Were/Are The Beatles Overrated?

[BigSwede]

I'd say yes.....but then again, just like Nirvana came along and put an end to hair metal (bastards!! :cussing the Beatles probably put an end to...... swing and big bands. Now instead of having a whole ensemble of musicians playing just about every instrument, you had four guys with guitar, bass, and drums for the rhythm. So, of course, the Beatles were probably the only altarnative for young people who weren't ready to look like their parents.

Swing music and big bands were over by the mid 40s, so you can't blame the Beatles for that.

 

[Dman25]

As musicians and live performers, yes..there were lots of bands who were better.
But they were great songwriters, ground breaking and innovative in the studio, and were obviously, pioneers of culture and style who influenced a whole generation.

 

[lurkingdirk]

dick.

There. I win.

And people who emulate Lennon have tiny penises. Without exception.

I forgot to add that.

 

[BigSwede]

I would say that they are very overrated as a rockband, but not as a popband.
My main problem is with their fans.

 

[Rey C.]

YES !

The Stones were and still are much better !

While I (and I bet/hope Elwood) agree that The Stones were better, I can't say that I think The Beatles were overrated. Especially compared to the utter crap music of today, their music still stands the test of time. They really were a very talented and unique set of musicians and songwriters. But The Stones early work touched my soul at an early age. They were like the good cop (Beatles) / bad cop (Stones) of the music industry. The 1960's... what an amazing time for music!

 

[Red XXX]

I'm only posting in this thread now to remind myself to give a reply tomorrow....

 

[meesterperfect]

Listen, looking at it very simply musicology and ethnically, the Beatles were essentially imperical malengistes of a rhythmically radical yet verbally passé and temporally transcended lyrically content welded with historically innovative melodical material transposed, transcended and transmogrified by the angst of the Beatland ethic experience which elevated them from essentially alpha exponents of in essence merely beta potential harmonic material into the prime cultural exponents of Aeolian cadencic comic stanza form .

 

[Mayhem]

One of the ways I take my cues is I've never seen/heard any other musician talk shit about the Beatles. Never. Not one rabble-rousing, dissenting top-of-the-line musician ever suggests they weren't is real as they were big. Hendrix admired them, the Grateful Dead admired them, plenty of admiration all around.......and no one saying they were overrated.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Listen, looking at it very simply musicology and ethnically, the Beatles were essentially imperical malengistes of a rhythmically radical yet verbally passé and temporally transcended lyrically content welded with historically innovative melodical material transposed, transcended and transmogrified by the angst of the Beatland ethic experience which elevated them from essentially alpha exponents of in essence merely beta potential harmonic material into the prime cultural exponents of Aeolian cadencic comic stanza form .

Nice quote. Those aren't your words. I know whose words those are.

 

[alexpnz]

Listen, looking at it very simply musicology and ethnically, the Beatles were essentially imperical malengistes of a rhythmically radical yet verbally passé and temporally transcended lyrically content welded with historically innovative melodical material transposed, transcended and transmogrified by the angst of the Beatland ethic experience which elevated them from essentially alpha exponents of in essence merely beta potential harmonic material into the prime cultural exponents of Aeolian cadencic comic stanza form .

Nice quote. Those aren't your words. I know whose words those are.

Plagarism?

 

[bnaked]

One of the ways I take my cues is I've never seen/heard any other musician talk shit about the Beatles. Never. Not one rabble-rousing, dissenting top-of-the-line musician ever suggests they weren't is real as they were big. Hendrix admired them, the Grateful Dead admired them, plenty of admiration all around.......and no one saying they were overrated.

Good call. I think I've heard metal legends like Ozzy and Lemmy say they liked The Beatles too.

 

[meesterperfect]

Nice quote. Those aren't your words. I know whose words those are.

well I put his freaking picture up.
Its Stanley J Krammerhead III Jr. Occasional visiting professor of applied narcotics at the university of please yourself california

 

[bobjustbob]

Not overrated.Doo-Whop was the dominate sound till The Beatles came over and killed it.

 

[mikexmoran]

:dunno:

No, they were not.

 

[meesterperfect]

there is really no exact answer for this.
My personal opinion was up until Peppers they were not. From peppers till the end they were. And both John and paul were overrated in their solo works. doesn't mean that the music wasn't good by no means.

Now the early beatle era kinks...........were underrated.

 

[lurkingdirk]

 

[ThatRedWing]

It depends on your criteria. As the best POP band ever then no, they are not. As the end all, be all in music then yes, they are. John and Paul were great songwriters and George was a very underrated guitar player. I can name a dozen bands that are/were better but they're not Pop bands.

 

[Mr. Hyde]

No, to answer the OP's post line question. They are not overrated. They are the greatest rock band ever.

You have to go back to the time in which they came up and contextualize their music to appreciate it. Other bands since the Beatles have produced better music. It would be hard to deny that bands like Pink Floyd did not produce better music.

However, this would be like saying that David Lynch is a better filmmaker than Orson Welles. That is not a perfect analogy, but it serves my point. The Beatles broke new ground with just about every album they produced. They set molds that bands still use today. If the Beatles had not come along, music today might be pretty different than how it turned out to be.

 

[John_8581]

John Lennon and Paul McCartney are the best ever songwriters period. Their sound (vocalization and harnonies and George's background singing too) is unquestionable. Their musical catalog with Northern Songs stands by itself. Parlophone, their first record company, required an album (twelve songs every year) - yes John Lennon and Paul MCartney had to write enough music on such a demanding schedule. Today, just the Lennon-McCartney compositions themselves are worh billions (Does Michael Jackson's Estate still own it or did he sell it to Sony Music?) ... They were really the first musicians to protect themselves and their music by royalties. (Before that managers and promoters took the money and left the bands they were managing penniless) Later, Apple Records and EMI would sue anyone who took their music without permission... remember Steve Jobs and Apple iTunes (how many lawsuits were brought for that) ... just saying!

While I (and I bet/hope Elwood) agree that The Stones were better, I can't say that I think The Beatles were overrated. Especially compared to the utter crap music of today, their music still stands the test of time. They really were a very talented and unique set of musicians and songwriters. But The Stones early work touched my soul at an early age. They were like the good cop (Beatles) / bad cop (Stones) of the music industry. The 1960's... what an amazing time for music!

Now with that said, John Lennon and Paul McCartney actually met with Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and gave them a self penned song, so that they could have a coupling B side song for the single "Not Fade Away"... (at this point in time, Jagger and Richards were not writing songs)

Michael York narrates....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Wanna_Be_Your_Man

Are the Beatles overated?? No.

 

[Shifty]

Perhaps you'd like to take the course?