I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I stopped talking with him about music.
I wouldn't go that far. Ted Nugent?
You're right I should alter my post from the disliking to my original premise of overrated.
Perhaps I cannot properly illustrate why they're overrated, aside from hearing about how 'amazing' they are from so many people. Much like when I hear people swoon about LeBron, Sydney Crosby, & Joe Paterno, I roll my eyes when I get told about the Beatles.
I could understand hearing that they changed the music landscape by someone who live through it or is a music aficionado, but hearing people my age and younger sounds like the Kool aid was past around. I've only known music past the group's time. Sure I've listened to the music from the same time and before, but I don't hear anything that would make me go "this...THIS is where music really started."
M
You should stick with "disliking".
Calling the Beatles "overrated" makes you sound foolish.
Sounds like the people your age and younger, rather than drinking Kool-Aid, simply understand more about music than you do.
I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I stopped talking with him about music.
I wouldn't go that far. Ted Nugent?
You're right I should alter my post from the disliking to my original premise of overrated.
Perhaps I cannot properly illustrate why they're overrated, aside from hearing about how 'amazing' they are from so many people. Much like when I hear people swoon about LeBron, Sydney Crosby, & Joe Paterno, I roll my eyes when I get told about the Beatles.
I could understand hearing that they changed the music landscape by someone who live through it or is a music aficionado, but hearing people my age and younger sounds like the Kool aid was past around. I've only known music past the group's time. Sure I've listened to the music from the same time and before, but I don't hear anything that would make me go "this...THIS is where music really started."
M
You should stick with "disliking".
Calling the Beatles "overrated" makes you sound foolish.
Sounds like the people your age and younger, rather than drinking Kool-Aid, simply understand more about music than you do.
You've actually just proven my point. If I said "2001: A Space Odessey" or "Scarface" are overrated (which they are), I get told by fans its a difference of opinion. If I say the Beatles are overrated I (allegedly) sound foolish; and now, apparently, lack music comprehension.
Does anyone or anything (besides 'God') have that level of gravitas?
I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I stopped talking with him about music.
I wouldn't go that far. Ted Nugent?
You're right I should alter my post from the disliking to my original premise of overrated.
Perhaps I cannot properly illustrate why they're overrated, aside from hearing about how 'amazing' they are from so many people. Much like when I hear people swoon about LeBron, Sydney Crosby, & Joe Paterno, I roll my eyes when I get told about the Beatles.
I could understand hearing that they changed the music landscape by someone who live through it or is a music aficionado, but hearing people my age and younger sounds like the Kool aid was past around. I've only known music past the group's time. Sure I've listened to the music from the same time and before, but I don't hear anything that would make me go "this...THIS is where music really started."
M
I agree with @WetRats, you should stick with dislike rather than overrated. [Edit: Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it makes you look foolish. I would say it makes you look like a “hater.” And everything at a certain level of popularity has its share of haters.]
Look, I’m not saying music started with the Beatles. But music did change with the Beatles. There’s a big difference. Music changed with Chuck Berry and Little Richard (who made truly innovative music). Music changed with Elvis (who made Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music acceptable to the white masses). And music changed with the Beatles (who took Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music, gave it a twist, and then expanded on it).
You don’t have to live through an event to be able to see that it happened. Details can (and often do) become skewed over the course of time, yes, but to say something like that would be to say that history is an entirely useless field of study. In this case, all you have to do is look at the sales charts before the Beatles and the sales charts after the Beatles. The Beatles changed the recording industry. And it wasn’t just their songs, but their charisma, their promotion, and their timing. They were the right band with the right sound, the right charm, and the right looks, at the right time. And they had the talent to back it up.
If there’s a particular moment you’re looking for, a particular sound that changed everything, I would say you’re barking up the wrong tree. But if pressed, I would say listen closely to the opening chord to “A Hard Day’s Night.” The complexity and power of that opening shot showed that underneath their bubblegum exterior the Beatles were going to be game-changers.
I get where you’re coming from, Matt. There are tons of bands I have trouble accepting as being as popular as they are (ahem, Nickelback). But I respect the fact that something about their music speaks to a large number of people. Doesn’t mean I have to like them, but I’m not going to say all their fans are wrong either.
I have yet to hear exactly why they're this "amazing band." On my list of Top 100 bands, they'd be close to the last 1/4.
M
It's all about what music was like before the Beatles, and what music was like after the Beatles. Whoever is in your Top 100, the Beatles probably either influenced them directly, or influenced their influences.
Yeah, I don't quite buy that. Would I have to like 1 actor or comedian because he influenced someone I like? So I have to like A because I like B?
My iPod has over 2000 songs; 3 Beatles songs at most. I never really dug their music. I've never read anything that my favorite band, AC/DC, was influenced by the Beatles. I recall reading Michael Stipe (of REM) one time stated the Beatles didn't mean a fucking thing to him. I just cannot see them as having the 'secret recipe' for music.
I have a theory there's a lot of people who agree with me, but just conform with the masses about the group.
M
There is a big difference between not liking a band and saying they're overrated. One is stating a personal preference, and the other is assuming everyone else’s opinion is invalid.
AC/DC and the Beatles share a lot of the same influences—Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and the old blues artists mainly, but, yeah, there's not a strong tie beyond that really. But while Michael Stipe was more into the proto-punk bands (some of whom were influenced by the Beatles), Mike Mills was heavily influenced by Paul McCartney's bass playing. So, yes, R.E.M. was influenced by the Beatles.
As for having the “secret recipe,” their recipe wasn’t all that secret, but it was pretty much impossible to duplicate. That’s what made them stand out from all their imitators and everyone else. That being said, there is no one recipe for musical brilliance but rather hundreds. AC/DC has a very simple recipe. They’re very much a “what you hear is what you get” type of band. But they’re one of the best at making that particular recipe. (Personally, I like the Cult’s version of that recipe a little bit better, which is funny since the two bands basically swapped drummers at one point).
Please keep in mind that I’m not arguing that you should like the Beatles, or that they are indisputably the greatest band ever. My iPod has over 2000 songs as well, and at the moment only about 20 Beatles songs. I'm not always in the mood to listen to the Beatles, but I do still consider them one of the greatest bands of all time, not only for their songs, but because they changed the way people thought about music.
Poor Supes. Now his thread’s been taken over by a British pop band. The guy just can't catch a break.
Someday we will talk about something @nweathington knows nothing about.
Someday.
Trust me, there’s plenty of topics I know nothing about. Just ask my wife.
Does anyone or anything (besides 'God') have that level of gravitas?
M
The problem is your presentation of your opinion as definitive.
You say The Beatles "are" overrated, not that "you consider" them overrated.
I've interacted with you enough to know that you are far from foolish, but when you state things this way, you sound foolish. It makes you appear as if you cannot differentiate between your opinion and accepted truth.
I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I stopped talking with him about music.
I wouldn't go that far. Ted Nugent?
You're right I should alter my post from the disliking to my original premise of overrated.
Perhaps I cannot properly illustrate why they're overrated, aside from hearing about how 'amazing' they are from so many people. Much like when I hear people swoon about LeBron, Sydney Crosby, & Joe Paterno, I roll my eyes when I get told about the Beatles.
I could understand hearing that they changed the music landscape by someone who live through it or is a music aficionado, but hearing people my age and younger sounds like the Kool aid was past around. I've only known music past the group's time. Sure I've listened to the music from the same time and before, but I don't hear anything that would make me go "this...THIS is where music really started."
M
I agree with @WetRats, you should stick with dislike rather than overrated.
Look, I’m not saying music started with the Beatles. But music did change with the Beatles. There’s a big difference. Music changed with Chuck Berry and Little Richard (who made truly innovative music). Music changed with Elvis (who made Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music acceptable to the white masses). And music changed with the Beatles (who took Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music, gave it a twist, and then expanded on it).
You don’t have to live through an event to be able to see that it happened. Details can (and often do) become skewed over the course of time, yes, but to say something like that would be to say that history is an entirely useless field of study. In this case, all you have to do is look at the sales charts before the Beatles and the sales charts after the Beatles. The Beatles changed the recording industry. And it wasn’t just their songs, but their charisma, their promotion, and their timing. They were the right band with the right sound, the right charm, and the right looks, at the right time. And they had the talent to back it up.
If there’s a particular moment you’re looking for, a particular sound that changed everything, I would say you’re barking up the wrong tree. But if pressed, I would say listen closely to the opening chord to “A Hard Day’s Night.” The complexity and power of that opening shot showed that underneath their bubblegum exterior the Beatles were going to be game-changers.
I get where you’re coming from, Matt. There are tons of bands I have trouble accepting as being as popular as they are (ahem, Nickleback). But I respect the fact that something about their music speaks to a large number of people. Doesn’t mean I have to like them, but I’m not going to say all their fans are wrong either.
I use overrated verse dislike because of how people swoon over them. I dislike these boy bands like One Direction because aside teenage girls don't have to hear people damn near worship them.
Like I said earlier, I feel the same about Joe Paterno, LeBron, & Sidney Crosby.
And I see history as subjective to the recorder, not useless.
I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I stopped talking with him about music.
I wouldn't go that far. Ted Nugent?
You're right I should alter my post from the disliking to my original premise of overrated.
Perhaps I cannot properly illustrate why they're overrated, aside from hearing about how 'amazing' they are from so many people. Much like when I hear people swoon about LeBron, Sydney Crosby, & Joe Paterno, I roll my eyes when I get told about the Beatles.
I could understand hearing that they changed the music landscape by someone who live through it or is a music aficionado, but hearing people my age and younger sounds like the Kool aid was past around. I've only known music past the group's time. Sure I've listened to the music from the same time and before, but I don't hear anything that would make me go "this...THIS is where music really started."
M
You should stick with "disliking".
Calling the Beatles "overrated" makes you sound foolish.
Sounds like the people your age and younger, rather than drinking Kool-Aid, simply understand more about music than you do.
You've actually just proven my point. If I said "2001: A Space Odessey" or "Scarface" are overrated (which they are), I get told by fans its a difference of opinion. If I say the Beatles are overrated I (allegedly) sound foolish; and now, apparently, lack music comprehension.
Does anyone or anything (besides 'God') have that level of gravitas?
M
Again, I would argue that 2001 and Scarface, based solely on their influence on other film directors, much less their technical brilliance (from a purely filmmaking perspective), are not overrated. They, like the Beatles, were game-changers in that they influenced many, many others in how they went about making films.
Personally, I think 2001 is a bit overlong, and Scarface I’m just not that big a fan of in terms of its story. But from a purely critical standpoint, I can see how they influenced cinema in terms of storytelling (pacing, dialogue, and theme in particular), and while neither would be in my personal Top 10, I could see them being in someone else’s Top 10 and not bat an eye.
I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I stopped talking with him about music.
I wouldn't go that far. Ted Nugent?
You're right I should alter my post from the disliking to my original premise of overrated.
Perhaps I cannot properly illustrate why they're overrated, aside from hearing about how 'amazing' they are from so many people. Much like when I hear people swoon about LeBron, Sydney Crosby, & Joe Paterno, I roll my eyes when I get told about the Beatles.
I could understand hearing that they changed the music landscape by someone who live through it or is a music aficionado, but hearing people my age and younger sounds like the Kool aid was past around. I've only known music past the group's time. Sure I've listened to the music from the same time and before, but I don't hear anything that would make me go "this...THIS is where music really started."
M
I agree with @WetRats, you should stick with dislike rather than overrated.
Look, I’m not saying music started with the Beatles. But music did change with the Beatles. There’s a big difference. Music changed with Chuck Berry and Little Richard (who made truly innovative music). Music changed with Elvis (who made Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music acceptable to the white masses). And music changed with the Beatles (who took Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music, gave it a twist, and then expanded on it).
You don’t have to live through an event to be able to see that it happened. Details can (and often do) become skewed over the course of time, yes, but to say something like that would be to say that history is an entirely useless field of study. In this case, all you have to do is look at the sales charts before the Beatles and the sales charts after the Beatles. The Beatles changed the recording industry. And it wasn’t just their songs, but their charisma, their promotion, and their timing. They were the right band with the right sound, the right charm, and the right looks, at the right time. And they had the talent to back it up.
If there’s a particular moment you’re looking for, a particular sound that changed everything, I would say you’re barking up the wrong tree. But if pressed, I would say listen closely to the opening chord to “A Hard Day’s Night.” The complexity and power of that opening shot showed that underneath their bubblegum exterior the Beatles were going to be game-changers.
I get where you’re coming from, Matt. There are tons of bands I have trouble accepting as being as popular as they are (ahem, Nickleback). But I respect the fact that something about their music speaks to a large number of people. Doesn’t mean I have to like them, but I’m not going to say all their fans are wrong either.
I use overrated verse dislike because of how people swoon over them. I dislike these boy bands like One Direction because aside teenage girls don't have to hear people damn near worship them.
Like I said earlier, I feel the same about Joe Paterno, LeBron, & Sidney Crosby.
And I see history as subjective to the recorder, not useless.
M
Well, I don’t think I’m swooning when I say they're one of the greatest bands of all time. Just because there are swooners out there, it doesn’t make my opinion (and the opinion of thousands of others) any less valid.
As for Paterno, LeBron, and Crosby, they all have statistics to back up their success. Yes, you have to put those statistics in context of the rules of the game at the time each of them performed, but the stats are empirical evidence. As a Capitals fan, I dislike Crosby. I think he whines too much and can be too soft in the corners. But he is in my opinion the best all-around player in the game right now. There are other players with better slap shots; there are other players who are better on face-offs; etc., etc. But all things considered, if he’s not the most complete player in the game right now, I don’t know who is. Just because I hate to hear Penguins fans crow about him all the time, it doesn’t change the evidence.
Much of history is subjective, yes, but there are certain, undeniable facts as well. Like I said, just look at the sales charts before and after the Beatles, and you can clearly see the difference they made in the music industry in terms of what people listened to. There’s nothing subjective about that.
Sorry I didn't get to see what you wrote, Peter. Now you've got me curious.
We were typing at the same time and about the same things: influence, difference between acknowledging influence vs liking/not liking, etc. It was much shorter and not as well put. :)
If there was anything to add it would be the use of the word overrated. The Beatles could never be called that - mostly because history and influence and just plain ol' fact negates the use of the word. Saying you don't like them? Cool. Overrated? No, you just don't like them. Two different things.
Calling Secret Wars II the greatest comic ever? Now that's overrating. :)
Sorry I didn't get to see what you wrote, Peter. Now you've got me curious.
We were typing at the same time and about the same things: influence, difference between acknowledging influence vs liking/not liking, etc. It was much shorter and not as well put. :)
If there was anything to add it would be the use of the word overrated. The Beatles could never be called that - mostly because history and influence and just plain ol' fact negates the use of the word. Saying you don't like them? Cool. Overrated? No, you just don't like them. Two different things.
Calling Secret Wars II the greatest comic ever? Now that's overrating. :)
If you guys tell anybody else I'll deny it but...I caught @Peter's original post an agree 100%. He had that one spot on.
You don’t have to live through an event to be able to see that it happened. Details can (and often do) become skewed over the course of time, yes, but to say something like that would be to say that history is an entirely useless field of study. In this case, all you have to do is look at the sales charts before the Beatles and the sales charts after the Beatles. The Beatles changed the recording industry. And it wasn’t just their songs, but their charisma, their promotion, and their timing. They were the right band with the right sound, the right charm, and the right looks, at the right time. And they had the talent to back it up.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that the four members together as the band had the talent to back it up. They worked so well in making music together, especially the main songwriting team (of Lennon/McCartney, and that even made Harrison such a better songwriter than he ever might've been solo, somehow, from the start, or with another group of musicians), that alone each one of the four would, without having gotten together, have not been as successful and influential.
I get where you’re coming from, Matt. There are tons of bands I have trouble accepting as being as popular as they are (ahem, Nickelback). But I respect the fact that something about their music speaks to a large number of people. Doesn’t mean I have to like them, but I’m not going to say all their fans are wrong either.
But Nickelback has become a thing to hate (or to put it more nicely, to dislike or to dis on) , en masse, whereas I don't see that happening with The Beatles, even though there are little bits of dislike that pop up here and there. Dubstep is a genre that gets similar (to Nickelback) treatment. Rush might be a band that gets similar treatment to the Beatles.
You don’t have to live through an event to be able to see that it happened. Details can (and often do) become skewed over the course of time, yes, but to say something like that would be to say that history is an entirely useless field of study. In this case, all you have to do is look at the sales charts before the Beatles and the sales charts after the Beatles. The Beatles changed the recording industry. And it wasn’t just their songs, but their charisma, their promotion, and their timing. They were the right band with the right sound, the right charm, and the right looks, at the right time. And they had the talent to back it up.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that the four members together as the band had the talent to back it up. They worked so well in making music together, especially the main songwriting team (of Lennon/McCartney, and that even made Harrison such a better songwriter than he ever might've been solo, somehow, from the start, or with another group of musicians), that alone each one of the four would, without having gotten together, have not been as successful and influential.
I get where you’re coming from, Matt. There are tons of bands I have trouble accepting as being as popular as they are (ahem, Nickelback). But I respect the fact that something about their music speaks to a large number of people. Doesn’t mean I have to like them, but I’m not going to say all their fans are wrong either.
But Nickelback has become a thing to hate (or to put it more nicely, to dislike or to dis on) , en masse, whereas I don't see that happening with The Beatles, even though there are little bits of dislike that pop up here and there. Dubstep is a genre that gets similar (to Nickelback) treatment. Rush might be a band that gets similar treatment to the Beatles.
I certainly agree with your first response. As to Nickelback, yeah, that’s true; they are getting a lot of backlash now, but they were the first name to pop in my head. I could just as easily have said Bob Seger or Lynyrd Skynyrd or Lada Gaga.
When I think of comparing a band to the Beatles, the first band I think of is Nirvana. They both affected their generations in similar ways.
I remember a co-worker telling me back in the 80's that he didn't like the Beatles, that he couldn't understand why everybody made such a big deal about them, and how he thought Ted Nugent was a much better musician and songwriter.
I stopped talking with him about music.
I wouldn't go that far. Ted Nugent?
You're right I should alter my post from the disliking to my original premise of overrated.
Perhaps I cannot properly illustrate why they're overrated, aside from hearing about how 'amazing' they are from so many people. Much like when I hear people swoon about LeBron, Sydney Crosby, & Joe Paterno, I roll my eyes when I get told about the Beatles.
I could understand hearing that they changed the music landscape by someone who live through it or is a music aficionado, but hearing people my age and younger sounds like the Kool aid was past around. I've only known music past the group's time. Sure I've listened to the music from the same time and before, but I don't hear anything that would make me go "this...THIS is where music really started."
M
I agree with @WetRats, you should stick with dislike rather than overrated.
Look, I’m not saying music started with the Beatles. But music did change with the Beatles. There’s a big difference. Music changed with Chuck Berry and Little Richard (who made truly innovative music). Music changed with Elvis (who made Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music acceptable to the white masses). And music changed with the Beatles (who took Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music, gave it a twist, and then expanded on it).
You don’t have to live through an event to be able to see that it happened. Details can (and often do) become skewed over the course of time, yes, but to say something like that would be to say that history is an entirely useless field of study. In this case, all you have to do is look at the sales charts before the Beatles and the sales charts after the Beatles. The Beatles changed the recording industry. And it wasn’t just their songs, but their charisma, their promotion, and their timing. They were the right band with the right sound, the right charm, and the right looks, at the right time. And they had the talent to back it up.
If there’s a particular moment you’re looking for, a particular sound that changed everything, I would say you’re barking up the wrong tree. But if pressed, I would say listen closely to the opening chord to “A Hard Day’s Night.” The complexity and power of that opening shot showed that underneath their bubblegum exterior the Beatles were going to be game-changers.
I get where you’re coming from, Matt. There are tons of bands I have trouble accepting as being as popular as they are (ahem, Nickleback). But I respect the fact that something about their music speaks to a large number of people. Doesn’t mean I have to like them, but I’m not going to say all their fans are wrong either.
I use overrated verse dislike because of how people swoon over them. I dislike these boy bands like One Direction because aside teenage girls don't have to hear people damn near worship them.
Like I said earlier, I feel the same about Joe Paterno, LeBron, & Sidney Crosby.
And I see history as subjective to the recorder, not useless.
M
I think your justification for not having a high opinion of the Beatles is well reasoned and I absolutely agree that if someone your age says it absent a musician et al that it sounds like Kool Aid. The tweens wearing John Lennon shirts and repeating the mantra tire me as well and the Beatles were the fifth food group in my house growing up.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
Personally Im glad Im not the only one on planet earth that doesn't think the sun rises and sets because of the Beatles. Though I don't think I would classify them as "overrated". Elvis, Kiss, ACDC, Springstein?, and the Rolling Stones for example I would definitely call overrated. The attention and praise they've received Vs. the actual quality of their product is quite uneven IMO. The Beatles however, I think are deserving of their praise, fame and popularity. I just happen not to be into them. They're easily the biggest and best band that I hardly own any music of or ever listen to. Now Buddy Holly for example is tragically underrated. I like to think had he not perished, nobody would ever had even know who Elvis or the Beatles even were : )
Personally Im glad Im not the only one on planet earth that doesn't think the sun rises and sets because of the Beatles. Though I don't think I would classify them as "overrated". Elvis, Kiss, ACDC, Springstein?, and the Rolling Stones for example I would definitely call overrated. The attention and praise they've received Vs. the actual quality of their product is quite uneven IMO. The Beatles however, I think are deserving of their praise, fame and popularity. I just happen not to be into them. They're easily the biggest and best band that I hardly own any music of or ever listen to.
Personally Im glad Im not the only one on planet earth that doesn't think the sun rises and sets because of the Beatles. Though I don't think I would classify them as "overrated". Elvis, Kiss, ACDC, Springstein?, and the Rolling Stones for example I would definitely call overrated. The attention and praise they've received Vs. the actual quality of their product is quite uneven IMO. The Beatles however, I think are deserving of their praise, fame and popularity. I just happen not to be into them. They're easily the biggest and best band that I hardly own any music of or ever listen to.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles [Edit: overrated] is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
I personally love The Beatles, but I can also understand how later generations might find them overrated. For many years, I would have completely agreed that they changed music to the extent that virtually everything bore their influence. But I recently re-listened to all their output, and I was a little surprised by how little of it I find in contemporary music. If I had to pick artists from the '60s with the most influence on today's music, I'd probably have go with James Brown and perhaps the Velvet Underground.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
That’s a valid point. And you may be right when it comes to direct influence. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how much any one band influenced music as a whole. The Beatles influenced so many bands, not just in terms of songwriting and performing, but in terms of recording. And the Beatles opened doors for a lot of those bands because record companies were desperately looking for the next Beatles. And then those bands influenced many more bands, and so on down the line. It’s difficult to quantify who should be attributed for what exactly. But anyone who calls the Beatles underrated is completely ignoring the context of music history.
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
Okay but if we're doing Origin of Species, someone/thing influenced the Beatles.
Your argument here is akin to says, "F*** birds, birds are overrated. There'd be no birds at all if it weren't for dinosaurs, so what's so special about birds."
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
The Beatles were massively influential on the culture and the way the music industry operated. To say that they changed the way people viewed popular music is no understatement. But, for me, the argument I always make with people that usually wins them over to my side is how MUCH the Beatles accomplished in very little time.
In terms of chart success, which by no means is a measure of quality - simply popularity - the Beatles have more #1 hits than anyone. The number of top 10 hits they had, and the number of songs in the top 100 are also contenders for very high rankings. What many people don't realize, in the grand scheme of things, is that the Beatles were only together as a band releasing records... for SEVEN years.
By comparison, some of the other contenders for the lead dogs in chart success did so over a much greater span of time. Mariah Carey's chart success covered a span of 18 years. Madonna's 29 years. Elvis had been releasing records for 21 years at the time of his death. Good lord, even Brittney Spears' career more than DOUBLES the length of time that the Beatles were together.
No other band can lay claim to accomplish as much in as short a span of time. Along with their popular success, they changed the way that artists recorded albums and the way that the music industry marketed bands. They arguably invented sampling via the use of pre-recorded overdubbed tapes. They experimented in song structure, creating what would have been considered 'alternative' music of the time. Live performances required significant re-engineering to compensate for crowd frenzy. Where bands once used single amplifiers set on a stage, WALLS of amplified sound soon became the norm. The Beatles were avid proponents of music video, both in long and short form.
Matt, you might only have a few songs on your iPod, but the odds are that you KNOW or would at least recognize the bulk of their catalog if you heard it. Their hits are timeless, but even their throw away songs are recognizable. Can you say the same for Herman's Hermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers, or some of the other British Invasion bands of the period?
I don't generally try to sway peoples' opinions on music. If you're not a fan of a band, its' just not going to happen. There's plenty of popular artists that I can't stand. There's also a handful of artists that when my wife hears me playing, it makes her want to jam a hot poker in her ear. If the Beatles aren't to your TASTES, that's an argument you can make and I would support. But, to say that they are overrated as a facet of music history is just nonsense.
Comments
Calling the Beatles "overrated" makes you sound foolish.
Sounds like the people your age and younger, rather than drinking Kool-Aid, simply understand more about music than you do.
Does anyone or anything (besides 'God') have that level of gravitas?
M
Look, I’m not saying music started with the Beatles. But music did change with the Beatles. There’s a big difference. Music changed with Chuck Berry and Little Richard (who made truly innovative music). Music changed with Elvis (who made Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music acceptable to the white masses). And music changed with the Beatles (who took Chuck Berry and Little Richard’s music, gave it a twist, and then expanded on it).
You don’t have to live through an event to be able to see that it happened. Details can (and often do) become skewed over the course of time, yes, but to say something like that would be to say that history is an entirely useless field of study. In this case, all you have to do is look at the sales charts before the Beatles and the sales charts after the Beatles. The Beatles changed the recording industry. And it wasn’t just their songs, but their charisma, their promotion, and their timing. They were the right band with the right sound, the right charm, and the right looks, at the right time. And they had the talent to back it up.
If there’s a particular moment you’re looking for, a particular sound that changed everything, I would say you’re barking up the wrong tree. But if pressed, I would say listen closely to the opening chord to “A Hard Day’s Night.” The complexity and power of that opening shot showed that underneath their bubblegum exterior the Beatles were going to be game-changers.
I get where you’re coming from, Matt. There are tons of bands I have trouble accepting as being as popular as they are (ahem, Nickelback). But I respect the fact that something about their music speaks to a large number of people. Doesn’t mean I have to like them, but I’m not going to say all their fans are wrong either.
You say The Beatles "are" overrated, not that "you consider" them overrated.
I've interacted with you enough to know that you are far from foolish, but when you state things this way, you sound foolish. It makes you appear as if you cannot differentiate between your opinion and accepted truth.
Like I said earlier, I feel the same about Joe Paterno, LeBron, & Sidney Crosby.
And I see history as subjective to the recorder, not useless.
M
Personally, I think 2001 is a bit overlong, and Scarface I’m just not that big a fan of in terms of its story. But from a purely critical standpoint, I can see how they influenced cinema in terms of storytelling (pacing, dialogue, and theme in particular), and while neither would be in my personal Top 10, I could see them being in someone else’s Top 10 and not bat an eye.
As for Paterno, LeBron, and Crosby, they all have statistics to back up their success. Yes, you have to put those statistics in context of the rules of the game at the time each of them performed, but the stats are empirical evidence. As a Capitals fan, I dislike Crosby. I think he whines too much and can be too soft in the corners. But he is in my opinion the best all-around player in the game right now. There are other players with better slap shots; there are other players who are better on face-offs; etc., etc. But all things considered, if he’s not the most complete player in the game right now, I don’t know who is. Just because I hate to hear Penguins fans crow about him all the time, it doesn’t change the evidence.
Much of history is subjective, yes, but there are certain, undeniable facts as well. Like I said, just look at the sales charts before and after the Beatles, and you can clearly see the difference they made in the music industry in terms of what people listened to. There’s nothing subjective about that.
Aaaaaaaaand we've come full circle.
If there was anything to add it would be the use of the word overrated. The Beatles could never be called that - mostly because history and influence and just plain ol' fact negates the use of the word. Saying you don't like them? Cool. Overrated? No, you just don't like them. Two different things.
Calling Secret Wars II the greatest comic ever? Now that's overrating. :)
But Nickelback has become a thing to hate (or to put it more nicely, to dislike or to dis on) , en masse, whereas I don't see that happening with The Beatles, even though there are little bits of dislike that pop up here and there. Dubstep is a genre that gets similar (to Nickelback) treatment. Rush might be a band that gets similar treatment to the Beatles.
When I think of comparing a band to the Beatles, the first band I think of is Nirvana. They both affected their generations in similar ways.
I'd never imagined a time when I might think that about them, but as recently as the '90s it was still a given that Elvis was a major force in music. Hell, my college had a course in Elvis studies! Today, I don't think most people care one way or the other.
It's amazing what time can do to stuff like that. I see it happening to movies, TV shows, etc. As time passes, fewer and fewer things stay relevant. I think there are certain songs and albums by The Beatles that will continue to be re-visited by people for years to come, but I think the notion of treating their entire output as some sort of holy grail seems to be fading.
Now Buddy Holly for example is tragically underrated. I like to think had he not perished, nobody would ever had even know who Elvis or the Beatles even were : )
The Velvet Underground was pretty heavily influenced by the Byrds (though you can’t always hear it). Well, the Byrds basically started out as a Beatles cover band (though playing in their own way), mixing in some traditional songs and a few songs of their own. So when you say you hear the Velvet Underground as a major influence in today’s music, how much credit do the Beatles get for that? It’s too difficult to say, really.
But, as you said (more or less), people tend to ignore the context of history. Context is everything, except when people don’t care to look for it.
M
EDIT: looks possible influences:
http://thebeatlesss.wikispaces.com/What+influenced+the+beatles
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/3-bands-influenced-beatles-185605.html
M
M
The Beatles were influences by many sources, but in turn influenced more than all of those ancestors combined. They represent a major cultural shift in music. It includes many others but none as iconic. How do you judge how they are "rated"? (or anything for that matter?) Only history can judge how something should be rated.
The benefits of phrenology, that's something that was overrated.
The Beatles were massively influential on the culture and the way the music industry operated. To say that they changed the way people viewed popular music is no understatement. But, for me, the argument I always make with people that usually wins them over to my side is how MUCH the Beatles accomplished in very little time.
In terms of chart success, which by no means is a measure of quality - simply popularity - the Beatles have more #1 hits than anyone. The number of top 10 hits they had, and the number of songs in the top 100 are also contenders for very high rankings. What many people don't realize, in the grand scheme of things, is that the Beatles were only together as a band releasing records... for SEVEN years.
By comparison, some of the other contenders for the lead dogs in chart success did so over a much greater span of time. Mariah Carey's chart success covered a span of 18 years. Madonna's 29 years. Elvis had been releasing records for 21 years at the time of his death. Good lord, even Brittney Spears' career more than DOUBLES the length of time that the Beatles were together.
No other band can lay claim to accomplish as much in as short a span of time. Along with their popular success, they changed the way that artists recorded albums and the way that the music industry marketed bands. They arguably invented sampling via the use of pre-recorded overdubbed tapes. They experimented in song structure, creating what would have been considered 'alternative' music of the time. Live performances required significant re-engineering to compensate for crowd frenzy. Where bands once used single amplifiers set on a stage, WALLS of amplified sound soon became the norm.
The Beatles were avid proponents of music video, both in long and short form.
Matt, you might only have a few songs on your iPod, but the odds are that you KNOW or would at least recognize the bulk of their catalog if you heard it. Their hits are timeless, but even their throw away songs are recognizable. Can you say the same for Herman's Hermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers, or some of the other British Invasion bands of the period?
I don't generally try to sway peoples' opinions on music. If you're not a fan of a band, its' just not going to happen. There's plenty of popular artists that I can't stand. There's also a handful of artists that when my wife hears me playing, it makes her want to jam a hot poker in her ear. If the Beatles aren't to your TASTES, that's an argument you can make and I would support. But, to say that they are overrated as a facet of music history is just nonsense.