Just read this, I thought it made interesting reading, good debating material.



by James Hurley, MSN Music Editor


When Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones were arrested in February 1967 for drug possession following a tip-off by The News Of The World, the tabloid rumour mill went into overdrive.

Salacious stories abounded, one of which, involving Marianne Faithfull and a Mars bar, endures to this day despite being nothing more than the product of some unscrupulous hack's dirty mind.

One detail which went unreported at the time and which took many years to emerge was that the police waited patiently for George Harrison and his then wife Pattie Boyd to leave the premises before embarking on the raid.

Why the special treatment? Well, George was a Beatle, wasn't he? Then, as now, The Beatles enjoyed untouchable status, a sort of diplomatic immunity not afforded to any other entertainer and certainly no other pop group.

It's my belief that this rose-tinted view of the Fab Four has coloured judgement of their music as well as their behaviour for the best part of 45 years. Don't get me wrong. I couldn't make a case for them being bad even if I wanted to.

The quality of their work and enduring legacy is undeniable. However, I do take issue with the conventional wisdom which states that their output is beyond criticism and their influence without peer.

Rather than the unsurpassed geniuses of legend, I would suggest they were songwriters of above average talent whose gift for incorporating disparate styles into their work combined with some outrageous good luck; principally in chancing upon George Martin as producer but also in terms of their timing.

As the highest profile band in an era of rapid musical evolution, they rode the crest of the wave, and in so doing gave the illusion of leading rather than following it, which, more often than not, they were.

As Lloyd Grossman might say, let's look at the evidence. As is well documented, The Beatles started out as a rock and roll covers band with fledgling songwriting ambitions. Much is made of the fact that they supposedly made authorship of original songs the norm but this isn't true.

With the notable exception of Elvis Presley, many of their major influences, from Buddy Holly to Chuck Berry to Jerry Lee Lewis, wrote their own material. And just as The Beatles were tinkering with their earliest compositions, a young man named Bob Dylan was doing the same thing in New York.

The difference was that while The Fabs were rhyming "Love, love me do" with "you know I love you", Dylan was ripping up the lyrical rulebook and embarking on an odyssey of inventive wordplay, surreal imagery, and biting social commentary. This approach was the first of many influences The Beatles absorbed after their first flush of success.

That they did so with such skill isn't a criticism. The lyrical sophistication of a song like 1965's Norwegian Wood marks a seismic leap from the relative banality of what they were doing just two years previously and is testament to their ability to identify and appropriate new ideas but not, crucially, their originality.

They repeated the trick many times. American bands like The Doors, The Grateful Dead, and The Jefferson Airplane, along with their English counterparts such as Pink Floyd, were laying the template for psychedelia before John, Paul, George, and Ringo turned their collective hand to it.

Similarly, The Band (formerly Dylan's backing group) and The Rolling Stones, habitually cast as following The Beatles' lead throughout the 1960s, had paved the way for the stripped-down, back to basics, post-psychedelic era a good year before the Fab Four recorded the self-explanatory Get Back in 1969 (it wasn't released until 1970).

In fact, The Beatles weren't always successful at this. Jimi Hendrix's explosion on the scene in 1966/67 was arguably the biggest single shot in the arm popular music has ever received. He turned the game on its head, marking the line between pop and rock which remains unchanged to this day, yet The Beatles stab at a response, Helter Skelter from The White Album, counts as one of their rare failures.

To reiterate what I said at the beginning, I don't for a minute think The Beatles are unworthy of considerable acclaim. That they were responsible for some of the greatest moments in the history of popular music is beyond question. Furthermore, as figureheads of that singularly potent decade, the 1960s, they thoroughly deserve their place in history.

I'm not saying they should be condemned. I'm just saying that, like George Harrison 40 years ago, they shouldn't be exempt from questioning either.

Do YOU think The Beatles are overrated?
Join the debate on the MSN Music Messageboards

No way! Go and get 'Live at the BBC' if you don't believe me.

2 1 2 0

Overrated ?

No way. If you have doubt of this, ask Keith or Mick.

F**K NO !!! I didn't read this thing you posted (too long) but to answer your question....

They were more creative and original AND inovative than any other band before, during, or after (a few have come close but no cigar)......

No...
...but some of their work is, perhaps, just a little, overated.

To answer your question (if you ask me) I would say No. The Beatles’ impact of the 60’s scene can’t be questioned. Even if they weren’t leading in all parts.
Mentioning Hendrix breakthrough is interesting. Exciting, different and very good. But my memory tells me that his singles didn’t reach the top chart positions, at least in Scandinavia. Same thing with for instance A Whiter Shade of Pale and there are a lots of examples where the world has reassessed the music.
But I’m convinced that Hendrix was extremely important for other musicians. And not everybody had The Beatles or The Stones as their favourites. Even if they say so today.

In a word - no.

Vastly overrated. The importance of their contribution is beyond doubt ("kicking down the door," as Keith puts it), but their music is the most overhyped load of crap since the beginning of time.

Oh, for those of you in the habit of rebutting comments you do not agree with by saying "well, that is only your opinion," I would say you are quite right. Please assume that everything that comes out of my mouth is my opinion. That doesn't make it any less true however.

yes, way overrated... they have no live legacy,. they kept it in the safety of the recording studio... keith has always said, it is the live music - playing in front of people - that is what it is all about. seocondly, the beatles were really john and paul writing great songs and then having them be heavily produced in the studio with george martin... ringo was useless.. george was just OK... they were not a true band, in the sense of what a true band is supposed to be - the stones, zeppelin, who, etc.... the betales were more just a 2 guy act.. in this sense, they are overrated as the greatest rock band of all time.. maybe the biggest name in music of all time, yes, but not the greatest band, there is a difference. the stones would be the biggest/greatest band. each unit making an undeniable contribution that was necessary to the final product. i am not talking about post steel wheels era stones, but 64 to the 80's, when ronnie made great contributions on some girls, emotional rescue, and tattoo you.

Absolutely not.

Cheers,

Si.

jjsteve, excuse me dude but HARRISON was about half a step down from JOHN and PAUL as far as talent (which means heads above almost anyone else) and RINGO was like CHARLIE W, not flashy but perfect for the band he was in. You had to have been there - it was magic and will NEVER happen again.....

Not overrated but people seem to think everything they did was gold. Half of their output is pure crap. I mean real shite. And Hendrix is the most influential musician ever. But no the Beatles are not overrated when it comes to songwriting or legacy. Velvet Underground are underrated - the second most influential group. The Doors are kinda overrated. And underrated.

I don't think they were overrated, everyone is entitled to their opinion and i think the guy who wrote the article was just being over clever. Not everyone is going to all like the same thing but The Beatles have been loved and copied by millions of people for over 40 years. Listning to their music even now is well ahead of it's time and i think a lot of it will remain timeless.

It was a crying shame when they broke up but before then I was never a Stones fan but a real Beatle fan, since they broke up i became a Stones fan overnight and have been to all the tours, as someone said it is playing live that counts and the Stones can really kick ass more than anyone. The Beatles will alway remain on a pedistal for me but the Stones are my real favorites.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-13 12:33 by pgarof.

nope

Stupid, obviously not.
Look at the development and output from Mop tops in 63 to the end in 69/70! Massive!!

It is a matter of opinion, of course. They are not my favorite, but I would certainly stop short of calling them overrated.

It is interesting to note that in more than one interview, Lennon himself describes the Beatles as "just a band."

Not overrated today at all. Maybe they were a bit back then, because of their poularity (I.e. "EVERYTHING they do is great, because it's them").

JumpingKentFlash

What would Beatles fans say when asked "Are The Stones overrated?".....an equally futile exercise!?

>> the highest profile band in an era of rapid musical evolution <<

that's the part that always interests me: i feel like we take it way too much for granted
that these handfuls of skinny young English cats took the burgeoning broadcasting opportunities by the horns
and changed the meaning of the word success forever. the Beatles were the first to navigate that
for long enough and adeptly enough to make a difference, and it changed the world.
yeah: the Beatles made some navigational mistakes, which cost them plenty (listen to those early-70s Lennon interviews)
but they were good enough at it for long enough to change everything for everybody, for good.
of course "kicking down the door" wouldn't do much good without Worthy Others to follow through
but it isn't "just kicking down the door" - it isn't obvious or simple how to do that
(the writer mentions a few brilliant predecessors who didn't manage to do it,
through no fault of their own - that's why the door needed kicking down.)

something i read recently observed that the overall health & prosperity of the entertainment industry
is always dependent on the fortunes of its most successful stars, and these are the cats who made it huge.
making it matter that it was huge - turning an entertainment form into the engine room of a counterculture -
wasn't all their doing, of course; others were clearly crucial in that part of things.
but without the Beatles' intrepid navigation of that early success,
and without many of their choices once they realized what a force they'd become,
it's hard (at least hard!) to imagine how we would ever have heard those voices.

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a matter of opinion, of course. They are not
> my favorite, but I would certainly stop short of
> calling them overrated.
>
> It is interesting to note that in more than one
> interview, Lennon himself describes the Beatles as
> "just a band."


Lennon was prone to talking a lot of absolute bollocks for much of his adult life, whether it was good or bad, so I wouldnt put much stock in him having a moment of modesty. He's the same guy who, in 1968. announced to the rest of the band that he was Jesus Christ, after all.

Again, if you weren't there you ain't gonna get it. EVER new song was a step forward, sometimes 2 or 3. The PROGRESS and INOVATION was just AMAZING and will never happen again. To go from "Love Me Do" to "She's a Woman" to "In My Life" to "I am The Walrus" to "Hey Jude" to "Side 2 of ABBEY ROAD" in a little over 5 years is just amazing - Happens once in a century in art / music. Kurt Cobain said something like that in a more compact way.It was way beyond SPECIAL....

Correct, HelterSkelter. Well argued (even though I wasnt actually 'there' - that persepctive certainly helps)

Well, in this instance Raoul Duke's opinion is exactly mine

Beatles are over rated poop music, er, I mean POP music


Raoul Duke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vastly overrated. The importance of their
> contribution is beyond doubt ("kicking down the
> door," as Keith puts it), but their music is the
> most overhyped load of crap since the beginning of
> time.
>
> Oh, for those of you in the habit of rebutting
> comments you do not agree with by saying "well,
> that is only your opinion," I would say you are
> quite right. Please assume that everything that
> comes out of my mouth is my opinion. That doesn't
> make it any less true however.

Yes!

That's the whole problem - EVERYTHING wasn't labels then - Pop/Rock/Soul/Country/Heavy Metal/Techno/Electronic/Easy Listening...on and on..... We just knew that most parents, red neck hypocrites, religious hypocrites, and all other phoney adults (not all adults cause some adults weren't big phoney's but lived life on their own terms)hated the music and that just made it better....I'd love to hear who Marv's and Raoul's 5 fav bands are (besides the Stones). Come on boys, lay down your lists. Wanna see what the 2 of you consider genius...... (I bet most will be true POOP)...go for it boys....

no

Not only "no"... it was all packed into a short seven years or so.

No-one that understand the meaning of good music can tell that The Beatles (talking their music) is overrated...

2 1 2 0

No,
And for live legacy, as was said above, check out The Beatles at the BEEB. Incredible.

You may not like them, and not have much of their music, but they area history, and produced some of the most influential music in Rock/pop history. If you need help understanding this...think about this. They haven't been together since 1970, yet the still have so much interest, commercial power, and sound as fresh today as they did in 1966.

Get past the hype, and the comercial tunes on the radio....dwelve into the deep cuts...

Appreciated history.

And to simply call it POP is just stupid.......

AND THE BEST NEWS IS ALL THE ALBUMS ARE BEING REMASTERED TO SOUND AS GOOD AS "LOVE" AND THE REMASTERED "YELLOW SUBMARINE" SOUNDTRACK. IN OTHER WORDS, LIKE THEY WERE RECORDED LAST WEEK......