Stevie Nazarenie Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Ten reasons why The Beatles are over-rated http://www.virginmedia.com/music/pictures/toptens/beatles-over-rated.php?ssid=1 some of you are fans so here it is have your say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg3333 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Yawn. Yes, in some respects they are over rated. Their impact on pop culture, however, was huge. The ten 'reasons' aren't even really reasons. It sounds like somebody wrote a list of peeves. Reminds me of books in the 60's and 70's whining about Dylan's nasal voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ef_in_fla Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 The arguments made are weak, at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonedeaf1281734100 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I pretty much grew up with the Beatles, I was 12 when they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan show, and I used to believe that they really weren't anything special, just four guys in the right place at the right time. No doubt, luck played a part in their success, but the older I get, the more I appreciate how hard they worked and how much talent they had, and how much they advanced rock and roll. George Martin played a big part in their success, but George didn't write the songs, and, except for some string and piano backing, he didn't perform. No doubt, the Beatles put out some garbage. Is there a band that hasn't? I wish they had performed live longer, but their live performances had become insane. Performing in front of crowds of more than 50,000 at a time when security would have allowed a sniper to pick off any one of them, performing without stage monitors so they could not hear themselves sing or hear their instruments, I am amazed they played as well as they did for as long as they did. I think I would have gone insane with the life that they led while touring, shut up together. It must have been like going on a 4 year camping trip and sharing a tent with three other guys. No friendship would survive that unscathed. And if the Beatles are overrated, what rock band of that era rates much higher, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midiman56 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 My article:"Why Spinach Is Not A Good Vegetable" Reason: It tastes like poop! I think my argument is every bit as valid as that pile of manure I just read. MIDI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan 58 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 If you weren't there in 1964 you'll never know. Stan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Strum Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Certainly not a very strong case and it wouldn't hold up against the pro Beatles list. Note, 5 and 6 contradict each other, the list has no consistency. The only thing I really agree on is the way Lennon treated Cynthia and Julian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I don't agree with anything on the list except the one about George Martin. I think George did not get the credit he deserved from the Beatles or from anyone else. Hopefully he was compensated financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Strum Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I don't agree with anything on the list except the one about George Martin. I think George did not get the credit he deserved from the Beatles or from anyone else. Hopefully he was compensated financially. I would have to agree with you on that one. I sort of blew by that one because that has been kicked around so long and it would be foolish not to recognize Martin for his work. Although like many producers he did get carried away at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 The Beatles "Overrated??! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT!!! And YES...George Martin was the real "Fith Beatle," IMHO! No doubt, about it! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 The arguments made are weak' date=' at best.[/quote'] My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I pretty much grew up with the Beatles' date=' I was 12 when they first appeared on the Ed Sullivan show, and I used to believe that they really weren't anything special, just four guys in the right place at the right time. No doubt, luck played a part in their success, but the older I get, the more I appreciate how hard they worked and how much talent they had, and how much they advanced rock and roll. George Martin played a big part in their success, but George didn't write the songs, and, except for some string and piano backing, he didn't perform. No doubt, the Beatles put out some garbage. Is there a band that hasn't? I wish they had performed live longer, but their live performances had become insane. Performing in front of crowds of more than 50,000 at a time when security would have allowed a sniper to pick off any one of them, performing without stage monitors so they could not hear themselves sing or hear their instruments, I am amazed they played as well as they did for as long as they did. I think I would have gone insane with the life that they led while touring, shut up together. It must have been like going on a 4 year camping trip and sharing a tent with three other guys. No friendship would survive that unscathed. And if the Beatles are overrated, what rock band of that era rates much higher, and why?[/quote'] When I saw them play in San Diego stadium, the music sounded like a couple of guys singing into bull horns. It made little difference as the screaming and the blinding flash bulbs (do those work 75 yards away?) turned the atmosphere into one of a war zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fescat Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Alrighty then.... "Yesterday" is the most covered pop song of all time. If the Beatles were over-rated then I do not think there would be over 3000 different versions of Yesterday out there. Frank Sinatra was quoted as saying that the song "Something" was the best love song he had ever heard. I personally prefer the Stones to the Beatles but to call them over-rated is a real stretch. First album I ever owned was the Beatles - A Hard Days Night. Different era in rock and roll and I am sure they would have done some things a little differently if they could have but to deny their cultural or musical impact on a whole generation of society is really kind of silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Well, the tours they did, went as well as could be expected, given the insanity that surrounded them. The Technology just didn't exist then, for the kind of sound systems we enjoy now! I've seen "bar/club bands" with more equipment, than the Beatles used at Shea Stadium (and I'm not exaggerating)! So, given those limitations, I think they managed to sound pretty decent, most of the time, but...as was mentioned, it didn't matter if they did or not! People never really came to hear the music...just to experience the "happening," and to see them. I was fortunate enough, to be one of those. St. Louis, Busch Stadium, August 21 (evening) 1966. Wouldn't have missed it, either! But, I would have preferred to be able to hear their songs, too! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epinder Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I'm really really hoping that piece was written tongue in cheek. If not the writer doesn't have a clue of what the 60's were about. Mocking the hair and clothes is just plain ludicrous. They started the trends of the times. They were the 1st to play those large venues. They were at the beginning of groups writing/recording their own material. I nominate the auther for "upper class twit of the year award". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pohatu771 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 They didn't argue anything. I expected to get to the end and see "April Fools!" or something to that effect. They complain that they had "oohs" in their lyrics, but then go to ask what was wrong with Love Me Do - a song where 75% of the words are "love," "me," or "do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BENT E Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 You have to think, where would we be without their influence? Sure, musical technique has grown in an insane manor in the last forty years, but as I recall they set the pace back then. Jimi learned Sgt. Pepper, after hearing it once, then played it for the Beatles themselves, and it blew their minds. Music is about progressing isn't it? Myself, I listen to The Beatles practically ever day, and am still amazed at the ability to put a smile on my old kisser every time. They happened at the right time in history, helping start a culture that I regard as the best time of my life!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alanhindle Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I'm just a little too young, being born in '69, to have grown up with them as many here have. I do remember the Beatles cartoon series and the films as a young kid. My brother, 8 years my senior, liked them a lot and I know most of the popular songs from him playing the records. I like a good number of them too. I don't doubt their talent and their impact on popular and rock music. Indeed some of the bands I listened to as a teenager like Kiss and Ozzy were heavily influenced by them so I have a lot to thank them for. I just wonder why, unlike other massively popular artists such as the Stones and Elvis, you don't hear them on popular radio or see their performances on TV. Is it some kind of way of maintaining record sales? What happens a generation from now? Will their music die out because nobody played it? Am I right about this lack of air play? Maybe it's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Might be your location...I don't know. They play The Beatles everyday around here...and from different periods, in their careers, too. The last "McCartney" concert had people of all ages....very young kids, to grandparents...and everything in between. Every generation, at one time or another, seems to "discover" Beatles music, on their own. Maybe from parents, grand parents, or just word of mouth. We still listen to Classical composers, today...they were never on the radio...there was no such thing. So...I think Beatles music will be around a LONG time, to come. I certainly hope so, for many reasons. We need that "hope," and good feeling, they produce, for just one. And, their integrity, too. I've been watching "Concert for George," today...and as many times as I've seen it, it still gets to me! Such beautiful, as well as "rocking" songs, too. And, like much of Dylan's stuff, it's timeless, subject wise. We can certainly still relate to "Taxman"...maybe more than ever! And, "Isn't it a Pity," or "Beware of Darkness," to name but a few. Amazing, really. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burstbucker1281734065 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 That "10" is totally lame. I am embarrassed for the site if that is the best they can conjure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beans Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 The Beatles are the reason I strive to be a better musician everyday and i'm in my early 20s. Why? When I first started learning guitar about 11, I got the Beatles Complete songbook and I was away! It's like an encyclopedia on songwriting and easily my most tattered book. Got to spend two hours in the company of McCartney a few years ago, I spent most of it taking very deep breaths! Everyone I know has some knowledge of the Beatles, whatever age, whatever taste, whatever opinion on them for that matter. How many people can say that? The list sucks by the way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender 4 Life Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I didn't even read the list, because the very notion is kind of absurd....... I'm not the biggest Beatles fan, but they DID change the face, ear, and psyche of music, forever. Now, lets talk about a truly UNDER rated musician of the 50's and 60's......... I'll start the conversation with this comment that I use all the time, and expect some truly interesting replies. "If Chuck Berry had been caucasian.......people today would be saying, Elvis WHO ?? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 And YES...George Martin was the real "Fith Beatle' date='" IMHO! No doubt, about it! CB[/quote'] I say the "Fifth Beatle" was Paul McCartney. Yup, Paul. There were the four Beatles - John, Paul, George, and Ringo. And then there was this fifth Beatle who added so much more to what the four Beatles did - that fifth Beatle was Paul. When one finds out exactly what Paul did with others' songs, you see he was not just one member of the four piece combo, but also fifth member! Look what Paul the fifth Beatle, not the bass player, added to just these: - the piano intro to George's "While My Guitar gently Weeps," - the famous intro to John's "Strawberry Fields" - the famous intro to "Lucy In The Sky;" the signature part of the song...and Paul came up with it, not John - the best guitar lead in a Beatle song is by Paul, "Taxman" - ironically a song written by the group's lead guitarist - that quirky piano outro to John's "Tomorrow Never Knows" Come on, admit it, you just love that ending to the song. Thank Paul for that. - that brilliant section to John's "A Day In The Life" - the pushing the boundaries of a pop song (it was Paul, not John who started this); "Yesterday" was just an acoustic guitar song...but Fifth Beatle Paul suggested something else, and where would "Tomorrow Never Knows" be without those seagulls (tape loops by Paul) - the introduction of other instruments to the standard four piece band - the concept of Sgt. Pepper's Look they all wrote songs, but did John ever really contribute something monumental to Paul's work? (He added "it can't get no worse" to Paul's "Getting Better" while Paul added the signature lick to "Lucy In The Sky." Big difference.) All four gave us a lot. But Paul gave us a lot plus some more. That makes him the "Fifth Beatle." Without him we would have had the beatles. With him we have THE BEATLES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis G Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 If you weren't there in 1964 you'll never know. Stan. +1 on that. And I had the fortune of playing in a band at the time, doing all of the Beatles covers among others. Trust me. They had influence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 I say the "Fifth Beatle" was Paul McCartney. Yup' date=' Paul. There were the four Beatles - John, Paul, George, and Ringo. And then there was this fifth Beatle who added so much more to what the four Beatles did - that fifth Beatle was Paul. When one finds out exactly what Paul did with others' songs, you see he was not just one member of the four piece combo, but also fifth member! Look what Paul the fifth Beatle, not the bass player, added to just these: - the piano intro to George's "While My Guitar gently Weeps," - the famous intro to John's "Strawberry Fields" - the famous intro to "Lucy In The Sky;" the signature part of the song...and Paul came up with it, not John - the best guitar lead in a Beatle song is by Paul, "Taxman" - ironically a song written by the group's [i']lead[/i] guitarist - that quirky piano outro to John's "Tomorrow Never Knows" Come on, admit it, you just love that ending to the song. Thank Paul for that. - that brilliant section to John's "A Day In The Life" - the pushing the boundaries of a pop song (it was Paul, not John who started this); "Yesterday" was just an acoustic guitar song...but Fifth Beatle Paul suggested something else, and where would "Tomorrow Never Knows" be without those seagulls (tape loops by Paul) - the introduction of other instruments to the standard four piece band - the concept of Sgt. Pepper's Look they all wrote songs, but did John ever really contribute something monumental to Paul's work? (He added "it can't get no worse" to Paul's "Getting Better" while Paul added the signature lick to "Lucy In The Sky." Big difference.) All four gave us a lot. But Paul gave us a lot plus some more. That makes him the "Fifth Beatle." Without him we would have had the beatles. With him we have THE BEATLES! "McCartney fan" are we?! LOL! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.