The Beatles Are Overrated

[The prison Guard]

The prisoner wrote:

Sgt pepper ended rock n roll, Beatles 2, Dylan1

Sargent Pepper ended rock and roll? What a dumb statement you get back in your cell until I say so.

[Landis]

The Beatles are nowhere near overrated they might be underrated to be honest

Everyone has influences but it does not take away that the majority of people in rock music think The Beatles are it's most influential act or right near the top.

As for Zappa didn't he appear on a Monkees episode so I guees he sold out right? Don't get me wrong I love Zappa but the facts are he didn't resonate with the masses like The Beatles but no one did. Zappa could compose music be wasn't going to compete with the likes of The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in terms of songwriting.

There have been so many books and articles on this topic on the impact of the Beatles that you would think people here on a music forum would know.

By 1965 a whole scene had sprung around the success of the Beatles. Their success gave rise to a full-scale British Invasion as groups like the Rolling Stones, Hollies, The Searchers, The Yardrbirds, The Moody Blues, The Animals, The Kinks, Zombies, The Who, The Dave Clark Five and many others came into the charts around the American and the world. American groups like the Byrds, The Lovin Spoonful and the Beu Brummels were quick to respond. This in turned influenced Bob Dylan to go electric. A transatlantic dialog sprung up because of this and the influences went back and forth. This still is happening today.

This transatlantic dialog shows up strongly between the Beatles and Beach Boys. It starts in earnest with Rubber Soul which inspired Brian Wilson Pet Sound which then influenced Sgt. Pepper which in between was Revolver

The Beatles music is both simple and sophisticated. There music always provided an easy point of entry that hooks us yet subtle and complex enough that set them apart from the mundane. The blend of simplicity and sophistication was key to their commercial and artistic success. They had their own sound and had an uncanny ability to absorb outside influences and integrate them seamlessly into their sound.

The Beatles were not the first to use overdubbing or multitracking it had been around for awhile. But starting with Rubber Soul and peaking in Sgt. Pepper. The Beatles use of it and style achieved tremendous results that they inspired legions of imitators. Songs like “Eleanor Rigby” and “A Day in the Life” expanded the range of rock music and people started to associate those songs to high art. Because of all this the Beatles had a huge influence on the sound of rock music. Rock records from 1962 to 1970 sounded a lot different, they were better produced and offered a lot broader palette of sounds. Yes they were a huge influence though not the only one to merge studio experimention with a strong pop structure which is the primary style in both rock and pop music

[Bubba]

Landis wrote:

The Beatles are nowhere near overrated they might be underrated to be honest
Everyone has influences but it does not take away that the majority of people in rock music think The Beatles are it's most influential act or right near the top.
As for Zappa didn't he appear on a Monkees episode so I guees he sold out right? Don't get me wrong I love Zappa but the facts are he didn't resonate with the masses like The Beatles but no one did. Zappa could compose music be wasn't going to compete with the likes of The Beatles or The Rolling Stones in terms of songwriting.
There have been so many books and articles on this topic on the impact of the Beatles that you would think people here on a music forum would know.
By 1965 a whole scene had sprung around the success of the Beatles. Their success gave rise to a full-scale British Invasion as groups like the Rolling Stones, Hollies, The Searchers, The Yardrbirds, The Moody Blues, The Animals, The Kinks, Zombies, The Who, The Dave Clark Five and many others came into the charts around the American and the world. American groups like the Byrds, The Lovin Spoonful and the Beu Brummels were quick to respond. This in turned influenced Bob Dylan to go electric. A transatlantic dialog sprung up because of this and the influences went back and forth. This still is happening today.
This transatlantic dialog shows up strongly between the Beatles and Beach Boys. It starts in earnest with Rubber Soul which inspired Brian Wilson Pet Sound which then influenced Sgt. Pepper which in between was Revolver
The Beatles music is both simple and sophisticated. There music always provided an easy point of entry that hooks us yet subtle and complex enough that set them apart from the mundane. The blend of simplicity and sophistication was key to their commercial and artistic success. They had their own sound and had an uncanny ability to absorb outside influences and integrate them seamlessly into their sound.
The Beatles were not the first to use overdubbing or multitracking it had been around for awhile. But starting with Rubber Soul and peaking in Sgt. Pepper. The Beatles use of it and style achieved tremendous results that they inspired legions of imitators. Songs like “Eleanor Rigby” and “A Day in the Life” expanded the range of rock music and people started to associate those songs to high art. Because of all this the Beatles had a huge influence on the sound of rock music. Rock records from 1962 to 1970 sounded a lot different, they were better produced and offered a lot broader palette of sounds. Yes they were a huge influence though not the only one to merge studio experimention with a strong pop structure which is the primary style in both rock and pop music

I agree and very well stated.

[Peso]

Popular doesn´t equal quality. Generally,(like we see in today´s radio charts) it´s the opposite.

There´s have been so many books and articles because The Beatles are extremely popular and a brand like Coca-Cola. Anything about the beatles will sold well, is easy money.

That´s why there are not many books of more genuine and much better, complex bands like 13th Floor Elevators, The Soft Machine or Red Krayola. Hey, it took a hell lot of time for The Velvet Underground to achieve some credit they deserved back then in the sixties, and they still deserve much more because any respectable music lover would know that they shit on The Beatles. Time will put things in place, separating commercial stuff like The Beatles from the real deal.

Dylan went electric not only cause of The Beatles (And it was The british invasion to be exact, don´t ignore the rest of the bands like The Kinks), it was probably more of The Byrds covering his songs. He wanted to have a contemporary sound. And John Lennon in the years 64-65 was a Dylan fanboy, rip-off. I´m a Loser was his first intent to copy Dylan and Norwegian Wood was probably his better attempt. Dylan answered this song and mock Lennon´s rip-offs of him with "4 Time Around".

Landis, there was much better and interesting music in the 60´s than The Beatles (and I´m not even talking about The Stones, Byrds, Kinks or The Who). Try to expand your music knowledge and come back later.

[Peso]

Landis wrote:

Songs like “Eleanor Rigby” and “A Day in the Life” expanded the range of rock music and people started to associate those songs to high art.

Artists like The Beach Boys or Zappa had done entire albums of art-rock-pop a full year before a song like A Day in The Life (More of a George Martin´s creation anyway)

Eleanor Rigby is just a melancholy pop song.

[Pepto]

Peso wrote:

<quoted text>
Artists like The Beach Boys or Zappa had done entire albums of art-rock-pop a full year before a song like A Day in The Life (More of a George Martin´s creation anyway)
Eleanor Rigby is just a melancholy pop song.

Where is Zappa today? Not remembered after 40 years huh? Eleanor Rigby was a classic By Sir Paul not George Martin bonehead! Not very many remember Velvet Underground and Lou Reed can't sing worth a crap. Never could.

[Peso]

A hurt beatles fan-boy.

Learn how to read and then get back to me. I said A Day In The Life was more of a George Martin´s creation, Not Eleanor Rigby.

[Peso]

Pepto wrote:

<quoted text>Where is Zappa today? Not remembered after 40 years huh? Not very many remember Velvet Underground and Lou Reed can't sing worth a crap. Never could.

And That´s why rock music is still a popular contest and not a serious art.

But like I said, time probably will put things in the right place.

[Pepto]

Peso wrote:

A hurt beatles fan-boy.
Learn how to read and then get back to me. I said A Day In The Life was more of a George Martin´s creation, Not Eleanor Rigby.

Oh my did I make Peso upset or something? Maybe you need Pepto Bismo.

[Hagar]

Peso wrote:

Popular doesn´t equal quality. Generally,(like we see in today´s radio charts) it´s the opposite.
There´s have been so many books and articles because The Beatles are extremely popular and a brand like Coca-Cola. Anything about the beatles will sold well, is easy money.
That´s why there are not many books of more genuine and much better, complex bands like 13th Floor Elevators, The Soft Machine or Red Krayola. Hey, it took a hell lot of time for The Velvet Underground to achieve some credit they deserved back then in the sixties, and they still deserve much more because any respectable music lover would know that they shit on The Beatles. Time will put things in place, separating commercial stuff like The Beatles from the real deal.
Dylan went electric not only cause of The Beatles (And it was The british invasion to be exact, don´t ignore the rest of the bands like The Kinks), it was probably more of The Byrds covering his songs. He wanted to have a contemporary sound. And John Lennon in the years 64-65 was a Dylan fanboy, rip-off. I´m a Loser was his first intent to copy Dylan and Norwegian Wood was probably his better attempt. Dylan answered this song and mock Lennon´s rip-offs of him with "4 Time Around".
Landis, there was much better and interesting music in the 60´s than The Beatles (and I´m not even talking about The Stones, Byrds, Kinks or The Who). Try to expand your music knowledge and come back later.

Any respectable music lover would know that Velvet Underground were shit and their lead singer never could sing worth a crap. Only thing cool about them was their name.Lennon's first attempt to copy Dylan was You've got to hide your love away.I'm a Loser was never an attempt to be like Dylan neither was Norwegian Wood.Try to expand your knowledge Dylan lover boy.

[Peso]

Funny thing is that I like The Beatles.

But their average fans live like in a particular perfect beatles dream world I don´t care.

Let it be. xD

[Peso]

I mean, I like some songs.

[Peso]

Hagar wrote:

Lennon's first attempt to copy Dylan was You've got to hide your love away.I'm a Loser was never an attempt to be like Dylan neither was Norwegian Wood.Try to expand your knowledge Dylan lover boy.

"You've got to hide your love away", that´s right, that´s one of Lennon´s "Dylan songs" but I´m A loser" is too. I don´t remember which one come first.

And Norwegian wood is another. Dylan parodied Lennon´s Norwegian Wood with 4th Time Around. 4th Time Around was Dylan doing Lennon doing Dylan.

[Peso]

I mean, I was right. "I`m a Loser" from Beatles for Sale came first. That song was the first attempt of Lennon to be like Dylan.

[Pedro]

Peso wrote:

<quoted text>
"You've got to hide your love away", that´s right, that´s one of Lennon´s "Dylan songs" but I´m A loser" is too. I don´t remember which one come first.
And Norwegian wood is another. Dylan parodied Lennon´s Norwegian Wood with 4th Time Around. 4th Time Around was Dylan doing Lennon doing Dylan.

Dylan probably wished he had a voice like Lennon did. The older Dylan gets the worse he sounds.

[Peso]

Pedro wrote:

<quoted text>Dylan probably wished he had a voice like Lennon did. The older Dylan gets the worse he sounds.

That´s true. I agree, specially with your last statement.

But we can also say that Lennon probably wished he had a voice like Carl Wilson, Tim Buckley or Roy Orbison.

[Pedro]

Peso wrote:

<quoted text>
That´s true. I agree, specially with your last statement.
But we can also say that Lennon probably wished he had a voice like Carl Wilson, Tim Buckley or Roy Orbison.

Orbison was unique no doubt.

[Son of SickNTired]

Peso wrote:

Popular doesn´t equal quality. Generally,(like we see in today´s radio charts) it´s the opposite.
There´s have been so many books and articles because The Beatles are extremely popular and a brand like Coca-Cola. Anything about the beatles will sold well, is easy money.
That´s why there are not many books of more genuine and much better, complex bands like 13th Floor Elevators, The Soft Machine or Red Krayola. Hey, it took a hell lot of time for The Velvet Underground to achieve some credit they deserved back then in the sixties, and they still deserve much more because any respectable music lover would know that they shit on The Beatles. Time will put things in place, separating commercial stuff like The Beatles from the real deal.
Dylan went electric not only cause of The Beatles (And it was The british invasion to be exact, don´t ignore the rest of the bands like The Kinks), it was probably more of The Byrds covering his songs. He wanted to have a contemporary sound. And John Lennon in the years 64-65 was a Dylan fanboy, rip-off. I´m a Loser was his first intent to copy Dylan and Norwegian Wood was probably his better attempt. Dylan answered this song and mock Lennon´s rip-offs of him with "4 Time Around".
Landis, there was much better and interesting music in the 60´s than The Beatles (and I´m not even talking about The Stones, Byrds, Kinks or The Who). Try to expand your music knowledge and come back later.

Could be that the bands that you mentioned,in reality, were not that good.. And they were nowhere close to the Beatles. Complexity or interesting doesn't equal better, and no one was taking anything away from the Stone, etc... They are just second tier when put up against the Beatles...

[Poppa Jivebones]

Son of SickNTired wrote:

<quoted text>
Could be that the bands that you mentioned,in reality, were not that good.. And they were nowhere close to the Beatles. Complexity or interesting doesn't equal better, and no one was taking anything away from the Stone, etc... They are just second tier when put up against the Beatles...

That's right on Son of SickNtired. Stones are great but not as great as the Beatles were.

[Landis]

Peso wrote:

Popular doesn´t equal quality. Generally,(like we see in today´s radio charts) it´s the opposite.
There´s have been so many books and articles because The Beatles are extremely popular and a brand like Coca-Cola. Anything about the beatles will sold well, is easy money.
That´s why there are not many books of more genuine and much better, complex bands like 13th Floor Elevators, The Soft Machine or Red Krayola. Hey, it took a hell lot of time for The Velvet Underground to achieve some credit they deserved back then in the sixties, and they still deserve much more because any respectable music lover would know that they shit on The Beatles. Time will put things in place, separating commercial stuff like The Beatles from the real deal.
Dylan went electric not only cause of The Beatles (And it was The british invasion to be exact, don´t ignore the rest of the bands like The Kinks), it was probably more of The Byrds covering his songs. He wanted to have a contemporary sound. And John Lennon in the years 64-65 was a Dylan fanboy, rip-off. I´m a Loser was his first intent to copy Dylan and Norwegian Wood was probably his better attempt. Dylan answered this song and mock Lennon´s rip-offs of him with "4 Time Around".
Landis, there was much better and interesting music in the 60´s than The Beatles (and I´m not even talking about The Stones, Byrds, Kinks or The Who). Try to expand your music knowledge and come back later.

Do me a favor I have listened 13th Floor Elevators, The Soft Machine or Red Krayola by the way all influenced by The Beatles by the way. I don't find them at all interesting compared to The Beatles. I find The Beatles use of East Indian classical music, electronically produced sound collage, selective orchestration, aleatory (or chance) procedures, and musique concrète much more innovative and interesting than your so called more complex bands. Geez there are more time signatures on "Good Morning Good Morning" than any Zappa song I know of and more sections in the Abbey Road than most progressive rock songs.

"Tomorrow Never Knows by The Beatles beats all of them to punch. Instead of a progression of chords in support of the melodic lines, we hear a sustained drone and an ostinato bass pattern. The most novel sounds here were made by modifying tape recordings. Prerecorded tape loops were fed into the studio's mixing console producing the "seagull" and "whooping" noises that fade in and out of a sonic montage. This was more advanced and influential than anything than The Velvet Underground who I like.