New topic
PrintableI have always said the beatles were most overrated band eva, i mean just look at Paul Mcartenys carrer, very poor. I'v heard on tv. and from people dat they are very overrated. There music may have sounded good, back then, where most of the music was crap. Anyway there days have ran-out a long-time ago.
Sam  Prince 2010 Good Luck for Future & Tour | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
tommyalma said: WildheartXXX said: Does anyone else on the here think that the "Greatest Act of the 20th Century" weren't all that. My parents have always been massive Beatles fans so they were the soundtrack to my childhood in many way. Listening to them then i just regarded them as a good pop band and now it's no difference. Their first two albums aren't any better than any other pop act of the early 60's and have dated badly. As for their later material even though i can admire their excellent musicianship and studio trickery. I've always felt a sense of detachment to their music unlike say The Rolling Stones, Zeppelin or Hendrix. No matter how many times i've listened or will listen to The Beatles will never be drawn into their world. Anyone else agree/disagree?
Studio trickery? You say it like it's a bad thing - the feedback, the double-tracking, the samples - all things that are standard for most bands were pioneered by the Beatles. Most bands were still recording live in the studio in the '60s. Come on, they quit touring! That was unheard of! Every rock band talks about maturing and expanding their sound - big deal. The Beatles started that. Before them, everybody (yes, I know what Miles and Trane were doing in the '60s, and I am speaking on a mainstream rock level) was perfectly happy to keep writing the same song over and over. Before the Beatles, nobody really pushed LPs as complete works, except maybe Frank Sinatra. Sure, the Beatles released revolutionary singles as well, but Sgt. Pepper's? The White Album? Who did these guys think they were? Before the Beatles, there were love songs, and there were nonsense/fun songs. The Beatles turned song lyrics into poetry. Bands like The Doors, R.E.M. and Nirvana wouldn't have been able to get away with half the crap they pulled lyrically if it weren't for the Beatles turning mainstream music on its ear. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is still 30 years ahead of its time. To say the Beatles are overrated is to deny their impact in modern music. The Stones, Led Zep and Jimi owe their careers to the Beatles, because they followed the path the Fab Four blazed right into history. Nice little essay but the Beatles weren't the first to turn lyrics into poetry in rock music. That distinction belongs to Chuck Berry. The Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, Doors and everybody else during the 50s and 60s would tell you the same thing, and matter of fact, have said the same thing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Bladerunner said: Nice little essay but the Beatles weren't the first to turn lyrics into poetry in rock music. That distinction belongs to Chuck Berry. The Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, Doors and everybody else during the 50s and 60s would tell you the same thing, and matter of fact, have said the same thing.
No jive, Clive. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Bladerunner said: tommyalma said: WildheartXXX said: Does anyone else on the here think that the "Greatest Act of the 20th Century" weren't all that. My parents have always been massive Beatles fans so they were the soundtrack to my childhood in many way. Listening to them then i just regarded them as a good pop band and now it's no difference. Their first two albums aren't any better than any other pop act of the early 60's and have dated badly. As for their later material even though i can admire their excellent musicianship and studio trickery. I've always felt a sense of detachment to their music unlike say The Rolling Stones, Zeppelin or Hendrix. No matter how many times i've listened or will listen to The Beatles will never be drawn into their world. Anyone else agree/disagree?
Studio trickery? You say it like it's a bad thing - the feedback, the double-tracking, the samples - all things that are standard for most bands were pioneered by the Beatles. Most bands were still recording live in the studio in the '60s. Come on, they quit touring! That was unheard of! Every rock band talks about maturing and expanding their sound - big deal. The Beatles started that. Before them, everybody (yes, I know what Miles and Trane were doing in the '60s, and I am speaking on a mainstream rock level) was perfectly happy to keep writing the same song over and over. Before the Beatles, nobody really pushed LPs as complete works, except maybe Frank Sinatra. Sure, the Beatles released revolutionary singles as well, but Sgt. Pepper's? The White Album? Who did these guys think they were? Before the Beatles, there were love songs, and there were nonsense/fun songs. The Beatles turned song lyrics into poetry. Bands like The Doors, R.E.M. and Nirvana wouldn't have been able to get away with half the crap they pulled lyrically if it weren't for the Beatles turning mainstream music on its ear. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is still 30 years ahead of its time. To say the Beatles are overrated is to deny their impact in modern music. The Stones, Led Zep and Jimi owe their careers to the Beatles, because they followed the path the Fab Four blazed right into history. Nice little essay but the Beatles weren't the first to turn lyrics into poetry in rock music. That distinction belongs to Chuck Berry. The Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, Doors and everybody else during the 50s and 60s would tell you the same thing, and matter of fact, have said the same thing. mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Bladerunner said: tommyalma said: WildheartXXX said: Does anyone else on the here think that the "Greatest Act of the 20th Century" weren't all that. My parents have always been massive Beatles fans so they were the soundtrack to my childhood in many way. Listening to them then i just regarded them as a good pop band and now it's no difference. Their first two albums aren't any better than any other pop act of the early 60's and have dated badly. As for their later material even though i can admire their excellent musicianship and studio trickery. I've always felt a sense of detachment to their music unlike say The Rolling Stones, Zeppelin or Hendrix. No matter how many times i've listened or will listen to The Beatles will never be drawn into their world. Anyone else agree/disagree?
Studio trickery? You say it like it's a bad thing - the feedback, the double-tracking, the samples - all things that are standard for most bands were pioneered by the Beatles. Most bands were still recording live in the studio in the '60s. Come on, they quit touring! That was unheard of! Every rock band talks about maturing and expanding their sound - big deal. The Beatles started that. Before them, everybody (yes, I know what Miles and Trane were doing in the '60s, and I am speaking on a mainstream rock level) was perfectly happy to keep writing the same song over and over. Before the Beatles, nobody really pushed LPs as complete works, except maybe Frank Sinatra. Sure, the Beatles released revolutionary singles as well, but Sgt. Pepper's? The White Album? Who did these guys think they were? Before the Beatles, there were love songs, and there were nonsense/fun songs. The Beatles turned song lyrics into poetry. Bands like The Doors, R.E.M. and Nirvana wouldn't have been able to get away with half the crap they pulled lyrically if it weren't for the Beatles turning mainstream music on its ear. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is still 30 years ahead of its time. To say the Beatles are overrated is to deny their impact in modern music. The Stones, Led Zep and Jimi owe their careers to the Beatles, because they followed the path the Fab Four blazed right into history. Nice little essay but the Beatles weren't the first to turn lyrics into poetry in rock music. That distinction belongs to Chuck Berry. The Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, Doors and everybody else during the 50s and 60s would tell you the same thing, and matter of fact, have said the same thing. "Bands like The Doors, R.E.M. and Nirvana wouldn't have been able to get away with half the crap they pulled lyrically if it weren't for the Beatles turning mainstream music on its ear." I stand by that, and I'm right about it. I didn't say the Beatles were the first to do it, and I didn't say they were the only ones. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
tommyalma said: Bladerunner said: tommyalma said: WildheartXXX said: Does anyone else on the here think that the "Greatest Act of the 20th Century" weren't all that. My parents have always been massive Beatles fans so they were the soundtrack to my childhood in many way. Listening to them then i just regarded them as a good pop band and now it's no difference. Their first two albums aren't any better than any other pop act of the early 60's and have dated badly. As for their later material even though i can admire their excellent musicianship and studio trickery. I've always felt a sense of detachment to their music unlike say The Rolling Stones, Zeppelin or Hendrix. No matter how many times i've listened or will listen to The Beatles will never be drawn into their world. Anyone else agree/disagree?
Studio trickery? You say it like it's a bad thing - the feedback, the double-tracking, the samples - all things that are standard for most bands were pioneered by the Beatles. Most bands were still recording live in the studio in the '60s. Come on, they quit touring! That was unheard of! Every rock band talks about maturing and expanding their sound - big deal. The Beatles started that. Before them, everybody (yes, I know what Miles and Trane were doing in the '60s, and I am speaking on a mainstream rock level) was perfectly happy to keep writing the same song over and over. Before the Beatles, nobody really pushed LPs as complete works, except maybe Frank Sinatra. Sure, the Beatles released revolutionary singles as well, but Sgt. Pepper's? The White Album? Who did these guys think they were? Before the Beatles, there were love songs, and there were nonsense/fun songs. The Beatles turned song lyrics into poetry. Bands like The Doors, R.E.M. and Nirvana wouldn't have been able to get away with half the crap they pulled lyrically if it weren't for the Beatles turning mainstream music on its ear. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is still 30 years ahead of its time. To say the Beatles are overrated is to deny their impact in modern music. The Stones, Led Zep and Jimi owe their careers to the Beatles, because they followed the path the Fab Four blazed right into history. Nice little essay but the Beatles weren't the first to turn lyrics into poetry in rock music. That distinction belongs to Chuck Berry. The Stones, Beatles, Hendrix, Doors and everybody else during the 50s and 60s would tell you the same thing, and matter of fact, have said the same thing. "Bands like The Doors, R.E.M. and Nirvana wouldn't have been able to get away with half the crap they pulled lyrically if it weren't for the Beatles turning mainstream music on its ear." I stand by that, and I'm right about it. I didn't say the Beatles were the first to do it, and I didn't say they were the only ones. You also said "The Beatles turned song lyrics into poetry" that's what I responded to. And while you didn't say they were the first you inferred it, and on that account you would be wrong. I stand by that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The Beatles rocked pure and simple...but of course it's totally MY OPINION.
The White Album Abbey Road Revolver Rubber Soul Strawberry Fields Across the Universe Yesterday I Am The Walrus All You Need Is Love The Long & Winding Road Just a few that are genius... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Pagey said: The Beatles rocked pure and simple...but of course it's totally MY OPINION.
I Am The Walrus Just a few that are genius... All those songs are fine but c'mon. This has to be the all-time stupidest song in the world!  test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PFunkjazz said: Pagey said: The Beatles rocked pure and simple...but of course it's totally MY OPINION.
I Am The Walrus Just a few that are genius... All those songs are fine but c'mon. This has to be the all-time stupidest song in the world!  I am the Walrus is the ultimate psycadelic/Lennon-trippin song. When people mention Lennon I think of Imagine, Come Together, and THIS song. I friggin love it. Oasis did a kick ass cover of this tune. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |