menu there are four bonus spots.

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 150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) Sat RICK 12,904
News Paul McCarthy: Going Vegan Is The Best Way To G... Dec 12 nat 2
Why do people hate Asparagus ? (Jan '10) Nov 18 MrDinosaurGuy 24
News Beatles statues are tons of fun except for one ... Oct '17 Break Farts 5
new george martin interview he apologizes to p... (Feb '08) Sep '17 macca 20
Samples Aug '17 djhope 1
News Radio Faces Big Test In Pennsylvania That Will ... Aug '17 Hair Nation 2
More from around the web