New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Penny Lame? Overated Beatles... ...according to one editor's view.
And here's the readers feedback... Truth? Or attention seeking controversy?  ..... BULLSEYE!  | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
Re: Dave Simpson and his swarm of critics... I do NOT concur.  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderator| Moderator
|
Oh yeah, cool title though!  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Taureau said: ...according to one editor's view.
And here's the readers feedback... Truth? Or attention seeking controversy? He's writing to spark reaction. he quite possibly means half the things he says, but he's saying nothing new. Music critics before have recognised that to challenge the Beatles' legacy is like slaying a sacred cow, and occasionally the ritual has to be undertaken. Lots of people like or have liked the Beatles. Some people sadly pontificate about their Messiah-like status. Conversely, some people can't hear what the fuss is generally about, and some can't stand the iconic adulation bestowed upon them. Write another article and stir everyone up again. His argument about great moments in pop history is a bit weak though. When I think of the great moments of pop history, the Drab Four were not around. They didn't turn up at Live Aid ...
Intersting because I didn't notice Slade, Wizzard or Showaddywaddy in the line-up either (although one Paul McCartney did appear - and John Lennon was unavoidably elsewhere).  ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
langebleu said: - and John Lennon was unavoidably elsewhere).
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
that's the thing with British music critics. nothing is ever good to them, so there's no standard by which to measure their bad reviews and snarky comments. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
langebleu said: Taureau said: ...according to one editor's view.
And here's the readers feedback... Truth? Or attention seeking controversy? He's writing to spark reaction. he quite possibly means half the things he says, but he's saying nothing new. Music critics before have recognised that to challenge the Beatles' legacy is like slaying a sacred cow, and occasionally the ritual has to be undertaken. Lots of people like or have liked the Beatles. Some people sadly pontificate about their Messiah-like status. Conversely, some people can't hear what the fuss is generally about, and some can't stand the iconic adulation bestowed upon them. Write another article and stir everyone up again. His argument about great moments in pop history is a bit weak though. When I think of the great moments of pop history, the Drab Four were not around. They didn't turn up at Live Aid ...
Intersting because I didn't notice Slade, Wizzard or Showaddywaddy in the line-up either (although one Paul McCartney did appear - and John Lennon was unavoidably elsewhere). Really.What about the "great moments of pop history" before this guy was born?They dont count?.The Beatles,or at least McCartney helped organize the Monterey Pop Festival in '67 ,the first and best of its kind.Im pretty sure it was McCartney who got Jimi Hendrix on the line-up for that event,too.This guy needs to go back to school! "...all you need ...is justa touch...of mojo hand....." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Who cares? The guy simply doesn't care for the majority of the Beatles' music. I applaud him for having the balls to say so. People shouldn't be afraid to express their opinion just because the majority disagrees.
Besides, he's right. They are vastly overrated. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jtgillia said: Who cares? The guy simply doesn't care for the majority of the Beatles' music. I applaud him for having the balls to say so. People shouldn't be afraid to express their opinion just because the majority disagrees.
Besides, he's right. They are vastly overrated. No, Nirvana is overrated. The Beatles deserve every accolade they recieve. NEW WAVE FOREVER: SLAVE TO THE WAVE FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well, I agree with you on Nirvana. They're overrated too. It seems like any fairly successful musician that dies becomes really overrated. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NWF said: jtgillia said: Who cares? The guy simply doesn't care for the majority of the Beatles' music. I applaud him for having the balls to say so. People shouldn't be afraid to express their opinion just because the majority disagrees.
Besides, he's right. They are vastly overrated. No, Nirvana is overrated. The Beatles deserve every accolade they recieve. Although I like Nirvana, I'll agree with that comment... They've accomplished standards that I have yet seen anyone other group achieve in the years they were together. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jtgillia said: Well, I agree with you on Nirvana. They're overrated too. It seems like any fairly successful musician that dies becomes really overrated.
no they are not over rated, i think that people did make a fuss about them enough though. I didnt like any of their albums until really Revolver. I listened 2 Let It Be ... ... nnnaaah! Straight Jacket Funk Affair
Album plays and love for vinyl records. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paisleypark4 said: jtgillia said: Well, I agree with you on Nirvana. They're overrated too. It seems like any fairly successful musician that dies becomes really overrated.
no they are not over rated, i think that people did make a fuss about them enough though. I didnt like any of their albums until really Revolver. I listened 2 Let It Be ... ... nnnaaah! Oh please.. People have been ranting and raving about nirvana for years.. and if ure using both groups in the same topic (I cant believe this) I can pretty much debate that Nirvana hasnt accomplished half of what they served to the plate. Same goes for adding him in the "Greatest guitarists ever".. Thats a joke if I ever saw one.. He makes a successful song out of what.. 3 chords and he gets his name on a list? I have the stuff Nirvana put out, and there are PLENTY of people who derserve more credit than this band gets.. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Whether you like their mustic or not, I think its harsh to call the Beatles overrated.
In an era where groups and artist very rarely wrote or had a say in production, along come the Beatles who: A. Wrote 99% of their own music B. Broke boundaries in musical production between 67-70. C. Were one of the best live acts at the time. D. Conquered the World. E. Set nearly every recording record going. F. Were so infuencial, the CIA had a case going on them. G. Are the most covered artists in the world. H. Did It all in 7 years. And remember, this was before John died. So no "Dead Rock Star" following here. Also, to date, they are selling as much as ever. How this can be underrated I'll never know. If you want overrated, try Elvis. He co-wrote less than 1% of his tracks and just turned up to sing them. He was the ultimate pop/American Idol. . |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SquirrelMeat said: Whether you like their mustic or not, I think its harsh to call the Beatles overrated.
In an era where groups and artist very rarely wrote or had a say in production, along come the Beatles who: A. Wrote 99% of their own music B. Broke boundaries in musical production between 67-70. C. Were one of the best live acts at the time. D. Conquered the World. E. Set nearly every recording record going. F. Were so infuencial, the CIA had a case going on them. G. Are the most covered artists in the world. H. Did It all in 7 years. And remember, this was before John died. So no "Dead Rock Star" following here. Also, to date, they are selling as much as ever. How this can be underrated I'll never know. If you want overrated, try Elvis. He co-wrote less than 1% of his tracks and just turned up to sing them. He was the ultimate pop/American Idol. Don't forget: I. Being one of the pioneers in making music videos. They only had to make videos because they were jaded by world tours. Now it's become an industry requirement for an artist. NEW WAVE FOREVER: SLAVE TO THE WAVE FROM THE CRADLE TO THE GRAVE. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
NWF said: SquirrelMeat said: Whether you like their mustic or not, I think its harsh to call the Beatles overrated.
In an era where groups and artist very rarely wrote or had a say in production, along come the Beatles who: A. Wrote 99% of their own music B. Broke boundaries in musical production between 67-70. C. Were one of the best live acts at the time. D. Conquered the World. E. Set nearly every recording record going. F. Were so infuencial, the CIA had a case going on them. G. Are the most covered artists in the world. H. Did It all in 7 years. And remember, this was before John died. So no "Dead Rock Star" following here. Also, to date, they are selling as much as ever. How this can be underrated I'll never know. If you want overrated, try Elvis. He co-wrote less than 1% of his tracks and just turned up to sing them. He was the ultimate pop/American Idol. Don't forget: I. Being one of the pioneers in making music videos. They only had to make videos because they were jaded by world tours. Now it's become an industry requirement for an artist. Good point, I forgot out the videos! . |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i think the beatles are overrated also. they took a lot, if not all, of their early work from the black musicians of the time and then they were heavily influenced by the folkie movement that was happening in the mid 60's. the difference was the beatles were mega stars and people paid attention to what they did immediately.
the bottom line is that other people were making very similar, if not better, music but didn't have the popularity of the beatles. the beatles are certainly due their share of props for what they accomplished in such a short time but they weren't the only ones doing it. and if they were such musical geniuses why did none of their solo careers showcase this? george being the exception, most of their solo material was terribly boring. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: i think the beatles are overrated also. they took a lot, if not all, of their early work from the black musicians of the time and then they were heavily influenced by the folkie movement that was happening in the mid 60's. the difference was the beatles were mega stars and people paid attention to what they did immediately.
the bottom line is that other people were making very similar, if not better, music but didn't have the popularity of the beatles. the beatles are certainly due their share of props for what they accomplished in such a short time but they weren't the only ones doing it. and if they were such musical geniuses why did none of their solo careers showcase this? george being the exception, most of their solo material was terribly boring. I hear what you are saying, but who hasn't been influenced and still made a big impact? Can you name someone who has invented a brand new genre and taken it too the world? The Beatles may have been influenced, but their mix was better than anyone else, and that reflects in their success. As for the solo stuff, it sold bucket loads, some of it great, some of it crap. But in their case, the collective was better than the parts. That is often the case. If Johns "Instant Karma" had been a Beatles songs, it would have been considered a classic. This is the danger point where reputation clouds great work. Do you think there is another band/artist who changed the music business more? . |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SquirrelMeat said: imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: i think the beatles are overrated also. they took a lot, if not all, of their early work from the black musicians of the time and then they were heavily influenced by the folkie movement that was happening in the mid 60's. the difference was the beatles were mega stars and people paid attention to what they did immediately.
the bottom line is that other people were making very similar, if not better, music but didn't have the popularity of the beatles. the beatles are certainly due their share of props for what they accomplished in such a short time but they weren't the only ones doing it. and if they were such musical geniuses why did none of their solo careers showcase this? george being the exception, most of their solo material was terribly boring. I hear what you are saying, but who hasn't been influenced and still made a big impact? Can you name someone who has invented a brand new genre and taken it too the world? The Beatles may have been influenced, but their mix was better than anyone else, and that reflects in their success. As for the solo stuff, it sold bucket loads, some of it great, some of it crap. But in their case, the collective was better than the parts. That is often the case. If Johns "Instant Karma" had been a Beatles songs, it would have been considered a classic. This is the danger point where reputation clouds great work. Do you think there is another band/artist who changed the music business more? elvis presley | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: SquirrelMeat said: imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: i think the beatles are overrated also. they took a lot, if not all, of their early work from the black musicians of the time and then they were heavily influenced by the folkie movement that was happening in the mid 60's. the difference was the beatles were mega stars and people paid attention to what they did immediately.
the bottom line is that other people were making very similar, if not better, music but didn't have the popularity of the beatles. the beatles are certainly due their share of props for what they accomplished in such a short time but they weren't the only ones doing it. and if they were such musical geniuses why did none of their solo careers showcase this? george being the exception, most of their solo material was terribly boring. I hear what you are saying, but who hasn't been influenced and still made a big impact? Can you name someone who has invented a brand new genre and taken it too the world? The Beatles may have been influenced, but their mix was better than anyone else, and that reflects in their success. As for the solo stuff, it sold bucket loads, some of it great, some of it crap. But in their case, the collective was better than the parts. That is often the case. If Johns "Instant Karma" had been a Beatles songs, it would have been considered a classic. This is the danger point where reputation clouds great work. Do you think there is another band/artist who changed the music business more? elvis presley Elvis was a great performer, there is little doubt. But he simply sung other peoples songs. He is just like Whitney Houston, but sold more records. And what Genre did he invent? He ripped off others more than the Beatles! He just put a white face on it. . [This message was edited Wed Nov 19 18:23:45 PST 2003 by SquirrelMeat] . |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
if you wanna talk about rock, then yes, all white rockers have ripped off black musicians of the past.
as for elvis singing others' songs...that's how the beatles started. if elvis hadn't opened the door for the beatles, they would not have happened. elvis changed the way the public and media looked at pop stars. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: elvis changed the way the public and media looked at pop stars.
Good point, he certainly did, and thats what makes him special. Equally, the Beatles took that change to another level. Both the Beatles and Elvis will never be repeated. It was as much timing as it was talent. But with that in mind, neither should be considered underrated, becasue no one else changed so much or sold so much. . |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SquirrelMeat said: Whether you like their mustic or not, I think its harsh to call the Beatles overrated.
In an era where groups and artist very rarely wrote or had a say in production, along come the Beatles who: A. Wrote 99% of their own music B. Broke boundaries in musical production between 67-70. C. Were one of the best live acts at the time. D. Conquered the World. E. Set nearly every recording record going. F. Were so infuencial, the CIA had a case going on them. G. Are the most covered artists in the world. H. Did It all in 7 years. And remember, this was before John died. So no "Dead Rock Star" following here. Also, to date, they are selling as much as ever. How this can be underrated I'll never know. If you want overrated, try Elvis. He co-wrote less than 1% of his tracks and just turned up to sing them. He was the ultimate pop/American Idol. What a wonderful response... I dig u Its about time the knowledge this knowledge is uplifted. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sdldawn said: SquirrelMeat said: Whether you like their mustic or not, I think its harsh to call the Beatles overrated.
In an era where groups and artist very rarely wrote or had a say in production, along come the Beatles who: A. Wrote 99% of their own music B. Broke boundaries in musical production between 67-70. C. Were one of the best live acts at the time. D. Conquered the World. E. Set nearly every recording record going. F. Were so infuencial, the CIA had a case going on them. G. Are the most covered artists in the world. H. Did It all in 7 years. And remember, this was before John died. So no "Dead Rock Star" following here. Also, to date, they are selling as much as ever. How this can be underrated I'll never know. If you want overrated, try Elvis. He co-wrote less than 1% of his tracks and just turned up to sing them. He was the ultimate pop/American Idol. What a wonderful response... I dig u Its about time the knowledge this knowledge is uplifted. I totally agree with this  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kisscamille said: Sdldawn said: SquirrelMeat said: Whether you like their mustic or not, I think its harsh to call the Beatles overrated.
In an era where groups and artist very rarely wrote or had a say in production, along come the Beatles who: A. Wrote 99% of their own music B. Broke boundaries in musical production between 67-70. C. Were one of the best live acts at the time. D. Conquered the World. E. Set nearly every recording record going. F. Were so infuencial, the CIA had a case going on them. G. Are the most covered artists in the world. H. Did It all in 7 years. And remember, this was before John died. So no "Dead Rock Star" following here. Also, to date, they are selling as much as ever. How this can be underrated I'll never know. If you want overrated, try Elvis. He co-wrote less than 1% of his tracks and just turned up to sing them. He was the ultimate pop/American Idol. What a wonderful response... I dig u Its about time the knowledge this knowledge is uplifted. I totally agree with this I know.. That should be my quote, but its too large. [This message was edited Thu Nov 20 13:55:08 PST 2003 by Sdldawn] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |