Do you think the Beatles are overrated?

Beatles Overrated?

  • Total voters
    127
Perhaps the Beatles are Underrated :)

The music of Beatles seems to be inherent in nature, and their message of Peace and Love is truly immortal.

They were the biggest, best band of all time and will always be the GOAT.
And I'm not just talking about money, sales, memorabilia, video games, etc...but rather the IMPACT they have had on People's lives.
Lennon Saves.


All you need is love.
 
TahoeTennis said:
Perhaps the Beatles are Underrated :)

The music of Beatles seems to be inherent in nature, and their message of Peace and Love is truly immortal.

They were the biggest, best band of all time and will always be the GOAT.
And I'm not just talking about money, sales, memorabilia, video games, etc...but rather the IMPACT they have had on People's lives.
Lennon Saves.


All you need is love.
Click to expand...

This. There is something magical in the way that they still affect new listeners lives 40 years after their last record.
 
The reason the Beatles are not overated is becuase if you listen to each of their songs they could all be hits and many were it is hard to think of a band that had so many hits over such a long stretch of time and had such a variety of music.
 
Remove the Beatles from the equation, and every one of the other bands mentioned here - the Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. - doesn't even exist, or, if they do, they are nothing like what they became. The Beatles changed the face of popular music, which is why it's impossible to say they're overrated. I'd say that virtually every person I know who claims to not like the Beatles seems to be doing so in order to seem cool or hip or something (you know, "I am so hip, I don't like anything that's really popular"), which is just stupid. The masses don't usually get it right, but they sure did when it comes to the Fab Four. You tell me how many bands these days do two albums of brilliant stuff, plus amazing singles, a year? Every year for eight years? You're lucky if most bands now do two albums in eight years. They were just the greatest pop band of all time, and they'll never be surpassed.
 
He's no John Bonham or Neil Peart,
Click to expand...
Bonham is no Peart either. I think Bonham is one of the most overrated drummers in rock, next to Lars Ulrich. :)

Remove the Beatles from the equation, and every one of the other bands mentioned here - the Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. - doesn't even exist, or, if they do, they are nothing like what they became.
Click to expand...
Stones probably would have skipped over their Satanic Majesties period, but I think they were pretty much following their due path. The Kinks as well. I can see Floyd being somewhat influenced somewhere by the Beatles, but psychedelic rock itself was well happening before Sgt. Pepper or Revolver. (Not to say the Beatles didn't have enormous influence there -- the Beatles still were an important bridge between psychedelic and progressive.)

Those are some interesting points about Cream and Led Zeppelin.
Click to expand...

Cream was one of the biggest bands in the world when they broke up. Also, at the time, more popular than The Experience. For the most part, they were also well liked by critics. Their legacy hasn't held up as well as either band though. Modern day version of Cream is something like Queens of the Stone Age, minus the extreme popularity.
 
Last edited:
TahoeTennis said:
Perhaps the Beatles are Underrated :)

The music of Beatles seems to be inherent in nature, and their message of Peace and Love is truly immortal.

They were the biggest, best band of all time and will always be the GOAT.
And I'm not just talking about money, sales, memorabilia, video games, etc...but rather the IMPACT they have had on People's lives.
Lennon Saves.


All you need is love.
Click to expand...

even if you forget the "message" (i don't believe music should be judged on messages), you cannot but realize that the coexistence of lennon and mccartney in the same band is one of the most freakish coincidences in history.

each of them separately would have the biggest band in history.

the two together? unsurpassable.
 
tricky said:
Bonham is no Peart either. I think Bonham is one of the most overrated drummers in rock, next to Lars Ulrich. :)
Click to expand...

And Neil Peart is no Dave Weckl or Vinnie Colaiuta! Regardless if you think John Bonham is overrated (simply one of the best ROCK drummers ever imo), he is nowhere near the level of being overrated as Ginger Baker. The guy has no feel, chops, does nothing interesting. While we're talking about the Beatles, Ringo is obviously not very technically proficient, but at least he did some interesting things. We can certainly agree on Lars, though I've never heard anybody say he was any good! On top of it he seems like a real ****** as well.
 
Neil Peart is awesome, agreed. John Bonham was known for that very "heavy" drum sound correct? Didn't he use VERY HEAVY stcks? Anyway, just an aside, did you know that Lars is the son of famous/eccentric tennis player Torben Ulrich. Check this out:

ulrich-776318.jpg


TorbenUlrich-Journey-02.jpg



Also hear Peart here (2112 Part 2):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY9Xy9nuP-8

Peart Drum Solo:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1981040/neil_peart_crazy_drum_solo/

I've seen them live a few times. He is "out of this world"!!
 
LMAO WTF ROFLMAO


The beatles are the best band ever, and are the biggest icons along with Frank Sinatra and Elvis presely.

The beatles are the most versatile band ever in the history of the music. The sole reason they were so successful. Granted, Paul Mccartney wasn't the greatest singer in the world, niether was Ringo star at the drums, and so forth, but they just had it.
 
he is nowhere near the level of being overrated as Ginger Baker.
Click to expand...

This is killing me. :D Ginger's actually in my top 5 favorite drummers evar! :D

While we're talking about the Beatles, Ringo is obviously not very technically proficient
Click to expand...

Actually I like Ringo. Swung the beat with that awesome wet mop sound and never ate the guitars by overplaying the hi-hat or crashing the cymbals.

John Bonham was known for that very "heavy" drum sound correct?
Click to expand...

Bonham hit his drums like a bear, but some people say it's the way they close miced their drums, which gives a crackling attack sound without needing additional compression. Charlie Watts doesn't really hit the drums that hard, but the Stones close mic'd his kit too.
 
UsualSuspect said:
I personally believe they are the most overrated band in history. However, that is only my opinion. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I agree partly. I don't think they are "the most overrated band in history". I think they are beaten to that position by the Rolling Stones.
 
I think The Beatles were overrated. They tried too hard to fit into EVERY genre, which rubs me the wrong way. The reason they are so revered is because they did that, they wrong songs that could appeal to everyone, thus everyone liked them, and very few really disliked them; eventually, they wrote a song you liked. If they played today, they'd be a popular band, but they would be considered "pop", and they wouldn't be as glorified as they were in their heyday. They would be viewed in the same light as Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus, and the like, in my opinion.
 
r2473 said:
John Lennon = Justin Bieber
Click to expand...

I meant people today would be hard-pressed to really find a sense of attachment to The Beatles. Modern music is about writing to a specific audience and to have an emotional connection to the songs and bands you like. I don't have that for The Beatles because their music had so much variety, it is hard for me to get a feel for their personal style, aside from peace and love, which is not a theme which is popular in modern music. Like in tennis, it's impossible to compare bands from different eras. What was popular in the 60's is not popular now, and that can be said for almost anything.
 
Falloutjr said:
I meant people today would be hard-pressed to really find a sense of attachment to The Beatles.
Click to expand...

I sort of doubt that. The music is 45 years old and people still love it.

Do you think in 45 years a new generation will be discovering / listening to Justin Bieber?

Do you think you will be listening to your Justin Bieber music in 45 years?

By the way, if you don't like Justin Bieber, insert anyone you want.
 
r2473 said:
I sort of doubt that. The music is 45 years old and people still love it.

Do you think in 45 years a new generation will be discovering / listening to Justin Bieber?

Do you think you will be listening to your Justin Bieber music in 45 years?

By the way, if you don't like Justin Bieber, insert anyone you want.
Click to expand...

/dont like Justin Bieber, insert Maroon 5

IDK, Maroon 5 is a pretty good band :D

Also, people tend to stick with what they grew up with. Tell me how many tennis players you know who learned the classic tennis game 45 years ago, and now run around with Babolats, 2HBHs, and Semiwestern forehand grips? People are reluctant to grow out of their pasts.
 
Falloutjr said:
Tell me how many tennis players you know who learned the classic tennis game 45 years ago, and now run around
Click to expand...

Very few.

Enjoy your music.

Every generation has a few good bands / artists. Most don't stand the test of time.

Falloutjr said:
with Babolats, 2HBHs, and Semiwestern forehand grips? People are reluctant to grow out of their pasts.
Click to expand...

I still listen to vinyl almost exclusively :)
 
r2473 said:
I sort of doubt that. The music is 45 years old and people still love it.

Do you think in 45 years a new generation will be discovering / listening to Justin Bieber?

Do you think you will be listening to your Justin Bieber music in 45 years?

By the way, if you don't like Justin Bieber, insert anyone you want.
Click to expand...

You know it's interesting that other bands of that era that were huge, say, Herman's Hermits, Paul Revere and the Raiders, or Gary and the Playboys, etc., are simply today forgotten or scorned.

I say this, and I'm not some soft-headed drooling old baby boomer who heard the stuff when it first came out. I'm always finding teenagers who are into the Beatles.

Of course, this said, there's always the phenomenon in popular music where Success breeds Success, and Fame builds Fame. The Beatles benefit from this.
 
max said:
Of course, this said, there's always the phenomenon in popular music where Success breeds Success, and Fame builds Fame. The Beatles benefit from this.
Click to expand...

That's true.

I have some lectures where a music historian talks about the "toilet of time". It is sometimes funny what music endures and what is "flushed". Naturally, it is not always the "best" that is remembered or the "worst" that is forgotten.

Incidentally, this piece of the lecture is done in conjunction with an analysis of "Pachelbel's canon" (....which isn't really a canon).
 
I don't think the Beatles are at all overrated, and I don't even like them very much. Their contributions to modern music and recording, however, are still being duplicated today and will be for quite some time. Anybody who begs to differ ought to check out Abbey Road, which I consider to be the culmination of their talent and musicianship. Excellent album~

It would be hard to imagine music today without the influence of the Beatles.
 
tricky said:
Bonham hit his drums like a bear, but some people say it's the way they close miced their drums, which gives a crackling attack sound without needing additional compression. Charlie Watts doesn't really hit the drums that hard, but the Stones close mic'd his kit too.
Click to expand...
It's actually the opposite. Or a combination of both.

Bonham's huge sound was not achieved by (what we now call) close miking.

Glyn Johns used only 4 mics on him: two overheads and a snare mic + a kick mic. Kick and snare mics were only used to "accentuate" the attack. Most of the drum sound and tone is coming from the OHs. The position of the overhead mics is crucial. It's not the typical stereo OH setup. It looks funky, but extremely effective. This technique was (and still is) unrivalled. Sounds live, open, natural, and HUGE.

In fact, the Glyn Johns method is probably the most versatile drum miking technique of all time. And lemme tell you, in a good sounding room with a finely tuned drums, it sounds GREAT ;)
 
Falloutjr said:
I meant people today would be hard-pressed to really find a sense of attachment to The Beatles. Modern music is about writing to a specific audience and to have an emotional connection to the songs and bands you like. I don't have that for The Beatles because their music had so much variety, it is hard for me to get a feel for their personal style, aside from peace and love, which is not a theme which is popular in modern music. Like in tennis, it's impossible to compare bands from different eras. What was popular in the 60's is not popular now, and that can be said for almost anything.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of stuff that would say a guy who maybe can hear but can't listen.

The Beatles created a bunch of immortal melodies that have been admired, covered, analyzed and studied by many great musicians among the very best of many genres.

A melody that can stand by its own is an achievement you obviously can't understand, but the Beatles did it not once but many times (despite the fact they were so popular) and no serious musician that I know says otherwise.

And The Beatles aren't even my #1 favorite band (I listen more to Hendrix and Sly Stone from those years) but they had that mozartesque ability for standalone melodies that simply can't be denied.

Also, people tend to stick with what they grew up with.
Click to expand...

No. I stick with the music I feel. It goes from Baroque to even some Hip-Hop. And there's a logic behind all. For example, when I was a kid I didn't know I liked some hip-hop because the downbeat. I didn't relate Public Enemy to James Brown then, but now they have a connection in my mind that happens to explain my previous feelings. Different styles but some common structural elements.

Maybe YOU stick with the music you grew up, but when I grew up it was a lot of crap around (not as much as nowadays though), for some reason (sensibility) I knew it was crap and I was naturally eager for music that made me feel anything. Now I know some more music and I realized when I like some music there has to be a explanaible musical reason behind it.
 
I think 100 years from today, there'll still be "Yesterday."

But that's about it. The Beatles did some great, great melodies, but time passes and things change, and very few of it all endures.
 
Dedans Penthouse said:
[size=+1]HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONS[/size]

indelible_beatles.jpg
Click to expand...

Did you ever see the the 3-part, 9-hour Ringside documentary on Ali on ESPN Classic?

The Beatles famously came to the US on Feb. 7, 1964. Ali won the heavyweight title over Liston on Feb. 25, 1964. The photo was taken on Feb. 18, 1964.

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/the-beatles/images/15615018/title/beatles-with-muhammad-ali-photo

They tried to say that Ali met with the The Beatles, did these photos, etc. for over an hour. When they left, Ali supposedly said, "Who were those f*ggots"?

It is "perhaps" credible that he didn't know (or realize at the time of the shoot) who they were. At any rate, it was a funny story.
 
Personally, I'll take The Who over The Beatles or The Stones any day. The Beatles have some good tunes, no doubt & they were an important part of rock history, but I don't find most of their stuff to move me that much. Actually I like The Kinks more than The Beatles as well when it comes to British bands from that era.
 
I just finished Phil Norman's biography of John Lennon (which I highly recommend) and it had a lot to say about the days of the Beatles. Few things I'd like to add:

What made them great was their versatility. John was a poet and visionary. Paul was an unbelievably good songwriter who had the patience for public relations. George might be the most gifted musician that pop music has ever seen, but was willing to be the "quiet" Beatle. And Ringo's personality enabled the others to coexist as they would not have been able to with any other drummer. With a producer like George Martin, and a manager like Brian Epstein, the Beatles were able to work creatively and evolve, without being challenged or misunderstood.

One of my personal pet peeves is when people overuse the phrase "perfect storm." But it's impossible to describe what began in the late 1950's in Liverpool any other way. The convergence of so many talented individuals in one place is nothing short of extraordinary.

In short, no, they are not overrated.
 
stormholloway said:
Of course The Beatles are overrated. Did they ever play live? I have tons of recordings from short-lived rock groups like Hendrix et al, but not one from The Beatles. They didn't play Woodstock. They didn't play Isle of Wight. Did they ever play concerts after 1966, when teenie-boppers weren't screaming over their music?

Overrated, undoubtedly.
Click to expand...

1) They had to stop playing live because they were just too big. They were a great live band before they stopped performing in public together, and they were all great live after The Beatles broke up.

2) If you want to hear them live, buy a Beatles album. A lot of their songs were recorded live in the studio to 4-track. The Anthology albums have lots of live-in-the-studio demos and outtakes. They're mostly brilliant.
 
I'm a big Led Zeppelin fan, but I do like the Beatles very much. Are they overrated? No, I don't think so. Oasis? Yes, they are overrated in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Best band ever to come to this world... overrated? Most certainly yes, but they are way up there on the list as one of the best, if not the best. Yes I know I just contradicted myself
 
Andres said:
It's actually the opposite. Or a combination of both.

Bonham's huge sound was not achieved by (what we now call) close miking.

Glyn Johns used only 4 mics on him: two overheads and a snare mic + a kick mic. Kick and snare mics were only used to "accentuate" the attack. Most of the drum sound and tone is coming from the OHs. The position of the overhead mics is crucial. It's not the typical stereo OH setup. It looks funky, but extremely effective. This technique was (and still is) unrivalled. Sounds live, open, natural, and HUGE.

In fact, the Glyn Johns method is probably the most versatile drum miking technique of all time. And lemme tell you, in a good sounding room with a finely tuned drums, it sounds GREAT ;)
Click to expand...

YES! You've got to love the Glyn Johns method. It's all about creating a sense of space while avoiding phase issues. Jimmy Page, who really ran the show in the studio, used distant mics on almost everything--but especially drums and guitar amps. As Jimmy Page said "Distance Makes Depth."

I'm personally a big Keith Moon fan, but I really like the way Ringo always served the song, not himself. His fills were always so simple and yet distinctive. Music is not just about shredding, it's about tension and release. In that respect, Ringo was a master. It's like tennis in that some people just want to see how hard they can hit the ball. Other people prefer to construct points. Sometimes it isn't about how hard you hit it, it's about hitting the right shot a the right moment.
 
shwetty[tennis]balls;5079493 said:
I don't think the Beatles are at all overrated, and I don't even like them very much. Their contributions to modern music and recording, however, are still being duplicated today and will be for quite some time. Anybody who begs to differ ought to check out Abbey Road, which I consider to be the culmination of their talent and musicianship. Excellent album~

It would be hard to imagine music today without the influence of the Beatles.
Click to expand...

Good honest post - hey, I thought you were banned, banned for your taste in guitars ( Les Pauls) Kidding ! take it easy:shock:
 
Falloutjr said:
I think The Beatles were overrated. They tried too hard to fit into EVERY genre, which rubs me the wrong way. The reason they are so revered is because they did that, they wrong songs that could appeal to everyone, thus everyone liked them, and very few really disliked them; eventually, they wrote a song you liked. If they played today, they'd be a popular band, but they would be considered "pop", and they wouldn't be as glorified as they were in their heyday. They would be viewed in the same light as Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus, and the like, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's it! You are hereby banned!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Klippy
  • Poll Poll
Ok, The Rolling Stones, or the Beatles?
3 4 5
Replies
221
Views
12K
Cesc Fabregas
Cesc Fabregas
D
The genius of the Beatles
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
7K
stringertom
stringertom
Dedans Penthouse
Most Overrated Band/Artist
2 3
Replies
103
Views
4K
whodey
W
S
most overrated movies
2 3
Replies
105
Views
4K
Noelle
Noelle
S H O W S T O P P E R !
Most Overrated racket?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
9K
jmacdaununder2
jmacdaununder2
Back
Top