taxman Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 "McCartney fan" are we?! LOL! CB Funny thing is, I am not. If I had to list the greatest Beatle songs, about a dozen John songs and a few George songs would come before we even get to a Paul song. John is the obvious greater songwriter/artist. But I have to admit, Paul worked best for that group. He brought in new directions, he had an unreal musical ability and sense, and he always made the songs better - even if they weren't his. Paul added a great deal more to that group than the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 "There's nothin you can do that can't be done" or should I say wasn't done by them already. Growing up they were my 4 best friends. Picking me up when I was down. Soothing my soul when I was angry. Helping my broken heart mend. To most of us, who are fans, they were much more than four english guys that sang rock and roll. They had the ability to write and sing a song about the exact thing I was feeling. Still, not a day goes by when I don't feel their influence in the life of me and my family. The fact that my 23 year old son and i can sit down with 2 acoustic guitars and play Here Comes The Sun or Blackbird together says more about their influence than all the books written about them. Thanks lads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 "There's nothin you can do that can't be done" or should I say wasn't done by them already. Growing up they were my 4 best friends. Picking me up when I was down. Soothing my soul when I was angry. Helping my broken heart mend. To most of us' date=' who are fans, they were much more than four english guys that sang rock and roll. They had the ability to write and sing a song about the exact thing I was feeling. Still, not a day goes by when I don't feel their influence in the life of me and my family. The fact that my 23 year old son and i can sit down with 2 acoustic guitars and play Here Comes The Sun or Blackbird together says more about their influence than all the books written about them. Thanks lads![/quote'] YUP! +1 CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johno Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Now The Rutles, there was an overrated band. Ron Nasty and Dirk McQuickly had some fun bouncy songs as songwriters like "Can't Buy Me Lunch" and 'Ouch" and delivered a great album in "Sgt Rutter's Only Darts Club Band" and Stig O'Hara was an adequate guitarist and Barry Wom was passable as a drummer but it was their manager Leggy Mountbaten that made them larger than life. Once he left the Rutles to become a teacher in Australia they unraveled. Just look at "Tragical History Tour' for their lack of direction and "Let It Rot" for group divisivness. And I don't care if Nasty claims he was misquoted or not. Claiming that The Rutles were bigger than Rod Stewart was way over the top and obviously they weren't bigger than Rod 'cause Rod is still touring and The Rutles are long ago hisotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Now The Rutles' date=' there was an overrated band. Ron Nasty and Dirk McQuickly had some fun bouncy songs as songwriters like "Can't Buy Me Lunch" and 'Ouch" and delivered a great album in "Sgt Rutter's Only Darts Club Band" and Stig O'Hara was an adequate guitarist and Barry Wom was passable as a drummer but it was their manager Leggy Mountbaten that made them larger than life. Once he left the Rutles to become a teacher in Australia they unraveled. Just look at "Tragical History Tour' for their lack of direction and "Let It Rot" for group divisivness. And I don't care if Nasty claims he was misquoted or not. Claiming that The Rutles were bigger than Rod Stewart was way over the top and obviously they weren't bigger than Rod 'cause Rod is still touring and The Rutles are long ago hisotry.[/quote'] It was all in their trousers. Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonk Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 That list is lame. I also followed the next 2 or 3 top 10 lists. The last one was "Sound Alike Songs". Several of them were bashing bands for making songs that sounded to much like Beatles songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Strum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 The Beatles were able to develop a continuous fan during and and after being together. They influenced many of the bands that came along after them. While groups will say their influence was the blues, or 50's music, I don't think there is one single band that is mentioned more for their influence than the Beatles. For those of us fortunate enough to watch Ed Sullivan for three consecutive weekends, the magic and the memories will never go away. http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=gmail&q=Ed# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitmore Willy Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 The Beatles are not over rated. How can you over rate musical history? Most of what "the lads" did when they were together had never been done before. How many band today can you say that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Nazarenie Posted November 23, 2008 Author Share Posted November 23, 2008 it's basically my home page and they have some silly stuff! but it gets people talking. today is a bit more of a tribute... http://www.virginmedia.com/music/news/thebeatles-whitealbum.php?vmsrc=vmhpld "This record became part of the crackpot theory that Paul McCartney was dead and the rest of the band were covering it up." he he! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I read the list, and it was mostly without substance. I do agree the Beatles were overrated, but then so is almost every pop icon. Their early songs were trite, the collaboration of George Martin cannot be underestimated (I heard a radio documentary and heard "I Am The Walrus" before Martin arranged it, it was boring - and what about "Eleanor Rigby?"), and the real reason they quit playing live was probably the fact that they couldn't reproduce what they did in the studio in a live setting. Like Elvis, Sinatra, Crosby, Jolson and probably people before that, the Beatles were an icon of a generation. They were worshiped more than they deserved and became demi-gods. This is something the young people cannot really understand. No one single group or person defines the entire generation anymore. In their respective days, the entire generation revolved around when the next Beatles, Elvis, or Sinatra record was coming out. The music industry has become too fragmented, we have alternative, dance, and a dozen or so other genres of popular music. I'm not saying either way is better, just different. That doesn't mean the Beatles weren't talented nor does it mean you should take pot shots at them, there are far more overrated people out there than the Beatles. A few examples, Fabian, Dylan (as a singer), Madonna, Michael Jackson (who had a serious intonation problem), Britney, and so on. But then, being a pop-music star does not mean the best of the best will be the most popular. There are other elements involved, showmanship, looks, and promotion to name a few. The Beatles (all 5 of them) were talented, innovative, and created some great music along with some kitsch. But then even Beethoven and Mozart created both great and trite music. The Beatles were a very good band, but were hyped more than they deserved to be. IMHO they were different from but on a par with the Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, Zeppelin, Chicago (with Kath), Steely Dan, and a number of other groups. They were talented songwriters and decent musicians. I have heard stories about other studio musicians contributing to their recordings (Chet Atkins, Bernard Purdy, Billy Preston, etc.) but that doesn't bother me in the least. The Beatles were both a band and a recording entity, and as a recording entity, their output was at times stellar. I like most of their works, are bored with some, and dislike a few songs. But the ones that don't speak to me are not for me, they are for other people with a different set of ears. I don't worship them, but I do respect them, and that's good enough for me. Insights and incites by Notes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpdeluxe Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 "Deserved to be?" Sorry, that's not the test for being hyped. The Beatles were cleverly promoted, and Lennon, at least, took advantage of his situation to promote his causes. No different from Tom Cruise, Barbra Streisand, or any other celebrity. The real test was this: in 1968 I was a pallbearer at a friend's funeral. It wasn't long after high school, and I met other guys that had attended the same school with me and the deceased. One of them invited me to his place in the Silver Lake area of Los Angeles (pre-gentrification) and while I was visiting there he played me Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour. I was floored: nobody made music like that: literate lyrics, unusual musical chops, and a coherency that took pop music far away from the bubble gum junk of the period. On the other hand, in December 1981 I was at Ft Chaffee, AR, interviewing the Marielistas (Cuban boat people) housed there, when John Lennon was killed. The photocopied Spanish-language camp newspaper ran a picture of him on its cover. In the course of the morning, a young Cuban came to my desk, saw the paper, and said "en la Habana siempre oimos a los Beatles [he pronounced it 'Bay-aht-lays'] por el radiio." (In Havana we used to listen to the Beatles on the radio.) That evening, I was at a bar in Ft Smith debating the impact of the Beatles with a gentleman who had spent the 60s in Paris, France, and the 70s in Brazil. "They changed popular music forever" said I. "No they didn't" he replied. "I've never heard of them." As an aside, I later heard Brazilian pop of the 70s and damned if it didn't sound a lot like the Beatles with a samba beat. Overrated? That's an incredibly slippery term, and essentially meaningless. Who's doing the rating, and under what authority? For the younger generation, it's a lot more likely they are underrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Being in a band at the time of the Beatles phenomenon gives one more insight than those who make lists nearly 50 years later. I wouldn't try to evaluate the Benny Goodman phenomenon. The fact that the Beatles wrote and played music that didn't fall into the usual three-chord progression made them unique compared to, say, the Rolling Stones. They weren't rehashing blues music from the 30's (okay, Matchbox is an exception), but writing new, original music. And it sounded good. The two and three part harmonies were not as obvious as the Beach Boys or Everly Brothers, but to me that made them sound better. George's riffs were simple and elegant, not like the manic riffs of the Kinks. And as Duke Ellington said: “If it SOUNDS good, it IS good.” When George Martin first head "I am the Walrus", he was appalled. His response was something along the line of "What the bloody hell am I supposed to do with THAT?!". But go to the Itunes store and search for that song. You'll be amazed at how many other groups have played it since. The remake by Styx is pretty remarkable. The Beatles songs have be recorded by Chet Atkins, several classical guitarists, and innumerable symphony orchestras. I'm pretty sure that none of these artists felt that the Beatles were overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 +1 on that. And I had the fortune of playing in a band at the time' date=' doing all of the Beatles covers among others. Trust me. They had influence [/quote'] I think it's time for us to do another poll on how old we are. Good thing that we have cryptic avatars. If newbies to the forum saw our actual faces, they might go elsewhere, feeling that we are the "Depends" crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonedeaf1281734100 Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Maybe we should form a band and call it "The Geriatrics"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Strum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I think it's time for us to do another poll on how old we are. Good thing that we have cryptic avatars. If newbies to the forum saw our actual faces' date=' they might go elsewhere, feeling that we are the "Depends" crowd. [/quote'] shhh:-$ , we are making up these stories about being in a band at the time of the Beatles and watching them on Ed Sullivan. I'm only 22 and you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamohum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 The problem with saying the Beatles are over-rated is that you're also saying that pretty much every band that was influenced by them are by association also over-rated. The Beatles were a HUGE influence on the shape of pop music then and now. I was too young to grow up with the music, but the work is there for all to see (and hear). If you know your music history then you can see the enormous strides they made with the development of popular music. The likes of the Stones don't compare. Dylan compares, though more in terms of influencing the moving away from 'she loves you' lyrics rather than melody. I'm probably biased as I was born and still live in their home town of Liverpool, I love their music, and have met McCartney on a couple of occasions, but even so they are by any measure a very significant band. I really can't think of any other that had such influence over so many years, but if anyone can name one then I'm all ears . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carverman Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Flash! John Lennon has been forgiven by the Vatican, for his famous remark about the Beatles being more popular than J.C. John can rest easy now that he's received special dispensation from the Vatican (Pope?) and his popularity (over the outrage he caused back then), has been restored. VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican's newspaper has finally forgiven John Lennon for declaring that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, calling the remark a "boast" by a young man grappling with sudden fame. The comment by Lennon to a London newspaper in 1966 infuriated Christians, particularly in the United States, some of whom burned Beatles' albums in huge pyres. But time apparently heals all wounds. "The remark by John Lennon, which triggered deep indignation mainly in the United States, after many years sounds only like a 'boast' by a young working-class Englishman faced with unexpected success, after growing up in the legend of Elvis and rock and roll," Vatican daily Osservatore Romano said. The article, marking the 40th anniversary of the Beatles' "The White Album," went on to praise the pop band. "The fact remains that 38 years after breaking up, the songs of the Lennon-McCartney brand have shown an extraordinary resistance to the passage of time, becoming a source of inspiration for more than one generation of pop musicians," it said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamohum Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Flash! John Lennon has been forgiven by the Vatican' date=' for his famous remark about the Beatles beingmore popular than J.C. John can rest easy now that he's received special dispensation from the Vatican (Pope?) and his popularity (over the outrage he caused back then), has been restored. [/quote'] The Vatican are so on the ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I look at that assessment this way....... How many other bands since the Beatles were able to put out 12 studio albums in a 4 year span???? That's a easy answer, NONE!! Sure it's easy to come up with "ten reasons why the Beatles are over-rated." But I can easily come up with 1000 reasons why the Beatles "are not over-rated." And they would more lucid well thought-out assessments, rather than that sorry little blog on the Virgin site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Well, this is always a circular discussion...IMHO. You either like/love The Beatles, or you don't! Their musical and cultural contributions are Historical. And, most of what was written at the time, and even since, is Bullocks! Only they, and a very few "insiders" know the REAL story. Where there is money to be made, there will be stories/myths invented and shared. They will always be "The" band for me, but...other's will/do feel differently. "It's just natural, it's not a great disaster...People keep talking about it, like it's the end of the earth...it's only a rock group that split up, it's nothing important, you know.... you have all the old records there, if you want to reminesce!" John Lennon on The Beatles break-up. No big deal, indeed...is why we're still talking about them, 40 years after the fact. But, it's always up to others, to assess those sorts of things. They artist's simply DO, rather than analyze. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpdeluxe Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 If the Beatles were not important, the Pope would not have bothered to forgive them. Beat THAT for a circular argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 If the Beatles were not important' date=' the Pope would not have bothered to forgive them. Beat THAT for a circular argument.[/quote'] LOL! Only took them 42 years to get around to it! And, after John (and George) are gone. They (the Vatican) must be needing some publicity?! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 On David Letterman, one of the top 10 lists was "Top Ten Surprises in the movie The Passion of the Christ". One of the entries on the list was "Jesus's startling claim that he is more popular than the Beatles". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSDx Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 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 LMAO !!!!! ......hmmmm, but WAIT a minute !!! I LIKE spinach:-k I like the Beatles .... ...... does that mean I LIKE the TASTE of POOP ???!!!??? ..... hope not :- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JefferySmith Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 If the Beatles were not important' date=' the Pope would not have bothered to forgive them. Beat THAT for a circular argument.[/quote'] Does that mean John burned in hell from 1980 until 2008? I guess that's enough punishment for making that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.