Superb, Love is a great mix and fab sound

According to the article they are overrated as musical innovators when they more accurately should be defined as followers. That might very well be true and an important observation. Perhaps the Beatles will be considered like this in the future.

The Beatles are vastly under-rated.

They are the show-business story of the 20th century and their music will survive , just like Bach and Brahms and all the other masters.

Now let me clarify. It was the combination of Lennon-McCartney, of course, was responsible. Ringo had no input and George, aside from writing a handful of masterpieces, was a fringe player. (See Geoff Emerick's recent book for a similar opinion).

I also submit that of the Lennon-McCartney relationship, Paul was responsible for 80% of their success. I also am of the firm belief that the group disentegrated because Lennon started to go crazy around '67 and when he met Yoko he went completely insane. When Yoko began sitting in during the recording sessions, the party was over.

As followers yes. And as a band who partly took in old styles (Maccas grandma-songs, When I'm 64, Honey Pie etc). Good article. But they were innovaters as well. And a boy band. And a grunge band.

What would you be listening to today without them?

Bärs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to the article they are overrated as
> musical innovators when they more accurately
> should be defined as followers. That might very
> well be true and an important observation. Perhaps
> the Beatles will be considered like this in the
> future.


In that case the writer of the article is talking an absolute load of cock. The amount of musical 'firsts' that the Beatles were responsible for in the world of popular music is numerous. All acts are 'followers' to some degree but they absolutely pioneered and broke more new ground than any act before or since.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-13 16:42 by Gazza.

IMO, YES. Today, in 2007, i could hear only two Beatles albums from the first track to the last. "White Album" and "Abbey Road". The others, "St Papers" included, sound long gone by, if not a bit childish, to me. Matter of taste, of course.

Gazza wrote:

The amount of musical 'firsts' that the Beatles were responsible for in the world of popular music is numerous. All acts are 'followers' to some degree but they absolutely pioneered and broke more new ground than any act before or since.




Thanks, Gazza. That's what I was trying to say.

stickydion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMO, YES. Today, in 2007, i could hear only two
> Beatles albums from the first track to the last.
> "White Album" and "Abbey Road".

well, thats two more albums more than I can listen to the whole way through by about 99% of all artists. And I cant think of too many double albums I can listen to the whole way through either (in fact, the White Album is one of them, oddly enough)

The others, "St
> Papers" included,

!!! LOL

sound long gone by, if not a bit
> childish, to me. Matter of taste, of course.

It is, of course. However,the fact that none of them were recorded later than 1969 would be more a comment of your age, perhaps than the quality of the music? Almost without exception, 40 year old albums dont tend to age that well regardless of who it is, especially if you were born after that era. I get the impression that the vast majority of Stones fans on here and various other sites dont really appreciate their output pre-Jumpin Jack Flash either.

Well, the point is that there were many bands that formed todays music. They were the first and the biggest influence probably but their style wasnt alwyas groundbreaking if you compare them to the Velvet Underground, Love, Dylan, Hendrix of course, some Beach Boys stuff, Doors, Jeffersson Airplane, Stones of course etc etc etc etc. When they picked something up it became "Beatles". Crap like Hey Bulldog or Helter Skelter (HS isnt just crap but compared to other songs in the same style in the late 60s) would never ever be treated as anything else but crap had another band recorded them. Same with many of their songs. You know them because Beatles wrote them.

to a degree, but to the other extreme theres not much point being 'groundbreaking' and little chance of being influential as a result if no one listens to your music.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-13 17:20 by Gazza.

As a side treack to all this pointless arguing, interesting to see Yoko appeared in the studio as early as September 1967...

[www.nemsworld.com]

They say if the music's too loud, you're too old.

And if you think The Beatles are overrated, you're too young.

You just don't get it. How could you? If the first Beatle song you ever heard was from Abbey Road, you've read the story backwards. You know the ending. You can't appreciate the unexpected changes and innovations that were in the next Beatle album that were awaiting listeners in the '60's.

The entire rock world as we know it rests on the work of The Beatles. Without them, the Stones could have never been marketed as the "anti-Beatles." They would have been a weird curiousity. A British blues-rock band. Something as odd as the British Dixieland bands seen in the early 60's Richard Lester film, "It's Trad, Dad!" No Beatles, no Byrds. No reason for Dylan to go electric. Without the British rock scene jump started by the Beatles, Hendrix would not just have emerged out of thin air.

Another thing that was great about the Beatles and their era: the GOOD music was also the POPULAR music!!!

Hard to imagine today.

They are WAY overrated. They are NOT Rock; they are Pop (the original "boy band"

Its all a matter of taste but I don't think they were overrated at all. As someone has stated they were not only popular but they were also very good. In just 7 years they packed in so much, most of which is excellent and ground breaking.

A brilliant band. Half of what those people say critising them is meaningless.

aslecs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are WAY overrated. They are NOT Rock; they
> are Pop (the original "boy band"


youre aware of the definition of the term 'boy band'? nah..guess not

and as for pop - what the f**k do you call As tears go By, Streets of Love, Angie, etc?

And they were playing rock n roll before the Stones and most other bands you can name were out of short trousers.

Loog droog - best post of the week.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-13 20:52 by Gazza.

Well said Gazza. 'The Singer Not The Song', 'Blue Fades To Grey' 'If you need me' etc are great songs in my opinion but the amps haven't been turned to 11.

And from what I've read a 'boy band' wouldn't have lasted five minutes in Hamburg where the Beatles played Rock and Roll.

Yep..it can be a 'great' song AND a 'pop' song.

..and it can be a 'rock' song and a horrible one as well.

Yoko - Oh No!

No way were they overrated-- the best band ever-- Dylan loved them, the Stones loved them, they were it---
And dont forget it was George Harrison who told the guys at Decca to sign the Stones ---
great great band

No

loog droog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another thing that was great about the Beatles and
> their era: the GOOD music was also the POPULAR
> music!!!

It's more like pop music was the only music. Maybe I don't get it because I don't have as much (grey) hair on my chest as you do, but I will listen to my mom's Take That cd before I put on Sgt. Pepper's. Best rock and roll album of all time my ass.

I think the real point here is did the Beatles lead the way with musical innovation or merely follow what was going on around them? Sgt. Peppers has been heralded as their gretest work but it could not have happend, or turned out the way it did, without Pet Sounds before it. And as was already pointed out, Dylan's impact on the lyrical content, and everyone elses, was profound. Without these and other influences I believe the Beatles legacy would have been mostly as the vanguard of the Britsh Invasion. But are they overated? Well as this thread illustrates, it really depends who you ask but one would hope any resposne to this quesion would be an objective and considered one rather than one based on emotion as some of the respones here seem to have been.

I guess you are not allowed to disagree with the precious gazza, huh? Oooooooooooooh!!!

The beatle were and are overrated. They are popular becuae their music feels safe to everyone, even grandmas.

Sorry, I'll take the Stones and The Animals and The Kinks and The Clash and J Geils- hard, agressive music, not boy band fluff.

ditto aslecs post...with this added. I think it was pablum compared to the groups named above,
If I never heard, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, again, it would be too soon

no

well this was a longass missive of some sort...
editing it out,

just to say, again.
naw, nope..
no. don't think so.
no way. not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-14 00:13 by Beelyboy.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no


NO again and again and ..............

__________________________

and it was all four of them...everything worked together...there need be those four. i like harrison's stuff particularly right from 'don't bother me'...
to suggest that it wasn't a four way phenom is imo, missing the spark of the amalgamation...bass on paperback writer...that 'awkward' lefty, 'clumsy' drum break style is phenomenally symphonic and you still hear ringo fills on tons of stuff all the time, to this day...
george had the rockabilly ringo had the country, paul had everything, john had the desperate rock raw power...the 3 voices together were revelatory...the 12 strings and the guitars were...well,

"it's like tryin' to tell a stranger about...rock and roll
do you believe in magic"
j. sebastian