Thread: Are the Beatles the Most Overrated Band of All-Time?

  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 826
    Once again I think we need to look at the key word here: "overrated." Are they a great band? Yes. Did they have some great songs? Yes. Do they live up to the hype placed on them?? Not really.
    [img]http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n541/deliguy/warrior.jpg[/img]

    In my final meeting with the gods from the heavens above, as they spoke to me and hit me with the power of the Ultimate Warrior, they told me Exit stage left! Exit stage rig
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 1282
    HELL NO!! Long live the Beatles!!
    Who Want's some BLOGna!!?
    http://spacemanmonster.blogspot.com/
    Did you know they'll make a game show out of..
    http://tmgsoo.blogspot.com/
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 2437
    In my opinion, people misuse the term "overrated." Overrated should be used for 2nd tier and below. Don't call something that's been established through and through as overrated. That's like, "Water is so overrated!" It's water, there's nothing else.

    And I'm kinda peeved how the thread starter always seems to start these eccentric, bogus threads and never gets involved in the conversation. Just plugs his blog/channel and that's it.
    My Last Article For RetroJunk

    [url=http://www.retro-daze.org/site/article/id/395]Remembering RetroJunk[/url]
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 10350
    Quote by Lottech96
    HELL NO!! Long live the Beatles!!

    Forever and ever!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpmILPAcRQo

    Come have the time of YOUR life with me and the gang at Retro-daze.org.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 513
    They dont't live up to their hype? Are you smoking dope? in 8 years they put together a song catalog that the rolling rolling stones could not do in 40 years. Like them or not they are the most successful and influential band in history and its not close.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 826
    Quote by yeazell
    They dont't live up to their hype? Are you smoking dope? in 8 years they put together a song catalog that the rolling rolling stones could not do in 40 years. Like them or not they are the most successful and influential band in history and its not close.


    Where did I say I didn't like them? Didn't i say they were great and had some great songs? But the greatest band ever? No. Also the Stones were awesome. Don't hate on 'em...
    [img]http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n541/deliguy/warrior.jpg[/img]

    In my final meeting with the gods from the heavens above, as they spoke to me and hit me with the power of the Ultimate Warrior, they told me Exit stage left! Exit stage rig
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 513
    I never said I did not love the stones. I do. I own several of their albums. But their influence on other bands during the early to mid 60's sixties does not come close.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 826
    personally the specific time frame you mention is my least favorite era for the Beatles.
    [img]http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n541/deliguy/warrior.jpg[/img]

    In my final meeting with the gods from the heavens above, as they spoke to me and hit me with the power of the Ultimate Warrior, they told me Exit stage left! Exit stage rig
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 4137
    I don't like them that much but to call them "overrated" is ridiculous. You have to put it on perspective and verify their contribution as musicians. Is monolithic.
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 726
    I agree with one of JS' points, the Beatles are often credited with making musical innovations that had already been done by others but I don't agree with outright dismissing the Beatles. A lot of Beatles critics or haters like to say the Beatles were manufactured or a boy band. Really any popular band tries to manufacture an image to a degree so I don't really get slagging the Beatles on that point and the Beatles weren't male models who sang over backing tracks done without their involvement so I really don't get the boy band thing. The love songs to teenyboppers period of the Beatles was actually pretty short, it only really made up two and half years and that was broken up by covers of Motown songs and 50's early rock and rockabilly material the Beatles helped bring larger attention to.

    JS criticized the Beatles for being poor musicians, honestly I think technical prowess is what can be overrated. If you can play well, great, but if there aren't any good songs to back it up, personally I get bored fast. I think at times musicians who are more limited write really interesting music because they have to work around their limitations creatively.

    To me the last word on the Beatles goes to their fellow musicians. Many musicians saw the Beatles as their gateway drug into music or inspired them to take some of the Beatles' experiments and push them further out. The Beach Boys and the Stones did some of their best work when they felt inspired or intimidated by the Beatles. Yes started out by using Beatles covers as exercises in song arrangement, how much work would it take to take a Beatles song and make it unrecognizable compared to the original? Kevin Sheilds of My Bloody Valentine is a great fan of the second phase of the Beatles career.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 283
    Quote by JSwiftX
    All right, I know I'm asking for it here, but I simply HAD to get it off my chest: I think the Beatles are the single most overrated band EVER.

    I recently wrote an article about why I think the "Fab Four" are without question that most puffed-up act in the history of popular music, and I would LOVE to hear some Beatles enthusiasts defend the group against my criticisms.

    [url]http://internetisinamerica.blogspot.com/2011/11/five-reasons-why-beatles-suck.html[/url]


    To abridge: they were basically media creations designed by Brian Epstein to score a deal with Capitol Records (so we just as easily could have had The Dave Clark Five-Mania, had he missed a flight or something), they were not only ADMITTED plagiarists but found legally culpable of it THREE times, their albums were absurdly overproduced, none of them were really all that talented as musicians, and dear lord, were they EVER hypocritical when it came to their personal lives. . .as the man that sang "imagine no possessions" died with about $150 million in his bank account (after abandoning his first wife and son, no less!)

    Incendiary stuff, I know, but it's about damn time somebody brought this stuff up. I don't expect this to change anyone's opinion on the group or their music, but I just figured it was something that would be interesting to take a glance at.

    So what is your take? Do the Beatles deserve all of their praise and reverence, or do you think it's undeserved, too?


    So the Beatles are rip off artists of Chuck Berry, Roy Orbison all the way to The Supremes, you could make this argument about any white rock and roll band from Elvis on up, how have The Beatles Distinguished themselves in this argument? You also say that they ripped off Buddy Holly, even his band the crickets? Buddy Holly influenced countless rock bands and still does today and couldn't you make that argument about The Cockroaches, Adam And The Ants, Iron Butterfly, Ziggy Stardust & The Spiders From Mars!? Is this limited to insects or can the Byrds or Eric Burden &The Animals be involved in this shameful plagiarism?

    How did The Beatles get discovered if they were a "terrible live act" In fact the only way you would know if The Beatles became bad while playing live is because they said so. They said they couldn't even hear their own voices or instruments over the screaming crowd and became a worse musicians because of it, John Lennon has said they they stopped being a band and became "technically efficient recording artists" so you saying that their albums were shitty and overproduced is just regurgitating criticisms they've already made about themselves except you add in that their shitty. Sgt. Peppers was not over produced fluff, They were experimenting with new sounds, incorporating classic orchestral music with rock n' roll and was pretty much the soundtrack for the counter culture in it's peak in 67.

    I'm failing to see how your critiques of their personal life's calling them hypocrites somehow lends itself to the argument of being a terrible overrated band, you can't name me one great artist who has an angelic personal life, being a flawed person creates art. John Lennon is a hypocrite because he wrote "imagine* no possessions" in a song and ended up dying with 150 million dolllars? your being astoundingly narrow-minded to prove a ridiculous point. The Beatles weren't just handed this career and swam in pools of money, they worked their asses off and were exploited by everyone around them and still made amazing music; Lennon/Mcartney are considered the most successful song writing duo of all time by people with more influence and credibility then yourself.

    Not liking The Beatles doesn't automatically make you an outcast your an outcast because your trying to discredit one of the most influential pop music bands of all time with cynical anecdotes that hold no clout. If you don't like the band that's fine but purposely hating them because the majority of people like them just goes to show you never actually listened to their music or gave it a chance, or might not even enjoy music for that matter unless it's being ironic.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 714
    Anybody who thinks the Beatles aren't good musicians should learn a few of their songs on guitar or bass. Go ahead. Play through a side of the White Album flawlessly.

    And as for them "living up to the hype"...nothing ever lives up to hype. I'd bet most of you who hate them haven't dug deep enough into their catalog to make that statement.
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 74775
    Yes.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 826
    Quote by yellow_submarine
    Anybody who thinks the Beatles aren't good musicians should learn a few of their songs on guitar or bass. Go ahead. Play through a side of the White Album flawlessly.

    And as for them "living up to the hype"...nothing ever lives up to hype. I'd bet most of you who hate them haven't dug deep enough into their catalog to make that statement.


    Who here said they hate them?
    [img]http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n541/deliguy/warrior.jpg[/img]

    In my final meeting with the gods from the heavens above, as they spoke to me and hit me with the power of the Ultimate Warrior, they told me Exit stage left! Exit stage rig
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 7014
    My opinion of The Beatles has evolved over time. Because I never considered myself a fan I used to carry the Fab4 like a chip on my shoulders, daring real fans to knock them off.

    But opinions about The Beatles now seem so small in comparison to the incredible universe of music that I have access to via the web.
    The Eldorado is dead. Long live the Eldorado.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 823
    Name another band in their time that evolved from "Love me do" to "I am the Walrus" in just a few years.
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 1041
    no, the beatles are one of the best bands of all time, for multiple reasons

    just to name a few, they transcend 3 decades, and their band members continue on from that, mainly paul mcartney for 2 more decades

    the music was well written, lyrics and chords

    the music was also fairly upbeat, when you listen it, even though it can be on a sad topic, it still keeps you in a good mood

    and it has almost a comfort food type quality to it
    the chords put you in a sort of trace and you get loss in the complexity of the music
    but it really depends on what you are listening to... hey jude is great example of this or the long and winding road.... they have a great soothing quality

    basically, the beatles are good because their songs are so versatile, in 50's their pop, in 60's and 70's their deep and meanful and they had a lot to say about the culture at the time

    revolution, happiness is a warm gun, get back.....

    these were political songs(revolution) and at the same time they had love songs (i saw her standing there) and silly songs(yellow submarine) and philosophical songs(black bird)

    they are a band, that basically understood a generation and wrote what they felt and beileved
    [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2364131308_7d8b70fcfd_m.jpg[/img]
    [img]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb261/PerishBrave/playing.jpg[/img][img]http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg160/sierrasourpop/7xv3ioz.gif[/img]

    Can u picture that - Th
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 1982
    Quote by JSwiftX
    In case you needed me to expound upon my argument...

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIPohhdaGrI[/url]
    Quote by JSwiftmedia
    The "Fab Four?" More like "Fabricated Four," because John, Paul, George and Ringo are without question the most overrated musicians in the history of popular music. Oh, and plagiarists. And a horrible live act. And their albums were ridiculously overproduced. And they were astonishingly hypocritical about their beliefs. This isn't mere opinion, mind you, as all the evidence you need can be found right here:

    http://internetisinamerica.blogspot.com/2011/11/five-reasons-why-beatles-suck...
    lol!
    So how many hits have you gotten on this blog post? I'm just curious.

    Also I can't watch the ten minute video right now. Can you just post here is it the same things that are already in the blog? I guess so since that's where all the evidence is?
    Quote by tangspot2
    Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
  • avatar
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 520
    I've been a fan of The Beatles since childhood, thanks in part to my late brother and the "Paul Is Dead" hoax. Now, I've been a fan of The Who since my senior year in high school (1982-83) and I sometimes feel that they are underrated. The Who also formed in the early 1960's, along with The Beatles and Rolling Stones and you can hear Beatles and Stones influences in much of their music. I've often considered The Who's musical style as a cross between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, but The Who did something The Beatles and The Stones never did...release two great rock operas..."Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". I'm surprised and a little disappointed that The Who never were as "big" as The Beatles were.
    • 8 years 8 months ago
    • Posts: 74775
    Overrated? Definitely.
    I found that over the years though I've grown to really respect them, they're not the greatest band out there, but you gotta hand it to them, they got a lot of catchy songs.
Forum Staff
Super Admin: Vertex
Super Mods
Search