IanRG said:

I'm with you there. Their music fails to connect with me on a gut level and i think this is why some might think they're overrated. It's an emotional response. What you'll often get is people saying they respect the band(like myself) but that's as far as it goes. I don't they're above criticism and i think most people who truly adore The Beatles are the ones that grew up on them. I really think you had to be there.

WildheartXXX said:

Gonna have to strongly disagree with this one as someone who was born almost 10 years after the group disbanded. IMO, someone's musical tastes would have to be extremely narrow not to find a Beatles song to love.

No, they´re not. They deserve all the praise they receive.

They are quite wonderful.

WildheartXXX said:

I'm an 80's child and have a great love for the Beatles music. I have recently gained a new respect for them again since I've started playing some of their music with a band. Trying to perform songs such "Happiness is a warm gun" with authentic timing, voicing and harmony is challenging, compared to when I used to play in a band doing classic R&B numbers.
I think the Beatles songs sound alot simpler than they actually are, there's alot of depth to their catalogue and they went through vast musical adventures in their short 8 years as a band!

My latest fave is "Cry baby cry"! Love them

BTW other faves of mine are Stevie Wonder, Sly Stone, Steely Dan and I put the Beatles in the same category of exceptionally great songwriters without a doubt.

AlexdeParis said:

I guess it's all just a matter of taste then. I was exposed to The Beatles and Zeppelin at an early age. The latter i fell in love with but the fab four i just couldn't feel.

WildheartXXX said:

Hmmm...Led Zeppelin...maybe you'll feel something amongst these....

Sandino said:

I was hoping I wouldn't have to use this but...



The Beatles put a spin on things that changed the way people listened to and performed music. if you think the music of hte 60's and beyond would have been the same without the Beatles' influence, well, i don't know what to tell you.

As for them being "overrated as musicians" they were songwriters who played what they needed to to get those songs across. And in some ways the drum and bass styles of Ringo and Paul are quite influential.

And EVERY innovative artist takes advantage of the team aorund him. you think David Bowie, Miles Davis, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, even Prince innovated EVERYTHING they did on their own? Hardly. There's a reason why they say "Good artists borrow, great artists steal."

I grew up listening to them

and as I was turning like 15-16 I came back to really listen to their material again, and came to appreciate it even more.

Overrated? Depends on how you measure... But they deserve all the praise they get for the most part.

They are perhaps the greatest rock group ever.

SUPRMAN said:

Growing up.....me and the people I lived around NEVER listened 2 the Beatles. Elvis? He was in constant rotation but I've never really unserstood the Beatles thing. I don't get it, never have.

I'm a huge fan of the Beatles I don't think they are overrated at all.They deserve all the acclaim and recognition that they receive.

Damn near every artist and band has re-made a Beatles tune,or paid tribute to them in some way or another.Prince's 'ATWIAD' album is basically a tribute to the Beatles.

Hey you don't have to be a huge fan of their recordings, but damn near every great artist has covered one of their songs, from rock to soul to jazz to classical performer.

I can't imagine a single other artist whose music can translate so universally.

Jimi Hendrix
Elvis
Ray Charles
George Benson
Stevie Wonder
Aretha Franklin
Prince

Their influence is just ridiculous

Graycap23 said:

I'm surprised to see you acknowledge Elvis, but my guess is that The Beatles are not exactly soulful as performers, and that's why your friends didn't listen to them.

But what about some of the covers, like Stevie's We Can Work It Out? Earth Wind & Fire's Got to Get You Into My Life?

NDRU said:

I agree with both you and SoulAlive. I'd be interested to see a list of "major" artists who have never covered the Beatles.

NDRU said:

Loved the covers. My fav is Yesterday by Donnie Hathaway.

Graycap23 said:

there you go.
I totally understand not liking their performance style, but damn they wrote a lot of good songs.

NDRU said:

Yes they did, I always give them credit but I don't understand the hype surrounding them. I thought the Rolling Stones were a better group.

Graycap23 said:

yeah, probably better musicians. More soulful as performers. The Beatles are pretty tame, with some exceptions

It's pretty weird to see four guys in suits politely playing nice pop tunes literally causing mass hysteria

NDRU said:

That is why I've never understood the hype. Tame is about the right way 2 put it.
[Edited 6/29/09 12:17pm]

If anything, The Beatles are UNDERrated. There is very little pertaining to pop/rock music that they didn't directly or indirectly influence from a musical and business standpoint. They changed pop culture forever and forever altered what was possible in popular pop/rock music. They opened doors. And their songs have been revered for decades, and will continue to be revered. Every snippet of music they ever put to tape is sought after by collectors. When a previously unheard long version of "Revolution" appeared recently, it caused a huge uproar of excitement.

Are they virtuoso musicians? Apart from Paul McCartney, no. But I've seen some virtuoso musicians put on some incredibly lame and boring shows and record some utterly useless music. McCartney and Lennon were perfect foils; Paul's breezy and versatile pop sensibilities melded with John's more edgy, sardonic rock. Just look at their solo work to see how they worked without the other - - Paul could be absolutely vapid, form over substance; whereas John could completely forget songcraft in the process of spewing out his inner thoughts. They were capable of occassional greatness alone, but they needed each other.

Then you have George's dour compositions, giving yet another flavor, and Ringo backing them all up with great style - - - The Beatles were the definition of being greater than the sum of their parts.

Their music is timeless, and it still sounds absolutely fantastic all these years later.

NoVideo said:

Somewhere in London in the 60s:
"Obla-di obla-da, life goes ooooon...."
"Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer!"
"We all live in the Yellow Submarine!"
(insert happy chord progression)

Meanwhile in New York:
Andy: "Lou, could you remove the sunglasses for a short movie this one time?"
Lou: "No, fuck off, Andy."
(The Velvets proceed to play 10 minutes of plain feedback while a video of a transvestite performing oral sex on another one plays in the background)

xperience319 said:

Your entitled to your opinion, of course, but can you say why you think they're overrated?

Sandino said:

But that right there is exactly why The Beatles are important. It's true that what they were doing wasn't new, but the approach they took to it introduced entire audiences to the sound. People who wouldn't have otherwise paid attention to particular styles of popular music -or wouldn't even have had the chance to -were brought into and introduced to new territory.

novabrkr said:

Advantage: London.

Are they overrated? Well, it depends on who you ask.

Graycap23 said:

I agree. One of my co workers always talk about how great they were and
how they influenced the stones and other artists. I like a few of their
tunes but never have been tempted to buy any of their catalogue like i
have the stones. My co worker act as though the Beatles invented music.
I had to sit through him playing the Yellow Submarine album one day at
work and it made me want to kill somebody.

phunkdaddy said:

lol.....did u have a pillow handy?

NoVideo said:

yada yada yada, name some.