drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
no they weren't. They were average.
uhmmmm, lets see>>>>> as already pointed out, the Beach Boys, Queen simply blows them away, Mamas and Papas, Jackson 5, etc.
Do you think the Beatles are overrated?
- Thread starter UsualSuspect
- Start date
no they weren't. They were average.
uhmmmm, lets see>>>>> as already pointed out, the Beach Boys, Queen simply blows them away, Mamas and Papas, Jackson 5, etc.
Kevin T
Hall of Fame
Absolutely. Every red-blooded, hot-blooded white male in the late 70's/early 80's LOVED KISS. Heck, I was just a kid and would beg my older bros to let me hang out and listen to 'god of thunder' and 'Detroit Rock City'.
I even dressed up as Gene Simmons one Halloween (my Dad had to sneak the costume-Mom thought they worshiped the devil ).Absolutely. Every red-blooded, hot-blooded white male in the late 70's/early 80's LOVED KISS. Heck, I was just a kid and would beg my older bros to let me hang out and listen to 'god of thunder' and 'Detroit Rock City'.
We found out Gene Simmons (Chaim Witz) really worships money.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Absolutely. Every red-blooded, hot-blooded white male in the late 70's/early 80's LOVED KISS. Heck, I was just a kid and would beg my older bros to let me hang out and listen to 'god of thunder' and 'Detroit Rock City'.
LOL. Same here. My buds and I all dressed up like KISS one year for Halloween.
LuckyR
Legend
A couple of things. The Beatles were great innovators, so they did a lot of things first. Not necessarily best, but first. It is a bit naive to assume though, that if they had not done what they did, that someone else wouldn't have come along a little while later and have done it and received many of the same accolades.
They were the right people at the right time and they cleaned house. But to attribute greatness? Nah, how about great luck? Read Malcolm Gadwell's Outliers he addresses the Beatles directly...
They were the right people at the right time and they cleaned house. But to attribute greatness? Nah, how about great luck? Read Malcolm Gadwell's Outliers he addresses the Beatles directly...
But isn't that the same with everyone who became famous. I can think of a few current tennis players who are benefiting from not having a deep field, for both males and females.
You make your own luck, it is not given to you.
dParis
Hall of Fame
I'd like to participate, but first I'd like to know what this rating is that you claim is disproportionately inflated.
Capt. Willie
Hall of Fame
Isn't it funny how the Beatles pretended Paul was dead for the sake of record sales? Now days these Rappers actually get whacked by rival gang bangers which in turn rises their CD sales. You actually need to get shot to have street cred in the music bussiness today.
When I was young my favorite band was Kiss. Kiss never got shot or anything. I never turned on the radio and heard "a gang of rival Jews dressed in Halloween costumes pulled up along side Kisses tour bus and opened fire with uzies this afternoon."
When I was young my favorite band was Kiss. Kiss never got shot or anything. I never turned on the radio and heard "a gang of rival Jews dressed in Halloween costumes pulled up along side Kisses tour bus and opened fire with uzies this afternoon."
Capt. Willie
Hall of Fame
BTW, had Buddy Holly not died at such a young age he would have been bigger than all these people. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that without Buddy Holly you never have the Beatles and many others. His influence on music was felt long after his death.
stormholloway
Legend
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.
Overrated, undoubtedly.
aphex
Banned
you just answered your question....
stormholloway
Legend
But as soon as their music stopped attracting so many teenie-boppers they stopped playing concerts, so my question wasn't really answered. Plus, they're a band. Bands play concerts. If you don't play concerts but are considered the greatest rock band ever, then you're overrated.
aphex
Banned
you've got the order of events wrong.
they stopped doing concerts because they were too big, because there was pandemonium at every concert. they stopped enjoying themselves.
as to the bolded part...
the beatles were the first band in history that filled stadiums...
Last edited:
random guy
Professional
you've got the order of events wrong.
they stopped doing concerts because they were too big, because there was pandemonium at every concert. they stopped enjoying themselves.
as to the bolded part...
+1
I like to add that The Beatles were not precisely and overnight sensation when they came out. They pay their dues playing gigs in Hamburg and Liverpool, gigs that lasted forever (that's when they developed a mild amphetamine dependency just to be able to stay awake) and their public were not precisely teenie boopers but the scum of the scum (at least in Hamburg). Point is, they knew the rock n roll repertoire upside down so they were a really professional and acomplished live rock n roll band before they were "The Beatles".
Long live Dirk, Stig, Nasty & Barry!
SempreSami
Hall of Fame
What's so great about playing gigs in Hamburg? Bowie lived in Berlin with his mate Iggy Pop for a few years.
LuckyR
Legend
But isn't that the same with everyone who became famous. I can think of a few current tennis players who are benefiting from not having a deep field, for both males and females.
Actually, beneficiaries of luck have it handed to them by Fate. That's why it's called "luck". Of course noone is saying that the Beatles in particular and other outliers in general (Bill Gates etc) aren't talented and hardworking, but their over-the-top success above the many, many other talented and hardworking folks, is due to lucky circumstances, not personal excellence.
Lionheart392
Professional
I've never really been particularly moved by their music...
aphex
Banned
i agree regarding financial (and other) outliers...i.e. warren buffet is statistically necessary. i don't think this applies to music though...
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
although I agree whole heartedly with you on this, you are missing one thing.
Many bands/acts get a "break" or "luck" to get signed. However, if they can't produce stuff that sells, then that one "break" or stroke of "luck" is gone. There has to be something of significance their, which captures an audience to continue buying their albums.
I mean, how many "one hit" wonders are there?? Hundreds/thousands. You could say they got "lucky" to catch that first break, but alas, didn't have the talent to continue putting songs together to sustain them for 40 years.
jack the lad
Banned
I'm not really the target market for the beatles as i'm a tyoung teen, but everyone i know in there 40's say that the beatles are head and shoulders above any other band. They didn't stick to a winning formula and they continued to change there styles and that's why they were/are a huge band.
BTW metallica are the best band ever.
BTW metallica are the best band ever.
aphex
Banned
i'm 29 and when i was your age i was really into the beatles...
trust me when i say this: the coincidence of john lennon and paul maccartney being in the same band is more than remarkable.
either one, by themselves, would have the best band of the world.
btw, i was really into metallica at your age as well...ride the lightning and all that---i remember my favourite song being master of puppets...
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
"Beth" : maybe the G.S.O.A.T.?
I know the posts here are opinions--and opinions often from a 'non-musician' perspective; it's all cool. For example (I'll prolly get excoriated for this), but I was usually of the opinion that Kiss (esp. their 'vocals') often sounded like a "guido" Long Island band ("guido" not to exclusively refer to a particular ethnicity but more towards things containing melodramatic "not-hip/greaser" elements (e.g. Bon Jovi & Nickleback) but I have to give props for Kiss' marketing schstick (those getups/paintjobs) and yes, their fairly recent "unplugged VH-1" appearance was pretty good.
BUT, People's Exhibit #1: The Kiss song: "I Was Made For Lovin' You"
Case closed-Guido band! ..... but then I give pause....as I listen with rapt wonderment to the power and the majesty of the song "Beth" and I then realize that I wrong, that they're not a calculated guido band; that they're serious artists; artists who were serious when they recorded that; that they're musical gods .... GUIDO gods mind you but gods nevertheless ... ah, "Beth"....what a song!....what vocals! j/k :razz:
Good post. Honing their chops at the "Caravan" and other venues is maybe what some (esp. U.S.) posters aren't aware of; that the "Ed Sullivan Show" was not the mustard seed of their 'live' legacy. A glimpse into what they were "as a band" can be found on "The Beatles Live at the BBC" which is recorded in 'mono' and not gussied up by the engineers. Pretty raw, energetic and yes, they could be pretty "tight" instrumentally (good vox); it's essentially the Beatles live without the screaming girls. And this coming from a "Stones" person.+1
I like to add that The Beatles were not precisely and overnight sensation when they came out. They pay their dues playing gigs in Hamburg and Liverpool, gigs that lasted forever (that's when they developed a mild amphetamine dependency just to be able to stay awake) and their public were not precisely teenie boopers but the scum of the scum (at least in Hamburg). Point is, they knew the rock n roll repertoire upside down so they were a really professional and acomplished live rock n roll band before they were "The Beatles".
Long live Dirk, Stig, Nasty & Barry!
I know the posts here are opinions--and opinions often from a 'non-musician' perspective; it's all cool. For example (I'll prolly get excoriated for this), but I was usually of the opinion that Kiss (esp. their 'vocals') often sounded like a "guido" Long Island band ("guido" not to exclusively refer to a particular ethnicity but more towards things containing melodramatic "not-hip/greaser" elements (e.g. Bon Jovi & Nickleback) but I have to give props for Kiss' marketing schstick (those getups/paintjobs) and yes, their fairly recent "unplugged VH-1" appearance was pretty good.
BUT, People's Exhibit #1: The Kiss song: "I Was Made For Lovin' You"
Case closed-Guido band! ..... but then I give pause....as I listen with rapt wonderment to the power and the majesty of the song "Beth" and I then realize that I wrong, that they're not a calculated guido band; that they're serious artists; artists who were serious when they recorded that; that they're musical gods .... GUIDO gods mind you but gods nevertheless ... ah, "Beth"....what a song!....what vocals! j/k :razz:
Last edited:
LuckyR
Legend
A couple of things. The "luck" of the Beatles specifically, is address fairly well by Gladwell in Outliers, and it isn't about getting a contract...
You can't underestimate the "value" of media hype and hysteria in the appreciation of subjective issues (like music), that's why they used to have payola, after all. If you expose a young adult of today, who is ignorant of the Beatles music (which, actually would be pretty easy to find, strangely enough), my money is that they would not put Beatles music head and shoulders above other hits of the same era. As I said before the Beatles were innovators, they did a lot of stuff first, not necessarily best.
random guy
Professional
Sempresami, I've noticed that you reaaally like Bowie. I massively dig him too. But it just takes a couple of listenings to Space Odditty & Hunky Dory to know how much he owe to the Beatles. I think he would be the first to acknowledge that.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
agreed. I do believe as you put it, much is the media hype, right place at right time, etc, etc. Still, they were able to change during the course of their career, and appeal to new audiences, while retaining thier old audience. Not always any easy trick to pull off. And it's not like the music they put out there was all crap. They had quite a lot of good tunes throughout their career.
LuckyR
Legend
I agree with you. Great tunesmiths. True Pop giants. The GOAT?... ummm no.
SempreSami
Hall of Fame
Pfft, could Lennon or **** face have made Station to Station?
Doubt you could call them his main influence when he grew up listening to US rhythm and blues.
dParis
Hall of Fame
. Are you saying that you think they had studio musicians stand in and play incompetently?
random guy
Professional
I didn't say his main influence. I've said that he owe them a lot. If you can link songs like Space Oddity, Kooks, Quicksand, Letter to Hermione and the like to US rhythm and blues like say, Little Richards or James Brown, instead of british pop then I really don't know what you're talking about.
I wonder how you feel about Bowie recording Try Some Buy Some by George Harrison in Reality or with him calling John Lennon "the last true original". I think he appreciate the Beatles way more than you do.
By the way, Station to Station is an incredible album.
Breaker
Legend
Yes, very overrated in the sense that people will say that all 4 of them were the greatest of all time and would have attained global success individually without the Beatles being formed (LOL Ringo, George, and Paul were average at best even with the Beatles).
They are still one of my favourite bands ever, though most of that comes from Lennon tunes.
They are still one of my favourite bands ever, though most of that comes from Lennon tunes.
bluegrasser
Hall of Fame
nope
Tempest344
Professional
no, But I like the Rolling Stones more, just look at who's still around
jonnythan
Professional
no, But I like the Rolling Stones more, just look at who's still around
Still around and relevant are two very different things.
borg number one
Legend
The Beatles were the most "popular" band of all time and they wrote/played mostly "pop music", but did have some good rock and roll tunes. In addition, they were extremely talented and gifted musicians (especially John Lennon in terms of rock and roll songs, while McCartney was a "pop" master, so to speak).
Yet, in my opinion, and the opinion of many rock musicians, Led Zeppelin was the most influential rock and roll band ever, and there album sales and attendance figures are "through the roof". During the 1970's, when the Beatles were dealing with the "Yoko" issues and Lennon's desire to go solo, etc, Led Zeppelin, along with the Rolling Stones, the Who, and probably Elvis, were the biggest music acts around.
Just ask almost any rock and roll band/musician today as well as pop musicians and almost all of them still listen to Led Zeppelin to this day. They were rock music masters. Bonham, Page, Plant, and John Paul Jones were SO TALENTED, each pretty much among the best at what they did at the time. Listen to all to their their albums (I think they had about 10 of them). Every one is so different and their variety/innovative songs is amazing. Almost no two songs they wrote and played are alike.
Yet, in my opinion, and the opinion of many rock musicians, Led Zeppelin was the most influential rock and roll band ever, and there album sales and attendance figures are "through the roof". During the 1970's, when the Beatles were dealing with the "Yoko" issues and Lennon's desire to go solo, etc, Led Zeppelin, along with the Rolling Stones, the Who, and probably Elvis, were the biggest music acts around.
Just ask almost any rock and roll band/musician today as well as pop musicians and almost all of them still listen to Led Zeppelin to this day. They were rock music masters. Bonham, Page, Plant, and John Paul Jones were SO TALENTED, each pretty much among the best at what they did at the time. Listen to all to their their albums (I think they had about 10 of them). Every one is so different and their variety/innovative songs is amazing. Almost no two songs they wrote and played are alike.
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
To me they are overrated. Their music is just not as cool as other bands like zepplin and the stones. Pink floyd to me has way better music. I just don't get it but the beatles are legends in the music stores.
chollyred
Rookie
Over rated? Absolutely not!
I remember seeing the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show (yes, I'm old) and wondering what all the excitement was about. I remember seeing the throngs of people waiting at the airports for their arrival. I remember my parents and grandparents talking about what a disgrace they were and how they were helping ruin the teens of the day. At the time, I was NOT a Beatles fan. Several years later when I became a musician did I begin to appreciate everything they had done.
Up until the Beatles hit the scene, we were listening to Bobby Vinton, Elvis Presley, Chubby Checker, Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, etc.
It was after they appeared that the Beach Boys, the Animals, the Stones, etc. followed suit. The bands of the 70s owed it all to these guys. Yeah, they took it, changed it, and in most cases improved it, but they were the first. They also realized their limitations and constantly changed styles to keep a fresh perspective. How many of the other bands have made such radical changes to keep their music alive? You listen to Zepplin (who I love), and you hear the same thing song after song. Same with Aerosmith, etc. Most bands get stuck in their particular rut with one primary type of fan. The Beatles developed a huge fan base that covered multiple generations.
You want to see a great show? Watch Sir Paul live. If you ain't moving, you're dead!
I remember seeing the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show (yes, I'm old) and wondering what all the excitement was about. I remember seeing the throngs of people waiting at the airports for their arrival. I remember my parents and grandparents talking about what a disgrace they were and how they were helping ruin the teens of the day. At the time, I was NOT a Beatles fan. Several years later when I became a musician did I begin to appreciate everything they had done.
Up until the Beatles hit the scene, we were listening to Bobby Vinton, Elvis Presley, Chubby Checker, Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, etc.
It was after they appeared that the Beach Boys, the Animals, the Stones, etc. followed suit. The bands of the 70s owed it all to these guys. Yeah, they took it, changed it, and in most cases improved it, but they were the first. They also realized their limitations and constantly changed styles to keep a fresh perspective. How many of the other bands have made such radical changes to keep their music alive? You listen to Zepplin (who I love), and you hear the same thing song after song. Same with Aerosmith, etc. Most bands get stuck in their particular rut with one primary type of fan. The Beatles developed a huge fan base that covered multiple generations.
You want to see a great show? Watch Sir Paul live. If you ain't moving, you're dead!
r2473
G.O.A.T.
That is a pretty bold statement.
The Beatles influence cannot be underrated. From a historical standpoint, I would say their influence is greater than Zep. I would say Dylan was more influential than Zep. And certainly Elvis. Now, I'm not rating them on musicianship or even originality. Only influence.
In country music I would say Hank Williams (obviously Sr.). Though an argument could be made for Johnny Cash (because he was around for so long).
Last edited:
borg number one
Legend
r2473, in my opinion, if you ask rock musicians TODAY what music they listen to, more of them will say Led Zeppelin, as opposed to the Beatles, Elvis, the Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan.
I've heard SO MANY from Nirvana, to the Smashing Pumpkins, etc. etc. talk about Led Zeppelin's impact on their very own music, so that's what I was getting at. Plus, they are listened to so much by CURRENT artists. How many rock and roll stations have a "daily dose" of Led Zeppelin segment so to speak? For example, the classic rock station here in Houston has a "get the Led out" musical segment EVERY DAY around 5 pm. That's not true of any other band. Anyway, I'm not saying that those other artists were not influential, they all were. Yet, Led Zeppelin, I would argue remains very current due to how many current artists still listen to them and try and replicate their musical riffs, singing style, etc.
I've heard SO MANY from Nirvana, to the Smashing Pumpkins, etc. etc. talk about Led Zeppelin's impact on their very own music, so that's what I was getting at. Plus, they are listened to so much by CURRENT artists. How many rock and roll stations have a "daily dose" of Led Zeppelin segment so to speak? For example, the classic rock station here in Houston has a "get the Led out" musical segment EVERY DAY around 5 pm. That's not true of any other band. Anyway, I'm not saying that those other artists were not influential, they all were. Yet, Led Zeppelin, I would argue remains very current due to how many current artists still listen to them and try and replicate their musical riffs, singing style, etc.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
I was taking a more historical perspective. Who were the "landmark" artists that shaped the musical landscape. This has as much to do with timing (who came on the scene and when) as anything else.
Your argument is quite subjective and hard to defend as either true or false.
I love Zep. Have the full vinyl collection of all the major studio albums. Of course I also have a lot of Dylan, Beatles, and Elvis on vinyl.
Still trying to figure out what those what those small, round silver discs are or what that tiny device with the apple on it is people call an "ippid" is (and why they sound so $hitty).
halalula1234
Professional
they sound funky
Beatles influenced the standards for songwriting, lyrics and production.
Stones influenced the rebellious "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" subject matter as well as firmly establishing the frontman as focal point of band.
Zeppelin more or less has become the "management theory model" for the prototypical rock band. The riff. The lead guitar part. Soft-loud-soft. The drum solo-within-a-song The string section on top of guitars. The power ballad. The "experimental" bits and "progression of sound." And so on. Now, many bands did those devices before Zep, but Zep's albums became the favorite reference by which many bands learned how to do all that within the context of a great song.
Note: I like Zep, but personally I feel had Cream managed to stay together or if Hendrix had lived, Zep would not have dominated the 70s.
Stones influenced the rebellious "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" subject matter as well as firmly establishing the frontman as focal point of band.
Zeppelin more or less has become the "management theory model" for the prototypical rock band. The riff. The lead guitar part. Soft-loud-soft. The drum solo-within-a-song The string section on top of guitars. The power ballad. The "experimental" bits and "progression of sound." And so on. Now, many bands did those devices before Zep, but Zep's albums became the favorite reference by which many bands learned how to do all that within the context of a great song.
Note: I like Zep, but personally I feel had Cream managed to stay together or if Hendrix had lived, Zep would not have dominated the 70s.
Last edited:
Brettolius
Professional
First off, Paul McCartney is very underrated as a musician. He's a fantastic bass player and, believe it or not, guitarist. Decent keys player, but very clever at each one. Helluva a voice, that cannot be denied. Also, in all reality Cream couldn't hold a candle to Zeppelin in any respect. Jack Bruce is a great bassist, Ginger Baker is really not worth much of a damn, and Clapton is just ok. Hendrix was an innovative guitarist, but his songwriting left much to be desired. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Hendrix, he wrote a few good songs, but a ton of stinkers.
Growing up I didn't really care for the beatles, was more into Zep and Sabbath, more kickass riff oriented rock. But there is a magical element some people have, that can't be taught. Being able to take the same chords, even the same progression that you've heard a milllion times before, and make it unique and beautiful. You can learn how to play an instrument very well. You can analyze how great songs are put together. But there is an unidentified something that some people just have to be able to write perfect melodies. Paul and John had this. Everything from Revolver on is just pure genius, and comes from a place that can't be taught.
Growing up I didn't really care for the beatles, was more into Zep and Sabbath, more kickass riff oriented rock. But there is a magical element some people have, that can't be taught. Being able to take the same chords, even the same progression that you've heard a milllion times before, and make it unique and beautiful. You can learn how to play an instrument very well. You can analyze how great songs are put together. But there is an unidentified something that some people just have to be able to write perfect melodies. Paul and John had this. Everything from Revolver on is just pure genius, and comes from a place that can't be taught.
borg number one
Legend
Tricky, I would agree as to your overall take on those bands, but Led Zeppelin was very hard to top in the 1970's even if Hendrix and Cream had been around, but I'm sure they would have contributed a lot from what I've seen and heard.
Those are some interesting points about Cream and Led Zeppelin. I haven't listened to a LOT of Cream, but check out some drum solos from Baker, Bonham, and then Neil Peart of Rush for good measure, just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etrvv1-27Yg (Ginger Baker solo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRpqihBoKA (Bonham- Moby Dick)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nmOMo4OPi4 (Rush-Neil Peart on "YYZ")
Those are some interesting points about Cream and Led Zeppelin. I haven't listened to a LOT of Cream, but check out some drum solos from Baker, Bonham, and then Neil Peart of Rush for good measure, just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etrvv1-27Yg (Ginger Baker solo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRpqihBoKA (Bonham- Moby Dick)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nmOMo4OPi4 (Rush-Neil Peart on "YYZ")
Brettolius
Professional
I am a drummer, and in my opinion Ginger Baker doesn't really have any chops. He is allegedly some kind of jazz drummer (mostly according to him) but in cream none of these jazz licks are evident. He's kind of sloppy even. He's no John Bonham or Neil Peart, let alone real jazz players around the same time like Tony Williams or Billy Cobham. Highly overrated. Hendrix drummer Mitch Mitchell smoked him too, and I heard Ginger disparage Mitchell in an interview! Self promoter and overrated.
Talker
Hall of Fame
The beatles were not overrated IMO.
Their early music was great at the time and new(early 60's).
They put out some very good stuff later on also, they weren't predictable, the music was always changing.
Having heard their last album would give no clue to how the next one would sound.
That's one of the main reasons they lasted, they never got stale.
Their early music was great at the time and new(early 60's).
They put out some very good stuff later on also, they weren't predictable, the music was always changing.
Having heard their last album would give no clue to how the next one would sound.
That's one of the main reasons they lasted, they never got stale.
