• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Beatles were overrated. Influence on music overhyped

IMHO.......

Queen was a more inventive & creative & influential band than the Beatles or Stones ever were.

The Beatles were our Bible it has to be said in a lot of ways although we were able to take some things further than the Beatles because we had better technology and we had the benefit of their experience. But the Beatles just did so many things right.-Brian May
 
Every generation has its own music heroes. God bless them all. It isn't a competition for who is the best, but a competition with the self to be the best possible, whatever the genre, whatever the style, whatever the technical level of accomplishment. Accept the art for what it is, take joy in it, and remember art builds on art.
 
The beatles are like some sports team. No individual superstars but when they play together they win. And that is how I see the Beatles-George Harrison was a top drawer guitarist and John and Paul great songwriters with good voices but compared to say Led Zeppelin which included arguably the best rock drummer ever, the best hard rock vocalist ever, and two absolute masters in Jones and Page, they paled individually. However, that isn't the issue. One could say the same thing about the Clash. Nicky Headon, before Heroin screwed him up-was the only real master of his instrument. Simonon learned to play bass while with the Clash-he had no background before that.. Mick Jones was a professional level guitarist but no one confused him with say Duane Allman or Stephen Stills and Joe Strummer was a decent guitarist and a decent singer-but no Greg Lake or Jorma Kaukonen.

What the Beatles did for music is what Roger Bannister did for middle distance runners. There were probably 25 guys who were capable of running a sub four mile when Bannister did-but until he broke that barrier-no one else thought they could. Once he did-others started doing it.
 
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States. The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.

When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.

There is a movie coming out in June called Yesterday. It is about a struggling musician who is about to give up when all of a sudden there is a global blackout and when he wakes up, the Beatles never existed. He starts performing their biggest hits and becomes the most popular musician in the world.

Again, I think the Beatles music was good, even great, not god-like influential. Most young people don't even know who the Beatles were. For example, when Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.

Elvis was a working musician for 4 years and a cash cow for the rest of his life. He recorded some of the worst music to ever chart. That includes "Barbie Girl" and the entirety of Dylan's "Self Portrait." He was in the right place at the right time, he had incredible charisma and the ability to make somebody else's material go from decent to spectacular. But Buddy Holly was ten times the musical talent Elvis was.

Calling the Beatles a two man show is ridiculous. Ringo was a really good drummer in his own right and they even included some of his songs on their albums even though he could only play and write in three chords (G, C and D to be specific). George was an elite guitar player and influenced the Beatles records spiritually and politically (Within You and Without You, Taxman). Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and the White Album are three of the greatest albums of all time. Before the Beatles, Herman's Hermits was the top UK band in the United States.

The Beach Boys? Pet Sounds is routinely ranked one of the top 5 albums ever made. They're legendary. They were on FULL HOUSE.

Chuck Berry would go along with Buddy Holly for me. One of the best ever. Huge influence on the Beatles, too. Hendrix (rather, the legend of Hendrix) is overrated in my opinion. A tremendous talent that was more culturally influential than musically. Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath had more of a lasting influence on popular music than Hendrix. But they didn't die when they were 27. Simon and Garfunkel, Janis Joplin, Neil Young, Elvis Costello, the Cure, the Clash, Joy Division, and David Bowie can join that list. The Kinks, The Who, Cream, Abba, the Mamas and the Papas. And of course, Dylan. In my opinion, all more of a lasting influence than James Brown, Hendrix, Elvis and Prince.

The Evolution of rock and roll is interesting and subjective. What isn't subjective is whether or not young people have heard of the Beatles. They have. And they have, in large, never heard of James Brown and have never heard a Prince song or a Hendrix song except on a commercial. Even people my age (I'll pretend I'm still an even 30) would be hard pressed to name more than three Elvis songs. Hound Dog, Jailhouse Rock and Heartbreak Hotel. I don't think he wrote any of them.

Interesting fact: they're going to make an Elvis biopic about his relationship with Colonel Parker who Tom Hanks has signed on to play. Casting Elvis should be hilarious. A room full of impersonators. I'd give the role to James Franco myself.
 
...........why?

From “She Loves You” to “Eleanor Rigby” to “Let it Be” to “Imagine,” with fun stops for “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” and “When I’m 64.”

That’s why.
 
Every generation has its own music heroes. God bless them all. It isn't a competition for who is the best, but a competition with the self to be the best possible, whatever the genre, whatever the style, whatever the technical level of accomplishment. Accept the art for what it is, take joy in it, and remember art builds on art.

I couldn’t agree more.
 
The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States.
Did you miss how they became a sensation in the US? And Europe? And Japan? And most of the world, really?


The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.
Yes, that's mostly because Sgt Pepper's and the subsequent albums blew away Pet Sounds. It didn't help that Brian Wilson lost his mind before Smile, and the rest of the Beach Boys degraded into a nostalgia act maybe 15-20 years before Ringo and Paul did the same. (Lennon and Harrison didn't go that route.)

By the way, the Beatles had a great deal of respect for Wilson and were inspired by his work -- and vice versa. From Wilson's 2016 autobiography:

The one that really got me was Rubber Soul, which came out at the end of 1965. Rubber Soul is probably the greatest record ever. Maybe the Phil Spector Christmas record is right up there with it, and it’s hard to say that the Who’s Tommy isn’t one of the best, too. But Rubber Soul came out in December of 1965 and sent me right to the piano bench. It’s a whole album of Beatles folk songs, a whole album where everything flows together and everything works. I remember being blown away by “You Won’t See Me” and “I’m Looking Through You” and “Girl.” It wasn’t just the lyrics and the melodies but the production and their harmonies. They had such unique harmonies, you know? In “You Won’t See Me,” Paul sings low and George and John sing high. There’s an organ drone in there, a note that’s held down for the last third of the song or so. Those were touches they were trying, almost art music. What was so great about the Beatles was you could hear their ideas so clearly in their music. They didn’t pose like some other bands, and they didn’t try to stuff too much meaning in their songs. They might be singing a song about loneliness or a song about anger or a song about feeling down. They were great poets about simple things, but that also made it easier to hear the song. And they never did anything clumsy. It was like perfect pitch but for entire songs. Everything landed on its feet....

Paul and I stayed in touch. Another time not too long after that he came to my house and told me about the new music he was working on. “There’s one song I want you to hear,” he said. “I think it’s a nice melody.” He put the tape on and it was “She’s Leaving Home.” My wife, Marilyn, was there, too, and she just started crying. Listening to Paul play a new song let me see my own songs more clearly. It was hard for me to think about the effect that my music had on other people, but it was easy to see when it was another songwriter.

(Emphasis added)


When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.
You should. As influential as those four are, the reality is that the Beatles had a massive impact on subsequent rock music. Even if you don't care for it, the fact that pretty much no one ever felt compelled to write posts like "Chuck Berry's influence is constantly overstated" ought to indicate the scope of the Beatles' influence.

Some specific aspects are overrated -- e.g. they aren't virtuosos like Hendrix or Clapton. But in terms of songwriting, production, cultural impact, vocal harmonies, their influence is not unduly exaggerated.


When Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.
Yeah, I don't think so. If you are too young to know who McCartney is, you definitely won't know Elvis or Hendrix.

James Brown is sampled extensively by hip-hop artists, so young people are more likely to know him.

As to Prince...

 
When the supposedly least talented members of a band do something this good, it probably means something:

 
That album sucks, man

It is what happens when you try to copy something else and its just not you.

It does have one really good song - "She's a Rainbow". The others range from mediocre to forgettable.
 
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States.
.
IT was 50 years ago this week that Adelaide became the centre of the entire universe for a day when more than 300,000 people turned out to welcome the world’s number one pop music group, The Beatles.

No Cookies | The Advertiser
 
In the Stones canon, yes. But as a 1967 psychedelic album, it's not bad. Far worse albums were released that year.

It's no Winchester Cathedral. No, I agree, a lot of bands tried acid for the first time and subsequently released the worst crap imaginable. It's very much an experimental album, and I don't hold it against a band to try something "relevant" to that era.
 
It is what happens when you try to copy something else and its just not you.

It does have one really good song - "She's a Rainbow". The others range from mediocre to forgettable.

I think it's worth owning and then, when you've got it in your library, listen to it when you want to amaze your friends that the Stones actually wrote and released it.
 
I have a few music heroes to me that changed the world of music forever, they are:

Elvis
Beatles
Black Sabbath
Pink Floyd

They have each and everyone changed the music world forever, the first 2 have changed popular music forever and Black Sabbath is the most influential band for all of heavy metal (a music style I love over most other music).

But to claim that the Beatles were overrated is untrue IMHO.
 
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.

The UK is a small pound. It is easier to be a music legend in the UK compared to an ocean like the United States. The Beach Boys came before the Beatles yet that group isn't considered in the same stratosphere as the Beatles.

When I think about who revolutionized rock & roll music, I really don't think of the Beatles. IMO Elvis Presley had a greater impact on music. So did Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, and Chuck Berry.

There is a movie coming out in June called Yesterday. It is about a struggling musician who is about to give up when all of a sudden there is a global blackout and when he wakes up, the Beatles never existed. He starts performing their biggest hits and becomes the most popular musician in the world.

Again, I think the Beatles music was good, even great, not god-like influential. Most young people don't even know who the Beatles were. For example, when Paul Mccartney did some collaborations with Kanye West, NONE of Kanye West's fans knew who Paul Mccartney was. They actually thought Kanye West discovered Mccartney, LOL. IMO more young people know Elvis, James Brown, Hendrix, Prince than the Beatles.

This really hasn't been my experience. It's been my experience that any young people that are into rock music at all, are at least somewhat fond of the Beatles, if not down-right fanatic. I don't know any twenty-somethings that give a damn about the Beach Boys, but I'm sure that they exist.

I'm more of an AC/DC kind of guy, myself, and actually prefer John Lennon solo than with the band.
 
First off let me say I think the Beatles were an influential group. Each member was super-talented, so this isn't necessarily a diss on them. That being said I think they are grossly overrated.
I don’t think this is about the Beatles being overrated and more about what the mainstream recognises and celebrates. Pretty much all of the key influencers of modern popular music are generally underrated for that influence. Some, like the Beatles along with the likes of the Stones and Elvis, are celebrated for their mainstream commercial success instead.

Some of that will have fed from their same sources as their underlying influence but much of it doesn’t. In fact, I’d argue that innovation and complexity often harm the commercial interests. I think the Beatles were most interesting musically towards the end of the band’s career and it began to move them away from the heights of their commercial success. Other innovators never reach any level of commercial success and therefore wider public recognition for similar reasons.

Making music and selling music are really two entirely separate things. It could be said that the real geniuses are the managers who were able to take the work of the experimenting creatives and mould it in to something the general public would buy.
 
I think the problem with threads like this is that it is really personal opinion, and only seemed necessary to say because it isn't popular opinion.

When you talk about pop music it seems popularity is the whole popint.

The Beatles put out 71 songs, 34 of which were top 10 on Billboard Charts, and 20 hit #1

The Beach Boys put out 54 songs, 15 were top 10, and 4 hit #1

the Rollings Stones put out 57 songs, 23 top 10 hits, and 8 hit #1

And so on. The Beatles were only together less than a decade.. and it happened to be the decade that changed pop music forever... and they dominated it.

AND, while we are at it, there was barely any innovation in rock music in that period that The Beatles didn't play a part in fostering, from production methods, to sounds, to entire genres.
 
in the context of the times, and the music industry then, i'm sure they were every bit as fresh and interesting as people say - but I've never been able to understand why i meet people my age who still think The Beatles music was good. to me, it's always just been boring and lame.

and, if you can say that they're responsible for pop music, and the way the music industry became, i'd rather they have not existed at all.
 
Folks...y'all are the victims of Bucky. The lead singer for the Trolling Stones.
 
Back
Top Bottom