Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Ten reasons why The Beatles are over-rated


Stevie Nazarenie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 313
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'll tell what I find as lame as any list discrediting the Beatles. That's hearing people who've never been within a football field close to these guys claim to have some special insight into their character. their genius, their psyche, their personality, their feelings or their flaws then write about how much they know about their boys.

 

They were a pop group, a damned good pop group with a huge following and a popularity that continues today. They've influenced a large number of musicians with their music and their views and beliefs were always reflective of the more-progressive thinking of their day. But none of you really know anything about them. You do know what's been written about them and you've arrived at your own conclusions. I too have read it all. From Hunter Davies to Bob Spitz to George himself in "I Me Mine" (by the way my copy is autographed so neener neener) I have literally hundreds of Beatle recordings and videos as well as boxes and boxes of Beatle junk that I've collected since the 60's. I've read and studied the production of their recordings and I even own a few Beatle instruments But...I don't (or didn't) actually know anything about these four men or the inner workings of their mind or their hearts. I've never had any insight into their feelings and if I did even have the slightest clue, from what I've read I'd say none of the Beatles themselves liked the Beatles as much as it seems so many here do.

 

I think it's obvious that it didn't take long for George to feel stifled both personally and artistically by this very same adoration a lot are claiming here today. I really do think it would have annoyed Lennon that anyone thought they could have perception into him simply through the information from the books and the media. Ringo obviously was bored with it to the point of alcoholism and Paul himself has talked about how he's two different people, the guy he is and the guy you all think he is. As I said, none of you actually know a thing about any of these guys. I see this all very much as I see religion. The clergy gets up there and talks endlessly of that which they do not know but at the same time they have you believe they have some special insight because of their studies at seminary school being taught by other clueless people.

 

I really enjoy the Beatles' music as a group and on their own. I also enjoy reading their histories (not the fan fantasies) and the different perspectives of those who have written those histories. I think they were extraordinary talents who arrived in extraordinary times and their product reflected back those times and today that product serves as historical landmarks along the the cultural highway. I'm certain they all would have been interesting dinner guests and I'm also certain that in person they may have both enthralled some while repulsing others. I'm still very certain that even meeting them in person wouldn't have given any special insight into their human qualities or thought processes.

 

It is so very childish to wax romantically about this group of men or to live vicariously through your fantasies of what you think they were or are like. Listen to and enjoy their music and share it with generations to come but don't fool yourself thinking you actually know anything about them. You don't....and you never will. It's also very unfair to them as people for anyone to think they can reach conclusions about them from so afar. This is all so silly. I half expect Charlie and Jeffery to next tell us which Beatle they want to marry.

 

As far as their musical virtuosity, none of them were virtuosos on their instruments but the chemistry between them and synchronicity of them and the world into which they were born created an entity whose sum of the parts greatly exceeded the parts alone. To paraphrase Voltaire, Had the Beatles not existed it would have been necessary to create them.

 

Nelson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to knock Ringo or The Beatles (Love them both immensely).

But I saw something on TV, some kind of documentary on The Beatles, not long ago about when Ringo took over for Pete Best.

I forget who said it, but it was something like this: "Pete Best is a better drummer, but Ringo is a better Beatle".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all so silly.

Exactly. Trendy - for sure. Pop icons - yes' date=' thanks to about a zillion people trying to cash in on their "moment."

 

But seperate the hype from the band -- what do you hear? Musically. Like it or not it's not earth shattering. Maybe if they had continued (like the Stone have) they "would have." But they chucked it and we'll never know.

 

Hit every BLUE NOTE baaaby..., I'm going to play on:-"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Trendy - for sure. Pop icons - yes' date=' thanks to about a zillion people trying to cash in on their "moment."

 

But seperate the hype from the band -- what do you hear? Musically. Like it or not it's not earth shattering. Maybe if they had continued (like the Stone have) they "would have." But they chucked it and we'll never know.

 

Hit every BLUE NOTE baaaby..., I'm going to play on:-"

 

Sorry but the Stones have made a career out of re-writing the same six or seven songs over and over again. The Beatles did, to their credit, take the pop music world out of the I IV V world.

 

Nelson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan, or a hero worshiper, or a groupie or whatever. But I know that the hours I spent dissecting Beatles songs constituted a huge part of my musical education.

 

The fact that they worked out such complex and sophisticated progressions while sounding "pop" is a measure of their mastery of music.

 

Comparisons are odious; I confess I have played a lot more Stones songs over the years than Beatles, but that's not really a meaningful test.

 

There is a place for all music, and no need to try to unravel "who is the greatest" (a useless exercise, depending on what you heard when you were 12, what you ate for breakfast and many more variables) but, dammit, the Beatles had something no other group has demonstrated (and vice versa, I'm sure) and I'm happy to listen to their music and to hell with rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but the Stones have made a career out of re-writing the same six or seven songs over and over again. The Beatles did' date=' to their credit, take the pop music world out of the I IV V world.[/quote']

Back up the roady truck -- didn't mean to suggest the Stones were any better (I'm not a big Stones fan either) -- just that if the Beatles had 45+ years too, maybe they would have....

 

As for "known" drummers, I'll take Carter Beauford (Dave Matthews Band) over everyone (still alive that is).

 

Hit every BLUE NOTE baaaby..., I'm going to play on:-"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO,anybody who thinks Ringo was anything more than a decent drummer knows nothing about drumming.

He was, and is the main reason why the Beatles never were a favorite of mine.

I love the sound of drums and guitar.

I prefer the likes of Lifeson/Peart, or Page/Bonham, or Iommi/Ward or..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be one of the better trolls yet in the Epiphone forum. Five pages and no sign that it will end!

 

An astute even while obvious observation...and you'll notice no other posts by the original poster....always a sign of a troll... But you see, this gives the compulsive posters a chance to get that need out of their systems without boring the rest of us with equally lame surveys and self-referential jerk off sessions ...and I admit that even I fell for it and spent time I could have spent more wisely doing something like watching Britney Spears videos on You Tube or playing "Dress Up Sarah" on the online Colorform game instead of trying to inject a reasonable perspective. Oh well...Obladi Oblada..

 

Nelson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO' date='anybody who thinks Ringo was anything more than a decent drummer knows nothing about drumming.

He was, and is the main reason why the Beatles never were a favorite of mine.

I love the sound of drums and guitar.

I prefer the likes of Lifeson/Peart, or Page/Bonham, or Iommi/Ward or..........[/quote']The beauty of Ringo's drumming was that he knew when to hold back, as others have said. I've seen plenty of drummers feel like they need to be hitting something 100% of the time, while it wasn't uncommon for Ringo to be silent during bits of songs.

 

And before anyone goes off saying that I don't know anything about drumming, I'm a college percussion major, and I'm not failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The beauty of Ringo's drumming was that he knew when to hold back' date=' as others have said. I've seen plenty of drummers feel like they need to be hitting something 100% of the time, while it wasn't uncommon for Ringo to be silent during bits of songs.

 

And before anyone goes off saying that I don't know anything about drumming, I'm a college percussion major, and I'm not failing.[/quote']

 

=P~ B) =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents (from a 58-year-old man who 'was there').

 

1. Nobody before or since had the cultural impact the Beatles had. Has anybody else had 5 songs on the top-10 at the same time?

 

2. Arena Rock was a by-product of the Beatles. The development of high-powered sound systems was a direct result of the unavailability of such systems during the Beatles 'live' years.

 

3. Ringo was one of the finest rock drummers ever. Unlike most modern drummers, he didn't sound like a drum machine. He actually played 'drum parts' to all of the songs. Listen to Abbey Road & then come back & tell me Ringo was a lousy drummer. (BTW- who's Dennis Chambers?).

 

4. The Beatles wrote many great songs but also wrote some total crap.

 

5. George Martin deserves much more credit than he gets. Listen to the 'before & after' versions of 'I Am the Walrus' & 'Strawberry Fields Forever'. George took a couple of mediocre songs and made them great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes' date=' the Beatles are over-rated. Most of their career was about candyassed pop ballads for teenage girls.

When they finally grew musically to the point of inovation (rock-n-roll wise) they were already being outpaced by the Stones and many others. BTW- in the Ringo vs Watts debate I'd say that Ringo was a better musician initially, but always solid Charlie has grown leaps and bounds over the years to become a monumental rock drummer (whereas Ringo just drifts along).

 

I consider only two of their works worthy of my rock collection -- the White Album and their best one Abbey Road.

 

Hit every BLUE NOTE baaaby..., I'm going to play on =P~

 

Charlie Watts? "Monumental Rock Drummer?"

Are we talking about the same guy? The one who sits there and plays 4/4 beats (skipping the hi-hat every time he hits the snare) behind Keef's two-chord songs?

 

Ringo's no Bill Bruford, but that doesn't change Charlie. He's a decent drummer, and probably more into jazz than the Stones at this point in his life. I have nothing against him, but "Monumental Rock Drummer" is not a phrase I'd use to describe him.

 

If the Beatles had any other drummer but Ringo, all of their songs would sound different, their image would be different, their press conferences wouldn't be as funny, Pete wouldn't have been interesting in movies, and they probably would not be the icons they are. Their solo work proves that they were greater than the sum of their parts.

 

(By the way, I'm 45, grew up on The Beatles, consider them my greatest musical influence, etc. but I HATE John's solo stuff.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents (from a 58-year-old man who 'was there').

 

1. Nobody before or since had the cultural impact the Beatles had. Has anybody else had 5 songs on the top-10 at the same time?

 

2. Arena Rock was a by-product of the Beatles. The development of high-powered sound systems was a direct result of the unavailability of such systems during the Beatles 'live' years.

 

3. Ringo was one of the finest rock drummers ever. Unlike most modern drummers' date=' he didn't sound like a drum machine. He actually played 'drum parts' to all of the songs. Listen to Abbey Road & then come back & tell me Ringo was a lousy drummer. (BTW- who's Dennis Chambers?).

 

4. The Beatles wrote many great songs but also wrote some total crap.

 

5. George Martin deserves much more credit than he gets. Listen to the 'before & after' versions of 'I Am the Walrus' & 'Strawberry Fields Forever'. George took a couple of mediocre songs and made them great. [/quote']

 

I agree that the Beatles and George Martin shaped and influenced a lot of music that followed the Beatles...no question about it....But Ringo was an extremely mediocre drummer and that's just a fact as far as I'm concerned. To imply that he showed a great deal of reserve is pure bullsh#t...he had no chops to begin with. I've been involved with a couple of live shows he played and he's Not a great drummer and I'm being nice. As far as Dennis Chambers goes ...google him and you'll see he's played with everybody from Steely Dan to Santana to Tower of Power and many Jazz Greats. I'm really surprised someone who claims to know the music industry has never heard of him? He's widely regarded (by his peers not just me) as one of the best there has ever been....he plays triplets with his feet that Mr Star couldn't play with his hands if he lived to be 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about The Beatles, seems to always polarize a lot of folks. That's fine. We need "Beatle haters," as

much as we need the Beatle lovers (like me) to keep things in perspective, and keep the things interesting.

As technicians, they were adequate. John was the first to admit his "limitations," in that regard. But, I always

thought (in the context of The Beatles) his rhythm playing was really underrated. But, that's just me, I guess?

Most good/great "Jazz and Classical" players are far better technicians, than ANY Rock player...with some exceptions,

and even the exceptions, are usually classically trained. Members of YES come to mind. But, does that diminish

"Rock," for those who love it? No way! Even Classical players love to play rock and Jazz, if for no other reason,

than to be able to "relax" and cut loose, from the Classical regiments. None of The Beatles were "Classically" trained,

or even "trained" at all. All self-taught, couldn't read music, and....didn't care! They just went out and did the best

they could, given their obvious natural talents. Paul has done some "Classical" composing. Maybe not Mozart, but

within the confines of his lack of training, I'd say he did pretty well.

 

Besides, to those who criticize, I'd have to ask: What have you done? Or done, that's better?!

"Those who can, DO...those who can't 'teach,'" or criticize those that do.

;>)

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree that the Beatles and George Martin shaped and influenced a lot of music that followed the Beatles...no question about it....But Ringo was an extremely mediocre drummer and that's just a fact as far as I'm concerned. To imply that he showed a great deal of reserve is pure bullsh#t...he had no chops to begin with. I've been involved with a couple of live shows he played and he's Not a great drummer and I'm being nice. As far as Dennis Chambers goes ...google him and you'll see he's played with everybody from Steely Dan to Santana to Tower of Power and many Jazz Greats. I'm really surprised someone who claims to know the music industry has never heard of him? He's widely regarded (by his peers not just me) as one of the best there has ever been....he plays triplets with his feet that Mr Star couldn't play with his hands if he lived to be 100.

 

Truth is I probably couldn't tell you who the best sax players or even keyboard players are, either. (Heck, my favorite sax player is Notes Norton & I haven't even heard him play).

 

I remember 'back in the day' when many people worshipped Keith Moon based on his 'technical proficiency'. Yep, he had some serious technical chops but quite honestly his sense of rhythm was all over the place & he tended to step all over everybody & everything, much the same way Buddy Rich did (and many people consider him to be the greatest drummer of all time).

 

Everybody has their own opinions about who 'the best' is & isn't. To me, I don't really care if a guy can play triplets with his teeth. That's not what I'm looking for in a drummer. To me the best drummers are the one's who keep a good, steady beat without stepping on the singer or lead player. They know when to throw in their fancy tricks and when to lay back, just like guitar players. Technical proficiency is a great asset but ain't everything. If it was we'd be worshipping Rusty Cooley & Buckethead and ragging on Gilmour because 'he ain't fast'.

 

BTW, I make no claims to 'knowing the music industry'. I've been out of it for a long time. Heck, I'll admit to not having heard at least half the guitar players featured in Guitar World magazine every month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about The Beatles' date=' seems to always polarize a lot of folks. That's fine. We need "Beatle haters," as

much as we need the Beatle lovers (like me) to keep things in perspective, and keep the things interesting.

As technicians, they were adequate. John was the first to admit his "limitations," in that regard. But, I always

thought (in the context of The Beatles) his rhythm playing was really underrated. But, that's just me, I guess?

Most good/great "Jazz and Classical" players are far better technicians, than ANY Rock player...with some exception,

and even the exceptions, are usually classically trained. Members of YES come to mind. But, does that diminish

"Rock," for those who love it? No way! Even Classical players love to play rock and Jazz, if for no other reason,

than to be able to "relax" and cut loose, from the Classical regiments. None of The Beatles were "Classically" trained,

or even "trained" at all. All self-taught, couldn't read music, and....didn't care! They just went out and did the best

they could, given their obvious natural talents. Paul has done some "Classical" composing. Maybe not Mozart, but

within the confines of his lack of training, I'd say he did pretty well.

 

Besides, to those who criticize, I'd have to ask: What have you done? Or done, that's better?!

"Those who can, DO...those who can't 'teach,'" or criticize those that do.

;>)

 

CB[/quote']

 

I'm not criticizing the Beatles...I'm just saying how pathetic it is to read fourteen posts in one thread from the same person who wasn't even the original poster responding but who still felt it was necessary to post fourteen times to reiterate the same point which adds nothing factual to the original post but does go on and on to let everyone know what this guy thinks again and again and again...OK so you think you know The Beatles? Ten rather easy questions should keep you busy for a bit then:

 

1, What was the working title of the "Revolver" album?

2. What Beach Boy recording did Paul McCartney receive producer credit?

3. On What Beatle recording did Paul McCartney play flugelhorn?

4 How many different drummers have appeared on official Beatle recordings? Name them.

5. Who is Apollo C. Vermouth? What did he do?

6. On what song did Ringo and Charlie Watts both receive credit as drummers? Who was the artist?

7. On what song did John Lennon and Mick Jagger receive credit for playing guitar? Who was the artist?

8. On what 1973 studio recording did Alvin Lee, George Harrison, Ron Wood and Mick Fleetwood all appear?

9. On which Derek And The Dominos studio recording did George Harrison play guitar?

10. Who wrote the Rolling Stones' first top ten hit? What was the song? (end it with a really easy one)

 

Now with the Internet at your disposal it shouldn't take longer than ten minutes to come up with these answers and these are what I'd call pretty easy to moderately difficult questions so who's going to be the first to answer. C'mon Beatles experts, your time is here....and when you're finished with these maybe we'll try some harder questions.

 

Nelson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about The Beatles' date=' seems to always polarize a lot of folks. That's fine. We need "Beatle haters," as

much as we need the Beatle lovers (like me) to keep things in perspective, and keep the things interesting.

As technicians, they were adequate. John was the first to admit his "limitations," in that regard. But, I always

thought (in the context of The Beatles) his rhythm playing was really underrated. But, that's just me, I guess?

Most good/great "Jazz and Classical" players are far better technicians, than ANY Rock player...with some exceptions,

and even the exceptions, are usually classically trained. Members of YES come to mind. But, does that diminish

"Rock," for those who love it? No way! Even Classical players love to play rock and Jazz, if for no other reason,

than to be able to "relax" and cut loose, from the Classical regiments. None of The Beatles were "Classically" trained,

or even "trained" at all. All self-taught, couldn't read music, and....didn't care! They just went out and did the best

they could, given their obvious natural talents. Paul has done some "Classical" composing. Maybe not Mozart, but

within the confines of his lack of training, I'd say he did pretty well.

 

Besides, to those who criticize, I'd have to ask: What have you done? Or done, that's better?!

"Those who can, DO...those who can't 'teach,'" or criticize those that do.

;>)

 

CB[/quote']

So let me get this right....I'm a Beatle Hater now because I think Ringo is a very mediocre drummer and because I said so my playing ability is therefore suspect? This is like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a christian about evolution or Darwin...........pointless ! It's God's will and Ringo is the best drummer ever...........#-o #-o #-o #-o Whatever I'm done here...... leaving to do something I know I'm good at buying a Les Paul off of CL in an hour!:-s Now I'm an atheist beatle hater.........I better go now!Hahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this right....I'm a Beatle Hater now because I think Ringo is a very mediocre drummer and because I said so my playing ability is therefore suspect? This is like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a christian about evolution or Darwin...........pointless ! It's God's will and Ringo is the best drummer ever...........#-o #-o #-o #-o Whatever I'm done here...... leaving to do something I know I'm good at buying a Les Paul off of CL in an hour!=D> Now I'm an atheist beatle hater.........I better go now!Hahaha!

 

Only in Jest, Layboomo, only in jest! I'm afraid I can't get tooooo serious, about any of this,

because, as Nelson loves to point out, all this stuff has been hashed over, ad nauseam, and

will continue to be, no doubt. So...no offense, inteneded. ;>)

 

And now, it's 15 meaningless posts, Nelson...

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...