I suppose they are overrated by some people. But that always tends to happen when you're talking about artists that talented, that popular, and that important to the evolution of popular music and culture in general. I don't mind. There are always going to be people who overrate those that are the best at what they do

Timmy84 said:

I used to believe that in the past untill a friend of mine sat me down and played "The White Album". Now I understand what the "big deal" is

Sandino said:

Nobody has ever said that, quit lyin. Especially about Ringo lol.

Harlepolis said:

Even ONE song by the Beatles can make me see why they were a "big deal".

Timmy84 said:

Now lol I won't push it and claim the same statement as yours, I still have alot to learn about those guys.

Needless to say, I quit saying they're "overrated".

Harlepolis said:

I know. I'm just clowning but of course though after hearing enough material, I was convinced.

As a group, their music really matured in their last 3-4 years . Harrison in particular was starting to hit his stride as a songwriter and songs like "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" became pop music standards. It goes without saying that Lennon/McCartney were excellent songwriters without peer, so when you take Harrison + Lennon + McCartney (and Ringo's drumming), they truly are the "4 headed monster"as Jagger described them.

I personally think their imprint on pop/rock music of the era shaped how groups approached song writing in the subsequent years. Are they overrated? I used to think so, but the more I dug into their catalog, the more I realized these guys were REALLY good!

As someone said, it doesn't have to be a Dylanesque in quality/content, but they were by far the giants of the rock music era for the style, songwriting, and studio experimentation with their albums. The shadow they cast musically still can not be escaped by any group since their breakup in 1970.

Shit, not this thread again.

xlr8r said:

I think a reasonable argument could be made that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles.

rialb said:

Who was the original Beatles drummer? Pete Best, right?

Timmy84 said:

Yes but even when Ringo was in, John and them would do their own drumming if they were set in the studio without Ringo.

Timmy84 said:

!!!

Timmy84 said:

They also had a guy before Pete. I forget his name but he was quite a bit older than the rest of them.

But the other drummer I was referring to is Paul McCartney.

rialb said:

I see, lol. I did hear that Paul played drums.

Timmy84 said:

Yeah, you've heard it a lot. Paul played drums on "Say Say Say."

Nope

Revolver alone is better than almost every pop album ever released.

lets put that pipe down people
[Edited 6/28/09 17:11pm]

AlexdeParis said:

Ah no wonder.

You have to remember the period, in the 60s music like that was unheard of

where the hell is Moonbeam

Anxiety said:

I couldn't have said it any better.

I used to think the Beatles were over rated as well. I held that if Western pop culture was centered not around European sensibilities but on Black America's, Stevie Wonder would be more influential and regarded than the lads from Liverpool. But the deeper my musical studies have taken me, the more I realize that if it wasn't for The Beatles, 9/10ths of pop artists wouldn't be around. Not only were they consummate musicians and songwriters, The Beatles made pop albums as artistic statements - that had never been done before.

No Sgt. Peppers, No Songs In The Key Of Life, No Thriller.
Know Sgt. Peppers, Know Songs In The Key of Life, Know Thriller.

thank fuck u started this thread...beatles fans are ruthless!! brace urself!

but in answer to your subject header, yes, yes they are.

chuckaducci said:

See, I gotta disagree here. I'm a Beatles fan but I think music would have been just fine without them. Pre Beatles you had guys like Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly who were writing their own music and if it wasn't the Beatles who were the group to make that common I gotta believe someone else would have.

Also, if you look at early Stax and Motown there was already a ton of talent in place before anyone knew who the Beatles were. (remember, it wasn't until February, 1964 that the Beatles broke in the U.S.) Would the course of Soul music in the '60s be much different if not for the Beatles? Probably not.

Now, when you get into rock and roll sure, things would have been different but I don't know if they would have been radically different. The reason that the British Invasion was so huge is because even before the Beatles broke there were hundreds of great bands all over the UK. If not the Beatles it seems likely that some other British band would have broken in America with many more to follow.

Of course this is all guesswork, who can really say how things would have worked out if the Beatles had never existed? But I do feel like sometimes they get a bit too much credit for everything that happened musically in the 1960s.

rialb said:

WHat they did better than the American rock acts of the time (to an extent) is repackage American rock n roll (Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard) and present their own spin. Of course, they represent an era where other individuals (Hendrix) or groups (Beach Boys) possibly can be credited with pushing the sonic envelope further, but The Beatles were really good.

They had a huge influence on pop music in terms of sound and they wrote several good songs but having an influence isn't the same thing as being great. I think their songs are overrated.

I think they're overdiscussed thats for sure and many other acts from that era are ignored somewhat. Whilst i can admire them technically and from a songwriting point of view their music does nothing for me. It leaves me completely cold and doesn't resonate with me at all. Id much rather listen to The Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin.

Ah fuck I'm not getting through to you guys so I'll just take you write to the source: http://popwatch.ew.com/po...s-cat.html

pay attention to what blackjack had to say because I find his arguments very interesting. The beatles didn't really do anything amazingly original that hadn't been heard in western music, yes they integrated new sounds into their music, like the sitar, or covered motown songs in a rock n roll format, and yes they had some influence over the pyschedlic genre of rock, but can you really credit them solely to all the things that people list them as being innovateors for, such as studio experimentation, or songwriting innovation? They took an already popular songwriting style of bob dylan's and tweaked it a bit and made it more accessible to the masses, big whoop. They made use of the incredible engineers(Ken townshend) and Arrangers(George Martin) who were around them and were privy to the latest musical technology their record company could buy. The only true credits you can put to their name musically is feedback(sort of) and the concept album, other than that MASSIVE credit needs to be given to the team behind them

xlr8r said:

No! ONly Paul played drums on some B song, when Ringo was away.

You can hear Paul on Back In The USSR, The Ballad Of John & Yoko and probably on some others.

John did never play the drums, neither did George.

rialb said:

The very original drummer played drums on a washing board and was called Pete Best. He played the washing board in the Quarry Men group led by John in 1957/58

WildheartXXX said:

Agreed, although I'd swap The Doors, Hendrix, The Rolling Stones etc for The Beach Boys.

The Beatles did have a strong influence on me:
1. My musical awakening occurred whilst I listening to the radio and a song came on yet again and I thought "This song is so over played and is really quite bad and I am sick of it". The song was Eleanor Rigby.
2 Later, once I became an adult I car pooled in a Beatles fan's car. He had a my car, my music rule. My opinions developed further and I bought my own car.

The Beatles are only overrated if people think they actually invented music.