Now that I got your attention I was speaking reading this one discussion on another message board from a dude who said the beatles were horribly overrated as musicians, and that they weren't as innovative as people believe because they didn't do anything to change the way people write or play music aside from using the A chord in at the end of their songs. What do you think?
[Edited 6/28/09 10:37am]

Sandino said:

As musicians they are not overrated because I never heard anyone claiming they were the best instrumentalists.

As songwriters... well, if cou can name me ONE band that has written so many great songs and yet involved from album to album I'd be happy.

And were they innovative? Well, not until the mid 60s. Rubber Soul was a step forward because they mixed folk-rock with Motown, Revolver and Sgt Pepper was hugely innovative.

On their later albums songwriting came to the focus again and they went on the bandwaggon with the blues-rock revival.

But no matter which era or phase they were in, they always wrote the strongest melodies out there.

Also, like a certain someone who recently died, they changed the way people dressed, they made people making music, writing their own songs.

how the hell could one say they're overrated?

I have. I've heard people say McCartney is the greatest Bassist ever, that ringo is the greatest Rock Drummer ever, etc. They were good but not great IMO, the only great instrumentalist was McCartney but he didn't make any milestones as to how the bass is played.




They were great songwriters, but are they EXCEPTIONAL? I've heard people say that they changed the way pop songs were structured and introduced poetic allegory into pop song, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they learn that from Bob DYlan?



how was any of those innovative?



What this guy argued was that as Pop Icons they were innovative but as musicians they weren't. That they were good songwriters, had an ear for Melody and harmony, but that the only truly innovative thing they did was get too close to the mike and produced feedback(and even then it wasn't until Hendrix came that they technique truly was pioneered).

I don't think anyone rates them at all for their technical chops on any instrument... it's more about the classic songs they played (and composed) and variety of styles they covered/fused. Popular experiments with untraditional sounds and recording techniques. That sort of thing.

I don't buy the overrated argument, I can see how they would be a big deal.

I think when people call acts like The Beatles overrated they're making the mistake of looking at their music and art from the perspective of 2009. It's easy to forget, especially if you're younger IMO, how influential The Beatles were on modern popular music because their influence is so pervasive.

meow85 said:

Same with a lot of icons, as much as people don't wanna admit it but we're not gonna go there...

Timmy84 said:

Back in high school I took History of Rock n Roll as my history credit. (yes, that's a real class! )As a way of driving home the point of how important rock's iconic figures, particularly those in the 50's, were to what we listen to now, for the entire first two weeks the teacher would start off the class by playing us something that was at the top of the popular charts prior to then, including such toe-tapping ditties as "How Much is That Doggy in the Window?"

meow85 said:

Which wasn't even rock anyways. If he really knew the history, he'll go back to sometime in the 1940s to discover how rock integrated from simple blues music.

Timmy84 said:

Hell, we went back to to 1900's and earlier to explore where rock really came from. But that's not what was being played on popular radio prior to the mid-50's. That was the point.

meow85 said:

True, lol. In a way I do get what he's saying because the mainstream were used to simple shit like "Doggy"... when Elvis, Richard and Chuck came, it shook up the fucking core of the times.

Timmy84 said:

And I think it should be said that while we can debate 'til the cows come home about the ethics or rightness of cute, white performers borrowing or even outright stealing black music it's also true that those black performers whose music it was were never going to get a chance to bring their art to the forefront. The white performers being in the spotlight, rightly or wrongly, brought the music to the masses and changed the way everyone listens.

meow85 said:

It saddens me that no one talks about the great music of Bill Haley and Buddy Holly, two musicians who helped transcend rock regardless of what color shade they were. I think the stealers were actually record labels who got their conservative white artists (look up Georgia Gibbs and Pat Boone) to do what was otherwise "savage music". Thanks for Bill, Buddy, Jerry Lee (and yes that dude from Memphis with the E in his name), we saw the slow (but eventually awarding) acceptance of Chuck, Richard, Bo and Fats.

Hell there's a lot of other rock pioneers, black and white, that don't get recognition either. Roy Brown and Wynonnie Harris were "jump blues artists" but I felt they were the first rockers. Ike Turner, Jackie Brenston and the Kings of Rhythm were some another icons, Gene Vincent, Carl Perkins, Johnny Otis, Hank Ballard, Little Willie John, etc. We know how the times were but even then there's some others who didn't have much pop success but had a lot to do with rock's emergence.

We talked about jump blues in my history of rock music class.

Cinnie said:

Sandino said:

That's a false argument. When you mention musicians of the 60's, maybe Ringo Starr comes up but a song could be as much a studio producer enhancement as a Britney track.
The Beatles wrote great pop songs. Catchy, light, fun. Even their deeper musings (Hey Jude, Imagine, etc) were presented as pop songs not a 7 minute Dylan dissertation.

These kind of crass topics make me sick. As a doctor I would say get aural help..lol

Some people aren't Beatles fans, whatever floats their boat. My guitar teacher isn't fan of the Beatles.



It was Leonard Bernstein who called them "the greatest song writers since the Gershwin brothers." Most of their stuff is very well written. ...

I agree with Lenny.

TD3 said:

The Beatles are right up there with (I know brooksie would probably disagree) Holland-Dozier-Holland, Leiber and Stoller, Goffin and King and Isaac Hayes and David Porter.

I know there's probably others I forget but these came off the top of my head.

Timmy84 said:

H-D-H are better in my opinion but they weren't performers.

i think you can look at musicians in two ways:

you can look at them as creative people, who innovate and communicate ideas.

or you can look at them as craftspeople, who are skilled at playing a particular instrument, kind of the same way we look at athletes.

you don't necessarily have to be an amazingly skilled musician to be a brilliantly creative musician.

you don't have to be a genius artist to be amazingly skilled at a musical instrument.

some people can pull off both.

i think the beatles were brilliantly creative musicians. as far as being skilled is concerned, i think they were better than adequate.

SUPRMAN said:

Yeah but I meant as just songwriters, lol.

SUPRMAN said:

Imagine has nothing to do with the Bs.

And Hey Jude is as deep as She Loves You.

SUPRMAN said:

Imo H-D-H come close, but they relied on a certain sound, whereas the Beatles involved. I think, there's a reason H-D-H had no great songs since the 1960s.... you can only repeat yourself so many times til you start to get repetitive...

Anxiety said:

Well roared, lion.
[Edited 6/28/09 13:14pm]

graecophilos said:

graecophilos said:

I would like to disagree with your assertion that they were not innovative until the mid '60s. If you listen to most of the top 40 circa 1960-1963 vs. 1964-1966 I think it's easy to hear how innovative the Beatles were. Yes, they borrowed a lot from American R & B and rock but I think they forged those influences into a unique sound that was swiftly copied by most "rock" groups of that era.

Sandino said:

I think the people that told you that are very wrong and they need to do better research on their music history. They need to listen to Revolver, Sgt. Pepper & The White Album more often.

Timmy84 said:

Agree on everything you said.

Anxiety said: